Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Statement Analysis Training Announcement

The violent also revel themselves in language 

For Law Enforcement and Human Resource Professionals, and other professionals who wish for formal training in Statement Analysis:

Our individual course is available for you now, with more police departments and businesses paying for, or reimbursing the cost of the course for individuals.

It is not just law enforcement benefiting from the ability to "catch the lie" in the day to day profession.

More businesses are reporting successes in reduction of shrinkage, fraudulent claims and other deception related issues after both study and implementation of Statement Analysis and Analytical Interviewing.

Violence Among Women

In the past 30 years, America has seen an extreme increase in the number of females incarcerated due to violence.  Percentages, just a generation ago, by some estimates, have seen the dramatic change with estimates as high as 600% increase.  Companies must screen for violence found within language of female applicants.  It is no longer just an issue with males in our society.

By way of example, an applicant's general employment statement revealed "belligerent language" in the analysis with the conclusion of "Do not hire" due to high risk of violence in the work place.   The company soon learned her record that included several convictions for conduct that included violence.  Unknown to many, what one is convicted of is most always "less" than what one is accused of.  The analysis that warned the interviewer did not include knowledge of any criminal record but consisted of a series of questions to ask in the interview, specifically, that would uncover a penchant for violence.

Legal Benefits

Statement Analysis is a sharp tool for litigation preparation.  In several recent cases, prosecutors were better prepared to press their cause for justice, with a greater willingness on the part of the defense to seek a guilty plea.  In child abuse cases, in particular, Statement Analysis can show the reliability of a disclosure to the point of obtaining a guilty plea which may allow for the parents to spare their child the potential re-victimization of having to testify.  If the analysis can show, and be testified to, the reliability of the victim's statement, it further emboldens prosecution in protecting children.

Ongoing Training

Successful completion of this course will allow the investigator or professional to join one of several groups of professionals around the country in live, on going training.

This training is accredited for Continuing Education Units (CEUs) from the University of Maine, and is less then the cost of piano or guitar lessons.  With two years of consistent training, expertise will emerge, though it is from the very beginning, as live cases are analyzed, that immediate results are realized.  The applicant is offered one date (of several) per month, to join in the live training at Go To Meeting, and can participate from the privacy of their own home, or office, while still being able to attend to duties, such as answering the phone, etc.  It is from 9am to 3PM, one per month, with a confidentiality agreement entered into.

The emotional satisfaction of seeing a live case concluded, and justice obtained, is close to indescribable.  Even when, as in the recent sample, a company is spared an applicant who revealed an agenda before being hired, brings about a civil minded satisfaction, as theft in any business not only harms the bottom line and morale and reputation of a business, but eventually, costs are passed down to the public in general.

Those who wish to advance themselves, particularly law enforcement, human resources, social services, attorneys, business professionals, and journalists, will benefit from the deeper and challenging training, as well as the natural emerging understanding of personalty type that is seen within statements.

We offer payment plans as well, so that the professional can begin the course immediately.

For more information, go to HYATT ANALYSIS to request registration.

If your department wishes to host a seminar, discounts are available for the hosting department or company.

For individuals who complete the individual course, 12 months of ongoing support are included which allows for analysis work to be reviewed and improved.


tania cadogan said...

Off topic

A white Seattle officer who arrested an innocent black man for carrying a golf club has been fired for racial bias - but still insists she did nothing wrong, it has been revealed.

Cynthia Whitlatch sparked anger when she detained 69-year-old William Wingate who was doing nothing more than leaning on the club on a street corner in the Capitol Hill area of the city.

The Seattle Police Department has now dismissed Whitlatch, 48, claiming her 'deep seated' perceptions of race had impacted on the 'authoritarian manner' in which she treated the man.

But despite the findings, the officer denies racial bias and told investigators that she would not have done anything differently during the arrest in July 2014, the New York Daily News reports.

Dashcam footage of the incident emerged in January as charges against the retired bus driver and veteran were being dropped.

It shows the officer pulling her cruiser up to a corner where Wingate was standing, and yelling at him to drop the golf club.

She told him he had swung it at her, and that audio and video recordings from her cruiser would back up her allegations.

Wingate appeared surprised, seemed to have trouble hearing the officer, and then insisted he had done no such thing. He said he had used the golf club as a cane for 20 years.

Wingate was convicted of unlawfully using a weapon under a plea deal in which the charge would be dismissed if he had no other offenses for two years.

Prosecutors eventually dismissed the conviction, and the police department apologized for the arrest and returned his golf club.

A termination order issued by Seattle Police Department's Office of Professional Accountability found that Whitlatch had complained that a black deputy chief and a black judge had dismissed Wingate's charges on account of her being white.

The document said: '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.

She reportedly believed Wingate had struck a stop sign with the club, claiming during investigations that she had heard the sound of metal hitting metal. The NY Daily News says she claimed Wingate then stared at her.

But police documents say the incident was 'non-threatening' and should have been handled differently.

Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole wrote: 'Your inability to understand, even in hindsight, that your behavior was unnecessarily aggressive, an abuse of discretion, and negatively impacted the community's confidence in this police service, offers me no pathway to confidence that your behavior will improve or change.

'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.'

The Seattle Times reports that the city's Police Officers' Guild is set to appeal her dismissal.

Read more:

lynda said...

Peter, I find this interesting about "very" and "truly" weakening a statement. How has this conclusion come about? I ask because I myself, whenever I have done something that warrants an apology always use the word "truly". In my mind, I say that as I AM "truly" sorry or that I "truly apologize", and I say it as I feel that relays to the person that I am sincere. I want that person to know that if I lied, I saw and understand the ramifications or the hurt caused by the lie and I say "truly" or sometimes "sincerely". Are these just unnecessary words, or do they imply that I'm NOT truly sorry? This boggles me a bit.

Jessica Blans said...

Yes, Lynda, I've had the same question. In my life, "very" "truly" and "so" are used to indicate a higher level of apology (both how I use them and how others use them for me).
I understand the statement analysis principle in general and am applying it as I read, but am baffled at why it conveys insecurity.

Is it because the use of those words is sensitive, and while the sensitivity might be that the apology is stronger, it also might mean the opposite?

And if the sensitivity might signal increased/decreased sincerity, why do we tend to assume the latter in statement analysis?

Jessica Blans said...

*insincerity (not insecurity)