Thursday, June 9, 2016

Mike Wire: Truthful Or Deceptive About TWA Flight 800?



When two people witness the same event, 'experts' love to point out how these accounts can differ.  In Statement Analysis, we recognize:


1.  A person can be wrong
2.  Subjectivity 

It is in deception, however, that presupposes intent.  There must be an intent to deceive in order for the liar to be caught. 

I once investigated an assault case in which one employee (female) accused another (male) of assaulting someone.  The accuser, who was an eye witness, was so frightened by what she saw, that she ran out of the building and called for help.  

Both wrote out statements regarding what happened. 

Analysis showed:  they were both telling the truth.  The accused's statement showed no deception; that is, no intent to deceive by skipping over time and leaving out critical information.  I concluded that both were reliable accounts. 

Yet, her statement showed something else which was an important factor in the interview first, and in the investigatory process.  

Her statement showed no deception; that is, no intent to deceive.  

She was a victim of domestic violence and what she saw was not violence, but it triggered her who's language showed post-trauma elements clearly. 

It ended just as it should have:  the accused was cleared and the company took steps to help the female employee, who was a good and trusted employee, to get professional intervention.  The accused bore no ill will towards her.  

We look for reliability in language.  We measure how intense is a need to persuade, rather than report truthfully.  We look for the subject to connect himself, with strong pronoun use, ("I") to the event using past tense language.  We look for strength where only strength is appropriate, and weakness where only weakness is appropriate.  Sensory language, by itself, is not sufficient as one could be deceptively making a statement while employing the memory of another event.  

Question for analysis:

Is Mike Wire telling the truth in the following account?

Simply write "Truth" or "Deception Indicated" in your comments, and if you wish to buttress your point, skip a space, add in your thoughts, and if anonymous, choose a name should you want a response.  


TWA 800 was destroyed twenty years ago this July off the coast of Long Island. Mike Wire was one of the 258 FBI witnesses who reported an apparent missile strike. The New York Times, which owned the story, interviewed not a single one of them. In the absence of real information, the CIA and FBI collaborated to discredit the eyewitnesses and advance an exploding fuel tank theory. Wire’s case is just one shocking example out of many. To learn more, see Jack Cashill’s introductory article in this series or his book, TWA 800: The Crash, The Cover-Up, The Conspiracy (Regnery: July 5).

Here is his statement.  I have added some underlining to assist the analysis.  

Examine the pronouns and verbs. 
Consider the overall form of the statement.  How long does it take to get to the main portion?  What is the breakdown of the account?

25% introduction
50% Main event
25% Post 

Where does the statement begin, and the article, itself, end?  It is written in article form, not as a statement of testimony.  

I will post my conclusions in the comments section after allowing some time for consideration.  


Recently the CIA released documents pertaining to the tragic destruction of TWA 800. During review of those documents, I have learned that the CIA had designated me as Witness #1 to the heartbreaking events of that day. For the FBI, I was only Witness #571. How the CIA came to decide upon me is at the heart of this miscarriage of justice.

On July 17, 1996, I was working to get the new Beach Lane Bridge in Westhampton ready to open. The bridge crosses the narrow inland waterway and connects the mainland with a small strip of beach beyond.

As a millwright tradesman, I had been working all day in the mechanical room of the bridge. A little before 8:30 p.m. that night, I surfaced to get some air. I was talking to one of the many men working with me when I saw what looked like a cheap firework rising from beyond the houses along the beach. This wasn’t out of the ordinary for a summer weekday so close to the 4th of July.
I watched as the sparkling white light zigzagged southeast away from shore at about a 40-degree angle. At its peak, it arched over and disappeared. Then I saw what appeared to be an explosion, it expanded into a large fireball, and then I watched the aircraft in flames descend from the fireball and fall to the sea, breaking up as it fell.

After a few seconds had passed, I heard the first of four explosions. The first was the loudest. I could feel a shock wave against my chest.  It shook the bridge enough that the other workers came running up to see what was going on.

At first, I thought it was a mid-air collision. I called my wife Joan at home in Pennsylvania and asked her to watch the news to see if anything was reported. At that point, the other men and I observed a rescue helicopter fly overhead and listened to the aircraft chatter on the PA system from the State Highway communications truck on site. Still unsure of what was unfolding; I went back to work and stayed on the job until after midnight.

The next morning at breakfast I overhead a man, a lawyer as it turned out, telling friends what he saw the night before. It was almost exactly what I saw. The only difference was that I described what I saw as “fireworks.” He was more familiar with the sea and took to describing the light as a “flare.

Later, when I was back home in Bucks County, my employer called to inform me that the FBI wanted to speak to me. The FBI took my observations seriously enough to send an agent to my house named Andrew Lash. He interviewed me with Joan present on July 29, twelve days after the disaster.

Lash was conscientious and wrote what I said on a yellow legal pad, allowing me to check what he’d written for accuracy. We spoke for about 90 minutes, and that was the last time I talked to the FBI.

After that I followed the news on TWA 800 from a distance. Like most Americans, I trusted that the FBI would do the right thing. In November 1997, I saw the animation of the crash that the FBI showed to close the criminal case. It did not match anything I saw, and I wondered why the CIA was recruited to produce the animation. I presumed it was a temporary measure designed to pacify the public until a final cause for the crash was determined.
I paid little attention to the case after that, until the spring of 2000 when I received a call from Reed Irvine of the media watchdog group, Accuracy in Media. He asked if I was “The Man on the Bridge,” to which I replied that I was.
Irvine had something he wanted me to see. It was a certified word-for-word transcript of a 1999 meeting between the NTSB’s witness group and the CIA analysts who created the animation the FBI used to close the case. I was amazed that I was referenced so much; it seemed that a third of this 81-page document mentioned me (the man on the bridge) in some way.
As it turns out, the CIA based its animation around what I saw. However, there was a big problem. The CIA claimed that the nose of the plane blew off and when it did, the plane soared up for more than 3,000 feet. This, according to the CIA, confused me and other witnesses into thinking we saw a missile. I saw nothing of the kind. I saw an object zigzag up off the horizon at about a 40-degree angle, arch over and culminate in an explosion. After the explosion, the plane fell straight out of the sky.
As the transcript showed, at least two of the NTSB people gave the CIA resistance. They had seen the FBI “302” that Lash prepared, and it honestly reported what I had seen. When cornered, the CIA analyst responded, “He [I] was an important eyewitness to us. And we asked the FBI to talk to him again, and they did.”
This was nonsense. The FBI never spoke to me after the initial Lash interview. The CIA analyst continued, “In his original description, he [I] thought he had seen a firework and that perhaps that firework had originated on the beach behind the house.” This was true.

According to the analyst, though, I was “reinterviewed,” and I changed my statement. According to this fictional second interview, I did not see the light ascend from the beach. I first saw the light appear “as if -- if you imagine a flagpole on top of the house it would be as if it were on the top or the tip of the flag pole.” As a millwright, we do not use flagpoles as an increment of measurement. I would use degrees of angle in this kind of instance as in the original statement.

“Now, when the FBI told us that,” said the analyst, “we got even more comfortable with our theory.”

I do not know who generated this false interview to fit their scenario, but I stand by my original approved statement made to agent Lash. No other statement exists as there were none. The CIA built its case-closing animation around an interview that never took place. I would learn later that the CIA manufactured interviews with several other key witnesses.

This whole experience has left me disillusioned with the FBI, disillusioned with the CIA, and totally disillusioned with the news media that bought this whole story without ever questioning it -- even after the truth about the fake interviews had become impossible to deny.

I never wanted to go public.  However, as a parent, when I think about the people who lost their children on this plane -- 230 people died in all -- I felt compelled to reveal the facts as I saw them first hand. That’s what I would want, the Truth, not a convenient fabrication.

45 comments:

Hey Jude said...

Truth.

Anonymous said...

Deception indicated.

-KC

mom2many said...

Truth

*I began my analysis with Peter's own introduction, noting it is a lesson on reliable statements.
*While I cannot quote a principle for all of the underlined words, I see that the subject takes ownership of his observations and doesn't seem to share any of his experience in a group.
*The subject uses complete social introductions where appropriate, for his wife and the agent who interviewed him.
*The subject places his emotions appropriately at the end. While his observations and the original circumstances are old, the release of the document and the betrayal of his testimony are new. Placement of his emotions at the end indicate his still processing these emotions.
*I'm not sure how to tabulate the percentages on this. Does the main event start with the initial observations of the disaster, or with the discovery of the misuse of his testimony?
*The statement flows in an orderly timeline.

Followup questions: when the subject reviewed the notes the agent took, was he asked to sign to verify their accuracy? Of so, is there a signature on the "second" interview? If so, whose is it?

Russell said...

Deceptive glory hound who's STILL pissed his 15 minutes is over.

Anonymous said...

My laymans view is that he seems to own all of his statements and "appears" to give a truthful statement.

The use of "appears to" seems truthful to me since he recalls his perception at the time of his account.

Jon

Jessica Blans said...

Honest account until ending, which is deceptive

He is clear and precise with his verb choices in the account of what he saw and his account of dealings with LE. Most of the account uses active verb that are declarative (I saw, I heard, it shook, I thought, I called, etc...).

The end of the statement signals deception as well as a shift in how he uses verbs.
"I never wanted to go public." ("Never" lessens the reliability of his claim)
"However, as a parent, when I think about the people who lost their children on this plane -- 230 people died in all -- I felt compelled to reveal the facts as I saw them first hand. ("I felt compelled" he uses passive verb tense as he shifts responsibility from himself. He does not want to appear as if he is the one seeking publicity.)
"That’s what I would want, the Truth, not a convenient fabrication." ("That’s what I would want, the Truth" makes it seem as if he is saying he is telling the truth. He does not actually say he is telling the truth, he is only implying it. If he does not say it, I cannot say it for him.)

Conclusion: He believes he is telling the truth in his account of the incident as well as the account of dealing with LE. He is deceptive, however, when he ends and shifts responsibility to others for speaking out. He wants to speak out, but he doesn't want to be perceived as wanting to speak out.

Jessica Blans

Bobcat said...

Truth.

Consistent pronouns.

Anonymous said...

I am curious as to how statement analysis views phrases like "what appeared to be" given the context. How do you distinguish a statement in which observations are couched in non-conclusory terms from one in which the person outright says "I saw"? Surely the latter is likely a person who feels certain, correct or incorrect, but the former may stem from professional caution or just having a more cautious nature rather than lack of commitment to the statement, no?

Carnival Barker said...


I recently saw a documentary about the coverup surrounding Flight 800, and it was both fascinating AND really eye-opening. Call me naive, but I never thought our own government would engage in the propaganda and intimidation tactics they used to silence people and rewrite history.

Anyone who has the slightest bit of doubt about what took down TWA Flight 800 need only to see the picture of the missle climbing in the sky right before it hits that airplane. Google it.

C5H11ONO said...

Truth

Bottle Cap said...

Truth until he speaks of the second interview. He doesn't give a reliable denial of the second interview and we cannot say it for him.

Instead he says:
- According to this fictional second interview
- As a millwright, we do not use flagpoles as an increment of measurement. (he does not say, "I didn't say a flagpole" and who is we?)
- I do not know who generated this false interview
- around an interview that never took place
- I never wanted to go public

He also appears to have buried confessions:

- According to the analyst, though, I was “reinterviewed" and I changed my statement.

However, this is strong and shows closeness:
- I do not know who generated this false interview

Note proper introduction, "my wife Joan"

Perhaps he spoke to the CIA instead of the FBI the second time?

Anonymous said...

Truth!

Christina-Marie Wright said...

I've only got as far as "...I watched the aircraft in flames descend..."

THE aircraft strikes me as out of place. He's been describing a "firework" as what he thought he was seeing in the sky, but he doesn't mention an aircraft at all in the sky, then... Suddenly... THE aircraft in flames is descending.

I'll have to read some more, and see what else I find.

Anonymous said...

Truth.

BUT, I have some concerns. Towards the end, the last 3 paragraphs leave me with questions. For example, see CAPS for my notes inserted in the above text:
------------
No other statement exists as there were none (HE DOES NOT SAY NO OTHER STATEMENTS "BY ME" BUT HE ALSO SAYS THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHERS WHO GAVE STATEMENTS). The CIA built its case-closing animation around an interview that never took place (AGAIN, HE DOESN'T SAY "ANOTHER INTERVIEW BY ME" SO HE CAN'T POSSIBLY SPEAK FOR ANYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD WHO GAVE STATEMENTS). I would learn later that the CIA manufactured interviews with several other key witnesses (WHILE I DON'T DISPUTE THIS AS A FACT, I DO WONDER WHY HE DIDN'T ASK FOR THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO ALLEGEDLY INTERVIEWED HIM THE SECOND TIME? IT SEEMS THE ANALYST WAS QUITE WILLING TO TELL HIM WHAT ELSE WAS IN THE REPORT).

This whole experience has left me disillusioned with the FBI, disillusioned with the CIA, and totally disillusioned with the news media that bought this whole story without ever questioning it (MORE ASSUMPTIONS)-- even after the truth about the fake interviews had become impossible to deny (IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY BY WHOM?).

GetThem

elf said...

Truth

Nic said...

Truth

I saw an object zigzag up off the horizon at about a 40-degree angle, arch over and culminate in an explosion. After the explosion, the plane fell straight out of the sky.

Short, descriptive account of what he saw. Use of the pronoun "I", no weakening by using "we". No extra wording to fall back on/making his account "fuzzy". This is a direct account of what he saw.

Of note, too, his pronouns are consistent throughout; he reports what he saw, and what he heard, as is the way he uses the conditional verb conjugation. He does not use, "if" (if/then). i.e., " I was talking to one of the many men working with me when I saw what looked like a cheap firework rising from beyond the houses along the beach." IMO, using "if" would taint his statement with what "might have" happened, which would give it a feeling of story telling. i.e., injecting his ego (what he felt, how it made him feel, "imagining" what could have been). He simple reports what he saw and then subsequently how he came to be involved afterwards. His observations are just that, reporting *what* he saw, *what* he felt, (shock wave against his chest,) and even in the end reporting his state of being: disillusioned; but not the feelings associated with being, i.e., "used" (my word). At the end he reveals his purpose: his need to clarify his statement so as to disassociate himself from the "fabrication".


Anonymous said...

Carnival Barker said...

.....

Call me naive, but I never thought our own government would engage in the propaganda and intimidation tactics they used to silence people and rewrite history.

Anyone who has the slightest bit of doubt about what took down TWA Flight 800 need only to see the picture of the missle climbing in the sky right before it hits that airplane. Google it.
----

Thank you, I will google it.

I never considered myself naive, but I have been saddened to see the depths of corruption, and the so-called free press along for the ride, with eyes, ears and mouths shut.


rob said...

Our gov't also says there are no muslim terrorists.
Maybe it was a muslim missle launcher.
That was a few years ago, had they gotten cranked up yet?

Anonymous said...

DECEPTION INDICATED

GetThem/Anon cont'd... I change mine from truth to deception indicated

My comments in CAPS

FIRST I DO NOT SEE A RELIABLE DENIAL IN THE STORY ANYWHERE.

I have learned that the CIA had designated me as Witness #1 to the heartbreaking events of that day. WHY THE WORD "HAVE"? WHY NOT JUST SAY "I LEARNED?"

As a millwright tradesman - HE IS PROUD OF HIS WORK AND WANTS US TO KNOW HIS TITLE TO REINFORCE THAT HE WOULD NOT USE A FLAG POLE AS A REFERENCE.

I felt compelled to reveal the facts as I saw them first hand. That’s what I would want, the Truth, not a convenient fabrication. I FELT COMPELLED DOES NOT MEAN HE DID TELL THE TRUTH. HE SAYS THAT IS WHAT "I WOULD WANT" NOT "WHAT I WANT" AND HE DOES NOT STATE THAT HE "IS" TELLING THE TRUTH ONLY THAT THE TRUTH IS WHAT HE "WOULD WANT."

ANON/GETTHEM

LJ B said...

Oh, brother. Let's analyze the CIA statements, too. Oh, we can't?

You may as well be reading entrails or tea leaves when 99% of the rest of the facts are excluded; the motivations of ALL parties involved, for one. Ludicrous! (and the word "dogmatic" as a descriptor even seems wholly insufficient) Statement analysis has a legitimate realm, and this is not it. You scrutinize the witnesses and the victims, but take the entrenched, and bloody-minded powers that be on their word. Is this not the very definition of bias?

When this blog veers into Orientalism, think-tank parroting, etc it is SO CRINGY. Must we?

(iow, How about some common sense, and a little less deferrence to the CIA? LMFAO, it'd be a start, if "analysis" is indeed part of a broader goal)

Peter Hyatt said...

His statement comes from experiential memory. He is telling the truth.

His pronouns and verbs are consistent, and weak assertions are appropriately weak, with such phrases as "appears like..."
We must put in context each assertion and look for appropriateness and consistency.

He shows no need to persuade and gives reasons why certain things were in place as to anticipate questions. The sensitivity is justified in context.

He did not assert anything but what he saw. He has told us reliably that he was not interviewed a second time.

He would pass a polygraph.

As to some of the comments: people will reveal themselves as we all do. Some see deception everywhere, and others believe they can see motive, even though, in this case, he addressed motive.

Those who take the first course: it begins with "101" but moves beyond it to a complete course.

Those who have taken the course are able to see the difference in their own commenting over time. Statement Analysis is not easy, even as a basic outline is revealed in the blog, for those who wish to become proficient at it. There are so many professional benefits; well beyond typical law enforcement, human resources, or psychological. Those who apply themselves, and build a sound foundation, are capable of moving to the psychological profiling and reading through propaganda readily.

The absence of humility is something that, no matter the talent, will always lead to significant error, and bring the science into disrepute.

It takes a very specific mindset; one that you can develop, to actually enjoy being "wrong", as your progress, knowing that you can not only trace your errors and correct them, but that you are part of a marvelous learning process in which team spirit is thrust upon you: no lone wolf survives in this field, no matter how talented. It is human nature.

The best and brightest analysts in our country are loathe to ever submit full analysis without having at least one other analyst check his or her work.

Once this is done, their name is stamped across it; reputation on the line.

Yet, while they are in either training, or ongoing training (this is where experts meet monthly and keep their tools sharp and press for deeper knowledge) they embrace being "wrong" at any given point in a sentence, as they "practice" being in submission to the statement. It is inspiring to see.

Imagine working with a professional, at the top of his craft, with 30 years experience who is both humble and as excited as a kid at Christmas, over truth!

It's very inspiring.

Peter


Peter Hyatt said...

This made me very sad.

To make it worse, this was back when things were not anywhere close to where we are today. We even had freedom of speech then.

Carnival Barker said...

.....

Call me naive, but I never thought our own government would engage in the propaganda and intimidation tactics they used to silence people and rewrite history.

Anyone who has the slightest bit of doubt about what took down TWA Flight 800 need only to see the picture of the missle climbing in the sky right before it hits that airplane. Google it.
----

Thank you, I will google it.

I never considered myself naive, but I have been saddened to see the depths of corruption, and the so-called free press along for the ride, with eyes, ears and mouths shut.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the explanation. It always seems so obvious once you explain it, but it's not! It must be nice to talk out loud with others and learn... wish I could afford a class or knew of a place I could meet once a month to practice, but at least I have your blog! As always, I love your analysis.

GetThem

Bobcat said...

I lived near where TWA crashed 20 years ago and remember it well. I also have a family member in the aviation industry; all crashes are especially of interest to us.

The coverup of TWA800 is/was disgusting. Already KNOWING that there WAS a coverup, I put it aside in my amateur analysis.

Nic said...



Peter said:
I never considered myself naive, but I have been saddened to see the depths of corruption, and the so-called free press along for the ride, with eyes, ears and mouths shut.


I have a theory. I believe today's reporting is about keeping one's livelihood, not about the public's interest. That is what is making this US election so interesting. The internet has shifted the power/influence.

__________

Reading my post above I meant to reference the use of the imperfect verb conjugation (in comparison to the conditional).

At least my (very long ago) French training is coming in handy!

lynda said...

Truth.

The only thing that really jumped out as me as questionable was when he states "That's the LAST time I spoke with the FBI. It made me wonder if he had talked to them more than once because "LAST" infers there were other times. It would be a stronger statement to say "That was the "first and last" time I spoke with the FBI. Or "I only spoke with them ONCE."
Plus, I felt like it broke down to be 25% 25% and then 50% but to me, that is appropriate since he was discussing events that happened AFTER his statement to the FBI, not the initial statement about the explosion and what he saw.
'

Lis said...

He seems honest to me, though I didn't go over it slowly and in detail. He's very factual and clear.

John mcgowan said...

OT:

David de Gea named in sexual assault case but denies any involvement
• Manchester United goalkeeper says: ‘I deny it. It’s a lie, false’

• De Gea accused of setting up encounter between players and women

David de Gea has denied any involvement in a sexual assault case after the Manchester United goalkeeper was named by a protected witness as the person who arranged and paid for an encounter between two Spain Under-21 players and two women in a Madrid hotel in 2012. “I am surprised by this,” he said on Friday. “I deny it, and that’s it. It’s a lie, false.”

According to a report published by the website ElDiario.es on Friday, which includes copies of statements from two protected witnesses, a woman alleges that she was forced to have sexual relations with a “new girl” and two footballers, one of whom is named as the Athletic Bilbao forward Iker Muniain while the other has not been identified but whom she believed to be one of his Spain Under-21 team-mates at the time.

“The encounter was organised by the football player called David de Gea, currently at Manchester United Football Club, who would also be the person who paid for everything that day, as can be seen in a WhatsApp conversation with Muniain,” said a report drawn up by the Spanish police’s central brigade against people trafficking.

Police have described the witness as highly credible and ruled out financial gain as a reason for her coming forward. De Gea is also named by another witness as the alleged recipient of pornographic videos with a view to arranging meetings with footballers.

The 25-year-old, who is with Spain in France preparing for Euro 2016, said: “I am calm. Few things stop me being calm. I will train and keep doing what I like.” Asked whether he could stay with Spain, he said: “Of course. If anything, I have even more strength. I have had great support from my team-mates. I want to play in the Euros. It is false and it is in my lawyers’ hands.

I have not thought about leaving France. I was in my room playing on the PlayStation when I was told. The first thing was to warn my family, to make sure they are calm. They know it is false.

She [the witness] can give all the details she likes. This is in my lawyers’ hands. I am very, very calm. I know what I do with my life. It is all false. I have no idea [where it comes from] and how it came to be in the press. It’s a way of sullying someone’s image. That’s it.”

Cont..

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

Muniain’s agent, Jesús Medina, said: “We do not know anything at all about this case. Neither the police nor the courts have been in touch to request any kind of information.” There has been no statement from De Gea’s camp as yet.

Sources at ElDiario.es said that the girl was by no means sure of the identity of the third player. “The girl later on contacted both Muniain and De Gea in order to find out who the third footballer was, who she does not identify,” explained Laura Cornejo, the journalist who broke the story. One of the statements published by ElDiario has a second player’s name blacked out.

In a short statement, Muniain said on Friday: “In response to the information published today about me I wish to state:

“1. The events described are completely false.

“2. In the coming days I will appoint a lawyer to defend my honour.

“3. I hope that all the fans who have supported me on the field of play trust me at this time.”

The witness statements were made as part of a continuing investigation into the activities of Ignacio Allende Fernández, better known as “Torbe”. He is being investigated for child pornography, prostitution, sexual assault, money laundering and extortion and has been in jail since April. In total, 10 people are set to face charges, including Allende Fernández and his Ukrainian business partner Borys Malynovskyi.

The witness alleges that Allende Fernández drove her to a hotel in central Madrid, where he told her that she would be paid “a lot of money” for having sexual relations with another woman, Muniain and another player. The woman was told that she had to do whatever the footballers wanted and when she refused, Allende Fernández grabbed her by the arm and forced her to.

The statement alleges that she was “sexually abused by both players” and “physically assaulted by both”. Afterwards, it is alleged that she was threatened and warned not to reveal their identity. The statement says that the two women were not paid, despite having been told they would be, and that Allende Fernández took the money for himself.

A statement from another protected witness, aged 17, alleges that Allende Fernández had drugged her and raped her twice. She said that he made her film an explicit video which he claimed would be sent to De Gea and other players in order to arrange encounters.

No players have been called to testify since the statement was made in May 2015. Various victims have made statements before the investigating judge and the accused are expected to be called next week.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/10/david-de-gea-sexual-assault-case-spain

Anonymous said...

The brother of murdered singer Christine Grimmie is being called a hero for tackling her killer to the ground thereby saving the lives of others.
However, prior to his sisters death, the brother made some pretty strange statements that I think are worth analyzing.

Anonymous said...

Less than 14hrs after her murder, Christina Grimmies family (brother?) has raised 20k on the Gofundme page started in her honor. Proceeds going to family to help them...grieve.

Kim said...

Peter, Good read! Very well done.

Off Topic: Any interest in analysis of some of Clinton's emails? I haven't seen you do any yet. This one is from staff, but still interesting: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Also, I would love to see some work on the so-called "Social Justice Warrior" movement stuff. Lots of virtue signaling, deception, fake hate, etc. in that community, especially in the psuedo-science of gender studies. Oregon court just ruled okay for a male to female trans person to now be known as "non-binary". What a world! ;)

Thanks, Kim

june ambience travels said...

dear nic

how do you write dual diagnosis in french?

pam

Katprint said...

It must be difficult to use statement analysis when someone talks about something that happened to them 20 years ago, especially if they have already told the story to many people already, as far as foreshadowing, emotions being in the correct place, etc. I know that when I posted concerning the issue of reporting one's spouse/girlfriend missing and I related the incident where my husband didn't come home from work before dark (around 8:30pm to 9pm in the summer, when he rode his bicycle to work that day), I put in the first paragraph something to the effect of "I didn't know it, but he was at an emergency business meeting that had come up." It has been several [many] years and I have had time to process what happened, and this is reflected in my telling of the incident even though I am telling the complete truth. I didn't realize it until later, when I went back and reread my post, though.

Peter Hyatt said...

He did not speak from memory of his earlier statement. This is fascinating. It strengthens the statement though self reference would be commonly used

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

We do, in advanced work, view time and the processing that impacts language. This is why the placement of emotions is viewed differently when significant time to process has taken place.

Peter Hyatt said...

Kim

I will take a look

Hilary may be a criminal success of historical proportion.

Think of the theft (felony) by Herman Goering

She approaches his level of felonious theft but not murder.

Treason has likely led to deaths more than we may know including the hundreds of thousands in the Middle East over the last 8 years.

Nic said...

@ june ambience travels

I am not a translator. My reference to French training is in reference to the on-the-job training I took 30 years ago. Literally.

Having said that, I would write it "un diagnostic double".

Nic said...

@ kim,

Yes, I too recently learned I was a "binary myth". (That there are men and then there are women.) Science be damned!

IMO, you can change and rearrange the packaging any way [you] (generally speaking) want to, but an XX or XY remains constant.

I am woman, make no myth about it!

june ambience travels said...

nic, i think you are a superstar binary

tania cadogan said...

“I deny it, and that’s it. It’s a lie, false.”

I looked at this and pondered.
We have he denying it and it's a lie yet there is is no it in relation to false.
It is a subject/object pronoun.
All we are told is false but not what is false since there is no pronoun (me being me and looking at it sideways)

Looking at it from a sideways point of view he could be telling us that what is false is him telling us “I deny it, and that’s it. It’s a lie
That he denial and it being a lie is false.

He does not tell us what it is thus it could apply to anything, he lets us think that it is the allegation he is denying.

And that’s it indicates sensitivity in that he want to end the topic of discussion, no more questions, end of topic, change the subject.
If he was not involved then i would expect to hear a strong first person singular,past tense, event specific denial as in I did not arrange for any sexual contact between any woman/women and the football players (names). I did not make payment for the services of the woman/women (names)for/to footballers (names)

I do wonder if the football players are prosecuted whether they will take others down with them?

Will other victims come forward if there were others?

Matt Whan said...

Truth.

Anonymous said...

-Peter -

RE: DeOrr Kunz Jr.
Here is a quote from a Facebook conversation screen shot. FYI: Lil man = DeOrr Kunz Jr.

Mandy Mitchell: "It has been a year since dad died to. He passed away the month before Lil Man"

Keisha Wood: "I'm so sorry. It hasn't been the same since last year.. i wish we could bring our loved ones back"

Habundia said...

Peter

It's been a couple days now since i came on to your blog. The case of Timothy Madden, got my attention and got me to your blog, i've been reading your analyzes of different topics and cases and those of others and their respons. I am intriged by them and think they're instructive.
Because of my interest in the Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey case i was wondering if you have ever anilyzed his first interviews with press (if so i didn't saw them yet then), or his first statements with police when interrogated, or those of Bredan Dassey
(It is like 4 hours of recording, his interrogation on march 6 alone, excluding many other recordings of interviews and interrogations)

Although I am not considering myself even a amateur on this, because i just got to know about this technique, but i would give it a try, I would consider this statement of his to be truthfull but with open questions.
He never mentioned there was a plane in the sky when he was talking with "one of the many men" he works with, to "get some breath" (who's that men he is talking with? What was his statement about this event? Do these statements relate? That isn't said so I can't say it for him) If he talks with this person does it indicates he knows this person? Or would he randomly talk with others he doesn't know? What would be asumeble? Does he know this persons name? And if they were talking at that moment of the incident, why wouldn't he talked to this person of one of the many others that came to the sight when they looked at helicopter flying over and listening to AP chatter, why would he not have spoken with his coworkers after getting back to work and stay there till midnight, but he did next day. Also he discribed it as firework, thouhg at the introduction it is said he had mentioned a missle strike, how would they know if he had only one interview with his statement?

But after all he stayed with his original story even after many years so that's for me a big sign he was speaking thruthfukl about what he had seen.