Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Deception Detection: Training Opportunities



Training to detect deception, analyze content, and to bring forth a psychological profile is to know what happened and to know your suspect.  This means:

His background
His experiences in life
His priority in making the statement and...

His personality traits which can not only guide the interview strategy, but even help predict responses to specific questions.  

This training is detailed and it requires commitment to excellence. 

We offer training seminars, lectures, but also offer  a most unique at-home instruction that includes 12 months of support.  The course not only teaches principle, but the psychology behind principle.  This form of narrative learning ensures success as the new analyst must not only memorize principle, but understand it. Combined with the ongoing support, the student is going to know how to discern deception.  

The Complete Statement Analysis Course includes MP3s of the lectures, allowing for repeated listening, as well as homework and tests.  

Those who enroll in this course are eligible for live, monthly team training, which allows the analyst to work with other experienced analysts in a confidential setting. 

Our Advanced Course is only sold to those who have successfully finished the Complete Statement Analysis Course.  

Enrollment and more information please go to: 

Hyatt Analysis Services:  Training 

12 months of e support means personal attention to your work.  With this support, you will not submit errant analysis.  
****************************************************

update:  

We frequently get requests to enroll in the Advanced Statement Analysis Course, including from those with professional training in statement analysis.  

After consultation with several professionals, this course is only offered to those who have successfully completed our initial course.  

Complete Statement Analysis is a full course that not only gives a broad scope of the principles, but helps the analyst/investigator to understand.  Those who have had formal training, including those who teach deception detection have affirmed the recommendation to make the Complete Statement Analysis course a prerequisite for the Advanced.  

Those who have received professional training but still enrolled in the Complete Course have also recommended that the Advanced Course not be sold without completing the first course:  the material will not be understood and with advanced techniques, including profiling, it is too easy to make mistakes. 

The value of Certification 

Certification is only worth what our work exhibits it to be. 

The certification process includes not only successful completion of the course, but a minimum of 60 hours live training, and recommendations from 3 professionals.  

Statement Analyst I:  By the time one reaches this level, he or she is an expert at detecting deception.  




Peter Hyatt 


Qualifiers in Analysis

Qualifiers, in Statement Analysis, reveals weakness. 

Sometimes the weakness is appropriate weakness, while at other times, it is a signal of deception.  Context is necessary as well as a more complete overall analysis. 

"I did not kill my family."

versus 

"I don't think I killed my family."

This is an example of inappropriate weakness. 

Appropriate weakness reflects a weak commitment by one who intends to be truthful:

"I think I locked my keys in the car."  He cannot say "I locked my keys in the car" due to uncertainty.  "I think I may have locked my keys in the car" further weakens the statement as the subject is likely entertaining other possibilities.  

It is used by both truthful and deceptive people.  


Ryan Braun's statemnet is an example of extremity in qualification.  When alleged to have used Performance Enhancing Drugs, he did not say, 

"I did not use PEDs."

Instead, his statement revealed his own feelings about the impact of PEDs in his life.  



Question for Analysis:  Did Ryan Braun use testosterone?


Statement Analysis rule:  If the subject cannot bring himself to say he did not do it, we are not permitted to say it for him.  

There is much revealed here.  The first thing to note is he 'allows' for the possibility of use.  This is a form of 'ingratiating' with him 'easing' psychologically, into 'acceptance' by his audience.  

If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally, I’d be the first one to step up and say I did it,” Braun said. “I truly believe in my heart and I would bet my life, that this substance never entered my body at any point."

Next, note "additional" wording:  these are words that, if removed, still allow for a complete sentence.  

How many words can you remove and still have a complete sentence?
This is an important point in the Law of Economy where the shortest sentence is best.  It takes more brain processing and more linguistic effort to reverse this process; increasing not only importance, but the element of attendant emotion. 

Next note the order:  "intentional" came before "unintentional" in priority.  


If I had done this intentionally or unintentionally, I’d be the first one to step up and say I did it.  I truly believe in my heart and I would bet my life, that this substance never entered my body at any point."

Lastly, not only has he come close to embedded admission, but the language shows that he is speaking from experiential memory.  

Note the sensory thought process of not only entrance into his body (think Kate McCann, recalling her last hours with Madeleine, goes to the topic of ingesting) with "at any point."

Testosterone is thick, oily and often leaves the athlete with a sore bottom at best, and infection and swelling at worst.  It is, therefore, a "memorable" occasion in life.  

Braun is not only deceptive, he is revealing his personality traits and his habitual patterns of deception that he employes.  This is a confident liar.  

Here is a video by RT that responds to the BBC's claims.  

Both clips and humorous satire, listen carefully for the qualifiers.

Qualifiers reduce commitment.  

Over time and experience, the trained analyst is able to use context to determine intent to deceive.  

As the world has moved to news, propaganda and now "fake news", that is, outright intent to deceive, far more than to persuade.  Journalists, readers, bloggers and others, trained in analysis, will learn to spot these, both technically, and accurately.  

Listen carefully, especially to the actual BBC claims to judge the quality of the qualifications offered:




Monday, January 16, 2017

Kim Kardashian Robbery Statement

Kim Kardashian with no rings on her hand after being involved in an armed robbery in Paris
Kim Kardashian and Kanye West out and about, New York, USA - 03 Oct 2016






Question:  What can produce an inconclusive report from Statement Analysis?

Answer:  Contamination 

Most contamination is due to the interviewer's influence upon the language of the subject.  This can even give a false reading for a polygraph.  

Here is an interesting case to consider for analysis.  

Kim Kardashian was robbed of about 10 million dollars worth of jewels.  This in light of her husband's indebtedness and financial troubles. 

Insurance companies sometimes poach the best and brightest from law enforcement.  Private investigation firms seek the best and brightest.  Both can offer more concentrated training in investigation, interviewing and analysis due to the specialty, while law enforcement has many other areas that need training and practice, taking away valuable time from investigation training.  

Law enforcement is both underpaid and understaffed.  

Insurance companies and private investigation firms also do not hire under politicians' mandates.  They can freely hire the most talented instead.  

This is a large theft of likely very heavily insured items only.  

Among questions in media:  Was this a planned heist, in any way, for insurance money?

This would mean that the victim, Kim Kardashian, would not feel terror over what happened.  It does not necessarily mean she knew the thieves, but would know that she would not be harmed.  Police are looking for any connections with some reports stating a connection between her limo driver and the gang, which includes up to 17 people.  

Some have noted that an insurance claim is not only more profitable than selling jewelry, but the selling would bring negative publicity while the "victim status" would bring positive publicity.  

Or...is she simply the victim of a terrifying intrusive attack and robbery?

Her former body guard claims it was an "inside job."  


Steve Stanulis said he "isn't surprised" Kadashian was targeted.  


Stanulis said: It was totally an inside job guys, the way the whole thing it unfolded it was too clean.
When I say inside job, it’s either somebody from their camp or somebody from the hotel.
“They got into a room when the only security guard was out, and they knew where the jewellery was.
“It was the perfect opportunity on every level.

The Huffington Post said Kardashian should be believed "because she is a woman."  

Arrests have been made.  




Kim Kardashian with no rings on her hand after being involved in an armed robbery in Paris
Kim Kardashian and Kanye West out and about, New York, USA - 03 Oct 2016

The meeting with the police officer took place during 4.30 and 5.30 A.M in her suite rue Tronchet. The report has been handwritten, not typed on a computer during a formal meeting, because the American star was in a hurry.  We do not have the typed statement for analysis.  This would have likely given us the answer.  


The French investigating judge is now considering going to the USA to hear Kim Kardashian again. 

One media outlet reported that  Aomar Ait Khedache, 60 years old, known as "Omar the Old", acknowledged to be the one who strapped her, as his DNA analysis revealed. He is the one Kim Kardashian describes as the small one among the agressors. Didier Dubreucq, 61 years old, known as "Blue Eyes", could be the second assailant.

Is either known to Kardashian, her husband, or those close to her?

If this is the case, the pronoun "we" suggests unity and cooperation between the subject and the criminals.  

We seek to learn the linguistic disposition of the subject towards the attackers (A)
as well as the subject's linguistic reaction to the attack.  

The expected linguistic disposition:  distance, harsh, condemning
The expected linguistic disposition:  fear, shock, anger, etc.  


Analysis Priority:  what must be considered before analyzing the following?

What single question must be answered before analysis?

Is this an English Translation from the French, as originally reported in French?

a.  Yes, it appears to be awkwardly translated, reducing reliability due to contamination.  

b.  No, it is English and should be analyzed  as such 

First, the open statement:  

French Police Report

Monday, October 3, 2016
04.30 A.M.

My name is Kardashian Kimberley.

Here is the first indication of possible English to French to English translation.  

I was born on October 21, 1980, in Los Angeles.
I live in Ventura, XXX
My phones have been stolen and I can be reached through my bodyguard Mr. XXX.
Regarding the facts :
I came in Paris by plane for the fashion week. I came back around 12 midnight to go to bed. I was attending a fashion diner. I came back with Simone Harouche and my sister Kourtney. We all moved up in my room 1A and friends, a couple, went to my room and left around 01.00 A.M.

I have to make it clear that Simone hadn’t come with us and that she was sleeping when I came back.

This important information is awkward.  We have noted out of sequence information.  Is this due to auto-translation?

My assistant Stéphanie and my sister Kourtney changed clothes.

Then, I went to my computer upstairs and I worked.

I heard noises at the door, like footsteps, and I asked shouting who was there, no one answered. I called at 02.56 A.M. my bodyguard. I saw through the sliding door two persons coming, plus the man of the reception who was strapped.
The two men were hooded, the one had a ski mask and he had a cap and a jacket with Police written on it.

We have "persons", and then "men" and then "individuals."  Is this, also, part of translation issues or do we have a "change of language" which would be useful in analysis?

The second individual had the same clothes Police but didn’t wear ski goggles.
The individual with the ski goggles rips out my Blackberry phone
The one with the ski goggles was 1,70 meters high, slim, black pants, black boots, he spoke to me in French. He was a European-type individual.

Is the present tense verb usage problematic or is it due to translation issues?


The second individual was also European, he was taller and stayed with the security agent. He was around 1,80 meters high and he was dressed in the same way.

It’s the one with the ski goggles who stayed with me.
He asked me with a strong French accent where was my ring. It was placed on the bedside table. It costs 4 million dollars.

Did he "ask" or did he "demand"?  Is this translation issue or soft language from the attacker?

I answer him that I don’t know, he takes out a weapon and I show him the ring. 

For one who gives specific detail of jewelry (type, title, description) we do not expect to hear "a weapon" but "a gun" or the type of weapon.  

Again, is this a signal of concealment or an issue with translation?

He pointed the weapon toward me. He takes the ring, he wears gloves. He asked me where the jewels and the money are.

Properly, "a weapon" became "the weapon" but what of "money"?



 They catched me and took me in the lobby. 

This sounds awkward, like a translation issue


I was wearing a bathrobe, naked underneath. 

This is an extra unnecessary detail...except for the subject:  it sounds like publicity rather than reporting.  


Then we went in the room again and they pushed me on the bed. And, at this time, they strapped me with plastic cables and tape on my hands, then they taped my mouth and my legs. They carried me in my bathroom, more specifically in my bathtub.

I forgot to tell you that when they pushed me on the bed, they headed toward my handbag and they cleared everything.

I don’t know if they took something inside. My Vuitton jewelry box was near my bag and at that time, he said something to the other individual, shouting. In my jewelry box, there were two bracelets by Cartier, all with diamonds, a necklace by Jacob all in gold and diamond, diamond earrings by Lauren Schwartz, and the other was by Yanina. There were three necklaces by Jacob all in gold, little bracelets, jewels, rings. A necklace by Lauren Schwartz all in diamonds, another necklace with six little diamonds on it. A last necklace with my son’s name (Saint) all in diamond. I also had just a cross-shaped diamond, by Jacob. A watch by Rolex all in yellow gold. There were two rings in yellow gold.

Note the very specific detailed knowledge of what was stolen.  

I think they robbed me for 5 million dollars. 

note the assertion of the value of the theft after being the victim of an intrusion, assault and restriction (tied up) 


They didn’t rob my cash. 


They robbed me an iPhone 6, which call number is XXXXX and the Blackberry call number.

Then they left, running.

During the heist, they had the hotel’s mobile phone which didn’t stop ringing and they were speaking in French. I thought they said they got to leave.

Note the cognizance in the aftermath of such a traumatic event to include this detail.  


Then, I removed the tape from my hands and my mouth, I removed the plastic. I realized they were a bit young because of the way they strapped me.

Here, we step away from close analysis due to possible translation issue but still note:

She has maintained inability to identify the suspects but here wants the police to believe that the attackers are "a bit young"; that is, she identifies for police, their age. 

This is particularly interesting when we see the report of possible arrest and 'admission' to the crime of 60 year old.  

Note to "realize" is to take both time and processing to come to an understanding.  This is not expected in the aftermath of an intrusive traumatic attack.  



I removed the tape on my legs. I kept a tape around my leg and run to Simone’s room. Then I called my sister Kourtney with Simone’s phone. Simone called her bodyguard because she was hearing some noise.

Question : Would you be able to recognize them?
Answer : Maybe the smaller one with ski goggles but not sure.
Question : Are-you injured?
Answer : No.
Question : Would you like to file a complaint?
Answer : Yes, I would like to file a complaint.
Question : Do you have something else to add?
Answer : I would like to leave and to go back to my children in the United States. A private plane is waiting for me at the Bourget.


After reading done by M. XXXX, Madam Kardashian Kim persists and signs with us the present. It is half past five in the morning.

Analysis Conclusion:

Inconclusive

The statement appears contaminated by translation, perhaps via computer translation and is unreliable.  

If the original hand written statement is released, it would allow for proper analysis.  

There remain concerns in the statements, even with translation contamination, that must be answered. 



Saturday, January 14, 2017

Seeking Missing Information: Temporal Lacuane


Analytical Interviewing is the legally sound non-intrusive way of interviewing after a statement has been taken.  Prior to any interrogation, it gets more information than any other method.  It is based upon the subject's own words and the analysis done.  

"And the next thing I knew..." shows a skipping over of time in an open statement.  It indicates that information is missing at this point. 

"I went to the store to buy groceries.  I always go there. 
And there was this guy who asked me if he could borrow ten dollars.  
And then he said that he was desperate.  I told him I did not have extra money. 
And he told me he was going to wait for me in the parking lot.  

                                            Understanding Missing Information 

Buzzfeed reported the following:

On January 29th, 2017, the New York Jets played the New England Patriots for the Super Bowl.

Picture you watching the game on TV. 

It is the fourth quarter, the Patriots are up, 23 to 21, with mere seconds on the clock to play meaning that this is the last play of the game for the Patriots and they must simply protect the ball.  

Tom Brady  goes into a huddle. 

Suddenly, your TV goes black and then words appear:

"This game may be subject to blackout in your area."

You are furious!  You've watched the entire game and now, at the moment of truth, it is blacked out?

Just as you jump up in anger, the picture comes back and the Jets have flooded the field in celebration as Tom Brady walks dejectedly off the field, ignoring reporters' questions. 

You saw the game, and then you didn't, and then it came back on again. 

The game is the broadcast of a statement. 
The short blackout is the area of missing information.  

You are seeking to learn what happened even though you know the outcome.  

Since open statements go in chronological order, the word "And", (or other connecting words) indicate a pause of some form, that should be unnecessary.  Since the person is going chronologically, one event follows another, so the word "and" is not necessary. 

In fact, it means that the subject has paused and ejected information here.  He has "blacked out the broadcast" temporarily, considering no need to add in this information. 

Most of the time this is an indication of experiential memory in play because 70% of the time, it is truthful.  

With phrases such as "And the next thing I know", is also an unnecessary connection, but it is a longer pause and it takes more effort to produce more of these words. 

Here now comes a difference.  Where "and..." may be more related to truthful reporting and missing information being casual editing for clarity, the lengthier wording suggests the subject had to make an effort to skip over time. 

Remember:  you cannot withhold information that you do not have.  

We ask questions:

Not only, "what is missing?" but the more important:

"Why is the subject withholding information here?"  

What might be the 3 highlighted points of missing information in the above example?

Choose one: 


a.  the man became physically aggressive
b.  the words that transpired between them 
c.  someone else can by interrupting the verbal exchange  


Leave your answer in the comments section with a brief explanation why.  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Chris Kalin: Analysis Report

The following is an example of an Analysis Report with approval for posting. The Analytical Report is written for the untrained eye with the knowledge that the trained reader will recognize more information and may be responsible for explaining it to others. For formal training in deception detection, please visit and explore the website. Private seminars available besides those of law enforcement and business.  A Complete Course of Statement Analysis is availble to be taken in your home or office. 


Hyatt Analysis Services



5 January, 2017

Analysis: The interview of Chris Kalin conducted by Steve Croft, with narration. 

Analysis Question: 

Is the subject (Kalin) truthful in his answers?

Subsequent:
If he is deceptive: 
What content does the subject reveal in his answers?
What areas of sensitivity warrant exploration?
Does the subject reveal any specific areas of fraud and/or deception?

I.                Transcripts
II.             Transcripts with Analysis
III.           Conclusion


I.               Transcripts

Our introduction to this world of citizenship by investment came in Dubai – the gleaming, international bazaar – that was hosting the ninth annual global citizenship conference. Gathered here were government officials, lawyers, bankers, and real estate developers who facilitate and profit from the trade of citizenship for cash.
Chris Kalin: Good evening, and a very warm welcome...
This is the man who more or less invented the business: Chris Kalin, chairman of Henley and Partners, a consulting firm with offices, where else, but in Zurich, Switzerland. For a fee and healthy commissions, Kalin helps countries set up their program, rewrite their citizenship laws, and recruit people of means looking for a second, third, or fourth passport, which he sees as just another travel accessory; a passport of convenience.
Chris Kalin: You probably have more than one credit card, I would assume. And, you know, if Visa doesn’t work, Mastercard will do. So I think any wealthy person nowadays should have more than one credit card. And likewise, you’d have more than one passport.
Steve Kroft: But you need to have some money to do this?
Chris Kalin: Yes.
Steve Kroft: To be able to do this?
Chris Kalin: Yes, absolutely. It’s just for wealthy people, of course, yeah. ...
It’s provided St. Kitts and Nevis with hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects, private development, and tourism but a lot of the money is unaccounted for. More than 10,000 people have purchased citizenship here, but it’s almost impossible to tell who they are because the information is not public. Chris Kalin doesn’t like the words citizenship for cash, or any suggestion that all you need is money to get a passport.
Chris Kalin: You have to go through a process. You have to apply. And you have to answer a million questions. And you have to undergo a background verification. And you have, at least in the properly run programs, you have to be a reputable person. And that’s checked.
But evidently, not that carefully. About the only way to identify people who have purchased St. Kitts citizenship is if they happen to turn up on a list of international fugitives or get in trouble with the law, and St. Kitts and Nevis has more than its share for two sleepy, little islands. Its passport holders include a Canadian penny stock manipulator... a Russian wanted for bribery... a Kazak wanted for embezzlement... two Ukrainians suspected of bribing a U.N. official... and two Chinese women wanted for financial crimes.
Chris Kalin: I think it’s no secret that these islands have made decisions that are not always optimal.
Steve Kroft: They’ve taken some bozos, as you would call them?
Chris Kalin: Yes, exactly.
Steve Kroft: What about crooks?
Chris Kalin: Yes. It’s goes all the way down to crooks, yeah, absolutely. And it tended for some time to attract quite a few people that I would never let into the country. But I’m not the government of St. Kitts and Nevis.
Steve Kroft: But you set up their program.
Chris Kalin: We helped to set up the program. But, you know, as it is, advisers advise, ministers decide.
With vast sums of money flowing into these island nations, and more and more countries selling their citizenship, there is consensus that still more oversight and transparency is needed. But privacy and secrecy have always been a major selling point for people buying multiple passports, including Chris Kalin, the man who invented the business plan.
Steve Kroft: How many do you have?
Chris Kalin: I have multiple.
Steve Kroft: So you don’t wanna tell us how many you have?
Chris Kalin: There’s a few things in my life that, that I don’t talk openly about. And I keep for myself. But I am Swiss originally and many people think I’m very Swiss and so I’ll leave it at that.




II.              Transcripts with Analysis. 


Our introduction to this world of citizenship by investment came in Dubai – the gleaming, international bazaar – that was hosting the ninth annual global citizenship conference. Gathered here were government officials, lawyers, bankers, and real estate developers who facilitate and profit from the trade of citizenship for cash.
Chris Kalin, Good evening, and a very warm welcome...
This is the man who more or less invented the business: Chris Kalin, chairman of Henley and Partners, a consulting firm with offices, where else, but in Zurich, Switzerland. For a fee and healthy commissions, Kalin helps countries set up their program, rewrite their citizenship laws, and recruit people of means looking for a second, third, or fourth passport, which he sees as just another travel accessory; a passport of convenience.
Chris Kalin: You probably have more than one credit card, I would assume. And, you know, if Visa doesn’t work, Mastercard will do. So I think any wealthy person nowadays should have more than one credit card. And likewise, you’d have more than one passport.

The subject uses the universal “you”, which is appropriate.  He speaks for himself, with “I would assume”, which is strong, as a pronoun, but not with assumption.  

What does he, himself, willingly assert?  That there should be more than one credit card.  He again asserts himself with “I think…” as he offers his opinion that “any” wealthy person “should” have more than one credit card.  

The theme of “credit card” in the plural is important to him.  This should alert us to the importance of using more than one credit card in the subject’s language. 
Why is it important for “you” (universal) to have more than one credit card?
a.      “If Visa doesn’t work, Mastercard will do.”  The language begins with a hypothetical, “if” but continues with the imperative:  “Mastercard will do.”  This is to say that the process of using credit is expected.  This is often the language of sales.  It reduces the “if” of the sales to “when.” 
***Have more than one credit card... would have more than one passport
Target audience is no longer the wealthy.  Consider both those who are less wealthy and the possible introduction of false identities created and the successful obtaining of credit cards under such.  
Steve Kroft: But you need to have some money to do this?
Chris Kalin: Yes.
This is a strong answer.  He needs no other words to buttress his affirming "yes."  

 “Money” is answered without sensitivity.  The IR will now increase the defensive posture by not listening: 
Steve Kroft: To be able to do this?
Chris Kalin: Yes, absolutely. It’s just for wealthy people, of course, yeah. ...
a.      “yes” would suffice
b.     “absolutely” is added to further strengthen it.
c.     “just” compares wealthy with those who are not wealthy
d.     “of course” is a statement in which the subject wants us to accept without question.
e.     “yeah” revisits the answer unnecessarily.   This is as a result of the IR not listening and accepting the affirmative.  It puts the subject on the defensive, and has shown a sensitivity towards money. 
With “just” a dependent word, it indicates simple comparison.  With money needing some emphasis, we should consider that the subject (Kalin) has a strong need to exclude non wealthy people from this.  Why?  This needs exploration.  It is only due to the lack of money, or is there more within the subject’s thinking? 
With money being important, why would the subject care to limit this only to the wealthy?  He is introducing something here that we should not miss.  
What is there within those less than wealthy that the subject does not wish to discuss here?
What are those with less wealth like? 

Who are they?  

Do they pose a threat? Or, are they legitimate customers, too?  
More information is needed.
Question for Analysis:  Will the rest of the statement affirm that he only wants the wealthy?  

We look for his words to guide us, going forward, allowing the information to influence us...

Narrator:  It’s provided St. Kitts and Nevis with hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure projects, private development, and tourism but a lot of the money is unaccounted for. More than 10,000 people have purchased citizenship here, but it’s almost impossible to tell who they are because the information is not public. Chris Kalin doesn’t like the words citizenship for cash, or any suggestion that all you need is money to get a passport.
Chris Kalin: You have to go through a process. You have to apply. And you have to answer a million questions. And you have to undergo a background verification. And you have, at least in the properly run programs, you have to be a reputable person. And that’s checked.
The subject begins with the pronoun “you” which is the universal usage and appropriate.  It designates no single person, outside of the already characterized “wealthy.” 
Next, we look at the order of his answer:
1.      A process
2.     Apply
3.     Answer a million questions
4.     Background verification
5.     Reputable person (qualified).
The order shows priority.  There is a “process” that begins before application.  This is the first verbal indicator of possible deception and fraud within this answer.  (please note that the limitation to “wealthy” is unanswered to this point in the interview.)

1.      A process.  Please note that it is “a” process and not any specific process.  By coming before “apply” suggests preliminary contact and communication before one applies. 
2.     A process is specifically non-descript.  The vagueness and the use of the article “a” suggests a fluidity of this process; that is, it is not a set procedure which opens to the possibility of fraud, by the very need to not identify it as a specific process.
3.     Apply:  the person in question, “you”, is not here identified only as the “wealthy” but identified in the 2nd person universal.  Since he previously identified the wealthy, with the words, “of course”, meaning to take his word for it without question, it is something Statement Analysis does not do.  The wealthy do not go through this process (“the wealthy applicants”) but “you” do.  This leaves open what must be accomplished before an application is made. 
4.      This should question is there are different “applications” for different people, including the wealthy and the non-wealthy. 
5.     And you have to answer a million questions” uses hyperbolic language.  This is often found in deceptive statements in which the subject wishes to persuade, rather than honestly report.  The use of the hyperbolic language suggests a need to make this “process” and “application” very complicated; therefore, very thorough. One should consider that this need to convince his audience belies the truth:  that the non-descript procedure goes back to money, rather than details itself.  The investigator should not only consider multiple processes, but possible fraud. 
6.     “a million questions” also suggests potential vetting issues.  The need to persuade reveals weakness. 
7.     Background “verification” is not background checking, nor background vetting. To “verify” is to avoid vetting and only require a single confirmation. It does not address criminality nor anything other than to verify a name.  This is increasing in importance as we progress. 
8.     Reputable person also avoids anything distinct or even dangerous.  Yet, this is made even weaker by his own qualification:
9.      And that’s checked” is unnecessary language.  The “process” itself is a system of “checking” and by adding that which is utterly unnecessary, the subject is revealing, from his own language and understanding, that this process does not include any of the normal security vetting done.  Like “verification” of one’s “background” (like a single ‘person’ saying, “yes, I know him”) we now can have “Yes, he’s a good person” with any name, real or otherwise, “verifying” the person.  By emphasizing that “that” is checked, he is signaling to us that other aspects are not checked. The “reputable” is not only subjective, it is undefined.  The best question to ask would have been, “Tell me about what “reputable” means to you…”

Here, the subject has revealed a very thinly veiled attempt to sound thorough.  The need to persuade this shows the very opposite.  The analyst/investigator should not only be on alert for fraudulent “rubber stamping” of approval, but should remain open that “you” includes more than just the wealthy. 
The language shows that the subject, himself, is acutely aware of this “process” and has a need to conceal the actual procedures “you” go through.  A “million questions” has the need to exaggerate rather than report.  This reveals, not only the process, but the subject himself, and what he is wiling to say and do to be successful. 

Narrator:  But evidently, not that carefully. About the only way to identify people who have purchased St. Kitts citizenship is if they happen to turn up on a list of international fugitives or get in trouble with the law, and St. Kitts and Nevis has more than its share for two sleepy, little islands. Its passport holders include a Canadian penny stock manipulator... a Russian wanted for bribery... a Kazak wanted for embezzlement... two Ukrainians suspected of bribing a U.N. official... and two Chinese women wanted for financial crimes.
Chris Kalin: I think it’s no secret that these islands have made decisions that are not always optimal.
Please note that he begins with the pronoun “I”, meaning that the information that follows is likely to contain some reliable points.  He continues to speak for himself, which helps us gain insight. 
Next note that he only “thinks”, rather than “knows”, which reduces his commitment to his own sentence. 
“It’s no secret” is passive language.  This allows him to bring forth a thought without personal responsibility. 
He uses the word, “optimal”, which  is ‘best choice’, but avoids any reference to legality.
This is minimizing language which suggests that he has a need to minimize.  What does this mean?
It means he has direct knowledge of wrong doing, and a need to minimize it.   

***These islands (closeness) have made decisions…islands do not make decisions.  Identity or specific reference to decision makers is withheld
Steve Kroft: They’ve taken some bozos, as you would call them?
To classify as “bozos” is a mistake, allowing the subject to only affirm, without definition, who “bozos” are.  TV interviewers focus upon themselves, seeking to gain attention for their own selves at the expense of information. 
Chris Kalin: Yes, exactly.
Steve Kroft: What about crooks?

Here is a different classification.  We all reveal ourselves when we speak but in the professional interview, we must limit our choice of words whenever possible.  A defensive subject is going to limit information, and a contaminated sentence is going to limit analysis.  
Chris Kalin: Yes. It’s goes all the way down to crooks, yeah, absolutely. And it tended for some time to attract quite a few people that I would never let into the country. But I’m not the government of St. Kitts and Nevis.
Here is a linguistic indication that suggests knowledge of more than just “crooks.”  He uses a scale of comparison:  “it goes all the way down…” with emphasis.  It is to affirm, with emphasis (“yeah, absolutely”) the assertion made by the IR.  This agreement with emphasis puts the subject at a position he is comfortable with.  By his own language, he places “crooks” at the bottom.  This is a comparison (“those at the top”) where we are led to believe that the very worst possible would be a thief.  This assertion, using comparison, tells us that the subject is likely aware of those who are “worse than crooks” who are going through the vague “million question” procedure. 
With a “process” coming before application, the investigator should be fully aware of being possibly vetted.  Caution warranted.

***“Islands” are now government of St. Kitts and Nevis.
Steve Kroft: But you set up their program.
This is an accusation which will increase defensive posture.  Thus far, the subject has answered for himself, and even with some weakness, has continued to keep himself, psychologically, in his answers. 
We always note the first departure from this norm, or standard and what caused it:   
Chris Kalin: We helped to set up the program. But, you know, as it is, advisers advise, ministers decide.
a.     Note the immediate response with the pronoun “we” here.  This is a strong indication that the subject (Kalin) does not want to be “alone” in this response.  This is often associated with the psychological need to share guilt and responsibility. 
b.     Note secondly the word “helped” is used.  This, too, reduces responsibility on the part of the subject, himself.  He did not “help”, but “we” helped.  “We” did not facilitate this transaction, but only “helped”, which reduces responsibility.  We note that these two elements are consistent with one not wishing to bear responsibility nor guilt. 
He, himself was accused, and he, himself as established the base pattern of authority with the pronoun “I.” 
Now, confronted with an accusation, instead of saying, “I did not…” he avoids a Reliable Denial.
This is a common form of deceptive denials:  not only does he avoid responsibility, but in doing so, he ‘hides’, psychologically, from guilt.
He could have said, “I did not process the applications of crooks” but to lie outright is to cause internal stress and it is to be avoided.  Instead of denying it, he not only passes off responsibility to others (note that he does not say that the ministers decided), but the use of the pronoun “we” breaks the pattern which tells us that this accusation is so strong that it has caused him to “retreat” and “surround himself” with others.  This is given instead of a denial.
This is a strong indication of his own guilty knowledge and likely participation in the process. This further shows us his need to persuade the vetting procedure of “million” questions. He knows what he is doing, he knows what he has done, and has specific need to not be left alone with this allegation.

But, you know,” as it is, advisers advise, ministers decide.  “But” refutes what comes before it.  “You know”- shows an increase of awareness of the Interviewer (and audience) at this point. 
Deception via inference or interpretation.
Statement Analysis does not interpret what one says. 
Here, he does not say that he was in an advisory role vs decision making role, but wants that to be inferred. This, added to the sensitivity already seen, including the audience reference, indicates an awareness of direct involvement in this. 
Narrator:  With vast sums of money flowing into these island nations, and more and more countries selling their citizenship, there is consensus that still more oversight and transparency is needed. But privacy and secrecy have always been a major selling point for people buying multiple passports, including Chris Kalin, the man who invented the business plan.
Steve Kroft: How many do you have?
Chris Kalin: I have multiple.
Steve Kroft: So you don’t wanna tell us how many you have?
The IR (interviewer) recognizes that the question was avoided making the question, itself, sensitive to the subject (Chris Kalin).  By avoiding a direct answer, the importance of the topic (“how many”) is now elevated.  The question is worded in the negative, which is contrary to gaining information as it puts the subject on the defensive.  For analysis, we must consider that the defensive posture is now impacted by the language of the IR. 

Chris Kalin: There’s a few things in my life that, that I don’t talk openly about. And I keep for myself. But I am Swiss originally and many people think I’m very Swiss and so I’ll leave it at that.
1.      First notice that the pronoun “I” now returns to the subject.  This is a personal and direct question and he recognizes it as such.
2.     The subject is put on the defensive, and introduces a plurality of elements (“few” is generally 3 or more) that he withholds.  He states that there are other things (elements) associated with the answer he avoids giving.  This is very important because these elements likely impact one another.  
3.     Note the use of “openly” can be associated with sexuality.  It is not definitive, but should be considered.  If it is part of the equation, it is only one part and any investigation into fraud (diversion of money, ‘entertainment expenses’)  must consider the topic of sexual activity, including prostitutes, black mail, etc, as part of the overall investigation. 
4.     The subject is ‘openly’ concealing information.  Not only is the number of passports he possesses sensitive to him, activities associated with these passports is sensitive to him.  This suggests that criminal activity (or any activity that triggers guilt) may be associated with the locales involved.  This may be unrelated to “how” the passports were gained (though some fraud may be involved) but it is the locations, plural, that there is a need to conceal.  (see “Swiss originally” and “very Swiss.”). 
5.     But I am Swiss originally” suggests a disconnect between his behavior as a Swiss (very Swiss) person and behavior that he doesn’t talk “openly” about.  If Swiss culture is “open” and “tolerant”, it is a verbal indication of involvement in something the Swiss are not likely to accept or be tolerant of.  This is likely criminal in nature. 

Does the subject have illegal accounts or criminal involvement in these other locales (beyond Switzerland)?
Has he engaged in illegal activities, including sexual, in these other locations?
Is the evidence of criminal activity (including fraud) at these other locales.

He could have given an answer that would have satisfied the question, such as “two”, (which, if he has three, remains a technically truthful answer, as he does have these two; a common form of deception) but this would lead to “where is your other passport…?” which would mean revealing a location.

This avoidance heightens the need to conceal location.  It is very likely to go well beyond just the means of obtaining a passport.  He does not wish to identify any other location for a reason and the reason is “very sensitive” information. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Chris Kalin is not truthful in the interview regarding fraudulent selling of passports.  This fraudulent activity is very likely to include elements preceding the sale of passports. 

He uses various means of deception which suggests illegal (and unacceptable, culturally) behavior involving the selling of passports and this is seen in specific elements, beginning with the process. 

Unnecessary Information

When a subject gives us “unnecessary information”, it is an indication of very important information. 

Case in point:  First, only the wealthy can afford to purchase a passport. 

2nd case in point:  only the educated can navigate a “million” questions.

3rd:  only the ‘right’ people can pass the background “verification” with good reputation.

It is unnecessary to say that only the wealthy can afford to purchase foreign passports.  This is very important to him and will likely be very important in the investigation. 

Of particular interest is the selling of passports to those who are less than “wealthy”; that is, to those he knows are not purchasing passports for enjoyment of riches, but have other motives involved; motives he does not wish to discuss. The wealthy do not worry that their Visa card will be declined so they will use their Mastercard, but those of newly processed identities will struggle.  He wants to be seen as only selling to the wealthy who are looking for vacation lands.  This attempt to move the conversation away from others highlights that “others”, those who are not wealthy, may constitute either the majority or a very high minority of sales.  They are important to the business and likely contains people with illicit motives.

The investigation should include the manufacturing of false identifications.  This may be part of the “process” one goes through specifically before an application can be made.  This false identity would then need, not investigation, but “verification” and may lead to the failed attempt at one credit card, but successful at another. 

Identity theft should be considered. 

By his own classification of “crooks” at the bottom suggest more nefarious clientele which may include terrorism, arms traders, drug traffickers and possibly even the movement of women in the prostitution trade.  (see “open” in his language, and compare this to Swiss culture or acceptance). 

He deliberately obfuscates the process of obtainment and with the “pre application” step, combined with a televised interview, he and his company will be screening deliberately for investigators into the scam. This should not be ignored as it is a priority in his language:

Steps needed and taken before application is made. 

This may be where the investigation has the most success infiltrating the scam. 

He gives indication that his crimes are not restricted to any one locale, but likely has specific illegal activities in the very places where the passports are given.  This indicates guilty knowledge and association with those “ministers” of whom he distances himself from.

The subject is of above average intelligence and is likely well connected to various underground movement; particularly those of a criminal vein. 


In the deceptive language is the awareness of guilt in deliberately providing criminal element or those “not” of ‘good reputation’ and the implementation of various means at his disposal. See his broken pattern of “I” where he changes to “we” as a signal of specific and personal guilt of a criminal nature.  

Looking Forward

He will likely have an immediate change of practice, particularly in the few months following the airing of this interview, before the loss of revenue becomes acute, forcing him back to his previous methods (or even more lax methods) to rebuild the business.  Infiltration into the “process” will be more difficult in the immediate future, but this is not likely to last. 


The strong emphasis on money and the lack of responsibility suggest recklessness.  This is where a strong intellect can betray itself under the lure of both success and money.  As money decreases, impatience can drive him to careless error. 

In the airing of the interview, expect a team of lawyers to have already brought in new application “questions” to echo his exaggerated claim of “millions” to further legitimize what he revealed to be a most illegitimate process.   This may not, however, impact the “pre-application process” that is important to Kalin, making “verification” something important to him. 


Peter Hyatt 


Disclaimer:  This is the personal opinion of Peter Hyatt and Mr. Kalin is judicially innocent until charged and convicted in a court of law.  This material may not be reproduced without written permission from Hyatt Analysis Services.