Saturday, April 30, 2016

Dee Gordon Denies Intentional Steroids

If MLB or fans holds interest to whether or not a player will own and admit that he took PEDs in the thinking that taking responsibility matters, they will need to look twice at this statement.  

This is the statement Dee Gordon made.  

1.  Note passivity
2.  Note "ingested"
3.  Note the need to include passed tests 
4.  Note the need to include "prove this" 

By introducing this length of time (career), it is a signal that he is thinking of steroids and his career, suggesting that this was not a single, recent event.  

He does not lie outright and say "I ingested" but that tests show.  Tests can be wrong.  This is a good example of someone who avoids a direct lie, but is deceptive.  He uses "ingested" with the hope that this will be interpreted as "I ingested" but it is not his assertion.  

Interesting side note:  the failed test was for a combined substances that require a large needle to inject.  

From NY Post:

“I have no idea how it got into my body.” Well, if any of these guys really loved the game, they would tell MLB investigators where they are getting it. Then, at least one venue would be shut down and some better ideas of how the cheaters are cheating would be given to the good guys, so the cops would not always be so far behind the villains.

Friday, April 29, 2016

Blackburn on Fox News: "I Had No Idea"

"Had no idea somebody had been in my house" without the pronoun "I" may explain why he stayed out on the driveway as long as he did only on this particular morning. 


Those who felt that the husband of Amanda Blackburn may have helped facilitate her murder and who have doubted his story, will not likely have their opinion changed in his most recent interview.  
Fox News reported that at first he didn’t realize she’d been shot.
"Honestly, I think it was by the grace of God that I had no idea what happened. I honestly thought, she was three months pregnant, so I thought that something had gone horrifically wrong with the pregnancy," 
The use of "honestly" is a call to be believed. Would a truthful person need such a call?  This is to 'call in a reinforcement for what I am about to say I really want to be believed...' which is to show inherent weakness. The cusp of the statement is his claim that having no idea was by the grace of God, yet if he is deceptive, it speaks to Divine intervention, keeping him from knowing, that is not real. 

Does this suggest deception about "not knowing" or about the grace (influence) of God?

 It is a habit of the deceptive who feel a need to emphasize belief in what they are saying, rather than simply saying something that is true.  Here, where he uses it, he wants to be believed.  When it is repeated, it becomes even more sensitive.  
Note the lack of using her name as distancing language. This was a pattern shortly after her murder; something most unexpected from a spouse.  The "husband and wife" relationship is unique.  It is based not simply on biology, but physiology, that is, it includes elements of science that were deliberately designed for this purpose.  It is within this uniqueness that we find the "sharing of one internal dictionary" develop. No other relationships produce this.  As the male relates to the female, he does so from the unique position of male; as the female relates to the male, she does from the unique position of who she is, a female.  Then, in intimacy, there is a joining of the bodies, becoming 'one person', in which they 'know' each other.  This 'knowledge' is deep, often described as mysterious, and has been the topic of poetry, literature and music from earliest recorded history.  When a husband and wife are in a room together, they are at an advantage:  they can communicate without speaking better than any others.  The longer the marriage, the greater the sharing, but note that this sharing is an intimate sharing.  When murder disrupts this, there is a "tearing" or "destruction" that takes place (1) but there is also an element of "invasion" or "intrusiveness" (2) because "someone killed my wife" or "someone killed my husband" which is:

as if the killer got to the survivor's life.  This is what we hear in the language of surviving victims of murder.  The personal and intrusive nature of murdering one half of the "one person" is the expected in language.  It is as if the surviving spouse has been 'murdered', in this sense. (We hear this language in unexpected divorce cases where one has been deceived; lots of deep, personal language of 'theft' or robbery, as if the outsider entered into something and destroyed it, while tainting the innocent victim).

This is what the general population expressed in comments here and in news articles when Blackburn began his media tour.  Commentators were angry, though some struggled to explain why.  Christians, in particular, were offended (some embarrassed) at not simply the unnatural (unexpected) crass commercialization of the murder, but also of the 'empty' language; that which we call "distancing language."

This same 'angry' response was frequent when Baby Lisa's mother spoke publicly.  She went a long way (in language) without mentioning Lisa's name, in any form other than the pronoun "her" or "she."  It 'felt' unnatural because it is.  The mother-child relationship is another such physiological unique relationship that has its own language.

Blackburn angered people at both his lack of intimacy with Amanda, and his clear positive expressions over the publicity.

Another intuitive "statement analysis" done by the public was his constant retreat into using "we" rather than "I", even when alone.  When it came to the murder, and when it came to his relationship with Amanda, "we" was frequently employed, though nothing stood out as with some expression of guilt more than,
"For us, we have nothing to hide." 
Some stated that this was likely a mental illness or psychological disturbance stemming from his narcissism.  I disagree and have, in a previous article, showed why this was not the case.  As to the claim of "we" being "me and jesus", it would appear that this is no longer the case as he now speaks for himself.  
Note that he uses the pronoun "I" consistently, as his pattern, now, something he did not use when speaking of Amanda's murder, early on.  This is a signal of a need to psychologically share guilt.  
That he uses "I had no idea" is something that is difficult to believe since we have ideas about most everything in life.  Yet, when we take this statement ("I had no idea") with the unnecessary need to persuade that it is honest' use of "honestly", it raises a suspicion:  did he know she was shot?  He attributes this "I had no idea" to "the grace of God" and this attribution is only weakly asserted with "I think..."

Consider, for those new to analysis, the difference between two sentences:
"I locked my keys in the car."
"I think I locked my keys in the car."

The weakness is appropriate here, but when compounded, we must take note that the subject may not believe his own words.  
This is a very weak, and distancing assertion of not knowing that Amanda was shot.  Note the victim's name (his wife) is not used in many of his responses about her.  This is not expected.  What he says next may come as a shock to those who have believed his account:  
"When I found her, she was still breathing, and I thought, man this is really bad, but if we can just get her to the hospital she's going to be OK. I had no idea there were bullet wounds.  Had no idea somebody had been in my house. Things didn't look right, something was up, but I think I was just in this cloud of shock."
Begin by noting his reference to time:  "When I found her", which specifies time.  As she is still breathing, there is an intuitive change in pronoun.

Note the connection or closeness between "this is really bad" and the fact that she was "still" breathing.

The only description of finding her, at this point, is that she was "still breathing", which is the only thing he credits as being "really bad" in his quick assessment of the situation.
Given the description of the crime scene, I would think that blood would be the thing that told me how bad this was; not that she was "still" breathing.

This word "still" speaks to the passage of time.

Please take very careful note in what he said about being on the phone that day, remaining on the phone but not going into the house.  He stayed outside for about 40 minutes talking when he could have concluded the conversation inside the house.  This is to describe the passing of time.

When he finds her, she is not "bleeding" but "still" breathing.
"Still" refers to passing of time.
Did he know someone had been in the house?
"there were bullet wounds" avoids saying "Amanda was shot" or bringing this personal to Amanda in any form of language.  It not only avoids using her name, but it avoids all responsibility of the shooters by passive voice.  "Bullet holes" do not get there by themselves.  Please note two things;
1.  Someone must shoot her in order to give her bullet holes
2.  She, herself, would have bullet holes.  Passive voice conceals this in a most subtle way.  "There were bullet holes" is passivity in Statement Analysis which is used to conceal responsibility.  

Note the re-introduction of the pronoun "we" here.  
It is startling to hear someone who relied so heavily upon the pronoun "we" when he was alone, and who later claimed the use of "we" was "me and jesus", to drop a pronoun. 
Yet he has returned to using the pronoun "I" in his statements yet here, while alone, with dying victim, he reverts back to what was cited shortly after the murder:  the inappropriate use of "we" in the pronoun.  
One may argue that he is talking about the rescue.  He does not state rescue.  
"Things didn't look right":  While his wife lay bleeding out on the ground, with a report that her clothing had been moved, or pants pulled down, the language "things didn't look right" does not match the reality.  This is concerning language as it minimizes the crime scene by one who is the spouse; that is, one who should be using up close personal and emotionally charged language.  

"I had no idea there were bullet wounds.  Had no idea somebody had been in my house."  
Dropped Pronoun

Pronouns are dropped when someone does not wish to psychologically commit to a statement.

Having "no idea" lacks credibility, as frequently cited in analysis, but whether or not you combine the two sentences with a semi-colon or keep them separate, when the sentence is spoken, the dropped pronoun becomes evident.  
This is to intuitively remove himself from the knowledge of "somebody" had been in "the" house; no, he uses it as "my house" and not the typically used by married couples, "the" house with the article used. 
This reduction in commitment about robbery via missing pronoun is noted. 
Also note "somebody" and not "the killers" or any form of identification.  "Somebody" is singular. 
"Somebody" is gender neutral.
It is soft language.

"I didn't know Amanda's killers were in the house" is not said. This is after the fact of arrests and police investigation.  
This is the type of language used when either;
the subject does not know the identity of who broke into the house or
the subject is concealing the identity.  
Please note that the suspects have been identified and arrested and are known by the subject at the time of this statement.

He does not say that he had no idea about someone in the house.  If he is unwilling or unable to say it, we will not say it for him.

For someone who has consistently used the pronoun "I" here, this dropped pronoun about someone entering the home is coupled with the fact that this same subject earns a living by his public speaking, tells us that he is not, at all, committing to "not knowing" someone entered his home.

Question:  Did police miss this connection between being on the driveway deliberately staying outside while on the phone, while the victim was "still" breathing?

For some that may have felt that the deception in his statements was limited to being relieved of the burden of being married to Amanda, or related to homosexuality, this particular point is difficult to ignore.

"Had no idea somebody..." is not credible.

He should have been administered a polygraph in spite of the strong alibi of being at the gym.  

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Davey Blackburn Publicity and Book Deal

When Amanda Blackburn was murdered last Fall, the public was shocked, one way or another, by the appearance of her husband, Davey Blackburn, on television.

He distanced himself from her, and spoke about how many people he could get to come to his church and how much exposure he could get for his 'business'; something many of his comments showed to be his priority; specifically, numbers in attendance while he ignored the murder, itself.  

He not only distanced himself from Amanda, his wife, but from his son and made references to what sounded like a book or movie deal.  Later, he even claimed that while standing in the shower, the Almighty spoke to him and gave him plans for Davey to have success of a historic nature.  Whenever he spoke of her death, the shooting, or similar, 'forensic' like topics, he used the pronoun "we", though he was alone.

  "For us, we have nothing to hide", he said, strongly indicating a need to conceal something, within his language.  

Here we pick up, in two parts, from an "interview" he gave with his former pastor, with the 2nd part of the analysis from Fox news, which covers the moments when he found Amanda bleeding to death.  The topic here is something that was referenced to early in his statements:  publicity.  

With his repetition and strong statements about numerics, that is, the number of people who would come to his church, the number of people who would visit via the internet, and the number of people he would be in communication with via television, and lastly, through his "history making" mandate, we have "the expected" regarding this 'forgiveness' meeting.  

What has been expected is the "public forgiveness" as an ultimate publicity stunt, granted to the criminals who shot Amanda.  

When asked about this 'forgiveness meeting'  he stated:

"Honestly, Perry, I know this sounds crazy and I honestly don’t know how I’m gonna do it outside of the, the grace of God, but I really hope I get the opportunity to share the gospel with these guys.  I really do.  I honestly have no idea how I’m gonna do it…"

Question for the reader/analyst:

Does the subject (Davey) have plans to meet with the killers?  Is there plans in the making, including what will be said?

We believe what one says unless they give us reason to not.  Following simple principles of Statement Analysis:  

"Honestly, Perry, 

 We note that this topic of meeting with the killers has produced two things:

a.  The need to emphasize that he is telling the truth with the word "honestly" which is used by those who's general pattern is less than honest.  It is a signal that the subject wants to be believed here, and by doing so, acknowledges that he is not always one who can be believed; hence, the emphasis.  

b.  the name of the Interviewer is used.  This is to elevate attention to the answer.  

I know this sounds crazy 

He does not say "this sounds crazy" but instead he uses the words to express what he knows about how this will sound.  This is to show an awareness of the impact and how it may be used.  This is a form of manipulation similar to one saying

"well, if I were you, I would not trust me either, but..."  where I generally advise the person to believe the subject and not trust him. 

"I know" is to take a step away from "this sounds crazy" which is to distance oneself.  In other words, by the simple addition of "I know", the subject is strongly suggesting that he does not believe "this is crazy" and that he knows it is begin "added for affect" upon the listener.  If it had been something so unusual that it sounded crazy, as fascinating things sometimes do, the subject would say, "This sounds crazy but..." , instead the sentence structure focuses upon the subject himself, rather than the topic of craziness.  

This leads us to ask:

Why does the subject need to make this sound as if it is something "crazy" to do in meeting with the killers?  

Remember:  the sentence is not an affirmation that the topic is crazy.  The sentence is about the subject, himself, and his knowledge of the topic.  This is what is meant by "listening" and "believing" someone, rather than interpreting his words to mean something else.  Dishonest people are counting on us to interpret their words.  

Does he want us to believe something about himself?  We are not made to wait long for the answer:  

and I honestly don’t know how I’m gonna do it outside of the, the grace of God, but I really hope 

Note the second use of the word "honestly" as a practice of the habitually deceptive, in one answer.  This now further increases the sensitivity of what he is asserting. 

Next note that this need for "honesty emphasized" introduces the negative, of "don't know" which reports what is not known than what is known.  

Is the subject attempting to cause us to interpret his words to suggest that he does not know if he will meet the killers and if he does, he he will react, because as a husband of a murdered wife, the emotion may cause him to physically attack the men as most husbands would?

The trouble with this interpretation is:

a.  it is an interpretation and not what he said
b.  it does not match any of his reactions to her death initially
c.  it does, however, show a reaction to how people felt he reacted to his wife's death with his crass commercialization and capitalizing upon her death and even using her diary, all under the guise of religious language.  

He "honestly" does not know how "outside the the grace of God", that is, he does know how he will react "inside" the grace of God, but not "outside."  

If he does "not" know, he then refutes this lack of knowledge with the word "but" in his sentence.  

The word "but" negated what came before it, via comparison with what follows, which is:  

"...but I really hope I get the opportunity to share the gospel with these guys. 

He does not say "with those killers" or something emotion-laden, but "with these" ("these" is close, psychologically) and they are only "guys", not "killers, bastards, murderers, animals, thugs" and so on.  This, too, matches his words right after the murder where he not only showed no concern for his safety, his son's safety nor the public at large, while the killers were not caught, but did show emotion about how much his business would grow.  

He not only "hopes" he gets the opportunity (please note who gets this opportunity: "I get the opportunity" and not "we get the opportunity" as he frequently used the pronoun "we" to the point where some erroneously concluded that it was a mental health issue with him.  It was not).  

He "really" hopes, making his "hope" now sensitive with "really."   

Next comes "really" in repetition, regarding this hope: 

 I really do.  

Enough "really" and even the untrained eye will recognize plans in place to have this publicity stunt pulled off.  

I honestly have no idea how I’m gonna do it…"

In a single answer, he used the word "honestly" three times, making the topic of "honesty" something that is very sensitive to the subject. 


This is consistent with his statements since he first went public with his statements immediately following the murder of his wife:  

his honesty. 

As a habit of speech, we note what provokes it, and what does not.  This is the language of one who is habitually dishonest.  This short answer to a question, itself, reveals a level of dishonesty that is reached through life long habituation.  It is a very strong signal that the need to emphasize his own assertion is sensitive because he is not habitually truthful.  

Analysis Conclusion:

It is likely that at the time of this statement, plans have been made for the publicity stunt of "public forgiveness of the murderers" for the sake of self promotion.  It may be that a script is already prepared, if not on paper, at least mentally, as this element of 'surprise' of not knowing, is something that produces the need for emphasis.  Hence, plans are made and intentions expressed.  Please also note that shortly after the victim died, the subject spoke with analysis showing that he planned on continuing to capitalize on her death for the purpose of promotion, with likely book or movie deal, as he referred to "Amanda's Story" in his language.  

The subject is deceptive, and in other statements analyzed, has been consistent in his deceptive responses.  

Next:  What about when he found the victim bleeding to death?  Will we be given an honest account?

Analyzing With Your Spouse

"But a pet never disagrees with me!" 
It is very helpful for analysts or investigators to talk to others about their own language.  I frequently encourage analysts to ask questions of their spouses.  If the marriage is lengthy, the couple likely either shares or has begun to share, the same linguistic code with one another.  The ancient "becoming one person" is understood not only physically, but psychologically, as they relate to each other on deep levels, including intuition, language, and facial expressions.  They can get to the point of sharing one dictionary, both linguistically, and even emotionally.  We sometimes joke that two very long term married people "look like each other" because we recognize facial patterns and as husband and wife are together over many years, they often do mimic each others' expressions just as they share the same language.  

Analyzing Your Own Language 

Talking over the use of language is, in a sense, 'self-analysis' where the analyst can ask his or her spouse, "Why did I word it this way?"

We can get too tied up within our own minds, if we do this only by ourselves.  A spouse can be invaluable and I regularly ask analyst to "run this by your spouse" to see what "she might expect to hear" from a particular sentence.  

I will give you two examples; one long, designed to influence your analysis, and the other quite short.  

When I worked as a state investigator I was privileged to serve under a professional dedicated and honorable manager.  In the simplest of ways, she did the right thing.  

This brought her, on occasion, to be at odds with the nature of a bureaucracy.  A bureaucracy is not a system of order meant to serve people, but a system meant to sustain itself, which can frequently come at expense of the people it serves. 

She impressed me and my co workers and we recognized: no nonsense is the order of the day.  Her scruples were such:  if there was a theft of $50,000, the investigation (likely complex) should be entered into no different than an investigation into the theft of $5:  both should be approached professionally and with excellence.  

This is easy to say where embezzlement or exploitation of someone's life savings has disappeared and the interviews and research will be intense including subpoena of bank records, and other complexities. 

We saw that not only did she approach the small as the great, but she demanded the same quality of investigation and written report from the simple theft of $5 as she did of the major exploitation.   

We admired it, and experienced it first hand, and quickly learned that the final edit of the report of either had to be of the same intense level of scrutiny and care.  

There is always a temptation to take lightly something that is quite small, but I also learned, through business, what those who steal $5 and are successful do, after a period of time in which they feel safe:  they steal again, but the comfort level increases and so does the amount.  The $4 theft by a waitress that turns into $400 is not unexpected.  

This lesson has stayed with me and admire, for example, law enforcement who takes a simple assault and a murder to both need professional application.  

I also admire it among businesses who use Statement Analysis, either through training HR, or by hiring an analyst.  These companies scrutinize hiring of employees via analysis and the entry level application is given the same high level of analysis and scrutiny, as does the managerial positions.  

Some applicants have actually complained about this.  

Can you imagine someone complaining about filling out 6 or 7 questions saying, "Why all the fuss over such a low level job?" 

In complaining, some have even committed their complaints to writing and not just verbalizing. 

At a seminar, several managers reported these complaints and some direct quotes that matched my own experiences.  Yet one said,

"Those that do get hired, even though it is near entry level, really feel good about themselves having gone through this process."

This spoke to me. 

It made sense. 

I wrote and email to thank my former manager for something she may not even be aware of that was so valuable to us all, and to me now.  

I wrote,  "I was at a training seminar recently where I spoke about how you  inspired excellence in me without regard to the magnitude of the job.  You demanded and received excellence on small tasks and great tasks and I am so glad you held me to this standard!" 

Then I thought about my words.  

Look at what I wrote above.  

I have just finished telling you the inspiration provided to me by a former and now retired manager of a quality that I have passed on to analysts in training, yet, look at what I wrote and try, if you can, to separate what I wrote in that quote, from the rest of the entry.  

What do you see?

"I was at a training seminar recently where I spoke about how you  inspired excellence in me without regard to the magnitude of the job.  You demanded and received excellence on small tasks and great tasks and I am so glad you held me to this standard!" 

What is an important part of where I chose to begin this statement? An experienced analyst likely spotted something here that was important.  

Does this help?

"I was at a training seminar recently where I spoke about how you  inspired excellence in me without regard to the magnitude of the job.  You demanded and received excellence on small tasks and great tasks and I am so glad you held me to this standard!" 

I did not send it, as I wanted to understand why I put location of training where I did, as if the location of the training was so important to me. 

Heather and I talked it over and in this short 'self analysis' came the answer:

She asked what I was thinking about and I said, "I was thinking about how often I have, over the years, quoted her.  I did it at..." and went on to mention the locations where I referenced her, seeing how abundant this was:  I shared it a various seminars and trainings, in various locations and even online.  


Location was important to me because I wanted to be careful not to mix up what I said about her  in one seminar versus what I said about her in another.  I had spoken about her frequently, and wanted to be clear which quote matched which location. 


Location was sensitive to me.  

Here is another example. 

A businessman emailed me and said, "Please sign the forms and include a check for payment.  Thank you."

I emailed back:

"I dropped off both yesterday and the check was cashed."

He called me on the phone to apologize. 

Apologize for what?

He said, "I saw your email where you wrote that the check was cashed so I apologize if I was rude in any way."

I said, "You were not rude."

So why did I include "the check was cashed", as if an honest businessman is questioning my ethics, or I am questioning his ethics?

It was unnecessary to write "the check was cashed."  

That which is unnecessary is very important

Why was it important to me?

I knew instantly and relayed it to him. 

We had been checking the online account day after day to see if our mortgage check was cashed yet, to the point where we feared it was lost and we needed to put a stop on it. 

This was on my mind when I wrote my email to him about a much smaller check. 

I apologized. 

As a practice, I both do this and encourage others to do the same.  

Now that I understand the first email, I will complete it and hit "send" and pay that overdue compliment well deserved.  

Can you think of examples where you questioned yourself, or even better, questioned yourself with the help of your spouse?

For formal training in Statement Analysis, go to Hyatt Analysis Services for hosting a seminar, or for individual training from your home.  

Monday, April 25, 2016

Nicole Mittendorf Suicide and DeOrr Kunz

We all love to read analysis before the news and see how accurate the analysis was when the story breaks.  It is also useful for instruction to review stories and look back upon the wording to facilitate learning.

Consider the Mittendorf case alongside the case of DeOrr Kunz.  

The husband of Nicole used distancing language from his wife.

DeOrr and wife used distancing language.  

The husband of Nicole praised police while they had failed to find her.

DeOrr praised officials who failed to find his son.  

The husband of Nicole asked for prayer for her family and the searchers.  He did not show much concern for his wife.  

DeOrr spoke at length overly praising law enforcement while expressing no concern for his missing toddler.  

Both showed little or no concern, indicating knowledge of death.  In the husband's case, knowledge from law enforcement (he is LE) and knowledge of mental health issues can be what was behind these things. Context is key.  

In the case of Kunz, the distancing language combined with some specific deception indicators;  knowledge that the missing person was dead.  With Kunz' interview, deception jumps at the reader.  Those who saw deception in Mittendorf case were reading deception into it, rather than being guided by the statement.  

We note that the sensitivity of the husband appears to be the knowledge he held. 

The distancing language --bad marriage and possible acute depression on her part is appropriately expressed, especially if she made it clear that she was not going to remain with him.  

The lack of prayer for her--knowledge of suicide suggests Protestant belief.  (Roman Catholics pray for the dead; Protestants do not) 

The praise of professional searchers---they are his co workers.  In Kunz, the praise of officials was in great detail, overshadowing everything else (in volume alone) he had to say, including about his son.  

The same things within DeOrr Kunz, yet in a different context and scope.  

I cautioned readers publicly and privately about their understanding specifically pointing to context.  I cited the "101 errors" and how the lack of formal training equates a lack of discipline in analysis. 

 I also cited the context of the Facebook page:  he was having comments read to him; he, himself, guided the context.  He praised "my department", taking ownership of it via the possessive pronoun.  The 'comments read to him' was so important, that he included it in his statement.  

He was a member of the department and his appreciation of them, as fellow laborers, is appropriate.  This was not, for example, someone with no attachment to law enforcement seeking to ingratiate himself upon them, as was the case of DeOrr.  DeOrr Kunz Sr's detail about the searchers, including the equipment, was something few parents would bother to remember or care about in light of a missing son.  It not only indicated "tangent necessary", it "ate up time on the clock" of the interview.  This was a control of pace that he felt necessary (he has solid intelligence and is someone familiar with deception) to avoid talking about his son.  

The prayer request in the Mittendorf case and distancing language strongly suggest that he had an idea that she was suicidal.  This is not the first case like this.

Recall the man who kept media attention high "searching" for his wife, while repeating signals of knowledge of her death. He knew she had committed suicide but while speaking to media, he withheld this and the sensitivity indicators were pronounced and picked up by many as he spoke.   He appeared to enjoy his '15 minutes' while he was deliberately withholding the fact that he knew she had gone out to commit suicide. He allowed criminal speculation to remain high.  It was manipulative on his part. 

This is not the case here.

Context is always key.

Over the past several years, I have been given insight by those for whom Statement Analysis was a hobby that they enjoyed, though with some frustration.  Each has, at some point within training, made clear that the formal training made a dramatic change in their viewpoint.  Some have specifically stated "disciplines" (in various forms) while others have addressed principle, complexity, and competing principles needing rectification.  

If you have any desire to move beyond hobbyist, especially those who have such drive to learn that their knowledge will assist them in a variety of employments, consider formal training.  There are several routes to take.   

Mark McClish's home course is very inexpensive and will start you on the introductory road of analysis.  

I routinely mention, praise and refer readers and seminar attendants to as well as  to Wesley Clark's training, and some books worth studying.  I'm not familiar with Welsey's specific course, but what I have read from him I like.  

Discipline is key.  

Once foundation is set, the work begins.  

It is a mixed blessing and here is why:

if you are in law enforcement, what you learn in a 2 day seminar can be immediately applied. 

This can be a great blessing. 

Yet, in this application, you must have an experienced guide and if you do not, your first error may be your last, as your department will lose confidence quickly. If you are working with a professional, and take the path of guided study and dedication, you will soon find other investigators seeking you out for assistance.  

I enjoy the following challenge:

When someone in law enforcement expresses doubt in the intense power of Statement Analysis, I ask him to write out a truthful statement about his most recent day off, and ask him to make it 1 place to 1 1/2 pages in length.  

My only requirement is that it is truth. 

I then inform the doubter that I will give to him (or her) the information he has revealed in his statement that he did not intend to release.  I add in that, "it will contain personal and possibly embarrassing information." 

Most decline the challenge.  When they do decline, I give a few samples that adequately impress upon him that he made a wise decision.  

This challenge has only been taken up a few times with each subject shocked at how much personal information was given.  

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Presidential Lies of 9/11

When 9/11 hit, had evidence existed that it was from Saudi Arabia, President George W. Bush could have gone to Congress and ask that a State of War exist between the two nations be formally declared.  

This would echo the other major  attack on American soil:  Pearl Harbor. 

Instead, Bush said, "Terrorists have hijacked a religion of peace." 

The truth could have serious consequences for the nation.  

When a man is in a place of great authority and must either tell the truth or lie, the strongest indication of what he is going to do is simply to look at what he has done in the past, with lesser challenges.  

If his lesser challenges were met with lies, it is his instinct and natural bent, therefore, to lie on the big stage.  The one may see it quite differently as one tells himself,

"I may have lied on small issues, but if ever tested on something very big, I will have to tell the truth..."

This is to lie to himself.  It is to convince one self that he is going to hit a home run against a major league pitcher, after striking out against...a high school pitcher, a little league pitcher and then finally, striking out while hitting off a T.  The three failures have convinced him that he is going to wallop MLB pitching.  

The 9/11 report has a section that is redacted and President Barak Hussein Obama is going to decide whether or not to release it.  The Saudi government has threatened financial sanctions against the US if released, and the Saudi king snubbed Obama at the airport.  

Most deception is via missing information.  

Was Bush' statement above accurate, or the position of Dhimmitude, with, perhaps, oil in mind?

What about Obama's boasting of the "first Ramadan dinner" at the White House?   

Tacquia practiced by the president of the United States?   

Consider that most deception is done by withholding or suppressing information that completes the knowledge.  

When we ask someone a question, the avoidance of the question indicates, technically, sensitivity to the question. 

This is the same with the redacted portion of the 9/11 investigation:  it is to avoid the question, "Did the Saudis attack us, as did the Japanese, via training and financing the attack?"

The withholding of the report is to avoid answering the question.  

Historically, Judeo-Christian ideology, whether held as "faith" or simply culturally, produced in mankind the high respect of laws that permitted advancement with far less impediment.  Western leaders often project this deep respect for laws onto those who do not.  The mistake at the highest level mirrors the mistake at the lowest level; the individual who is to analyze if one is truthful or not.  One person, or one nation, is analyzed for truth or deception.  

Obama boasted of the Ramadan dinner leaving out not only offensive details that the Islamic supremacists made, but also of the very purpose of the meeting.  It was not to celebrate nor honor Ramadan.  It was to fact find, and to negotiate.  He "removes" truth regularly.  

He wanted to honor Martin L. King jr?  Instead of adding a bust of him in the White House, he removed Winston Churchill.  He wanted to honor Harriet Tubman?  Instead of adding her, he subtracted first.  Leaving out, or removing, is a pattern of deception, whether it be current news, or history.  

No one likes to be held 'the fool'; that is, to be lied to.  We must be aware of our own projection; it exists.  It is in the lack of awareness that will impact our analysis, yes, but more so, our ability to learn. 

Will we learn that Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11, knocking out the Twin Towers, the 'two front teeth' of New York City and the symbol of Western advancement?  

Or, will Obama follow Bush and lie by omission, protecting the Islamic nation and exporter of death by not releasing the report?  

While truth is becoming scarce, there is a greater need for committed analysts in the future.  

Consider this from the Gates of Vienna.  Note the projection and the highlighting of sensitivity for readers here.  Quotes are in italics. 

"The first two international wars fought by the United States after our founding were the Barbary Wars. Through the Washington and Adams administrations the United States paid tributes to the Muslim Barbary States in the hope of keeping our passage across the Atlantic, and more specifically in the Mediterranean, safe from from attacks by Islamic ships. 

Thomas Jefferson refused to continue paying the protection money, and launched a war against Islam.

 The next President of the United States, James Madison, also engaged in war against Islam to stop the Muslim pirates from attacking American vessels, and taking into slavery American sailors.

Though John Adams was not willing to wage war against Islam, he recognized the danger presented by the followers of Muhammad. Correspondence from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on July 16, 1814, reveals John Adams’ true feelings about Islam: Adams states that Mohammed is

a military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”
During Adams’ presidency, Jefferson was Vice President. The two men visited with the Barbary ambassador to ask under what authority the Muslims believed they had to attack and enslave non-Muslim vessels and sailors. 
The ambassador’s response was that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
The Muslim ambassador did not say that the attacks were being perpetrated by a small, radical sect, or that theirs was a religion of peace and he would try to fix the problem with the extremists that had hijacked his religion. The ambassador was honest, and openly proclaimed that the Qu’ran teaches that Muslims have a duty to wage war against those who have not accepted the authority of Islam (by paying the tribute), enslave the infidels, and if they were killed in the process they would go to heaven.
Thomas Jefferson owned a Qur’an so that he could better understand the enemy, and he came to the conclusion that the Muslims could not be negotiated with. The only answer was brute force.
After serving under Washington and Adams, and witnessing those two presidents appeasing the Muslims, Jefferson had had enough. “Too long, for the honor of nations, have those Barbarians been [permitted] to trample on the sacred faith of treaties, on the rights and laws of human nature!”

Friday, April 22, 2016

Domestic Violence Victim's Language

I have written that in the formal training, analysts learn that victims of domestic violence often adapt language patterns, just as they adjust their own life patterns to avoid violence, threats and escalation from the abuser.  
Certain wording suggests pattern, or 'norms' in life.  Here, let's revisit the statement by the Sheriff's wife, using the analysis already complete, to see if a portrait or profile emerges from her words, allowing us to either obtain insight into her life, or to prepare for the investigatory interview that is to follow.  
Allegation:  Assault 
The alleged assailant is an elected Sheriff.  His statement showed "Deception Indicated" and was such that those without formal training recognized the deception, particularly of the "never ever ever" statement.  What may not be so recognizable, however, is the patterns that are suggested in the words he chose, as well as in the order presented.  Here is his wife's statement.  
I would like to clarify what occurred between my husband and I on April 10, 2016 as some of the information that has been released and reported has not been accurate, and may be the result of some misinterpretations. 
The subject is in a peculiar position.  She called 911 to report that her drunken husband attacked her.  The husband is a public figure.  She may be dependent not only upon him for her provision, but she may be dependent upon his reputation for her lifestyle.  This may be what is behind the heavy Facebook posting.  
Where one chooses to begin a statement is always important and in some cases, it is the reason for the statement itself.  It shows priority for the subject.  We sometimes find two introductions:
1.  The introduction in the statement itself. 
2.  The introduction of "what happened" found within the statement.  
These show dual priorities, with the priorities separated by context.  If you want to know what happened that night, listen to them both and they will tell you the truth.  
In the audio, Bateman's wife is heard describing the situation.
Wife to 911 operator: "The sheriff is drunk and he just punched me in the eye."
Wife to 911 operator: "He's going to call everybody and tell them; he's saying I smacked him in the face."
Here she shows concern over his persuasion as "the sheriff" will be used against her.  
Note "I smacked him in the face" is not an embedded admission; she is quoting him, in the present tense.  It does not mean that she didn't smack him, only that this is commonly referred to as an admission, which it is not.  
Wife: "Don't come near me, I swear to God."
It is important to note that in this 'excited utterance' what she calls her husband.  To her, in this desperate of time, he is "the sheriff."  He is not "my husband" nor does she use his name.  This is to highlight the public persona that he has and may even be a cry against hypocrisy.  
Note that he "just" the element of time. 
Note the structure of the sentence suggests, statistically, reliability.  
Note the threat, along with the oath.  This suggests dishonesty and the desperate need to be believed.  Her oath may be due to other threats she has made.  Investigators should explore the history of domestic violence (which I stated in the analysis that I believe already exists) specifically looking to learn how often she has threatened, but not carried through, particularly in exposing him.  
a.  She "would like" to clarify begins with weakness, of what one would like to do rather than directly doing it.  
b. "clarify" means to make clearer.  The subject is not saying that the report is false, but it is in need of clarification instead.  This makes its base reliable, only the surface needed "some" clarification.  
c.  "what occurred" tells us that, in deed, something did occur that day. 
d.  "my husband" is not a complete social introduction, though it retains the pronoun "my"which tells us of her perspective;  incomplete social introduction indicates trouble within the relationship, while using the pronoun "my", she still takes possession of him.  We must be open to the possibility that the victim still wants to be married to him.  
e.  Accuracy of what has been reported:  She affirms that only "some" has not been accurate which uses the word "some", which is a 'dependent' word, meaning, it only 'works' when another reality is in play.  This tells us that "some" of it is inaccurate while some of it is accurate.  Remember, 90% or more people will deceive by withholding information rather than a direct fabrication of reality.  Here she tells us that "some" of the information is reliably accurate.  
f.  She further weakens the notion of "clarification" by taking yet another step away from verbal commitment:  the portion that may not be accurate "may" be due to misinterpretation.  
This is to say:  what happened did, in fact, happen, but how it is interpreted may be what is in need of clarification.  
Since the topic of how to interpret what happened between them has come in the opening sentence, along with confirmation that other portions of the information are accurate (not in need of clarification or re-interpretation) we see if this is, in fact, her priority in the statement.  She now goes back in time (out of sequence for now) to her "interpretation" of what happened.  The reader should now be on alert for:
1.  An accurate and reliable description
2.  The subject's own interpretation of her own description.  
Ron was at an event with some friends. I was out to dinner with my son. 
Here he is "Ron" and she wrote the word "with" in between "Ron" and "friends."  This is to create distance between Ron and the friends.  She did not say "Ron and our friends..."
One might question her feelings about his friends.  They are "some friends" and not "his" friends.  
This now makes more sense in light of the release of the 911 call in which she expresses her concern that he is going to tell "everyone" by calling everyone, and blame her.  My guess is that she has some issues with his "friends" and may report some being loyal to him due to his position as "the sheriff", rather than the man.  
Who was at the event?  It was "Ron"; first name.  Here he is not "the sheriff", which may strengthen the possibility of an expression of hypocrisy in the call.  
We see the same distance with her son, and he is introduced without a name equaling an incomplete social introduction.  In context, this may be due to not wanting to use her son's name in the press.  Note also that "my son" is generally a signal of biological son.  The distancing language of "with" could be anything from the eating of different meals, or actual psychological distance due to relationship and/or topic of conversation issues.  
Both sentences, viewed in structure, are likely to be reliably stated.  We believe what one tells us unless we are confronted with structure that tells us otherwise.  This is likely to be truthful and has no interpretation or 'clarification' needed by the subject.  
As far as the account:  please note that this is where she began her "account" of what happened.  This is a priority in the context of the event that needs clarification.  It is a "second priority" after the initial "clarification" priority.  It is a sub-context priority for the subject. 
She is addressing Domestic Violence with "what happened" and she has begun her statement, not in the home where it is alleged to have taken place, but in restaurants.  
What happened between the subject and her husband is as a result of what happened at the restaurant.  We now learn, from the release of the 911 call, that she reported him as drunk.  
I had not been drinking. 
This is a very important statement. 
a.  It is in the negative, elevating its importance.  She does not tell us what happened, but what did not happen. 
b.  It is reliably written, meaning that statistically, it is likely that she was not drinking. 
c.  Note the strong pronoun "I" 
d.  Note that she introduced the topic of alcohol in context of an alleged Domestic Violence incident. 
e.  Statement Analysis deals with what one says and what one does not say. 
She does not say that her husband had not been drinking.  This is vital.  Another hint into what happened is her verb tense; she does not use the perfect past tense, "I did not drink."
Instead, she wrote "had not been" drinking, which stretches out time.  
This is an indication for the reader/analyst to be aware that she may believe that not only was her husband drinking, but the drinking was long and spread out over time, heightening that he was likely intoxicated.  This is something to consider, though not concrete at this point.  Will the statement affirm this?  Deny it?  Or, will it not be addressed?
*This reminds me of some other analysis on the blog. 
"They said I was a rapist and a recluse.  I'm not a recluse."  Mike Tyson
Recall the man who was accused of writing on a waitress' check and said that he, in his home, wasn't raised that way, introducing the question of:
"Was your wife raised differently than you?" 
When I came home at about 6:30, Ron was here alone. 
She now brings us to the point of her arrival and she is thinking of time, with "when" and while considering the element of time, it is important for her to tell her intended audience that Ron was "here" (at her location of the writing) and that he was "alone."
She does not say "Ron was already home" but Ron was "here" (not his "home" as her language shows.  She came "home" but Ron was "here"; this suggests that the investigator should explore any relationship troubles between them.  Ron was not "home alone" but "here" and he was "alone."
Was she expecting him to be somewhere else?
Was she expecting him to be with someone else?
There may be something else to consider what would produce the word "alone" in her language.  She went to dinner with her son and then returned to the home.  
As she returned, she did not mention her son.  
The reader/analyst should consider:  Did her son witness the abuse?
Updated info:  We now learn that her son may have been present when the father held her down on the bed, perhaps even at her throat.  This is traumatizing for anyone, but the impact is worse for children.  As a young teen, consider:
The boy would be not strong enough to protect his mother;
Not strong enough to stop his father;
Horribly conflicted about being both incapable of helping mother, but also in attacking father.  
Domestic Violence sets up children, as witnesses, for a life of trouble.  
He was upstairs, and came downstairs.
This is the language of Domestic Violence abuse victims. Think of how she is 'scoping out the landscape' of the violence.  
This is what victims do. 
This is indicative of the presence of the fight/flight hormone elevated. 
 His location (which slows down the pace, intensifying the view or visual perception expressed linguistically) of where he was initially and where he went, is very important to her.  This is sometimes part of the language due to the element of fear. 
Remember:  most D/V victims are not controlled by violence; but by the threat of violence.  This is so important to her that her senses or awareness is on high alert:  She is recalling the evening in question and recalls his initial location (situational awareness) and his next location:  not that he "went" downstairs, but, in her language, 
he "came" downstairs, suggesting that it was her entry to the home that brought him to the location where she was.  We are not told what caused the change of location and now may consider the son's presence.  
The language here also suggests heightened hormonal activity.  
 He appeared agitated, and told me he wanted me to leave the house. 
That he "appeared agitated" is to show a sensory response.  Even while it is a weak assertion (as if this is her recantation that the husband told us to expect) she still reveals information.  
He "appeared" agitated is a good example of one who does not want to commit to agitation (assertion) yet her own words tells us otherwise. 
Even in recantations, Statement Analysis gets to the truth, just as it does in False Confessions.
The communicative language of "told" rather than "Ron said..." shows an increase in tension, as it is authoritative language.  One might consider what conversation she and her son had at dinner including the possibility of one or the other (husband or wife) moving out, or perhaps to soothe the son's concerns.  It is related to what happened as it was important enough for her to mention in context of D/V. 
Initially I refused. 
The language suggest veracity.  He "told" and she "refused" is consistent.  "Initially" tells us that another thought came later.  
The pronoun "I" is strong and this tells us of defiance.  Updated information is the 911 call where she swears an oath defying him to come closer to her.  
Why did she refuse?  We look for her language to guide us:  
He went back upstairs, and I followed him into the master bedroom. We began to argue like alot of married couples do from time to time.
Domestic Violence Victims routinely blame themselves.  
Some are even creative in the way they blame themselves.  This may be due to several variants but consider:
*Long term living under the threat of violence teaches a woman how to be very careful with her words in the home.  She becomes 'successful' over time by her 'walking on eggshells' skill of keeping him pacified.  This is the type who knows how to keep him quiet and happy, including keeping the kids happy.  This overtakes everything in life, from the children, to meals to the bedroom.  Her life is not her own. 
Now, consider this:
In this long term "success" of avoiding his violence, when it finally happens, she blames herself, as a "failure" to maintain the peace; something she works at every day and every night, in all aspects of life.  
His statement reeks of bully.  His "hi folks" is nauseating.  This is not Statement Analysis, but an emotional reaction to a politician addressing the public after being accused of a drunken assault.  It is not the language of penitence, admission, nor of even concern for his wife.  
If there were those calling for his resignation before the statement, the statement itself likely built a wall of anger against him.  
She used the word "we" regarding argument between them.  This is an insight to her thinking at this time.  She sees them as still together rather than separate.  
Note "like a lot of married couples do from time to time" is, in Statement Analysis, "normal"; that is, when someone uses the word "normal" or words that wish to portray something as normal, routine, etc, it is a very strong indication that it was anything but normal.  It is a need to persuade the audience that what took place between them was just like others.  This need to persuade tells the analyst:  
This was not like other couples from time to time.  She has just elevated the account and has left off simply reporting what happened and is now editorializing the account.  
This was not a normal argument, though she sees herself as connected to him, via the instinctive pronoun "we" in her language.  
At no point in the argument did Ron punch or hit or kick me. 
This sounds awkward and for good reason. 
"Ron did not punch me" or "Ron did not punch or hit me..." would be a direct contradiction of reality if her 911 call statement was truthful. 
Now, based only upon structure, let's look at the two statements together:

911 Call:  The sheriff is drunk and he just punched me in the eye."
Recantation:  At no point in the argument did Ron punch or hit or kick me. 
The first is 'straight forward' language.  It is not complex.  The law of economy says that the shortest sentence is best, and takes the least effort (we are lazy creatures) and that additional information is vital.  If the additional information is "unnecessary", it becomes even more important. 
If the "additional" and "unnecessary" information then includes words of which the sentence will remain compete if removed, we are looking at crucial information.  
The first is "Reliable on its Form."  It is present tense, and the additional word "just" introducing the timing of the event, which appropriately matches the present tense verb.  There are no sensitivity issues, nor anything out of the ordinary.  Statistically, it is very high on the reliability scale.  
To deny this, she should follow the same formula of reliability. 
"The sheriff is drunk and he just punched me in the eye" should become
"Ron didn't punch me in the eye..." which would directly confront her initial statement. 
It is rare that one would lie in this manner.  Look at the element of "time" between the two assertions:
"At no time" places the element of time ahead of everything else.  It avoids the direct "Ron did not..." while spreading out time.  "Just" was in present tense, indicating timeliness:  it happened just prior to this sentence.  It was precise. 
"At no time" is in the negative and it is imprecise.  
Then, we have something that should not be missed:
"Additional" information.  "At no point in the argument..." also addresses time, but now, instead of being indeterminate, she restricts the element of time to the contrary:  instead of the vague "at no time" (which 'no time' does not exist) she uses a very strict interpretation and this statement may even be true!
"during the argument" follows "at no time" which tells us:
In her description of their argument, they spoke, likely at one and another ("told")  and when he punched her in the eye, it came after the argument, not during the argument. 
At no point in the argument did he punch, hit or kick her. 
I believe her.  
When we look at violence, especially domestic homicide, we often find the element of communication just prior to the assault or murder.
Cain and Abel went out to a field (private) to talk.  The talk escalated into violence. 
This pattern has been repeated by human nature ever since. 
It was something that she said that likely triggered this specific punch.  
Did she threaten to leave him?
Did she threaten to expose him?
Investigators must focus upon this specific time.  Remember, people rarely ever lie outright, making even deceptive statements valuable for content!  
Here she tells us what he did not do "in the argument", which is to indicate that she leaves out:
a.  what he did do to her during the argument 
b.  what he may have done to her after the argument (or even before it). 
Communicative language is a separate chapter in study and it is vital in assaults and domestic homicide statements.  
It is very likely that although deception is both indicated and intended, that the words are, technically, 100% truthful.  
 Telling us what did not happen elevates the situation, affirming the analysis of "normal" above.  He did do something to her during this argument, however, which now brings us to her point of introduction:
how she interprets what he did to her: 
He did not intentionally hurt me.
He hurt her but she interprets this as not "intentional", ascribing to him a motive.  This is to affirm her introduction and why she brought in the word "interpretation" to the text.  
This is to say:  he did assault her and he did injure her, but she wants it to be interpreted as unintentional.  We must consider that "hurt" may be physical injury, or pain, as well as emotional.  This is something that investigators need to explore, by specific interviewing technique:  their history and her verbalized perception of it.  

No one is perfect, or has a perfect marriage or relationship. 
This is to revisit the term "normal" in analysis, moving to the "universal second person" distancing language.  It is an unnecessary statement and it is very important.  She does not wish to be 'alone' with what he did to her.  
I did not obtain a Protective Order because I am not afraid of Ron, and do not need one.
Note the past tense change to present tense. She "did not" because she "is not" afraid of him. 
After all that has come out, including his arrest (something I believe she has threatened to do in the past) she is not, currently, afraid of him.  
If you think reading into the verb tense is too much, note the additional, unnecessary wording:  "and do not need one", which is present tense.  Yet, since "I am not" is present tense, this additional wording is most unnecessary and very important.  
Here is a very sensitive point to her:  she feels the need to explain why she did not get an order of protection.  Yet, even in her reasoning, she gives us additional information.  The 'law of economy' tells us that the shortest statements are those most likely to be truthful and have less emotion.  By adding in "and do not need one" is unnecessary to say since she already said the reason 'why' she does not need one.  
This is akin to "attempt to persuade" but it appears in context to be not simply her audience, but herself.  
Please consider this with the initial description of "when" she arrived home:  fear triggers the hormonal response which gives heightened situational awareness and shows itself in language.  She knew exactly where he was, where she was, and where he went and felt it so important (it is unnecessary for the account) that while recalling what happened, she does not go to the argument but goes to:
the restaurant.  
that she was not drinking. 
She placed him also at a restaurant but does not tell us that he was not drinking.  
 I do not believe anything that occurred between us is
criminal, and was nothing more than a heated argument between a husband and a wife. 
Here is a signal that she is a long term victim.  The minimization is expected.  
"What happened between us" is the language of a victim blaming herself.  She was not, in her wording, "successful" in three things:
1.  Keeping him sober
2.  Keeping him calm
3.  Keeping her son sheltered 
As to keeping him sober, note that she not only begins the story with him going to an "event" where "she did not drink", but uses distancing language regarding his "friends."  This may have been the initial disapproval.  
Keeping him calm is what D/V victims do, every day and every night.  It is why "personal hygiene" is so important to them:  they lock the bathroom door, and they control life, even if but for a few minutes.  Hence, "I woke up, brushed my teeth..." enters the language of D/V victims whereas most people have no need to share something personal like teeth brushing.  
She does not rely upon a denial, as she did above, but seeks to 'hide' or 'share' within a crowd of "everyone else" in relationships.  
Here is her interpretation again.  It is a weak assertion.  She did not write, "What happened between us was not criminal" but only that she "believes"; which allows for her to change her mind, and for others to believe something different. 
She then uses another small word that is similar to what we find in Domestic Violence victims, including those who may have lived their entire marriages without a single assault, yet were controlled by the threat:   "is."
This is present tense language of a past tense event.  The reduction in commitment is noted, yet it suggests some ongoing trauma (post trauma) impact upon her, to the point where she is writing.  
Note also the "universal" distancing again with "husband and wife."
This need to distance herself tells us how acute this event was.  
I do not wish to pursue a criminal prosecution.
She does not say "I will not pursue criminal charges" only that this is her "wish" right now, also leaving herself the option later.  This may be a strong message to him.  This threat may be why she is not, presently, afraid of him.  
Please consider her vulnerability:  if he loses his job, they all suffer...again.  This may be the threat by which she gains a measure of control over him.  

This is the only public statement I intend to make regarding this incident.
Another weak assertion.  "This" brings it very close to her (consider this word "this" rather than "that", when you re-read her use of the word "is", in present tense, to understand just how this may be affecting her at the time of the writing.  This was no small or 'normal' argument.)
We may hear other public statements from her.  
 I did not appear at the press conference with Ron yesterday because I felt it was more important to be available to my children,
Here is some more insight:  she found it more important to be "available" to her children.  She called them "my children" (biological) and tells us:
There are things in life where she has felt that she has not been "available" to them. 
This may refer to the public persona that an elected official lives by, and her many FB posts, as well as a reflection of her threat to regain some control over him, including counseling, though if you listen to them both superficially, they argued like "anyone" and "everyone", therefore, what need of counseling?
This may further infuriate many while reading his "never ever ever" statement.  
One may wonder how it is a sheriff in law enforcement can be so unfamiliar with simple Lie Detection 101 and use such an obvious lying response.  
When we speak, as soon as we begin to freely edit our own words, the timing is less than a microsecond that the brain chooses the words. Emotionally, "never ever ever" has a powerful need to persuade, belying his own assertion.  It is as if it is Statement Analysis 101, Chapter 1, page 1.  
I do not think the Sheriff is going to schedule a seminar with Hyatt Analysis Services any time soon.  
Back to the analysis:  
Hence the need to explain "why" she was not there is already answered in her own wording.  Note that "I" and "Ron" is separated by the word "with", which gives the distance. 
Note the children and consider the need to tell us who she was at dinner with. 
Her "wish" and "intentions" are all non-conclusionary:  her choices remain open.  She has likely thought of, or have been spoken to about seeking protection not only from the court, but, perhaps, from the help of  a Domestic Violence Shelter: 
and shelter them from the media.
Here she uses the language of someone else.  This suggests that she has spoken to:
a.  someone with Domestic Violence experience in investigating or;
b.  A Domestic Violence advocate
This word is the word she chose, not us, and indicates what is on her mind.  She is concerned about her own safety but here she also signals that she has seriously mixed emotions:  the word "we" regarding herself and Ron, and the need to protect the children from even witnessing D/V.
Children, including infants in the nursery are impacted by Domestic Violence, for many years to come, including adulthood.  Here she is telling us that she is a conscientious mother who feels guilty for not being available to them, and for not sheltering her son, who may have witnessed, to his detriment, the violence. 
 It is my desire that Ron and I alone deal with this privately, and that
people stop making statements and comments about things they do not fully know or understand. 
She does not say that this is "our" desire.  It may be that she is telling us that she is more interested in staying married that he is.  Although it is likely that he wants it to stay private, it is interesting to note that she does not ascribe this to both; only to herself.  This is a form of 'assertion' and may be a signal to others.  It is likely that this subject is one who, as a norm, invites people into her personal life, and now may have a need to "un-invite" them, such as common with people using social media to affirm their love, repeatedly, which shows sensitivity and, perhaps, the need to persuade.  I sometimes joke that when someone goes on and on and on about their professed love of spouse, publicly, a divorce is not far away.  It is in the repetition that sensitivity is seen, and it can become a need to persuade, both self and others, of that which is hoped and longed for, rather than what is.  There is a difference between spontaneous devotion and a need to persuade...the public, (and self) of something.  
They are hurtful to me and my family - especially my children. I would ask that everyone respect our privacy,
and stop calling me and asking me questions. Thank you.
That she adds "children" here suggests that she is part and parcel in the world of appearances for the sake of his career.  She already exposed her children to his violence, and her son, in particular.  This, alone, is enough for child protective services to investigate.  She does not want questions and this is within the context of her children.  

Analysis Conclusion 

 The Sheriff, Ron Bateman, assaulted his wife in front of their son. 
Her language suggests that she is not only a victim of D/V, but the subject is familiar with the language of abuse and likely is a long term victim of Domestic Violence.  Her 'recantation' is deceptive and she actually reveals that her husband was highly intoxicated and violent, and that she has lived with this before. Her wording shows injury and a desire to protect her husband, as she blames herself, while struggling to maintain her own dignity.  She has revealed a neglect, for his career, of her children, as well as a failure to protect.  
Whatever words exchanged that night, he assaulted her in a criminal manner, one of which she is unwilling to deny, leaving open the possible consequences upon him.  
His abuse of her has violated the trust the public has in him as Sheriff and his statement shows not only deception, but a lack of concern for his wife, his children and for anyone other than himself and his public persona.  As a public official, he has lied to the public and likely coerced or pressured his wife into the false recantation.