Friday, May 19, 2017

Analysis: Anthony Weiner's Court Statement

Regarding "full responsibility" in analysis, please see here how Statement Analysis classifies this well used phrase.  

Anthony Weiner has been previously analyzed to be seen deceptive.  Here, it is a "mea culpa" before the court and a prepared statement. Does he take "full responsibility" for sending sexually explicit text messages to an underaged female?

Recently, a secret service agent was sentenced to 20 years in prison after entering a guilty plea for sending messages to an underaged girl in the attempt to meet her for an illicit sexual encounter.  

Weiner has pled guilty.  It will be interesting to compare sentences and to see how he describes, in his verbalized perception of reality, his victim.  

Note his linguistic disposition towards his vicim;
Note any unnecessary information as very important.  

In a prepared statement we do not analyze Anthony Weiner; we analyze the statement, addressing "the subject" (author).  

“Beginning with my service in Congress 

Where a statement begins is always important as it can be priority and dominate the thought of the subject. 

Where does the subject begin?

*With his service in Congress. 

He does not begin with the pronoun "I"
He begins with "my service in Congress", which is used instead of a date.  He reminds the court of his "service" and the importance of such, with "Congress."

This is an unnecessary diversion from responsibility as it portrays him as one in service of others.  One may question if the subject, while in Congress, was in "service" to others, but for him, it is where he began his statement:  his priority.  

and continuing into the first half of last year, I have compulsively sought attention from women who contacted me on social media, 

It is unnecessary for him to tell the court who contacted whom; the others are not on trial.  Yet for him, the unnecessary information is a form of distancing himself from responsibility.  

He sought "attention"; not sex, in his language.  

and I engaged with many of them in both sexual and non-sexual conversation. 

Here the subject continues to build with innocent "extras" that are unnecessary.  He wants the court to know he "served" in congress and victims contacted him and now many of these contacts were non-sexual.  

Was it his actions something that brought destruction?

These destructive impulses brought great devastation to family and friends, and destroyed my life’s dream of public service. 

It was the "impulses" that did it; not him, nor even his yielding.  It was "these destructive impulses."  

He is now distancing himself even further from both responsibility and from his actions.  

And yet I remained in denial even as the world around me fell apart.

The world is "around" him.  This is a narcissistic phrase that is to say that things revolve around him.  It is consistent with his external "lotus of control" philosophy that like the racist Yale professor, they are victims of external forces conspiring against them, rather than personally responsible for their own behaviors.  
In late January 2016, I was contacted by and began exchanging online messages with a stranger who said that she was a high school student and who I understood to be 15 years old. 

It is very important to the subject to repeat that he did not contact the victim. He "was contacted" uses passivity, even further distancing himself from the victim and his actions. 

 This is a form of distancing language by shifting the burden of responsibility  to the teenager.  

If she had not contacted him, he would be okay.

If she had not lied about her age, he would be okay.  

Through approximately March 2016, I engaged in obscene communications with this teenager, 

The use of "with" between himself and this teenager is appropriately forming of distance. He does not see himself as unified with her.  In context of everything else he said, he may feel betrayed by her.  

including sharing explicit images and encouraging her to engage in sexually explicit conduct, just as I had done and continued to do with adult women. I knew this was as morally wrong as it was unlawful.

Here, the unnecessary "just as I had done and continued to do with adult women" 
This fall, I came to grips for the first time with the depths of my sickness

note:  not my "behavior", but my "sickness" is a form of distancing from responsibility.  

I had hit bottom. I entered intensive treatment, found the courage to take a moral inventory of my defects, and began a program of recovery and mental health treatment that I continue to follow every day.

He separates himself ("I") from defects.  His inventory, however, was moral, but his defects were not moral defects.  This is fascinating insight into the subject's thinking.  He is "courageous" and posses the high standard of "morals" needed to "inventory" or count, his moral defects.  He is so praiseworthy that he wants the court to know that he continues this "every day."  
I accept full responsibility for my conduct. I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse. I apologize to everyone I have hurt. I apologize to the teenage girl, whom I mistreated so badly. I am committed to making amends to all those I have harmed. Thank you.”

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject's verbalized perception of reality is that he is going to prison for an illness. 

He does not take any responsibility for his actions, but blames his victims, circumstances and an unknown illness for sexual inappropriate behavior with a teenager.  

Since he is not responsible, he cannot change his behavior, as he is a "victim" of others' behavior.  

The language here is consistent with other statements Wiener has made.  

Adam Jones Analyzed: Racial Slur

Adam Jones reported that he was a victim of racism in Boston where fans threw peanuts at him and called him "the N word." It made headlines throughout the media.  

Curt Shilling raised doubts saying that if this was heard, Twitter would have been all over it as everyone has cell phones.  Shilling also reported that Jones has an agenda. 

Statement Analysis gets to the truth. 

Does Adam Jones say "the fan called me the N word"?

Or, is he deceptive?  

Schilling is over there with his rants. He just wants an outlet. Somebody will take his call, take his rants. He can keep them for himself. Because he’s never experienced anything like I have. I’ll stick with what [Mark] McLemore said about it: Schilling, hell of a career. But he’s never been black, and he’s never played the outfield in Boston.”

Jones said defending himself.  We expect him to say, "he called me the N word" or "they yelled the N word at me."  

This would include identifying the fan or fans, the past tense verb, and the topic ("N word") identified. 

Truthful people speaking from experiential memory are psychologically connected to the event.  

The event is imprinting upon the brain and when there is an escalation, such as Jones' claim, there is an elevation of hormone that further increases memory recall. 

Here he tells us what happened.  Note the underlining and color coding to call attention to sensitivity indicators within his answer.  

As a general principle, truthful people state from experiential memory and do not feel a need to add many words to the statement. 

"The guy called me the N word" is such an example. 

Psychological Weakness in Deception 

Those who are not speaking from experiential memory (of the specifically claimed event) feel a need or burden to convince the audience.  This "need to persuade" seeks out assistance via a multitude of words. 

We also find that a deceptive person may anticipate being asked a question that is very uncomfortable, leading them to explain "why" in an answer before being asked. 

This is a study unto itself and is fascinating.  One of the greatest benefits within detecting deception in noting this "reason why" is this:

The person answers a question without being asked and quite often, the question would not have entered the mind of the audience/interviewer.  

This is to give away information (sensitivity=importance) that we may not have even sought.  It is a consistent way to not only catch liars, but to obtain more information.  The "reason why" is highlighted in the color blue to assist catching the eye's attention to the word.  We note that the statement does not begin with the pronoun "I" and a past tense verb.  Statistically, we begin with "less reliable" status.  

Next, we note that he now defends what happened by telling us "why" we should believe him:  he has great hearing. 

"To hear and and understand what I hear, what  I heard, I got great hearing.  And um, you know, we understand that we're the road team. 

Note the use of the pronoun "we" indicates contextual weakness:  liars do not like to be "alone" in a deceptive statement.  Like school children saying, "everyone was doing it", the deceptive person will not take personal responsibility as an attribute for himself in this statement.  

And uh, fans, they don't need to uh, welcome us.  It's all part of the competitive edge for the fan base to, you know, tell the opponents, you know, you suck, ha ha, you struck out and various things on your performance which is completely understandable in the lines of, uh, just how sports work and how fan bases work. 

This is a lecture or "sermonizing" (ethics) that is unnecessary. It is often used to establish a "moral high ground" by a deceptive person.  The need for moral high ground often shows the opposite. 

 Uh, um, so, I heard that all night 

Note he reliably reports hearing all night "you suck" "you struck out", and tells us, his hearing is good as is his attention span. 

and then, then just something that caught my attention.  

His ability to hear "all night" is now escalated.  His "attention" was sufficient to hear specifics about "suck" and "striking out" all night, but he now feels the need to qualify what happened next. 

I heard the N word 

This is better; he uses the pronoun "I", the past tense "heard" and the topic, N word.  What is missing is the fan or fans who made this claim.  

Yet, he is not done yet, and this is where we obtain information to judge the quality of the partial sentence: 

and you know, I, I, I get so 

He stutters, as a non-stutterer, on the pronoun "I", which indicates an increase in anxiety.  He is intelligent and articulate and has used the pronoun "I" millions of times in his life.  

Question:  Does he stutter on the pronoun "I" anywhere else in the statement?

He now address an increase in attention:  

certain reactions when someone says something clever or something really really stupid and ignorant 

note "stupid" before "ignorant"
note "stupid" is qualified as "really, really" 

and last night it was not clever 

note the rule of the negative 

it was really stupid and ignorant so it caught my attention 

note "really" for the third time;

Note the need for him to now explain the incongruence of his previous words about his attention, though no one has asked,

"Why did this particular ____ (fan, word?) catch your attention?"

This means that the subject (Jones) anticipates being asked the question, though, after his explanations of how attentive he is, including his great hearing, it is not likely that anyone would think to ask this question.  

"you know" is a habit of speech.  We note what causes its intrusion and what topics do not.  It is to show an acute awareness of his audience/interviewer.  

he now moves into a general use of the 2nd person, running away from personal commitment to a topic that he just claimed elevated his personal attention:  

and you know, and by the time you look back you can't tell who says what and who's doing what so I was just like this is okay this is really, um, this is really you don't go down here, so okay."

Reporter:  Do you think it was more than one person?

Jones;  I don't know.  It's hard, its hard to say exactly who is what and who's voices is from where, you know I'm focused, I'm focused on the game. Dellenbodi (?) was pitching a hell of a game, so I'm focused on that. 

He does not know anything specific and feels the need to tell us why he does not know:  his attention span.  

After telling us about his attention span and hearing, we would not have sought such justification.  

Reporter:  As a person or persons were watching right now, what would you say to him?

We now get further insight into not only his character, but motive:  

Jones:  Square up.  Let's fight and get it over with. 

This is narrative agenda.  

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Fake Hate. 

Adam Jones is deceptive. 

If you look at his original statement, you will find the same pattern of "running away" from commitment.  

For training in detecting deception please visit  for law enforcement, business, journalists and citizen training.  

The value for journalists is highlighted in cases such as these.  

Study is in seminar or at home.  

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Yale's June Chu Statement Analyzed: Is She Penitent?

A  dean at Yale University who championed multicultural sensitivity has been "outed" for her racist remarks.

Once caught, she has issued an apology.  

Analysis Question:  What is the quality of the apology?

Taking Responsibility in Statement Analysis

There is a difference with one taking responsibility and one stating the taking of responsibility.  

Next, there is a difference between the use of the term "full responsibility" which critics often ask, 

"What does that even mean?"

Often the mea culpa is low on mea and consequences are not accepted.  

Remember:  taking responsibility and the the verbalized perception of this are two separate things. 

"I was wrong.  I am sorry" is taking responsibility for being wrong and giving remorse.  

"I am fully responsible for..." is a statement to communicate responsibility.  It does not necessarily mean the subject has taken responsibility.  It is often used when caught.  Being "responsible" as a confession is unnecessary (1) and sensitive via the use of "fully" (2)

Deceptive people linguistically move away from responsibility, even when claiming ownership.  

This is similar to the theme of "I'm telling you" versus actually stating something.  The latter is strong, while the former is to engage the speed of transmission of words with additional effort to preface a statement.  

Words Reveal Us All

We look for four elements from our words in which a portrait emerges.  Our background (1) including sex, race and age emerges as does the things we experienced (2) in life.  These are things that touched us and are with us, to the point of influencing our words. Our education and intelligence is readily seen in our words.   Our priority (3) emerges from a statement (including multiple priorities) and lastly, and perhaps most importantly, our words reveal our personality traits.  We are known by our words. 

Is she penitent? 

We need a definition for our purposes of truth seeking.  

What is racism?  

Racism is the arbitrary employment of race as a point of illicit or inappropriate discrimination and/or personal malice.  Racism is the personal hatred, for example,  held against a specific race, due to race, itself, not the characteristics of a person. 

Racism is personal and it can be institutionalized by politicians, just  as it can, and is, exploited.  

For example, one may dislike or disapprove of a cultural distinctive while maintaining no personal malice towards people of a specific race.  You may dislike Celtic music, but it does not mean you despise the descendants from which the music arose.  Disliking a cultural distinctive is not irrational fear, moral dearth, or, in today's political-speak:  being a nazi.  It is discrimination in taste.  In ancient language, racism was called a "respecter of faces", that is, the skin pigmentation which, having no bearing on a person's character, is called "arbitrary."  It is not rational or intelligent.  

Racism Institutionalized 

To deny one equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome) based upon race is an example of institutionalized racism.  

In the United States, this is mostly illegal.  (Exception:  the denial of opportunity is constituted by politicians.  Here, they can deny someone employment opportunity based upon race called "affirmative action."  The need to call it "affirmative", itself, indicates the negative consequence attendant.)  

It is without sense in a free market because if the goal is outcome the thriving business, for example, is going to seek talent, not pigmentation.  

Our Words Reveal Us All.  

She does give us insight into her personality through her reviews.  In this sense, all communication is "autobiographical.

 has apologized for her “insensitive” Yelp reviews of restaurants, gyms and movie theaters, including hot takes on what “white trash” customers would find tasty and employees she blasted as “barely educated morons.”

June Chu, dean of Yale’s Pierson College, apologized for the offending reviews, which had been circulating among students for several months, after the Yale Daily News published screenshots on Saturday.

“To put it quite simply: If you are white trash, this is the perfect night out for you!” 

Chu wrote in one review of a Japanese restaurant. “This establishment is definitely not authentic by any stretch of any imagination and perfect for those low class folks who believe this is a real night out. Over salted and greasy food. Side note: employees are Chinese, not Japanese.”

The popular divisive "identity politics" is not lost on her.  Note the order:   

“Remember: I am Asian.  I know mocha. These are not good and overpriced. They are ice cream mocha which are small in size and easily become freezer burned if not stored well … I guess if you were a white person who has clue what mocha is, this would be fine for you.”

In another review of a movie theater, Chu called the employees there “barely educated morons trying to manage snack orders for the obese” while trying to do simple math.

Is she an "elitist" who empower politicians to decide what is best for citizens?

Does she feel entitled? 

“Unfortunately it’s this or the Hanover Nugget but heaven forbid the Nugget get movies which pander to the masses.  You’ve got no choice and like a fool I remain in line with all the other idiots.”

Chu continued: “Be kind my ass. I pay for my ticket and decent customer service. Decent. I’m not asking for stellar. I’m asking for a bare minimum of competence.”

Chu, whose Yelp account has since been deleted, sent an email to students at Yale’s largest residential college to apologize for her “insensitive” reviews and admitted they were out of line.  This is where we see her apology.

Expected:  "I was wrong.  I am sorry." 

We must see her in the statement via the pronoun "I" and we seek short, powerful thought.  Excessive words weaken the statement.  A use of the plural pronoun (and sometimes, contextually, the 2nd person) indicates a psychological need to not be left alone with guilt.  This is something parents learn early from their children.

“I have learned a lot this semester about the power of words and about the accountability that we owe one another.  My remarks were wrong. There are no two ways about it. Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

This is instructive for psycho-linguistic profiling in advanced Statement Analysis. 


1.  She has learned a lot, with the additional time element verb, "have learned."  This is a subtle weakness given the expectation. 

2.  She began with "I" regarding learning, but turns to the audience (including herself) with "we."  She is not alone in what "we" owe each other; not what she owes to others.

Question:   Was she wrong?

Answer:  No. 

She was not wrong; her words were wrong.  This is to give life to words by a subtle removal of herself from it.  

She no longer addresses herself:  she addresses her words with the pronoun "they."

"They" is highlighted in red, not because there is a plurality of people (there isn't) but because this is a strong psychological distancing from personal responsibility. It is not that her brain processed and dictated to her tongue, it is as if her words are the guilty parties here. 

My remarks were wrong

Next, it is not her words that were wrong, but "remarks." 

Her thoughts were not wrong, nor were her words. 

What is the difference?

"Remarks" is a form of minimization.  These were not "remarks"; that is, casual off the cuff words we wish we could take back;  this was a written review by a very intelligent subject.  

3.  NTP

"Need to Persuade" is a common term in analyzing statements.  Rather than say, 

"I was wrong.  I am sorry.  Please forgive me."  She has a need to persuade. 

This need expresses weakness but specifically, what does she wish us to be persuaded of?

That her words were 'really' wrong. 

Reading her words we need no such persuasion.  This is unnecessary (*) to include, but only unnecessary for us.  She, herself, has a psychological need to convince her audience that she is not a racist.  

Additional words are important. 

Additional and unnecessary words are even more important (sensitive) to the analysis.  

4.  Further Distancing Language 

Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

She was not insensitive; "they" were insensitive; her words.  This is to divorce her from her words. 

We are the only created beings with complicated language to communicate.  Here, she gives us much insight into her 'ownership' of her apology.  

She was not insensitive, the words were. 

She did not demean others. 

5.  Pedantic lecture and virtue signaling

Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

6.  Narcissist 

Not only were they insensitive in matters related to class and race; they demean the values to which I hold myself and which I offer as a member of this community.”

Question:  To whom were these words insensitive towards?

Question:  To whom were these words demeaning towards?

The answer to both is found in her language. 

She was not insensitive nor demean white people, people with less education or intelligence then herself:

The words, which, in her verbalized perception of reality, did not belong to her, and they have insulted her.  

"They", the words, were insensitive and demeaning to the values, to which "I", hold "myself,"

Question:  Who is the victim?

Answer:  the holder of the values, June Chu, herself. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject does not take ownership of her racism.  She blames the words, even while minimizing the words into "remarks" and holds to racist and elitist ideology. 

Her words strongly indicate narcissistic traits. 

It is very likely that white students, in particular, have a strong sense of her racism and condescending demeanor.  The hypocrisy of her position and remarks is affirmed by the analysis of her "mea culpa" in which she, herself, is a victim of "words."  

This is similar to the techniques of both politicians and MSM with such things as:

"Truck attacks Germans..." seen in the need to give inanimate objects personal responsibility in order to alleviate human responsibility, while attempting to protect political decision makers. 

To use modern phrases in history:

"Planes attack Pearl Harbor.  Calls for planes to be outlawed were heard on Capital Hill today..."  

Substitute knives, guns, acid, etc.  

Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway said he and other administrators decided Chu should email students after they wrestled “with how to do the right thing,” he told the Yale Daily News.

“I’ve not asked for her resignation, and neither has [Pierson College Head Stephen Davis],” Holloway said. “She’s terribly sorry, and I think she’s doing exactly the right thing by saying, I’ve learned from this, I want to stand by all of you and I hope that you’ll stand by me as well.”

One can only question if these "remarks" were directed towards a different race would there have been a different outcome.  Although readers here are not likely to be offended by her racist views, (most may find it ironic or typical)  her statement is valuable for insight for those who wish to study statement analysis with the eventual goal of deception detection, content analysis and psycho-linguistic profiling. 

Our words reveal our background, experiences, priorities and our personality traits.  This is essential for investigators just as it is for hiring.  

Or, just to have your son or daughter avoid her class.  

The student and faculty reaction, however, is consistent with the identity politics creation of eternal victimization and insult.  The article continues: 

Some students, however, weren’t so moved.

“I will never be able to look at her the same way,” one unidentified student told the  student newspaper. “She needs to formally apologize in person to the college. Dean Chu is trained in human development and psychology so [she] should clearly understand the gravity of her actions, yet the fact that she would put such things on the internet shows that she really should not be in a position of advising students.”
Chu, meanwhile, declined to comment specifically on the reviews when reached by the student newspaper.

I am concerned about the shadow that my actions have thrown on my efforts to create an environment in Pierson that respects everyone, and I am especially concerned that it could prevent anyone from coming to me for the support that I offer to all Pierson students,” Chu wrote. “I see that I now have work to do to repair the trust you have all shown me.”

Chu, according to her Pierson biography, has a Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of California-Davis. She joined the college after serving as an assistant dean of undergraduate students at Dartmouth College. During high school, Chu also worked in a summer program at the Yale Daily News, the same student newspaper that exposed her controversial reviews.

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Aly Yoemen's Boyfriend Michael Lizarraga: "Wall of Truth"?

Alcyia Yeoman was reported missing and her body has now been found. Here is a short interview with a man reported to have been a boyfriend.
He said that he has the "truth" on his "side."
Those of de facto (not judicial) innocence will issue a reliable denial and if needed, will show the protection of the "wall of truth"; an impenetrable psychological barrier that often leads to few words, as the subject has no need to persuade anyone of anything.
At the time of this interview, her status was "missing."
Q: How long have you known Aly?
Lizarraga: For a little over a year. She came over here with my nephew and were barbecuing, swimming, listening to music and that's how I originally met her. We kept in touch maybe two to three times a month-- just Snapchat, a little talk. So I really didn't know her that well, we weren’t the best of friends. I've been around her twice, but she was a good friend. And she was always positive, so I appreciated that.
Here, the interviewer did a good job with some general questions. The answer, "for a little over a year" was an acceptable answer as it answers "how long?" as a question. I do note that he does not use the pronoun "I" but I don't assign heavy meaning, initially, to this because of the question itself. A casual answer "for a little over a year" suffices for a casual question.
There are two points, however, that should be considered:
1. Context: she is missing. This is not a casual question due to the context of her status.
2. The length of his answer.
Had the answer "for a little over a year" been left alone, the missing pronoun's classification would be low, but its sensitivity increases due to the volume of information the boy - friend felt necessary to include. We then move to the analysis of his response:
He went into unnecessary detail about the circumstances of meeting her, by introducing another person into his answer: his nephew.
Next, we note that he "originally met" her, which indicates he is thinking of another time when he met her. This opens a new line of questioning about possible breaks in the friendship, or other meetings which did not lead to friendship. It may or may not be significant but in his mind, it was enough for him to add in an unnecessary word and to revisit meeting her.
At that point, he uses the word "we" to show us that from his perception, unity existed, regarding "keeping in touch."

So I really didn't know her that well, we weren’t the best of friends.
He next wants the interviewer to know, while she is missing, that he did not "really" know her that well. One might wonder why he felt the need to subtly distance himself from her while her status is as a victim and "unknown." Generally, human empathy becomes very strong for missing persons, which leads even strangers to feel a certain emotional connection. (This is where we see people become obsessed with a case, moving from curious to concerned to obsessed, while most remain curious and concerned).
Then, he elevates the distance, in the negative, to tell us what they were not: "not best of friends."
He does not say "we were not best friends" but the slightly different, "best of friends" which is, sometimes, used by passive-aggressive understatement.
He is polite and note that he uses "well" appropriately. Passive-aggressive often reveals intellect. This is something an interviewer/investigator should always be aware of.
If this distancing was not enough, he now seeks to minimize their relationship; specifically regarding his contact with her:
I've been around her twice, but she was a good friend. And she was always positive, so I appreciated that.
He further distances himself by reporting that he had only been "around her" (not with her, nor together) by specific number.

He then refutes this with the word "but" (minimizing via comparison) and establishes "good" between them. The need for this is concerning.

He was only asked how long he knew her and we often find that when someone is in jeopardy, people tend to exaggerate the connection, not the distancing, between them, especially when it hits the news.

"I knew a guy who once had a cousin who met him at a ball game..." seeking to make a connection; not remove or minimize it.

This is additional and unnecessary information and is important.

Lastly, please note that he has a need to assert "good" in the status of friendship while referencing her in the past tense.

Investigators should be very concerned that he believes or knows that she will not be found alive.

Q: What happened the night Aly disappeared?
A good question.
Lizarraga: She was coming in to town and she mentioned she wanted to talk about this new guy that she kind of had a crush on and asking for my opinion. I told her I'm going to Taste of India if you want to go for a bite.
He was asked what happened, which is the best question to ask. The interviewer did not introduce new language here.
Where a person begins the answer to "what happened?" is always important.
Should we find guilt within the subject's words, we may conclude that Aly's disappearance began when she introduced a new boyfriend to the subject.
Please note: "mentioned" is casual, while this topic is important. It is where he chose to begin his answer, and it is a priority. The word "mention" is not consistent with:
a. the topic
b. the context
c. the response from him

He did not "say" or invite her, he "told" her; which is stronger, more authoritative. This is not two way communication.
What produced this?
The introduction of another guy.
This is likely not lost on the interviewer:
Q: Was it a date?
Lizarraga: No. Not at all. I mean a lot of people make up their own stories, ‘Oh they went on a date or dinner date.’ Nothing like that. Totally just friends, having a bite to eat and that was it.
Although it is not a technical aspect of Statement Analysis, we do by nature count the number of words after the word "no" which are needed to buttress or strengthen the denial.
Next note the use of others' "stories" is denied without any pronouns.
His denial, with him psychologically absent via the missing pronouns, is made sensitive by "totally", and then he tells us:

There is missing information.
"that was it" is to stop the flow of information.
Question: What topic produced his need to stop the flow of information?
Answer: That this was a "date"

Q: Aly went to your house after the restaurant?
Best to avoid "yes or no" questions, yet even here, when asked, we look for him to give either a "yes" or "no" answer. Instead:
Lizarraga: She asked me, ‘What you do after this?’ and I said, ‘I'm going to go back to my house and just hang out. She said, ‘Do you mind if I come too I got a bottle of wine?’ And I said, yeah that's fine. My son was there, my nephew was there, who used to talk to her.
His nephew gets a second mentioning. Note that he tells us what made this "fine" for the missing victim: the presence of his son and his nephew. We should be concerned about the need to alibi with this.
Q: But Aly was 20 years old, why did you let her drink?
This is not a good question and it puts him on the defensive.
Lizarraga: I didn’t know that at the time. I thought honestly that she was of age and she walked in with a bottle of wine, so I didn't say ‘Hey hold on, let me see your I.D.
The poorly placed and worded question has not put him on the defensive, and his answer shows sensitivity and tension. Here we must consider the interviewer's influence.
Q: What happened before she left?
This is a much better question, though "what happened there?" would be better. The interviewer reveals that the interviewer knows there is missing information here. We must not tip our hand in interviewing.
The question is plain: what happened before she left:
Lizarraga: Usually with my friends, I like to create memories. 
The first thing we note is the word "usually." This is our "normal" factor in which even children recognize that by telling us what usually or normally happened, the subject is revealing that something most unusual happened.
"Once upon a time, it was a day like every other day" and the 7 year olds will perk up and know: something unlike every other day is about to happen.
It is the language of narrative building, what police often instinctively call "story telling."
This is where he chose to begin: the need to normalize, or justify something tells us something not normal took place.

So I told Aly, 
He is issuing an element of control here. If this was not, in his mind, a "date", his language is inconsistent (incongruence)
‘You've got to create this memory, Write on the cork'. 

I used to call her Asian Aly all the time, so she put ‘Asian Aly.’ 
He only saw her "twice" and only spoke irregularly. (see above)
Here, he goes back in time and then has the need to explain why he had her do something. Please keep in mind, this produced authoritative language in him, but not in her.

‘Positivity.’ I think she said ‘Keep grinding,’ ‘Motivation,’ or something like that. So I said, ‘Right on’ and boom I put it up there with the corks and when she left she was like just happy. Happy about life.
Without a lengthy explanation, we have sexual language entering and deliberately withholding information and sensitivity about her emotional status.
Deception indicated regarding her being not only "happy" but within his need to go well beyond this moment in time to portray her as happy in "life."
That he uses the word "life" in a missing person case is very concerning.
Q: If Aly was drinking, why did you let her drive?
Better to ask, "How did she get home?"
We do not want subjects to be defensive in the interview. This is reserved for the interrogation phase, which is much stronger.
In Analytical Interviewing, we do 20% of the talking, while the subject does 80%. This is reversed in the short interrogation phase once we know the subject is deceptive.
He portrayed a tension by his authoritative language and concealed information. Now consider what may have caused this tension:
Lizarraga: She wanted to leave. 
This is very straight forward language.

I kept saying, ‘Sleep on the couch. Pass out. At least a couple hours, and then go home.' 

Note the imperfect past tense.
If this was a dispute, would she not firmly tell him "no"?
Yet, note the communicative language in the recall:

She said no. 
Here he is concerned enough to explain why he walked her out. This means he anticipates someone asking, "Why did you walk out?"
So I walked her out, and made her promise me like three times-- Text me when you get home, and she was like, ‘I will.’ And I said, pinky promise and then she drove off.
Note the use of the word "like" is to avoid exactness.
Note the inclusion of "three", which is most always misunderstood by the public. Other than when asked, "how many drinks did you have?", when someone has a need to invent a number in a fabrication, they often gravitate to three. Two may sound too insignificant and four may sound like too much. It is possible that someone told someone 3 times, or that 3 men assaulted. It is only something to explore. We do not conclude deception based upon a number. I have seen this used in absurdity and in false narrative building by the untrained.
That he uses "three" is noted, but it is combined with "like" which then moves to inexact. After giving her quotes as well, he now uses "like" in the quotes. This is a signal of deception at this point of the statement. It is a combination of several points.
Note the inclusion of "pinky promise" and the amount of words attended to this single issue. The expression "pinky promise" is something not only juvenile but "best friends" might use. It also, linguistically, puts a physical connection between him and her. The sense that readers will likely get is "need to persuade" noted. This is accurate.
He needs to persuade how good things were. This suggests the opposite.

Q: Some believe you had something to do with her disappearance.
This is good for it allows him to say, "I didn't cause her disappearance" and "I am telling the truth" and be done. This would be the "Wall of Truth" that, thus far, we have seen no evidence of.
Lizarraga: People are always going to point the finger, and I'll accept that. I understand it. People want to point fingers and go, ‘Hey blame him.’ But if you don't know, you don't know. So for people to sit here and point the finger at me and cast their stones, I tell them all, 'Cast their stones and you can believe whatever you want.'
1. He does not deny involvement in her disappearance. His is unwilling or incapable of saying so at this most critical point in the interview.
2. He accepts what the de facto innocent do not accept: finger pointing.
3. He seeks to refute blame upon him, ("but") while immediately disconnecting himself from what would be false blame.
4. Michael Lizarraga now expresses emotional concern.
It is not for the missing friend, but for himself. Note "cast stones" is to address him as the recipient, while thus far he has not shown any linguistic concern for the victim. His repetition of it increases the sensitivity.
5. Allowance for guilt: 'Cast their stones and you can believe whatever you want.'
There is no "Wall of Truth" within this subject. This is why he allows blame to be put upon him. He does not allow it for the sake of pleading with help nor does he dismiss it. He allows it. He allows people to believe he is involved, which could reduce search efforts (in his verbalized perception of reality, except he does not express concern for search efforts).

Q: What happened when authorities issued a search warrant at your home?
Lizarraga: They took all my computers. My daughter's tablet, my son's laptop - any kind of cameras. 
This is a good answer. Yet, he has a need to continue. This is what deceptive people often do. They feel the burden of the interview upon them, to not only divert attention, but to go beyond the answer:

It wasn't a surprise, but you know it did bother me the way that my son had to go through this, being handcuffed and they had guns pointed at them. I mean that hurt me the most.

This is the second mention of his son.
Note no concern for the victim.
Note no linguistic concern for his son: it hurt him the most.
Interesting to note that this is a signal of narcissistic behavior.

Q: Do you believe you are a person of interest in Aly’s disappearance?
Here is another place for him to say, "I didn't cause Aly's disappearance."
It is a "yes or no" question. Note what he says after the word "no" as important. "No" warrants no explanation but for him, it does:
Lizarraga: No, I don't. I don't believe that at all. If they ever thought that I wouldn't be here, and all the evidence-- I have the truth on my side. So, all the evidence that they took—computers, my carpets, my rugs-- they're just doing their job.
What hurt him the most was what his son went through, yet, "they're just doing their job" is a point of ingratiation. This is an important theme in analysis and the short explanation is seen when a missing child is not found and a deceptive parent praises search efforts for not finding his or her child.
He has the truth on his side but has not told us what the truth is.
Q: Have you spoken with Aly’s family?
Lizarraga: I've talked to Aly’s father and uncle. There are some family members, some friends, that have message me, called me and have said some awful things.
"awful" is what the victim experienced. This is a concern for him only but it is another place for him to say, "I told them that I did not cause Aly's disappearance."
Direct lying causes internal stress. 90% of deception is via missing information. See recent article on why someone like Richard Blumenthal is both rare and dangerous.
Q: Do you believe Aly’s father looks at you as a suspect?
Lizarraga: I think at first he probably did. But after meeting with him, and the way that we parted ways, walking away from each other, I don't feel that one bit.

This is a linguistic signal of one who is manipulative. He knows the family's disposition, yet before they walked away from each other, he saw them as "unified" via the pronoun "we." Then, after this, they are "each other" and they are walking away. This is confidence in one's own deceptive and manipulative countenance. This is why Human Resources function best when using Statement Analysis and formal training.
He now gives us insight into who did this. He is not saying she ran away or is in the "unknown" status. He says that someone is "behind this"; let's listen to his linguistic disposition towards the
In my opinion, I feel like whoever's behind this has got to be watching and seeing what this family's going through. Seeing the finger pointing at me and obviously they don't have a conscience. And obviously, they have no heart to allow this to keep going on to the family in so much pain. When I met Daniel, that's what bothered me the most what I seen his eyes and I seen the way that he looked. He's hurt. And I'm a father. Every time I put myself in his shoes, it hurts.
This is an accomplished manipulator. Here he gives us much information for the psycho-linguistic profile that analysts can work through. Suffice for now:
"at me" addresses himself, not the victim.
Here is the key:
"I'm a father" puts himself, psychologically, into this linguistic disposition towards someone who is cognizant of the family's suffering. He used the father's name.
He is describing what the person who caused this (he knows it was caused) and he puts himself into the description. You may argue that he is simply being manipulative, of which he is, but we note the linguistic tools of manipulation which are employed. He, himself, is the tool used, and it is not just once, but repeatedly. Here, as the cause of the father's pain, we expect distancing language, but instead we have heavy personal pronoun inclusion.
yes, this is another signal of narcissism: the pain of the father bothers our subject, (focus on self), true enough, but someone doesn't "have a heart."
Now go back and see what caused the original stress between the victim and the subject:
She "mentioned" a "guy" she was interested in.
She wanted to leave but he "kept" telling her not to.

Q: What do you think happened to Aly?
He already revealed that she is not missing but someone caused this. We look for a friend to get specific now. The more specific, the more it can be solved.
Will he bring the investigation into optimistic focus or will he go in another linguistic direction?
Lizarraga: I got a million things going on in my brain. 

Not only does he go to a plurality of issues, but a "million", making it even more unlikely to be solved in his verbalized perception.
Don't miss that this is in his brain. The focus goes back to him. He does not say "I don't know" or offer something helpful. Instead, he turns his focus on his many concerns. A "million" things going on in the brain, even with exaggeration, is stressful.
Please note that exaggeration can sometimes point to the opposite, as it does in anonymous author identification.
The narcissistic personality traits continue to be noted.

Who did she meet up with? Who was she texting? Did she stop? Something was wrong her truck? I don't know.
We do not "like" questions in an answer to a question, (though in SA, they reveal much, which is why a different meaning is assigned to the word "like" here.)
Who did she meet up with?
Who was she texting?
Did she stop?
One should consider these questions with the statement about her "mentioning" that she had a new love interest.
"Did she stop?" is very concerning in this context.
"Something was wrong with her truck?"
To this he says "I don't know."
"I don't know" should have come first in the answer.
Q: Do you think you will one day be arrested in connection to his crime?

Lizarraga: No. I don't believe that at all. 
Here, given the defensive posture the interviewer put him in, should cause us to lessen the sensitivity of the answer as he now has a need for emphasis. Keep the principle in mind, but apply it appropriately in context of the focus of guilt upon him.
Yet, he now goes well beyond to reveal his thoughts. He has a need to explain why he won't be arrested.
It is not because he did not do it:
I will never be placed under arrest because, like I said, I have truth on my side. 
He does not say "I told the truth" in regard to a denial. He uses the self reference and avoids in several places telling us that he did not do it.

In the free editing process where one is choosing his own words, we have a reliability factor with the psychological wall of truth.

When someone issues a reliable denial, such as,
"I did not shoot him" followed by "I told the truth", while addressing the denial, it is more than 99% likely to be true.

If he cannot tell us he did not do it, we will not say it for him.

See analysis on McCann for an amplified understanding of why this is critical. McCann defenders say the very words McCanns did not say, and this is typical of those who do not discern deception but are obsessed with a case. It is to disregard logic and make an emotional stance while decrying objective truth.

Many deceptive people use "truth" in a statement but will not connect their denial with it. "I have the truth on my side", or "the truth will come out" and so on. "The truth is my friend" Olympian Marion Jones said before being caught lying about performance enhancing drugs. (see analysis and video)
I just hope and I pray that Aly comes home soon and this nightmare ends.
This is the first time he mentions Aly's status (not her plight). He does not express specific concern for what she is experiencing, here, or anywhere else in the interview.

This is a linguistic indicator of having processed death.

When someone is missing and those closest to the victim do not express concern for what the victim is currently experiencing, we must explore for one who has processed (accepted) the death of the victim.
Q: Do you think Aly is still alive?
Lizarraga: I believe that she's alive. I just sit here and I think, and I pray. And I feel like I talk to her sometimes. Just like, ‘Be brave be strong. Whatever you’re in.’ I hope she gets that window of opportunity to escape.

The communication that took place between them is of paramount importance to this case. He likely perseverates on those words that began when she told him she had a new love interest.

Analysis Conclusion:

Michael Lizarraga is withholding information about the disappearance of Aly Yoeman.

For hosting a police or business seminar, or for taking our Complete Statement Analysis Course, please go to and see the training opportunities.

Our home course is done via manual and recorded lectures, with all work submitted via email.

Tuition payments for law enforcement only.