Tuesday, September 29, 2015
When media deceives, it is often a money trail that can be found with varying amounts of effort. Reporting the president in the most positive light gains access to the White House, which gains viewers, which gains advertising. Being barred from the source of revenue will drive people to deception.
When deception is "owned", the expectation from the analyst is minimization; not truth. Therefore, the one who deliberately withholds information is one who, when he issues his "mea culpa", he will be light on both "mea" and "culpa", and what is released is no longer reliable, as truth is the currency exchanged, and deception is counterfeit. Should he now give you $100, you may expect that a portion of this currency is still counterfeit.
Such is the case that has shocked the world in Germany's media.
They deliberately withheld critical information that the German public needed for safety and when the information came out, media admitted withholding the information, but justified its deception via withholding by claiming a moral "high ground."
This is often a sure signal that what follows will also be "for the moral high ground", that is, for the people's "good."
Therefore, when German media withheld the rape epidemic of women by migrants, this deception was first surrounded by deception, and then then the admission came, it too, contained more deception.
Germany withheld the extreme rape epidemic from its people, but allowed a school principal's letter, in exert, to be covered where the principal told parents to have their daughters cover themselves up because there might be "misunderstanding" by the migrants.
The culture from which the migrants arise holds that women are beneath them, and that uncovered women and "infidel" women are fair game. The correlation between dress and rape nullifies the element of violence.
The media deception is no different than the guilty confession of a single individual.
Do not separate political or large scale deception from single person deception, even though the scopes are vastly different. Behind each is a person with vocabulary employed with the intention of deception.
Next up: Understanding Supremacy Deception and how victim status and supremacy are not only related, but show up in language.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Colonel sues West Point classmate who claims he raped her 30 years ago in blog that led to end of his career
- Susan Shannon claims she was raped by army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986
- Former cadet waited 30 years to speak because of army's 'code of silence'
- She made the allegations against her former classmate on a blog in 2013
- But Riggins denies claims saying they've cost him a promotion to general
- He has now launched a multi-million defamation lawsuit to clear his name
from Daily Mail online
27 September 2015
A retired army colonel is suing his former West Point classmate for more than $2million after he says her 30-year-old rape claims cost him a promotion.
Susan Shannon first alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986, while they were both cadets, on her blog in 2013. She says she waited three decades to come forward about her experience because of the army's 'code of silence'.
But Riggins, who vehemently denies the claims, said the 'false' allegations had cost him a sparkling military career.
Army Colonel Wil Riggins (right) is suing his former West Point classmate Susan Shannon (left) for more than $2million after he says her claims that he raped her 30 years ago cost him a promotion
The combat veteran from Alexandria had been on the cusp of being appointed to general in 2013, when Army leaders saw Shannon's rape allegation on her blog.
His promotion was snatched away and Riggins says his name was dragged through the mud after 'Susan Shannon decided to play judge and jury on her own.'
The decorated colonel denies all claims, telling ABC 7 On Your Side: 'I did not rape Susan Shannon. I did not sexually assault Susan Shannon. Every aspect of (her) story is verifiably false.'
This is a very strong denial. He not only issues the singular Reliable Denial, but in the case where "rape" may be debated, or changed to another allegation, he goes on to clarify: "I did not sexually assault Susan Shannon."
this is to deny even an altered allegation.
Now he is mounting a multi-million dollar cases against his accuser - which experts on survivors of sexual assault warn could have a 'chilling' effect on whether future victims come forward.
Riggins is seeking more than $2million in damages to his career and reputation after he says he 'never got a day in court' to defend himself.
However, Shannon's attorney Ben Trichilo said his client had one, simple defense - 'the truth.'
Susan Shannon (left, as a cadet) alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins (right, as a cadet) in 1986 while they were both cadets at West Point
Shannon said she had finally been inspired to speak about her alleged experience after reading about several high profile convictions for sexual assaults in the military.
Despite the law suit she now faces, she said she does not regret coming forward.
'Frankly the day I started saying his name was the day I started blaming him instead of myself, she told ABC 7 On Your Side.
'I didn't ask for this day. I'm being forced into a courtroom,' Shannon said, 'It's costing me and my family pretty much all that we have saved. I knew that risk when I wrote it and I don't regret it a day.'
She says she is planning to fight the law suit, not only for herself, but for all other victims of sexual assault.
Shannon alleges she was raped by her former cadet classmate at the United States Military Academy in New York in 1986. She dropped out shortly afterwards.
Now a jewelry designer and a mother living on the West Coast, she added that the pressure in the army to keep quiet and not turn in her peers meant that she did not even report the alleged rape at her exit interview.
'There was no way I was going to report that. The blame would fall squarely on me,' she said, adding she had only told a few friends at the time.
Shannon alleges she was raped by her former cadet classmate at the United States Military Academy in New York (file picture)
She made the claims on her blog Short Little Rebel in 2013 - which followed the announcement that Colonel Riggins had been nominated for general.
Shannon denies having any knowledge of his nomination until she was contacted by Army officials investigating her blog post.
Riggins was 'euphoric' after his nomination but his joy was not to last long after he was hauled in front of the Army's Criminal Investigations Division for questioning and had his DNA and fingerprints taken at Fort Myer in Arlington.
While investigators were not able to prove or disprove Shannon's claims, Riggins' pending nomination was pushed to Promotion Review Board.
Despite the board declaring Riggins 'fully qualified for promotion', army documents obtained by ABC 7 show Secretary of the army John McHugh still decided to cancel his promotion. Army officials refused to confirm why the colonel's name was pulled from the promotion list.
But Riggins, who feels he has been 'abandoned' by the army, believes the secretary was simply not willing to risk his reputation defending him.
The decorated colonel has now filed the multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit, claiming it was 'the only avenue left to me to clear my name.'
Both parties, who will argue whether the sex was consensual or rape, will meet in a Fairfax County courtroom.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Here is a statement for analysis to one who was asked about her day, Sunday, on what she did from the time she woke up. It is abbreviated for the quiz:
What caused the pronouns go to missing at 9:30?
Put your answer in the comments section.
Final Answer to come...
Friday, September 25, 2015
Next, up, Donald Trump stated that he is a Christian, while speaking to Christians.
What do you make of his statements?
We all give ourselves away when we speak.
'I love them,' (referring to Christians). 'I mean, I'm one of them, in a true sense. I'm Protestant. I'm Presbyterian.'
'I am a Christian ... I'm a total believer,' Trump said. 'I believe in the Bible. I believe in God'
'I've gone to communion so often, and I love going to communion,' 'I feel it makes me feel so good and so pure, which is hard for me to feel.'
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
For one area of Statement Analysis, it really is this simple to discern deception.
Statement Analysis is the scientific breakdown, examination, and re-configuration of words within sentences and sentences in correlation to one another.
The words we speak reveal our intellect, emotions, history, background, life experiences and when enough words are used: our personality is revealed for us. Personality type can be a very important aspect of analysis in interview preparation: knowing when to confront and when not to can be the difference between justice lost and justice realized.
Recall the recent controversy regarding Donald Trump and Obama as a muslim and Ben Carson's statement that Islam (Sharia Law) is inconsistent with the US constitution has raised the question that was quieted in 2008: Is Barak Obama a Muslim?
The political sides line up with some, rather than answering the question for themselves, use the tangent of avoidance with the allegation of "racism", though no specific race is cited in Islam.
What one believes, one acts upon. Though cynics like to dismiss any sense of honor or trustworthiness with "they are all liars!", more times than not, this dismissal is a defense mechanism, also designed to avoid the question, "Why are you voting for such a liar?"
We all reveal ourselves, especially our motives.
To not answer a question is to indicate specific sensitivity towards a question, even if the question is in the imperative, or simply unspoken but understood.
Human communication is complex.
Pronouns, however, are the exception to the basic principle that has to to with the complex system of "de coding" a person's personal dictionary that one uses to communicate as so many words have such different meanings to different people that miscommunication is common, true enough, but it is that deceptive people are often very good at 'splicing' words in a way to allow for them to later say, "What? What are you talking about? That isn't what I meant at all!"
In fact, the deceptive person, practiced in this form of communication since childhood, presupposes your interpretation of his words in order to get past the issue at hand, via deception.
The single widest topic of interpretation for language comes in association with sex.
Human sexuality, itself, is complex, and any seasoned interviewer knows: what one defines a word within the topic of "sex" may vary so widely, that unless specific interpretation is given, error will be made, and deception will pass unnoticed.
Or, as another put it, "Always ask someone to define any term used in the topic of sex, but before you ask for definition, fasten your seatbelt. You are going on a ride."
This is true.
The various definitions given to even body parts can be how a deceptive and guilty person passes the polygraph!
"Did you molest the child?"
If the subject's internal subjective dictionary has defined "molest" as "causing pain" or "causing unwanted pain", and believes, internally, that what he did was "tickle" the victim, he could pass the polygraph.
If the time was taken to "de code" his personal dictionary before the polygraph, the "ground rules of language" would be established.
He could then be accused of "tickling the chest" of the female child and the polygraph would not allow him to escape the emotional and intellectual connection he has with the words because:
The words are his own.
This is key.
This is why child protective caseworkers who investigate abuse claims regarding children are trained, state to state, to not accept a single term without asking, "What does _____ look like?" or "Where is your ______ on your body?" (allowing the child to point, which, especially on video, makes for a legally sound case).
Recall the recent controversy in New York where women are demanding "equal rights" of going topless in public. What is not understood is that by "de-identifying" female breasts as distinctly sexual, all the child abusers convicted for touching a female child's breasts would have to be released, and the now "legalization" of fondling would lead to an even greater epidemic of sexual abuse.
Hence the folly of a society that looks in the mirror, scientifically identifies gender, but overrules science in the name of "identity." The parents, teachers, nurses, and other professionals who teach children, "your private parts are those covered by your bathing suit" will have to be changed should this foolishness in the name of egalitarianism be accepted in New York.
Each one of us has a very personal dictionary where words are subjective. Recall the example in seminars of the word, "boy" where one person says "boy is a new born male child" (the audacity of scientific identification of gender!), while another says, "boy is my 21 year old son in the military."
Each word must carefully be explained by the subject so that the victim is protected.
The exception to this is:
1. Objective Time on a Clock
If one says, "It is 10 minutes past noon", this is a precise time, common to all. There is no subjectivity, nor chance for interpretation. Both honest people and deceptive people will use general terms to avoid either being wrong (honest) or being too exact, (deceptive) which is sometimes useful when we hear someone, most unexpectedly say, "it was 2:26", without rounding off the time in any manner. Deceptive people, wishing to be believed, may do this, especially if they are certain, as to appear to b honest. When the deceptive person points to an exact time, it is often accurate, which gives them confidence, while beneath this accuracy is the need to sound honest due to other elements of deception.
Articles are instinctive in the element of prior knowledge. This is limited to "a" versus "the", and excludes "a" versus "an", which is something that reflects (more often) education.
The article "the" is used, intuitively, once a noun has been identified, which is why even a child will say "I went to a store", and once the store is known and referred to, it can become "the" store.
"I saw a puppy! The puppy licked my face."
Once introduced, without having the need for pre thought, the five year old moved from "a" to the article, "the" quickly.
Pronouns are something rehearsed by humans millions of times. They are 100% efficient and no "error" can exist without deception. It is the one area of Statement Analysis that is simple
It is reported that up to 70% of existing police files on unsolved cases have a "confession by pronoun" contained within them. Some believe this number is even higher.
Here are some examples of "confession by pronouns" in statements:
"So he came up from behind me and just started touching me. I said to him to stop but he refused to listen to me. His hand was inside my shirt when we heard a knock on the door, so he stopped. We finished up the assignment and later he said he was sorry."
In this, you will note that the alleged sexual assault began with the perpetrator's location and "started touching me." Once she is being "touched", the alleged crime has begun.
Next you should note that "his hand was inside my shirt" is in what we call the "passive voice", where no responsibility is assigned (unless his hand has a mind of its own), which is to say that this is a signal of not only a 'weak commitment' to what happened, but a concealing of specific information of just how his had got inside her shirt. Did he unbutton her blouse? Did she unbeaten it?
There are other issues there, but the most blaring is this:
After the alleged sexual assault, she used the word "we" to identify herself and the alleged attacker.
Decades of sexual assault statements tells us something we instinctively know and knew:
The victim does not associate herself closely to the attacker.
The word "we" connotes unity and cooperation. In truthful statements, the victim does not use the word "we" but instinctively separates herself from the attacker with "he and I" rather than "we."
There is an emotional disgust that simply does not allow for "we" in those statements.
In false claims, the word "we" not only has consistently revealed consensual contact, but often ties shows that the accuser and accused had a relationship where the accuser had denied any such relationship.
Before the assault, many truthful rape victims have used "we", but once the assault takes place, there is a dramatic change in her perception of reality: there is no "we" between them.
Another consistent issue is that when one claims to have been alone, the word "we" tell us, with 100% certainty, the subject was not alone.
Recall the murder trial of Dennis Dechaine and how he claimed to be alone when he said, "we were losing daylight."
In spite of his attorneys' best efforts, the jury didn't buy it. He was still with his victim.
We are, in spite of all modern claims to the contrary, possessive creatures. We "own"what we wish to (sometimes even while claiming to the contrary) and refuse to take ownership of what we do not want ownership of.
We learn possessive pronouns before we learn to speak.
Toddlers often open and close their hands, palms out, while "wanting" or "taking ownership" of what they want. When they do learn to speak, pronouns are among the first things they say with the word "my" closely following their first word of "mama" or "dada" when they say, "my Dada", "my baba" and "My Mama", claiming their own.
Mark McClish pointed out that Canadian murderer, Stephen Truscott, freed after pop stars took up his cause, attempted to deny knowing the victim, said, "I hardly knew my victim" and later, also as part of his 'story' told in his release. He even used the word "we" while describing he and his victim riding on his bike.
In studies, we look at "confession by pronoun" where the various subjects have, inadvertently, used "we" to connect himself to the criminal.
Here is a "pronoun confession" from a case that eventually led to the "victim" being found out to be a member of the gang that had robbed a company:
"They tied me up and made me give them the code. Then we went to the truck and..."
I did not need to debate whether his wounds were superficial or not; it made no difference whether the gang members beat him up enough to make it look real or not: this one statement was all I needed for my conclusion. It proved correct.
OJ Simpson used the phrase, "my guilt" as did Patsy Ramsey. It is to take ownership of what belongs to them, something they have been using for decades with perfect accuracy.
When challenged, Barak Obama used the phrase "my muslim faith" which takes ownership of it. That his book shows Islamic influence, or his suspension of immigration laws, degradation of Christianity, and even the recent yielding of the nuclear weaponry to Iran, may all confirm it, but it is the instinctive and intuitive use of "my" that settles the issue. We take ownership of what we want to, and we do not take ownership of what we do not want to, and our success in this is to, in the least, dating back to our first use of the English language. The controversy today is only for those who do not recognize deception.
Even the word "our" has been shown to indicate cooperation between an alleged victim and the criminal perpetrator, as he connects himself to the crime and the crime scene.
More than 70% of police files may contain "confession by pronoun", which is why transcript review is critical.
Once identified, the work begins, including:
1. Re-opening a closed case
2. Evidence gathering
3. Effective interviewing
4. Concise writing
The pronoun will tell the truth, but it does not prove the truth in court.
How could the number be so high?
In spite of what advocates and main stream media portray, percentage wise, few people are wrongfully convicted of crimes. Those who "didn't do it" often say so, early, and there is no large "file" available. They might have passed a polygraph and were dismissed from the case, or their reliable denial was recognized, and an alibi established, or...for whatever reason, no case file"of their own exists, or they have only a small role in another's file.
This is to say: the number of falsely arrested individuals is very small, and the number of wrongfully convicted is even smaller.
We sacrifice in numbers to protect the innocent putting the burden on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, one's guilt, owning that it is better for 10 guilty to go free, than 1 innocent be wrongly convicted.
It happens, but it is rare. Kevin Fox comes to mind, and it is a tragic case, but it is one, and not one-thousand. I agree that our system is set up in a manner that although the guilty may not be caught, we are much less likely to convict the innocent, than in other nations.
I have been asked to join teams, especially for those on death row. In every case I have reviewed, police and law enforcement were right. It became apparent to me, in several of these cases, that the advocates were not so much convinced in the innocence of their client, but were against the penalty.
I have been asked to discern deception, only to do just that, to the dismay of the "truth seeker" who claimed to "only want justice."
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Some deception is attempt to persuade, while using imbalance as its tool, while other is much more blatant in its presentation to the point of fabrication of reality.
America and Europe is seeing propaganda in a level and scope that has superseded anything like it in World War I and World War II.
The propaganda of World War I was especially insidious.
I liken it to a journalist who interviewed a social service child abuse investigator in a suburb of New Jersey who portrays child abuse as common to the entire state of New Jersey so that the reader of the article is left with the impression: Do not move to New Jersey lest your children certainly be abused because everyone there is an abuser.
The article could take a town of 30,000 citizens and give out five very real and very brutal cases of child abuse and present it as if the whole state was abusive.
In World War I, the propaganda about "the Hun" was similar: it was so severe that relatively few examples of brutality were presented as the norm for German troops.
How bad was the British propaganda?
It was bad enough for Americans to, only twenty years later, dismiss allegations of whole scale murder of Jews as just more propaganda.
It had its cost. Initial reports of genocide were dismissed as "just more propaganda" from Europe. It was too cruel to sound true.
In World War II, we saw propaganda films out of Hollywood which made bloodshed a "hoo-ray" like patriotic "excitement" for 18 year old males, with extreme testosterone levels want to "get to the action" only to meet up with life changing and life ending brutality that left even the support troops with scars. When a film, like "December 7th" had too much carnage, the Army vetoed its release until it was edited down.
Franklin Roosevelt, indicated for deception in analysis denying his motives for war and socialism, had friends in Hollywood sympathetic to him make movies showing the superiority, for example, of a president who "needed to" deceive and suspend the constitution" with story lines that are chuckled at today, including 'the angel Gabriel coming to the president to advise him...' in the 30's.
The narrative itself was key to propaganda: the story that was to be told, and it would be, at least in different times in history, challenging to find out who was behind the narrative and the familiar line of "follow the money" proved most often to be true.
Every narrative seeks to persuade, but would propaganda go to the point of sacrificing truth?
Today we continually apologize for the internment of Japanese American citizens with the narrative leaving the viewer with the impression: not one single Japanese American was a spy for Japan. This is 70 years hence and what is buried beneath the persuasion is the spying for Japan that did take place: no stories are told any longer. Thousands of loyal citizens were interned (but not murdered like in Germany, or tortured like in Japan), and the protection of the Constitution was voided, making its law unapplied to American citizens who had legally immigrated from Japan. How could Americans discern when they saw even cartoons lampooning Japanese people, yet they also heard reports from Battaan of unspeakable cruelty by the Japanese. As is most always the case: the truth takes effort to discern, while the propaganda (or bumper sticker) is the candy of the lazy minded.
The pendulum often swings in great waves.
Do readers of Statement Analysis recognize the propaganda that takes place today?
I think about this a great deal while I read through the comments on the various articles especially in cases where a rush to judgement is much easier than working through a case in detail.
What are the various narratives that are presented today, even to the sacrifice of truth?
Who is behind these narratives?
The second question is best answered by following the money line.
Negate the laws of the land regarding illegal immigration by a ruling class and who will the millions vote for?
Who owns the factories that produced the arms that were stockpiling up due to poor sales, just prior to the outbreak of World War I?
A small example:
Do you note any difference between photos and videos regarding the European migrant crisis?
I have noticed the abundance of photos show women and children, but when I watch the videos, I see the exact opposite.
Someone, somewhere, will benefit from the propaganda and the money trail, often through votes, is not that difficult to follow.
But what impact does today's propaganda have upon deception, overall, in our country?
This impact is as predicted: a certain de-sensitizing of the populace regarding deception takes place to the point where what shocked the public on Monday, bored them on Thursday, but by Saturday, it was embraced.
Even when the narrative seeks to destroy truth, people go from shock, to indifference, to embracing.
Barak Obama talked about how the White House hosted the first "Ramadan Dinner" that Thomas Jefferson held for a visiting dignitary.
Question: Can you report what critical information he omitted from this account of history?
An entire movement "Black Lives Matter" is founded upon an event that did not take place. "Hands Up! Don't Shoot" is costing lives and it did not happen but that which was met with outrage, with "It is not true!" went to a stale indifference, to inviting an organization that is causing harm to citizens to the White House, granting it legitimacy. Police are demonized as racist bullies all across America, and it is leading to more violence.
How about a more innocuous news story?
What about the 14 year old boy invited to the White House?
What do you know about him? Is he a Muslim hero who was justly invited to the White House to show how "Islamophobia" has run amok, or, was the truth something that took more time to learn?
For most people, the headline is enough, but it is my hope that readers here not only complete the article, but use the analytical discernment while reading and seek truth.
Who do you think the average 18 year old American believes:
Jack Black on the Iran Nuclear Deal, or...
The Ayatollah of Iran?
I think most of you get the point and this is the point for businesses hiring in America:
It is becoming more and more acceptable to lie and this is not only seeping into courts and juries, but into the new generation of potential workers who have less commitment to truth and honesty than those you may have previously hired.
Crime is up.
Violent crime among females is up dramatically in 30 years.
Theft is up.
Deception is becoming rewarded and corporations that do not screen for deception are setting themselves up for loss, even with the millions of dollars spent on security making outright theft more difficult.
The emergence of "The Victim" in America is a direct threat to truthful employers who wish to pay an honest wage for an honest day's work. Each day, a new victim status is claimed and suits are filed.
Two high school kids blindsided a ref in a football game. Both of these kids were strong and well armed with strong helmets and shoulder pads. The victim was much older, and had no protection on to blunt the blows.
The kids assaulted him and he is now being investigated because the kids said he called them names.
The kids were the "victims" of a "hate crime", as they claimed he was a racist.
Would you like to hire either of these two? Would you be comfortable believing that they would, if push came to shove, report honestly what happened in your company?
Do you feel comfortable knowing that neither of these two will resort to work place violence if insulted?
Do you recognize that their violence was pre-mediated?
Do you recognize that their violence was without warning and gave the older man no chance to protect himself?
Seattle Police were prepared to let Cynthia Witlach keep her job if she only admitted lying. (this is to show a lack of understanding into the nature of a pathological liar) Although I give them "kudos" for firing her, what could they have possibly be thinking about keeping such a dangerous and damaged racist on the force? Could it be they feared her claiming "victim status" for her sexuality?
Attacks are up against police and the response has been "Police Lives Matter, too!" and some very angry comments directed to the White House about his propagation of hate towards both police, and authority in general. Statistics are deliberately manipulated to encourage anarchy and the result is now violence against police.
One police chief called "Black Lives Matter" a "terrorist" group. Why? Because they marched chanting slogans about killing police.
He lost his job.
I read about the Oktoberfest in Germany today.
The "multiculturalism" narrative took a black eye when one of the politicians said that not only did they need to keep the migrants away from the festival, they had to separate the different "types of migrants" from each other due to violence.
One news article portrayed the migrants as "saintly" while portraying the Germans as beastly drunks "vomiting in the streets" as an "affront" to the migrants. The same news story elsewhere stated that the campaign to stop Oktoberfest "was a fake", yet, the website only verified that the Dutch citizen, himself, closed the campaign.
So, which is it?
Are the migrants intolerant of the German festival, or are the Germans drunken louts without culture who deserve to be overrun by another culture?
We now learn that Germany's "about face" in closing off its border was due to the 1.2 billion euro festival that brings 6 million tourists in so suddenly, with the reminder of the money, they closed their border and even announced a cut back in welfare to future migrants. Will the border remained this "closed" in 2 weeks when Oktoberfest is complete? Stay tuned.
The truth can be sacrificed to the narrative.
The police were portrayed as bullies for arresting a 14 year old boy who had, depending upon which news story you follow, marvelously built an alarm clock, showing how wonderful Muslim intellects really are, who was then invited to the White House by the President, himself, highlighting yet another Muslim addition to Yankee ingenuity, and a slap in the face at "Islamophbia" and those "evil police" or...
did he, as police now say, act "passive aggressive", refuse to answer questions, and deliberately know that he was going to create a panic?
In fact, a video came out showing that he did not build a clock at all; he just took apart an old one from the 70's.
Which do you believe?
In fact, as you go through news stories, you will find that "narrative", that is, what one wishes to convey, is often very consistent in its presentation.
Did Hillary Clinton erase thousands of emails, or "just a few personal ones"?
Some narratives carried her "care and concern" about "women who are victims of sexual assault", while refusing to play the audio (or carry the story) of how she pummeled a little girl victim of rape, portraying her as promiscuous, even heard laughing about it?
Which do you believe?
Most will simply follow the herd which may be their political party.
This has always been and will always be, unless discernment and critical thinking becomes more popular.
Regardless of your discernment, millions of people do not discern and as deception becomes more and more acceptable, to the point of being praised, these "millions" of people are today and tomorrow's jury pools, and they are your future employees.
Businesses must use discernment because, still, well documented truth is the best defense against the most trending popular form of larceny: the fraudulent suit.
Human Resource professionals must have the tools to exercise discernment, if nothing more than to understand that if in 2001 40% of applicants had theft of some form planned, what is the climate of our society today, 15 years later?
What is our attitude towards deception?
Who and what is blamed, and why?
The bulwark against clever larceny of any time is set up with pre-employment interview screening questions.
While shrinkage continues to hurt corporate America and impact prices and wages, insurance costs are becoming prohibitive to small business. Payouts to fraudulent claims are less expensive and taxing than fighting in court...
the company has well documented proof to the contrary.
This, alone, has a heavy psychological impact upon the one making the fraudulent claim and nothing is faster in taking the wind out of the lying thief's sails than viewing the documentation that is true, short, bold and plainly presented, that he is attempting to extort money by fraudulent means.
This is for those who make it through the door past the screening process.
The reduction in theft, unemployment and insurance is a strong motivation for discernment in hiring. The training is critical. The propaganda of today infects especially the young people; those who in the upcoming months and years, will be applying for jobs.
The acceptance is part of the power of propaganda and an entire generation of kids are growing up seeing how lies and liars are rewarded.
This must be considered when you seek to hire the "best and brightest" for your company. The smaller the business, the greater the impact one deceptive person can have.
For more information on how to host a training, or for individual courses, see HYATT ANALYSIS
It can often point to deception.
Truthful people tell us what they saw, what they said, what they thought, and so on.
Here is a recent example from New York Mets baseball player, Yoenis Cespedes, of whom Jerry Seinfeld wrote, "Cespedes for the Rest of Us."
Yoenis Cespedes discusses his first contract requirement
Yoenis Cespedes has the joy of six on his mind.
The Mets outfielder, who can become a free agent after this season, says he wants a new contract that will last at least six years.
“I’m not thinking about contract negotiations, but I do know that I will be looking for a contract that is six years or more. It has to be six years or more.”
The Mets and Cespedes recently modified a clause in the player’s contract that said he had to be released five days after the World Series. The two sides are now allowed to negotiate throughout the free-agent signing period.
Note that the subject introduces the topic of "contract negotiations" reporting what he is not thinking about.
One cannot introduce that which they are not thinking about unless one is thinking about it, putting the thought into language.
He reports what he is not thinking about but immediately gives details of what he is not thinking about.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Cynthia Witlatch arrested and traumatized a 69 year old American vet, and when faced with the video evidence of what she had done, she lied. See the analysis of this "fabricator of reality" with the link below.
As noted when this happened, she was unafraid to construct her own reality even while telling the shocked elderly man that she was on video. We do not know what trauma was suffered by the 69 year old vet, who had never been arrested. For him, at his age, this meant that his hands were cuffed behind him; leaving him vulnerable after having been arrested without cause. Next, he was forced away from him home and comforts, which, given his age, is something more difficult to cope with than by someone younger. The restriction of hand cuffs, itself, is something that can trigger anxiety due to the vulnerability, but add int this his age, his lack of experience (never been arrested) and the vulnerability he felt from having done no wrong. For him, there would be no way to resign himself to consequence because he had not done anything that he could perceive worthy of arrest.
It appears that she not only lied then, but refused to acknowledge what we saw on video, and lost her job, too. She could have saved her job, but her ego would not allow for it. Please take careful note that this highlights the pathological liar's response to being discovered. The pathological liar has lied since childhood, and knows no other way. When exposed, they can become obstinate, unyielding, and will often go on the offensive. This "offense" can be physical attacks (she was armed on her job) or it could be in courts, like pathological liar Lance Armstrong used his money to destroy others.
Liars cannot bear the exposure and will "cut off their nose to spite their face" in the sense that they will not be able to humble themselves, and admit lying: it is who they are, it defines them, and it is not something they can bear being exposed as.
Some liars, when exposed, will literally go through with threats of suit, knowing that they will have to answer questions in court about their crimes. This appears to be self-loathing, but it is not: it is a drive to silence the one who exposed the liar, even if it costs the liar everything.
It is the one thing in life the liar cannot abide.
The outright liar is a habitual liar and the degree of damage she can bring to a police department is not measurable, nor predictable outside of stating: she will bring trouble.
She had some psychological issues, and craved "respect" to the point of driving around boasting of what she was going to do to American citizens to get the "respect" she so desperately needed. Her racism was later projected on Facebook and her disregard of law and even policy is evident.
See analysis of Cynthia Witlach and video HERE and her post HERE to see how much risk she posed to the public, to justice, and to police, everywhere.
Seattle Police did the right thing for the public, for the Department, and for every honorable cop tainted by this liar. If Witlach thought she was going to get away with her racism and illegal arrest, she miscalculated.
Seattle police chief fires cop who arrested man carrying golf club
Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole has found Officer Cynthia Whitlatch violated department policies when she arrested a 69-year-old African-American man using a golf club as a cane. Whitlatch accused the man of swinging the club as a weapon.
Seattle Times staff reporter
Seattle police Officer Cynthia Whitlatch was fired Tuesday over her arrest of an African-American man carrying a golf club as a cane, in what Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole labeled a case of biased and overly aggressive policing.
The closely watched decision stemmed from Whitlatch’s arrest last year of William Wingate, then 69, whom she accused of swinging the club as a weapon.
O’Toole sustained findings by the department’s Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) that Whitlatch violated department policies regarding bias, discretion and de-escalating confrontations.
But O’Toole modified findings that Whitlatch had no basis to stop Wingate or use minimal force while detaining him, determining the evidence was inconclusive.
Whitlatch, 48, defended herself throughout the internal investigation, insisting she acted properly. She also portrayed herself as the victim of discrimination because she is white.
O’Toole, in her termination order, cited Whitlatch’s defiance, noting that even in hindsight, Whitlatch had failed to recognize her misconduct and the damage it had done to community trust.
“Without this ability to learn from your mistakes, understand how you can improve and do better, and recognize your own errors, you are unable to effectively function as an officer,” O’Toole wrote.
O’Toole said Whitlatch’s response dissuaded her from considering Whitlatch for a lengthy suspension, disciplinary transfer to a unit that doesn’t interact with the public and removal from the sergeant’s promotional registry.
Whitlatch’s actions previously sparked strong condemnation from the community, including a February march of protesters carrying golf clubs as canes.
Ron Smith, president of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, issued a statement Tuesday, saying, “I am disappointed that Chief O’Toole caved into the enormous political pressure surrounding this case.”
Smith said the guild now will take up whether to file an appeal.
Wingate was arrested July 9, 2014, while on his daily 10-mile walk, using the golf club as a cane. Whitlatch stopped him on Capitol Hill and, according to official accounts, claimed Wingate swung the club in a threatening manner, striking a stop sign, while she was driving past in her patrol car.
The two engaged in a heated verbal exchange, captured on patrol-car video, in which Wingate denied swinging the club. Wingate was booked into jail for investigation of unlawful use of a weapon and obstructing a police officer.
O’Toole’s termination order noted Wingate showed no recognition of Whitlatch when she stopped him, saying “huh?” and “what’s going on” during the encounter.
Whitlatch raised her voice and repeatedly demanded Wingate put down the club, while he never acted in an “aggressive or threatening manner,” O’Toole wrote.
A closer look
City prosecutors pursued only a weapon charge, and Wingate agreed to a continuance of his case, under which the misdemeanor charge would be dropped in two years if he met court conditions.
Prosecutors later moved to dismiss the entire case after a former state representative raised questions about the arrest. A judge accepted the dismissal, and the Police Department’s deputy chief, Carmen Best, ultimately apologized to Wingate for his arrest and returned his golf club.
Whitlatch’s racial views subsequently emerged as an issue when it was disclosed that, within two months of the arrest, she posted a comment on her Facebook page in the aftermath of riots in Ferguson, Mo., over the fatal police shooting of an African-American man on Aug. 9, 2014. In her post, she criticized “black peoples (sic) paranoia” in assuming whites are “out to get them.”
The OPA had already looked into that matter, referring it for supervisory counseling.
But Whitlatch’s overall racial views led to an internal recommendation that she be fired over the encounter with Wingate. She claimed during the internal investigation that she was being targeted because she is white, and noted Best and the judge who dismissed the case against Wingate are both African American.
O’Toole, in the termination order, wrote that she was troubled by Whitlatch’s belief the decisions were race driven and “not the legitimate factual and legal analysis by thoughtful and dedicated public servants.”
“Your perceptions of race and other protected categories appear to be so deeply seated that they likely impacted the authoritarian manner in which you treated this man and your refusal to deviate from that approach towards an individual whose actions did not warrant such treatment,” O’Toole wrote.
An earlier department report noted Whitlatch had been previously disciplined and counseled for “unprofessional conduct,” including a verbal reprimand in 2002 over a traffic stop and a written reprimand in 1998 stemming from a personal dispute over $1.04 at a retail store.
Whitlatch told the OPA she detained Wingate after she heard a “big clank,” saw Wingate hit the sign with the golf club and deemed it was a “threat toward a police officer.”
She said she initially didn’t intend to arrest Wingate, but that he was “extremely hostile” and “more obstructive than almost anybody else I’ve ever dealt with.”
In a second OPA interview, Whitlatch acknowledged that she didn’t see Wingate actually make contact with the stop sign, but saw a motion, heard a clang and saw Wingate “glaring” at her.
O’Toole, in modifying the OPA findings, found it inconclusive whether Whitlatch lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Wingate. In turn, she also found inconclusive a finding that Whitlatch improperly used force when she held down Wingate’s wrist while searching his pockets.
O’Toole, as required, explained her reasoning in a letter to the mayor and City Council.
In a statement Tuesday, City Council President Tim Burgess said, “The chief of police has sent a strong and appropriate signal. Officer behavior that compromises public trust is not acceptable in Seattle.”
Smith, the police guild president, reiterated Tuesday his belief that the department “blatantly violated” a requirement to complete the investigation within a required 180-day limit. Police should have opened it in September 2014, when two commanders learned of the matter at a meeting with community members, not in January, according to Smith.
Wingate sued the city and Whitlatch in April, alleging race discrimination, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of his civil rights.
Whitlatch’s Facebook post contributed to the police department’s development of a sweeping social-media policy that went into effect March 1, which bars officers from privately posting comments that reflect negatively on the department and its ability to serve the community.
Who do you believe?
Are the students lying?
Are the students lying about the coach?
Are the students lying about the ref?
From the NY Daily News:
Texas high school football players say coach told them to tackle referee
Michael Moreno, left, and Victor Rojas said their coach told them to hit the referee.
The Texas high school football players who brutally tackled a referee broke their silence, insisting their assistant coach told them, "You need to hit him.”
Victor Rojas and Michael Moreno said the coach, Mack Breed, told them the referee "needs to pay the price" for hurling racial slurs and making unjustified calls after a safety got injured.
"His emotions just got mixed into it," Moreno said on Good Morning America Friday morning. "He told us to do what we did."
The John Jay High School students were caught on video blindsiding referee Robert Watts during the last minute of a game in San Antonio earlier this month. Rojas slammed Watts in the back and Moreno dove into him on the ground, leading to their suspension. They are now under investigation by authorities.
The teens, who had previously not been named, appeared much less formidable without their padding in their first TV appearance. Rojas spoke so softly he was barely audible.
Rojas said he heard Watts call a black student the n-word and told a Spanish student to "speak English, this is America." The district said it plans to file a complaint against the referee of 14 years with the Texas Association of Sports Officials.
Watts' attorney said the teens were "flat out lying" and the referee is looking into taking legal action.
Breed has been placed on administrative leave after he told players "that guy needs to pay for cheating us" during the game, district officials said. He has not publicly commented on the allegations.
Both boys said they want to apologize for hitting Watts, and Rojas said he "can't explain" how it all happened.
Moreno called the incident "one of my biggest regrets" and one he went through only because he trusted Breed as a "grown-up."
"Everyone sees me as this thug or gangster: I did this because I'm a bad guy. That's not who I am," the aspiring aerospace engineer said. "Underneath the helmet and the pads, I'm really a great kid."
The teens and their attorney, Jesse Hernandez, hope the public and officials will go easy on the Honor Society members. They've already been suspended for three days and had to attend an alternative school for a week.
Moreno has learned "you can't just do that because of something you were told."
"I'm ready to face my consequences," he said. "I am greatly sorry for this and I regret it greatly. I hope people can change their minds about us and the consequences."
Thursday, September 17, 2015
He is accused of rape. Even MSM is commenting on what the statement reveals. This is what he said regarding the allegation:
"This has been an incredibly difficult time for many people. I cannot apologize enough for the distraction this has caused my family, my teammates, this incredible organization, and of course, our fans. While I have too much respect for the legal process to comment on an ongoing matter, I am confident that once all the facts are brought to light, I will be absolved of having done nothing wrong."
Still others have a tender spot for cases of missing children and a story has led you here.
Collectively, there is an understanding that deception causes damage, and the longer one studies analysis of communication, the more apparent it becomes how widespread the damage is. From seemingly distant politics right down to the devastation of a broken relationship, liars' damage is difficult to objectify in any one article.
So many of you have a story to tell.
There have also been an ever increasing number of success stories related to the blog. This can range from the emotional and professional satisfaction of an investigator who went 'out on a limb' and told his fellow investigators, "this guy is lying. He did it!" only to back up, sit down, carefully work through the transcript and prove to the others that the subject's denial is not only unreliable, but that the subject gave us a wealth of information for the follow up interview, and so on, leading to either a guilty plea or conviction.
It is something special, indeed.
But there are other stories that include the ability to discern deception when money was on the line, in negotiations of sorts.
When the Country Wide scandal hit, there were no statements for analysis; simply forged documents, so that once CW paid off all the fines and the class action suit, victims still lost their homes, but had, on average, a check for less than $25 to show for their loss. There was no way for the homeowner to have known.
Yet when you negotiate for a used car purchase, some of you have found how marvelous even the amateur skills of analysis have served you, with ears perking when the salesman said, "I'm going to be honest with you. I've got someone else ahead of you and this person has committed to buying this car, but truly, I just feel like you should have it...."
You didn't mind the gender neutral "person" so much, though you thought that if he really had someone in mind, he might not have felt the need to so thoroughly protect his or her identity; it was just a touch of 'icing on the cake' with the cake being his call to "honesty" that his brain felt the necessity of in getting you stuck at this particular price.
In negotiations where you suspect deception, you must be very careful how you handle it.
What have you learned about the nature of liars?
First of all, not all car sales people are liars.
I am aware, perhaps more than most, just how deceptive they can be, but, like politicians, there are those who feel it is more important to keep one's own dignity in being truthful, than it is to lie, and face anxiety as one gets older and begins to take an account of one's life.
I once had the privilege of accompanying such an honest man in his business, by invitation, to see what the world of high priced automobile sales is like.
It is ruthless.
The wholesaler drove each day from Brooklyn to Long Island, then back to Manhattan and back to Long Island followed by monthly drives to Pennsylvania auctions. His negotiations were almost always "sight unseen" and involved split second decisions where he would "spend", at times, up to $100,000 on the spot.
In this world, there are no "take backs" or "re-negotiations" once you have given your word. Anyone who did this was "excommunicated" from this very strange and almost secretive world.
I listened carefully to these negotiations over the phone (often while navigating some vicious traffic, which is why I mentioned his daily routes. Those familiar with just how fast, for example, the Belt Parkway can get, or how the Long Island Expressway came to be known as "The Long Island Deathway", know what I am referring to. You can imagine how much fun I have with Heather, raised on a farm in Maine, when I take her to visit family in New York. As soon as we get close to the Throgs Neck Bridge, she begins to tense up).
This particular wholesaler was committed to being honest, and there have been, in recent years, technological safety-guards put in place so that, for example, the crude but back then, very common "rolling back the odometer" became displaced by more sophisticated means of deception, as well as the internet's intrusion into the car history statistics have meant deceptive buyers and sellers must be more creative in practicing their craft.
In spite of having an iPhone, now, next to you, "googling" the make, model, year, and mileage of your car, seeing what it goes for in various locales, liars continue to do what it is that they do and lie.
In one sense, technology has helped us defend ourselves against liars, but in another sense, lying, itself, is far less looked down upon by the American public, overall. "Gaming the system" for example, can be what tax evasion in Greece has become: a national sport.
So in spite of these safety guards, liars will be liars, and will still seek to squeeze the last nickel from you and being prepared through general practice in analysis, is of great advantage.
Besides the usual sensitivity indicators, once someone is known for lying, it is safe for you to assume that you should keep your guard up. You may recognize that the liar, the "true liar", is who he is, and it is a personalty trait that does not get "shut off" because you walk through the door, nor does it become ignored by a slim 'profit' margin.
This is an important point to keep in mind:
Be as diligent over $10 theft, as $10,000 theft, not only professionally, but in all matters.
When a man asks you out to dinner, note the tip he leaves the waitress. If it is excessive, he may be showing off, but if he is a cheapskate, he is also a cheapskate emotionally. But beyond this 'fatherly' advice, note any seemingly insignificant form of deception, such as purposely using an expired coupon, or small rouse to get an "advantage" over another. It may be a signal that the person likes the feeling of "getting one up" over another.
Having wealth does not exempt someone from this, either, nor is wealth a "cure" for it.
The "high line" car wholesaler was brilliant. He had but an 8th grade education level, but could "read" and profile better than anyone I had met, read about, or even heard of. True enough, he was the proverbially abused child who had to learn to quickly read faces, and would be an embarrassment today, to the multitude of "Lie to Me" fans who now believe to be "1 in a million expert" at discerning a nose itch, which is fine and dandy for an internet post, but quite different for one who's failure to read a lie cost thousands of dollars, or to the investigator who is "sure" someone is lying, only to find otherwise, he is not going to be trusted again, and his captain is not going to host training.
Lie detection is hard work, and it takes not only formal training, but consistent, month by month training.
For the wholesaler relying on his wits, he often said, "I know he is lying but I can't tell you why", which, had he had another profession, he would have become addicted to training because it would have given him the discipline of principle; he would have been a lie detecting expert.
The "discourse analysis" takes years of not only practice after thorough training, but also a great deal of interviewing. What is commonly missed, however, in law enforcement, is patrol.
Patrol, itself, is incessant interviewing and it is incessant negotiating between the patrol himself or herself, and the public. Each stop is an interview. Each question posed and responded to is an interview. Each time the phone rings and there is communication expected, it is an interview.
Each time the patrol officer deals with a reluctant member of the public:
it is a negotiation of sorts.
My teenaged daughter is currently becoming convinced that she could do more good in this world should she study law. It is a lofty ambition, but one she is capable of, should she work very diligently and consistently at. She has long wanted to study psychology, but is concerned with the loss of freedoms in our country, and how politics now hinder helping people, and wonders if she could do more good for more people as an attorney. Like others who began with the notion of defending those who struggle to defend themselves, she is idealistic, but unlike those who began this way only to either become an extremist (either wholly cynical or wholly pollyanna), she has a good sense of human nature and has benefited from studying analysis. In talking to her friends, she has become a sort of 'go to person' when one wishes to share a secret hurt.
In a very real sense, getting someone to open up about personal hurt is also a negotiation. There are those in the counseling world who posses expertise in this, who are well paid, not because they fraudulently get the client to be "addicted" to therapy, but because they use their talents to "negotiate" and "navigate" to the truth; the root cause of a disturbance, for example, and help them to counter it, and move on in life. They are successful professionals, and although they may be sorely in the minority, they do much good in the world; something that is still important to people.
Like the patrol officer, these also see each interaction with others as an "interview" of sorts. You, too, can practice this wherever and whenever life brings you.
Yesterday, while shopping for Sean's puppy, Heather was "confronted" by a most aggressive, young and loud saleswoman who wished to convince Heather that she "needed" to buy the little Cav, "Gus", the "very latest" in nutrition: chicken feet.
She held up this "gnarly looking dried out scary disgusting thingy" (not my words) to Heather and pontificated about the nutritional value of that which is so void of nutrition that even wolves spit them out.
I love talking to people, and each one I spoke to, from the 9 month old baby who could not stop smiling, to her worried mother, disclosing to me, a stranger, her fear of leaving her baby at Day Care, to a 9 year old child who told me her mother has no contact with her and her father is too busy watching TV to come to her game, right down to...
you get the picture.
People not only love to talk about their lives: they want to talk to someone who will listen. You can use these opportunities to learn. Every interview is a lesson. Every conversation can be an "interview" and when you are in the place where you need information and the subject is reluctant, for whatever reason, you have not entered into a "negotiation" where you must find ways to get the information you seek.
In Human Resources, I will not accept, "we can only confirm that Mr. Smith was unemployed with us from September 2010 until September 2015."
I need a reference.
I need to know.
I will get my information.
I will get it voluntarily, without pressure. I will get it because the person wants me to have it.
I either encourage the HR professional, or...
I make the follow up call myself telling the pro, "I will get the reference, good or bad."
When you call, listen for leakage.
Leakage can be magical in the sense of what it can reveal.
I was recently given Andrew Hodges work on Amanda Knox, and although I had tried to read his work on Patsy Ramsey, I didn't finish it and do not agree, in application, with his work.
There is no cause and effect, nor scientific approach. It is far too subjective.
Leakage is just that: it is subjective.
When someone says, "I am a lie detection expert, like the show and am just gifted and you just listen to me..." there is something missing and it is the answer to this question:
"Can you teach others this method of detecting deception?"
If someone is really an expert at detecting micro-expressions, than it is something that should be able to be taught, and whether it is done in California at 2PM, or New York at 11AM, the results should be the same.
Leakage is subjective, at best. I value it, but I value it in context.
Interestingly, Hodges wrote that when he listens to someone and they say, "I love sharks" in some context, the person is revealing that they may be a "shark" themselves, such as in business.
My response to this is that this may be true.
Or it may not be.
Someone may just love "Shark Week" on television.
For us, we enter into the interview, guided by the words, and if we think leakage is happening, it's subjectivity must be turned into objectivity.
We cannot conclude "this person is a shark in car sales!"
We can, however, ask questions:
1. Do you like sharks? (the obvious)
2. What do you like about sharks? (motive)
3. How often do you watch them?
4. Have you ever seen one in person?
5. What type shark is your favorite?
6. Which is your least favorite?
7. How long have you been interested in sharks? (this seeks to move into childhood)
What do you notice about the 7 questions?
Did you notice how easily they flow and how they avoid introducing new topics and language?
The wording used is common and has avoided introducing what we are specifically looking for: business or professional "shark like" predatory behavior, instead, allowing the person to speak.
It can be fun for you to practice this on your kids, and in public. See how many questions you can ask that are as close to neutral as possible, while gaining information, and avoiding introducing new words;
ask follow up questions based upon the answers, honing in directly on the introduction of new words by the subject, reflecting them back to the subject, allowing for the flow of information to expand, instantly and greatly.
It is also legally sound, and it avoids statement contamination.
When you need information (this goes for patrol, HR, sales, purchasing a new computer from one who works on commission, and so on) and you get the slightest sense of reluctance, one of the greatest tools is reflective language. It avoids contamination and because you use the subject's own words, you create a comfort level that the subject may not even realize how comfortable he or she has become, increasing the flow of information.
It takes practice. Here, I 'skip' over small detail to show how to 'pounce' on the new word introduced. This is taken from someone who, in fact, watches "Shark Week", which is on a nature channel, once per year, accompanied by "Jaws" music. The subject is 30 year old female with two children. I've added several fictitious interviewers at first...
Q. What do you like about sharks?
A. "I've loved them for the longest time!"
Q. "How long?"
A. "Since I was a child."
You've now noted that the subject, herself, has referenced herself as a "child", which is an indication of possible child abuse, which, if so, is 80% likely to have been sexual abuse. You have this in mind, but you do not yield it. This is where the wisdom comes in to play: use it improperly and lose the subject. The subject may want to talk about it.
If you are Human Resources: women who were sexually abused in childhood who have had some resolution to the issue, often excel at record keeping, rule keeping, organization, and overall order. Does your job description call for this?
It is only a generality, which must be kept in mind, but if you have, for example, a job that requires excellence in record keeping, you have something to work with.
Are you a therapist?
You've got an opening here, into a powerful situation of potential for great growth.
Are you a patrol officer? Just your human empathy, which, while wearing your uniform and weapon, may give this possible victim of childhood sexual abuse, great comfort, reassurance, and a feeling of safety from your polite demeanor alone, that may cause her to yield much more information, in trust.
Are you a customer buying a car from her, fearing that she may be a shark, ready to take advantage of you?
For male victims of childhood sexual abuse that goes unresolved, there could be a severe lack of human empathy.
It is far too early to know, but do you see how these things open up to those who listen?
A. "Since childhood? Wow! Where did you grow up?
You now have safely landed in childhood as your time shows, and depending upon your vocation, need of information, etc, will dictate whether you stay there or not.
Let's jump professions a bit: you are now a child protective caseworker, trying to learn if this 30 year old female with two children possesses the protective capacities to keep her children safe from the Registered Sex Offender (RSO) who just moved in next door.
A. "Oh I grew up right here! I have lived here my whole life. I lived here with my mother, who died just last year."
She now has introduced not only that she is on her home 'turf' (familiarity) but has introduced a priority to her: "mother" and that her timing, having jumped out of childhood to the age of 29, shows that "just last year" used the word "just", as a comparative word. We now know, from this tiny word, that the passage of one year of time, in context of the importance of mother, is a short period of time to the subject.
Q. "Oh, I am sorry to hear that. You must miss her..."
A. "She was my whole life. My father had left us when I was only 7. Mom worked two jobs and was a wonderful person. The only thing though that was bad for us was that she was just a person who always chose the bad men in her life. She had the worst taste in guys."
It is not easy, but with training, the worker "heard" (literally, on the fly) certain words that she knew to follow up on. She heard the word "left" because she had done it so many times in training, and she followed the pronouns carefully, too. She heard her "mother" become "mom", but "father" did not become "dad." "Mom" was also a "person" but did you also catch the introduction of the word "guys" that had previously been "men."
This is an indication that there may be a bad "man" in her life, the subject's life, that is, current, at the time of this interview.
It can be difficult for women abused in childhood, raised without protection, to protect their own children, as no sample was set and without resolution of issues, the language will reflect this.
The IR (Interviewer) will, at this point, use the topics introduced ("men" and "guys") and gently probe for information. This is now a touchy area, and caution is needed. For those who firmly believe in "doing unto others", that is, "let me talk to her the way I would want someone to talk to my daughter", this caution is not quite so alarming. Many professionals are where they are because they are caring individuals.
Police that believe in the honor of "protecting and serving" who have not become cynical and jaded, will, even on traffic stops, speak to someone the way they would want an officer to talk to their teenaged daughter, for example.
This interview continues with the IR uses any words that the subject introduces and asks questions about them.
Eventually, the IR learned that the "guy" in her life was:
addicted to pain meds;
ambitious to not work;
had a vicious temper with her kids;
had a series of schemes to 'game the system' with a false claim of disability (Yes, there are those who so love playing video games all day long that will find a doctor/lawyer combination that will get them Disability payments and meds so that they can pursue video games all the day long), and was always encouraging her to file a suit against her employer (who was kind to her). Boyfriend had extreme jealousy issues and whenever the boss was kind to the woman, the boyfriend exploded with threats.
she moved a predatory creature into her tiny apartment and exposed her two children to him.
Yes, her fascination with sharks did show some leakage, but we would not have made the jump from "shark fascination" to "bad man", without first having her connect the dots. (Did I really use the word "jump" in the same sentence as "shark"?)
Leakage is subjective and its validity can only come from the subject's confirmation. I recognize that the person who enters the therapist's office each week and talks about how cold the weather is may be speaking of loneliness, but "cold" is not something we "reinterpret", instead, we ask, "why did this word enter his vocabulary?" and follow this up with questions.
The car wholesaler had to often "eat a loss" rather than attempt any form of "renegotiating" after seeing the vehicle was not "as described" and showed me that some did this on purpose to "test" the wholesaler: if he protested, he could be blacklisted. If he "ate the loss" of, let's say (a real figure) of $5,000, it was "appreciated" and later, he would benefit from it.
Within a short time (under two years) he did get a reputation for honesty, and for some, this became a joke behind his back, while for others, including those who ridiculed him for it, led them to do more business with him, knowing that he was a man of his word.
Every day I get examples of how people used Statement Analysis in their lives.
Whenever I am out and about, including shopping, I love talking to people, and love to see my kids' eyes widen when they see just how much personal information someone will give to a stranger, and be so very happy about it.
"The chicken feet are truly known for their great nutritional value" eventually went to...
"I am struggling in school with student loans, and I can't believe they make this say this ^%*&(. My boyfriend's family promised me a job, but they want him to marry this girl that they..."
Human communication is fascinating and every life worth living is worthy of analysis, understanding, empathy, study, and celebration.
Practice "Analytical Interviewing" on your kids. It is non-intrusive and it is powerful. Keep reading statements online. Go to the reports on "migrants" for instance, and find two very different and even opposing articles about the very same incident such as the riot in Hungary yesterday.
See the difference in language between the two articles, especially the nouns.
Listen to the presidential debates. Listen to what is being said; listen to what is not being said.
When your phone rings and it is a company calling, the interview begins.
Your parent-teacher conference is an interview, just as any words your son or daughter's coach might say to you. Listen and ask yourself, "Why is this word being used?" Keep it to yourself.
When your son or daughter comes home from school, instead of saying, "how was your day, honey?" while they run off to Oreo-land (spell checker turned Oreo-land into Ireland), have them sit down and say, "Tell me what happened today" especially if your child is 12 years or older.
I bet you hear, "What do you mean what happened? Nothing happened!"
Thus the door is ajar.