Thursday, April 19, 2018

Truck Defaced in "Hate" Crime






Is this a criminal destruction of property and a "hate" crime,  or is it another example of "Fake Hate" by one with an agenda. 

If it is "fake hate", the element from which it is produced is projection of contempt for Christians.  

Which do you think it is, and why?



Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Part Two


Here is part two of introducing the language of adult victims of childhood sexual abuse.  It is vital for professionals to receive language specific training, not only to spot the potential abuse, but to discern false allegations from truthful.  Perseveration of past abuse with present allegations can present unique challenges. 

The advanced training for Sex Crimes Units, psychologists, counselors, child protective and adult protective caseworkers, nurses, etc, addresses this specifically.  Learning to detect deception is the first step.  

Hyatt Analysis Services for seminars and at home training. 


Monday, April 16, 2018

Video Lessons Introduction Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse

This is a short video lesson introducing distinctive elements within the language of adult victims of early childhood sexual abuse. 

Their language often mimics deception due to dissociative memories.  Some may be perseverating on an event from the more distant past, while others are telling the truth about the allegation that is presented.  

Specific advanced training is required.  

For Training, we have seminars, including advanced seminars for those with solid foundational training in deception detection that is geared towards investigators of sex crimes, psychologists, therapists, child protective caseworkers, counselors and other professionals. 

We also offer an advanced seminar for law enforcement that uses Statement Analysts and Handwriting Expert Steve Johnson that combines the two schools of deception detection to:

1.  Discern Deception
2.  Discern Content (truthful reliable)
3.  Psycho-linguisitc profile (identifying anonymous authors)
4.  Dominant Personalty traits through handwriting analysis d

As these elements come together, the professional in law enforcement is given investigatory tools that can take their success to new levels.  

For those already trained, the career traction and depth of work is invaluable. 





Mark Sanchez NFL Player Denial PEDs


Mark Sanchez tested positive for PEDs and made a statement on social media. 

If you did not use PEDs, you are going to say so.  It is your priority and it is your "contextual psychological profile", that is, it is your "psychological wall of proof" as seen in language.  

It makes no difference what the blood test showed because, "I did take PEDs." 

In training for law enforcement, discerning truth from a lie is oftentimes more challenging than spotting deception. 

Let's look at his statement. 

A Reliable Denial consists of:

1.  The Pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't" (both are reliable; only Reid differentiates)
3.  The allegation answered. 

These three elements must be present.  

If there are less than three or more than three, the denial is no longer reliable.

We flag some as "Unreliable" while others we may flag as "not reliable."  The difference is within context and how the analyst sees the statement. 

Theft Allegations 

In theft allegations, Statement Analysis is a time saver that gets to the truth.  This is why I advise investigators make their own phone calls to set up the interview. 


In some cases like theft, a suspect in a crime may not even realize he is being accused, therefore, his denial may be "not reliable" and may change when he is made aware that he is the recipient of the allegation.  When he realizes why he is being questioned: 

"Oh, no, I see.  I didn't take the money. I thought you were asking me if I knew who did..."

Here he framed the words, "I didn't take the money."  If then asked, "Well, why should I believe you?" his answer is vital.  The psychological "wall of truth" rises in the truthful (de facto innocent; not judicial) because he did not do it.  If he says, "I didn't take the money.  You should believe me because I told the truth", using "truth" in this manner, it is more than 99% reliable.  He didn't take the money. 


“I was blind-sided by the news and I want to say unequivocally that I have never cheated or attempted to gain a competitive advantage by using a banned performance enhancing substance. During the past 9 years as an NFL player I have been subject to 73 drug tests — an average of over 8 tests per season — and all but one have been clean. I have taken the same regimen of supplements for the past five years without any issues.The timing and results of my tests establish circumstances of unknowing supplement contamination, not the use of performance enhancing substances.”

What do you know about Mark Sanchez?

1.  His priority 
2.  His revelation 


“I was blind-sided by the news and I want to say unequivocally that I have never cheated or attempted to gain a competitive advantage by using a banned performance enhancing substance. 

1.  His priority is to express shock or surprise.  "I was blind-sided" is to communicate his emotion rather than deny.  

Where one begins a statement is always important and tells us that these are the first words his brain chooses, so they are important. 

Next we ask: 

Q.  What surprised or "blind sided" him?

A.  "the news." 

Not a false test, and not even "a test" but "the news", which uses the article "the" as a settled matter. 

For those who did not "do it" (de facto innocence), it is never settled because it cannot be settled because it did not happen. This is the type of language that may, after years of wrongful imprisonment and repeating account, move into.  The years of processing, for example "rape" can mimic language that says "my story."  

 It is not the language of one who is shocked or surprised. It is not the language of an event that just taken place.   

The subject has has processed the failed drug test and has accepted its conclusion.  It is not "news" but it is "the news." 

2.  Question:  Does he say he never used? 

Answer:   No.  

He does not say it.  

He says he "wants to say" instead.  I'd like to say that I am young, slim and handsome but I can't because 2 of those points would be lying. 

This is a subtle form of psychological distancing from the internal stress and confrontation of a direct lie.  

Law of Economy tells us that the shortest sentence is best and the more effort (more words), the greater the emotion. 

This sentence is emotional weighted.

He shows himself to be a practiced or accomplished deceiver. We listen to his words.  Not only is is something he "wants to say" instead of saying it, but listen to what he actually says when he gets to it. 

He wants to say that he's never used "to gain" a competitive advantage.  

Not only is this unreliable, but it is to assign a specific motive. 

We may now consider:  He used due to injury recovery and perhaps aging. 

The motive for use should be irrelevant and unnecessary.  By viewing all "unnecessary information" the investigator gains valuable insight. 

He is very concerned about motive and the public's perception of the motive. Now we understand why his emotional state is his priority. 

In fact, he may be telling the truth that he used for injury recovery.  This is how the human conscience seeks to cover deception while justifying guilty behavior. 

His priority is image; expressing surprise.  Yet he reveals something else:

“I was blind-sided by the news and I want to say unequivocally that I have never cheated or attempted to gain a competitive advantage by using a banned performance enhancing substance.

He used more than one.  

He wants to say and he wants to say "unequivocally" (added emphasis is unnecessary) that he did not "cheat" or "attempt" to gain...

This is to recognize that it did give him competitive advantage but only that this was not his motive. 

Then he goes singular on a "banned" performance enhancing substance. 

He did not deny yet.  

Now he defends his character (reputation...remember his priority?) by going back in time, not to the failed test, but 9 years ago: 


During the past 9 years as an NFL player I have been subject to 73 drug tests — an average of over 8 tests per season — and all but one have been clean. 

He relies on all the times he was tested. 

This is akin to a bank robber saying, "but I have used this bank for years and not once did I rob it!"

This is a tangent which indicates not only the need to distract from the accusation, but affirms his motive for writing: his reputation.  

This is similar to rape suspects lecturing on how they have stood for women's rights in Hollywood. 

a.  It is unrelated. 
b.  It is unnecessary. 
c.  It is to inflate credibility instead of relying upon truth (the psychological wall of truth which cannot be penetrated). 

He is an accomplished liar as seen in this sophistication.  He now introduces another tangent in the word, "supplement."


I have taken the same regimen of supplements for the past five years without any issues.

What is an "issue"?  A failed drug test?

It is rare, but it has happened before that a test has been a false positive.  

In one such rare case the subject told the doctor he did not care what the test said. "I didn't take ____."

He was given the opportunity to allow for the possibility of it being taken "by accident" with "supplements" but he refused.  

"No.  I don't know what caused your test but its wrong.  I didn't take ______."

He was tested again and failed but refused to yield.  The next test found the error in methodology.  

This subject stood behind the psychological wall of truth and blamed the test.  He was telling the truth. Later he said he did not even know what the drug looked like.  

After introducing "supplements" we expect him to blame them. 

He does not, however, blame supplements.  Listen to him and do not interpret.  Listen. 

He simply allows "supplement" to influence the reader without a direct lie. 

He introduces a new element: 

The timing and results of my tests establish circumstances of unknowing supplement contamination, not the use of performance enhancing substances.”

He introduces "time" as an element. What does "time" have to do with a failed test?

"I did not use PEDS. The test is wrong."  

The timing of the test would be immaterial.  

Yet, it is what he employs in an attempt to indict the supplements and the test without the direct accusation. 

It only "establishes circumstances" of "unknown supplement contamination."

He knows.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated. 

He not only issues an "Unreliable Denial" but indicates his motive for the statement and his motive for usage being not directly to gain competitive advantage.  

He knowingly used PEDs and gaining competitive advantage was a side effect or attendant result. 

His excessive use of tangents indicate a guilty conscience with an acute awareness of his reputation.  

He does not deny using PEDs, instead focuses on the times he was not caught.  

This is in contrast to those who say, "I am sorry I did this, accept my punishment and will work hard to regain the trust of my teammates and the league..." 

The caution in directly blaming supplements may not only be due to the internal pressure that direct lying causes, but may be related to various supplement contracts, past, present and future endorsements by him and others in the league.  


Lie Detection training is invaluable for all professional and personal use. 

To study with us, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.  

We offer seminars and at home complete courses. 

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Loretta Lynch Interview Part 2



Talking about the meeting (starts with question cut out)

Lynch: It was still 107 degrees outside. Umm and I was told he wanted to come on the plane and say hello, umm and 

This is part two of the analysis of Loretta Lynch's interview with Lester Holt.  In Part One, Lynch was indicated for deception.  Her specific strategy was evasion, using tangents as tactics. 

Her intellect and verbosity indicate a "Filibuster" deceiver; that is one who will talk through questions, avoid answering them, and when confronted with inconsistencies or outright deception, will appear impervious to reason and continue to introduce new, unrelated topics. 

Here we see this small tactic introducing the weather.  This is another indication of intellect.  

Deceptive people are counting on their audience to interpret their words. 

 Here she does the same:  

'I only talked with former President Bill Clinton because saying 'hi'
 outside where the press was near, was inconvenient due to the excessive heat.'

There are two basic strategies that are successfully used against Filibuster deceivers. 

The first is to let them go on indefinitely, which will produce much information later, including potential attendant crime information. This is time consuming, and requires patience with a later commitment to thoroughly analyze the transcript.  This analysis alone, for example, of a "15 minute rant", can consume 6 hours or more of analysis.  

In law enforcement in which time is limited, a different methodology is used, including strategic patience and confrontation.  For Lester Holt, this would have meant saying to her,

"I asked you why you told Director Comey to change his wording from 'investigation' to 'matter' and you did not answer the question, instead you introduced...why did you need to avoid answering?" 

This takes skilled listening and even some live training for those well trained in Statement Analysis in which audio without transcripts are used, and intensity is used in the exercise where they flag pronouns and sensitivity indicators.  It is stress inducing and it works.  

In her answer, she uses passivity ("I was told") which conceals the identity of the speaker (which may be appropriate dependent upon circumstances) and then introduced the weather as her tangent.  She  claimed he wanted to say 'hi' which is, in context of what happened, a use of "technical truth" to deceive the audience into believing it was a personal, non professional discussion. 

This is similar to the clever child who ate three cookies and told his mother, "I ate one cookie."  

In eating three cookies, it is true that he ate one cookie.  This type of intelligence, when seen in a child is alarming, but if unchecked, will lead to danger for society. 

Holt: Did a part of you go oh no no no no, turn him around?

He heard the passivity, which not only concealed the identity of the speaker, but put the burden of responsibly upon President Clinton in a subtle manner.  

Here, Holt asks a plain question:  'You know this is wrong to speak to the husband of a target of a criminal investigation, so did you say 'no' to the person?'

Yet, that is not what he said. 

We know and are known, even by the questions we ask.  Analytical Interview training is for those trained in Statement Analysis and teaches them to ask open ended, legally sound questions and to use the language of the subject.  

Here, Holt indicates to us (the unintended recipient of information) that he recognizes corruption within his subject.  He asked if only a "part" of her say 'no', with the word 'no' unnecessarily repeated. This is to reveal:

a.  Holt knew this was unethical
b.  Holt knew his subject, Lynch, was compromised in some manner
c.  Holt knew his subject was also conflicted; a "part" of her knowing right from wrong. 

This is a poorly worded question and is more of a "plea" than a question.  

This is not lost on the subject, who began with the habit of speech, "You know", which means her awareness of his presence (intended recipient) and the presence of the TV camera (unintended recipient; the nation) has become acute due to this question. 

The question is, "Did a part of you say 'no' to this meeting?"

Lynch:  You know, at first, my thought was, you know I speak to people all the time. Ah..people in public life people not in public life (interrupted)

a.  "You know" shows increase of sensitivity to this question
b.  "at first" is a numeric, indicating that logic may be at play, and we should expect subsequent and tertiary thoughts or answers. 
c.  "you know" is repeated.  The question was so difficult that it has produced this habit of speech, which is now used to stall to allow the brain to reset and think what words to use.  This is, in a sense, a disruption.  
d.  "I speak to people all the time" introduces the "crowd sourcing" element and is another tangent.

She speaks to people all the time, but how often does she speak in 107 degree temperature to the former President of the United States while his wife, running for President of the United States, is under criminal investigation?

This is thus the "Normal Factor" in Statement Analysis. 

Lesson:  

The "Normal Factor" indicates anything but normal.  Some examples:

a.  Allegation:  Child Sexual abuse.  

Statement:  "I am a normal married man."

When a person calls himself or herself "normal", it indicates that either the person, or others, has considered than not normal. 

"Married man" is to say that pedophile cannot be indicated due to the sexual relationship within marriage. 

This short response is indicative of guilt. 

b.  Allegation:  Work Place Theft

"I went to work at 9am and did my usual chores until lunch time.  Then, at 12 noon I ate lunch and at 12:30, I..."

By "normalizing" the period of time between 9 and Noon, the subject has indicated a "need to appear normal" meaning that during this time period, something "not normal" happened.

c.  Allegation:  Homicide

"I was taking to her like I aways talk to her."

Particularly in domestic homicide, the conversation that preceded the assault is often what gives us the guilt. "Like I always talk to her" is to say, "This conversation was normal" indicating the need to normalize which tells us:  it was not normal.

Remember the children's story telling hour, 

"Once upon a time, he woke up and it was a day just like every other day..." which causes the children to sit up and pay attention because something "not normal" is about to happen. 

Loretta Lynch has just indicated that this meeting was unique and unlike all the other "people" she has spoken with. 



HOLT: Interrupts her – right but his wife was under investigation by the justice department

Holt does not buy into "normalcy" of the subject's wording. 

Lynch: (continuing speaking during question) ordinary citizens

She introduced the weather, she introduced people, and now she uses "ordinary citizens" which reveals her own elitist status as well as the elitist meeting with the former U.S. President. 

(Interview video interrupted by commentary.  The actual transcripts should be by now subpoenaed for investigation) 

Holt: Did you have any moment where you said, Mr. President, this is probably not appropriate or this is gonna look bad?

Holt does not let it go.  She introduces tangents (weather, people, 'ordinary citizens') but he goes back to what a "part of her" would have to recognize.  



Lynch: Well I will say in the course of the conversation we spoke and it seemed like we were going to say hello how are you and move on. Ah, and then the conversation would..would continue.

a.  First she begins with another pause ("well") to collect her thoughts.  She indicates sensitivity to this basic assertion of only the appearance of impropriety.  

b.  She used the pronoun "we" to unite herself to Bill Clinton under specific context (saying hello)

c. She reported what "seemed like" which now tells us that the actual is different from the appearance. 

d.  She then indicates deception by breaking linguistic commitment of past tense verbs.  

She is slowing down the pace to avoid the inner confrontation (and legal consequence) of direct deception. 

She has, thus far, successfully avoided the question.  

(Holt interrupts) Holt: In this hyper-partisan environment we’re in did you ever once considered recusing yourself from the Clinton Investigation?

This is a "yes or no" question borne of frustration at her refusal to answer a question.  

Lynch: Well that’s always an issue. 

a.  She does not answer the question
b.  She pauses again
c.  She reports what "always" is an issue, which avoids the context of the question:  This was a past event. A reliable answer must use past tense verbs. 


As I said at the time 

Here we have a self reference.  This means she is avoiding giving a current opinion, instead using memory of what she previously said. This is another indicator of one who must keep track of one's own words, rather than work from experiential memory in the free editing process. 


I knew it was going to raise questions in peoples minds.

She reports what she "knew" and then introduces "peoples' minds", with "people" entering her answer.

Question:  Did the subject debate with her boss, President Obama, about recusal?


 So what you do is you always consult the legal experts. You always get a legal answer as to whether or not recusal is required. 

The pronoun change is significant. She was asked about herself, not about "you" (others). 

This topic, which she attempts to distance herself from ("that") is so acutely sensitive, that she must now "universalize it" by taking it from herself, and the past tense, to the present tense of "all people", universally, who are legal authorities and meet with former Presidents of the United States while their wives are under criminal investigation. 

This is very likely more than just "deception indicated" but may be related to the protection of her own boss, and her own unwillingness to take responsibility. 

This simple legal decision (a 'no brainer') is an embarrassment to her.  

She cannot bring herself to say, "I asked the legal authorities" which would be humiliating to her. 

Instead, she uses deception which, itself, is not challenging to discern. 

The pronoun "you" is used when something is commonly done, or universally done. 

It sounds contrived because it is contrived. 

Q.  "Did you rob the First National bank on Friday at 2pm under gunpoint?

A.  "You don't rob banks..."

This subect cannot say, "I did not rob the bank."  

Can Loretta Lynch say, "I followed the advice of legal experts"?


Umm, and had it been that’s what I would have done.

She did not. 

She describes the Tarmac Meeting with President Clinton as if it was a hypothetical event.  

Deception Indicated. 

(Interview video interrupted by commentary)

Holt: Rod Rosenstein wrote in his memo recommending Comey’s dismissal that he was wrong to usurp the attorney general’s authority on July 5th, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case, the Clinton case, should be closed without prosecution. Was Comey wrong, did he usurp your authority?

This is a "yes or no" question.  Director Comey laid out the crimes committed and the findings.  Then he added that although she was guilty of these things, she didn't "intend" to commit these crimes. 

Intention:  a 19 year old Navy sailor was assigned to a submarine.  He took pictures on his iPhone of how "cool" it was and sent them to his family.  Investigators found no sharing of information nor contact with foreign governments, hostile actors within the United States, or anyone outside his family.  He spent one year in federal prison.  

Lynch: Well it certainly was an unusual move. Ah, it was.. It was a different.. ah, way to deliver a recommendation to the attorney general. Ah, I had not had any of my other law enforcement agencies deliver a recommendation in a case to me in that way.. before.

(Holt interrupts) Holt: Unusual but it was either right or wrong..was it right or wrong?

He has failed to get her to commit to any ethical or legal standpoint and presses.  

Lynch: .. And well I think he’s going to have to speak to, ah, to why he took those actions.  

She avoids answering the question again.  

Holt: What was your reaction when you heard Comey had been fired?

Lynch: … Well, you know, I was, I think I was as surprised as, ah any American. You know I don’t know the circumstances behind it, and that (Holt interrupts her).

a.  "well" sensitivity point to pause
b.  "you know" sensitivity point to pause
c.  "I was" is now interrupted (self censoring)
d.  "I think" is a weak assertion rather than reliably report her emotion as "surprised"
e.  "any any American" is to employ the Normal Factor, and the crowd. 

Conclusion:  She was not surprised.  

Holt: Did you at any point wish that he’d been fired?

This is a better question.  Comey refused to submit to changing the wording of "investigation" to "matter" and circumvented her to make this public announcement rather than allow her to.  

Holt recognizes the personal insult (or impact) to Lynch. 

Note what it produces:


Lynch: No, I..I ..I think that, ah, umm, you know the FBI director as well as well as the other leaders of the, of the law enforcement agencies of the department carried out their, their tremendous responsibilities under a great deal of pressure.


a, "No" should have been left alone.  
b.  "I, I, I" is the "stuttering I of stress. We use the pronoun "I" millions of times and are experts at using it.  When one stutters on "I" it is an increase of stress and often anxiety.  The more stuttering on I (from a non stutterer) the greater the anxiety.  If it hits 6 or more, it is generally only found in a personal close homicide and the subject is likely to be hospitalized with a nervous breakdown. 

c.  Note she then includes "other leaders" in her response, which then 'crowd sources' her answer, as she did prior. 

We see that the immediate psychological distancing from James Comey in both the language and in the need to "bring in others" to water down or "hide" him in a crowed.  

This is contempt of James Comey and it was what Holt likely sensed in the interview.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Loretta Lynch would not pass a polygraph.  

Loretta Lynch "filibustered" the questions rather than answer them. This is her mode of operation and should be expected to be seen in upcoming investigations. 

Her contempt for James Comey may be something that a prosecutor (grand jury) will use to get her to testify against him in this conflict. 

Comey gave a list of the crimes committed and in doing so, indicated Hillary Clinton of lying about confidential information. 

President Obama was asked when he learned that Hillary set up a private server.  The analysis showed Deception Indicted" as he claimed to "just" find out when "everyone else" did.  We later learned that he and Loretta Lynch used fake names to email her.  

This is backdrop which may help readers understand the stress of this meeting and the anxiety produced by James Comey.  

Did President Clinton threaten both Loretta Lynch and President Obama, should Hillary be indicted? 

The meeting with President Clinton its a source of great stress and anxiety for Loretta Lynch, who normally speaks with fluidity and command of thought.  How ever much she may resent the Clintons for putting so many government officials in difficult places, the contempt for Director Comey may be even deeper and one that may become a factor in future indictments.  She may seem him as not a team player and a rogue to be punished.  





Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Loretta Lynch Interview On "Matter"

Here is an exert from the Loretta Lynch interview with Lester Holt.

Will she be truthful? 


LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS: James Comey was testifying before Congress in June of last year and he had noted that you had asked him to call the Clinton probe a 'matter,' not an investigation. But he said it made him feel -- I'm paraphrasing -- it made him feel strange. He noted it. What did you mean when you said, 'Let's call it a matter and not an investigation?'


the question is, "What did you mean...?" 

LORETTA LYNCH, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: 

Well, I had heard about that testimony. ___ Didn't watch it at the time. 

The question is plain:  what did you mean by calling an investigation a "matter", which is to employ minimization.  

The subject begins with a "pause" meaning she needs time to think.  This is interesting in that she went into the interview knowing the basic questions. 

Note that __ "didn't watch it at the time" (the audio does not sound like the pronoun "I" is used") answers a question not posed:

when did you not watch it?

She was asked a question about the meaning of a word in in less than a micro second of time, this highly intelligent and highly educated subject went to the element of "time" instead. 

This makes time or timing very important to her. It is not important to know when she watched or heard the interview.  This is to avoid answering the question and is insight into her method of avoidance. 

She then gives a self rebuttal of when she did not watch the testimony: 


But it was brought to my attention later 

The timing is used by her to both raise a question, "When?" and answer it.  Why?

Next notice that she uses passivity to avoid telling us "who" brought this to her attention. 

This is information of no interest to the audience.  The question is about telling Director James Comey to change the wording of "investigation" to "matter", not "when did you hear this?, when did you not hear this?  who told you what Comey said?" and so on. 

This is a significant departure from the question and she is using "filler", that is, seemingly unconnected or insignificant information to stall for time. 

"was brought to my attention" is passive voice, which is consistent with the psychological departure with the dropped pronoun "I" here. 

Future prosecution or investigators should learn this subject's method of answering sensitive questions prior to a formal investigation. 


and people were raising it to me 

Not only does she conceal who told her that Director Comey reported this, but that she now tells us that "people", also unidentified, were "raising it" to her.  

She continues to avoid the question.  

and my first response was where -- what was the issue here? 

Although she had the need to tell us when she did not watch his testimony but the need to tell us that someone, unidentified and "people", also unidentified, were raising "it" (the issue?, or the time of the statement?) to her and that she had more than one response.  

We believe her.  We believe she will have more than one answer prepared. With "first" we look for "second" and so on. Without such, we recognize the numeric use is not logic in play (thinking sequentially) but another use of deception via tangent and filibustering). 

A truthful person can only tell us what they remember.  Besides the need to avoid the question, employ passivity, we now are given a linguistic indicator of suppression of memory: 


I remember specifically talking to him, 

This is an indication that she is withholding information.  It is to be expected that when she met with James Comey, as Director of the FBI who was investigating Hillary Clinton for, at minimum, the setting up and use of an illegal server and the transmission of private, sensitive and classified information.  It is not unexpected to "remember" said meeting. 

It is interesting that she was "taking to him" which indicates that at "first", it was one-way communication.  


as we talked about sensitive things on a number of occasions. 

This is very likely a truthful statement and it is to still avoid answering the question of "What did you mean...?"

She now moves away from the specific meeting, which took place in time, which is connected to linguistically by the past tense verb, "we met" or "we discussed":  

We often would have to discuss sensitive matters, sensitive issues, terrorism and the like, you know, terrorism policy and the like.

The question is about changing the language from "investigation" to "matter" of which she now introduces:

a.  what she "remembers" *(unnecessary word)
b.  sensitive "matters" (note the word)
c.  sensitive issues
d.  terrorism
e.  terrorism policy
f.  the like

This is to employ the deceptive tool of "filibuster" where one will talk and talk, to avoid yielding direct information.  Yet, patient interviewing and the refusal to allow one to not answer, yields far more information due to the inclusion of unnecessary information. 

We can note her need to bring a tangent. 
We can note her pronoun use of "we" to unite herself to James Comey, of whom she is in opposition to in this context.  Comey stated that her change of wording made him uncomfortable. 

Regardless of avoidance, the change of wording to minimize the criminal investigation to a "matter" is still the topic:  

This was a very sensitive investigation as everyone knew. 

It bothers her, as we see with the word "this"; indicating cognizance  which is required for the use of a tangent:  one must know what one is in need of avoiding. 

Before, she leaked the word "matter" but now it is "investigation" (the election is over) and she seeks to quickly agree with the public: 

"as everyone knew."

This is a form of ingratiation. She is aware of the audience ("you know") which is the nation watching. She is acutely aware of how this was not a "matter" but one of which the level of criminality remains unknown, outside of "Bleach Bit" data erasing, and the physical destruction of hard drives, lap tops and cell phones.  

"we" now becomes "he and I" as she uses body posture;  


And the issue when he and I sat down at that time, 

"when" and "that" are elements of both time and distancing language and "sat" is to give body posture.  

This is to indicate an increase of tension.  This "tension" ejected "we" and while body posture is given the 
"we" becomes "he and I."



which I think was early in the fall of 2015, 

Now we know why the element of time was critical to her.  


was whether or not we were ready as a Department to confirm an investigation going on, 

She uses "we" but "as a Department" defines who "we" is:  not Comey but the Dept. of Justice. 

This is most significant.

She is not denying "matter" but wishes to portray "time" as the cause of the change of language.  It was a "very serious investigation" as "everyone knows" but it, over time, became a "matter."  

This is an attempt to avoid direct lying and to avoid accusing James Comey of lying.  

As if the language just changed.  

Comey alleged that she ordered him to change his statement on the Hillary Clinton investigation from "investigation" to "matter."

She met with Hillary Clinton's husband on a tarmac and both were deceptive about the meeting itself and the content. 

Here, she is accused of ordering Comey to change the wording from "investigation" regarding the person of whom all believed, including media, would be both her and his next boss. 

We next get the "normal" factor in analysis.  This is where a subject has the need to "normalize" something because it was anything but normal:  


when we typically do not confirm or deny investigations into anything with rare exceptions.

She did not answer the question. 
She used:

a. passivity 
b. tangents 

Deception Indicated

By not answering the question, she has answered the question.  The interviewer did not ask about "terrorism" (the threat to the nation) but returned to the question skirted:  

HOLT: But Comey says you wanted to call it the 'Clinton matter,' he wants to call it the Clinton investigation. To the extent though that he noted it, that it bothered him, did he go to you and question your credibility with regard to the Clinton case?

LYNCH: I can tell you though that it was a meeting like any other that we had, where we talked about the issues. We had a full and open discussion about it.

a.  "I can tell you" is to say that she is limited in what she is saying
b.  Recall how this fits with, "I remember"
c.  She is likely to use "I don't remember" and "I don't recall" as formal answers in an investigation.  

It was a "meeting like any other."

This is something that children first being taught to read recognize. We flag it in Statement Analysis as:

"Once upon a time, it was a day just like every other day..." which causes the children's attention to immediately increase as they know, "something unlike every other day" is about to be read to us. 

This is what police call "story telling" and what analysts call, "Narrative building."

Her need to normalize this meeting tells us just how unique and memorable this meeting was. 

HOLT: He didn't raise any concerns about it?

LYNCH: Concerns were not raised.

Here the passive "concerns were not raised" conceals the identity of the one who raised the concerns; James Comey. This allowed the subject to not directly accuse him of lying and in her statement, she invites him to "remember" it as one of many meetings and only "dating" of it might be "off."



Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated. 

Did you notice she never answered the question?

This is a very intelligent liar who has had much time to consider what technique to use.  In a sense, the employment of "time" may be considered "Clintonesque" as it attempts to avoid the direct confrontation of lying, while attempting to convolute the flow of information by adding in terrorism, and other tangents.

The Filibuster Liar 

This is insight into how Loretta Lynch will respond to a special counsel investigation into the entire scandal. 

This is a committed and intelligent deceiver who will attempt, whenever possible, to lead an investigator into tangents and filibuster questions.  

The investigation interview and interrogation methodology will be both strategic patience and aggressive interrogation.  The investigators are very likely to see a subject unmoved by contradiction.  

This, itself, can unnerve an investigator as it defies reason or logic, something we have been created to embrace.  

The training and preparation involved should include mock interviews of "filibuster" types who often irritate and frustrate their way into plea bargains rather than face justice. Filibuster liars are often very intelligent and very "quick on their feet", but also often show low or little affect when confronted with their lies. 

For training in Deception Detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

up next:  more of the interview regarding the Tarmac