Monday, October 10, 2016

Advanced Analysis: The Hina Clause

"Hina Clause and the Double Left"
by Peter Hyatt 

Universally shared, the color blue is employed by various schools of statement analysis, having originated with LSI's "SCAN" system.  This color is seen in application, as "very high" or "the highest" level of sensitivity within an open statement.  

In Advanced Analysis, this high level of sensitivity indicates possible statement contamination.  

In a murder case, a skeptical detective handed a statement to an analyst investigator asking to have it analyzed through Hyatt Analysis Services. 

The statement was sent back with the conclusion:  "Contaminated." 

The original investigator asked that a second opinion be granted, urging that there was no contamination within the statement; that is, the subject was not interviewed before writing out his statement. 

I did not hear the denial, but upon re-analyzing it, more carefully, I sent it back stating it was, indeed, contaminated, whether or not the investigator knows or admits it. 

The investigator admitted he wanted to 'test' the analysis.  

The contamination was seen in its extreme sensitivity to the location of the bodies, as if the subject (writer) of the statement was both repeatedly questioned about where the bodies were found, and the subject experienced acute trauma from discovering the bodies of his loved ones.  Rather than indicate guilt, it showed that the subject was literally writing answers to questions he had been repeatedly asked.  

Please note that in general, a contaminated statement should be set aside and not analyzed.  However, in working with advanced techniques and only with highly trained experienced analysts, some content analysis can be successfully done.  This should never be done alone, however, and only in team analysis.  

When we meet with a skeptic, particularly in law enforcement, there is a better way to 'test' the science; a powerful and personal way. 

If the skeptic is willing, he is asked to write out a one to one and one half page statement about his last day off, with the caveat that his statement will reveal information of a private, sensitive nature and may even be a touch embarrassing to him.  

To date, those who have submitted statements have gone on to formal training.  One female investigator graciously donated her 'skeptic statement' for us to use in training.  It is invaluable to students.  

In the original murder statement, there was an excess of "blue" within the statement, to the point that suggested repeated questions prior to the writing of the statement.  

The Hina Clause and Experienced Analysts

We sometimes find well trained analyst/investigators saying, "I think this entire sentence should be in blue!", rather than a single word.  

              Their analytical instincts are serving them well. 

We note that sentences beginning with the word, "And" give an indication of being 'tied' to the previous sentence, hence, some missing information.  It is not suppressed information, but simply a mild jump as the sentence preceding "And" is somehow related.  We explore, not so much for withheld information (deliberate) but simply 'more detail.'

However, in some cases, the following sentence tells us "why" the previous sentence was made is akin to the Greek word "hina", or 'why' ("because"), without using the typical, "so, since, therefore, because, to" and so on. 

When the analyst feels that the entire sentence should be highlighted as an explanation of "why" in an open statement (a statement in which no explanation of 'why' has been called for), it is akin to the "hina clause" where the sentence is used to explain the reason why the previous sentence was made. 

For the sake of clarity within a statement, we sometimes choose a single word from the sentence to trigger the knowledge of sensitivity in the analysis, though in some cases, the only appropriate choice is the sentence itself.

"I went to the convenience store.  I had to go there, I had run out of Advil."  

Here in the first sentence, in a 'stop and rob' theft, the subject reliably told us where he went. The structure tells us that it is very likely that the subject did go to the convenience store (though in advanced work, we will have to learn when he went there, quite possibly).  

He also felt the need to tell us why he went to the convenience store, though no one had asked him 'why.'

If the analyst is only looking for the key wording, "so, since, therefore, because, to...", he or she may have missed something critical:

The subject feels the need to explain why he was at the convenience store even though he was not asked.  This indicates:

The subject (writer) anticipates being asked, "Why did you go there?" and wants to answer the question before it is asked, part of an overall "need to explain" or "need to persuade"  that is very sensitive.  This need to "beat him to the punch", so to speak, suggests to the analyst the need to explore:

Did the subject have a very different reason for going to the convenience store?

"I went to the convenience store.  I had to go there, I ran out of Advil.

We note "I ran" in blue, as the reason why. This reduces having too much blue (we must never dull the effect upon us).   Not only this, but we also note the element of choice with "I had to..." for possible coercion elements.  

The Hina Clause can be, for effect, highlighted in blue, or the analyst may choose one or two words lest the paper appear 'overloaded' with blue highlighting.  Blue is rare and is only used in the two highest levels of sensitivity:  the reason why (in an open statement) and the departure.  

In departure, it is the unnecessary verbal connection that we highlight showing that the brain is not 'moving forward' but is 'stuck' at the point of departure. 

A very important principle that shows up in murder cases:  "The Double Left" (both used unnecessarily as departure:  psychologically, the subject 'can't get away' from the crime scene).  

The Hina Clause is often caught by experienced analysts, and missed by beginners.  In the case of the "Double Left" it is important, visibly, to highlight only a single word (or two) so that the visual impact of a "Double Left" grabs the analyst's attention, as he must now:

Look specifically in between the two lefts for critical information;

Draw a line between the Double Left and the Hina Clause and carefully examine the information in between.  

There, within these parameters, will be the information the investigator seeks, and precisely where the Interviewer is going to aim his questions.  

The Hina Clause and Double Left are frequently found in murder cases in the open statement, allowing the investigator to go into the interviewer already 'knowing' not only that the subject did it, but when he did it, perhaps how he did it, and even why he did it.  (Advanced Content Analysis)  

For those who wish training in Statement Analysis, besides hosting seminars, we offer a thorough, at home course in analysis, and upon successful completion, a large course on Advanced Analysis.  

Enrollment in both include 12 months of ongoing e-support and permission to join several live trainings offered monthly at reasonable tuition costs and payments. The live training is also accredited with the University of Maine's Continuing Educational Units for professional licenses. 

Accreditation levels include successful completion and minimum live hours training (60 hours and 120 hours) as well as professional recommendations. 

For advanced accreditation, a thesis paper must gain approval status by three professionals, including federal and state law enforcement.  

To enroll today, see Hyatt Analysis Services and join a growing team of professionals from around our nation, the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries.  Please note that the course is in English only, as advanced analysis, in particular, should be done in original language.  

In an upcoming article, I will highlight the "Double Left" in analysis urging analysts and readers to pay particular attention to this unique level of sensitivity.  

Psychologically, the subject 'struggles' to 'leave' this area, but there is something so acutely sensitive at that point that it is as if he knows he must leave, lest he be 'caught', yet the concern is so great, that it is not just "withheld" information. 

It is not just "withheld" information.  

It is not just "concealed" information.

It is suppressed information, taking the greatest effort to withhold it from his statement.  

The Hina Clause should not be missed (which is why analysis 'software' cannot always be trusted) due to the absence of our typical words used.  

When the Hina Clause is identified, and it is in a murder statement, and there is the "Double Left", the content analysis increase will allow the investigators to "see" what the subject saw, and even experience the emotions the subject felt as he worked his statement from experiential memory, including the pressure of self suppression, which goes against human nature's natural inclination of communication, and many years of 'cause and effect' in processing.  


Bobcat said...

Is this a double left?

"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 altar-ing/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"

Davey Blackburn 4/24/2016

Anonymous said...

Good question, bobcat

Nic said...

went, and went and hit the gym

three dropped pronouns
DB alludes to working out, but he does not say he worked out. He is "away" at the gym, but he does not say he worked out.

you never really, you never really think

you is distancing
never (x2) sensitive, does not mean not
really (x2) sensitive, weakens what (you) think

those kinds of things at all
those distancing
at all is extra wording, in the negative, and used to persuade,

never think
this is the third reference to thinking in the negative about "those kind of things"
he thinks of those (kinds) of things

pace is slow, describing the pace of time.
he has thought about those sorts of things for a while

altering day
comparative word to describe in the future how his day will be different
speaks to a point in time, (day), rather than, vaguely i.e., life changes

Right, you just, and you never walk through life going this could be my last day,
and - missing information
just - dependent word, another thought is in play
never doesn't mean "you" don't
altering day has changed to "my last day"
pronoun, you changes to "my", change in reality

and you never walk through life going this could be my last day
Incomplete thought. DB conceals what his last day was.



PattyCake said...

Thank you Peter!

tania cadogan said...

"I went to the convenience store. I had to go there, I ran out of Advil."

I read the sentence and subconsciously added the word because
The subject is answering the unasked question which would be why did you go to the store?""

It could read as "I went to the convenience store because I had to go there. I ran out of Advil."


"I went to the convenience store. I had to go there because I ran out of Advil."

Does this fit in with the Hina clause or am i not understanding it?

Thanks in advance Peter.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

I went to the convenience store. I had to go there, I ran out of Advil."

He chose that convenient store for a reason. He specifically targeted that convenience store. I would enquire if there were other convenience or drugs stores in his vicinity he could have purchased Advil.

Saying he "ran out" is extra wording/unnecessary and justifies a reason to be there. Saying "ran out" could described how he left the store/leakage.


Anonymous said...

Normally at work we talk about the latest news in the election. It was different today, the Monday after the leaked tape of Trump talking about grabbing womens' pussies. I had been looking forward to the usual fun office talk/discussion. Instead, it fell dead. None of the men were willing to talk, and it was bizarre how the topic seemed "forbidden" today. Ha ha! I don't get it! I know I'm naive. But why can't we talk about this?? Ha ha! I mean, it's just silliness, Trump saying crude stuff, so WHY IS IT FORBIDDEN as a topic of conversation???

Anonymous said...

I have a question. This is something that noone is talking about in the media or social media. I am not the brightest person, so let me ask the experts here: Am I correct in my deduction from viewing the video I have linked below about Clinton's defense of a child rapist that one of the most shocking things that occurred is that Hillary was allowed to take the wrong piece of evidence (the right piece had been lost by the crime lab), put it in her pocket, and travel across the country to New York to seek out a world renowned blood expert to "examine" the wrong piece of evidence in his basement with a magnifying glass, and that the result of this action was that her client who I read beat the girl into a coma and raped her was allowed to shorten his sentence from what would have been life in prison to a year a prison. I have not read a single comment on youtube or anywhere that makes note of this shocking fact that HIllary took the wrong piece of evidence, put it in her pocket, travelled across the country and had it examined by an expert in his basement with a magnifying glass!!!!!! Is this shocking or am I missing something?!?! Why does noone else notice that this may be one of the most shocking and appalling as well as illegal aspects of what Clinton did to defend her client?!?!

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton is pure evil:

Here is a video regarding her defense of a child molester. The victim was beaten into a 5-day coma, and Hillary ordered a psychiatric evaluation on the victim writing that the victim was "emotionally unstable" and "tended to romanticize and exaggerate sexual experiences". Really you evil witch?!?! Yeah that's pretty romantic being beaten into a coma!!!!

Hillary's defense of this child molester shows how very troubled the legal system itself it...Hillary Clinton used it like putty in her hands to create an outcome of pure evil.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a Hillary fan but any rape case unfortunately should be looked at in the context of what was common in the legal system at that time. Currently, there are still abhorrent practices followed by defense lawyers, and the victims are often/usually treated unfairly. Many rapes go unreported for those reasons. Unfortunately, all of that was even more common, or "standard" during the time of that trial.

The irony of this being a blog on SA and commenters frequently attack Hillary...yet don't seem willing to apply SA principles when Trump speaks, when almost anything he says is a goldmine of opportunity for SA. Additionally, bragging about sexual assaults on random women puts him into the category of "evil".

Anonymous said...

You say

"I'm not a Hillary fan but any rape case unfortunately should be looked at in the context of what was common in the legal system at that time."

Really?! Was it commonplace at the time for a lawyer to intentionally take the wrong piece of evidence and personally travel with it thousands of miles away in order to get a letter from a world renowned expert (based on the wrong piece of evidence) in order to free their Joe Schmoe hickvilles client who would have otherwise done life in prison for the brutal rape of a child? You would be hard-pressed to find any such example of someone going to such dishonest and extravagant extremes for a regular Joe Schmoe client in rural Arkensas or anywhere else in the country accused of a brutal child rape. That client was brilliantly served by Hillary in a most diabolical way that I am sure the Devil himself could not have done any better. What Hillary did was absolutely diabolical and goes far beyond the normal blame and shame of the victim commonplace in the legal system. And you know that. If you have a brain, you know that.

Her attempt to pathologize the victim (while commonplace in the legal system), writing of a victim who was RAPED AND BEATEN INTO A 5-DAY COMA that she is "mentally unstable" and "tends to romanticize and exaggerate sexual experiences" is more perverse than Donald Trumps comments and is almost as perverse as the rape itself. Hillary reached a new plateau of evil when she bent reality to such a perverse degree of describing being beaten into a 5-day coma from being brutally raped as "romanticizing a sexual experience". Those are the words (coming from a woman which makes it even sicker) of someone absolutely overtaken by evil. Those are the words that could come spilling out of the mouth of one of the Nazis most evil doctors. Those are the words of the devil. Donald Trump being a creep and playing alpha male doesn't compare. It doesn't compare because the words themselves hurt noone. You want to find other evidence on him fine, but him bragging of what he can supposedly do to women because he is famous to some idiot in a bus (had they not been publicized) hurt noone. What Hillary did is pure evil, and she laughed about it.

No other attorney would have gone to the lengths she did to free her guilty client, a child rapist from hicksville Arkansas...

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

The power of 'victimization' in the workplace. The majority of employees were AA female. A white supervisor stated in a joking manner,to the entire crew, that he doesnt like AA's. He was immediately removed. The dept is chaotic. Arguing, yelling,swearing and combative. The lowest performance imaginable. NONE of the AA females are removed for conduct or performance. This is where Liberal policies have brought US. Afraid & prohibited to correct problems based on demographics. Isnt that racism?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the name of the child rapist that Hillary got off is known. I wonder if he has reoffended. Child molesters aren't rehabilitated. Maybe he is on a sexual offender registry somewhere. That would be fuel for Trump's team.

Anonymous said...

Good idea. Start digging. Present your findings in comments. Should be public knowledge. Especially now. Ask Pam Geller to help.

Anonymous said...

I would like to know if anyone with legal knowledge could tell me how Hillary Clinton was allowed to take the wrong evidence (underwear with a hole cut out--the material which was cut out contained blood from the victim and semen and had been tested and victim's blood was on it and then supposedly lost by the crime lab), put it in her pocket and travel thousands of miles with it. How could that have been legal? If the evidence had been a knife used in a murder, would the defense attorney have been allowed to take that evidence and carry it thousands of miles to have it tested????

If someone would watch the video I posted

IN this video (it is silent the first 10 seconds and then the sound comes on along with the words transcribed on the screen) HIllary descries exactly what she did with the "evidence". Going on SA, what struck me is that she starts out calling the rapist's underwear with the hole cut out "the underwear" some point she then begins calling it "the underpants"(which seems more feminine--not sure what that means).....but if you notice, at the part where she describes presenting the "underpants" to the forensic specialist in New York so he can examine them in his basement, she switches to saying that she gave him "my underpants"...this is the only time she calls them "my underpants". To me, this suggests that she may have given the specialist underpants that were "hers" meaning not that she literally had worn them, but that she had brought a pair she had gotten a pair of men's underwear (from the store?) and substituted these for the rapists' underwear. Not only is there this linguistic clue, but it goes without saying that there is no way for anyone to know whether Hillary even presented the actual rapist's underwear (with the hole cut out) to the forensic specialist or whether she substituted a different pair.
I would be interested to hear anyone's input, because I have a strong sense that Hillary not only defended the child rapist but that Hillary may have tampered with the evidence.
I also would love to know how that was legal for Hillary to take her client's underwear and carry it thousands of miles to have it tested?!?! There is no way it could have been legal. I have never in my life heard of a defense attorney being allowed to take crime evidence, put it in their pocket and travel thousands of miles with it.

And yes, I would love to know if the rapist she got off has reoffended.

Anonymous said...

Ole indignant kazir khan is back in the news today.

Anonymous said...

Is it legal for a defense attorney to take the evidence against their client, put it in their pocket and travel thousands of miles with it to have it tested? If this is legal, it throws everything Ive ever believed about our legal system out the window.

Becky Rose said...

If Hillary Clinton really did switch out the evidence just to win a case, she's a psychopath. It would prove that she's corrupt and wicked to the core, preferring to traumatize a 12 year old and put other children at risk by helping a monster to go free, just for her own ego.

I'm not sure how it was back in the 70s regarding trust with evidence, but it does seem that 40 years ago people were more trusting in situations like that. It didn't occur to most people that a lawyer would commit crimes just for the pleasure of doing it.

Times have changed, but imo, Hillary Clinton continues to be deceitful and shows her desire to be corrupt and wicked. And the worst part is that she uses our country as leverage in her evil deeds.

Anonymous said...

Well you know what, people deserve whatever president they get. I have posed this question on facebook and stated it quite clearly asking about the legality of Hilary Clinton or any defense attorney taking the evidence against their client, putting it in their pocket and bringing it thousands of miles to have it tested. I further explained that if this is legal it means evidence can be tampered with, contaminated or even substituted AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE RESPONDED ARE TOO STUPID TO EVEN COMPREHEND WHAT I WROTE. People are so goddamn stupid it boggles my mind, and they deserve whichever loser leader they get.

Anonymous said...

OK, so now Ive found on the internet one comment stating that what Hillary brought to be tested was the rape victim's underwear--this may explain why she switches from "underwear" to "underpants" in her description. However in her description she says she brought what was left of the rapist's underwear. So WTF did Hillary actually have tested? How convenient also that the crime lab "lost" the incriminating evidence and Hillary cant even tell the truth about what underwear she actually took to New York to have tested. This woman is a liar and I guarantee, she tampered with the evidence in that trial.

Anonymous said...

Also since when is an indigent client allowed to choose which gender they want their attorney to be?

Anonymous said...

Wait a minute..peoples dont chose to be stupid. They just is or isnt.

Anonymous said...

This is a must-see video with experts decoding Hillary's psychiatric and physical problems:

Anonymous said...

I look foward to this crap being over and the return of actual statement analysis.
Ideally, without having to skip through rehashing it over and over.

Both have repeatedly proven themselves evil, repugnant, manipulative, self-serving liars, with easily hundreds of comments on this blog repeating the same crap.

Most people have already decided which is the least obnoxious and sociopathic of two stunningly poor choices, so for the love of freshly ground coffee, can we PLEASE return to the real, fascinating and educational world of SA that brought us all together in the first place?!?

Or at least create a dedicated thread for the endless Trump/Clinton spamming?

Anonymous said...

Why dont you stop micro-managing others and go back to the Davey thread where you lurk constantly to continue regurgitating the same crap over and over?
That thread is like the twilight zone with you constantly replaying the same Davey clues over and over.
I think it would be fascinating if Peter took a look at Hillary's tape where she discusses her defense of the child rapist bc I think there are linguistic clues she may have tampered with evidence including the underwear she had tested.

Anonymous said...

Mean ladies.

Cassandra said...

I believe after viewing many tapes of Hillary that we were lied to about her medical problem. One particular tape of Hillary blanking out while giving speech and getting bizarre frightened look and having to be coaxed back into speaking by her black bodyguard made me realize what she really had. RABIES. When I was little I saw a dog with rabies...this is the expression the dog had...also the dog was confused, oblivious, was walking very slow, swerving back and forth, foaming at the mouth and oblivious to me standing there watching him. The animal looks pathetic, not frightening in this stage of rabies. Hillary had the exact same frightened yet oblivious expression as the rabid dog I saw when I was little. Also, Hillary was dehydrated--rabies causes fear of water. Hillary could hardly walk--rabies does that. Mood changes and aggression--rabies does that.

Anonymous said...

Howd she get rabies?

Cassandra said...

Check out the symptoms of rabies in humans including partial paralysis. On 9/11, Hillary had partial paralysis when she had to be dragged into the van. Her feet and legs would not move (view the tape).


I am probably one of the few people stupid enough to go close to a rabid dog (bc I loved dogs as a kid): the dog was walking so slow and was oblivious to me...I realized he had rabies bc he was foaming badly at mouth, but I loved dogs so much I walked with him and was worried about him but realized there was nothing I could do. But I have seen up close what rabies does and it is clear Hillary had rabies: there may be truth to the body double thing...rabies is nearly always fatal so who knows is it really Hillary or a body double?!?!

Cassandra said...

How else do you explain the lower leg paralysis (very symptomatic of rabies) when she was dragged into the van? No, there are no other neurological illnesses with sudden onset lower leg paralysis. Parkinson's is bull as far as her having it...that does not encapsulate the symptoms she had.
She could have been bitten by a bat or any rabid animal.
They may be using some clinical trial drug on her that actually works or suppresses the symptoms. Even her eye movements are not typical of any other neuro disease.

Anonymous said...

More likely stress and maybe panic attack than rabies.

Anonymous said...

Panic attacks do not cause lower leg paralysis.

Anonymous said...

Intense stress and PA will cause weakening and collapse.

Anonymous said...

CHECK THIS OUT: LOOK WHAT I FOUND!!!! At 6:39, you can actually SEE A BAT BITING HILLARY!!!! Hillary asks "Was that a bat? Was that a bat?" Then lights get turned off by security. Then after the event they spin it as a woman says she threw something at her...investigators arent sure what she threw but the woman says it was a shoe. Really?! If it was a shoe it would have been found on the stage where Hillary was speaking. I should be a friggin investigative reporter!!!!

Anonymous said...

I thought you were joking. Then I read again. Finally googled and there it is! But it was 2014.. What a conundrum.

Anonymous said...

Ok, true, probably unlikely Hillary has rabies. I'll stop. I just hate her.

Anonymous said...

Thomas Alfred Taylor was the name of the rapist of the 12 year old girl. He died in 1992 of a heart ailment. Still looking to see if he reofffended.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes he is Bruce Alfred Taylor