Friday, November 16, 2012

Joe Cupo: The List and Station Fall Out


In what appeared to be more a publicity stunt than news reporting, the director of WCSH news has resigned after the airing of the Joe Cupo "I'm not on the list" statement.  WCSH has not commented, but perhaps it was the opening lines where they reported that they do not respond to rumors, yet did this very thing.

Here is the original news broadcast and the updated article.   I have asked Renee "Eyes for Lies" to weigh in on the video.  She said she needed more sample.  It would have been advantageous to have the Interviewer ask direct questions and seek information rather than the manner in which this was conducted.

The following is a great example to teach about reliable denials.
"I didn't do it" is a highly reliable denial when "it" specifies the accusation.  We note its presence just as we note its absence 

'We not in the business of reporting rumors, but here we go,' says local tv news station when it came to one of their own.

Is the TV station using this for self promotion?  Note the exaggerated language in the report.  Will they seek to create publicity for their own program through this?  I have not found a single article, anywhere, that is "talking" about Joe Cupo.  Note the attempt to create buzz on the video.  

This is about the Maine "All Star List" of men who visited a prostitute.  It has had an impact upon careers and lives.

Here is the video and transcript of the local weatherman's denial.

If it were to be rumored that you, yourself, were on the list, what would you say?

"I am not on the list" would be important, but would you say, "I am not on the list because I didn't go to a prostitute" and give the reason why you are not on the list?  Or, would giving the reason, itself, be considered sensitive?  Since it is 'cause and effect', I think it would not be sensitive to say why I am not on the list.  

The accusation, here, technically, is "the list", but the accusation is, moreover, going to a prostitute.  

             The local weatherman is Joe Cupo.

"am not on the list" is present tense.  The list is yet to be released. 

 If he is only thinking of the list, could this be only about the portion of the list that has been published?  Is he referring to the entire list?  Is he referring to the latest list?  Since the police are releasing only a few names every few weeks, there are many lists. 

                          What is the expected?  

Statement Analysis anticipates and presupposes truth and innocency, therefore, when not found, we are 'surprised' by its absence.  This is a critical took in detecting deception. 

"I didn't go to a prostitute.  I am not on the list."  This would be strong, as it would link him to the past tense ("didn't) along with the "I"(first person singular).  "I am not on the list since I did not go to a prostitute" would be very strong and reliable. "I am not on the list because I can't be on the list because I didn't go to a prostitute, or to Zumba, or to the woman who ran it."

The word "never" should not be taken as "did not"; unless the question is, "Have you ever?"  Please see how "never" in Statement Analysis, is not to be substituted for "did not" in cases of Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong.  A liar might say "I never doped" but will avoid saying "I did not dope."  "Never" is more general, and causes less internal stress than "did not."   (Note her attorney:  Lin Wood, from John Ramsey fame. )  She filed a 25 million dollar lawsuit, yet Statement Analysis showed her deception.  She later confessed and went to jail. 

Learn what a reliable denial looks like.  It has three components. If one is missing, it is unreliable, or if there are four components, it is unreliable. 

"I did not take the money" is very strong. 
"I did not go to the prostitute" is very strong. 

Here are some unreliable denials:

"I would never take the money."  This is not a denial, because the verb, "would" is future/conditional tense.  
"I never went to a prostitute."   (Note that if the question is asked with the word, "ever", the response with "never" is appropriate.)  Someone might have not taken the money and said, "never" but we would need "never" to accompany "did not" in order to be reliable. 

Newspapers are notorious for reporting, "Celebrity Denies Scandal" or "Politician Denies...." when, in fact, the subject often did not deny the allegation.  

If the subject speaks enough, and still avoids a reliable denial, we may conclude our analysis with deception, however, it may be that the subject needs to be brought to the denial.  In this case, he only denies the "list" but not prostitution itself. Given enough time, an innocent person will tell us he didn't do it, yet what if he thinks he should only address the "list" and not prostitution itself?

What do you think?  What would you have said, in his shoes?  This is called "the expected."  Analysis deals with the "unexpected."

If video does not play, click here  Beneath the video is the transcript with the analysis in bold type.  

"All the male anchors' names have been coming up so when I first heard it I figured I would let it play out

Here we have the first sensitivity indicator.  He tells us why he did something:  he "let it play out."  
We do not know the reason why he felt the need to let something play out.  

Why would it even concern him? 

This is very sensitive.  

Please note that the use of the pronoun, "I" in "I would let it play out" suggests an element of control over the situation.  How is it that he has an element of control to "let" it play out?  This indicates prior knowledge of the rumor.  If the names of male reporters was coming out, and he is not on it, he would have not need to "let" anything play out, unless there was a motive for the "playing out" of names.  Due to the fact that this is on television, and the news channel is playing it up, one might wonder if the "playing out" is a publicity stunt of sorts.  

But, two things:  number one, the fact that it is going to take so long for these names all to come out and this rumor is going to be going on and on.  

Always note that when something is numbered, the subject is speaking from logic, more than from emotion.  

"This" rumor:  the word "this" indicates closeness, while the word "that" indicates distance.  The rumor is what he is talking about and it is "close" to him.  

Note "going on and on" suggests time pressuring.  The length of time of the rumors is important to the subject. 

And, secondly, the rumor has just grown. 

Note he does address what is "second" in his list.  This suggests pre-thought.  
Note the word "just" seeks to reduce or minimize something.  If I wanted to sell you a $15,000 car, I might first show you a $20,000 car.  When you say, "I cannot afford that!", I would then roll out the $15,000 car and say, "Yes, but this one is just $15,000."  The word "just" is used to compare downward. 

 It's gotten to the point now where everyone is talking about it and 

I had not heard of the rumor.  I haven't read about it anywhere.  
"everyone" suggests self importance from a local celebrity (I had not heard of him until I was sent this video).  

The news station reported that they were not in the business of reporting rumors, yet had their own address the camera.  Was this an attempt to up the numbers of viewership?  "Everyone" is talking about it is an exaggeration. 

I'm really concerned about how its affecting my wife

Note that his concern is sensitive as it is highlighted by the word "really"
Note "my wife" is an incomplete social introduction.  He does not use her name.  This may be due to trouble in the marriage, or it may be due to not wanting to use her name on television; yet his own name is something he markets for advantage. 

This raises the question:  Why would you be concerned about your wife, if you did not visit a prostitute?  He then tells us why he is concerned:  

She has a business up in Freeport and she's got people coming into that store asking her about this.  

Note that people are coming "into" that store, indicating that customers are not staying away due to the rumor.
Note that the store is "that" store; showing distancing language from the store.  
"She's got people" is passive language.  Passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility.  We sometimes hear it when identity is not known.  

You know, some of them want to help out thinking that I'm guilty and that upsets me and it upsets her and more than me, I think, so I just thought it might be a good time to try to clear the air.  

Weakness indicated. 

"You know" is a habit of speech.  We note when any habit arises, or when it does not.  "You know" shows an acute awareness of the interviewer's presence (either the interviewer, or the question used).  

Note the words "I'm guilty" are framed by Joe Cupo.  We do not know if he is entering the language of another person, such as in the store.  Did someone say to his wife, "Is your husband guilty?"

This may be an embedded confession, or it may be that he is quoting another.  

Note that he is only "trying" to clear the air:  why not "clear the air?" 

This is the perfect opportunity for him to say "I didn't go to a prostitute.  I cannot be on the list, or any list."  

Of the "people" that come in, only "some" of them want to help out, thinking he is guilty.  What do the others come in for?  What do they say?

He then addressed the rumors and said that if a TV station were to do "that", they'd lose all their "credibility."

"I feel that the only thing I can do at this point is is to go in front of everyone and say 'hey look, I'm not on the list.  I've never been down there. I never, I never even met this woman.' So, there you go.  And that's the best I can do. "

Note "I never" is repeated indicating sensitivity. When someone says that they "can only" do something, it means that they are limited.  They may be limited by consequence, or limited by knowledge. 
"At this point" tells us that he "can" do other things, at other points of time. 

Please note:  he does not say "I am not on the list." 

This is a critical point.  

Had he said, "I am not on the list" it would have been stronger, even in the present tense.  

Had he said, "I did not go to a prostitute.  I am not on the list" it would have been reliable, meaning that it is very likely that he did not go to a prostitute and could not be on the list.  If he was on the list, someone used his name falsely.  This is how strong a denial "I did not go to a prostitute; I am not on the list" is.  It is the simplest and strongest thing to say.  

Put yourself in his shoes:  what would you say, if you did not go to any prostitute, including the Zumba prostitute, and could not be on the list?  

You would say, "I didn't go to a prostitute.  I can't be on any list" or something close to it. 

Statement Analysis teaches:  Listen to what someone tells you and DO NOT interpret.  

Question:  Did he say he is not on the list?
Answer:    No, he did not. 

He did not say "I am not on the list";  he only says that this is something he will "say":  he is speaking about what he "can say", rather than making a statement.  This is also weak.  

He can only "try" to clear the air, indicating weakness.  He 
"can say", 'hey look, I'm not on the list...', reporting what he can say, instead of saying it. 

"And that's the best I can do" begins with "And" indicating missing information.   Also note "that's the best I can do" is truthful, as he may have limitations on doing better than this.  Easily, I can think of something "better":  "I am not on the list because I did not go to a prostitute."

                         This is not a reliable denial. 

Let's say the accusation is that you took the missing money from your company.  What might you say?

1.  "I didn't take the money."  Very strong denial.  If, on follow up, we ask, "Tell us why we should believe you when you said you didn't take the money" and you said, "Because I told the truth", it would be 99% likely that you did not take the money, since you issued a reliable denial AND used the confirmation "I told the truth", with "I", "told" (past tense) and the word "truth."

2.  "I can say that I didn't take the money" only reports what you can say.  It is not the same as saying it, as you are only reporting what you "can" say.  This brings distance between you and the reliable denial, begging the question, "Why the need for distance?"

He does not say that he is not on the list, only that he "can" say it, along with "hey, look" used for emphasis. 

Interviewer:  (Addressed rumor spreading and consequences.)  

"You're so right.  And that that that's you, couldn't, you hit the nail right on the head with that. You know you start spreading things like this, you affect peoples' lives. You know, in a detrimental way."

Always note stuttering from a non-stutterer.  As a television weather reporter, it is not likely that he is a stutterer.  This indicates an increase in tension. 

Note that "you" affect "peoples' lives" which is not to say that "you" have affected "my life" from the subject. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Joe Cupo does not issue a reliable denial.  

If Joe Cupo cannot bring himself to issue a reliable denial, we are not permitted to say it for him.  Perhaps he would like to go back on the news and issue a reliable denial.  

Why not simply say "I am not on the list because I did not go to a prostitute"?  The truly innocent (not just judicially innocent) say so, without sensitivity indicators, nor qualifiers.  They often do not wait to be even asked.  

It could be because he went to a prostitute, or it could be that the news station is enjoying the buzz of dragging it out.   It is, however, the simplest of responses.  There is not reason to worry, nor to cause his wife emotional distress.  In fact, it can even be used to gain sympathy and increase business and name recognition.  

There is more to this than the short video.  I have yet to find the "rumors" on the internet.  If "everyone" is talking about it, where is "everyone" located?  Using search engines has, thus far, only produced news stories of his 'denial' but not of where the rumors are being circulated.  

Objection:  What if Joe Cupo wasn't given enough opportunity to say "I didn't go to a prostitute" by the Interviewer?

Response:  Objection sustained.  

We must be careful to note if someone is given opportunity to issue a reliable denial. 

Objection:  What if Joe Cupo did issue a reliable denial and the network edited it out?

Response:  Sustained.  If the network edited it out, deception is indicated by the network. 

Objection:  What if Joe Cupo comes on again and says that he didn't go to a prostitute and then says that he told the truth?

Response:  Sustained.  It would be fair to conclude that he did not go to a prostitute and he told the truth.  It would be more than 99% likely.  

Objection:  Joe Cupo could read this analysis and say he didn't do it and parrot "I told the truth" and you'd call it reliable. 

Response:  Overruled.  We presuppose the "Free Editing Process" in which one is speaking for himself.  He can parrot back "I did not go to a prostitute and I told the truth" but it is the need to parrot that we note.  As soon as he begins to answer a question for himself, he moves into the Free Editing Process. 

We are not robots.  Our words give us away.  If he speaks on his own accord, we are listening.  An innocent person will say so.  Look at the analysis of Kevin Fox, father of Riley Fox, who was falsely accused of murdering his daughter.  The ignorant and untrained interrogators refused to listen to his words and kept him for many hours in a horrific violation of not only his rights, but of human dignity.  "I did not kill my daughter", he said, over and over, but the interrogators either lacked the training, or lacked the intelligence to apply the training, and he spent months in jail instead of being able to grieve the loss of his daughter.  

Our words give us away.   There is more to the story of Joe Cupo.  

O'Brien gone as Channel 6 news director

From staff reports
WCSH-TV's news director has left the station for unspecified reasons.
Maureen O'Brien left Channel 6 days after the station's longtime weather forecaster went on the air to rebut rumors that he is among the suspected clients of an alleged prostitution operation in Kennebunk.
Steve Carter, the station's president and general manager, would not comment Tuesday on O'Brien's departure. He would not say why or when she left the position.
"It's a personnel matter, and it's not something we comment on," Carter said.
He said he supported the decision to put Joe Cupo on the air to dispel rumors that he was a client of Alexis Wright of Wells.
Carter said he did not know who came up with the idea, but it was ultimately Cupo's decision to be interviewed.
Cupo referred all questions to Carter.
O'Brien could not be reached for comment.
She became the station's news director in September 2008, after working as managing editor for WCSH for five years, according to her profile on LinkedIn, a professional networking website


John Mc Gowan said...

Frankie Dettori

Frankie Dettori faces hearing after positive test at Longchamp

• Inquiry set for next week following September breach at track
• Jockey's solicitor reveals news in Press Association statement
Share 41

Frankie Dettori will face a hearing next week at French racing headquarters following a positive test at Longchamp in September. Photograph: Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images
Frankie Dettori's career was in fresh crisis on Tuesday as it emerged that he had tested positive for a banned substance while riding in France this autumn. It is less than a month since the famously ebullient jockey split from Sheikh Mohammed's Godolphin operation, his principal employers for the past 18 years, who provided him with 110 successes in the world's biggest races.

His supporters argued he would bounce back from the separation and be among the contenders for champion jockey next year but he is at risk of a worldwide ban from riding that could run into months, depending on the identity of the substance. That issue remained in doubt, with officials at France Galop, the body which runs French racing, refusing to disclose details while a web report naming a substance was quickly pulled.

Rumours about a positive test have circulated for weeks but the news was finally broken by a statement from Dettori's solicitor, Christopher Stewart-Moore.

"On behalf of Frankie Dettori I can confirm that, as a consequence of a positive test at Longchamp on 16 September 2012, he will be the subject of an inquiry by the medical committee of France Galop next week," Stewart-Moore said.

"In compliance with, and out of respect for, the regulations of France Galop, he will not be commenting further until the France Galop procedures have been completed."

Officials at the British Horseracing Authority were in the dark on Tuesday. Having approached France Galop for more information as news began to leak out, they were told none would be provided until a hearing had taken place.

The positive test was taken while Dettori, 41, was riding on Arc trials day at Longchamp, when he partnered four horses without success. It was the day after he suffered a professional setback in the St Leger at Doncaster, won by the Godolphin horse Encke, ridden by Mickaƫl Barzalona. The glory would have been Dettori's in previous years but rides have been shared between him and two other jockeys this year and his consequent disaffection is seen as the main reason for his leaving Godolphin.

Dettori follows Kieren Fallon as the second high-profile, British-based jockey in recent years to return a positive test in France, having never done so in Britain. Fallon fell foul of the rules twice, serving a six-month ban from late 2006 and then an 18-month ban from January 2008 after testing positive for cocaine.

Dettori himself received a police caution for cocaine possession in 1993, when he was 22, but later said that drug abuse was in his past.

"I was a stupid, cocky, arrogant kid," he was quoted as telling one reporter in 2010, when asked about the incident. "I was riding, I was winning, I was a kid who'd gone from earning £12 a week to getting big money. Too much money."

On other occasions Dettori has discussed his use of diuretic drugs to keep his weight down until they were banned by the Jockey Club. "I took Lasix, pee pills, diuretics, laxatives; all sorts," he told a Newsnight reporter in 1999. When asked whether he still took pills, he said: "I try not to."

Under strict French rules, a jockey would be in breach if positive for over-the-counter medication, including aspirin. Those who have backed him to be champion jockey at odds down to 8-1 must hope his test is for something of that nature.

John Mc Gowan said...


Dave Lee Travis Bailed By Savile Detectives.

The former Radio 1 star is released on police bail after his arrest on suspicion of sexual offences.

DJ Dave Lee Travis has been bailed after his arrest in connection with the Jimmy Savile sex abuse inquiry.

The former Radio 1 star, from Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, was held at 7.45am on suspicion of sexual offences.

Police said the allegations made against the man do not directly involve Savile, and are classed under the strand of their investigation termed "others".

He was bailed to return on a date in early January.

Travis returned home at 9.15pm in the passenger seat of a silver car. He stared straight ahead as the vehicle was mobbed by photographers.

Three police officers stood nearby as the car drove slowly through the gates. One officer told reporters that Travis would not be making any comment for now.

His arrest came as the Metropolitan Police revealed they are now dealing with around 450 potential victims, the majority of whom claim they were abused by Savile.

This has risen from around 300 possible victims the force said they were dealing with last month.

Officers are looking at three strands within their inquiry: claims against Savile, those against Savile and others, and those against others.

Most of the "others" allegations have been made against people associated with the entertainment industry.

Ex-glam rocker Gary Glitter, comedian Freddie Starr and a 73-year-old man have already been arrested and bailed in connection with the investigation.

A 1977 episode of Top Of The Pops featuring Travis was due to be shown on BBC4 on Thursday night but was pulled.

Last month Travis vigorously denied allegations that he groped two women while in BBC studios.

Dame Janet Smith, who is reviewing the corporation's practices during the Savile years, called on potential victims, witnesses, people who worked with the TV presenter and senior staff at the time to assist the investigation.

According to the inquiry's website, the review also wants to hear from people "who were familiar with the culture or practices of the BBC" in terms of "preventing or enabling the sexual abuse of children, young people or teenagers".

In addition, the Department of Health is investigating its own conduct after appointing Savile to head a task force at Broadmoor high-security hospital in 1988.

skip said...

Actually, I've heard about this quite a bit around town and on facebook. I wish they'd just release all the names and end the witch hunt. It's like a 'made for tv drama' and the real victims will be the families of the sex fiends.

Have any statements been released from the instructor or her son's father directly about whether or not she took pics in the nude with her son?