Friday, April 8, 2016

Rape Victim Unusual Statement

Statement Analysis of rape victims' statements shows veracity or deception.  In a simple search of this blog, you will find both. 

There are some general principles that we follow.  

For example, the rape victim does not have linguistic unity with the rapist.  We often note that the pronoun "we", should it enter a rape victim's statement after the assault, is a strong signal that no rape took place.  Over the years, this has proven to be a most reliable indictor.  In the same sense, we note how the rape victim linguistically connects herself to the rapist as important indicators for justice.

In the allegations against Bill Cosby, in particular, we observed the language of the victim towards the accused before and after the assault.  

Introduction:  "Mr. Cosby"

Regarding connection with fame:  "Bill Cosby"

Personal, before assault:  "Bill"

Once the assault has taken place, he was "Cosby" often.  ("Mr. Cosby" and "he", "him", as, at times, the subject further distanced herself from him by not even using his name.) 

In false accusations, (Jameis Winston) we often see the pronoun "we" after the alleged assault, and the word "left" in the statement in a specific reference:  'he left' which increased bitterness and could provide motive for false accusation.  

Often the victim cannot even say the rapist's name.  We sometimes see heroic forgiveness granted but this takes time to enter the language (often years) but we do not find empathy.  This brings us to an utterly unnecessary statement: 

"There is no excuse for rape."  

This is a foolish statement, on its own, but has become, bizarrely, necessary in the environment where rape is slowly being accepted, victims blamed, and politicians seek to change women's behavior and life patterns, instead of punishing rapists.  

In Europe, rapists are frequently let go, sometimes without even a summons or fine.  Few are prosecuted and those who are receive short sentences.  In Sweden, any immigrant who "looks younger than 40" is permitted to claim to be 16 years old, which contributes to the lighter sentences, (or no sentence) while giving them more free money than if they were 18.  


When a father tells his daughter she cannot go out in the street at night it is cautionary and protective. 
When politicians say the same thing, it is empowering to the rapists.  

Many have wondered what can cause a man to have even the ability to rape a woman.  What early childhood exposure would allow a man, for example, to become physically aroused while crouching behind a bush, ready to draw blood by hitting the victim with a rock?  How is this romantic?  How is this sexually exciting? 

This is what criminal psychologists often study, and what language helps us in granting insight.  

Not only is there the element of intrusion, and the element of violence, but it is specifically in the body parts where 'privacy' and 'tenderness', life creating affirmation, and unity of "one flesh" in marriage, all exist. 

Rape is an attack in the most vulnerable places, both physically and psychologically.  

Political Agenda 

In language, is one's agenda more powerful than the intrusive sexual violence, and the post trauma suffering, than one's political view?

This is the question for Statement Analysis in this article.  

What about agenda?  

Could agenda trump the language of a rape victim?  In this article from the Daily, we find quotes from an interview, including the assertion,

"I am a heterosexual man" which is crucial for analysis.  

By stating this, the subject wishes to have the audience understand, 

"I am not homosexual."  

Does this mean that he wants to negate "consensual" sex?  Or, does he think that being homosexual negates rape, itself?  

In Statement Analysis, all unnecessary information becomes very important to our work. 

In the case of rape, that is, a perpetrator raping a victim, the victim's sexual preference or identity is of no consequence.  It is an assault that is violent and sexual.  

The elements of "violence" and "sex" are linked together.  Those who deny rape is sexual do so against science or common sense. They are as foolish as those who claim women ask to be raped.  

Homosexuals do not ask to be raped by virtue of being homosexual.  

I once had a victim (friend) of whom I could not recognize his face, it was so disfigured from the blows after being gang raped.  Even in his setting where he was at a bar that men went to to have sex behind curtains, his intention was not to be raped.  

Those who drank to intoxication, foolish as this is, do not ask to be raped.  The alcoholic blackout memories are generally not recoverable, so the victim's body is often relied upon for evidence to "speak" on her behalf.  She, too, in spite of memory blackout, will suffer as "the brain knows what it knows."  

Rape is coercive.  The physical fear as an element, itself, can create lifelong repercussions.  It is intrusive, far more than one who has hands put upon her, as even this, is intrusive and will be reflected in the language.  

In Cologne, one woman had fingers inserted in her front and back, but this may be viewed as a lesser crime than rape, but it is rape, and the hands on her, alone, would be severe; but to literally enter into her body often shows itself in even more intense language of invasion.  

Has this victim's political belief overcome the language of rape?  

Or, do you believe something else is going on here.  

Begin with the unnecessary declaration of "I am a heterosexual man", and continue through his words.  

Italics and underlining  have been added to assist.  

A reader recently asked if the possessive pronoun "my" would ever be attached to a criminal...

Note the quotes, in spite of their scattering throughout the article.  

What is your conclusion?

Leftist Norwegian Politician Gets Raped By Somalian, Questions Whether Man Should Be Deported

Leftist Norway politician Karsten Nordal Hauken was brutally raped by a Somali and felt so incredibly guilty in the aftermath he subsequently questioned whether authorities should even deport the man.

Hauken has finally come out to tell the public his story of his rape and forgiveness, Norway’s public broadcasting channel NRK reports.

Immediately after the rape first occurred, Hauken was taken to the hospital in Oslo where nurses collected samples for DNA evidence. About six months after the rape, police completed their investigation. They secured the DNA and fingerprint evidence necessary to move the case forward.

In court, the Somali claimed the interaction was consensual, but Norwegian authorities begged to differ. The Somali went to prison for four and a half years.

The story doesn’t end there. Shortly before the sentence was over, Hauken learned the man was about to be deported from Norway and sent back to Somalia.

“I got a strong feeling of guilt and responsibility,” Hauken wrote. “I was the reason he wouldn’t be in Norway, and instead be sent to an unknown future in Somalia. He had already done his time in prison. Would he get punished again, and this time much harder?”

Hauken fell into a deep depression. He started drinking heavily and lost years doing little else but smoking marijuana to dodge feelings of self-loathing.
He’s since apparently turned his life around and has come to some important realizations, which may strike other observers as completely bizarre.

As Hauken noted in the interview, it’s important not to stay silent about personal struggles and mental illness. Rape happens, and not just to women. But perhaps the most notable lesson Hauken says he learned is that “rapists are from a world so different from ours.”

“In his culture, sexual abuse is about power, not lust,” Hauken said. “And it’s not considered a gay action to be the one who engages in power and violence.”

“I don’t feel anger against my rapist, because I look at him as a product of an unjust world. A product of an upbringing full of war,” Hauken said.

What this all means, according to Hauken, is that refugees need our help more than ever.


Less66 said...

Hi Peter

I came across your site via the reddit forum on Steven Avery. I've found your approach fascinating and now read your blog regularly.

I came across this story

Am I just reading too much into this, or does the student's statements seem suspicious? i.e. did she write on the racists slurs herself?

Less66 said...

Hi Peter

I came across your site via the reddit forum on Steven Avery. I've found your approach fascinating and now read your blog regularly.

I came across this story

Am I just reading too much into this, or do the student's statements seem suspicious? i.e. did she write on the racist slurs herself?

Less66 said...

Sorry, tried to edit this for typos and ended up posting it twice.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Hello, and welcome.

I'll look at it, but in terms of "reading too much into" something; liars are counting upon us to interpret what they say, rather than look closely at their words.

When asked, "What happened this morning?", the person answering (subject) goes into an internal dictionary of, perhaps, 25,000 words, and will choose what info to give, what not to give, which words to use, what tenses, and where to place each word, in order to make sense.

This processing in the brain takes place in less than a millisecond of time.

Therefore, the words they use are likely to be very reliable. Liars love to say, "yeah, but...that is not what I meant!"

This speed of process is disrupted by deception which causes internal stress and...

gives us our indications that something is amiss!


Statement Analysis Blog said...

My compliments, Less66

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I checked the norwegian article, that was written by himself, to see if he really says my rapist and he does.
Why do you underline don´t?
He says "I have to a certain degree chosen to accept that he is responsible for his actions. This was difficult." and then he continues with the ..product of an unjust world.
So this was probably consensual?

Hey Jude said...

'I got a strong feeling of guilt and responsibility' - upon learning the rapist was to be deported. If he did not feel that way while the sentence was being served, I'd say that he felt the conviction and sentence was just - the man had raped him.

'My rapist' - I think that indicates a relationship of some sort - 'my partner', 'my friend', 'my relative', 'my dentist' - 'the person who raped me' would seem more expected if he was unknown to him, or hardly known.

He noted, 'It is important not to stay silent about personal struggles and mental illness' - no time scale for this, but it sounds as if he had not mentioned something relating to a personal struggle and mental illness - his silence maybe this contributes to his feelings of guilt and responsibility. If he had not admitted to all the facts round the case, he may feel responsibility where he does not need to - he was still raped.

'Rapists are from a world different to ours'. He doesn't say 'my rapist' is from a world different to his, or ours - rapists can mean other rapists. I think he either knew the man, and may have engaged in consensual sexual activity on other occasions - or that it was a casual encounter, and the rape may have started out as consensual sex which turned into violent and no longer consensual sex.

This is the bit I found strangest -'I was the reason he wouldn't be in Norway..' I would say the reason he is being deported is because he is a rapist - - the person he raped is not the reason, the rapist himself is the reason. (Unless it was a false report, and there was only consensual sex over which he had regrets, not wishing to be gay; if he felt there was a power thing involved, and that he had been somehow demeaned by the act or attitude, he may have taken a different view of what happened and considered it more rape than sex.)

Hey Jude said...

His conscience is troubled, and he is trying to justify the rapist - it's his culture, he's not gay, it wasn't about sex. He's saying, his rapist is not gay either - it was a power thing. Even if he is glad never to see him again, he cares for the rapist's future welfare, and feels deportation is too extreme, as his rapist is being deported on account of homosexual rape, and Somalia does not accommodate or acknowledge homosexuals or homosexual acts, which are imprisonable. There is the possibility that he is a tender hearted and forgiving person who really does consider deportation too much, and fears there will be harsher repercussions for his rapist - so he is saying his rapist is not gay. How does he think he can know or say that, unless he also knows him? Because it's his 'culture' - okay, so he knows that precisely, and that his rapist conforms to his culture, rather than that he sought life in a country where homosexuality is not illegal, because he is gay. I think he cannot know his rapist's thoughts, motive and how much he does or does not conform to his own country's 'culture' (such a wide word), unless actually he knows him. He considers him too well, imo.

I tend towards him either not telling the whole truth round how well he knew the man, or that he did not say that casual consensual sex turned into rape, out of an unwillingness to admit that he himself is gay, or because he struggles to accept that he is, either of which can cause mental health problems - or maybe he is bi-sexual, likes to swing both ways, and will not own to that as he intends for a partner and children.

Whatever his issues, he shouldn't feel guilty about the guy being deported. I think he did rape him, because the victim did not say he felt guilty and responsible while the rapist was in prison - he felt that was just, but now he thinks that was enough, and does not want him to suffer further in a Somali prison, or to have to return to a country hostile to people who are gay. I think he has a concern for someone who raped him - or perhaps, with the passage of time, he wonders if it was quite rape, if he knew him and if it did begin consensually. I don't know - those are my thoughts up till now.

Hey Jude said...

"I have to a certain degree chosen to accept that he is responsible for his actions. This was difficult."

Why would it be difficult to accept, and then only to a certain degree, that he was responsible for his actions? How could he not be - there is more to this that he is not saying - whatever he remained silent about. I wish there was a translation of the full interview.

lynda said...

'I was the reason he wouldn't be in Norway..

He does not say that the rapist's actions are why he won't be in Norway any longer. I'm not even sure about this. Many rape victims carry guilt and shame for a long, long, time. They're mentality is such that no matter what anyone says, they, as the victim, are at FAULT for what happened. Much like a domestic abuse situation. "If I hadn't have worn this, he wouldn't have noticed me and then raped me."

Peter (or anyone)..please address this if you have the time- I was raped by a stranger. In a rape support group that I attended, every woman there said, "MY" rapist. Including me. I have thought about it and think that in a group situation of other victims, telling their story, the word "MY" is appropriate. It is not because we take ownership so to speak, its because you've heard stories of different rapists. When you share in a group everyone would say, "well my rapist did this" "mine did that" My rapist was black, red, white, green...etc. OUTSIDE of a group setting I do not have a tendency to say "my" It is always, the rapist, the guy who raped me, the scum, the lowlife, the animal, etc.
So using the word "MY" in a group setting with other victims, would that just be parroting language or would the word be used because in a group you DO take ownership. Her rapist was not my rapist. It is driving me crazy now because in group I DO say "my". I also say "the guy" "the man" also but I have said "my" and I did want to report that in my experience, in rape support groups a large number of women do say "my". I have no idea if they say it outside of group and I do see that my language does change outside of group becoming "the guy" "the man, etc.

John Mc Gowan said...

‘I’m Carmen. Nice to meet you again’: why I faced my rapist in prison
Thirty-three years after she was raped, Carmen Aguirre travelled to meet the man who attacked her.

Sensory triggers:

Hey Jude said...

'Everyone has asked us why we want to meet him. I tell them what Laura, one of the wisest, most articulate people I’ve known, says. “Because I’d like to meet the man I’ve been in a relationship with for my entire life.” '

Interesting - the psychological hold the rape had created a sense of 'relationship' - thus the 'my', though he was a stranger. I find it most bizarre that at the end of the prison encounter, she thanked him - can't get my head round that.

rjb said...

@ Lynda --

I was going to post something similar. The phrases "my rapist" and "my attacker" are commonly used by the women I know who were sexually assaulted.

Regarding the use of the word "we" when referencing an alleged sexual assault: is "we" something that one might hear used by a person who was assaulted as a child, particularly in the case of long-term abuse in which the child was repeatedly told that she was complicit in the acts that took place? My eighteen year-old daughter's social circle seems to be comprised of a disproportionate number of people who were sexually abused as children, and while it is my inclination to always believe a disclosure of sexual abuse until given a reason not to, I can't help but wonder if this is a case of broken people finding broken people or if some of these kids are making things up in order to better fit in. It sounds absurd, but there seems to be a certain degree of "street cred" gained once someone of my daughter's generation says that they were a victim of sexual abuse/assault.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Consider that Principle is established upon the norm; it is not established upon the exception.

There will always be, somewhere, an exception to every principle.

It is when we elevate an exception to negate a principle that we falter.

We will also always find someone who is willing to state something falsely, to feel 'unique' and gain some form of recognition.
Go to any seminar or large meeting, of any topic, and you will almost always have one person who must be heard.

Often, especially in meeting where subordinates are invited, a 'show' of sorts will emerge where the one is desperate to impress those he or she perceives as superior, or who are, in fact, superior in rank or position.

These will interject, interrupt, move off topic and even lie, if it gains some form of recognition.

In statement analysis seminars, it is often the one who wants to trump principle because of self. This is the "but I" syndrome that I often mention to attendees in the beginning because it may save them not only accuracy in work, but also personal embarrassment.

My most often cited example is the embarrassing moment where an investigator (who did raise her hand and was polite) complimented the teaching (never a good sign) early and added, "but"...

She went on to explain that Divinity in a statement is not a signal of a normally deceptive person, but of truth!

I reexplained that what the subject swears to God over may, indeed, be truthful, but it is this need to call upon Divinity in a non-oath taking setting, that reveals the norm of deception.

She said that she and her sister have had an agreement since childhood that when they say "I swear to God" they are not allowed to lie to one another.

This led to chuckles, explanation and then a very loud and embarrassing laughter from the crowd which shut down the investigator from ever learning.

She had just admitted being a normally deceptive person, as was her sister, who readily lied to one another so much so, that they needed to have an oath between them, to stop the lies.

Had she not interrupted (even politely with hand raising) to point out her "exception" to principle, she would not have been publicly embarrassed, and may have quietly learned something.


Lis said...

This seems like a great object lesson for "the expected" vs "the unexpected" because everything this guy says is so unexpected.

If it is true that he was raped, and it is true that he cares more about the rapist than himself or other possible victims, then the only correlation I can think of to his strange perspective is there are people who have such idealistic beliefs about animals that they will fight to protect an animal that has attacked and nearly killed them from being put down. They say similar things, it's not the animal's fault, it was just doing what animals do. But it comes out as very strange when it's coming from a person who was torn apart by said animal. They also have no concern for whoever else may become a victim in future.

When he started with "I am a heterosexual man" it seems to me like he is trying to get heterosexual men to identify with him. i.e., he is persuading. He could be trying to head off doubt as to his sexual identity (why?) or he could be stating this to make the listener think the rape was more violating to him than it would have been to a gay man? His perspective is just strange.

I got a strong feeling of guilt and responsibility,” Hauken wrote.

This is so unexpected. Why would a victim feel guilt or responsibility? Was he doing something that he felt 'brought on' this rape?

“I was the reason he wouldn’t be in Norway, and instead be sent to an unknown future in Somalia.

No, his violent action would be the reason he wouldn't be in Norway! Does Hauken have any feeling of responsibility to protect others who might be in danger from this man?

He had already done his time in prison. Would he get punished again, and this time much harder?”

He seems not to be concerned with whether the man had changed, whether he is likely to rape again. Why would he be worried about what happens to a brutal man who raped him and may likely rape again? It does not make sense to me. Has his idealism blinded him to reality? Or is there more to the story?

Anonymous said...

He might feel guilty and responsible if he lied about it being rape. His entire statement sounds contrived. The fact that he had to let everyone know he isn't a homosexual isn't normal because rape is rape, regardless of ones sexuality. He's an attention-seeking individual who likely had consensual sex with the man and now feels guilty about it. He is letting us know HE is guilty of lying and he is responsible for what happens to the Somalian. I reckon he wants to unburden his guilt without actually admitting to being a lying POS; He has to know that people will tell him it's not his fault (which would be true if he was actually raped) and is counting on it.

Anonymous said...

The banana story? I knew it was a fake-hate crime the second I saw the photo. I hope every one of her room mates demand an investigation so she is exposed and held accountable.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude and lynda:

This is going to be a bit graphic, so shield your screen if young children (or literate monkeys... :^D) are running around:

Some of the guilt conflict of male rape victims, and your sense of inconsistant language is related to biology.

Men have a prostate gland which due to their anatomy can be stimulated by anal penetration regardless of consent to the sex.

Similarly, a woman's body can lubricate just as we're designed to ease entry without tearing us up inside.

Both are normal, physical functions and do not prove we are actually enjoying the encounter.

Many men are raised to believe the worst of homosexuality; particularly macho men would be horrified to think they were aroused during a sexual encounter with another male, especially a nonconsensual one.

That ingrained phobia could explain the man's inner conflict and guilt over his rapist facing lifelong consequences, and jis need to persuade the world (including himself) of his heterosexuality.

Some defense attorneys have tried to use the female victim's natural bodily function as "proof" she consented to the stranger breaking into her home and raping her at knifepoint, even when she's badly beaten during the attack.

He could feel guilty abiut lying of course; just keep the biology in mind when sensing excessive need to persuade in these cases.

Hey Jude said...

Foodie - thanks. Your post made me think of this case, which I found astonishing - sad a judge could think like that:

SANTA ANA, Calif. — A Southern California judge is being publicly admonished for saying a rape victim "didn't put up a fight" during her assault and that if someone doesn't want sexual intercourse, the body "will not permit that to happen."