Thursday, November 1, 2012

Daily Denials Understood

This week, I told investigators that in practicing Statement Analysis, the study of the Reliable Denial will be the simplest to find samples for.  They are always in abundance, especially from politicians. 

A reliable denial is deceptively simple:

"I didn't do it", with "it" being the specific allegation.

Instead, the investigators were likely to find, "I would never do such a thing!" or the Sermon, moralizing against the allegation but not denying it.  They may even find, "I didn't do that", which indicates that since they did not do "that", what they did do was "this"; as when there is a "that", there is a "this" in their situation.

The reliable denial must not be reflective language.  It must come while the subject is speaking for himself, freely.

"Did you steal the checks out of your grandmother's purse?" answered by "No, I didn't steal the checks out of my grandmother's purse" is reflective language; that is, reflecting or parroting back the Interviewer's question.

The truly innocent (not just judicially innocent) will say "I didn't do it" often without waiting for the question or accusation.  It flows freely, easily and simply.  It is readily recognizable.

I told investigators to "pick up the newspaper", which, today, means go online, and find someone accused of something, reminding them how generous politicians are with regards to scandals.  The article might say "So and So Denies..." but that they would know whether the denial is reliable or not.  Each day in the news, someone is accused of something.

Lo and Behold:


Two women from the Dominican Republic told The Daily Caller that Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez paid them for sex earlier this year.  Bob Menendez called for Secret Service firings over prostitution.  
In interviews, the two women said they met Menendez around Easter at Casa de Campo, an expensive 7,000 acre resort in the Dominican Republic. They claimed Menendez agreed to pay them $500 for sex acts, but in the end they each received only $100.
The women spoke through a translator in the company of their attorney, Melanio Figueroa. Both asked that their identities remain obscured for fear of reprisals in the Dominican Republic.
When shown a photograph of Sen. Menendez, the women said they recognized him as the man with whom they’d had sexual relations at Casa de Campo this spring. Both said they were brought to the resort with the understanding they would be paid for sex.
Neither knew the identity of the man at the time. Both claimed to recognize him later as Sen. Menendez.
“He called him[self] ‘Bob,’” said one.
One woman said Menendez wooed her with compliments like “beautiful” before they slept together. The other woman recounted, with apparent bitterness, receiving from an intermediary only $100 of the $500 she had been promised.
“He lies,” she said of Menendez. “He says one thing and does another.”
According to the translator’s summary, Menendez “was nice at first, but then later he did not seem to care about her.”
Menendez, who is 58 and divorced, has represented New Jersey in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat since being appointed to fill a vacancy in 2005. He is up for re-election on Nov. 6.
Asked about the allegations, Menendez spokeswoman Tricia Enright refused to answer any questions on the subject. “We’re not going to respond to a completely false accusation,” she wrote by email.
Here, we note what is said in the negative:  "We're not going to respond."  Please note that this is a response. 
Next note that "false accusations" is sensitive, as seen in the word "completely"
When Sen. Menendez speaks out, we expect him to say that he did not pay for sex from these women and that he did not have sex with them.  This is called "the expected" in analysis.  We will either hear the "expected" or we will be "surprised" by the unexpected. 
This is how deception is detected. 
It is known that Sen. Menendez has been a regular visitor to the Dominican Republic. On at least one occasion, according to a news account, Menendez has been a guest at the Casa de Campo home of a friend and campaign donor named Salomon Melgen, an ophthalmologist and owner of an eye clinic in Florida.
Melgen has donated $14,700 to Menendez’s campaigns since 1993, with the bulk of it coming since he became a U.S. Senator, according to Federal Election Commission data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Melgen also appears to have lent Menendez the use of his plane on several occasions.
Menendez’s 2012 public schedule shows no events listed for Easter or the following three days. On Easter Sunday this year, aircraft records obtained by TheDC show that Melgen’s plane left Florida the morning of Easter Sunday, stopped at the Teterboro private airport near Menendez’s home in New Jersey, and flew on to the Dominican Republic.
Two days later it returned to the United States, from a private airport near Casa de Campo.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/01/women-sen-bob-menendez-paid-us-for-sex-in-the-dominican-republic/#ixzz2AxuJscOh



12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have searched the internet exhaustively in trying to obtain statements made by Obama regarding his knowledge of the fast and furious scandal. All searches lead to news articles titled Obama denies knowledge, but do not quote him. I had earlier found a quote he did, which I posted in one of your old blog posts where he didn't deny it, but rather stated he was disgusted with the idea. (When you don't answer the question, you did) I provided a link to that article and video, but can no longer find it. I did notice though that when he is quoted, he states. "certainly I was not aware" and always qualifies his statement with fast and furious. Interestingly enough though, it is now known as fast and furious but back when he implemented the program it was known as Operation Gun Walking or Gunrunning (not sure exactly what it was known to these lieing hacks). I surely wish he would be asked a broader question, by forcing him to include his knowledge of gun running operations to Mexico.

Furthermore, Ed Holder is unable to provide an answer as to who higher up than him knew of F&F.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/07/holder-ducks-questions-on-who-highest-ranking-official-with-fast-and-furious-knowledge-was/

Frannie said...

This fellow is not married. He was in the Dominican Republic on his own time (not "company time" like the Secret Service guys). Who cares if he paid for sex? Under these circumstances I certainly don't. Why are the whores speaking out? They went to do their job willingly - paid for sex! Would they be speaking out if they got paid the amount they wanted? Maybe there were lousy whores and didn't "perform" to his liking. Why are the whores afraid of "reprisals" in their country? Is that because people frown upon whores speaking out of school and possibly slowing down the sex trade business from wealthy foreigners? A few things to ponder.

Apple said...

Frannie,
Your comments are interesting and offer a different point of view that I would not have thought of.. I still think voters want their elected officials to have integrity, to not solicit prostitution, and to not lie. Some may not care. I do.

rob said...

Ha! Don't ask me for $500 dollars worth then give me $100 for it.

Hobnob said...

Hi frannie.

He may well have been single and boinking in his own time.
however prsitutuion is illegal in many places so he could be comminting a criminal act.

What is and should be of concern to his voters and the country is that by paying prostitutes he then leaves himself wide open to blackmail.

This is particularly of note if he advocated morality, no sex outside marriage, demanded strong penalties for prostitutes and johns.

The people we vote to represent us are expected to behave appropriately, be honest, non criminal and so on. we expect our representitives to be like us.
They are held up as examples to the young, do good, study an work hard and you too can be someone.

The fact this has come out even though he is single should make many ask what else has he done we don't know about yet?
Trust has been broken.
The prostitutes may well have a valid claim and be unaware of who he was, it could also be someone has done some digging so as to paint him in a bad light and thus render him unelectable.

That this news has come out so close to the election i have to wonder who pointed the paper in the right direction in the first place?

Regardless of if it is true or not, the timing smacks of political skullduggery.
If he wants to be reelected then he needs to be truthful to his family, friends, voters and the party.
By being honest he removes any chance of blackmail or accusations of favoritism if the staory is sat on.

In politics be honest about everything, do nothing that would bring shame on yourself your family your friends and your constituents, if you mess up admit it, coverups never work and it will come back to bite you in the butt.

Lemon said...

Should you be fired, Senator Bob?

"Interestingly, on April 17, Sen. Menendez was interviewed by NJ Today Online and was asked about what the consequences should be for the secret service agents who were involved in the sex scandal in Cartegena, Colombia.

He answered, "If the facts are true, they should all be fired. The reality is is that the secret service not only protects the president of the United States, they represent the United States of America. They were on duty. If the facts are true as we are reading in the press, they shouldn't have a job."

When asked about the agents who said they have not been adequately funded, Menendez doubled down on his response saying, "I don't think that's an excuse. You know what your duty and obligation is. You know you're there to protect the president. You know you're there representing the United States of America. You don't go and solicit prostitutes." Several days after this interview six secret service agents were fired over the scandal."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/31/picket-flashback-sen-menedez-called-secret-service/

Anonymous said...

Frannie, I care. For many reasons. The first of which is paying for sex is objectifying a person. This is no little thing. To treat someone as a rag doll, even if they invite you to do it, is wrong.

I have also read that people in the sex trade do not live as long as others. So it is a good thing to refuse to participate in an activity that will shorthen the other person's lifespan.

These are just two of the reasons off the top of my head I care. Give me more time and I could go on.

Bottom line - you can't seperate someone's character from how they treat other people. Someone who sees other people as objects shouldn't be in a leadership position.

Sue said...

Anonymous said...
Frannie, I care. For many reasons. The first of which is paying for sex is objectifying a person. This is no little thing. To treat someone as a rag doll, even if they invite you to do it, is wrong.

I have also read that people in the sex trade do not live as long as others. So it is a good thing to refuse to participate in an activity that will shorthen the other person's lifespan.

These are just two of the reasons off the top of my head I care. Give me more time and I could go on.

Bottom line - you can't seperate someone's character from how they treat other people. Someone who sees other people as objects shouldn't be in a leadership position.


WOW! WELL SAID. WHY DONT MORE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS?

Anonymous said...

frannie your post is interesting. you ask why did the whores speak out?

this should have been covered more:

because they didnt get paid!

Why would a famous politiican who pays for sex with his own money on his own time THINK he could rip them off, promising 500 but only giving 100 and then think they will keep quiet about it?

Anonymous said...

Hi Frannie

Do you have a sensitivity regarding prostitution?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Re: Frannie- A Couple of Things
It's interesting how many times you chose to use the derogatory term "whores". What does that make our United States Senator? If you're going to contemptuously call them "whores", shouldn't he be called something equally as demeaning? After all, he would have been the one seeking the service, initiating the contact,engaging the women, and paying for the sex acts? Why the need to villify only the women? It's pathetic that anyone would need to pay for sex, much less leave the country to do it. Why not simply do it in New Jersey? Oh, that's right! That's illegal.

As for did he or didn't he, a simple and direct denial could have cleared this up within seconds...didn't happen. Which begs the question, why not?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

A Couple More Things
Character counts. Deception in the "little" things = deception in the bigger things. What a man/woman practices is what he/she becomes. He was elected to represent New Jersey, both here and abroad (read your Constitution). Paying for prostitutes abroad isn't exactly what the citizens of New Jersey probably had in mind. When you're elected to make the laws, it's kind of expected that you not break those laws.

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that our Senators had so much free time to make frequent flights to the Dominican Republic. Silly me, I thought they were far too busy: trying to hammer out a balanced budget; saving an economy; reduce unemployment; solving an imminent energy crisis; stave off global warming; inventing phantom funding for that "free" national healthcare system; reprimanding the Postal Service; campaigning; stumping for their party's candidate; legalize all those illegal immigrants grandfathered in by our President; defending our borders while cutting military funding; tiptoeing around our new-found Muslim friends Libya, Iran, Pakistan and Syria, etc. Perhaps if the Senator had stayed home reading that new, mysterious "free" Health Care bill that we're all about to be hit with, there wouldn't be any allegations to begin with? Just my own opinions.