Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Fake Rod Stewart?

These stories are silly, but sometimes supply a statement in 'everyday life' that readers can relate to.

Only the NY Post would carry such a story!  I have added emphasis to the man's denial.

What sayest you?

Does this man go around enjoying Rod Stewart attention?   Yes, or No, and explain your answer.

Hint:  caution advised.

Who is the fake Rod Stewart? NYC man denies it’s him

The search is still on for a phony Rod Stewart with spiked blond locks who is duping star-struck fans across the city.
The bogus Brit, who bears a striking resemblance to the “Maggie May” singer, has been seen in the Meatpacking District, posing with fans, crashing World Cup soccer bashes and was even spotted outside a Bronx schoolyard. An Instagram user last week posted a pic of one Rod lookalike sitting on a subway train, prompting commenters to dub him “Rockaway Rod.”
Modal Trigger
A Rod Stewart lookalike was spotted on a train in NYC.Photo: goingwitheddie.com
Paul Anton, 62, a divorced dad-of-three who lives in Midtown West, confirmed to Page Six he is the man in the picture — but denies he’s posing as the “Do You Think I’m Sexy” star.

Here is his denial.  Is it reliable?
Anton, who insists he’s hardly a rock star and works in real estate, told Page Six, “I have never pretended to be Rod Stewart. I am a respected businessman with children, I have never asked for free drinks. I pay my own way. People do mistake me for Rod, but I always say I’m not him. I would like to shake Rod’s hand and say I am not an imposter. I love his music, but I wouldn’t pretend to be him. And I’ve never been to the Rockaways.
When asked why he keeps Stewart’s trademark tousled blond cockatoo coiff, he added, “This is the way I look.
Meanwhile, Stewart’s manager, Arnold Stiefel, insists there is at least one, and perhaps many Faux-Rods, still at large.
He said, “This has been going on for years. The first fake Rod sighting was 15 years ago when Jann Wenner said, ‘I said hello to Rod and he ignored me.’”
Stiefel continued, “I said, ‘That’s not Rod, he’s in California.’ Then we got a call from a deputy sheriff outside New Orleans saying, ‘We’ve got Rod Stewart in the drunk tank, he’s been arrested for being drunk and disorderly in a bar.’ I said, ‘You’d better call the Dorchester in London because he’s there right now.’ The real Rod . . . thought it was funny, but said, let people know it isn’t me.”

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Baby Delano: Father is Deceptive

Statement Analysis has shown that Willie Wilson, Baby Delano's father, has been deceptive in his account of what happened to his missing son.

He has not spoken a great deal, but what he has said has been deceptive.

Please note:  when someone has brain damage, or acute mental illness, the account, even if untrue, may not necessarily show deception.

A woman said,

"My two children are missing.  I need a vacation."

Note that there is no problem with either sentence, until we put the context together, considering that a vacation and missing children are close together.  Reality:  she does not have children.

Deception is indicated when the subject intends to deceive the recipient of information.

Willie Wilson is indicated for deception because his account intends to deceive, not because he suffered a blow to the head, or had an alcohol blackout, or anything along these lines.

As to what actually happened to Baby Delano, he has not spoken enough for us to know.

Did he kill the child?
Did he sell the child?

With the family willing to speak, a journalist trained in Analytical Interviewing would get answers, even if Wilson continues to deceive.  This is because the words he choses in his attempt to deceive, must come from somewhere, and will likely be related to what is on his mind:  what happened to Baby Delano.

Here is the news story:

Saturday will mark one month since 6-week-old Delano Wilson disappeared.

His father, Willie Wilson, told police a man and woman took his infant son in an alley in the 1400 block of Henry Street after the man robbed Wilson at gun point and attacked him.

Eyewitness News ran a story earlier this week about Wilson looking for a sketch artist to draw the people he says took his baby. Following the airing of the story, the family got several offers to help.

Eyewitness News sat down again with Wilson Friday night, for a first look at the people he described to a sketch artist. The ones Wilson hopes someone will now recognize.

Even though a month has passed, Wilson says he can't forget what they looked like.
"This is it exactly. Exactly it. Like, it had me in tears when she was finished doing it," said Willie Wilson, holding up two sketches, one of a man, the other a woman.
Note the connection to the sketch, and not to the two "suspects" via the word, "it."
How would you react, presupposing truth?  Would your focus be upon the sketch, itself, or upon the two people who took your baby?  Taken in context with his other statements, he continues to be deceptive.

Wilson said the pictures were of the faces of the two people who took his 6-week-old son after the man robbed him at gun point and hit him, leaving him dazed and unable to fight back.

"Somebody knows something and that's the whole point. That's why we needed the sketch artist. This is what we needed. This is the extra step that we didn't have before," said Wilson.

"It was a line of faces and noses, eyes and stuff, you know. Just to help guide her. She did a great job," 

Note the absence of personal information, including rage, anger, frustration, hatred, etc, in this statement, and in the statement above, in which he clings, linguistically, to the sketch, but distances himself from the people the sketch represents.  
This may cause police to consider that he may not have sold the child.  It isn't conclusive, but it is something that should be considered:  harm, resulting in death, rather than sale. 

Would you have said, "That's them!  That's the *&*^()* that took my baby!" or something close?

Willie Wilson is lying.  He knows what happened to the child, and this is why police have not "cooperated" with him.   

Wilson said of the hour long process that went into the sketch artist drawing the people Wilson described.

Wilson said investigators never offered him a sketch artist, he believes because they're building a case against him.

Police though, have never named Wilson or the baby's mother, Taniasha Perkins, as suspects, saying repeatedly their primary focus still remains on finding baby Delano.

Investigators have interviewed the couple and removed items from their home during the investigation.

Wilson said he now hopes the sketches will become another piece of the effort to bring his son home.

"This opens up a whole other avenue, basically and we just want to let them know, we not stoppin', " said Wilson. "We out here. We still doing what we gotta do. Regardless of who help, who doesn't help. It's not going to stop us."

Wilson said he plans to give police copies of the sketches and hand out flyers with the pictures on them to anyone who will take one.

"I'm not going to give up," said Wilson.

We asked IMPD to comment on these sketches.

They told us in a written statement that IMPD has its own sketch artist. Police said the case was still active and open and encouraged anyone with information about missing baby Delano to contact them or Crime Stoppers at 262-TIPS.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

President Clinton's Grandchild

The press jumped on the fact that President Clinton "leaked" out "my grandson", before the child was born.

Some asked, "Was this a signal that he knew?"  The press had some fun on this, saying he accidentally slipped out that Chelsea was having a boy.

In Statement Analysis, we recognize that words do not come from a vacuum, and every word has meaning.

Why did President Clinton slip the word "grandson" in an interview, before his granddaughter was born?

We know:  it was in his mind, therefore, his brain produced it.
We don't know:  why.

Let's speculate:

1.  He knew:  He was having some fun with the press.
2.  He knew:  He was having an inside joke with Chelsea, his daughter, or with someone else.
3.  He did not know:  He was guessing.
4.  He did not know:  He was hoping for a grandson.

What is your viewpoint on why he said, "grandson" a few days before the birth?

Regardless, congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, on the birth of their first grandchild.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Al Sharpton on White House Contact

Did the White House ask Al Sharpton's advice on replacing Eric Holder?

It would be an honor to be called to advise the White House, and one in which would be personally a boost to his resume and provide traction for his career.  

Immediately after Eric Holder announced he was stepping down, civil right activist Al Sharpton, a liberal host on MSNBC, said the administration was consulting with him about who should be the next top dog at the Justice Department.

'We are engaged in immediate conversations with the White House on deliberations over a successor whom we hope will continue in the general direction of Attorney General Holder,' Sharpton said Thursday

If the White House asked your opinion, would you say "we", or "I"?

Statement Analysis: Tony Stewart

A strong denial would be, "I didn't intend to hit or intimidate Kevin Ward."  

I know 100 percent in my heart and in my mind that I did not do anything wrong. This was 100 percent an accident,” Stewart told The Associated Press on Thursday in his first interview since a grand jury decided he would not be charged in Ward’s death.
1.  "I know" allows for someone to "know" differently
2.  "100 percent"
3.  "in my heart"
4.  "in my mind"
There are four points of weakness in the statement.  
On the advice of legal counsel, Stewart would not describe what he remembers aboutthe crash at Canandaigua Motorsports Park.

Regarding what he did, it was not "wrong" in his mind.  

Ward’s family blasted Stewart Wednesday.
“Our son got out of his car during caution, while the race was suspended. All other vehicles were reducing speed and not accelerating, except for Tony Stewart, who intentionally tried to intimidate Kevin by accelerating and sliding his car towards him, causing this tragedy,” the Ward family said in a statement.
“The focus should be on the actions of Tony Stewart and not Kevin. The matter is not at rest and we will pursue all remedies, in fairness to Kevin.”

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Universal Language: Falling Down The Stairs

by Peter Hyatt

When is it appropriate for a person to use the pronoun "you" when the person speaks of himself? The use of the word "you" when speaking of oneself, is often found in both distancing language, as well as universal language (which is a form of distancing).

2 months ago, I fell down a flight of stairs.  I broke my collar bone, toe, and bruised up pretty badly.  I also tore my shoulder muscle, which has yet to heal.  I had just received a new prescription for glasses:  progressive lens glasses.  I was struggling with them, and came down very early in the morning, and had left a book on the step the night before.  I fell down almost the entire stairs, hit the landing, and fell down 2 more to the floor.  The pain was acute.

Note the following statement:

"It hurts when you break your collar bone."

This is not something you would expect me to say after the above described fall.

When was this said?

Herein lies the key: context.

A broken bone is very painful.

How close to the break was this sentence spoken?

When the pain is mostly a memory, it is appropriate to use not only distancing language, but 'universal' language:  "you" is anyone who experiences a broken collar bone, no matter how the injury occurred

For me, it was the flight of stairs.

Now, a case to examine from several years ago in which an employee fell down stairs.  I am always on alert for those who seek to "game" the system, and seek some form of compensation.  The subject said:

"Fell down a flight of stairs.  I have to be seen."

I noted the missing pronoun, as I take notes, always.  She did not say "I fell..." but "Fell..."  This is distancing language.  It could be because she was in severe pain.  Having experienced a fall down an almost entire flight of stairs, the pain is blinding.  Yet, "I have to be seen" is a legal responsibility an employer has.  Besides "gamers", I also am concerned about health, safety and well being.  No one in pain needs someone questioning their account, yet, my training has me on alert.

My response:  "Yes, immediately."

The subject continued to talk, therefore, rather than cutting her off with another insistence upon seeking medical attention immediately, I asked,

Q.  "How many steps did you fall down?"

A.  "How many steps did I fall down?  Well, uh, three."

I noted both the repetition of my question, and the number within the answer.  This sensitivity (answering a question with a question) may be due to pain.  I must always remain open-minded and believe what I am told.

Q.  What hurts?

A.  "Everything.  Everything.  Everywhere it hurts.  You hurt when you fall down the stairs."

Q.  Yes it does.  You need to be seen immediately.  

A.  "Okay.  I have to wait for my husband to drive me."

Q.  "Do you want me to arrange a ride? Would you like to go in an ambulance?"

A.   "No, I can wait."

Q.  "If you choose to wait, you can ice it, and take advil."

A.   "Yeah, that's true.  I should be seen, but I don't like when they prescribe pain medication.  It makes my head swim."

I noted the introduction of narcotics.  I noted that not only did she introduce narcotics, but she did so in the negative.

The secretary called the medical office contracted to see the employees, with the relevant information and the description of the injury.

The treating physician called me.  "I know your work!  What do you think about this case?"

I reported that I had my doubts, particularly for two reasons:

1.  The number of steps was given as three.  Of course, this may be true, but according to research by Mark McClish, "3" is to be flagged for possible deception.  (I think that "two" might sound too little, for a deceptive person, and "4" might sound excessive, therefore, 3 is chosen. More on this later).

2.  The distancing language within moments of the fall the subject used

I also told him that I had not asked about pain medications, but that by offering to me that she did not like pain medications, I was concerned that this may be a ruse to score meds.  I told him that she may have very well fallen down three steps, injured herself, and hates pain medication, but that the linguistic indications mean I should verify.

He thanked me for my opinion, and said that he would report back to me the findings, including any work restrictions.

After the examination, he said, "She reported global pain, and needed assistance to enter the office.  I have ordered x-rays as a matter of routine, due to the report of such acute pain.  Upon examination, there are no injuries.  She requested pain medication but I only gave her a script for a single tablet,  since there was no visible injury, and  I also noted that when she was leaving, she did not know I was watching.  I noted in my chart that she left with perfect gait. I told her that if the x-ray showed fracture, I would give her another prescription for pain medication. "

She was sent to the x-ray facility, next building down.

She did not show up.

When an injury, or a physical attack happens, it is very personal.  The distancing language comes into play as the pain or memory of the pain subsides.  Emotion has a powerful ability to change language, and in this case from

"I hurt" to "you hurt" when you break your...

Conclusion:  Part of context is when the subject makes a statement.  How often has the subject made the statement? If time has passed the subject is repeating his words, you make hear a "self reference" indicating the subject is no longer working from experiential memory, but memory of what he said earlier.

"Like I said, when you break your collarbone..."

As time and healing has taken place, universal, distancing language (2nd person, "you") is appropriate.

When the wound is fresh, or if the incident is not universal, distancing language should be examined for possible deception.  Passivity and dropped pronouns should also be noted.

Lesser injuries will use universal language.  When gender is not known, "their" or "they" is sometimes used, even when plural is denied.

Pronouns are instinctive.  When something is universal, "you" is sometimes used.  When something is up close and personal, we must question why one is using distancing or universal language.

Recall the Baby Ayla case, in which the deceptive grandmother took two unique, and terribly intrusive personal events and said:

"When you're waiting for someone to call about your missing granddaughter...when someone is casing your house..."

She did not lie.

People do not like to lie outright, instead will withhold or suppress information.  No one likes to be seen or caught as a liar.  When one is caught, rage is often the response.

Delano Wilson: Parents Statements

Parents of missing Indianapolis baby demand answers

INDIANAPOLIS -Nearly one month after a newborn disappeared from a reported kidnapping, the baby's parents are again speaking out only to Eyewitness News. The parents of Delano Wilson say they have questions for investigators, who they believe could be doing more to help find their son.

"All we want at the end of the day, is our baby to be found," said Tanaisha Perkins, Delano's mother.

Delano Wilson

But the parents of missing infant Delano Wilson say they keep calling investigators for updates on the case and no one is calling them back.

"It's like just leaving us hanging us to drying. Don't nobody knows what's going on," said Willie Wilson, the baby's father.

It's been almost a month since Willie Wilson says a white man and a Latino woman robbed him at gunpoint in an alley near his house while he was walking with his infant son. Wilson told investigators the man attacked him, leaving him dazed, and then snatched the baby, taking off in a blue Ford Taurus.

"I can still recall everything. Everything. That's something you not gonna forget," said Wilson.

That's why Wilson says he's been searching online for a sketch artist to draw the people he says took his son.

"I'm pretty sure a sketch artist who's talented enough would be able to draw that out. 'Cause I know exactly how they looked. They'd be actually able to put it on paper so other people can see and look for these people," said Wilson.

Wilson says investigators haven't offered to provide one, and the cheapest he can find costs $100 an hour.

'I think they don't want to because they see me as a suspect still. That's why I haven't gotten a sketch artist. That's why haven't nobody answered my phone calls," said Wilson.

This is true.  Willie Wilson has been indicated for deception in the disappearance of his daughter, er, son.  

Police have said Wilson's story has left them with questions, but have never named him or the baby's mom as suspects. Investigators have questioned both parents and removed items from their home.

"Anything they want us to do, we're not hiding. We're here. They know where we're at. It's not like we're running from anybody. We're looking for our son," said Perkins.

Taniasha Perkins says that's what they're going to keep on doing until they find him.

"I feel in my spirit that my baby's okay. I just need him back with us, with his family," she said.

With Baby Delano's disappearance going on nearly a month, each day of waiting seems longer than the next.

IMPD told Eyewitness News detectives have been in contact with the family and will continue to be. Investigators say their number one objective is to locate Delano and to understand what exactly happened. They're still asking for the public's help with this. If you have any information, no matter how small, call Crime Stoppers at 262-TIPS.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Statement Analysis Training: "Fake Hate"

In hoping to provide more on-line training, including audio lessons, the following case is revisited, but in classroom format for you.

We hope to provide more in-depth training, including audio lessons.

For maximum benefit, follow the instructions carefully. This case is rich with principle, and useful for
Statement Analysis training while indicating just how superior language analysis is to body language analysis.

In a well-received training exercise, attendees are instructed in the following manner.  If you would like to take this class online, it is recommended that you only follow the written instructions instead of watching the video alone.

I.  The scenario of the reported assault is verbally given in its basic form.  Attendees are asked to take notes as the verbal presentation is very short. It is:

"A woman reported that three men broke into her home, tied her up, carved hate slogans into her flesh, wrote hate epitaphs on her basement wall, poured gasoline around the house, and set it on fire.  She broke loose, and ran out to a neighbor of which the neighbor called 911.  The three assailants are on the loose.  The FBI is investigating this as a "hate crime" and has not released her name.  The alleged victim made the decision, on her own, to go on television, from which this video shows.  This is an overview of what she reported to have happened to her.  Next:

II.  Each attendee is asked to make a list of words that he or she expects to hear.  This is called "The Expected."

You are to presuppose:

1.  The vicim is your loved one.
2.  The victim is telling the truth.
3.  You are attempting to "enter into" her statement; that is, empathize with her.

Write down the words you expect your 'loved one' will use in this barbaric, vicious attack.

III.  Watch Video without comment nor interruption.

IV.  As the video plays, ignore her body language and face expressions, and write down any word you hear that you did not expect.

This is called the "Unexpected" in Analysis.

V.  Compare the lists.  Note any theme that has arisen, both in your list, and in the subject's own language.

VI.  Do the actual Statement Analysis work on the transcript.

This is not a short exercise, but one in which you should take careful care.  Remember to allow the subject to guide you, knowing that even when one is deceptive, it may be that, sentence by sentence, there is not a single lie in the statement.

The transcript is provided here below, then followed by my own report.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Attorney Says Leanna Harris Passed Polygraph

Leaana and Justin Ross Harris both admittedly researched how long a baby would live in a hot car just prior to...(cough, cough), the baby being killed in a hot car.

Justin Harris is charged in the murder, and the mother, Leanna, went on television praising her husband as her "leader" and "loving" father, in spite of Harris' many ongoing affairs and e-affairs.

Now, her attorney says she passed a polygraph.

She was just a victim of extreme happenstance.  It's like texting a mother saying, "Golly gee, I hope no one kidnaps our baby" only to find a kidnapping happen weeks later.

I'd like to see the actual questions posed.

Remember the Ramseys went polygraph shopping?

They reportedly failed, failed and failed again, until they found someone to 'pass' them, only to have their attorneys have the polygrapher sign a non-disclosure agreement:

He was not allowed to even say what questions were asked.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."  

Had President Clinton been asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky?" under polygraph, he would have passed.

Everyone of us has a personal, subjective, internal dictionary.

Had he been asked, "Did you have sexual contact with Ms. Lewinsky?" the stage would have changed, dramatically.

Is it possible that Justin Ross Harris, in his "leadership" role, had his wife do internet searches to 'set her up' for his desire to be child-free?

Yes, it is possible.

This may be why police did not charge her.

She may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Did she take a polygraph for law enforcement when the case was first investigated?

This would hold more weight for us, especially if the polygrapher entered into her language, with a solid pre-screening interview.

Statement Analysis Exercise: President Roosevelt and Neutrality

In an interview for the television documentary on Frankin Roosevelt, Former President Bill Clinton talked about how President Roosevelt was justified in circumventing the US Constitution and came "dangerously close" to impeachment because Roosevelt understood "better than Americans" of the threat in Europe. 

Many people no longer believe that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a 'surprise' attack, but that it was not only expected, but antagonized with the oil embargo.  

But what of Statement Analysis?  

It is now said that Roosevelt carefully planned to enter the war, but did so while he told the American people that he would not enter the war.  President Clinton said that Roosevelt "had to" do this because of moral obligation.  These steps included:

1.  Asking Congress to repeal neutrality laws
2.  Issuing an embargo against Japan, the former ally of the United States, from WWI.
3.  Arming one side of the combatants, including the Soviet Union.

Knowing that these steps were provocative, President Roosevelt was openly opposed to by the majority of Americans, but especially Charles Lindberg, who's broadcasts often exposed the deliberate hostile steps taken by the United States.  

Here, in September of 1939, we find a statement for analysis.  

What does the statement reveal?

On September 1st, 1938, Germany invaded Poland. Two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany. At a press conference, a reporter asked  President Roosevelt
        the following question:

Q.   "Can we stay out?"
Here is President Roosevelt's answer.   

  "I sincerely believe we can, and every effort will be made by this Administration to do so.

Since it is the unknown, "believe" is expected.  That he had a need to call this a "sincere" belief, makes the belief, itself, sensitive. 

But what about his intention?  

If his intention was seen in action, what about words to the American public?

The American public, according to polls, were overwhelmingly against becoming entangled in European conflicts, and saw that Germany's ambition was really east, and that England and France had brutalized Germany in the Treatie of Versaille.  The American public viewed Hitler as a brutal and coarse dictator, but would soon be told that his brutal counterpart, Josef Stalin, was a "good guy" and ally.  

 President Roosevelt then spoke to the nation on national radio, to assure them that he would not become entangled in another foreign war, even as he was asking Congress to repeal the neutrality laws passed after World War I.  

Keep in mind that in this audience, were millions of Americans who's lives had been severely hurt by the first World War, just 19 years prior.  WWI "basket cases" (those who had arms and legs amputated) as well as the "shell shock" victims, and so many others in that brutal war, had long protested any more involvement in Europe.  

Here is what President Roosevelt said to the American people, and is the statement for analysis:

 "Let no man or woman thoughtlessly or falsely talk of sending armies to European fields.... This nation will remain a neutral nation.... I want you to know that your government has no information which it has any thought of withholding from you.... You are, I believe, the most enlightened and best-in-formed people in all the world."

What does your analysis show?  I have highlighted some of the words for your analysis.  

Since the war was won by the United States, does this impact your analysis?

Knowing both the victory, and then subsequent revelations (President Clinton was only quoting released documents and testimonies), what do the words, alone, tell you?

Monday, September 22, 2014

Statement Analysis: "Tried" and Seeking Affirmation

In Statement Analysis, we note that "tried" often indicates 'attempted but failed' in past tense, event statements.

"I tried to get to work on time on Friday..." is an indication that the subject did not arrive to work on time on Friday.

Last night, Daddy had a softball game.  When he arrived home, his little girl said, "Daddy, did you hit a home run for me?"

"Honey, I tried to hit a home run for you..."

Doctor:  "Your husband was brought in to the ER in critical condition.  We tried our best to save his life. "  You would not expect to hear, "And, we did."

The expected is:  attempted, but failed.

President Clinton said, "I have tried to tell the truth..." in his sworn testimony.  It is an indication that he failed to tell the truth in all topics.  (see the additional word, "have").  When questioned about arms, we heard the same quote from Oliver North.

This is a basic principle in Statement Analysis to follow.  Deceptive individuals will often use the word "tried" in an attempt to persuade.  The hope is that the listener will interpret 'tried' as successfully completed, while the subject is still able to avoid the internal stress and conflict of a direct lie.

Yet, like most principle, there is exception.

In a recent article, I wrote that men are stronger than women, which is why masculine sacrifice is necessary to protect against Domestic Violence. Objections are raised, and somewhere, there is a woman who might be strong enough, physically, to play for the NFL.  This is likely true.

Principle is not established on exception.

Here is an exception to the principle teaching on the word, "tried" in Statement Analysis.

Seeking affirmation.

When one is seeking affirmation, a subject might use the word "tried" in an attempt to elicit an empathetic response.  We see this in Hollywood regularly, particularly when it comes to personal relationships.

"I have tried to be a good man my whole life."

"I have tried to be a good mother to you..."

"I have tried to be a loyal and dedicated employee..."

The seeking of affirmation is different than an event specific statement responding to an accusation.

When one says, "I have tried to be a good wife to you..." the subject is looking for her husband to say, "You have been a great wife to me, all of your life..."

There was a touching scene at the conclusion of "Saving Private Ryan" in which the lead character, now elderly, and visiting Normandy, France, implores his wife to tell him that he was a good man, as he recalled the words he heard heard 60 years prior to "earn" the chance in life to live, by the sacrifice of others, who had died in the attempt to preserve his life.  (This was loosely based upon the famous Sullivan brothers who all died in the US Navy in WWII.  Some Normady vets were quoted as saying that the invasion scene was as close to reality as anything they had seen from Hollywood.  The language, as well, was far more realistic than movies made in the 40's.  I don't know if anyone lay dying on the beach of Normady and said, "Gee, fellas, this is swell...")

When one is seeking affirmation and uses the word "tried", it should not be flagged necessarily as failure.  Remember, language is the intent to communicate between human beings.  SCAN is the scientific content analysis, that is, to learn what is within the content of words.

This subject is not affirming failure, but seeking to have affirmation of success, and/or consolation.

Whether it is two women kicking and punching each other in "Ultimate Fighting", or calls for Bob Dylan to win a Nobel Prize in literature comparing him to Shakespeare ("that big fat moon is gonna shine like a spoon..."), or The "Learning Channel" showing an impolite, overweight child, society moves in motions, and language shifts.  There will always be exceptions to principles.  (Mostly, with tongue firmly in cheek).

While we await the discrimination lawsuit against the National Football League on behalf of women football players who have been wrongfully excluded for many years by obvious sexist ownership,  we continue to state:
Awaiting class action suit

Principle is not established upon exception.

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Prozac and Body Language

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

if the number 3 is used, verify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was surprised at this.

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

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

I was not speeding.

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

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

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

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

I said, "I do not"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be a help in furthering understanding.

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

If you would like to help:


Saturday, September 20, 2014

Law Enforcement and The Reliable Denial

                                                             by Peter Hyatt

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

The Reliable Denial exists of three components:

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

Principle:  People will rarely ever lie outright.

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

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

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

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

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

Answer in two parts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q.  You have still to answer the question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.  (silence)

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

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

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

People rarely lie outright.

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

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

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

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

It is "win-win."

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

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

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

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

It is dynamic and exciting, but mostly...

it works.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

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

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

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

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


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

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