Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Statement Analysis Lesson: Hillary Clinton and 9/11
"Where were you on 9/11?" is a question I ask in training. It is a simple question and due to the hormonal increase from the importance of the day, memory is without effort. I then ask them a similar question 'in the negative' to highlight that we do not mark time by that which does not happen. This is an important element in detecting deception as I use the case of Hailey Dunn to show how the deceptive mother marked time by what did not happen; an indication of "editorializing" that police officers often, without training, call "story telling." Billie Jean Dunn, the child's mother, actually described seeing her dead child's body in her bed. "I looked at her but I did not touch her." A truthful statement, technically, while withholding the most critical information.
She reported Hailey as missing.
They are correct.
It is the narrative, rather than experiential memory in play.
How do most people lie?
The 'studies' that show that the average person tells x number of lies per minute is not accurate.
People rarely lie directly.
In many guilty statements, we find 100% truthful sentences, one after the next.
It is within the information that we find signals of deception due to missing information. This can be 'withheld' information, (active),
'missing information' (passive, jumping time) or it could be suppressed information (active, strong effort, often emotionally driven).
It is rare that one will outright lie, that is, to fabricate reality.
A good example is Richard Blumenthal as we see the elements of both arrogance and contempt within such. Given the context of his work, how many innocent people suffered under his ambition and ability to fabricate reality?
Most deception is via missing information. Consider:
1. The reason why
2. Who can lie outright
1. The reason why most people lie via missing information is because of the internal stress that taking information that does not come from experiential memory causes.
Even a school child learns how it is so difficult to keep track of a lie, as they play role in school. There is now a concern of how to keep track of the lies because memory works chronologically.
Next, consider the speed of transmission from the brain to the tongue in choosing words. From a vocabulary of more than 25,000 words, the brain signals which words to use in less than a millisecond in time. A lie will disrupt this process.
2. The Outright Liar
This form of lying, itself, is rare, with less than 10% of liars using the direct fabrication of reality. Most lies come from parsed words, skipping time, and withheld or even suppressed information.
There are many different types of liars...here are a few to consider.
In Greek, there are 6 different words for our English word "walk" which helps us understand a "walk" that reflects a norm, or habitual pattern.
The honest person walks in honesty, but when does tell a lie, will seek remedy.
Compulsive liars lie about things unnecessary to lie about. Friends are often baffled by
Grandiose Liars are like the cartoon "Colonel McBragg" from the Bugs Bunny days where he boasts
Panic liars often are truthful, but panic, lie, and feel remorse. The truthful will even admit this lie and return to the habitual walk of truthfulness. They are close to honest but will sometimes personally acknowledge the lie, but will claim to have "no choice" and actually further de-sensitize themselves from truth.
Sociopathic Liar is one who lies to gain advantage, power, control and eventually wealth.
This subject is often successful, manipulative, and grows more and more in the desensitization process. If wealth is obtained, so is power.
*This subject may go from having no empathy for victims to actually enjoying the humiliation and pain of others.
This is where perversion grows because 'the thrill is gone' and deviancy gives only fleeting satisfaction. When this desensitization process meets sociopathic behavior, and is fueled by financial means, the ends will always shock the public, and even shock family members who say "I thought I knew her" or "I thought I knew him..."
As the sociopathic liar gains power via wealth, and continues the process of desensitization, it leads to areas in which people say things like, "I never believed him capable of..." with some of the most vile actions in life, including child pornography, child prostitution, bestiality, and other crimes against nature.
The sociopathic liar did not begin with the ability to destroy children; it was something that was 'graduated' to. Money becomes a means to the end.
The sociopathic liar will, most often, lie by omission but will, when it serves purpose, actually fabricate reality.
“I know what happened not far from here at Pulse night club in Orlando. I was in New York City on 9/11 as one of the two senators. I will defeat ISIS. I will protect America.”
It is interesting to note that "Politico" is on record as saying that Hillary Clinton was in Washington, D.C. on 9/11.
If this is true, note the structure of the sentence:
"I was in New York City on 9/11" is a very reliable sentence.
Yet then note that this is not a complete sentence, which now brings reliability into question:
I was in New York City on 9/11 as one of the two senators.
This is called a "Hina Clause" which reveals something very important:
The subject has the need to explain why she was in NYC on 9/11 in this speech. It is not as if she said, "I was in NYC on 9/11" and someone yelled, "Why were you in NYC on 9/11?"
Yet, here in lies the lesson:
The need to explain why, without being asked, is an indication that the subject anticipates the challenge of being asked, "Why?" by an accuser.
This is why it is labeled the highest level of sensitivity in language.
When one feels the need to explain why without being asked, they indicate that they are already prepared for the challenge.
This is the reason "why", where we flag words such as "so, since, therefore, because" in analysis.
Yet, when we come upon words or phrases that explains why without using one of the typical words, we call it the "Hina Clause" in analysis, and flag it just as if it was "because", simply used.
It is the same.
The need to explain "why" without being asked, is a strong signal of sensitivity in language.
But, she is not done yet.
The need to explain why she was in NYC as a New York senator is unnecessary.
Unnecessary words are always important; often deemed by us to be 'doubly important' as it goes against the 'law of economy' where one goes 'directly' to the point.
Additional language takes additional effort, but when the additional language is also unnecessary language, we now have an elevation of the already high sensitivity.
She has a need to explain why, and the reason, as an elected official of New York, is also unnecessary.
If Hillary Clinton was not in NYC on the morning of September 11, the need to explain "why" will now make sense to the analyst.
In the interview and interrogation process, when we find or hear the Hina Clause, we aim our questions precisely in this location over and over.
It tells the lying subject, "Uh oh! He knows! He knows..." and is useful in obtaining admissions.
Her statement began to affirm the Orlando shooting, of which the motive of the shooter was self confessed, but denied by Obama and Hillary (Islam's 1400 year written teaching on jihad has nothing to do with Islam) as they knew better than the killer. She then makes her sensitive statement followed by her defeating ISIS. If she was not in NYC, the premise, for which she will defeat ISIS and protect America, signals a lie. This should be understood in context, including Huma Aberdin's Muslim brotherhood connections, and the millions of dollars Clinton took from Islamic nations, which, ironically, execute those of SSA; the nightclub the subject just referenced.
Objection: NBC (and MSM in general) reported that Hillary "misspoke" about 9/11.
Answer: see the Blumenthal analysis.
When we experience something that is associated with elevated hormonal response, memory is ingrained. This can be, depending upon the level of trauma, so etched upon the brain that it produces negative consequences, known as "PTSD" or "PTSD like symptoms."
Yet, we do not need this basic point of memory to conclude deception.
The inclusion of the Hina Clause.
We have the two highest levels of sensitivity within her language. This, within deception, shows that she knew she was going to need to "prove" something.
When you speak the truth in an open statement you do not anticipate any need to persuade something so basic as physical location. Even in the context that everything you say will be examined will produce nervousness and, hopefully, keep one to the truth. But in something as basic as personal location, experiential memory is in play, and in something like this, the truthful subject knows will not need defense for scrutiny.
The additional language found within her need to explain why she was in NYC affirms the "need to persuade" her audience on something that needs no persuasion.
When the trained interviewer uses the subject's own language, the percentage of gaining admissions or confessions rises greatly. This success breeds its own success as confidence and skill moves forward.
Those who give themselves to formal training obtain justice, success and traction for their own careers.