Monday, July 4, 2016

The Psychology Behind The 'Sermon' in Denials

"Thief?  Are you accusing me of stealing?  Are you kidding me?  Thief?  A thief is worse than anyone.  He is worse than a drug dealer.  Let me tell you something, ok?  Let me tell you something.
My father and my uncle are both in prison today because they are thieves.  I hate them.  There is nothing worse than a thief.  A drug dealer to children isn't as bad as a thief!"

Yes, he stole.  

In statement analysis, we flag not only the lack of reliable denial (in the free editing process) but the need to 'preach' a sermon; that is, to moralize that which needs no moral backing is a very strong signal of projected guilt.  I have yet to flag a sermon where the subject did not 'do it.'

There is a reason for the sermonizing and as another principle of analysis is added, the analyst would do well to consider that the ramifications of this principle ("The Sermon") go beyond analyzing a simple statement where an allegation exists.  

The need to avoid issuing a denial is a central theme in this, and it is that the sermon is generally given after the unreliable denial is uttered:

"I would never harm a child.  Let me tell you this, I have always loved children and I have helped them wherever I have gone.  People who do such things to children need help and are sick and..."

Sound familiar?

Michael Jackson did not simply molest the several known boys at his millionaire's ranch:  he had victims around the world.  The lack of denial is followed by sermonizing of sorts and in his own statement, he took his denial 'around the world' linguistically, revealing the likelihood of having victims in the Middle East, Europe and Central/South America.  

The principle that I hope investigators will consider, particularly as it applies to the radical "change" of society is this:

When something is unnecessary, we shall deem it of double importance within a statement. 

The thief who avoids issuing the reliable denial in his freely chosen wording may also feel the need to issue a 'sermon' of sorts.  This sermon generally appears in one of two ways; often showing both elements:

1.  The condemnation of that which needs no condemnation;
2.  The vaunting of self 

"You think I molested him?  I am a normal man.  I am happily married!"

He did molest a 30 year old male who had the intellectual capacity of a 5 year old boy, of who's life has been destroyed.  

In his 'denial', there is no denial, but there are other elements:
a.  Not only do we flag 'normal' as to something 'not normal', within analysis, but we also find his condemnation of the sexual molestation as "not normal."

b.  Next we find him wanting to tell us 'why' he would not sexually molest the 30 year old victim:  his marital status would preclude this (as if marriage eliminates any sexual contact outside of it) and, the greater 'give away':  

his 'happiness' within marriage is the reason he would not sexually molest a 30 year old male, suggesting:

'Perhaps if I was single, or if I was not happy in my marriage, I would molest someone like that...'

This is something the innocent feel no need to present.  

Consider when a topic is presented as if in the moral high ground, where claiming moral high ground is not necessary, that the need to make such a claim is the revelation of something immoral beneath it.  

Listen for a sermon where no sermon should be necessary and give due diligence to thought.  

It is not just the sermon that we flag for analysis, it is that which causes the subject to possess the need to 'preach' at us that we examine for weakness, and, perhaps, for its lack of moral high ground...

even when the subject is a politician as the need for discernment within propaganda may never be more acute.  

If you wish to enroll in training, we offer a variety of trainings to suit your needs from law enforcement to security to psychology to journalism to...

www.hyattanalysis.com 

hopefully an improved site is coming.  




26 comments:

C5H11ONO said...

Comey stated that Clinton's servers "were not successfully hacked". This means that she was hacked. But the hack was not successful.

C5H11ONO said...

He stated at the beginning in the negative that no one knew what he was going to say. I find it a highly sensitive comment and he was trying to answer the question in advance as it was unnecessary to what he was to report.

Anonymous said...

New statement on Facebook by Jessica (Mitchell) Anderson (DeOrr Jr.'s mother)...

"Last year I was spending time with my Little Man and going to bbqs and spending time with my family. We went and watched the fireworks and had an amazing day that I'll never forget. This year I feel lost and there's this huge part of me that's missing. I miss my Little Man more than words can describe and I wish he was here celebrating today. I miss seeing his sweet face brighten up from excitement from the fireworks and hearing his adorable little laugh, but most importantly I miss him. I miss just being in his presence and hearing him call me Mama, I miss having to take care of him making him food, refilling his cup with juice, snuggling with him and his hugs and kisses. This day is so hard for me to even get out of bed and pretend like I care. I just wish we could get the answers he deserves. He doesn't deserve to be forgotten and I will never forget the time that I had with him and the love I have for him everyday. To all of my family that I won't see today, for whatever reason... I hope you're having a good day and I hope you're all being safe out there."

-KC

John mcgowan said...

Whom is she talking about?

An interesting change of pronoun when it comes to getting answers "he deserves"

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Trump supporter: ‘Mexican restaurant refused to serve me’

An Orange County woman claims she was tossed from a Mexican restaurant Sunday, not for too much tequila — but for too much Trump.

Esther Levy, 61, of Warwick, said an employee at the popular Cancun Inn eatery in Sugar Loaf chucked her out for wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat and a Trump button.

Levy said she was booted for her support for the presidential candidate who wants to curtail illegal immigration and build a wall on the Mexican border.

Joined by retired local judge Alvin Goldstein, she took a seat and ordered two sangrias from a smiling waitress without incident, Levy recalled.

But the server soon returned and told them they had to leave.

Levy said a man who identified himself as a co-owner blasted Levy and Goldstein for supporting Donald Trump as they left.

“On the way out, the co-owner decided to yell at me and humiliate me,” Levy recalled. “He said, ‘We don’t serve Trump supporters here. Get out of here and never come back.’ ”

Goldstein said he defiantly predicted victory for Trump as he walked out of the restaurant.

“The man told me that Hillary was going to win,” Goldstein said. “I certainly won’t be back there. It was horrific what happened. I’m not used to being thrown out of restaurants.”

The Cancun Inn’s Facebook page was bombarded with criticism after Levy relayed her version of events. Several commenters promised to boycott the joint.

The embattled enchilada emporium countered online that the couple was ejected for being obnoxious, not for the Trump gear.

“An employee of ours asked the patrons to leave because they were being rude to the staff and rowdy,” read a post on the restaurant’s Facebook page.

Levy denied the accusation.

“That’s ridiculous,” she fumed. “They made it very clear why we were kicked out. It was because I was a Trump supporter, and that’s it.”

She said she later called local police, but they told her they were powerless to take action.

“I was told that as a private business, they could refuse to serve who they wanted,” Levy said. “I don’t expect anything to come of that.”

She said she was especially furious because she had been a loyal customer for 25 years.

“I know one of the owners. He would greet me every time I came in,” she said. “I never had a problem. But he wasn’t there on Sunday, and I didn’t recognize this guy.”

Rabbi Bernhard Rosenberg, a local Trump booster, said he was spreading word of the incident in order to combat spiraling anti-Donald discrimination.

“This is going on all over the country,” he said. “People need to know that we are not going to stand for it. Enough is enough. We have a right to support him.”

The restaurant was closed Monday and calls for comment to owners Israel and Mario Campos were not returned.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/05/trump-supporter-says-mexican-restaurant-refused-to-serve-her/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=facebook

Cancun Inn Restaurant's responce:


Hello, this is Israel's son, Chris, posting this statement on behalf of my father.
"To the tens of thousands of customers who have supported us over 25 years of business in the Hudson Valley area, we have never, and will never discriminate against anyone based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference or political beliefs. There was an unfortunate situation that was brought to my attention yesterday where claims of discrimination were made by patrons of the restaurant. An employee of ours asked the patrons to leave because they were being rude to the staff and rowdy due to intoxication. I'm personally looking into the facts based on what our staff witnessed and what's been posted here on Facebook.


Cont..

John mcgowan said...

Cont..

I would like to speak with the customers involved so please call the restaurant so I can get your side of the story. My cell phone was also listed in a post so you can call me on either number. We will also be speaking with the local newspapers as they've expressed interest in the situation.
We've always treated our customers with the utmost respect and dignity — we have always treated them as one of the family. This business is our livelihood; something we've built from the ground up 25 years ago and take these allegations made against us very seriously. Thank you for reading this. I will have my son post another update once I have more information."


https://www.facebook.com/Cancun-Inn-Restaurant-139562686137940/?fref=ts

Anonymous said...

@ John mcgowan

The first thing I noticed is that the post was all about her, and what she "misses" and how her life is different. Nothing is mentioned about what possible hell DeOrr is going through right now, has been through, seeking answers, his location, wondering if he is dead or alive, hungry, enjoying fireworks with his new family (remember they think he was abducted), etc.

Also, it is especially hard for her to pretend that she cares on the 4th of July. Is that because she is surrounded by family and she has to put on a front?

-KC

John mcgowan said...

"He doesn't deserve to be forgotten and I will never forget the time that I had with him and the love I have for him everyday."

This speaks of resignation. How does she know she won't have those good times again with DeOrr? That's if she knows he is not coming back alive. Although she doesn't speak in the past tense, (in this statement anyway) parents have a natural denial (more so mothers) that their children will be found safe and alive, even up to a point of being informed that they have been found and have passed away. Maternal denial is very strong, and can often, in some cases, take years to accept, unless they have guilty knowledge that they are not coming back alive. The passage of time (1 year in this case) can also have an impact. LE, private investigators and others believe he is dead, and or alluded as such, again, this can have an impact on statements, too.

As -KC says, it is all about her.

Where, too, is the plea to the alleged abductee's to bring him home, let him go free, drop him off.

She uses a term of endearment (little man) this is good, yet does not use his name. This is strong distancing language. Why would a mother distance herself from her son?

She knows he isn't coming home, alive anyway.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

The FBI is referring a probe into Hillary Clinton's use of her private email to prosecutors - but is not recommending criminal charges.

The decision lifts a major legal threat to the former US secretary of state's presidential campaign.

FBI director James Comey said the investigation had found "extremely careless" behaviour by Mrs Clinton and her staff.

It is even possible that "hostile" forces may have gained access to Mrs Clinton's personal email account, he said.

But, outlining the agency's findings at a news conference, Mr Comey concluded that "no charges are appropriate".

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,"
he said.

Mrs Clinton said she was "pleased" at the decision and conceded her use of personal mail was a "mistake" - but now considered the matter resolved.

Her rival Donald Trump, who had called for criminal charges, reacted by tweeting that the "system is rigged".

Less than two hours after the legal cloud was lifted Mrs Clinton boarded Air Force One with Barack Obama for a joint campaign in North Carolina.

The White House says Mr Obama doesn't plan to address the FBI investigation when he campaigns with her.

The FBI announcement came three days after agents interviewed Mrs Clinton about the possible mishandling of classified information.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said last week she would accept the recommendations of the FBI director and of career prosecutors.

This means Mr Comey's decision almost certainly brings the legal part of the issue to a close and removes the threat of criminal charges.

However, it is unlikely to wipe away many voters' concerns about Mrs Clinton's trustworthiness.

And it probably will not stop Mr Trump from continuing to make the private email server a campaign issue.

Mrs Clinton's personal email server, which she relied on exclusively for government and personal business, has dogged her campaign.

She has repeatedly said that no email she sent or received was marked classified.

But the Justice Department began investigating last summer following a referral from the intelligence community.

The scrutiny was compounded by a blistering audit in May from the State Department's internal watchdog.

It said that Mrs Clinton and her team ignored clear warnings from department officials that her email setup violated federal standards.

It said the email set-up could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers.

http://news.sky.com/story/1722032/clinton-emails-fbi-not-recommending-charges


Anyone else wondering:
How many favors she had to call in?
How much money was paid out?
How many threats were made?
Blackmail is such a horrible word, how about gentle persuasion?
It was donations not bribes.
It was funding to select deserving causes.
It was a well earned and long overdue promotion.
It was a mistake not a criminal action.
It was a lapse in memory not deliberate omission.
It was a misspeak not a lie.
It was a misunderstanding of reality not a falsely created reality.

Everyone else was doing it so why are you picking on me
Is it because i am a woman?
Is it because i am a democrat?
is it because i am married to bill clinton (at the moment)?
Is it because i will be the first female president?

Anonymous said...

Enough is Enough. No more Democrats in office. Major cities plauged by violent racial crime. Catch n Release. Drugs. Rape. Assault. Murder. They have not protected citizens from the domestic urban terrorists, so how can they possibly protect the law abiding(which is their #1 job,from the new threat of criminal importation & resettlement.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

A young left-wing German politician has admitted she lied to police about the racial background of three men who raped her in case it triggered reprisals against refugees in her country.

Selin Gören, the national spokeswoman of the left-wing youth movement Solid, was attacked by three men in January in the city of Mannheim where she works as a refugee activist.

The 24-year-old was ambushed late at night in a playground where she said she was forced to perform a sex act on her attackers.

After the assault she went straight to the police - but she did not tell them the ethnic make-up of the men, that they were speaking Arabic or Farsi.

Selin, aware of the backlash that migrants suffered after the events in Cologne on New Year's Eve - when hundreds of women were sexually assaulted and robbed by marauding gangs of immigrant youths - instead said she was robbed and said her attackers spoke German.

Now she has told Germany's Spiegel magazine why she lied. After her initial interview at the end of January she returned to the police 12 hours later to tell them the real story.

She said a friend talked her into going back to the police with the real story because another woman had been raped in the area - an accusation later retracted by the alleged victim.

Selin, who has visited refugee camps in Iraq where she was shocked at the squalor people are living in, did not want to stoke 'more hatred against migrants ín Germany.'

To help her cope she wrote an open letter to a fictional refugee and posted it on Facebook. It read in part: 'I am really sorry that your sexist and line-crossing treatment of me could help fuel aggressive racism.

'I'm going to scream... I will not stand by and watch, and it can happen that racists and concerned citizens name you as the problem. You're not the problem. You're usually a wonderful human being who deserves as much as any other to be safe and free.

'I will not stand by and watch and let it happen that racists and concerned citizens name you as the problem.'

She now says people must never 'twist the truth' even if it is politically expedient to do so.

A group called Gesa in Kassel - Active Together Against Sexual Violence - says that sexual assaults by many male migrants have increased.

'The perpetrators often come from cultures with a different image of women', said Steffi Burmester of GESA.

'They are alone and looking to banish their humiliation of flight with confirmation of their masculinity. This is neither to apologise nor to accept their actions, it is how it is.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3675154/Left-wing-German-politician-raped-migrants-admits-LIED-police-attackers-nationality-did-not-want-encourage-racism.html

Anonymous said...

OT DeOrr "I miss HAVING TO take care of him" not "I miss taking care of him". It sounds like taking care of DeOrr was more of an obligation, than a pleasure.

I think that something happened to DeOrr on or around the 4th of July. Even a year later we still don't know the last time he was seen alive by anyone but the 4 POI.

Anonymous said...

John McGowan said:

Where, too, is the plea to the alleged abductee's to bring him home, let him go free, drop him off?

Exactly. She knows he wasn't abducted.

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


DeOrr's "mother" sounds like guilt to me.

The FBI Director statement is very interesting reading.
Of course he is a "reasonable" (could that mean has been reasoned with,
i.e. threatened ?) prosecutor.

All of this while campaigning for clinton continues by the chief executive
at our expense while he leaves valerie jarret to continue to run our country
into the ground. That man will never leave the stage, in or out of office.

Anonymous said...

Maybe she refers to him as "little man" because she is distancing herself from DeOrr Sr. (same name).

Anonymous said...

@John mcgowan

Here is a full, unedited transcript of an interview recently aired.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/05/ddhln.01.html

-KC

Calvin Sanders said...

Great post and quick reminder to us investigators!

Nic said...

OT
Tony Blair unrepentant as Chilcot gives crushing Iraq war verdict
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-report-crushing-verdict-tony-blair-iraq-war

Tony Blair:

The decision to go to war in Iraq and to remove Saddam Hussein from power in a coalition of over 40 countries lead by the United States of America was the hardest, most momentous, most agonizing decision I took in my 10 years as British Prime Minister. For that decision today, I accept full responsibility.

*coalition
*lead by

Full responsibility? I think not.

Anon "I" said...

OT: When the motive is ignored.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/06/punching-white-woman-after-yelling-hate-white-people-not-hate-crime-judge-rules.html?intcmp=hphz11

John mcgowan said...

Thanks, -KC

Anonymous said...

Great stuff on Islam as usual. OT, please do an
analysis on Comey's testimony.

Anonymous said...

Hello Peter,

I've followed your blog for a few years, I find your work fascinating and useful.

The "sermon" concept is interesting and made me think of something - I wondered if this scenario is also related:
What if the person claiming they were wrongly accused also verbally attacks/maligns the accuser/lawyer/police officer? "How could you say that? What kind of person are you to accuse me of such a thing? You are lower than a snake's belly to suggest that" etc.

It features the same mix of moral high ground, sermonizing, accusations of immorality. The difference being that the condemnation is of the person who dared to make the accusation, and the vaunting of self is not explicitly stated, rather the accused is using righteous indignation to lead the listener/reader towards an assumption of good character...

Does that also fall under the category of unnecessary sermon? Is that something that an innocent person would do?

Thank you!

Me2l said...

Corruption is not limited to the Democrats. There is just as much corruption in the Republican party.

Research into the Bush administration will confirm that. BTW, that administration had its own major email scandal.

Me2l said...

To clarify, my reply was meant for anon on July 5, @8:46

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Hello Peter,

I've followed your blog for a few years, I find your work fascinating and useful.

The "sermon" concept is interesting and made me think of something - I wondered if this scenario is also related:
What if the person claiming they were wrongly accused also verbally attacks/maligns the accuser/lawyer/police officer? "How could you say that? What kind of person are you to accuse me of such a thing? You are lower than a snake's belly to suggest that" etc.

It features the same mix of moral high ground, sermonizing, accusations of immorality. The difference being that the condemnation is of the person who dared to make the accusation, and the vaunting of self is not explicitly stated, rather the accused is using righteous indignation to lead the listener/reader towards an assumption of good character...

Does that also fall under the category of unnecessary sermon? Is that something that an innocent person would do?


Good question

Answer: no, but in a specific context

Here is why:

A falsely accused person looks at the accuser as a fool. Yet, if it continues, such as a personal attack, the dynamic changes.

The innocent:

"I didn't do it" is very strong. If the accusation continues, the innocent might say, "You need a new job" but does not feel the need to preach.

The topic of the 'sermon' is essential.

The declaration of something as "moral" when no such is warranted, *unnecessary* reveals the weakness.

I wonder how many understand this at a higher level.

Peter