Sunday, September 21, 2014

Prozac and Body Language

Since the 1960's, there has been a great increase in the use of psychotropic medications in the United States.

As a Statement Analyst, my concern is language, rather than body language.  Over the years, we have covered many cases in Statement Analysis and as readers are familiar with, the results are predictably accurate.

Avinoam Sapir, from LSI, is, in my own terminology, the 'grandfather' of all Statement Analysis.  Yes, we have early German research, just as we have Solomonic examples from antiquity.  No, Mr. Sapir did not invent careful listening, but he is the genius behind the ability to synthesize the information we have, and, also true, he has found "novelties", that is, discoveries within research that has entered into statistical principle.  To read more about him, or to take his online course, see: 

A recent example of observation and innovation is in Mark McClish's research into the number "three."

Decades in law enforcement (retiring from the US Federal Marshals), it's fair to say that he was one of the "best and brightest" who was dedicated to his profession, and did not jump ship to the private sector, where more money would be found.

Somewhere along the line, he noted that when a deceptive person has to choose a number between 1 and 9, they seem to land on...


Unless, of course, they are pulled over by a police officer and asked, "How many drinks have you had?" in which the most common answer seems to be, "just two, officer."  (You already know the teaching on the reductive word, "two" in Statement Analysis).

This is not part of the SCAN (scientific content analysis) method, but it is fascinating.  Mark does not teach that if someone says "I was robbed by three youths" that it is a lie.  What he is saying is this:

if the number 3 is used, verify it.

3 men broke into Charlie Rogers house, tied her up, carved hate slogans into her flesh, set her house on fire, and ran off.

Charlie Rogers was convicted of this "fake hate" crime.

Recently, Heather said that she has been guilty of lying with the number 3, and felt that she understood why.

She said that her father would nag her about calling her grandmother, and if Heather was overrun with work, kids, homework, and so forth, and forgot to call, and felt pressure by him, she lied and said, "I tried calling her three times!" only to later say that she lied.  (she loves her Grammie; only that she gets so busy).

She said, "I think I know why I chose three.  It feels like if I say that I only tried twice, it doesn't sound like much of an effort, but if I say four times, it sounds excessive."

Lying is wrong, and Statement Analysis teaching often reveals little things like this, within ourselves, "Honest to God" , it does.

I found that I had been raised to be a polite liar.  "Truthfully, Aunt Polly Purebread, your blue hair looks wonderful!" was part of my vocabulary.  Years ago, in studying Statement Analysis, I learned this truth about myself, and have undone the habit.

Mark asked that students of Statement Analysis refer examples to him.  In my own work, I have found it to be so.  "Just had 3 boats chasing us" (Tiffany Hartley).  Yes, 3 men might rob someone on the 3rd floor at 3 o'clock, but I do note when the number arises, and give it consideration.

Statement Analysis, as a generic term, comes from the work of Avinoam Sapir, who strongly teaches to stay focused upon the language, and let the subject guide you.

"The subject is dead; the statement is alive", meaning, do not concern yourself with his eye brows, or his leg twitch.  The subject, himself, will guide us by the words his brain chooses.

Recently, in an automated email news letter, Dr.  of "Lie to Me" fame, wrote that he will not declare someone being truthful or deceptive unless he, himself, conducts the interview.

I was surprised at this.

Statement Analysis is a scientific process, meaning that the principles, often based within statistical ranges, are applied evenly, with the expectation of similar results.

I was recently pulled over by a police officer for speeding.

I was not speeding.

I was doing 38mph in a 35 zone, that blended into a 45 mph zone.

I know my speed because I looked at it when I saw him and the sign that said 45mph.

He followed me into the crossover, and I stayed at 40-41 mph, but became concerned that I was annoying him and was going to pull over to let him pass when he flashed his lights.

He said, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

I said, "I do not"

He said, "You were doing 45 in a 35 zone."

I said "I did not.  I was going under 45 in the 45 zone."

He said, "No, I got you on the radar. "

He asked for license and registration.  I asked for permission to unbuckle my seatbelt to reach into the back for the new registration (company vehicle).  He granted it.  He went back to his vehicle.

Recently, a friend of the officer had left the police department (small) and taken a job where he met someone who is known for juvenile antics such as letting the air out of someone's car, or attempting to entice teenagers to fight, Halloween pranks, and that sort of thing.  4 days prior to being pulled over, someone jokingly said, "Hey, you heard about him leaving the department?  Well, watch out for his buddies.  He's your competitor and you know he might be pressured into getting his buddies to harass you..."

The implication was clear:  juvenile-like harassment by a young police officer who might not realize that he could be putting his career on the line for something foolish that his buddy wants him to do, on behalf of another.

I took the warning to heart, knowing a bit more about the culture of this small town I am living in  than I used to.

The officer returned to my car and picked up the debate about my speed.  I live very close to the 35mph to 45mph change, and would have to accelerate quite a bit to speed, as the 35 to 45 is very close.

I said to him, "Officer, do you know where I live?"  

As I said this, I strained over my left shoulder to look him right in the face.  I'm not a body language expert, but I wanted to not only listen to his response to the "yes or no" question, I wanted to see his reaction.  Here, even while I talk down the consistency of body language analysis.

He said "Uh, do I know where you live?  Uh, no."  He then read the license and repeated it back. I noted not only did he repeat the question (sensitivity indicator) but he had a cause to pause.  When a question is answered by a question, it is an indication of sensitivity to the question.  He did not appear to like being asked this simple question.

"Well you know then that living so close to the 45, I would have had to really sped up to go 45 so quickly."

He said "Oh, I had you on radar, much earlier than that.  In fact, I had you before the mill."

I did not respond.  He handed me the written warning, which did not have the spot for speed number filled in.  I was not speeding.  He wanted me to thank him for not ticketing me.  I did not.

As he stared waiting for me to respond, I said,

"Yeah.  I live after the mill, not before."

I recognize that people study body language, and that Dr. Ekman did much research into the micro expression. I have enjoyed reading his books.

I did see this young  officer's face twitch when I asked him if he knew where I lived, and saw him raise one hand to his mouth.

I also recognize that with the dramatic increase in popularity of psychotropic medications and even while interviewing children, I found an increasing number of them on prescribed medications of varying sorts.

Leg twitches, often a signal of nervous energy, might be impacted by the medication.  Face movements are impacted by Parkinson medications.

In short, not only is the study of body language something that cannot produce consistent results, but the impact of psychotropics cannot be underestimated by anyone seeking truth.  I recognize that the show "Lie To Me was entertaining, and that it produced lots and lots of new "experts" but its own founder says that he will not pull the trigger on an interview, even if video taped, unless he conducts it, should speak volumes.

In Statement Analysis, we can mail (or email) the transcripts of the interview to a analyst in Maine, California, Hawaii and Russia, and all get the same results.

I do not know if Prozac will impact the face expression, or if Ritilin will speed up a reaction, or if Ativan will slow it down.  I don't know what some of these meds are doing to children.   I worry over the health of these children, especially those who seem to have no ability to sit still or concentrate.

In fact, I will go a step further and this step is to step away, to get a larger picture, and openly wonder how medications might impact language, therefore, remembering Mr. Sapir's charge:  Do not conclude deception on a single indicator of sensitivity.

Many adults state that they have been helped by psychotropic medications, of which I am glad to hear.  Life is difficult enough and if their doctor has lawfully found a solution, and the health improves, it is good news.

I would like to know:  has psychotropic medications impacted your body language?  If so, would you be willing to describe any such impact in our comments section?

How about speech?  We know the saying, "en vino veritas", that is, with the drinking of wine, the truth may emerge.  Or, "Ale is the grease of theology", with the same principle of "wine cheereth the heart of man", and impact.

Have you noticed anything different in your speech, and body language, before and after being prescribed?

It would be a help in furthering understanding.

We are hoping to expand our Statement Analysis services to include audio files, transcription services, and  online courses available via download.

If you would like to help:


Saturday, September 20, 2014

Law Enforcement and The Reliable Denial

                                                             by Peter Hyatt

In assisting law enforcement, or in actual trainings, it is often difficult to get the common patrol officer to accept the basic principle of the Reliable Denial.

The Reliable Denial exists of three components:

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

Principle:  People will rarely ever lie outright.

This is not due always to a tender conscience.  Even a sociopath will likely avoid a direct lie.  The brain protects itself from being accused of lying.  From childhood, such things as:

I.  "Didn't do it!  Didn't steal the money!" indicates an unwillingness to use the pronoun "I" and go directly against the truth, setting oneself up for the accusation of a lie.  In this example, the pronoun "I" is dropped.  This violates principle element number one:  the pronoun "I"

II.  "I would never hit her!" violates principle element number two:  the past tense verb.  "Wouldn't" is to avoid using "did not" or "didn't" in the denial.  "I never killed nobody."  "Never" is not to be accepted as "did not" or "didn't."

III.  "I did not harm that child!" in a child murder case.  The child was not "harmed" but murdered.  This violates principle element number three.

Q.  Why is it difficult in law enforcement to accept this principle?

Answer in two parts:

1.  It is difficult to get investigators, civil or criminal, to accept this principle.  It often seems too easy, and often takes months for the trainee to practice this principle and see it in action.  Often, the listener  will "interpret" the words, rather than listen.  The more honest the Interviewer, the more likely the Interviewer will interpret the words chosen, rather than listen.  Statement Analysis believes what one tells us, and knows the subject will guide us to the truth.

2.  It is difficult for rank and file patrol officers to accept this principle due to the fact that they are called into situations, sometimes all day or all night, where subjects are not truthful.  This becomes the expectation for them, and it is easier to simply dismiss all as telling the truth.

This is a challenge that is unique to law enforcement, though, in some locales, child protective caseworkers, who deal with horrific child abuse cases, in large volume, can also become jaded into believing "everyone is lying" to them. In child abuse cases, the principle element number three is actually the most common unreliable denial heard, as the brain immediately protects itself and the parent will minimize the abuse or the impact of abuse.  It is very difficult for a parent to accept the term "abuse" or even "neglect"

"I am a wonderful parent!" is often declared, even as the guilt builds.

Law enforcement, due to this natural placement, must not only receive strong training, but be repeatedly challenged with rehearsal; eventually, it will become intuitive and second nature.  Not only will valuable time be saved, but efficiency, in knowing the guilty from the innocent, will be produced.

The following is an interview about drug use on the job.  The subject was intelligent, and had a very strong personality, with very convincing body language, including good, but not over done eye contact, and a pleading within his words.

Statement Analysis is a science.  It avoids the emotions within a statement, including the subject's bearing and personality, and looks at what words his brain chooses in less than a micro second.

"The allegation is that you smoked pot on the job."

A.  "That is ridiculous.  I don't know who would say that about me.  Do you think, that even for a minute, I would put my job in jeopardy?  I have been with this company for years.  I work overtime when asked, and even stay late to help others without pay.  I am a devoted, honest, and good employee.  I am concerned about discrimination  against me because of my sexual orientation.  Perhaps I need to speak to someone from Human Rights, or even an attorney."

Q.  "How do you speak to the allegation?"

A.  "How do I speak to the allegation?  How does anyone speak to something so utterly false, so accusatory, and so terribly unfair?"

Q.  "Yes, what do you answer to the allegation?"

A.  "My answer is this.  I will say this to you, and say it to a judge, a lawyer, or to the Human Rights Commission.  I will not be discriminated against.  Not by you, or anyone else.  No one has given more of himself to this company than I have."

Q.  You have still to answer the question.

A.  "I have answered it!  It didn't happen!  I want to know who has made this accusation!"

You should have noticed that "it didn't happen" is a violation of the principles of the Reliable Denial, and that this subject has, passionately, avoided using the simple words, "I didn't do it..." in his responses.

This went on for some time.  I finally pointed out that he has not been able or willing to give me an answer.  I said that he was reported to have smelled of marijuana.

A.  "I am going to be honest with you, Peter.  I am.  I have a disability that you may not know of, and the only relief I have is the medical use of marijuana.  My doctor, along with specialists, have done years of testing on me, and are working on getting me a legal prescription.  But I am talking about my private, medical records, which is not for you to be going into like you are now.  I am very concerned that you are violating my private medical records right now, Peter."

Q.  "I am glad you are going to be honest with me.  I did not ask you about your medical condition.  We are a substance abuse company, with zero tolerance.  Did you smoke marijuana last night, while on the job?"

A.  "I am going to be honest with you, Peter.  I need you to hear me clearly, and then we are done talking about it, unless you want me to bring in my attorney. 

Q.  "I am fine with you brining in an attorney.  Would you like to call one now?  We can stop here."

A.  "No, I am going to be honest.  Listen, I did not smoke marijuana in your company, Peter."

Here we have a chance to validate the principle of the Reliable Denial

The Reliable Denial consists of three components.  Where there are less than three, or more than three, the denial is deemed:  Unreliable.

Q.  "Did you go for a walk last night?"

A.  (silence)

The subject was caught, confessed, and pleaded for his job.

The simple words "in your company" told me that he had left the premises.  The lengthy interview produced a confession, not just an admission.  The confession includes acknowledgment that what was done was wrong.  An admission will say "I did it" but without responsibility or remorse.  One recently said, "yeah, I did it, but why am I the only one caught?"

This subject, like so many today, was not only unwilling to say he didn't do it, but put up two significant diversions:  threatened suits over discrimination, and a violation of medical privacy laws.  Neither was true, but it showed the desperate mind, unwilling to lie outright, for fear of being caught. In his words, there is no direct lie.

People rarely lie outright.

In an hour and half interview, with the subject speaking 80% of the time, where the subject does not say "I didn't do it", there is a reason why the subject is unwilling or unable to say it.

We are not, therefore, permitted to say it for him.

When I interview someone, I take careful notes, and often read back quotes.  Interviewees are put at ease knowing that I will not lie, nor twist their words.   It is something I teach in seminars that help break down the resistance of a liar, and leads to more confessions.  It is a step by step process.

When someone, like a patrol officer who is constantly exposed to liars, learns and embraces the principle of the Reliable Denial, they become a fine tuned instrument for justice.  They are equipped to get answers, and clear the innocent, all with great time savings and efficiency.

It is "win-win."

It is difficult for anyone to accept a principle this simple, but more challenging for someone who hears deceptive people all day long.

In the two day seminar, I use "on the fly " interviews where I falsely accuse someone of taking my wallet during break.  It never fails to impress how analytical interview not only recognizes the RD, but how it uses the language of the subject.

When I say to an attendee, "Tell me about your morning...", the air becomes electric as the back and forth banter reveals content.

When I demonstrate to them, in case after case after case, how Reliable Denials were always missing from...Lance Armstrong, and celebrities like him, who have spent hours and hours giving interviews, they are convinced.

It is dynamic and exciting, but mostly...

it works.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

He Said; She Said; But He Should Have Shut Up

who do you believe in this "he said; she said" dilemma?

I won't even bother to put up a poll.  Statement Analysis added in bold type.

Hedge-funder’s defense in ‘grope’ case: I never grabbed her


He says he’s a connoisseur of the “ass grab” — but this waitress just wasn’t on his menu.
A wealthy hedge-fund titan made a bungled attempt to defend himself against a claim that he fondled a waitress at a trendy Soho restaurant, by bizarrely bragging that he gropes other women all the time.
I’ve grabbed plenty of girls’ asses in my life,” Brian H. Lederman boasted to The Post. “But I’ve never grabbed hers.”
In Statement Analysis, we recognize that "never" is not a legitimate substitute for "did not" unless asked, "Did you ever...?"  Here, the groping happened once, on a specific night, to a specific person, and is not a vague, "ever" situation.  This is to be deemed:  Unreliable. 
The married moneyman went on the defensive Tuesday after server Laura Ramadei made a tell-all Facebook post saying he ogled her like a piece of meat as he fondled her derriere at Lucky Strike on Grand Street.
When I asked you and your companion if you’d be eating, or needing anything else from me, you put your hand — ever so gently — ON MY ASS and asked if you could take me ‘to go,’ ” the 29-year-old wrote, adding that he left only a $2 tip.
Note the past tense language, as well as the inclusion of the pronouns.  This is strong.  
Lederman, a 57-year-old managing director at Swiss Performance Management & Fiduciary, angrily denied any physical contact — and threatened to sue Ramadei for defamation.
Modal Trigger
Laura Ramadei
But he didn’t help his case much by admitting he made a boorish comment toward her.
I clearly remember making a joke when the girl said, ‘What would you like,’ ” he said. “I kiddingly said, ‘I would like you to go with nothing on it.’ 
Note that a truthful person can only tell us what they do remember.  Here he "clearly" remembers. 
He said he was furious that she claimed he did more than spew sleaze.
“That f–king c–t, for her to do something like that is pretty ridiculous,” he told The Post.
There are two indicators that should be noted here:
1.  The need to ridicule the alleged victim
2.  The unreliable denial of "never"
Please also note the use of the word "that", which is distancing language.  
The obvious character flaws, as seen in his language and admission, will cause many to believe the female, however, Statement Analysis gives us other reasons:
He is unreliable in language while she is reliable.  
He then threatened to make sure she doesn’t serve lunch in this town again.
I will make sure she doesn’t get another job in New York City. I know everybody,” he raged. “The bar owners, the club owners — that’s a terrible thing to write about somebody.”

He admitted grabbing many others, yet it is a terrible thing to write about "somebody" and not "me."
People do not like to lie outright.  Here we see the same pattern continuing.  
Ramadei, an aspiring actress who helps run an independent theater company, stood by her Facebook post.
He placed what felt like three fingers on my left butt cheek,” she told The Post. “It was very subtle, but it was definite contact.”
This is consistent with what she reported above. 
She posted a picture of the money manager’s $15.24 bar tab on the social network.
Ramadei said she deals with customer harassment all the time working at the noisy bar and posted her story to “raise awareness about how common it is.
Her rant has been shared almost 2,000 times since she posted it on Monday. “It was a small thing, but probably commonplace for women and servers,” she said.

Vehicle Theft: Change in Language

                                             Vehicle Theft:  Change in Language
by Peter Hyatt

I received the following statement about theft of items within a car.

"I used to always lock my car when I was in the other part of town and when I moved to this neighborhood, the neighbor told me that it wasn't necessary and now look what has happened!
I came out to my vehicle this morning and found that the glove box was open and things were strewn around on the seat.  Someone had gone into my vehicle and stole some important papers out of it. 
I would like something done.  This is ridiculous.  
No one thinks that someone is going to go into their car and steal stuff.  Someone did.  Someone went into my vehicle and took really important papers. I asked my lawyer why someone would have stolen these papers and he said that the thief probably thought they were checks or something. "

Note within the statement not simply pronouns, but change in language.

Change in language indicates a change in reality.  This change in reality should be supported within the statement, itself, that is, within the context.

If the change in language is justified within the context of the statement, it is a very strong indication that memory, that is, experiential memory, is in play.

Where there is no contextual change, the analyst should consider that the subject is not working from memory, as language does not change on its own, but that the subject has 'lost track' of the fabrication, since it is not embedded within memory.

What do you find in this statement?

"I used to always lock my car when I was in the other part of town and when I moved to this neighborhood, the neighbor told me that it wasn't necessary and now look what has happened!
I came out to my vehicle this morning and found that the glove box was open and things were strewn around on the seat.  Someone had gone into my vehicle and stole some important papers out of it. 
I would like something done.  This is ridiculous.  
No one thinks that someone is going to go into their car and steal stuff.  Someone did.  Someone went into my vehicle and took really important papers. I asked my lawyer why someone would have stolen these papers and he said that the thief probably thought they were checks or something. "

The common term is "car", and not "vehicle."

"Vehicle" is something more used by law enforcement (this subject is not law enforcement), insurance adjusters, and mechanics.

It was a "car" prior to the theft.

While speaking of it, associated to the theft, it is a "vehicle", which is distancing language.  She did not want it to be her "car" while knowing or believing that someone violated it by entering it.

Even when speaking of others, it is a "car" (note "their cars...") but when she returned to her own car, in the topic of theft, it went back to "my vehicle."

This word change is made by the brain in less than a microsecond.  Some estimate that word choice has a 1 in 1000 chance of being incorrect, but in any case, we know that word choice is highly accurate, and that word change is influenced, first and foremost, by emotion.

Here, the emotion elicited by the thought of someone actually going into her car, and her glove box, so disgusted her, that it caused her brain to 'change' the car into a 'vehicle.'

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Politician Lies Versus Failures

Is it a lie if a politician promises something, but does not deliver?

Or, is there something discernible about the language within the promise that indicates deception?

Remember, the words of President Bush when he said, "Read my lips, no new taxes."

He did not say "I will not raise taxes", using the strong pronoun, "I", rather than the weaker "we" in the statement.

He did, however, weaken the assertion "no new taxes" via the use of emphasis: "read my lips", first, and then secondly, "no new taxes" is passive language, avoiding ownership.

Here is an article from the NY Post on a book exert on the top lies of President Obama.  Some sensitivity will be seen in deliberate repetition of a statement.

A promise, or campaign pledge, is deceptive if the subject does not intend to fulfill it.  Sometimes, this is due to political gridlock or other unforeseen circumstances.

We are looking for that which is propounded without purpose of fulfillment.  We also look for deception via tangent, or "red herring" to be followed away from the issue.

Note these tactics as well as passivity in order to discern.

5 lies that have shaped the Obama presidency

If past presidents are remembered for their signature achievements, Obama will be remembered for his signature lie: “If you like your health care plan blah, blah, blah.” The reader knows the rest. Although the most consequential of Obama’s lies — it got him reelected — it’s far from his only prevarication.
I’ve counted 75 significant lies since his campaign for president began, but that doesn’t begin to tally the casual fibs and hyperbole he spouts seemingly every day. Here are five that illustrate just how much Obama’s presidency is built on falsehoods.

5. “My father left my family when I was 2 years old.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: EPA

Obama made this claim in September 2009, when addressing the nation’s schoolkids. By then, the blogosphere knew that baby Obama had never spent a night under the same roof as his father, let alone two years.
For years, Obama and his advisors invested enormous political capital in what biographer David Remnick called Obama’s “signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.”
Remnick called Obama’s autobiography, “A mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention and artful shaping.” In other words, the truth is never good enough.

4. “The Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program begun under the previous administration.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: WireImage

Obama spun this fiction at a September 2012 Univision forum knowing it was false. In fact, the bizarre, deadly idea to let American guns “walk” into Mexico, where they were used by drug cartels to kill dozens, began in October 2009.
Three months earlier, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney had made the same bogus claim virtually word for word at a press conference and got shot down on national TV. “It began in fall 2009,” corrected White House correspondent Jake Tapper, then with ABC.
Carney refused to acknowledge he lied, and the president continued to lie weeks later. It’s all part of Obama’s ducking of responsibility — it’s always someone else’s fault.

3. “Not even a smidgen of corruption.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: Getty Images

Obama said this in response to Bill O’Reilly’s question about the IRS scandal: “You’re saying no corruption?”
If there were not even a “smidgen of corruption,” as Obama insisted, it is hard to understand what outraged him, or at least seemed to, when news of the IRS scandal first broke. “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” Obama said in May 2013. Obama routinely expressed anger when some new scandal erupted on his watch — IRS, the failed ObamaCare website, the VA scandal, Fast and Furious — but never before had he shoved a scandal down the memory hole so quickly.
And how could Obama know there wasn’t a smidgen of corruption before the investigation was even over? Perhaps because the administration knew that any proof of that was gone with deleted e-mails and destroyed hard drives?

2. “We revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: AP

During that same Super Bowl Sunday interview, Obama made this claim in response to O’Reilly’s inquiry about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. Obama continued to dissemble: “The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes when a week later we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place and the day after I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn’t be a very good coverup.”
In fact, it was exactly a week after the attack, on Sept. 18, that Obama took his first questions about Benghazi. Bizarrely, he did so to David Letterman. “Here’s what happened,” Obama said.
“You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who — who made an extremely offensive video directed at — at Mohammed and Islam.”
We know now that the administration knew this wasn’t true. Not a week later; not even the very night of the attacks.
On many levels, this was Obama’s most telling lie. He only deals with the world as he sees it, not as it is.

1. “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Modal Trigger
Photo: AP

Obama told this whopper to his assembled staff on his first day in office. He promised it to the press. Instead, his administration refuses to hand over documents and Obama refuses to answer questions. As liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley assessed the presidency, “Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
What do these lies, just a sample of many, tell us? Obama never stopped “artfully shaping” his life.
The scary thing is he might actually believe these lies. He believes that posting a shot from his personal photographer online is “transparent.” That targeting conservative groups for audits isn’t corrupt. That everything that has gone wrong with his presidency is Bush’s fault.
Knowing that, how can we believe anything that he says?
Jack Cashill is the author of “You Lie! The Evasions, Omissions, Fabrications, Frauds and Outright Falsehoods of Barack Obama” (Broadside Books), out this week

Saturday, September 13, 2014

October: Domestic Violence Awareness Month

I hate political correctness, the freedoms it seeks to corral,  and the "months" designated for this or that.  Yet, even a broken watch is right, twice a day, and designating a month to raise awareness of Domestic Violence (D/V) sits well with me.

Susan Murphy Milano became a mentor, of sorts, for my work in helping (more than just advocating) for victims of D/V.

Susan was amphetamines on steroids rolled up into a super pit bull of energy all at once.  Her bite was worse than her bark.  People loved her or hated her, and those that hated her, respected her.  If a "spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down", Susan had no time to stop off at the grocery store.  She moved at the speed of sound, and then some.  How cancer ever defeated her can only be explained by faith, as cancer, itself, should have feared Susan, as God knows, I did.  Yet it must have been that Christ, Himself, said, 'I will be without Susan no longer' and summoned His dedicated messengers to yield her to Himself.

Susan fought the good fight.

Her last phone call  haunts me still.

Working two jobs, raising a family, and donating time to D/V victims and Missing Persons cases, I knew that Susan wrongfully thought that everyone else had her ability to jump through hoops without hesitation, sleep, or thought.  She needed me to:

a.  Keep my full time investigatory job;
b.  Keep my Statement Analysis jobs, including trainings
c.  Fly to Chicago to help film a pilot episode for A&E
d.  Go over "20/20" scripts
e.  Edit her new book.  (I did so, bawling my eyes out at each chapter)
f.  and, oh, by the way, discern if so and so is lying to her.  She knows he is, but she wants to make sure.  (Susan was intuitively good at lie detection but could not sit still long enough for formal training.  She should have taught it, instead).
g.  Be on the Dr. Roth Show, another show, and still another...

She needed all of this done, one hour ago, yesterday.

Then, there was this woman she knows, who's boyfriend had blackened her eyes, and I needed to...

This was her dedication to victims of 'intimate partner violence', as she called it.  The entire world was to stop to help a single victim plot her course of safety, and nothing was more important to Susan than the practical preparation for the victim. "Peter, she needs help now!"

Susan did not "protest" Domestic Violence, as if walking around in circles, carrying a sign saying, "We are against Domestic Violence" while people across the street walked in circles, carried signs that said, "We are for Domestic Violence" benefited anyone but a politician.  She knew too much.

She was too sophisticated to buy into any political clap-trap that sounded like protection, but really only profited the politician who sought some nice publicity before women.  "There oughta be a law!" somehow would benefit lawyers, and not women in need.


Susan was too busy getting the victim to find her birth certificate, medical records, toiletries, and other practicalities, to busy herself with self-seeking nonsense.

Victims of Domestic Violence generally do not live in day to day violence.

It isn't necessary.

Once violence occurs, the vicim soon learns how to avoid violence by walking on eggshells, and keeping the controlling abuser satisfied.

She learns to read his face and his body language, as necessity compels her instincts into overdrive.

Susan could spot that look on a woman's face and know.  She knew.

I learned more from her than I wish I had, for, as Solomon said, 'with much knowledge comes much sadness.'  As a husband and father of two daughters, the thought of a man putting his hands on either could drive me to violence.  I was raised with 7 sisters, all successful professionals, and was taught how unmanly it was to ever use my strength against them.  I know this is not taught in schools today, as we are all "equal protoplasmic explosions", but the honoring of women and the use of strength to protect, not harm, is so sorely missed today.  My son in ice hockey will not hit a female, no matter the consequence.  It was wrong in my grandfather's day, my father's day, my day, and in my son's day.  It is the sacrifice of strength that character is seen, not its expenditure upon one who trusts will be loved and cherished.

The betrayal that a victim feels, experiencing violence, in the very place where safety is supposed to dwell, and by the very man of whom her heart has trusted in, is physically and psychologically traumatic, with consequences ranging from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, down to suppressed immune systems and wonderful women succumbing to diseases that perhaps, just perhaps, they might have been able to fight off had their immune systems not been taxed by sexual abuse or violence.

Only God knows. Maybe He will allow science to discover what these "ghosts from the nursery" do to our loved ones, even in childhood.

"I woke up, got dressed, brushed my teeth, and went to work..."

This was from a theft investigation, years ago.  I noted from the brilliant teaching of Avinoam Sapir that when personal hygiene enters a statement, it is a signal of concealed information, often of a personal nature, which may be related to Domestic Violence.

Why is this?

It is this way because few people (less than 10%) feel it necessary to tell us, in a written statement, that she brushed her teeth.  We all brush our teeth.  (I like to believe this when I stand close to someone at work).  Few of us feel the need to add it to our statements, even verbally when discussing our day's progress.

For the victim of Domestic Violence, life is out of control, living hour by hour on eggshells, carefully navigating the temper tantrums of the abuser, who does not need to be violent to control her.

Her life is not her own.  It is his.

The feeling of losing control sets off a panic button in all of us, which is often seen in the surrendered shoulders of someone in handcuffs, especially shortly after a struggle.  He is defeated. He cannot raise his arms to his face to protect his face, to cover his shame, or to even cover his tears.  He is utterly without control of his arms (which is why some then use their feet to fight).

For the victim of Domestic Violence, her life is so out of control, that when she enters the bathroom and locks that door even for a few minutes, she feels control.  It is a significant part of her day, therefore, it enters her language.  In the above case, the victim did not steal, but had knowledge of theft:  her boyfriend who interrupted the interview, shirtless, to give me the overcompensating handshake of a cowardly bully who fears his loss of control.

Even just the raising of awareness in the month of October helps.

Susan is no longer with us.

Some may feel that this is something that does not need to be said, but I think otherwise.  I feel her presence, through her words and work, and must remind myself that while I am at my desk, feeling overwhelmed with too much work, the phone is not going to ring and I am not going to be ripped into by her for not calling her back immediately.

God, how I miss that.

What Susan stood for, and did so in a loud, boisterous way, was planning.  Detailed planning goes far beyond holding a woman's hand and saying, "it will be alright."

No, it is not going to be alright unless we make it so.  The moment that she eludes the control of the abuser, the clock ticks.  The next 24 to 48 hours is when the domestic homicide is at its peak.

"See ya, Babe!" wrote one man who killed his girlfriend, in an email to her, after her death, thinking that it would be helpful as an alibi.


In fact, as he recalled their "fun" day together, the phrase, "See ya', Babe!" pinpointed her time of death.  I told the reporter that it would match the coroner's report and it was highly likely that these are the last words the victim heard before he pulled the trigger.

We raise awareness and, true enough, it is lessening the fake "shame" some women feel, especially those who, as expected, walked in denial, attempted to "win" him back, blamed that "b****" of an ex wife, and made 101 excuses for him.

Yet, overcoming the instinct to nurture, heal and love, she can, and must, get free.

Careful planning is the key.

Awareness is helping, but advocacy must not stop with the Restraining Order.

It continues with careful planning, confidentiality, financial support, and, when necessary, protection in the dangerous days and weeks after.

Susan gave up on no one.  No victim's denial could wear her down.

She, being dead, speaks to us today, as we seek to continue to carry the torch.

No need to search for heroes in our world, nor among the departed.  They are living among us, infirmities and failures abounding, yet overcoming, and helping others regain the dignity they were born with.

"Going to Bed" In Statement Analysis

by Peter Hyatt

When an event has taken place during the day, subjects are often asked to write out their day, from the time they woke up, until the time they went to sleep.  We have covered the early hour, noting not only where one begins, but the details, including personal hygiene, and what it reveals about the subject.

This article deals with the close of the statement.

Think of the various ways in which one tells us about going to sleep at night.

Some go to sleep, but others go to bed.

Q.  What is the difference?

A.   To be explored

Note the various ways people say these things:

I went to bed.
I went to sleep.
I got undressed and went to bed.
I got undressed and went to sleep.
I turned off the light and went to sleep.
I pulled up the blanket and went to sleep.

Sexual activity.
Television watching
Book reading...and now:
Internet surfing

what do you make of the differences in the statements?

Every word is important.

The differences represent differences in reality.

I went to bed.

Straight forward and simple.  Yet, the subject did not tell us he went to sleep.  We have seen this in murder investigations where the subject wants us to believe he (or she!) went to sleep but avoided a direct lie.  Few people lie directly; the overwhelming majority lie via withholding information to divert from the truth, suppressing information.

Sample:  Review Patsy Ramsey statement.  Patsy Ramsey did not say she went to sleep, and the next morning, she was seen still wearing the clothes she wore to the Christmas party, and had lied about the pineapple found in her murdered daughter's stomach.

Some guilty subjects will skip time.  See Billie Jean Dunn who said she got home from work and was "getting ready for bed", jumping well over a number of hours, seeking to close out the statement.  She did not say she went to bed, nor went to sleep, but was "going to..."

It is likely on that fateful night of Hailey Dunn's murder, she did not go to sleep.

I went to sleep.

This is also straight forward and it addresses sleep.  We find this in truthful accounts.

I got undressed and went to bed.

Few people sleep in their clothing.  The necessity  of using extra effort (information) is this:  The subject wants you to know that they did not go to bed in their clothing.


I got undressed and went to sleep.

The same as above, but this time, there is also missing information, but the subject should be believed that he/she went to sleep.

Why, however, is clothing a topic?

I turned off the light and went to sleep.

Lights are often related to sexual activity, but with lights going "off", it is often associated with failed sexual activity.

I pulled up the blanket and went to sleep.

The necessity of coverings is often associated with:

Sexual abuse in childhood.

Psychologically, why might this be?

Explore in comments section.

Lesson:  When having a statement made "from the time you woke up, until you went to sleep" reveals far more information than the public knows.