Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Media Deception and Minimization

When media is deceptive, it is not so much that "media" was deceptive, but someone, a person, made the decision to deceive the public, and whether this decision was spread, or mandated, it still is a "human" issue; media cannot deceive, people can.

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.

From Frontpage:

Esmatullah Sharifi, an Afghan refugee, repeatedly raped Australian women and claimed that he was confused about consent due to "cultural differences". Almahde Ahmad Atagore, a Libyan Muslim, sexually assaulted girls as young as 13. The judge told him, he was "very ill prepared to deal with cultural differences". But it was really his victims who were ill prepared to deal with his “cultural differences”.
The Pakistani rapists who went after eighteen women and girls claimed that they could rape a girl because "she was not related to us" and "she was not wearing any headscarf". Their Grand Mufti agreed, saying, "It's 90 per cent the women's responsibility.
“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat?” the Grand Mufti asked. “The uncovered meat is the problem.
It is difficult imagining a media that withholds such information from citizens that need safety.  Yet, it is "missing information."
The U.S. Military gave "stand down orders" regarding Afghans who were raping little boys, even though the little boys were screaming out for help.  When one marine intervened, his 11 year career came to an end.
I have a first hand report of one who was forced to pass down such orders.  You might imagine the suffering he has had over the years, due to this, as well as those who heard the boys crying for help, in agony, pain, and humiliation.  
The British soldiers were ordered not to speak to the BBC, and the BBC went along with "do not ask" policy.  
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

West Point Cadet Accuses ClassMate of Rape 30 Years After

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

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 (pictured, as a cadet) alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986 while they were both cadets at West Point
Susan Shannon alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins (pictured as a cadet) in 1986 while they were both cadets at West Point
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)
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

Quiz: Dropped Pronouns and Distancing Language



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:  

"My day? Ok.  here goes.  8 o'clock, I got up and started breakfast. My husband and his parents came downstairs to the kitchen.  While they ate breakfast I sat down and watched  cartoons with my son.  At 9:30 got ready for Church and went to Church.  When Church was over came home.  We all drank some more coffee and got ready for apple picking."

Question:  

What caused the pronouns go to missing at 9:30?

Put your answer in the comments section.  

Final Answer to come...

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Note What One Does Not Think, Does Not Say...

Yoenis Cespedes discusses his first contract requirement
That which is stated in the negative is always very important.

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 Whitlach Fired From Seattle Police


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.

”Extremely hostile”

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.

Texas High School Football Players: Do You Believe Them?



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

ABC News

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.
Mack Breed is facing claims that he instigated the attack.ABC News

Mack Breed is facing claims that he instigated the attack.

Enlarge
Robert Watts said he is the victim of slander.ABC News

Robert Watts said he is the victim of slander.

Enlarge
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

Statement Analysis: Patrick Kane

This is beyond stupid.

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."


Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Poll: What Happened To DeOrr?

A.  Neglect:  Unintended Death; deception by family in cover up

B.  Kidnapping:  Sex Offender, Drugs, etc, but no knowledge by family

C.  Accident, missing remains, no knowledge by family

D.  None of the Above (fill in your comment)


What Happened to DeOrr?
 
pollcode.com free polls

Steve Rannazzisi Lies About 9/11


Comedian Stephen Rannazzisi admitted he lied about a story of escaping the Twin Towers on 9/11.
This is an article from NYdailynews.com  
I am not familiar with the actor/comedian but I find not only his quotes to be interesting, but the portrayal of lying to also be of worth to those of us who like to study the language associated with deception.  The article states that this might have "killed" his career, which is ironic given how politicians often prosper in polls after being caught lying.  Analysis and commentary are added to the article in bold type. 

No joke: This truth-twisting comedian might have just killed his career.
Days after the fourteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, standup star Steve Rannazzisi admitted Wednesday he made up a tale about escaping from the World Trade Center.
“I was not in the World Trade Center that day,” his publicist said in a statement to The New York Times.

Note the quote is a reliable denial:

"I was not in the World Trade Center that day" includes the pronoun "I", the past tense "was not" and the specific location and day used. 

What makes this RD interesting?
It came from the subject's publicist; not the subject.  Let's listen to what the subject, himself says. 

Here is a quote from him:  


“I don’t know why I said this. This was inexcusable. I am truly, truly sorry.”

"This" is a word to indicate "closeness" while "that" is distancing language.  For this subject, this lie is "very close" to him (note repetition) which causes us to explore the reason why. 
One thing that may be is what the Daily News article began with:  he might have just killed his career.  If he is concerned that this lie is going to impact his career, it would explain why the word "this" is used (twice) instead of the distancing language of "that", which most of us would have used.  

Note that he is not "sorry" but uses the word "truly", which makes the "sorrow" sensitive; however, by adding a second "truly", he indicates an even greater increase in sensitivity.  

What might cause this?

It is noted for weakness but it is deceptive?

Some will conclude that the weakness of being "truly truly sorry" is because it is false, and this may be correct, yet, in context, we would need to know more about him.  For example, as a comedian, he likely offends people on a regular basis, which may mean he apologizes a great deal, not out of any sorrow, but of obligation.  

It is in this extreme environment that a comedian tries to entertain people while avoiding the myriad of "offenses"  and it may be (I don't know this to be so) that he has "apologized" for various "offenses", but it is here that he wishes now to be believed because his other apologies are artificial. 

The point is:  We indicate sensitivity and it is either in context, or in the interview that we seek to learn the cause of sensitivity.  

I once had someone object to "answering a question with a question indicates sensitivity to the question" because...

she had hearing difficulty. 

I was able to show:

Answering a question with a question = sensitivity to the question.  For this particular example, the sensitivity is caused by hearing difficulty.  

In this specific case, however, 'easy' questions were heard and it become evident that the sensitivity was more related to the wording, than the volume.  


In the comedian's case, the "truly truly" weakening could be because of the above sensitivity, or, as initially stated, it could be disingenuous and he gives us now his longer statement to discern:  

He offered a longer apology to his 110,000 Twitter followers in a series of run-on tweets Wednesday morning.

"After I moved with my wife to Los Angeles from New York City in 2001 shortly after 9/11, I told people that I was in one of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. It wasn’t true. I was in Manhattan but working in a building in midtown and I was not at the Trade Center on that day...it is to the victims of 9/11 and to the people that love them--and the people that love me--that I ask for forgiveness."

Let's look at the statement again:

"After I moved with my wife to Los Angeles from New York City in 2001 shortly after 9/11, I told people that I was in one of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. It wasn’t true. I was in Manhattan but working in a building in midtown and I was not at the Trade Center on that day...it is to the victims of 9/11 and to the people that love them--and the people that love me--that I ask for forgiveness."

Note "it wasn't true" is not to say "I lied" but "it wasn't true" is passive voice, and it is this subtle distance that is commonly heard in apologies.  This is somewhat expected, which is why, "I lied" or "I told a lie" is considered even stronger.  
Note the inclusion of the word "love" in his apology.  What do you make of its inclusion? 
Note that "I was not at the Trade Center that day" is a reliable denial, in the formula of RD.   The article continues: 

His reps did not return requests for an interview.
So far, the fabricating funnyman has already been slammed by one of his sponsors, Buffalo Wild Wings, which uses him for ad campaigns in sports games.
“We are disappointed to learn of Steve’s misrepresentations regarding the events of September 11, 2001,” the chain said in a statement to the Times. “We are currently re-evaluating our relationship with Steve pending a review of all the facts.

Fellow funnyman Pete Davison, whose father died in the 9/11 attacks,
slyly mocked Rannazzisi in a tweet that lying comedian didn't get.
"It's ok @SteveRannazzisi people make mistakes ... Can't wait to meet my dad for lunch later," Davidson wrote to him.

"thank you pete. i really appreciate it.," Rannazzisi replied.
Davidson wrote back: ""I think you missed the point ..."

With hyper-sensitivity and "victim status" limiting freedom of speech, a sense of new bullying comes into play where some topics lied about are acceptable and some are not.  


Rannazzisi, 37, was set to appear in another line of ads for the chain during the N.F.L. season.
The comedian told Marc Maron in a 2009 interview he was working as an account manager at Merrill Lynch on the 54th floor of the south tower when the first plane struck. He claimed he ran to safety just minutes seeing a plane smash into his tower.

He told the story in vivid detail, saying he was worried about his girlfriend at the time, who also worked in one of the Towers, and said he had "falling dreams" after witnessing the horrors of the day.
He continued telling the story in interviews for years, despite claiming it was a tough topic for him, telling the Sklarbro Country podcast in 2011 he didn't want to seem like he was "cashing in or anything like that."

But in a 2013 interview, Rannazzisi suddenly started changing his story, saying he was "outside" when the attacks began.
The future comedian was working in Midtown that day, and not for Merrill Lynch, his publicist said. And his girlfriend, now wife, was working in the World Financial Center, not the World Trade Center.
Rannazzisi has a one-hour Comedy Central special, "Breaking Dad," scheduled to run Saturday. The network did not immediately offer comment on Rannazzisi's lie.
He also stars in the sitcom "The League," which is now in its final season.
Rannazzisi also apparently lied about his alma mater on his personal website, saying he went to SUNY Purchase when he in fact graduated from SUNY Oneonta, the Times noted. His publicist called this an "oversight."

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.


Monday, September 14, 2015

Statement Analysis and Child Abuse: DeOrr Kunz Photos

Although I am not a participant in "internet sleuthing forums" (under various names), I do know some police who, anonymously, join, read and  learn.  I also receive copy/paste info or commentary, from time to time, on a case that has caught the public's attention.  Why might an investigator anonymously join a forum of those who are not formally trained, (nor paid) to investigate?

This is because at any given time, a person of intelligence and insight might post something useful to an investigation.  Those who love learning, learn.

Therefore,  when insults are tossed at "web detectives", "web sleuths" or "internet investigators", it is often by one who wants to dismiss an opinion because of disagreement.  Rather than answer the assertion, the forum, itself, is condemned.  Guilty parties, defense attorneys, and those with a particularly inordinate attachments to a case may provoke the harshest condemnations.

Within such forums, there is another element which can hinder the flow of knowledge:  those desperate for "higher moral ground" positions than others, which is readily evidenced in the sacrifice of truth for "appearance sake."

No matter, there are often enough honest, truth seeking, intelligent people who come at cases with many viewpoints, angles and projected views.  Those with strong emotional intelligence often cite their own projection; something I find not only fascinating, but admirable.

The case of missing toddler, DeOrr Kunz has puzzled many.

I have not posted an analysis conclusion that most cases have, and readers have been, in large, generous to me in this matter.

What is it about this case that I have not posted a strong conclusions?

Perhaps another question should accompany this:

Why haven't I given a strong opinion on what happened to little DeOrr?

Before answering these two questions, let's look at the position of child abuse and photographs, which is a topic recently raised.  Some have said that the happy photos of DeOrr prove he was not abused or unwanted.

1.  Photos are not, by themselves, conclusive.

There are children who are subject to abuse, but are not "unwanted" children, at the same time, even while there are some children who may not suffer physical abuse, but are, in deed, unwanted and this is a powerful form of emotional abuse that can take its form in chronic neglect, or disinterest.

The photo is not always a reliable indicator either way.  The best insight into a child's life is the words of the parents, in particular, how they relate to the child.

I often say, "this parent likes her child", which raises a few eyebrows.  I then explain that most all parents "love" their children, but it is those that "delight in them", or quite simply, "enjoy spending time" with their children who do so much better at parenting.  What we like, we repeat.

For one, "the terrible twos" is something to "get through", while to another, it is a time of heightened vigilance, but also heightened humor and exciting exploration time.

Photos are not always definitive.

This means that, at any time, a child can appear happy in a photo which should not lead someone to conclude that he was a wanted or well cared for child.  Did you ever notice the instinctive reaction of Jews on their way to death smiling for the camera?

I cringed whenever a defense attorney introduced photos at a child abuse trial as if a single moment in time could tell a story.

In the same sense, a photograph of an injury could be a result of child abuse, or it could be the result of an accident, rough play, sports, etc.

I once had a case where a boyfriend had been accused of beating a toddler to the point of marks on his face.

Having had too many cases like this, I had to remind myself to remain open and let the one thing above all else that I trust in, to guide me:  the language.

When asking a subject "What happened?" while looking at the marks on a baby's face, the subject, in this case, a young boyfriend of the baby's mother, had, perhaps, less than average intelligence.  Let's guesstimate that he had a vocabulary of 20,000 words, under the scoped average of 25,000 held by most.

In less than a microsecond of time, as I asked this question without even introducing myself or saying anything else to him, his brain told his mouth what to say by:

*choosing what information to reveal to me;
*choosing what words to best convey this information to me;
*choosing what verb tenses and pronouns to use in speaking to me;
*choosing where to place each word, in position to complete sentences

I stared at him as he spoke, noting that this less than average intelligence young male did so without interruption of even the slightest.

He had sat the baby up, and went into the kitchen, and heard a noise, and found the baby on his side, screaming.  He picked the baby up and the baby eventually stopped crying.

"On the fly" I noted to myself that his sentences were short, they used the appropriate past tense commitment with the pronoun "I" and the sentences were without noticeable sensitivity indicators.  I then continued the interview, beginning with open ended questions only, moving on to questions about the specific language he used and then onto more direct questions.

I took careful notes and "knew", from analysis training, that what I was told was, statistically, "reliable."

I also found some things about the young male I did not like.  I remained aware of this and knew that the recorded interview would have to be analyzed to make sure my "on the fly" work matched the written statement from the transcript.

I took photos of his marked up face.

I then presented my information to my superiors who concluded "physical child abuse" by the photos, as they (two) dismissed my analysis that the subject was reliable in his account of what happened.  The things I did not like about him, including substance abuse, work ethic, and a few other things, were relevant to the child's life, true, but this investigation was to learn:

did he inflict injury upon the child?

This is what I was charged with learning.

My superiors were certain that this was to be both civil and criminal in scope, and wanted procedural fulfillment for the removal of the child, should the mother "fail to protect" the child from the "abusive" boyfriend.

The photos were sent to an expert who concluded that the injuries "somewhat appear inflicted" and that the explanation of how it happened was "suspect" at best.  He did not feel strong in his conclusion, but the marking pattern was strange.  He could not conclusively say one way or another.  This was not his norm, as I had found him to that point, to have accuracy.  I felt somewhat emboldened by his refusal to commit, one way or another.  His testimony was something I had come to respect in keeping children safe.

I had a powerful conflict between what I know and understand to be the most reliable form of investigation, versus being instructed on what to do.  My analysis said, "The subject did not directly  inflict the injuries to the face", while the photographic evidence, and peripheral issues said otherwise.

I returned to the home.

I had the subject set up the entire scenario again for me, while saying nothing about my analysis.  I also asked him if he would be willing to take a polygraph, which he was.  In it, he would be asked, "Did you cause the injury to the child's face?" of which he said, "But, yes, I did, in that I shouldn't have left the room."

I told him that the polygrapher would interview him and then, together, they would form the questions.

The pictures looked bad.

As he set up the blanket on which the child was seated, I asked him to give me the baby's bottle, pacifier and play things from that morning.

I photographed everything and asked if I could keep the items for a few days.

That night, I wrestled with knowing that in all the interviews I have done, this kid 'fits the bill' of someone who might snap and hit a child but his statements were not even close to 'neutral'; he was truthful.

I then discovered something generally outside my scope.  I am a linguistics person; I listen with trained listening to the point where I sometimes put in headphones just to shut things out.  I am not an "expert investigator" with a "photographic memory"; for me, seeing the trajectory of a body falling after a suicide will sound like something special, but is as foreign to me as is the New York Jets winning the Superbowl in 2016 is to Jet fans.

But I know language.

His language was not only truthful, it was not the language of child abuse; distancing, violent, etc.

I noticed that the toy the child fell upon was a face and the face had elevated (obnoxious) eyes, nose, mouth, eyebrows, etc.

I took out my kids' clay and molded against it.

It was a perfect match.

I then emailed photographs of the clay model, alongside the other photographs, and photographs of the ugly toy, alongside with the child's weight.

The next day I received his reply:  "it fits!"

What appeared to be damning photographs of inflicted abuse were not.  I was relieved.

This week, a frightening photograph made international headlines where it appeared that European police were assaulting a migrant, as he hovered over his wife and baby, on railroad tracks.  It looked like police brutality.

A day or two later, the "photograph" was revealed to be a stop image from a short video and small, independent media wanted to make certain the photo's context was seen, too.

In it, we see a man shove his wife and baby down to the railroad tracks and jump on them, while police try to stop him.

The agenda driven main stream media used only the photograph to further their own agenda by employing propaganda.

My point with DeOrr:

Photos of happy DeOrr may not prove he was not abused, even as a bruised DeOrr may not prove abuse.

At any given time, even the most horrific child abusers can pull out a Christmas photo of a happy child.

What gives us greater insight is the language, and how a parent relates to a child.

In the following sample I use in training, we see that a child who is abused can have both, a loving status as a daughter, and the distancing, gender specific language found within abuse.

How a parent speaks of a missing child is critical in understanding.  

Recall Baby Lisa, who's mother could barely ever utter Lisa's name.  It was extreme distancing language.  She didn't like her child.

In other cases, we carefully note when, for example, she is "my daughter" and when she is "Jonbenet", or "Hailey" or any number of children who were initially reported "missing" but the language of the parents revealed a need to psychologically distance themselves from the child, in certain contexts.

Deborah Bradley was extreme, however, which revealed that Baby Lisa was not only a victim of "adult time" claimed by Bradley, that Lisa fatally interrupted while Bradley wanted to party, but showed that Lisa was, quite likely, a victim of neglect by Bradley.  This is not the norm but more akin to an unwanted child.  Bradley didn't "delight" in Lisa.

Some parents will claim "ownership" of the child while speaking of the child, in context, "safe in Heaven", where no abuse exists.

In DeOrr's case, we do not find this extreme distancing language.  This does not mean that the parents are truthful or are not responsible for his disappearance; it means that he was not a child from whom they want complete distance from.  Even guilty parents will linguistically "embrace" their child under some contexts, but then upon the "guilty context", quickly linguistically distance themselves.  The McCanns example this, as does even Haleigh Cummings father, Ronald Cummings.

Ronald Cummins was, as some parents are, abusive to Haleigh, oftentimes out of ignorance.  Raised to be slapped in the face, for him, it is his "value" and "norm."  He left her with some dangerous people and when it came to drugs and self interest, he chose himself over his daughter.  This is not to say that he didn't want her:  it was more that he could not handle being a parent, and couldn't be trusted around children while being in authority.

Baby Sabrina comes to mind, as well. Something happened to her, but it does not mean that they did not love her all other days.

In shaken baby cases, it takes only a split second of loss of self control, and the child is gone.

These are situations where something, likely unintended, took place and the guilty negligent parents go into cover up mode. It does not mean that the child was unwanted always.  I don't think Jonbenet was unwanted by her mother, but her mother was either unwilling or incapable of protecting her from John Ramsey, which may have some roots in Patsy's own upbringing.

Understanding causes does not excuse responsibility.

Caylee Anthony was an unwanted child who was, as her name suggested, nothing more than a novelty to her mother, from whom the mother loved the attention Caylee brought to her, the mother, but beyond that, "little snot face" was in the way of the mother's life style.

I have used photographic evidence to help prove physical child abuse, while I have also used photographs to clear someone as the above case shows, or the many cases where "it he can cruise, he will bruise" toddlers who loved to explore would often injure themselves in ways where innocent parents were afraid of being falsely accused.

I worked with pediatricians who were trustworthy, not only to me, but to the parents.  These professionals did not ever lightly make reports as they had to, on the fly, often make judgements on whether an injury matches the explanation.  As mandated reporters, they would say, "I make this as an obligation, but believe the explanation."

I found, overall, a good consistency in their accuracy.  Parents would urge me to call the doctor who told them that he or she was obligated to make the report.  These usually ended well as doctors often really get to know parents, including risk factors.  It is not always, but at least from my experience, quite often their instincts, like teachers, served them well.

The example, here in the form of a test, shows how a change of language can reveal the truth:

Child Abuse Analysis Test

Photographic evidence is useful and can assist in cases, but it is an element of an overall case, even as language is, as well.

An investigator in the above test "knows" that the father abused his own child, yet, even while testifying to "why" (the analysis) he will need more to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, including, perhaps, the testimony of the young girl, which is almost always, problematic to parents.

I have always warned parents of what a defense attorney may do to their child, if the child takes the stand.

The re-victimization can be powerful, and I always encouraged the parents to seek out the assistance of other professionals in gaining an opinion on whether or not the child should take the stand.  It is never an easy call.

Those that follow this case are passionate and investigators are wise to be open to the public forums where discussion takes place.

There is always a chance that someone in the family, perhaps even a parent, may, under another name, write in and attempt to influence the mindset.

As to the two questions on why I have not had a strong conclusion and why I have not offered my opinion, the next article will address these questions and ask you what you believe happened to DeOrr.