Sunday, June 17, 2018

Happy Father's Day: Those Wintry Sundays



"Those Wintry Sundays" is still one of my favorite poems after all these years from Robert Hayden. 

To all dads,

from Peter and Heather: 

Happy Father's Day! 








                             Those Wintery Sundays

                                   By Robert Hayden


“Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?”

Friday, June 15, 2018

Dependent Words: Statement Analysis Lesson from Inspector General's Report


Here is a short lesson from Fall of 2016 on "Dependent" words in Statement Analysis. 

In the IG report, it stated that President Obama used a pseudo name to communicate to Hillary Clinton at her illegal server. 

A private server is used to bypass government oversight.  It was followed by:

1. Refusal to surrender physical evidence
2. Destruction of physical evidence, including smashing hard drives and phones
3. Deletion of more than 30,000 emails. 
4. Hostile actors accessing U.S. government classified information leading to ask if this was deliberately porous, particularly while her husband was being paid  by foreign actors. 

James Comey stated that Hillary did, in fact, use the server to conduct government business and it was accessed by hostile actors, but that Hillary did not "have intent" and "no reasonable prosector" would charge her. We learned that while James Comey was investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email to conduct government business, he himself was using a private email account while conducting government business.  It brings sense to the false claim of statute of "intent" and the unnecessary word, "reasonable." It also helps analysts understand what guilt projection indicates.  Being "extremely careless" rather than a violation is self protective for the subject. 

State employees at even entry level, social workers, therapists, doctors, nurses, and so on,  recognize that they would be terminated for sharing a client's name on a private email, and face possible legal consequence.  

The IG report is useful for deception detection training as we highlight a simple principle in use:  "Dependent Words in Analysis." 

In statement analysis, a "dependent word" is one that communicates appropriately when another word or topic is associated with it.  

We flag the dependent word for analysis. It sometimes reveals a great deal of information. 

For example, the word "just" is a dependent word.  It will not appropriately communicate a thought unless there is an attendant thought within the speaker's mind.  

We sometimes see "statement analysis confessions" by this word alone. 

"The car costs $15,000."  This is a straight forward, reliable sentence.  Now note a single word change that introduces a new, and missing topic:

"The car costs just $15,000

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It only communicates effectively when the dependent word is associated with at least one other word.  Here, "just" is used to compare the cost with at least one other cost, within the subject's mind. 

Patrol knows this dependent word:  "only"

"only had two drinks, officer" with the unnecessary dependent word "only" signaling that the subject is thinking of a number greater than two.  

Patrol:  "How many drinks have you had tonight, sir?"

Subject:  "Just two, officer."

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It must rely upon something else in order to be appropriately used in a sentence.  The subject is thinking, via comparison, of another number, greater than two.  It could be because he had more than two, or it could be that he is thinking of how he usually has more than two, but in every case:  it is the subject, himself, comparing "two" with a higher number. 

Officers, including those in rural areas, never know what will transpire during a traffic stop.  The elevation of hormonal response is indicated, even when the officer does not sense it. This takes long term toll on the immune system.  In some rural areas, the expectation of peaceful interaction, can actually increase the stress due to the unexpected escalation. 

Deceptive people often use a dependent word, inappropriately and reveal truth inadvertently. 

Negotiators and sales use dependent words routinely.  Some will use it incessantly.  We look to learn if, in context, it is appropriate (such as in sales) or inappropriately used in deception. 

Here is a question for you.  How many people are involved in this sentence"

"I have a brother."

Answer:  Two.  

We have the subject ("I") and we have a "brother", which is two.  The subject may have more, but that information would be outside this statement.  

Next, how many people are indicated in this sentence?  Note this sentence independently of the one above.  An example of this came up in a criminal investigation in which the subject was deceptive about the number of people involved:  

"I have another brother" 

Q. How many people are found within this statement?
A.   3 or more. 

We have "I", the subject, as one.

We have the brother as two. 

Then, using the dependent word, "another" we know that this word only works in a sentence when it is associated with at least one other brother, giving us three, or more.  Here, we say "more" because the number found, within this sentence, is not limited to three.  

Dependent words can even give confessions. 

" I parked my car at the gas station.  A car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..."

This sentence tells us that there are two cars in the sentence.  The car belonging to the subject, and the car belonging to the man who pulled up next to her car, and got out. 

The problem?

This is not what she wrote. The analysts had already picked up linguistic indicators of not only substance abuse dependence but had considered that there was a 3rd party who entered the statement; a drug dealer.  

"I parked my car at the gas station.  Another car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..." 

In the statement, the analysts explored the word "another" in context. 

Through analysis (examination by questioning) they knew that there was yet a third car within the statement, and going deeply into the statement, discerned that this third car was that likely of a drug dealer.  This changed the dynamics of the "event" that was reported.  The word "another" is a dependent word, meaning it does not work unless there is a noun missing that must be applied.  

It took a few minutes concentration and the open questioning of its use in the lesser context (immediate words and sentences around it) but it helped solve the case. 

Dependent words reveal withheld information, especially in advanced techniques and can not only reveal specifically withheld or surpassed information, but can show attendant crimes; those not alleged, but committed alongside the original allegation.  



The Illegal Private Server: Dependent Word 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday, September 23, 2016,  that  Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012. 

Barak Obama told the nation on March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.
Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.
The question is answered and it appears, on the surface, to be a straight forward response. Yet, did you flag the dependent word?

Let's look more deeply at the response with a change of language without the dependent word to see what happens.

Remember the "law of economy" in language. The need for additional words takes effort. The shortest sentence is best. 

Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everyone learned it through news reports.
Here the wording is changed, and the dependent word, "else" is removed.  

A.  "The same time the public learned of it"  was also not said. Here is an even clearer way of answering the question.  


Remember:  the simplest answers are often the most reliable.  


A.  "I learned about it through media."  


This one would, psychologically, put the subject, himself, into the sentence with the pronoun "I", increasing the strength or commitment to the sentence. 


It is not what he said.


"The same time everybody else learned it through the news reports."


Although some may say that the President of the United States only learning this through the media without media first telling him strains credibility of which I reply:  this is statement analysis and we look for a reason for the opinion of deception.  For our reports, and for prosecution, we must be able to clearly articulate why we have concluded deception.  


The word "else" is a dependent word. It is unnecessarily added, meaning it violated the law of economy, took extra effort, leading us to know that it is very important to the subject.  Effort equals sensitivity.  The brain told the tongue to add this word to the sentence, and where to put it in the sentence, in less than a micro second in time.  


This rapid processing means:


The subject did not stop, pause and ask himself, "Should I answer with the word "else", or should I just say it without the word "else"?


Here the disruption of the editing process would have been severe, instead, we have a signal of proficiency within the answer.  This is a strong signal that the subject is well accomplished and life long in deception. 


Not only did the subject not use the pronoun "I", which would have placed himself within the answer, but we know his baseline is to use an overabundance of the pronoun "I" in his personal subjective dictionary. 


  
Note:  "else" is a dependent word that is not necessary to use here.  It is why we consider this 'coming close to an admission' of knowledge.  "Else" only works when it shows dependence upon a person who is being separated from "everybody" (that is, all) in his sentence. 

The question was, "When did you learn...?" in March of 2015.  


Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 


Most people are uncomfortable with a direct lie, and here we see that he removed 'self' from the sentence by avoiding using the pronoun "I", yet he still, unwittingly, identified himself, as one separate and distinct, unnecessarily, from "everyone else."


"Else" refers  first to himself, and although those who felt that it was not credible were correct, we seek to, within language, find the source of the deception.  


The stage is important.  This was a national (and international) audience. 

People often fear consequence of lying to the police and know that lying to federal police will carry even more consequence. This is why authority is vital for law enforcement to be respected:  it protects civilization. 

Think of the confidence in one's own ability to deceive to be willing to lie, with the consequences well known, to a federal agent.  


Now think of one who has the confidence in his own abilities to lie to Congress, under oath to God. We have a large list of examples from which to choose. 


Lastly, think of one who has the  confidence to attempt to deceive 
an audience of 300 million Americans.  

This is where we look for the trait of contempt. It should be used in the investigative interview.


For training in Deception Detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.

We offer seminars and the "Complete Statement Analysis Course" completed in your home or office, at your own pace. It comes with 12 months of e support. 

We also have a limited number of placements for advanced training, including live online monthly training. This is by approval only but allows the professional to immediately apply their training and work along with some of our best analysts and investigators from the United States, Canada and Western Europe.  

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Roger Kearney: Wrongful Murder Conviction or Embedded Admission


A documentary on BBC TV  about a possible miscarriage of justice for a man imprisoned for life for the murder of his girlfriend he was having a secret affair with gave us quotes for analysis. 

Did police get it right?

Or has a man been in prison for more than 6 years for a murder he did not commit? 

In the murder of Paula Poolton by Roger Kearney, the documentary reported that there was  was no forensic evidence, only circumstantial evidence upon which he was convicted. We listen to him speak. He should plainly tell us,

"I did not kill Paula" and even with years of processing, this should be the psychological wall in which he remains behind, with no possible alternative reality. If he did not kill her, he did not kill her. 

Period. 

If asked, "Why should you be believed?", we expect to hear the basis of truth as asserted. 

If he said: 

"I did not kill Paula. I am telling the truth" to investigators when first arrested, it is 99.9% reliable. 

Yet, even after years, we find an avoidance of the reliable denial. 

When asked if he had killed her, he said the following: 

"I can guarantee you that I did not do what they said.

"I've got nothing to hide." 

 "I've got nothing to be ashamed of."

In the part two of the documentary he gave us a larger statement for analysis. 

"One thing I wanted to say to you umm from the last time we spoke was the fact ah, you were concerned that if it came up that I actually killed Paula sometime in the future that it ah would make you look bad. Well ah really, I understand that. I you actually feel that I ah possibly could have done, I ah, I wouldn't blame you if you dropped my case at all but I assure you, I don't think you'll find any evidence to support the police and I promise you that I did not kill Paula, that's all I can say."

The denial comes after several programs and after 6 years in prison. 

Lets look at them all with the longest statement last.

1.  "I can guarantee you that I did not do what they said.

This is to avoid issuing a reliable denial ("I did not kill Paula") while specifying "what they said."

It is very likely to be true that some things that were said it court were not accurate. 

Except the actual killing. 

"I've got nothing to hide." 

Is another avoidance of a reliable denial and it is to enter into an expansion of time, very likely before the killing of Paula. It is also something that investigators see as an invitation to search. 

 "I've got nothing to be ashamed of."

This is actually making his lack of denial more pronounced:  it is to say "she deserved it."

Killers often blame the victim. In Statement Analysis, we look for this human nature guilt issue of assigning blame to a victim. In his statements, there is very likely to be some degrading, insulting or shifting of responsibility to the victim in his language. 

2.  "One thing I wanted to say to you umm from the last time we spoke was the fact ah, you were concerned that if it came up that I actually killed Paula sometime in the future that it ah would make you look bad. Well ah really, I understand that. I you actually feel that I ah possibly could have done, I ah, I wouldn't blame you if you dropped my case at all but I assure you, I don't think you'll find any evidence to support the police and I promise you that I did not kill Paula, that's all I can say."



 "One thing I wanted to say to you umm from the last time we spoke 

Here we have "one thing I wanted to say to you" is very personal to the journalist. This is something very important to the subject. It is not "I didn't kill Paula" but more important to the subject that that. He wants this to be first and it is something he is in earnest to share. 

Why?

He does not make us wait long to tell us why this one thing he wants to say. 

Pronouns are critical.  Note that "we" indicates a unity between two subjects: the accused killer and the journalist. 

The subject (accused killer) has a perception of reality that unites, in a positive way, himself with the journalist. It is a closeness he feels at the time of this statement. 

The journalist may have gotten him to talk via Ingratiation. The pronoun "we" indicates success.

Enter into the subject's verbalized perception of reality.  He sees himself unified or possibly even close friends, with the journalist. 

What does this unity produce?

was the fact ah, you were concerned that if it came up that I actually killed Paula sometime in the future that it ah would make you look bad. 

a.  This statement was produced by the unity between the subject and the journalist. 

b.  The subject is concerned about the well being of the journalist. This is a "positive linguistic disposition" towards the journalist. 

Now we deal with the language: 

"If it came up that I actually killed Paula" is an embedded admission. 

a. First note that the word "if" allows for the possibility of murder. 

Those who did not commit murder (or something of this elevated nature, including child molestation) will not allow for it as a possibility.  It is rejected because it is false and the emotional heightening comes from the accusation.  It is not to say, "if I had stolen $10 from you..." but is murder. 

The subject is allowing for the possibility of guilt.  We will not contradict him. 

b. "if it actually came up" is distinctly not the quote (or even the thoughts) of another. He did not say, "you said that I killed her" or even "police said that I killed her."

There is no "linguistic genesis" from another. 

It comes solely from the subject. 

It is wording produced by the subject. 

"people say that I killed Paula" is to report what people say.  This is not the case.  He is instigating the scenario and articulating it from his own personal subjective internal dictionary.  

This is what an embedded admission looks like. 


Well ah really, I understand that.

c. He affirms the embedded admission allowing for understanding of "it to actually come up" with the pronoun "it" indicating proof, evidence, etc.  

d.  "actually" is produced by the pronoun "we";  at the time of this statement, the subject believes the journalist believes he did not do it.  "Actually" is a comparison of two or more thoughts.  Here, the context tells us of the supposition of innocence. 

Believing them to be unified, he must make sure his "friend" does not entertain doubt. 


 I you actually feel that I ah possibly could have done

He allows for the journalist to entertain doubt, and he wants the journalist to know:


I ah, I wouldn't blame you if you dropped my case at all 

They would still be "we" if he dropped the case.  They would still be friends, or unified and it is, in the language of the subject, something "understandable" to believe in his guilt. 

This is the language of manipulation.  

We often find this in addicts. 

The victim died of 7 stab wounds, which is a very "personal" and "intrusive" crime. 

It is brutal and it is unclose. 

There is no linguistic connection between this brutal unclose personal murder and innocence. This is the "greater context" in analysis. 

His allotment of "understanding" as lesser context, indicates a willingness to accept the crime, in exchange for friendship.  

He "assures" the journalist


but I assure you, I don't think you'll find any evidence to support the police and I promise you that I did not kill Paula, that's all I can say."

This is not to say "You will not find evidence because none exists. I did not kill Paula."

Instead, he only "thinks" the journalist will not find "evidence to support the police."

Not "evidence of the crime" but he now triangulates the police.

He and the journalist, linguistically, are united against the police. 

PS Profile:  the journalist "supports" him, and in doing so, he can't think of the journalist "supporting" police.

He does not state that he did not kill Paula, but he "promises" that he did not kill Paula. That is an unreliable denial introduced by the indication of habitual deception ("promise") followed by the 
ending of communication:  "that's all I can say."

This is to indicate the following:

the word "think" is appropriately used.  He allows for himself or the journalist to "think" otherwise. 

It is the "rule of the negative" coupled with the weak assertion: 

"I don't think..." 

It indicates his belief that evidence could possibly surface. 

"that's all I can say" is in the lesser context, about his weak assertion about evidence that can be found.

This is to indicate:  the subject may feel strongly that there is something that could be produced as evidence that will "support" police. 

He manipulates this to be "us" versus the "police" as he and the police complete for "support."

"That's all I can say" is to self censor about evidence. 

Going further with what he could say, would harm the support.

This is very likely why he must not go on talking about evidence. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject killed Paula and police were correct. 

For training in Statement Analysis, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

Home course and Seminars. 






Religion and Deity in Statement Analysis


Religion is classified as ideology in Statement Analysis. It is a dispassionate view that is necessary in criminal analysis. It is not an insult to people of faith. 

Every one has a "religion"; that is, a final arbitration of right and wrong. It is within human nature and is without exception.  

We identify the ideology whether it be a known and recognized religion or a lesser known or classified ideology. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Statism, and so on, are all "religions" for the purpose of analysis. 

There is no such thing as "atheism", for the atheist has a final point of arbitration of what is right and what is wrong. 

In Statement Analysis, it is vital to learn this demarcation origin. 

For some, it points to self, whereas for others, it can point to those they look up to and quote, including actors, actresses or politicians. Still others will look to science as its "god", while many still claim "agnosticism." Here, we still seek motive. 

For those in social sciences, this is inescapable for prognosis moving forward. Does the subject believe he or she is a helpless victim of circumstance?  Or, is there a sense of control over personal behavior?

In some "religious" setting, I noted recently that a change of language is used. First, the lesson, and then the recent "change of language" viewed. 

Principle: In Statement Analysis, a change of language means a change of reality. 

The analyst should now look to see, in the statement, what in reality has changed for the subject's verbalized perception of reality. 

"I saw the jewelry in the case.  The last time I saw the necklace, um, it was when I had my girlfriend try it on. I then I just left the store. I had to go to work."

Change of language: The "jewelry" changed into the "necklace.

The analyst now looks to see what reality changed as reflected in the change of language.  In the case, it was "jewelry" but on his girlfriend  it was a "necklace."  In fact, it was when he "had" his girlfriend try it on, this event had the power to change the language. It is indicative of theft. 

Did you notice "the good guy" principle here?  He "left" and he "left because" he had to go to "work." 

Since he has a job, he could not have stolen the necklace...right?

This is insight into his personality and manipulation.  It is often associated with substance abuse. 

Substance Abuse v Substance Use?

In a non-traditionally recognized "religious" setting, (according to Statement Analysis) I noted that the government instructor had changed "substance abuse" into "substance use" and that he claimed: 

"We are criminalizing the behavior of people with substance use disorder."

The context for this statement in a seminar was drug crimes such as breaking into a home, or violently attacking someone to take their money to pay for drugs. 

The thinking is:  change the language and reality will change. It is similar to putting responsibility of violence on inanimate objects rather than humans. This is their "religious view" and they have their "zealous" or "extremest" who are intent on removing personal responsibility. 

Will the change of language be successful in changing human nature?

Is "theft" no longer "theft" if it involves, not substance "abuse" but substance "use"?

In Employment Analysis, substance abuse is discerned and those in recovery are often plain to spot:  they do not state that they take personal responsibility for their actions; they take responsibility for their actions. 

It is crucial to their ongoing recovery.  They know and live by:  deception destroys. 

To AA and NA, if they are passive victims of circumstance, there is no hope.  If they can take personal responsibility for their own actions, they have hope.  


As illogical the statement shifting responsibility and changing language may appear, it is likely to be defended with religious zealotry including the predictable condemnation of those who refuse to agree.

Did you note who is  being blamed in the sentence?

"We are criminalizing the behavior of people with substance use disorder."

Can you see how this, if accepted,  will lead  politicians to portray police as the "bad guys" for arresting criminals?  Should they arrest the "substance" instead?

This "principle passion" is the "god" for our subject. We sometimes seek the identity of this "god" in the interview process with questions beginning with, "why?"

This is due to learning source and motive in crime and criminal behavior. 

Public Assault Investigation 

Without provocation or even an exchange of words, a man wearing a hood and a black mask assaulted a young woman.  He did not rob her, nor did he attempt to rob her or sexually assault her.  He punched her only. 

Why?

This is our first question and we are going to need to identify the ideology behind it: 

Why is it wrong to assault a stranger who has had no interaction with the subject?

Think of the phrase of the fascist organization  ANTIFA:  "punch a Nazi."

In watching videos of such assaults, a pattern emerged. 

The ANTIFA does not know what "fascism" is. 

They fail to identify or refuse to identify, who is a "Nazi."

They fail to define what a "Nazi" is. 

They classify anyone who does not agree with their unstated demands as a "Nazi."

They do not permit speech, moving the ideological classification to a new level:  anyone who does not join them is a "Nazi" or a national socialist. 

  This is very important to understand. 

Instead, there is a faux moral supremacy that not only justifies anonymous violence; it calls for it. 

Historically, faux moral superiority ends in bloodshed.  It leads extremist personalities to act upon their most base human instincts and gives it a moral justification. 

If you want to know the crime, know the criminal.  The psycho-linguistic profile is essential to the investigator and crucial to the interview. 

Before anyone is labeled an "extremist" we must first identify the ideology. 

We then look at the action and asked,

"Is this action (behavior) in accordance to the expressed ideology or is it in opposition to the ideology?"

We also look at the "peripheral" of religion; that is, how it impacts culture, in specifics:  crime.  Is the criminal behavior a culturally evident consequence?

A positive example:  "Protestant Work Ethic" is an expression from the Reformation that taught "all work that is legal and ethical is holy."  We recognize, historically, the impact upon western civilization and in particular, 19th and early 20th Century immigration to the United States.  Opportunity was taken by work ethic to advanced heights of success. 

We then look at one who refuses to work.  Is he consistent with this ideology or is he opposing it?

A negative example: 

The rape epidemic sweeping multiculturalism:  is this consistent or inconsistent with the Koranic teaching on women and rape? When politicians respond with "sex lessons" and "teaching that rape is wrong", do they understand the religious and generational impact? 

A neutral example: 

An atheist is going to buy a house. He wants to live in a safe neighborhood where he can have his kids educated well. 

This investment is significant and for most, the largest investment of a lifetime. 

In other words:  it matters.  

Playing the odds: should he buy the house next door to the family that believes "thou shalt not steal" because in the afterlife, there will be a reckoning although the purchaser, himself, does not believe in any afterlife?

Or, should he buy the house next door to a family that believes in supremacist ideology:  if 'you have more than me, you must have cheated me because I am your superior and I deserve...'? Would this be a wise investment? 

Still, should he buy the house next door to the Statist family, who believes the government (the "state") is responsible for their survival?  This family lives on government assistance. If he asks himself, "Will they bring down my property value?" he must now question if he is "bad" for thinking this. 

"Statism" is incessantly changing. What is "virtue" yesterday, is "sin" today.  What is "sin" today, may be "virtue" tomorrow.  

We view ideology, not "persons" in this context. For example, studies show that most Muslims do not want Jihad. Anecdotally, I have found this to be so. 

Yet, when you meet the claim that says something like  "Jihad is not holy war it is personal struggle like one who is eating too much chocolate"; twisting of meaning, you are looking at danger due to the inherent deception.  

The betrayal (rather than denunciation) of the ideology focuses the investigation by heightening the concern for terrorism, including the financing or collateral support of it.  


Political Correctness in Language 

Statement Analysis gets to the truth and the truth is not partisan, and sometimes it is directly oppositional to what politicians tell us. 

This is where what many (not all) people say in public differs from what they say in private.  Yet when one impresses upon others, what one, himself, will not submit to, we are seeing active deception. This should always cause investigators to dig deeper. 

Verbalized Deity Witness versus The Psychological Wall of Truth 

"I swear to God, I did not steal from my neighbor."

An intuitive cop will think to himself or herself, "Ok, so who did you actually steal from?" 

Where (context) we see the need to reference Deity, in any form, as a testimony or buttress of words, we are looking at a deceptive person. 

In the above example, what has this subject revealed?

The subject gave an unreliable denial and has revealed he is in need of divine witness because he normally practices deception and contextually, theft must be explored.  

He may or may not have stolen now, but he has likely stolen before (context).  In some cases like this, investigators have found that he did not steal, but has a history of theft. 

"I swear to God" is to take an oath, where no such oath is required, such as in court or other formal matters. 

It gets a bit trickier with Statism religion because the language is not overtly "religious." Yet, it is evident in the wording and it is to represent principle.  An example of such is the condemnation of sexual assault where the subject is competing with others' language (or even his own) to be "the most outraged" or "the most offended."

This is the same principle:  "I am a good person.  I am a great person.  I have high morals. I have the highest morals..." and at some point, the public recognizes the concealing of guilt. Law Enforcement do very well in this intuitively.  They see the "need to persuade" without overt religious language and recognize it as the "religious person" acting "very religious" in the language. 



Financial Fraud Investigation 


In a recent investigation, an investigator described to me the distinct religious activity this company ownership follows. 

Owners have staff meet for inspiration before each day and has religious slogans on the walls. This is overt and readily spotted. It is neither wrong nor right, good nor bad. It simply is. 

I asked the investigator to identify the ideology for me. 

I next asked the investigator if the company openly violates or has  changed the ideology to suit itself?

This is not doctrinal differences; but an open declaration of deception: representing an ideology while being above or against the ideology. It is not a minor difference or disagreement. 

The investigator affirmed the ideology is opposed in a crucial part of the business.   

I said "you are likely looking at projective guilt which suggests, in this context, financial exploitation.  Keep searching." 

I explained that the subject is deceptive about ideology which means the ideology is subordinated to the owners.  It is not their 'god' to guide them, but a tool of use. 

This is where some may be offended but deception exists for a reason. It is not error, accident or happenstance. 

I often say, "it would be honest to simply abandon the ideology, pick out a new ideology..." but this misses the point. The subject seeks personal advantage by exploiting the ideology.  Criminal investigators in training soon "learn" what they've always thought: 

Those who use deception for personal gain do not have a known stopping point. 

The investigation into financial misconduct is ongoing. Recently, the investigator called to report: 

They have found approximately $250,000 of fraud...thus far. 

This is not error, accounting mistakes, or unintentional failure. It is the deceptive use of ideology which is a psychological mindset of religion: "I serve myself. One for you, one for me.  One for you, two for me..." and it escalates. In the ideological sense, it is a religious "sacrifice" or "offering" to its "god." 

The Good Guy Principle 

The need to portray oneself as "the good guy" suggests a need, which may come from guilt. 

Counseling sessions, criminal statements, screening in methadone clinics, etc,  have indicated women who put their babies through withdrawal at birth, or who have been formally investigated for child abuse, refer to themselves as "a great mother." 

One mother had sold drugs, had child pornography, bestiality, homemade porn, gave an example of being a good mother when she talked about stealing acid from her job and burning a tattoo into her son's shoulder. The context was failing a polygraph over her missing daughter who was later found murdered.

 Regarding her treatment of her teen son she said, "I am a great mother!" 

The owners use deity to cloak the guilt of fraud. Once they were identified as having corrupted their own ideology, it moves to exploitation of ideology:  using it to mask guilt and to exploit others. Here, it is against "thou shalt not steal" which they have projected guilt over. 

Thus far. 

In analysis, always flag any reference to Divinity.  

Next, note its context. 

If the subject has the need to use a reference to Divinity, in any form, the subject practices deception, even if here, in the statement, the subject is telling the truth. The subject is revealing a need for further persuasion, rather than relying upon the truth.

Criminals are drawn to religion and the motive is important. 

Some genuinely seek to change and amend their lives. The challenge for religious people is to use discernment patiently, carefully and mercifully.  It is easy to mistake a hurting person for an exploiter, just as it is to see an exploiter as a genuine soul seeking peace. 

Some consider religious people to be particularly naive and a "soft target" for crime, including pedophilia. 

Analysts sometimes volunteer their skills to religious organizations to help discernment as pedophiles, for example, will use language that reveal their priority.  This advanced form of analysis is used mostly in Employment Analysis and psycho-linguistic profiling. 

Some consider religious people to be the most easy to exploit. The Facebook posts of this Go Fund Me thief were filled with religious references as she was exploiting people of good will. 

What were the references of Deity used for?  "Ingratiation Principle" readily highlighted and applied: 

a.  "I am a good person.  It is okay to give me money."
b.  "if you give money to me, you are a good person."
c.  "If you are against racism, you should give me money."
d.  "if you do not give me money, you are a racist."

Comments were thus used, there and in news articles to do the one thing deception must have to exist:  

Silence scrutiny. "The issue is "settled", therefore, there will be no more questions.  Move on." 

People laugh today that the teen of this home wrote, "we gon be rich!" on Facebook, just as people laughed at Charlie Rogers' "Watch me as I set the world on fire!" post.  Rogers set her home on fire and claimed 3 men brutalized her as "homophobic sadists." 

Yet in many cases, analysts find that the guilty person will telegraph his own intention of criminal behavior including when seeking employment. 

Some seek cover for their own guilt.  Some will become harsh in judgment of others, due to their own internal guilt. Often in the name of "I refuse to compromise", they use a license to hurt others in order to maintain a false facade about them. 

Analysts have become adept at predicting scandal by following Twitter accounts of celebrities and politicians. The more unnecessary condemnation they address, the more scrutiny they invite due to the possibility of projective guilt.  Many of them do not disappoint. 

There are elements within a statement that may have appropriate references to Deity.  

The analyst should, by routine, flag every one for examination. 

When the reference is used to persuade or even to testify, deception is likely present. It is to indicate a habitually deceptive person in particular and current need of credibility. 

For training in Deception Detection visit www.hyattanlaysis.com

The Complete Statement Analysis Course is done in your home. 

Ongoing Monthly Training 

We hold live "invitation only" trainings on the last full week of each month. 

These are trainings in which those enrolled or who have successfully finished the Complete Statement Analysis Course.

Here, we work in team analysis on live cases, putting our training to consequential results. It is to obtain justice while analysts learn from each other. 


The CEUs are approved for license renewals for professionals in the Seminar setting as well. 

Due to demand, we will be offering new dates for this additional and ongoing live training. 

Please note: currently only law enforcement, military intelligence, and licensed professionals are eligible for the Tuesday confidential  live monthly trainings. Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) for professional licenses is approved by the University of Maine.