Thursday, October 20, 2016

Was Juanita Broaddrick Deceptive?

The following is a transcript submitted for analysis of a Dateline Interview with Juanita Broaddrick, conducting by Lisa Meyers. Thanks to Nic for supplying it.

Was Juanita Broadrick deceptive when she claimed to have been raped by Bill Clinton? Statement Analysis gets to the truth.

Sexual Assault has its own language and it must be studied as such. Those with '101' training in deception detection or statement analysis often fail to grasp the distinctive elements within sexual assault victims, including the impact of time and processing upon language.

For long term readers, memory of analysis of Clinton's language, including how he related to his mother versus how he related to his wife, as well as the many scandals brought forth, can impact opinion. The goal in analysis is to learn if the subject speaks from experiential language, or not, and we actively acknowledge the external influences, reminding ourselves to seek to submit to her language and let the statement guide us. We must seek to set aside thoughts of other allegations as well as the alleged perpetrator. To ignore this influence is dishonest. We must recognize it and make a conscious effort to "stay true to the text" of the statement.

There is also the political narrative and readers may fear Bill Clinton returning to power via Hillary Clinton. Narrative cannot dictate analysis. We must treat the statement in the same manner in which sexual assault statements are treated.

Lastly, readers who have either read the account, or heard the audio of Hillary Clinton's disparagement of a child rape victim must also be aware of how this may impact your own reading of analysis. Personal disdain or disgust must be acknowledged, with an attempt to limiting it, via awareness, as you read.

Lastly, reading such analysis, including the picking up of deception, can be emotionally very difficult for sexual abuse victims reading such accounts. Please skip this post if you feel it might be an unnecessary jarring of memory for you.

For those who protest the inclusion of obviously inflammatory material (and a link), ignoring the influences is to be vulnerable to them.

This is not analysis of Hillary Clinton, nor is it even of Bill Clinton. It is analysis of a woman who has made a claim in public, back in 1999.

When one makes a claim, we either believe or we do not believe the claim, but here, once a decision is made, you may read specific reasons why the decision has been made. This is not "intuition" or "instinct", or "feeling" or "did you see the twitch in her eye when she said that?" nonsense.

Over the years, I have interviewed and analyzed and studied too many victims of sexual abuse; far more than I wish I had. Yet, the patterns emerged, data collected, and specific application for law enforcement sex crimes investigations is laid out for advanced training.

Real victims are justified, while innocent and falsely accused are cleared, by detecting deception.

We must seek to discern only the words of the statement for analysis, whereas an investigation takes upon itself many more elements, including history, patterns, and personality traits.

I do not always like the results of analysis, but as the years have passed, I have become increasingly indifferent as analysts eventually find, as we care for the truth.

Detecting deception takes careful study and training and being cognizant of all the external influences is important just as submitting to the disciplines of analysis is, including exceptions.

The interview took place 21 years after the alleged attack.

Specifically dealing with assault and sexual assault, time impacts language due to emotional processing. "Story telling" narrative can begin in an account once significant processing has mitigated emotional impact but also when an account has been repeated often. This repetition turns into self reference: memory of what one said earlier.

For some sexual abuse victims, this is not an issue as they distinctly do not talk about the assault. Therefore, some emotions, due to the lengthy passage of time, may be in the logical part of the account, which we must not conclude artificial editing, while we also remain on alert for various signals of self referencing, including "like I said" and "as I reported earlier..."

For example, although the emotional impact may continue for a lifetime, the processing of the information will allow for the 'story telling' placement of emotions to enter appropriately. This is not something we find in truthful statements that are made shortly after the event.

JB = Juanita Broaddrick
LM = Lisa Myers

JB:  It’s important for me to tell, what happened.  I don’t know how people are going to take this.  I don’t know what they’re going to think after all these months and years, why I’ve come forward.


We do not know what was said prior to this, especially given that a 60 minute program is edited down to under 49 minutes, and the original interview could be as long as 3 hours in length.

However, we consider here that it is important "to me", the subject, herself, to tell what happened. We want to hear a subject place herself psychologically, strongly within an account.

Telling what happened is always important to sexual assault victims. The silence, whether self imposed, or imposed by fear (threats, or fear of disbelief) can have an acutely negative impact upon the victim's physical and mental health, including a severe compromise of her immune system.

We begin by believing this account to be true, unless the subject 'talks us out of it' with enough indicators of deception that it would be unjust to not dismiss her account as deception.

Deception is discerned within intent. Simply being incorrect, or failing to live up to a promise, is not deception. Deception is seen when one knowingly and willfully wants the audience or intended target, to have information that is not accurate.

Our presuppositional thinking is not a moral force; it is a technique for practical deception detection.

Note that "what happened" is in the past tense.

Voice over LM:  Jane Doe #5 is 56 year-old Juanita Broaddrick a successful business woman who has been the subject of intense political and media speculation.  Rumors of Broaddrick’s story have been floating around Arkansas and Washington for years, known to both Clinton haters and supporters.  Broaddrick was pulled into the Paula Jones’ case, met with investigators of the House judiciary committee, and was interviewed by Ken Starr’s investigators.  And though what she told Starr remains sealed, it was seen by 40 members of Congress before the impeachment vote in the House.  Later, House Republican Whip Tom Delay publicly urged senators to find out what Jane Doe #5 had to say before deciding the fate of the president.  As the whispers about her grew, Broaddrick found herself hounded by the media, and she says the subject of gossip and half-truths on the internet and in the tabloids.

JB:  All these stories are floating around.  Uh, different stories of what really happened, of what people think happened, and I was tired of everybody putting their own spin on it.

This is a likely indicator that the subject believes some of the stories were accurate, at least in part, yet with "spin"; that is, perception or narrative.

Voice Over LM:   Broaddrick's story became public last week and since then her story has appeared in print, on radio and TV.  But much of what you may have read or heard is incomplete.  While NBC News was investigating this story and seeking comment from the White House, our work became the subject of much speculation.  Tonight you’ll see what we were able to learn and you’ll hear from Juanita Broaddrick herself, a woman who remains silent for two decades and who admits she has lied under oath about this story in the past; but now says she wants to tell the truth.

Voice Over LM:  Juanita Broaddrick story begins in 1978.  She was a registered nurse who had started her own nursing home in Van Buren Arkansas.  Bill Clinton was the State Attorney General who was running for governor.  Bill Clinton: “But I believe the people expect me to be ready to be governor if I’m elected.”

With sexual assault victims, we not only look for the subject to tell us, with strong connection (pronoun, past tense) what happened, but we view how she views her assailant before, during and after the alleged assault.

JB:  I thought he was just something that was really gonna to be good for Arkansas.  I thought he was a very charismatic man that had bright ideas for our state.  And um, I just really liked him.  

Voice Over LM:  Broaddrick whose married name at the time was Juanita Hickey says she was so impressed with Clinton she volunteered to hand out bumper stickers and signs, her first and only political campaign.  Broaddrick said she met Clinton for the first time when he made a campaign stop at her nursing home in the spring of 1978 when these pictures where taken.  

JB:  While he was there visiting, he said, “If you’re ever in the Little Rock area, please drop by our campaign office.”  And he said, “Well, be sure to call me when you come in.  Call down to the campaign office…"

Voice Over LM:  Broaddrick says not long after that conversation, she did go to Little Rock for a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel, now the Doubletree.  She says she checked into the hotel and the next morning called Clinton campaign headquarters.  She says she was told, Clinton was at his apartment and to call him there.  

JB:  I did call and ask him if he was going to be in the headquarters that day and he said, “No,” that he didn’t plan to be there.  He says, “why don’t I just meet you for coffee in the Camelot coffee shop."

Voice Over LM:  But Broaddrick says Clinton called later.  She thinks it was around 9 in the morning and asked if they could meet in her hotel room because there were reporters in the coffee shop.

LM:  Did you think his interest at the time was personal or professional?

JB:  I thought it was professional.  Completely.

She viewed him early on as a "man" and here she feels the need to emphasize his interest that she perceived he had for her.

With the massive publicity she received, including many accusations against her, she may feel the need to emphasize this in order to keep from further accusations. She thought very highly of him and viewed him not as a person but a "man" and here she emphasizes his characterization of her.

LM:  So you thought this was going to be a business meeting?

JB:  Yes, I did.  Yes, I really did.

The need to persuade must be taken in context of the massive publicity.

Rape victims sometimes feel the need to "prove" themselves if they have been accused by others.

I wonder if the subject struggled with her own possible attraction towards Clinton. Admiration expressed and "man" can do this. Sexual assault cases are complex and often in need of advanced analysis and explanation that goes beyond a blog entry. Some rape victims feel it was not rape if they felt or even wanted sexual contact before hand.

LM:  Did you have any qualms at all about him coming to the room?

JB:  I was a little bit uneasy, but I felt, juh, I felt a real uh, friendship toward this man, and I didn’t really feel any, any um, danger in him coming to my room.  And uh, I sorta ushered us over to the coffee.  I had coffee sitting on a little table over there by the window.  And it was a real pretty window view that looked at down at the river.  And he came around me, and sorta put his arm over my shoulder to point to this little building and said that he was real interested if he became governor to restore that little building.  And then all of a sudden he turned me around and started kissing me.  And that was a real shock.

Within the language may be an element of recall of attraction towards him. We note that something has begun here, and it is accompanied with not only an emotion, but an emotion with emphasis.


At this point, it may be that she was more than "shocked" ("real shock") due, not so much that he kissed her, but perhaps as to how quickly he did this. This is something I would have explored in the interview process. Better still would be a therapist highly trained in analysis to help her lessen her guard.

LM:  What did you do?

JB:  Uh at first, pushed him away.  I just told him no.  You know, “please don’t do that.”  And I forget, it’s been 21 years, Lisa, and I forget exactly what he was saying, a- i-it seems like he was making statements that would relate to, ‘well did you not know why I was coming up here'.  And I told him at the time, I said, “I’m married, and I have other things going on in my life, and, and this is something I’m not interested in."

Here we have the possible source of sensitivity from the subject: her feelings of admiration towards him, not as a person, but a "man", of whom she was flattered to have met him at the coffee shop. She now recalls her statement about being "married."

This may be the source of sensitivity for her.

Note the polite declination. It does use "told" (strong) but it has "just" (dependent) before it. We will listen to see if this refusal (which is a refusal) becomes stronger or remains the same, in her language.

The portrayal is polite and the rebuke is not strong. In the negative, "this is something I'm not interested in" should be considered in light of the admiration/man referenced above. Her "pushing him away" is without the pronoun. This, too, may strengthen the argument of emotional conflict on her part.

In a sexual assault, we seek to learn the truth, not to support a narrative.

LM:  Had you that morning, or any other time, given him any reason to believe you might be receptive.

JB:  No. None. None whatsoever.

Here we have "no", with 'reinforcements' called in (weakness) of "none", and "none whatsoever."

Although an argument could be made that the weakness here is due to the overwhelming negative publicity she had been under, (something I won't argue against), one should still consider that her language may be indicating conflict within her own self.

LM:  Then what happens.

JB:  Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting on my lip.  (hides face and begins to cry.)  Just a minute.  He starts to uh, bite on my top lip and I try to pull away from him.  And then he forces me down on the bed and I just was very frightened.  And I tried to get away from him and I told him, “no” that I didn’t want to (?stay (?)).  But he wouldn’t listen to me.

We note the verb tense within a sexual assault statement.
We note incomplete activity with the possible influence of post trauma upon the language. We do not rush to conclude deception, nor do we rush to conclude "PTSD influence", but to make note of it, and continue to let the subject guide us.

We have a skip in time that warrants a question, though it is not heard by the untrained interviewer.
Where was she when he started kissing her and she pushed him away, because now, they are on the bed:

"And then he forces me down on the bed"

I have seen detectives with "101" training conclude deception in verb tense changes in sexual abuse cases only to learn that the perpetrator later confessed. They sometimes lose confidence in analysis. They do not consider the assignment of "neutral rating" due to sexual assault trauma. This is similar to adult victims of childhood sexual abuse who use passivity in speech to to symptoms mimicking Dissociative Identity Disorder.

It is important to note the possessive pronoun "my" regarding her lip. She is taking ownership of it. This may not be unusual until you see that she repeated it.

That she skipped time means we need the information between. It does not mean I do not believe her; it means I want to know what took place.

At this point, I am seeing a woman who is distinctly interested in him, likely with some guilt due to being married, who is initially surprised how quickly he is moving in, but then there is a change:

LM:  Did you resist?  Did you tell him to stop?  

JB:  Yes, I told him, “Please don’t.”  He was such a different person at that moment.  He was just a vicious, awful person.

Here is a critical point in a sexual assault victim's statement.

There was likely something that changed in her thinking when he bit her lip.

1. We have "told", and not "said", which is authoritative.
2. We have "please" again, but this is not in the softer context ("just told") from early on. This is a distinct escalation in refusing his advances.

This is important for justice because of 'misinterpreting' one's refusal. The feminist stance "no means no" does not always reflect reality in criminal cases. The assailant may claim it was a "playful" or "teasing no" that "meant yes."

Here, there is the escalation for her which builds when a perpetrator refuses to yield. We see the increase in denial from the first kiss, to the second, to the biting, to the forcing down upon the bed.

Most significant here is that she has now "changed" Bill Clinton from a "man" to a "person."

There is no romantic, sexual or even personal interest in Bill Clinton at this point. This is the an indicator of veracity, that is taken over some of the variant points in the language of sexual abuse victims:

**how they see the assailant before and after (though some detailed cases will even including 'during') is very different.

LM:  You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting.

JB:  Yeah.

This, too, adds to the suffering of a rape victim, long term. This is not uncommon, though few people understand it. We follow the language and the instinct that produce it.

LM:  Why?

JB:  (9:25) It was a real panicky, panicky situation.  And I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy.  You know, yelling, and to be, you know to please stop.  But that’s when he would press down on my right shoulder and he would uh, bite on my lip.

Please note: "panicky panicky" is a distinct linguistic repetition of hormonal escalation, even with the passage of two decades of time.

We view this as "leveraged control" that victims sometimes seek to exert over their rapist. It is something distinct in Behavioral Analysis where the victim instinctively (driven by hormonal surge) seeks to physically and verbally negotiate her way to either ending the assault or minimizing the impact of it.

The rape victim sees the rapist similar to an animal with powerful prey drive. (it is also what men do in an altercation, hoping to not escalate it, so they used measured force until they realize that this is a battle that is not going to stop). They use various instinctive reactions, thinking:

'If I do just this, he may stop...' and they often get louder and louder, while others will, fearing for their lives, completely 'surrender' in hopes that the rapist will 'show mercy', that is, 'get it over with and leave me alone.'

It is a "fight or flight" hormonal reaction that we see through the language.

They wonder if more resistance will lead to more pain (more biting), and seek to control the level of violence against them through various instinctive techniques.

It is similar to a young kid with a dog he fears...the dog with prey drive will give chase, so the kid tries to not run but walk away, hoping to not provoke, intuitively, the stronger drive.

Side note: extreme passivity, or 'freezing' in the face of trauma is closely associated with suicide, substance abuse, and other maladies that impact victims. Those who 'fight' literally 'move the brain forward' and are known to suffer less damage than those who
freeze' due to panic. These often suffer the most damage. Please note this 'freezing' is also closely related to early childhood sexual abuse victims: they are incapable of 'negotiating', physically or verbally with their abusers. The damage is acute.

Voice Over LM:  Broaddrick also says the waist of her skirt and her pantyhose were torn.

JB:  When everything was over with, when he got up an straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and uh, he walks to the door and calmly puts on his sunglasses and he-before he goes out the door he says, “You better get some ice on that.”  And then he turned and went out the door.

Note the skipping of time as distancing language. In a criminal investigation, we have to ask, "When was was over?" because the subject must, in her own words, tell us what happened, in detail.

In this television interview, she has not. The analyst, looking at a statement made 21 years after the fact, must process the setting:

a. televised interview
b. public accusations against her
c. the lack of trained interviewing

LM:  On your lip.

JB:  Yeah.

Voice Over LM:  She estimates Clinton was in her room less than 30 minutes.

LM:  Is there any way, at all, that Bill Clinton could have thought this was consensual?

JB:  No. Not with what I told him and with how I tried to push him away.  It was not consensual.

LM:  You’re saying that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted you, that he raped you.

JB:  Yes.

We don't put words in someone's mouth.

She has answered "yes", therefore we now move to listen:

What word (s) will she use to identify Bill Clinton?

We note parroting as one thing, but in the free editing process, who is the assailant?

LM:  And you ha, there’s no doubt in your mind that's what happened.

JB:  No doubt whatsoever.

Reminder of the volume of press coverage attacking her.

LM:  While the president and his lawyer declined to be interviewed on camera, through his lawyer, the president did issue a statement saying, ‘any allegation he assaulted Broaddrick is absolutely false.  And when asked about it today in a news conference, the president said he had nothing to add to that statement.  It’s important to note and Broaddrick concedes, that aside from her there are no witnesses. As far as we know, no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room.  Or even the hotel.  She took no photos, kept no evidence and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there.  However, Broaddrick does have a friend who backs up her story.

How will she identify Bill Clinton?  

JB:  Well I was very emotional just within an hour or so after it happened.  And then by the time Norma got back, my whole top lip was turned out and very swollen.  Very ugly looking.

Note the distancing language of "it happened."

Voice Over LM:  Norma also says that Broaddrick’s  lip and mouth were badly swollen.  That her pantyhose had been ripped off, and she says Broaddrick told her she had been sexually assaulted by Clinton.

LM:  Did you feel any internal injuries?

JB:  Of course. I felt, I felt uh, uh just the, just the whole thing you could imagine of being violated.  I felt uh, of course there was pain.

The universal "you" would not apply to a male interviewer.
Note 21 years passing.

LM:  Did you consider going to a doctor?

JB:  No.  Not at all.  I just wanted to get home.  I just uh, I wanted just uh, all go away.  I wanted to just walk out of there and forget that it’d never happened because I felt very responsible that I had allowed him to come to my room.  

I continue to believe that she courted ideas, in the very least, due to admiration and power, of Bill Clinton which ended, at a very specific point of physical pain just prior to the rape.

Voice Over LM:  Broaddrick says she decided to leave the hotel immediately without going to the nursing home meeting.  She says after Norma helped ice her lip the two of them left Little Rock and drove more than two hours back to Van Buren.

JB:  We were still, Lisa, in shock over what had happened.  It was like, this is a horrible thing and I’m gonna to wake up in a minute and this is not going to be true.

Voice Over LM:  Norma told us that on the drive back, Broaddrick was very,very upset and in shock and says Broaddrick blamed herself for letting Clinton up to her room.  And Broaddrick says she never considered going to the police, especially since Clinton was the Arkansas Attorney General at the time.  

LM:  The question everyone is going to ask is:  Juanita why didn’t you report this 21 years ago.

JB:  I didn’t think anyone would believe me in the world,

(15:50 to 16:35 - who else did Broaddrick talk to, reference to two having a serious reason not like Bill Clinton - father’s murderer life sentence commuted, making him eligible for parole)

LM:  Some people would say how can you not remember the specific date of an event as traumatic as this?

JB:  I really don’t have an answer for that except I remember the approximate time of the year and I probably should remember that date although it something I wanted to forget.

The high alert status of hormonal rage passes over time, and given the nature of trauma, it can lead to a form of mental and emotional exhaustion. Those who seek help (including journaling) very shortly after the event not only recover better, but retain a de-sensitized memory of the facts and can repeat them with great accuracy, though much less emotional turmoil or impact. The power of processing should not be underestimated. 

This interview was 21 years beyond and if we consider denial, processing, guilt, etc, this likely only adds to her grief.

LM:  Some people would wonder why you would go to a fundraiser for someone who you say sexually assaulted you.  Couldn’t you have said you were sick or gotten out of it?

This is a fair question and needs to be asked. We see this in both deceptive statements and we see it in reliable statements. Sometimes in reliable it is due to denial, but other times it is due to wanting "compensation", or to "overcome" the attacker.

JB:  I think I was still in denial that time exactly what had happened to me.  And I still felt very guilty at that time, that it was my fault.  By letting him come to the room I had given him the wrong idea and just shut up and accept your punishment and don’t every do it again.

Denial, in some sense, remains at the time of this interview.

LM:  Did you have reservations though about accepting any appointment by Bill Clinton.

JB:  Yes.  But I had s-more or less said to the association that I would do this before I knew that it was actually a government a governor appointing job.  When I agreed to do this, I had no idea it was an appointment.


(19:56) In 1984 Broaddrick received a letter from Clinton with a notation “I admire you very much.”
(20:30) Broaddrick talks about an apology from Clinton; just the statement

LM:  Here the man is running for president.  Does the country have a right to know this?

JB:  Yes, and that’s what I got to thinking about.  And David and I talked about it.  We talked about it and I cried about it, and then we decided that it wouldn’t be in our best interest to do it.
LM:  Did you receive any payoff to stay silent?

JB:  Oh goodness no.  I mean how can anyone be bribed or paid off for i-i-for something that uh, to not say anything about something that that horrible

LM:  Did Bill Clinton or anyone near him ever to threaten you, try to intimidate you, do anything to keep you silent.

JB:  No.

LM:  This has been strictly your choice.

JB:  Yes.


(22:25) Subpoena for Paula Jones case, denies any unwelcomed sexual advances.

JB:  I didn’t want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life.  I didn’t want to go through it again.


(23:46) Once granted immunity from prosecution for perjury she agreed to come forward with details with her allegations.  Said the president never urged her to lie.

LM:  Why now Juanita?

JB:  I just couldn’t hold it in any longer.  I didn’t want granddaughters and nieces when they’re 21 years old to turn to me and say, ‘why didn’t you tell what this man did to you?’


LM:  What is the purpose?  Do you want to destroy the president?

JB:  No.  I do not want to do anything.  I do not have an agenda.  I want to put all of these rumors to rest.  I buried this a long time ago, Lisa, and the only thing I’m trying to do right now is to clear up all of these stories that are out there.

Voice Over LM:  But after all this time, how does Juanita Broaddrick feel about Bill Clinton?

JB:  I couldn’t say it on the air.  My hatred for him is overwhelming.  

Voice Over LM:  Overwhelming enough to invent a story?   To distort a memory?  All to destroy a presidency?  Absolutely not, she says.

LM:  Twenty years after it happened, having never reported it to authorities, after signing an affidavit denying anything ever happened, you now come forward.  Do you understand how skeptical people may be?

JB:  Certainly I can.  But I was also afraid of what would happen to me if I came forward.  I was afraid that I would be destroyed like so many of the other women have been.

We do not expect victims to entertain understanding of disbelief. This, too, is in a context that is not usual. With 21 years passage, and years of headlines and attacks in the paper, she can understand how skeptical people can be.

We would not expect to hear her say this anytime close to the day in question.

LM:  Do you understand the enormity of what you are saying.  To him and to you?

JB:  Yes I do. It’s been a hard, long, uphill battle to make these statements, but I just, I feel like I have to.  I feel like I have to make these statements now.

She did not use his name since changing him from "man" to "person" and designating him to be

Analysis Conclusion:

Juanita Broddrick is telling the truth and would pass a polygraph.

I recognize that "101" training does not grasp many of the finer analytical points in sexual assaults and how easy it is to be wrong.

The most important issue is the "change" that the perpetrator underwent in her mind.

Although she may deny it, her words show that she was initially attracted to him and that she may have even entertained thoughts of an affair. Sadly, some rape victims deny this thinking that they will not be believed. This sometimes shows up when they are asked to take a polygraph: they sometimes say, "yes, but only if you ask me if he raped me..." or something similar. Due to the emotional upheaval of trauma, coupled with fear of being disbelieved, they want to deny any initial interest in the rapist. Sometimes, this is not only due to fear, but guilt, while other times, some victims do not want to admit it because they are disgusted with themselves.

Careful exploration of the event with a rape victim does sometimes uncover disgust and not all the disgust is due to the rape, but some is due to the feelings they had earlier. Rape victims need to be guided through the process and learn, "just because I was attracted to him does not mean I was not raped!" type of understanding. It is very challenging for experienced counselors.

Advocates sometimes do more damage than good, playing into these fears.

The best ally the rape victim has is the truth.

Her refusal of his advances were consistently escalated, leaving no room for "he said; she said" defense.

She did not say she was raped. This was due to the failure of the interviewer, which makes the analyst's job more difficult. It is the change in perception of the rapist that overrides the PTSD-like influence upon language, and the poor interviewing. Again, this was not an investigatory interview where specific criminal detail is sought. This leaves the analyst recognizing that there is missing information that has not been covered.

She is 21 years removed from the rape (at the time of the interview) and still suffering the impact, likely of the rape and the aftermath.

The subject has talked about fear of being targeted for death by the Clintons and Wikileaks is likely revisiting the fears, perhaps even re-traumatizing her.

So much in the paradigm of sexual assault means analysts must assign "neutral ratings" to various points; neither concluding deception, nor ruling it out. This is the nature of the language of sexual assault victims and why we have entire sections of training dedicated to getting to the truth.

Investigators who are assigned to sex crimes units are often divided one to another, case after case, because of the unique impact sexual assault has on female language.

These disputes can become divisive, and even land male investigators against female investigators, with assistant district attorneys left unable to prosecute.

Advanced statement analysis training removes the divide, and as they study statement after statement after statement of sexual abuse victims, particularly the cases where the perpetrators have confessed, they learn how to discern truthful from deceptive. The advanced training is key.

Officers who work in sex crimes desperately need advanced training. It is wise for those, even in patrol, to build their own career trajectory by training beforehand, and avail themselves of any potential trainings that may provide access to promotion.

If you wish to host a seminar, or take personal training, please visit our website at Hyatt Analysis Services.


John mcgowan said...

"She did not use his name since changing him from "man" to "person" and designating him to be"

All the way through reading i was looking to see what title she gave "him", specifically, would she call him "Bill Clinton" and then "Bill" and so on.

Would it have impacted veracity if she did use his name half way through (after the alleged assault) the interview, and if she did, would the part where his name (Bill Clinton" Mr, Bill etc) is used be important to the analysis, and change the overall analysis?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Peter - I am confused. What about all of the stalling language and clusters of blue? All of the "uh... um... I-I-..." etc.?

Is there some deception indicated anywhere in her statements?


Bobcat said...

"I wanted to just walk out of there and forget that it’d never happened"

Is this transcription completely accurate?

Peter Hyatt said...


I believe she is not truthful about her initial feelings towards Clinton, hence the deception.

In team analysis, for example, this is a large statement that analysts would properly dissect and from their training, they would understand. It is difficult to reduce it to layman terms and a blog article.

Rape victims have such disdain for the rapist that they sometimes, even many years later, struggle to admit their own initial feelings for the rapist.

I believe she is deceptive about her feelings towards him, and about expectations of what he would do once there, but not about rape, even though she does not tell us he raped her. This, too, is found in the complexity of sexual abuse statements.

It is a separate study all its own, but once learned, the analyst then analyzes a multitude of them, and begins to understand and compare the results to both polygraphs and confessions.

Bobcat, there may be some error as you point out. With such, we step back for a broader, and larger picture, rather than move in close for tiny detail. This is how we can successfully analyze second language statements: we avoid minute detail purposely.


Anonymous said...

Thanks Peter. I was sensing deception, but not about the rape. Thank you for clarifying.

OT - This missing person case is very interesting to me, namely the statements made by the missing woman's father and ex boyfriend. I am very interested in your analysis.

"We’re all special but there’s something exceptional about this young woman," Verk's father, Glenn, told CBS 11. "She’s vibrant and she’s full of excitement and life."
"I always kind of admired that about her,” Glenn told KOSA CBS 7. “She really was taking the steering wheel of her life."
"Wherever she goes, she's just meeting people and having a really good time with anybody,” [her ex Alvarez] explained. "She's really spontaneous. She really likes to do things on the spot. Sometimes, she would go out to like McDonalds to get an ice cream at like 2 in the morning because, you know, we wanted to."



Peter Hyatt said...

KC, what do you see in the missing person statements?

Anonymous said...


I see the following...
"...this young woman," - not "my daughter"

"...kind of admired THAT about her... she really was..." distancing, past tense language. only "kind of" admired something about his daughter.

"SHE would go out because, you know, WE wanted to" need to persuade, sharing of guilt/responsibility - not "she went out because she wanted to"

“We all want you safe, and we want you home as soon as you can get here. We all love you” we, not a strong commitment like "I" (unless this is acceptable if he is speaking on behalf of the entire family.

I am seeing some deception, but I am not sure about what the exboyfriend and father are being deceptive.


Anonymous said...

Also, "we want you home as soon as you can get here" ... not "now" or as soon as possible, but only when is convenient for someone (her or the father) ?


Nic said...

Here is the link to the interview if anyone is interested in watching it in full.

Nic said...

It is important to note the possessive pronoun "my" regarding her lip. She is taking ownership of it. This may not be unusual until you see that she repeated it.

That she skipped time means we need the information between. It does not mean I do not believe her; it means I want to know what took place.

At this point, I am seeing a woman who is distinctly interested in him, likely with some guilt due to being married, who is initially surprised how quickly he is moving in, but then there is a change:

LM: Did you resist? Did you tell him to stop?

JB: Yes, I told him, “Please don’t.” He was such a different person at that moment. He was just a vicious, awful person.

Here is a critical point in a sexual assault victim's statement.

There was likely something that changed in her thinking when he bit her lip.

1. We have "told", and not "said", which is authoritative. 2. We have "please" again, but this is not in the softer context ("just told") from early on. This is a distinct escalation in refusing his advances.

This is important for justice because of 'misinterpreting' one's refusal.

Thank you, Peter! Your analysis is fascinating reading. I was completely engrossed reading this. You've showcased pronouns many times, and have pointed to the one sexual assault case that your were willing to bet your credibility on "we"; this analysis really underscores this lesson. Pronouns are not easy!

Nic said...


I linked the interview. Begin at 12:25

It'd (contraction)

Nic said...

"I always kind of admired that about her,” Glenn told KOSA CBS 7. “She really was taking the steering wheel of her life."

"always, kind of" - persuading/weakens admired
"that" - distancing
"admired" past tense

She really was taking the steering wheel of her life.
"really" persuading
"was taking" - past continuous/incomplete action

the steering wheel of her life
control of her life

Anonymous said...

What a mess. Why cant they just keep with paid arrangements rather than prey on others while in an offical position in govt? Its consensual. Rather than decades of trauma and accusations. Its not possible to know the truth during a campaign about something this serious as assault or rape. And if true that HRC lied and corrupted, as a young member of, the watergate prosecution why arent these official crimes dealt with decisively to protect others from career predatory criminal conduct?

Peter Hyatt said...

you should read the deleted leftist comments from females attacking....

AW said...

Slightly OT -- The 'freeze' response, as opposed to 'fight or flight' actually specifically predisposes to the development of PTSD. There's a book by Robert Scaer called The Body Bears the Burden, though it's a bit technical, which explains the very real physiology behind PTSD. The understanding is that either fighting or fleeing helps 'discharge' the massive adrenaline response to the threat of harm, while the freeze response (often observed in nature when prey animals 'play dead') temporarily suspends the discharge.

Animals who survive discharge the adrenaline response by shaking and trembling, but most people who come out of a freeze response usually squelch such frightening and unexpected physiologic reactions, thus remaining in the suspended, un-discharged, continuous loop. It doesn't just happen to rape victims, but even with such simple things as car accidents... the key factor is the feeling of perceived helplessness in the face of trauma (probably what triggers the freeze response in the first place, since one is pretty helpless if one can't flee and can't fight).

Anyway, I know it's off-topic, but I think it's pretty useful info for everyone, both for themselves and loved ones, as well as when dealing with or analyzing traumatized people.


Nic said...

Thanks, AW. This is interesting. I used to work for a division of our government that processes pension applications for war vets. In those days it was called "shell shocked". Those boys had no choice but to live in wet trenches with rats while being bombed and shot at. Segue - if they sustained a gunshot wound, in addition to having the bullet/shrapnel removed, the surgical team would also take the time to surgically remove their socks from their feet (their boots were not waterproof, etc., and the skin would absorb/grow around the fabric). Or, like in the case of the the WWI vets having no choice but to charge the enemy on command with bayonets and fight them hand-to-hand, they could not recover from these events. I don't think there is any such thing as recovery from PTSD. It's tragic and a forever "blight" on the survivor's psyche.