Saturday, July 23, 2016

Interview Transcription Value for Analyst

Available from Amazon.com 
At Hyatt Analysis Services, there is never a shortage for the need for transcription, even with some trusted volunteers. 

It must be precise, and a single hour audio translates into several hours of typing, alone, but the checking for accuracy, including the sometimes troublesome auto-correct programs can harm accuracy. 

Yet it is that I wish to share something of a somewhat personal nature with readers regarding this.  

When I worked in child protective services, the case load and pace were unsustainable.  If a single allegation of, for example, sexual abuse was made, on average it meant that:

The child must be interviewed; perhaps even without prior notification to the parent, should this increase the risk to the child. Interview 1.  

The school had to be notified, and the professionals who were in contact with the child had to be interviewed.  Teacher, assistant, guidance counselor...  3 interviews on average. 

Then, the child's doctor, nurse, therapist... 3

Then the child's siblings (on average, 2)      2 

The child's parents (generally, this is 2 to 4, as step parenting and unmarried partners)   4

Grandparents      4

Any adults living in the house (this could range from 0 (not likely) to usually several, including both relations and non relations.  To err on the low side, I will choose 2. 

Any other children in the household, which was common, but again, the low side:  2. 

Lastly, the accused and the host parent's therapists, drug counselors, etc, had to be interviewed.  Low side:  2.  

In just this case, 24 interviews needed to be conducted and transcribed.  The doctor interview would be very short, generally less than 10 minutes, while the alleged perpetrator and the hosting parent of the per, would be the longest, generally 90 minutes to the hosting parent, and often 2-3 hours of the alleged perpetrator. 

All of this does not include record review including medical, psychiatric and psychological reports. 

Many of these interviews were conducted (of the parents) with a psych eval in hand, and at my desk while I typed. 

This, alone, proved in valuable, years later, as a 'data base' of sorts emerged for me.  I learned, for example, the language of:

a.  Sex Abuse Victims, from both the interviews, and the subsequent massive research

b.  Borderlines, where the interviews were often chaotic, scattered, unfocused and volatile;

c.  bi polar

d.  oppositional 

e.  narcissistic 

These were the basic and dominant personality types, traits, or diagnosis found within the interview and it was in the lengthy hours, 2 to 3 times per week, of transcription, that forced me to learn by the volume alone.  

Although it is long work, and often considered boring, trained analysts, even when strained for time, can learn a great deal when transcribing an audio or video, as they are permitted to see reactions, personality traits emerge and even correct the interviewer's strategy as he or she types 'along' going in chronological order. 

It is invaluable work and the moniker of 'boring' lifts as the analyst 'sees' into the language and the brain halts, presses and remains at a deliberate pace, by necessity, due to typing, correcting and the incessant pause that takes place. 

For the trained analyst, transcription services are great short cuts, but accuracy is not the only doubt in play:

The missed value of the experience of entering into the interview, via slow, methodical typing, is of great value.

If you are like me, the value is something you may not realize until later, as you grow stronger in "the expected."

For training opportunities, including a full and challenging course in Statement Analysis, go to Hyatt Analysis Service's new website at www.hyattanalysis.com

More on the new site coming, along with updated analysis and the conclusion to:

Amanda Blackburn murder;
Disappearance of Deorr shortly. 

Monday, July 18, 2016

Analyzing Terror Threats by Peter Hyatt

The following terrorist threat analysis  comes in response to an article from Judicialwatch.org which criticizes the FBI for misclassifying the Orlando shooter as not a threat.  I look at the criticism, some samples of threat, and offer reasoning to suggest that the agents may be wrongfully blamed for not perceiving the threat to Orland.  

Judicial Watch seeks through the freedom of information act to obtain information not published in main stream or corporate media. My comments and analysis are in bold type.  The plain type is from Judicial Watch.  

"Liars are murderers in training."

Hindsight is 20/20 but there is much to learn.  Had the FBI been permitted to study the ideology from Islamic scholars, historians and critics, they would have understood that his language, first and foremost, in context of his upbringing, all but guaranteed he would carry out murder.  

They found no connections to same sex attraction (SSA), nor any psychological disturbance that could be interpreted properly. 

They did not possess the necessary tools and training.  This is evident to the point of taking one single issue and concluding the highest level of threat possible, as readers will see. 

Those of you who have studied statement analysis, or long term readers of the blog know, context is key.  Language, complex as it is, is but a shadow of the complexity it represents in human nature.  

To properly conclude a low level threat, one must see that the subject has articulated in his own words:

1.  An understanding of the negative external consequences of his actions, including death, imprisonment, etc. 

2.  An articulation where he reveals a conscience, and the source of this conscience.  If he has been raised "thou shalt not kill" as a general ideology, and shows that in life, his actions will have a negative internal consequence, the odds continue to be reduced of violence.  Seeking to learn if one has a tender conscience is easily accomplished in the interview and it allows for the subject to even boast of his accomplishments as we carefully listen to his language about his victory, in particularly, the language of those he defeated.  Even children, in describing sports victories, can show empathy, or an extreme lack, towards the losers.  This is something critical, and readily accomplished in the analytical interview and can help not only discern terrorist threats, but vet law enforcement officials who, before hiring, can be seen as those who should not carry lethal force.  The lack of human empathy can, and should be, explored through sports (for the western mind).  For the Islamist, we look for his reactions to his fellow Muslims; particularly how he feels about those who are his peers, who may have surpassed him in accomplishments.  This is critical.  

3.  Thirdly, his words must reveal human empathy.  This means today, for example that young black boys who play "knock out games"; that is, they try to hit older white citizens with such force that they will be knocked unconscious ("polar bears"; they must be white and they must be much larger than the perpetrator which is why it appeals to young boys to target the elderly white citizens, gray haired and defenseless) they must have extraordinary callousness that only comes from either a childhood of discipline without empathy for victims, or a traumatic event that has paralyzed them from empathy for others.  These boys, sometimes as young as 10 years old, do that which is unthinkable for most.  

To walk into a bar and systematically slaughter people consider the timing:  after the first shooting, blood is everywhere.  Who could abide such blood and continue?

Consider the same with Islamic rape being so predominant.  They stone homosexuals, yet so readily have young boys for sex that American forces, not just in Afghanistan, but elsewhere, were sickened by such cruel behavior.  

That a man could be sexually aroused over a rape, itself, is unnatural sexual attraction (including to violence) but when it happens on a whole scale level, unrestricted to race or age, but utterly within a system of belief it must be rooted in childhood.  

When agents, analysts, investigators, or psychologists look at these situations and project their own backgrounds and belief systems, they are all but likely to be wrong in their conclusions.  

Islamic ideology, when raised in it from childhood, is, at its core, a supremacist ideology.  This means that any slight in life can only be explained by exploitation and fraud, and ends in violence.

Next, the subject is taught, from childhood on up, of his own supremacy, and the physical abuse of his mother, desensitizing him to violence.

In France's attack at the concert, we just learned that the victims were tortured, disemboweled, and had their testicles cut off, and shoved into their mouths.  One should ask, "What manner of man is capable of such horrors?" and "how could one do such without vomiting?"

What level of mankind must be reached to be able to remove from a living man, his testicles, and put them in his mouth?  Most of us would struggle to even listen to such a description, no less accomplish it.  We must understand from context or we will wrongfully project ourselves into the scenario and miss the threat.  Listen to the words and learn where the words originate from.  

The answer lies in childhood and the desensitizing process.  Behavioral analysis must proceed from the language first, more than anything else, as from the abundance of words, comes the thoughts, emotions and intents.  

In assessing a threat, we begin with "believing" the language of the subject in question.  Following his pronouns is key.  Behavioral analysis should flow naturally from the analysis of the language, therefore, when properly analyzed, will show the strength or weakness of a threat. 

Years ago, I was asked to analyze a suicidal threat in which federal analysis had shown "no risk" and the analyst felt "strongly" that it was just "attention seeking."

The pronouns, sentence structure, and economy of words told a different story, including the imperative and authoritative language of communication.  I concluded the letter was authentic and the writer should be sought immediately for professional intervention.  

The victim was found dead a short time later.  


Judicial Watch Obtains Documents Revealing FBI Declared Mateen “NOT” to be a Terrorist

“We do NOT believe he is a terrorist… I don’t believe he will go postal or anything like that.” 

 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released previously undisclosed documents from the St. Lucie, Florida, Sheriff’s Department revealing the FBI informed the sheriff’s office in late 2013 that Omar Mateen was “NOT” a terrorist and was no threat to “go postal.”  [Emphasis in original] 

 The email from the St. Lucie Sheriff’s Department details the remarks were made during a phone conversation with Randall Glass, the Florida regional resident in charge for the FBI. Other documents show Mateen admitted to initially lying to the FBI about past statements tying him to the Boston Marathon bombers, the Fort Hood terrorist, and al Qaeda terrorists in Kenya.

Note:  Deception is key.  He lied to federal law enforcement, which is a crime.  This level of crime is seen in those who hold a very powerful belief system (unless they are acutely mentally ill.)  This level of "powerful belief" must stem from childhood and is found within supremacy ideology, which has a severe impact upon children, leaving them with life long impressions.  This supremacist ideology has, innate, the belief that "I am superior to you (the FBI) and am under no obligation to tell you the truth."  This, alone, makes one a tangible threat. 

Deception is seen in intention.  If one has the belief that he is capable of lying to a federal agency, he is to be assumed to be suffering from a supremacist ideology (Islam).  

If the federal law enforcement officials are not permitted to study Islam, no less name it, they are incapable of overcoming their western ideology and projecting it upon others.  What we see as a strength, they see as weakness.  What we see as a weakness (poor impulse control, inability to argue logically and with civility, they see as strength). 

Judicial Watch obtained the document as result of its June 14, 2016, public records request seeking the following:

Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to a deceased individual named Omar Mateen, a/k/a Omar Mir Seddique… This request includes, but is not limited to, any and all records of communications between any official, employee, or representative of the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office and any other individual or entity regarding, concerning, or related to Mr. Mateen.

Included among the documents obtained by Judicial Watch is a September 27, 2013, email memo from former St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Department Major Michael Graves to Sheriff’s Department Director of Detention Patrick Tighe.
FBI concluded a several month long thorough investigation of one of our G4S employees, Omar Mateen, who works at the courthouse.

 Last night, I spoke with FBI SAC [Special Agent in Charge] ****** ****** name removed by PH,  who informed me they believe this individual has been making comments about his capabilities via his alleged middle eastern [sic] terrorist contacts as a form of tit for tat – who is the biggest and baddest rhetoric.  Reportedly, Mateem [sic] told FBI he did this because a deputy who no longer works at the courthouse kept calling him a “towel head.” Mateen denied saying some of the things the FBI knows he did say. If he were smart he should not lie to them about any portion of the investigation (federal offense). They plan to speak to him again regarding his discrepancy.
Rand told me “We do NOT believe he is a terrorist.” 

This statement, as written, is helpful as it shows the genesis of the error in analysis.  

If the agents were permitted to study the psychological impact of supremacy ideology, they would have understood that to the Islamist male, in particular, 'tit for tat' revenge is not an American saying, "get me a pizza without anchovies or I'll kill you" type of hyperbole. 

The subject's language  must be believed. 

"Towel head" is a form of tacquia to play into western political correctness claiming "Islamophobia."  This should have been a secondary indicator followed by the deception to the FBI.  However, it still reveals something far more important to the Islamic mind than the western mind:  insult. 

We say "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will not hurt me" to children to teach them to ignore name calling.  To ignore name calling by an Islamist is to bring shame upon himself, and his family.  It must be 'avenged.'  Quickly dismissed as 'tit for tat', while playing into the sympathy (tacquia) the threat is minimized and the anger not explored.  Sadly, a former police officer who was the terrorist co-worker, understood the anger beneath the surface and attempted to warn authorities, but was dismissed.  

Lying to Authority is to reveal contempt of authority.  

Deception to the FBI is a serious crime because it is a powerful indicator that someone is lacking fear of consequence; 

either he does not believe he will be prosecuted; 
or he does not believe he will be around for prosecution, or he views the federal agency with contempt, as powerless against him. 

Terrorist threat should be submitted to statement analysis before behavioral analysis and should only be measured in context:

For those who convert to Islam to become a terrorist:  they are not inherently "supremacist" and do not show the same language.  For them, there is the "wanna be" false bravado.  This may reduce the overall threat level, dependent still, on the language.  

There is a strong demarcation between those who were raised in childhood in Islam, and those who converted, later, in prison, for example.  This will impact the language.  The latter still have a 'western' mindset that seeks to adopt the Islamic supremacist.  Even if he feels himself 'victimized' (which is a very powerful motivator) he is not a 'true' supremacist.  

Yesterday, the FBI spoke with him in person and reportedly Mateen became very upset that someone contacted the FBI. Regarding this demeanor, Rand said, “I don’t believe he will go postal or anything like that.”

That the terrorist would be upset that someone contacted the FBI, itself, should not have reduced anything in the threat.  

Was he afraid of the FBI?

This could speak to a reduced threat; fearful of wrongfully being accused is a natural response.  Yet because he lied to the FBI, this is not likely the case; rather, this may have literally increased the insult in the supremacist's mind, further affirming the violence. 



At the time of the FBI interview, Mateen was employed by the security company G4S and served as a security guard at the St. Lucie County courthouse in 2013. Shortly after the email memo from Graves to Tighe, the Sheriff’s Department demanded that G4S remove Mateen from his position. In addition to its work in St. Lucie, G4S is a major contractor with the Department of Homeland Security, providing security at America’s ports and along the Mexican border.
The new documents also include a report from Michael Hogsten, Deputy General Counsel for G4S, in which he describes his November 6, 2013, interview with Mateen regarding the terrorist’s earlier questioning by the FBI:
  • Was alone with FBI – were very respectful and courteous. Not rough or disrespectful at all. Asked if related to Ft. hood [sic] shooter, or Boston bomber, asked if Obama was a Muslim – asked if Obama was citizen – were about conspiracy things at work.
    A. )After Boston bombing occurred – everyone got really nasty – I said – know what I’m related to Boston bomber is my first cousin and matter of fate – related to ft hood [sic] shooter – I know Kenya mall shooters – said so they would leave me alone.
    B.)Explained to FBI – that I said this to get them off my back…
    C.) Initially he denied – saying things; however, one agent said – they have it on recording – and then he admitted making statements.
“The documents show the FBI blew it,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The agency let Mateen off the hook even though he threatened his co-worker and tried to lie to the FBI agents questioning him about terrorist ties,” stated Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “No wonder the FBI reportedly tried to stop Florida law enforcement from responding to freedom of information requests about the Orlando massacre.”

The FBI is made up of professionals; many of whom longed to be in federal law enforcement from childhood dreams.  They are, in this sense, our "best and brightest."

I submit that they did not "blow it", but were deliberately hindered from the necessary research that analysis needs to properly contextualize the language of threats.  

The two "purges" that were recently revealed to the public show not simply deleting Islamic terrorists names by the Islamic leaning president, but much more.  

Allow these best and brightest access to the truth, and to the psychological studies done by criminal psychologists who have worked with Islamic crimes and they would have understood that making a threat, no matter how bravado, is not the same thing to the western mind as it is to the Islamist.

They would understand the use of tacquia, and the victim-status mentality that is so powerful, uniting, and must have demonization. 

They would grasp the religious component of this ideology that promises rape in the afterlife, and they would understand how the Islamist is able to, in culture after culture, commit rape of "infidels" wherever they are found, to the point where more than 1 in ever 4 Swedish woman (and girl) is raped by a Muslim.

They would understand why lying to the FBI is a clear red flag.

They would understand the desensitization process that takes place early in childhood. 

They would understand why terrorist groups like CAIR implore Muslim Americans not to report terrorist activities;

They would understand that the Mosque is not a place of prayer and peace, but where jihad is carefully planned and how the misfit, the psychologically disturbed, and others are chosen to become "special" to their community and why they are supported by entire Muslim communities.

They would understand that our colleges, throughout our nation, are given millions of dollars of grants from Saudi Arabia, the architects of 9/11, and other Islamic nations, for "Islamic Studies" which redact history, and practice tacquia to weaken the minds of the young.

They would understand that those Muslims who stand up and demand that Islam be reformed are still in a system that calls for the death penalty for anyone who attempts reformation and that in order to go back to "pure Islam"one must revere a murderer and pedophile as their religious leader. 

Nothing good can come from that. 



Judicial Watch previously released public records from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, showing that Orlando mass murderer Mateen was an expert marksman with a handgun.
Philip Haney, DHS, testifies of purge:

Barak Obama Warns Police


"Black Lives Matters" terrorist group began with the lie of "hands up" and has been embraced by Barak Obama as it fits the narrative he has long espoused.  Here is a statement of his to follow for consideration. 

Beginning shortly after he was elected, he targeted a Boston police officer, rushing to judgement before knowing the facts, for "harassing" a black teacher.  In the shooting of an armed felon and child molester, Obama called for no patience or calm. 
How selective is his patience?

When the Orlando Islamic terror killer called 911 and said he was a soldier of ISIS and was obedient to the Islamic call to kill the infidel, Obama asked us to wait because "we don't know the motives yet", emphasizing "motives", plural.  The press went on to avoid the ideology of Islam, instead targeting "right wing" Christians, as well as guns, themselves.  Since 2008, he has continually demonized police and order, itself.  Even when a suspect confesses his motive, Obama knows otherwise.  

Recently sharia compliant headlines  from main stream media of  "Trucks kill people in France", met by comments such as "planes attack Pearl Harbor" and "we must outlaw trucks so only outlaws have trucks" used ridicule to make the point.  No event is beyond politicizing, including police funerals.  None of the slain officers was a "son" to Obama.  

When Obama spoke at Dallas where officers were slaughtered by Black Lives Matters, he condemned the killing while using unnecessary additional language to justify the killing.  
The statistics across America show that blacks kill blacks in numbers such that more than 98% of murders of blacks occur at the hands of blacks; not police.  Police make up .04% of the killing of blacks, with investigation after investigation showing a response to a threat justifying the shooting.  Statement Analysis of "hands up" claim showed the officer in Ferguson was truthful in his account; although Obama ordered 40 federal investigators to find otherwise. The officer was saved by not only the truth he spoke, but of the many black witnesses who testified that there was no "hands up; don't shoot" and the officer fired in self defense. 
Yesterday, he made this statement.  

"There are legitimate issues that have been raised, and there’s data and evidence to back up the concerns that are being expressed by these protesters. 
"And if police organizations and departments acknowledge that there’s a problem and there’s an issue, then that, too, is going to contribute to real solutions.  And, as I said yesterday, that is what’s going to ultimately help make the job of being a cop a lot safer.  It is in the interest of police officers that their communities trust them and that the kind of rancor and suspicion that exists right now is alleviated."

To warn or caution police is victim blaming.  It is akin to a conviction and as foolish as blaming a rape victim's clothing.  Yet, it is even more lethal in context.  

Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal on the "data and evidence" statement:

But what if the Black Lives Matter movement is based on fiction? Not just the fictional account of the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., but the utter misrepresentation of police shootings generally.
To judge from Black Lives Matter protesters and their media and political allies, you would think that killer cops pose the biggest threat to young black men today. But this perception, like almost everything else that many people think they know about fatal police shootings, is wrong.
The Washington Post has been gathering data on fatal police shootings over the past year and a half to correct acknowledged deficiencies in federal tallies. The emerging data should open many eyes.
For starters, fatal police shootings make up a much larger proportion of white and Hispanic homicide deaths than black homicide deaths. According to the Post database, in 2015 officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks. (The overwhelming majority of all those police-shooting victims were attacking the officer, often with a gun.) Using the 2014 homicide numbers as an approximation of 2015’s, those 662 white and Hispanic victims of police shootings would make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths. That is three times the proportion of black deaths that result from police shootings. 
The lower proportion of black deaths due to police shootings can be attributed to the lamentable black-on-black homicide rate. There were 6,095 black homicide deaths in 2014—the most recent year for which such data are available—compared with 5,397 homicide deaths for whites and Hispanics combined. Almost all of those black homicide victims had black killers. 
Police officers—of all races—are also disproportionately endangered by black assailants. Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.
Some may find evidence of police bias in the fact that blacks make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, compared with their 13% representation in the national population. But as residents of poor black neighborhoods know too well, violent crimes are disproportionately committed by blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there. 
Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force.
The Black Lives Matter movement claims that white officers are especially prone to shooting innocent blacks due to racial bias, but this too is a myth. A March 2015 Justice Department report on the Philadelphia Police Department found that black and Hispanic officers were much more likely than white officers to shoot blacks based on “threat misperception”—that is, the mistaken belief that a civilian is armed. 
A 2015 study by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway, formerly acting director of the National Institute of Justice, found that, at a crime scene where gunfire is involved, black officers in the New York City Police Department were 3.3 times more likely to discharge their weapons than other officers at the scene.
The Black Lives Matter movement has been stunningly successful in changing the subject from the realities of violent crime. The world knows the name of Michael Brown but not Tyshawn Lee, a 9-year-old black child lured into an alley and killed by gang members in Chicago last fall. Tyshawn was one of dozens of black children gunned down in America last year. The Baltimore Sun reported on Jan. 1: “Blood was shed in Baltimore at an unprecedented pace in 2015, with mostly young, black men shot to death in a near-daily crush of violence.” 
Those were black lives that mattered, and it is a scandal that outrage is heaped less on the dysfunctional culture that produces so many victims than on the police officers who try to protect them.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

"Passing the Smell Test"

A common expression in law enforcement is "this doesn't pass the smell test" or
"this does not pass the straight face test."

What it means is that the story is not really adding up.  

In the disappearance of Baby Ayla, Justin DiPietro's story about his mother's home being broken into, tiny house that it was, in the middle of the night, with the kidnapper finding just the right room, avoiding all the other children and adults, and getting in and out without a single piece of trace evidence (tiny DNA) led the spokesman for the investigation to say,

"This doesn't pass the straight face test."

This statement should never be part of a professional analyst's vocabulary or report.  

Here is why:

When something is 'too good to be true', it likely is.  Yet, every so often, odds are defied and even though the "straight face test" may be 90% accurate, 

an analyst who includes this is not exercising statement analysis, but is doing what I call "guess analysis" which could, in just one case, destroy his or her reputation.  

"It is not statement analysis." 

This is the best response in correcting and guiding analysts:  Stay as a 'slave' to the text, and even if you feel certain that 'this is a lie', if the language does not support it, do not assert it.

Every so often, a case arises in which the odds are defied and this is a good reminder for the analyst to keep to the disciplines of the science and avoid making a judgement call. 

Recently, Lenny Dykstra, former major league ballplayer, has been doing public relations work to sell his new book.  In his book, he makes some outrageous claims about other athletes, his own behavior, and what other celebrities have done.  

In response to these claims, some have said that the claims seem too fantastical, and 'don't pass the smell test' for truth. 

Yet, the language tells us otherwise.  Even events that appear shocking, or 'just could not have happened', have been alleged in strong language, and have been denied in weak language. 

Such claims as Mets manager Davey Johnson being drunk all the time were addressed by former players of whom no reliable denial was given.  Dykstra said that he and Robert DeNiro went on a cocaine binge of which DeNiro said, "bull$%!" as his denial.

Other "fantastic" claim was that former Mets' player Kevin Mitchell decapitated his girlfriend's cat in front of two players and his girlfriend.  

In viewing all the statements, the analysis shows that it might not pass the smell or straight face test, but it does pass the scrutiny of scientific analysis:  the former Mets player and former gang member, did, in fact, take a kitchen knife, pick up the cat by the scruff, and slit its throat.  That he was a gang member and was raised in ways of which a person will become desensitized to violence, notwithstanding, the language is the best indicator for truth and deception's discernment. 

Even though the 'straight face' or 'smell' test appeals to common sense, the analyst's reputation is on the line, and the most experienced; that is, those who have survived early struggles, sometimes for years, with the complexity of human nature and human language, know all too well:

instincts can be wrong but the scientific repeated process is the safest and most accurate way to discern truth from deception. 

In the murder of Amanda Blackburn, I wrote that investigators repeatedly asked, "who is this lucky?" when it came to all the coincidental elements of the case.  This is interesting but it is not statement analysis and it cannot be used in an analytical report's finding.  As an article, in the upcoming Part IV conclusion of the case, I address the coincidentals of the case, but within the language that caused investigators to ask this rhetorical question.  

While everything may have pointed to Kevin Fox in the death of his daughter, the investigators ignored the language, and went with statistics and their 'gut instincts' to falsely accuse the innocent father, causing untold damage to him and his family, and millions of dollars to tax payers, along with the damage to the reputation of law enforcement. 

This is why I urge professionals to avoid 'check list' mentality of disengaging the intellect and rushing to a conclusion. 

Bumper sticker slogans may work for lawyers appealing to the lazy minded jury, but the professional analyst has justice to consider first, then his science and then his reputation.  

Some may survive an error here and there, early on, but as they learn, they also learn that fads, short cuts and stupendous claims of "lie detection" can do more damage than they do good, and are best for hollywood and book selling, but not for justice.

It is not enough to know someone is lying, we must be able to report accurately why we know he is lying. 

For professional training opportunities see Hyatt Analysis Services


Friday, July 15, 2016

Michael Walsh: Guilt in 911 Call


EAST POINT, Ga. --East Point police have released 911 calls from a father charged with hiding the death of his daughter.


The child’s body had been found in Lake Allatoona 12 hours before she was reported missing. Authorities later identified her body. Her cause of death has not been released.

On July 1, East Point Police charged Michael Wash with aggravated assault, two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, cruelty to children in the third degree, giving false statements and concealing the death of another.

His live-in girlfriend, Lasharae Davis, is charged with being party to the crime of aggravated assault, party to the crime of two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, party to the crime of cruelty to children in the third degree, giving false statements and concealing the death of another. 


911 Call:


Operator: (OP)

Caller: (C)

OP:  Inaudible

C:  Hi i'm calling to, to report my daughter missing.

Here we have a missing child with a caller using the casual polite greeting of "hi" unexpectedly. 

Note the repetition (stutter/halt) upon the word "to" giving the reason for his call.  

This is a most sensitive point.  He is not asked "why are you calling?" but the emergency itself stands as the expected response.  To give the reason for his call is to distance himself from the issue at hand, slow down the pace of the call, and is the third point to be noted within his very first sentence that something is wrong with this call.  

He states the reason for his call, rather than the report itself.  It is subtle, but in an emergency, there should be no linguistic display.  

OP:  Ok, where was she last seen sir?

C:  She was last seen here in my house this morning (something is said in the background, it is not the OP  and think it is his girlfriend, he goes on to correct himself and says) well last night i'm sorry.

He begins with parroting language which, although not most unexpected, it follows his slow pace.  Scripting language can show that the focus of the caller is upon the 911 operator (the 'police') rather than blurting out what he knows.  Here, with the background chatter, we are given an indication of scripting the call. 

Next, we take note that his brain told his tongue to use the words "I'm sorry" in the call. This is both ingratiating ("hi") and it is an indication that he has something he is sorry for, that is, regrets, and the target of his sorrow is not the child, but the police, as seen through the operator who represents authority.  

OP:  What's the address hun.

C:  1725 McCleland  Avenue apartment number 2 (overtalk)

OP:  How old is your daughter?

C:  Seven years old.

OP:  Seven

C:  Yes.

Op:  Ok she was last seen last night.

C:  Yes, last night she was - She was  asleep early. I got off of work at 8 o'clock this morning. We woke up, I was looking around for her, and the door was unlocked.

To the untrained ear, this will sound 'awkward' or strange.  It sounds this way because it is:  scripting sounds 'forced' or unnatural.  The change from "I" (psychologically strong or 'safe' while at work) to "we" (now that the child is missing, I do not want to be alone, so I will intuitively put myself with another person) is critical.  Guilt hates to be alone and guilt seeks to mitigate or 'spread it around' by being with others.  Even if the punishment of the crime will not change, criminals 'like' not being alone with the consequences.  It is why parents will correct children when they advance, "but everyone was doing it", as if the multitude of offenders alleviates the responsibility for the infraction.  

Parents are easily manipulated with this one: "Everyone was talking!" which is to suggest:

"Only  my child was punished!  The teacher doesn't like my child and favors the others" effectively losing the opportunity for not only correction, but to teach responsibility.  

For advanced analysis, we have "door" to explore for early childhood sexual abuse, or sexual abuse in the case, as well as the linguistic signal of beginning an activity without conclusion.  

OP: Your front door?

C:  Yes my front door  

(OP buts in)

Ok has she ever run away before?

C:  No she has never run away before.

The parroting back of answers tells us, again, how carefully (guardedly) the caller is listening to the operator.  

OP:  Ok.  Give me a description of her,  Is she Black, White or Latino?

C:  She's black.

OP:  Ok an...is there anything like messed up in the house.?  Does the door look like it's been forced open?  

C: no-no.  

OP:  Is there anything that..no struggle no nothing?

C:  No struggle no nothing.

Here, the operator knows that the caller is not yielding information willingly, but sticking close to the operator's own words.  

OP:  Have you tried to call any of her friends, do you, anything?

OP:  Do you need me to call anybody (overtalk, inaudible) so she doesn't have any friends?

C:  I tried to call my mother cos but she doesn't live here.  I just tried to call my mother to calm me down.

Key:  concern for self, not for child.  This tells us, not so much 'selfishness' but that the caller is in need for intervention and the child may be beyond need of help.  

This is not to dismiss selfishness, and the subsequent child neglect produced, but to show that the need for assistance is with the caller and not the child, raising the possibility that the child is dead. 

OP:  I know baby i can only imagine.. i know i know.  When you saw her last night what was she wearing?

This is interesting because it exposes the understanding of the operator:  The 911 operator knows that the caller is not working to get the flow of information to police, but hindering it.  The skill is evident:  using empathy in an attempt to get information.  

C:  She was wearing like a polca do..erm, omg (what sounds like) i can't remember.

Disaffected father; not on 'high alert' hormonally, for the child.  

OP:  Just think baby, just calm down we'll get you baby back.  Help me help you.  Just think, what was she wearing last night?

The caller asks his girlfriend ( Lasharae Davis) in the back ground.  "Lasharae, do you know what she was wearing last night before she went to bed"?  (Mumbling in the back ground)  The (C) comes back to the phone and says

 "I got off of working late last night.

Here the caller feels the need to explain why he does not know the clothing the child had on (pajamas may not have been used) which affirms neglect.  If a father is at work and does not know what the child went to bed in (even guessing, "her pjs!"), he would not have the need to explain why he does not know.  

OP:  When you got home last night you went in and checked on her and she was there?

C: She  was asleep last night she was there. (OP overtalk saying "ok ok"

This unnecessary emphasis of "she was there" (if she was asleep, she would have to be 'there') is reminiscent of Billie Jean Dunn's statement to the same effect:  the living child was not there.  

OP:  Ok.  And When you got up this morning you went to look for her and she wasn't there but the front door was unlocked 

C:  Yes.  I got up this morning i'm always the first one up in the morning, everybody else is asleep.  She shares a room with her little sister but was sleeping in the room with me and her mom.  

Here we see the deception of "we woke up" using the plural. 
We also have the 'normal' effect:  the attempt to make a situation that is not normal appear normal.  This tells us a story within itself. 

OP:  Did you guys get into a fight or anything like that?  Was she disciplined yesterday   

Great questions, but not in compound form.  

C:  No..not yesterday, no. Sometimes she do get in trouble but yesterday..

The child is here, subtly blamed, for what befell her.  



OP:  Of course.

C: Yeahh...

A missing child is the highest priority to the scared parent and to this parent, the child can do no wrong.  This is why we look for any slight type of 'indictment' of the child because the guilt of human nature is such that it seeks to justify itself, to lessen the guilt, and show, in some way, that the victim 'deserved' what he and/or her mother did to her.  


OP:  Anything unusual though?

C:  She is known to sneek around the house at night like, but she normaly just sneeking for like food in the kitchen and stuff like that....

'The child is a "sneak" and even steals food.   She had to be punished.'  This is how the guilty mind seeks to lessen the concern for guilt for self:  blame the child's behaviors, to the point here, where "she is known" for this.  



OP:  Just not out the door.

C:  She never left out the door.

Long pause, OP typing.

OP:  Ok,  Dad, what is her name?

C:   Kamaire,  K-a-m-a-i-r-e.  I just ran outside into the playground looking for her.  I just got in my car looking around .

Rather than eliminate specific places where she will not be found, he:

a.  gives a false sense of urgency; not for finding the child, but in his own behavior.  See word "just" repeated;
b.  "looking around" eliminates nothing specific in the search for her.  

OP:  And what's her last name honey,  Kamaire what?

C:  Wash  W-a-s-h

OP:  Ok.  And your last names Wash aswell?

C:  Yes

OP:  First name

C:  Michael

OP:  Ok Michael and the call back number fro you, what your phone number?

C:  (redacted)

OP:  they're aon thier way ok.

C:  thank you.

Polite "ingratiating" himself to police authorities.  'Maybe they will understand and go easy on me.  Maybe they will see how she was known for being a sneak and causing trouble, stealing food and such and how she had to be disciplined and...' 

OP:  You're welcome

Call Ends.