Monday, August 15, 2016

US Olympic Swimmer Statement Analyzed

Here is an abbreviated lesson into analysis profiling.  Analysis looks to not only conclude truth or deception, but it recognizes that as we speak we reveal:

Our priorities;
Our background
Our experiences
Our personality traits.  

This is the basis for profiling in Statement Analysis.  

The rule to follow is:

We do Statement Analysis first, and once complete, we may profile.  

Ryan Locate reported that he and fellow US Swim team members were robbed at gunpoint.  Officials spent much time denying this saying it was "absolutely not true" using the word "absolutely" to emphasize this denial.  Officials also claim that the swimmers' stories are not adding up.  

 Lochte reported that they were robbed by police, or those posing as police.  
Question:  Is his statement truthful?

Profiling:  What does his statement tell us about himself?

I.  The Statement 
II.  The Statement Analyzed 

III.  Analysis Conclusion 

“We got pulled over, in the taxi, and these guys came out with a badge, a police badge, no lights, no nothing just a police badge and they pulled us over. They pulled out their guns, they told the other swimmers to get down on the ground — they got down on the ground. I refused, I was like we didn’t do anything wrong, so — I’m not getting down on the ground.
“And then the guy pulled out his gun, he cocked it, put it to my forehead and he said, ‘Get down,’ and I put my hands up, I was likewhatever.’ He took our money, he took my wallet — he left my cell phone, he left my credentials."

II.  Statement Analyzed 
We got pulled over, in the taxi, and these guys came out with a badge, a police badge, no lights, no nothing just a police badge and they pulled us over. 
a.  The first thing we notice is that the statement began with the pronoun "we" instead of the pronoun "I";
Statements that begin with the pronoun "I" are likely to contain (statistically) reliable information as the subject (writer/speaker) is psychologically putting himself into the statement.  Statistically, the reliability is reduced by beginning with "we."  We must now view the context of "we" (unity) to see if it is consistently used throughout.  

"We" shows the need to share.  It can be truthful (they shared a common experience) or it could be the need to share guilt, as in a cover story for something else where teammates are aiding him.  
Here, context is that he was with members of the US Swimming team when pulled over and robbed.  By beginning with the pronoun "we", he is not only beginning the statement with himself included ("we" = unity/cooperation/psychological connection) but he is accurate to context.  If he alone was robbed, this might be different.  The analyst should be thinking at this point, 'so far, so good...' with an open mind as to where the statement will take him. 

"We" can be unity, but the unity can be the sharing of something other than experience:  



b.  Next notice the past tense verb "got" continues the verbal commitment to a past tense event.  This is appropriate. 
c.  We come to our first problematic point:  "these guys" is interesting:  "these" shows that psychologically, the subject shows an intensity or closeness to them; something expected in a robbery where he would have felt personally threatened which is now something we look for.  "These" must also be explored for knowledge of the gunman or gunmen prior to this encounter. 

That they are "guys" is specific language which avoids saying "police" or "officers" or "cops" or even "fakes" and "gunmen."  This is not expected.  

It is also not expected language from one who has been robbed.  They are not "men", nor are they even "criminals" or 4 letter words.  Hence, "guys" is language that is not expected and sometimes used in casual, social situations.  
d.  "with a badge, a police badge" is consistent with the lack of commitment to the assailants being genuine police officers.  He asserts "badges" to be specific, with an additional detail, "police badges" for emphasis.  

"Badge" is now sensitive to him.  


It could be because it is false, or it could be that it is consistent with one who may even be defending himself and the others, in a deception, who is embarrassed at being fooled.  However, how likely is it that we might experience embarrassment over being fooled in the context of an armed robbery in a dangerous city?
e.  "no lights" reports what he did not see. 

 This is a true "negation" and very sensitive. That which is reported in the negative is to be given an elevation of importance by the analyst.  

We must note that "lights" in a statement is often related to sexual activity.  Please keep this in mind as we progress. 

 Question:  Why the need to tell us what he did not see?
Answer:  Because of context:  "police" did not pull him over, but "guys" did and this shows that he expected to see lights on.

This may be something we feel the need to explain when we are trying to defend ourselves from being fooled, but consider the context:  lethal force.  

True lethal threat leaves little room for embarrassment.  

f.  "no nothing" shows his expectation was for something else included in his description.    This is an indicator that the robbers did not introduce themselves as police.  It is expected that there will be some form of communication, even if with more identification, uniforms, speech, etc, that lets the subject "confirm" in his mind that they are genuine police. 

He is going to lengths in a violent exchange to 'prove' they presented as cops.  This may be need to persuade. 
g.  "just" is a comparative word and only works when a subject is thinking or speaking about something else.  In his sentence, he confirms why the need for "just" is given:  he is comparing the expected response from law enforcement with what he both experienced and did not see (lights).  This is consistent in language but continues the theme to attempt to persuade that he was genuinely fooled by them.

Consider:  this is not a concern in a life or death situation.  That they pulled guns and made demands is far more important than personal embarrassment, even for a narcissist.  
"we got pulled over" begins with the pulling over, but he then goes 'out of sequence' with:
"they pulled us over."
When something is out of sequence it is an indication that it is only out of sequence for us; not for the subject.  The key is in the wording.  Once we understand, it is no longer out of sequence. 

a.  it is out of sequence because it did not happen;
b.  it is out of sequence because it did happen, but there is missing information that we need to understand.  
"we got pulled over" is passive.
"they pulled us over" is active.
Passivity is used to conceal/withhold identify and/or responsibility. 
"We got pulled over" does not tell us who is responsible for this. 

Instead, it shows the need to emphasize plurality.   
This needs conclusion. This suggests embarrassment in explanation where being held up by gunpoint is nothing embarrassing; it is terrorizing.  Terror is not embarrassing.  

 He is defending his position by 'the badges, police badges' and the repetition of badges.  It is very sensitive to him.  We need this to resolve itself in order to understand him. 

They pulled out their guns, they told the other swimmers to get down on the ground 
He now distances himself from his team.  They are "the other swimmers" which 
a.  presupposes he is a swimmer too
b.  breaks the unity of "we" in his statement. This is a very powerful reality for the subject.  
Question:  What has caused the disruption of verbal unity for the subject? 
He did not say "they told us to get down on the ground..."
He does not make us wait long to learn why there is no longer a "we" connection between him and the swimmers. They are "other" from him.  Note "told" is consistent communicative language.  If they had "asked" we would have had to confront a linguistic signal of possible deception.  

— they got down on the ground. 

What happened to "the other swimmers" and what happened to the subject are different.

I refused, I was like we didn’t do anything wrong, so — I’m not getting down on the ground.
a.  "We to I" increases importance.
b.  "I was like" is to avoid telling us what he said.  This is missing information.  

"I refused" is strong.  No matter the context, this is something we are likely to learn was true, whether it was in the street as described, or to someone personal in the city.  This is very likely to have happened.  

There is no more unity with him and "the other" swimmers.  

We must consider that if something happened to the subject, it may be that the same event did not happen, as reported, to the others. 

Did something happen to him, alone, where he is now bringing others into it?

The interviews with the others should prove fascinating.  
Question:  Why the need to justify his refusal?
Answer:  It is very likely, statistically, that the subject and the swimmers did not break any known laws, nor violate even traffic laws in any measurable way that warranted being pulled over by police; "laws" specific to the context.  Consider then:  

It may also indicate that he did something "wrong" but not technically against the law.  This may fit with what was later reported as being intoxicated and fearful of getting in trouble with US Olympics.  
Here he now breaks the straight forward past tense language:   
c.  "I'm not getting down on the ground" is to break off the strong past tense language and is not reliable.   

Note the body posture of getting down on the ground given after "no lights" entered his statement.  
Here is a major problem:  The use of "the" without introducing a single gunmen.  

“And then the guy pulled out his gun, he cocked it, put it to my forehead 

Please note:  "And then" shows passage of time.  

Next note "the" guy indicates someone previously known,
Then note "guy" is social language, soft and ill fitting here.

Chronological Issue: 

The guns were already pulled out.  Now he tells us something different. 

With social language "guys", we must now wonder: did something happen that is similar to this event but placed in a different context?
and he said, ‘Get down,’ and I put my hands up, I was like ‘whatever.’ 
To believe this, we must consider:
a.  "I was like" = missing information; avoiding telling us what he said
b.  He insulted with "whatever" a gunman pointing a gun at his forehead. 

"I was like 'whatever' is dismissive.  Would you be dismissive to someone with a gun?

This is another indication that the subject knows or has met the assailant.  He is not afraid to insult him with a dismissive attitude.  

Remember:  "like" means he is avoiding telling us what he said.  It is missing information.  

Why would the subject be unafraid to stand up to an armed gunman in a dangerous city where reports of violence have been the norm?

He took our money, he took my wallet — he left my cell phone, he left my credentials.
If we separate him from the "other" swimmers, these sentences might make sense.

Was the subject, himself, robbed earlier while in an embarrassing or compromising situation?
The subject sees himself as distinctly different than the other swimmers. We should also.  
The subject may also see himself as more important than the other swimmers in a context in which all were victimized.  This is unusual and unexpected. 
In the news report, it is interesting to learn that after this happened he called his mother first and she reported that the criminals took their wallets (plural) and did not single out her son's wallet.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Something happened to the subject that is embarrassing  and may include robbery, but it is not as described in the statement.    
Here are the issues:

1.  He shows prior knowledge of the individual.
2.  He breaks chronological order with the topic of pulling out of guns.
3.  He shows embarrassment rather than fear in dangerous circumstance.  This is not in line with the threat as described. He was not afraid of the gunman, but insults him with "whatever", which is dismissive. 

4.  He linguistically separates himself from his teammates. 

5.  He changed to present tense language from that which had been consistently past tense language. 

6.  He reported characterization of communication ("I was like") rather than what was said.  This indicates missing information. 

The subject is reliable in part, but uses socially linked language and was unafraid of the gunman.  He used the social "guy" and introduced the specific gunman with the article "the" showing prior acquaintance.  We are likely to learn that he is covering up something about himself within all of this.  

He thinks of something that they did but it was not "wrong", that is, to be arrested for.  This may be the embarrassing and perhaps compromising situation where he may have experienced the robbery, for himself.  "Wrong" could be immoral, humiliating, embarrassing, against rules, but not always against the law to the point where police would intervene. 

He does not tell us accurately what was said, but only "like" what was said.  

We get insight into his character:  
The subject is also revealing his own feelings about being embarrassed, his teammates and their reactions. He has a strong need to separate himself from the others and protect his image.

His first contact after what happened is his mother; not the police, not his coach, nor anyone else.  She may have a very strong influence over him.  

He also may be worried about violating, not the laws of Rio so much, but ethics and standards of the US Olympic team but his is in need of protecting his reputation more so.  
The subject makes quite a bit of distance between himself and the other swimmers that is more than just in robbery.  Narcissism in top athletes is not unusual.  He has a need to portray himself in a very positive light, including justifying his actions even if fabrication.

His story portrays himself heroically.  This speaks to personality and even in a fabrication, this need may be evidenced.  

 By doing so, he reduces the notion of being brave to that of possible foolishness because she shows himself as embarrassed.  Yet, even in fiction, this is how he sees himself. 

 Extra words give us additional information.  That he showed a need to explain or "prove" that the criminals were not police is seen not only in the additional information, but in the sensitivity of repetition.  This sensitivity may be deception but whether in deception or reality, the subject's own personality comes out in the words he chooses.  
The subject did not tell us accurately what he said to the criminals, only what he was "like."

His need to explain his actions (including what did not happen with "lights") is important enough to add it in.  What took place may be related to sexual activity

He also shows an acute need to protect his image regardless.  This is particularly seen in the context of having been personally threatened.  

I would not be surprised to hear the others have a very different description and describe not resisting the criminals because they had a different reason including possible:

  This was social sexual event gone wrong ending with a robbery; it may have substance abuse elements.  

If the taxi cab part is fabricated, this may indicate the subject's dominance in that he would get them to say they were too intoxicated to identify the taxi or the street.   

The interviews in the United States may prove more reliable than in Rio where violence, corruption and humiliation have been daily headlines. Brazil had 85,000 military and police present because crime was so severe.  

If you would like training in Statement Analysis to discern truth from deception, please contact us through Hyatt Analysis Services and begin training at home, or to host a seminar.  


Anonymous said...

came out
no lights
pulled out their guns

Sounds like they got robbed by, um, escorts?

Bobcat said...


Peter, would this oddly sequenced description fit into what you describe as "parenthetical"?

DB: "It, it was a, uh, I mean it was a very normal day, um, eh, at the beginning of it, and, I woke up at around 4:30, um, went and, went and hit the gym up pretty early, and um, just, you know you never really, you never really think about those kinds of things at all. You never think about, y-, you don’t really walk through life going this could be, ah, an, ah, an altering day. Right, you just, and you never walk through life going this could be my last day, um but hopefully you live through life with that kind of mindset. And um, and so I, I left for the gym, and, got a workout in, and came back, walked in my house, and, and found Amanda, and honestly, um, I, I think it was by the grace of god that I had no idea what had happened."

Amy Smith said...

On the subject of DB, l left this comment on the Ramsey post as well:

Someone sent me a link to a subreddit on Justice For Amanda Grace

This post really has struck me and I have questions and concerns about the sudden death of a teenage member of Davey's Resonate Church. (2 Resonate Church deaths in 8 months)

There are links to a some news stories about JK's disappearance in Oct. 2015 . He was found safe the next day in Chicago. He died suddenly on July 8, 2016. In lieu of flowers, his obituary requests donations be sent to Davey's church. As far as I can tell, Davey or Resonate have not mentioned JK's passing at all. JK seemed to be close to Amanda and wrote a post on the day of her murder:

On JK's guest page, there are a lot of photos, including one of Davey hugging JK after his baptism at Resonate.

I found an interested tweet by JK's brother

Also, Davey is doing a sermon series now on death.
"Today, we buried my brother, Joey Kellogg. Joey, your death was not in vain. We will avenge you. We will fight. We will act. We love you."

Hey Jude said...

Amy - Davey spoke about Joey Kellogg's death on July 12th - 'FORINDY Week 1 – Hello from the Other Side' - it is twenty-one minutes in.

Hey Jude said...

Forgot the link:

Amy Smith said...


Amy Smith said...

DB: "It was almost like reliving the morning I found Amanda..." on getting the call from JK's dad who is a longtime Resonate Church board member

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

An eight-month-old baby in Georgia is dead after her mother and her mother's boyfriend beat her with a belt, according to police.

Shavone Whitehead, and her boyfriend, Edward F. Wilson have both been charged with cruelty to children and aggravated battery, Brookhaven police said Sunday.

Their charges could be upgraded pending the results of an autopsy of baby Kamonie Love Whitehead.'The detective handling this case has been in law enforcement 24 years and he has said this is probably one of the worst incidents of child abuse or child cruelty that he has seen,' Officer Carlos Nino, with the Brookhaven Police Department, told WSB Radio.

The baby was taken to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta Egleston after the couple allegedly beat her with a belt as punishment.

Kamonie was put on a ventilator to breathe and had injuries to her legs, buttocks, chin and arms as well as fractured ribs, a hemorrhage and potential skull fractures.

The girl later succumb to her injuries.

Initially, Whitehead denied beating her daughter but later changed her story and said she did beat the baby on the legs and buttocks as punishment, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported.

On the day of the incident, Wilson placed a call to 911 after he said Kamonie was making 'loud gurgling noise'.

He then went to check on her and she was unresponsive, officials said.

Whitehead began doing CPR on the baby to try and save her but eventually she was taken to the hospital where she died.

Before Kamonie's death, her father, Damarrio McCoy, told Channel 2 Action News he had hoped for a normal life for his daughter.

'I want her to be able to do things like any other parent would,' McCoy said. 'You wanna see your kid grow. I have all my wants, but I don't know God's will. I don't know God's will.'

He asked for people to pray for him and also said he hopes he sees justice for his daughter.

I am simply lost for words.

She was only 8 F****** months old and they beat her with a F****** belt until she died!

I curse them that all things agonizing, slow burning excruciating pain and interesting diseases that eat them alive that no pain relief will ever ease will fall upon them till they die in the most excruciating agony ever possible.


Anonymous said...

For a better society:

Drivers Ed - you don't pass, you don't drive.

Marriage Ed - you don't pass, you don't marry.

Parent Ed - you don't pass, baby doesn't go home with you.
You can take baby home after all adults that will be living with baby pass.
If you don't even TRY to pass, you don't have any more babies.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I missed it. Been any reports of DOJ investigating chicago blm crime epidemic? Or is the violence epidemic ok w/ DOJ? And whats with this: Royheem Deshawn Deeds? Aint heard a word from DOJ about "Long History of Criminality'. That phrase is common. Violent criminals w/ a long history of criminality free to injure and kill. Ever watch Judgement at Nuremberg?

Nic said...

@ Tania,

Peter Hyatt said (paraphrasing)

How do you discipline your baby?

You don't discipline a baby.


Peter, I did a search on your blog to confirm your quote and found the "Judge Gorcyca" article you posted/analyzed.

Here is a satisfying update (with jumps to results of mtgs/complaints/defence !):

Judge Lisa Gorcyca guilty of misconduct in child custody case

"Contrary to the chilling impact Judge Gorcyca contends this case will have on judges across the state, this is not a case that stands for the proposition that judges cannot employ stern language or make difficult decisions from the bench in contentious cases. It is a disciplinary action which stands for the singular proposition that if a judge is going to use the inherent power of contempt, the ultimate 'tool in the toolbox' after years of 'frustration,' the judge may wish to consult the owner’s manual to make sure that she or he is using the tool properly before employing one of the 34 penultimate tools of inherent judicial power, a contempt finding, to deprive any individual, or children in this case, of their liberty."

Nic said...

Here is the formal complaint filed against Judge Gorcyca:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

What time has WSHNGTN scheduled speech to address the massive Milwaukee crime wave? AG scheduling speech to address the violent career criminals? Has S. Rawlings Blake been contacted for advice?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

DOJ: DO YOUR JOB. Support sheriff David Clarke.
RT News reports CNN"s edited interview w/sister of blk criminal killed by blk police offices in Milwaukee. She Continued to incite the blk mob to BURN DOWN THE SUBURBS after telling them to stop destroying their own area. Isnt incitement to arson a criminal offense. DOJ do your job.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
came out
no lights
pulled out their guns

Sounds like they got robbed by, um, escorts?
August 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM

This is a good comment and a possibility. He addressed "the guy" using the article "the" though no single gunman was previously identified.

Next, "guys" is social language. He should have said "criminals, gunman, ****, and so on...

I wonder if something took place with a gun (s) but it was in an embarrassing setting so it was moved to the taxi.

Jo said...

Police have found little evidence so far to support their accounts, and say the swimmers were unable to provide key details in police interviews.

A police official with knowledge of the investigation told The Associated Press that police cannot find their taxi driver or witnesses. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

"While it is true that my teammates and I were the victims of a robbery...."

Statement Analysis Blog said...


I think the anonymous point is correct: he was robbed in an embarrassing and compromising position; not in a taxi cab. Perhaps by an escort.

News is saying that he is on US soil.

This may be a case where the subject changes the location of a situation to protect himself.

I added more about the "no lights" in relation to sex, and had already shown "guy" to be social language. This may be a same sex encounter, though I am not certain.

I think he may have been robbed in a brothel, heteror or same sex, and got his teammates to cover for him.

He is narcissistic and the biggest indicator is that he has a need to separate himself from his teammates. I should do the same in my thinking.

His "i was like" is missing info. He showed no fear of being shot with the dismissive "whatever" that confirms that he knew "the" guy before hand.

This explains why he separated his wallet from their money, too.

Very complex!


Statement Analysis Blog said...

To revisit Anonymous post:

Anonymous said...
came out
no lights
pulled out their guns

Sounds like they got robbed by, um, escorts?
August 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM

I've added your theory with one change: I think it was singular, not "they."

I could be wrong but here is why:

He separated himself from them in the account with a lot of emphasis.

Also, this may be same sex, which you might be suggesting anyway. If so, if he is not outed, and is homosexual, it may be why he didn't go to coaches or US Olympic or police but to his mother for personal comfort.

Those who say he did not go to police because police may have been involved: this is a legitimate answer. This notion is appropriate but it may not fit because he did now show fear of the gunman but was disrespectful to him

"I was like whatever..." is to be dismissive.

Anonymous: your post is short but it may be right on target. Choose a name!


Jo said...

I felt from his statement that the taxi piece was a lie. No mention of the taxi driver being robbed or where he was during the robbery.
I also think someone may have set him up with "a guy" that could get him something and that guy turned on him. My feeling is he was somewhere he shouldn't have been or doing something he shouldn't have been doing and needed a cover story.

Jay said...

You are absolutely BRILLIANT

Bingo3 said...

"these guys" reminds me of Blackburn talking about the so-called robbers who randomly gunned down his petite pregnant wife for a few hundred dollars and a laptop. He sounds a little bit too connected to them. Lochte is covering something. Also, did the white hair not get him the attention he so needed. ha!

From CNN article"
"But questions remain.Judge Keyla Blanc De Cnop said police still need more time to assess whether the US swimmers provided false information and if they filled a false crime report.
The judge said the athletes' behavior upon arrival at the Olympic Village -- combined with the inconsistencies in their statements -- led police to question the veracity of their claim."

Bingo3 said...

Records retrieved by investigators from the X-ray machine through which the athletes passed in the Village also showed that the men were carrying all the belongings which they had claimed in sworn statements to police had been stolen.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Peter, you were so spot on! wow!

Tania Cadogan said...

US swimmer Ryan Lochte flew home from the Olympics - just before a Brazilian judge asked for his passport to be 'confiscated' over his alleged mugging.

Cops want to question Lochte and team-mate James Feigen about 'apparent inconsistencies' in their claims about the robbery , according to the Brazilian newspaper O Globo newspaper.

Lochte claimed that they – and two other members of the US team, Gunnar Bentz and Jack Conger – were robbed at gunpoint in the early hours of Sunday by a man claiming to be a police officer while taking a taxi from a party back to the athletes’ village.

Police have so far been unable to corroborate their accounts.

The taxi driver has not been found and no witnesses have come forward.

And there has been conflicting reports about what happened during the incident.

On Sunday, Olympic chiefs denied reports – attributed to Lochte’s mother – that a mugging had taken place.

Then later in the day, the US team confirmed that there had been an incident.

Lochte went on to relate his version of events in a dramatic TV interview.

“We got pulled over, in the taxi, and these guys came out with a badge, a police badge, no lights, no nothing just a police badge and they pulled us over,” the 32-year-old swimmer told NBC’s Today programme.

“They pulled out their guns, they told the other swimmers to get down on the ground – they got down on the ground.

"I refused, I was like we didn’t do anything wrong, so I’m not getting down on the ground.

“And then the guy pulled out his gun, he cocked it, put it to my forehead and he said: ‘Get down’, and I put my hands up, I was like ‘whatever’.

Welcome back to Gainesville, @caelebdressel! We are so proud of you!#GatorsAlways #Gold
— Gators Olympics (@GatorsOlympics) 15 August 2016

"He took our money, he took my wallet, he left my cell phone, he left my credentials.”

He later told reporters that he did not immediately inform the police because he was afraid he might get in trouble.

Lochte’s lawyer, Jeff Ostrow, said there was no question the robbery occurred and that Lochte had 24-hour security after the incident.

“This happened the way he described it,” Ostrow said.

Rio police said they had not received an official complaint, but launched an investigation based on the reports of the incident given to media in Brazil, and the US.

They then sought a judicial order to prevent the US swimmers leaving the country while the case was ongoing, according to Brazilian media.

Lochte’s lawyers have said he had returned to the US.

It is unclear whether the other three swimmers are still in Rio.

Judge Keyla Blanc, of the Special Tribunal for Fans and Major Events, issued a search and arrest warrant with the aim of finding Feigen’s cellphone to locate where the swimmers were at the time of the alleged robbery, O Globo reported.

The US team spokesman, Patrick Sandusky, confirmed police wanted more information from the alleged mugging victims.

“There was no effort to detain anyone, but police did have further questions," he said.

"It is a matter for our consulate and US citizen services and we will continue to cooperate with all involved,” he said.

O Globo published CCTV of Lochte arriving back at the Olympic village shortly after the incident, but reported some concerns over the timing of the robbery which apparently did not tally with the footage of when they got back afterwards.

Anonymous said...

Why implicate the police, either real of imposters, as this would bring higher official concern and scrutiny. All unnecessarily. Why not just offer mugging by unknowns?

Skeptical said...

I think the reason Ryan Lochte called his Mom is so she could help him fabricate a believable story. He doesn't have the ability to come up with a coherent one on his own. Have you seen his interviews over the years?

Anonymous said...

Even so. If he's doing something that could've been embarassing if it got out then why include police in the fabrication? Just invited deeper scrutiny doing so. Unless he's really dumb. Maybe.

Anonymous said...

Simone biles physique appears artificially enhanced. Cartilage growth of ears and nose from steroid? Young female figure skaters would routinely use hormones to retard breast growth for performance enhancement. Female bodybuilders using steroids have same facial similarity. Ear and nose cartilage growth plus the male like muscle physique.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous: your post is short but it may be right on target. Choose a name!
August 17, 2016 at 12:26 PM"

That was me, Bobcat.

The usage (leakage?) of multiple words related to male anatomy and "came out" were glaring to me.

I almost didn't see your post, but decided to follow up on this post after seeing the news this evening. Thank you for the acknowledgement!

Anonymous said...

Well I see that Ryan has changed some significant details in the most recent version of his story along with stating he would "never" make up such a tale. Methinks his trunks are starting to smoke a bit.

afv said...

I watched the video of him giving his account and he has a long pause before he says "taxi." It's also "we got pulled over in our taxi", not "the taxi." He shows a very strong microexpression of disgust right before he says the word "taxi." I do not think he was in a taxi. He may have been someone's car though.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

When there are reliable statements within an overall deceptive statement, the reliability sometimes is solved...for example,

someone did pull a gun, someone did tell him to lie down...

but not as described.

This should prove fascinating.

I added the missed change of verb tense.

Bobcat, very good.

I was so zoned on the profile that I neglected two critical points: the change of verb tense, but also the chronology of pulling the gun.

As time has gone by, I have thought more about the social aspect of the word "guy" and wonder if this swimmer got himself into a humiliating posture, was robbed and got his teammates to help cover him.

With the other swimmers, we should learn more!


Bobcat said...

Article including extended original statement AND a statement from the swimmers attorney.

BallBounces said...

Breaking news...

BallBounces said...

Asked by Matt Lauer if he had made the robbery story up, Lochte denied the charge.

"He stopped me quickly and strongly denied that," Lauer said. "He said, 'That's absolutely not the case. I wouldn't make up a story like this, nor would the others. As a matter of fact, we all feel it makes us look bad. We're victims in this and we're happy that we're safe.'"

Lots to work with here!

BallBounces said...

absolutely -- an intensifier which weakens the assertion
I wouldn't make up as story like this...-- unreliable denial
... nor would the others -- Continued separating himself from the others
As a matter of fact we all feel it makes us look bad ... Need to persuade; how does being robbed make you look bad?
We're victims in this -- this was the clincher for me; if you were robbed at gunpoint, there is no need to persuade or assert that you were a victim!

The breaking news is now coming in thick and fast...

afv said...

The other thing I thought was strange about the statement was it made me wonder how the police pulled the car over if there were "no lights, no nothing just a police badge." If there was a siren, he wouldn't have said "no nothing." Plus, do police even use sirens without lights? As others have pointed out, it's also very strange that he never mentions the taxi driver.

BallBounces said...

afv -- He didn't actually say they were in a car.

BallBounces said...

We're victims in this -- this what? This *story*

BallBounces said...

Surveillance video

afv said...


He does say, "We got pulled over in the taxi"

Bingo3 said...

From New York Times:
Conflicting Account
“There was no robbery in the way it was reported by the athletes,” Fernando Veloso, the Civil Police chief, said at a news conference. Instead, officials said, the taxi carrying the swimmers stopped at a Shell gas station on the Avenue of the Americas around 6 a.m. One or more of the swimmers vandalized a gas station bathroom, and a security guard brandished a gun, police said. The swimmers gave money to the manager before leaving, witnesses said.

Reliable statements within an overall deceptive statement indeed!