Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Statement Analysis in History

In prior articles, I have analyzed statements from history, including interviews of Nazi war criminals, transcripts from Lizzie Borden examination, The Salem Witch trials, and so on.

In upcoming articles, I will be looking at some famous people and some famous statements.

If you have suggestions, let me know.  Where transcripts can be found online, are the best to access.

I have more from "Interrogations", including from the Nuremberg trials and will continue those but...

I'd like to hear from you....

Any famous speeches you think would be interesting for analysis?

Any famous persons?

One important caveat about historical figures and their own words:

fasten your seatbelt.  What one said or wrote (in a diary, for example) is not always what you were taught in school.  
History books and historical books do not often agree, as the history book author often "interprets" not only why someone did something, but often edits out important information.

28 comments:

Elizabeth said...

Charles Lindbergh. I think he killed his baby, and that Bruno Hauptmann was innocent. I will be greatful if you would analyze them, but I realize it may not be interesting for others.



Lindbergh transcript from court:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Hauptmann/clindberghtest.html

Hauptmann:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Hauptmann/hauptmanntest.html

Peter Hyatt said...

Elizabeth,

excellent choice. Some work has been done.

Question: Are you open to all possibilities?

:)


Peter

Buckley said...

How about a statement from Avinoam Sapir about how he obtained the SCAN statistics? That would have double the value. Written or transcribed from speech.

Or Carly Simon's denials that "You're So Vain" is about Warren Beatty or any of the other men she's been asked about. I think she's lied about who it is to keep the mystery alive.

Elizabeth said...

Thank you :)

Yes, I am open to the possibility that Hauptmann was guilty.

Based on evidence and behaviour, I will find it ..strange.. if Charles Lindbergh knew nothing about his baby's kidnapping.

But, strange, does not equal impossible. So, I am open.

Mr. Hauptmann's mother tounge was not English, will that make the analyzis difficult?

Maybe it will suffice to analyze Mr. Lindbergh only?

Mymother tounge is not English either, and I know I would have struggled to speak correct without ehhmm, aahmm,and youknows.

Yukari said...

Elizabeth,
there is a well-known German forensic scientist (Mark Benecke) who has studied the evidence in the Lindbergh case and published his conclusions in one of his books. If you can get hold of it it may be an interesting read to anyone studying the case.

Buckley said...

Here's a link to Hauptmann trial transcripts:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Hauptmann/transcript.html

john said...

Re Hauptmann

Mark McClish in his book "I know You Are Lying" S/A. Covers a full chapter on the subject.

john said...

OT Update:

Sister: I watched Erica Parsons so Casey 'wouldn't kill her'

Several people, including family members, testified in federal court Wednesday in a sentencing trial for the adoptive parents of a missing Rowan County teenager.

The adoptive mother of missing teen Erica Parsons, 39-year-old Casey Parsons, and Erica's adoptive father, Sandy Parsons, appeared in federal court to learn their prison sentencing for fraud.

An attorney not affiliated with the case, told WBTV that witnesses can be called during the sentencing hearing, and that those witnesses would be allowed to speak about Erica Parsons, her life with Casey and Sandy, and her abrupt disappearance from the family's home on Miller Chapel Road in Rowan County.

The government's first witness, Amy Miller, who hired Casey to be a surrogate mother and deliver her baby. Casey claimed she miscarried the child. She later successfully delivered the baby and tried to sell the child to her sister, Robin Ashley, for $10,000.

Ashley took the stand Wednesday saying that Casey beat Erica and made her stand in the corner often. Pictures were shown of Erica standing in that corner on five different occasions.

john said...

Cont..


Ashley said she saw bruises and marks on Erica. Casey gave Erica to Ashley to look after for a few months so that she "wouldn't kill her," Ashley said. Adding that Casey "couldn't stand the sight of her face." Ashley said her sister told her she had lost control and assaulted Erica.

When Erica first started living with her adoptive parents, she called them "mom" and "dad." Casey didn't like that and decided she should call them by their names, Casey and Sandy, Ashley said. Casey told Erica to never call her "mom" again.

Erica Parsons was reported missing in late July of 2013 by her adoptive brother. She had not actually been seen for more than a year before the report was filed.

Despite an extensive investigation by the Rowan Sheriff's Office, the SBI, and the FBI, no trace of Erica Parsons, dead or alive, has ever been found. Investigators have collected evidence from the Parsons former home on Miller Chapel Road, as well as property owned by other family members.

Casey and Sandy continue to say they delivered Erica to a grandmother named "Nan" who lived in the Asheville area. Local law enforcement and the FBI have repeatedly said that "Nan" does not exist.

Sandy and Casey are both facing federal prison time for defrauding the government by continuing to accept federal adoption assistance money long after Erica Parsons was gone from the family home.


john said...

Cont..

In November, Sandy was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud the government, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine; one count of aggravated identity theft, which carries a mandatory sentence of two years and a $250,000 fine; one count of false statement to a government agency, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a $250,000 fine; twenty counts of theft of government funds which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine; and twenty counts of mail fraud which carries a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Casey pleaded guilty to 16 similar federal charges Oct. 1.
Once sentencing is announced, it is in the discretion of the judge to put them in handcuffs to be taken to a federal prison, or release them with a date to report to federal prison to being serving their sentences.

The government is expected to call six more witnesses during Wednesday's hearing.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/28139405/sister-i-watched-erica-parsons-so-casey-wouldnt-kill-her

Peter Hyatt said...

Thanks...I have the transcripts and will post findings....

Sus said...

How about some of Abraham Lincoln's? I know historians have analyzed his every word and every motive, but I think it would be interesting to look at his words from a SA view.

Sus said...

Mary Todd Lincoln, also.

Buckley said...

There's something interesting in this about Claims of Benedict Arnold. Still reading...

http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives-early-america/benedict-arnold-battle-saratoga/

Buckley said...

Mr. Vice President, and Mr. Speaker, and Members of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American Island of Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island. And this morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.

As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
But always will our whole Nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces—with the unbounding determination of our people—we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.

Buckley said...

SA on that speech makes me think FDR did have prior knowledge if the attack and allowed it to happen to sway public opinion to support war.

Elizabeth said...

I have read the McClish book, but as he didnt analyze a single word of what Mr. Lindbergh said, I think it is useless.

I am not so interested in Hauptmann as I am in Lindbergh.

I have studied this awful murder for nearly 20 years, and I
see no other explanation for Lindbergh's actions and behaviour.

Buckley said...

I'm not very good at SA, but his direct examination looks truthful to me. They didn't include the cross-ex, unfortunately.

Anonymous said...

Buckley,

Regarding Roosevelt's speech: I'm not sure his words indicate foreknowldge. What I do see is the effort and intent to influence which seems appropriate in the context of when he gave the speech. It was an effort to persuade Congress to declare war on the Japanese empire and an appeal to the American people to support the declaration of war. This was a political speech with a desired end state in mind. I'm not sure there was leakage but am open to being wrong ;)

I am also aware of the popular conspiracy theories by Rear Admiral Robert Theobald and Robert Stinnett alleging senior government officials had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen anyway as a pretext to getting the US into the war; however, I don't believe they hold much weight.

-Akula

Buckley said...

1. He uses the word "suddenly" attacked, yet tells out later the Japanese must have planned it out weeks prior.

2. He points to a single letter as evidence there was no hint "it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

3. Yet Roosevelt never says he or we had no hint an attack was or might occur. If that's what he wants us to believe, that's what we'd expect him to say.

4. He tells us the Japanese "sought to deceive" about the attack. He does not tell us the Japanese did deceive the US.

My prior thinking was it was a conspiracy theory. I just don't get why FDR wants us to believe he didn't know, yet is unable to tell us he did not know. I wasn't there, obviously, but I can't say he didn't know if he can't.

Buckley said...

In 1931, ten years ago, Japan invaded Manchukuo—without warning.
In 1935, Italy invaded Ethiopia—without warning. In 1938, Hitler occupied Austria—without warning.
In 1939, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia—without warning. Later in '39, Hitler invaded Poland—without warning. In 1940, Hitler invaded Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg—without warning.
In 1940, Italy attacked France and later Greece—without warning.
And this year, in 1941, the Axis Powers attacked Yugoslavia and Greece and they dominated the Balkans—without warning. In 1941, also, Hitler invaded Russia—without warning. And now Japan has attacked Malaya and Thailand—and the United States—without warning.
It is all of one pattern.
We are now in this war. We are all in it—all the way. Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history. We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories—the changing fortunes of war.
So far, the news has been all bad. We have suffered a serious setback in Hawaii. Our forces in the Philippines, which include the brave people of that Commonwealth, are taking punishment, but are defending themselves vigorously. The reports from Guam and Wake and Midway Islands are still confused, but we must be prepared for the announcement that all these three outposts have been seized.
The casualty lists of these first few days will undoubtedly be large. I deeply feel the anxiety of all of the families of the men in our armed forces and the relatives of people in cities which have been bombed. I can only give them my solemn promise that they will get news just as quickly as possible.
This Government will put its trust in the stamina of the American people, and will give the facts to the public just as soon as two conditions have been fulfilled: first, that the information has been definitely and officially confirmed; and, second, that the release of the information at the time it is received will not prove valuable to the enemy directly or indirectly.
Most earnestly I urge my countrymen to reject all rumors. These ugly little hints of complete disaster fly thick and fast in wartime. They have to be examined and appraised.
As an example, I can tell you frankly that until further surveys are made, I have not sufficient information to state the exact damage which has been done to our naval vessels at Pearl Harbor. Admittedly the damage is serious. But no one can say how serious, until we know how much of this damage can be repaired and how quickly the necessary repairs can be made.
I cite as another example a statement made on Sunday night that a Japanese carrier had been located and sunk off the Canal Zone. And when you hear statements that are attributed to what they call "an authoritative source," you can be reasonably sure from now on that under these war circumstances the "authoritative source" is not any person in authority.

Buckley said...

^ fireside chat Dec 9, 1941

Anonymous said...

Buckley,

Good points all. Reading just the speech, I think they hold some validity. Thanks for pointing them out.

Perhaps this is one of those situations where I am too familiar with the larger events surrounding the speech that cloud my ability to read and interpret the words alone. It is always a bit of a tug of war between analyzing the words and properly applying the context. I've never tried this with a significant historical event. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

-Akula

jen dugena said...

From the Diary of PH Dictator
Ferdinand Marcos MAR 2, 73 2:00 PM

With the country and people moving forward steadily, investments coming in, confidence reinstated, people hopeful and achieving, there is pride for our Republic and nation.

And many people are beginning to claim they had known all along that martial law was the only solution.

Occasionally, however, some people feel that we are back in the Old Society and suggest I share in the profits and material rewards of the civil order I have been able to reestablish.

Poor, deluded souls! They cannot seem to realize that to steer this country through these critical days, I have to be above the material attractions that have a tendency to claim you and enmesh you in petty and selfish interests.

To keep the objectivity and wisdom of judgment that is necessary for leadership, I must stay away from these mundane considerations.

jen dugena said...

From the "Diary of PH Dictator
Ferdinand Marcos MAR 2, 73 2:00 PM

With the country and people moving forward steadily, investments coming in, confidence reinstated, people hopeful and achieving, there is pride for our Republic and nation.

And many people are beginning to claim they had known all along that martial law was the only solution.

Occasionally, however, some people feel that we are back in the Old Society and suggest I share in the profits and material rewards of the civil order I have been able to reestablish.

Poor, deluded souls! They cannot seem to realize that to steer this country through these critical days, I have to be above the material attractions that have a tendency to claim you and enmesh you in petty and selfish interests.

To keep the objectivity and wisdom of judgment that is necessary for leadership, I must stay away from these mundane considerations."
https://philippinediaryproject.wordpress.com/category/diary-of-ferdinand-e-marcos/

When he was booted out in 1986 due to People Power (aka mob rule) videos of gold bars were shown to have allegedly been included in their family's luggage when they were assisted by the US to be exiled in Hawaii. His son, now PH senator Bongbong Marcos deny that they were that rich.

Buckley said...

Akula- "alleging senior government officials had prior knowledge of the attack and let it happen anyway as a pretext to getting the US into the war"

Just noting that's two things. I certainly believe the former can be true without the latter. I was mainly questioning prior knowledge, and not as much the "allowed it as justification..."

Unknown said...

Have you done a statement analysis I have not been able to find it online. Very interested

Barbara Poole said...

Have you done a statement analysis I have not been able to find it online. Very interested