Friday, September 30, 2016

Fake Hate: Upgraded Charges

calum

UPDATE:   Now CHARGED WITH FELONY  
Original charges dropped for new, upgraded charges including  false police report.  

The analysis is from June 2016

 Calum McSwiggan claimed to be targeted for a "hate crime"  southern Hollywood.  

Here is his statement, his statement analyzed, and the findings of the investigation.  

I.  On instagram and face book, McSwiggan wrote:  

“Last night was the worst night of my life and I’m really struggling to find the words to talk about it.  After one of the most wonderful weekends at VidCon we went out to a gay club to celebrate, and towards the end of the evening I was separated from my friends and beaten up by three guys. 
“I’ve never felt so terrified to be a gay man in the public eye"

II.  The Analysis 

It is so that our statements reveal us:


“Last night was the worst night of my life and I’m really struggling to find the words to talk about it. 

Note the struggle is qualified with "really" as he posts it for the entire public to read. 


 After one of the most wonderful weekends at VidCon

where someone chooses to begin a statement is always important.  For him, it began with "really" struggling to find words, but this principle is also important to note where one begins the statement of an assault.

An assault is very 'unclose and personal' and the language will reveal this.  It is an invasion of personal space, and it is responded by extreme elevated hormones, impacting the victim and the victim's recall, later on.  

Here we note that he begins first with the struggle for words, which he qualified, but then he moved to the element of "time" in his statement.  

"After" what?  

One of the most wonderful weekends...

This is to address not only how "wonderful" this particular weekend was, but to do so in comparison to other wonderful weekends, of which this is only "one" of such.  

This is not something expected from a victim of a physical assault.  


 we went out to a gay club to celebrate,

Here the victim of an assault immediately moves from beginning his statement without the pronoun "I", ("last night") to the pronoun "I" used to describe a qualified verbal struggle, to "we" telling us:

a.  he was not alone
b.  what kind of club he went to
c.  why 'we' went to a club

This is a lot of information given to us before the assault and shows the priority of what was on his mind as he typed the statement. 

Consider experiential knowledge in recall will be accompanied by the hormonal increase that imprinted the event upon the brain.  We look for, and expect, evidence of such.  



 and towards the end of the evening

Instead of telling us of the assault, the lengthening of time is given, further delaying the "main event" of an assault. 

 I was separated from my friends 

Passive voice used:  "I was separated" avoids telling us the responsibility for how this separation took place and should, by itself, continue to cause the analyst pause as to the veracity of the statement.  



and beaten up by three guys. 


Note that he gave a lengthy delay, not only in the number of words or characters (letters) used, but in the quality of time passing.  He wants us to know, before he was assaulted:

1.  It was the worst night of his life
2.  He really struggles to find the words
3.  He had a wonderful weekend
4.  He has had a number of wonderful weekends 
5.  He considers social media his way of "talking" about it 
6.  He wants us to know where he went
7.  He wants us to know why he went there
8.  He tells us that he is thinking about what he did during this evening (another psychological delay) 
9.  He wants us to know he was with others
10.  Then he wants us to know that he was not with others, but conceals how this separation took place

Finally, using passivity, "was beaten up by three guys."

By its form, the analyst should see it as "unreliable."
By its form and language, the analyst should see it as deceptive.  

Then we have his 2nd reference to emotions; the first being the struggle to really find the words to talk, and now here, the words that follow being "beaten up" are his emotion.  This is the final clue that indicates deception:  the artificial placement of emotion: 


I’ve never felt so terrified to be a gay man in the public eye"

Deception Indicated

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Indicators of Sexual Abuse in Language



Jonbenet Ramsey murder is back in the news again.  

The Grand Jury indicted John and Patsy Ramsey for "death by child abuse" in the case, with Alex Hunter, the DA, using passivity in language to conceal, for many years, his refusal to sign the indictment.  In an upcoming work, a full analysis of the ransom note should tell us:

1.  The intention of the ransom note:  the author's priority
2.  The background of the author, including gender, race and age 
3.  The experiences in life of the author, including education, life experiences, beliefs, and so on. 
4.  The personality of the author.  Is the author cruel, and without human empathy?  Or, is the author...?

If you wish to know if the threat is real, or the threat level, you must know the one making the threat. 

Know the author and you'll know the threat.  

Let's take a look at sexual abuse indications within language. 

Any word in a sentence that is not necessary to complete the sentence is very important.  It took more effort for the subject to use, making it important to him.  What sometimes is difficult to understand is:

Why?

It is the question, "why?" that we seek to understand.  We ask, "Why does the subject feel it necessary to include this in the sentence?" and explore for the answer.  Sometimes the answer comes in the interview, but other times it comes in context, or by the statement itself.  

Three Specific Elements:  Lights, Doors, and Water 

Lights:  

We note that references to "lights" in a statement are often indicative of sexual activity.  It can be positive (completed or 'successful') sexual activity, or it could be failed (incomplete, disrupted) sexual activity.  Sometimes the context helps us understand. Light speaks to energy, and sexual arousal, itself, has a physiological reaction that is both a producer and a result of energy.  

Doors:

Doors are sometimes noted within language, when used unnecessarily, by those who have been sexually abused in childhood.  

This is not difficult to understand why.  

When a child is sexually abused, the trauma is dependent upon the brain's reaction.  The child who is pre-speech is especially going to have long term consequences.  Consider the impact of cortisone and other hormones with elevation without any quick receding:  post trauma imprint is acute and can leave an imprint for many years.  For some, it means hyper- vigilance while others, without processing the information, can be set off by certain smells that trigger memory.  For some, the sound of the bedroom door opening, itself, lasts a lifetime.  These victims will sometimes mention "doors" where there is no necessity of doing so, in an open statement. 

The adult victim of childhood sexual abuse may reference "doors" without necessity in an open statement.  

When asked about how he found his murdered daughter, Jonbenet, John Ramsey did not say, "I found her in the basement", which would be plain and direct.  Instead, there were two distinct "steps" he takes in his account, both with stories all their own, and both vitally important to him and the case:  

"I opened the door, turned on the light, and there she was."  John Ramsey 

In the case of Jonbenet, we had a sexualized child, frequent urinary tract infections, and bed wetting.  When taken together, along with the language of the parents, it becomes evident that she was being sexually abused.  

Water

We note that references to "water" in a statement are often indicative of sexual guilt, need for cleansing, and can be found in sexual homicides. 

Amanda Knox gave linguistic indication of being present for the murder of Meredith Kertchner, and when she said that she and her boyfriend took a shower, she went into detail; unnecessary detail in that, which is often associated with sexual homicide.  She talked about how her boyfriend "washed my ears" and "my neck", and so on; all unnecessary inclusions. Her statement is "sexual homicide language 101" for classic study.  

Sexual Homicide

"I drove down I 95, stopped to get gas, washed up and proceeded..."

The above shows the need to explain why he stopped, but includes a reference to water and in the kidnapping and sexual homicide, it pointed to the time of death.  Most would not feel the need to say they washed their hands or anything other than getting gas...a sexual homicide is different.  

The commonalty of all three is "unnecessary" language.  

We cannot, for example, enter a house without opening the door, yet few feel the need to add this detail.

"I went home and had dinner."

This is a very straight forward sentence.  Now compare it to this:  

" I went home, opened the door, and  had dinner."

The additional and unnecessary wording has a story to tell and investigators and analysts must be listening.  

To sign up for a full training course in Statement Analysis, host a seminar, or for experienced analysts, an Advanced Course, contact Hyatt Analysis Services

Sunday, September 25, 2016

HIDTA: Phoenix, Arizona (Chandler)


HIDTA, or The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program provides both strong and broad training for law enforcement that is often staffed by former law enforcement (retired) and other professionals who provide invaluable and specialized training.  

In the most recent training semester in Phoenix, Arizona, (Chandler) I had the opportunity to meet some of the professionals and those who attended the training. 

It is impressive. 

The students, at the end of a two week training program, and within hours of catching flights home, were, nonetheless, eager and active participants in deception detection training, digging intensely into statements to go beyond the simple 'truth or deception' level and into content analysis. They brought valuable real life experiences to the training, and quickly established an encouraging atmosphere of commenting, question and answer.  Some new to statement analysis training, still generated insightful commenting, and learned how a formalized system supports both their initial law enforcement training (many with Reid) but also their own instincts developed from experience.  It is, in this sense, to put principle into talent and experience, to have a disciplined approach to accuracy.  

Intense, but sometimes humorous, the input was both edifying and valuable with natural talent for analysis rising to the surface. 

For example, I was referencing the 'Baby Ayla' case where I gave the father's quote as "Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with Waterville police..." and had not finished writing out the statement on the white board before one young analyst called out, "check water!" 

I turned and asked, "Who said that?" impressed at the listening skill just demonstrated.  The young analyst was thrilled to have instinctively picked upon 'leakage' within a statement.  

This became a pattern as the training progressed.  

A detection deception expert, Joelle Sweeney, had shared an excellent sample with me, with permission to use it in the training.  Due to its depth, I saved it for the end of the training and although it was challenging, the class pushed forward, digging and digging at it, until both truth and deception were properly identified.  Beyond this, they explored the personality of the subject, a 17 year old female, involved in the drug world, and expressed the proper empathy for both analysis ("the expected") and service (caring law enforcement professions not only 'serve'; they protect).  

The conclusion was:

Deception detected;
Identification of the subject's experiences, childhood, parental relations, and finally, insight to garner enough a personality profile.  

HIDTA trainees, by necessity, need to recognize the language of addiction.  

The deceptive patterns of addicts is something crucial in identifying more than just deception.  This paves the way for the interview and interrogation that awaits the analyst and/or investigator. 

The class, in spite of fatigue, worked through the statements marvelously.  

The professionals who administrate the trainings spend two intense weeks with the students and the bonding is evident.  Sharing similar experiences, the support goes beyond the high level training, but extends to everything from emotional support to providing resources for further training and even letters of reference.  Career advice for budding professionals, alone, is invaluable.  

The attendees, after 2 weeks of constantly working together, established friendships and bonds that serve both personal and professional needs as they strongly identify with their work, as a calling more than just a profession.   

The Phoenix HIDTA training center is a welcoming, high-tech, comfortable training facility conducive to study and advancement.  

Below is a short clip from WhiteHouse.org.  Interested professionals are strongly encouraged to seek out the training.  

One of the most repeated themes is to prepare oneself for future career moves that are unexpected.  In meeting the professional men and women at the training, more than a few spoke of receiving training in areas not currently used in anticipation for the unknown future ahead of them.  

As one studies areas that are not currently within their own scope of work, the professional prepares for a future that is excitedly open to variables. 

As Bob Dylan said, "it is a perfect time for anything to happen."

These men and women are dedicated to the professionals they guide; visit the website here for Training Opportunities.  Take advantage of anything offered.  

Although we are involved in advanced training, we will continue with the general training of Statement Analysis.  Those who have gone through the course and live training  find themselves prepared for future possibilities, yet unknown.  The initial course is thorough, challenging, and comes with 12 months of e-support.  It also is a prerequisite for the live, on going  trainings that are held monthly.  


High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, created by Congress with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, provides assistance to Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies operating in areas determined to be critical drug-trafficking regions of the United States.
The purpose of the program is to reduce drug trafficking and production in the United States by:
  • Facilitating cooperation among Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to share information and implement coordinated enforcement activities;
  • Enhancing law enforcement intelligence sharing among Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies;
  • Providing reliable law enforcement intelligence to law enforcement agencies needed to design effective enforcement strategies and operations; and
  • Supporting coordinated law enforcement strategies which maximize use of available resources to reduce the supply of illegal drugs in designated areas and in the United States as a whole.
There are currently 28 HIDTA’s, which include approximately 17.6 percent of all counties in the United States and a little over 63.5 percent of the U.S. population.  HIDTA-designated counties are located in 48 states, as well as in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. View a map of the HIDTAs here.
Each HIDTA assesses the drug trafficking threat in its defined area for the upcoming year, develops a strategy to address that threat, designs initiatives to implement the strategy, proposes funding needed to carry out the initiatives, and prepares an annual report describing its performance the previous year.  A central feature of the HIDTA program is the discretion granted to the Executive Boards to design and implement initiatives that confront drug trafficking threats in each HIDTA.  The program’s 59 Intelligence and Investigative Support Centers help HIDTA’s identify new targets and trends, develop threat assessments, de-conflict targets and events, and manage cases.

HIDTA Activities

The HIDTA program funds 737 initiatives throughout the country, including:
  • Enforcement initiatives comprising multi-agency investigative, interdiction, and  prosecution activities;
  • Intelligence and information-sharing initiatives;
  • Support for programs that provide assistance beyond the core enforcement and intelligence and information-sharing initiatives; and
  • Drug use prevention and drug treatment initiatives.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Dependent Words and Deception

Insight into Bill Clinton's meeting with Loretta Lynch?  

In statement analysis, a "dependent word" is one that communicates appropriately when another word or topic is associated with it.  

For example, the word "just" is a dependent word.  It will not appropriately communicate a thought unless there is an attendant thought within the speaker's mind.  

We sometimes see "statement analysis confessions" by this word alone. 

"The car costs $15,000."  This is a straight forward, reliable sentence.  Now note a single word change that introduces a new, and missing topic:

"The car costs just $15,000

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It only communicates effectively when the dependent word is associated with at least one other word.  Here, "just" is used to compare the cost with at least one other cost, within the subject's mind. 

Patrol knows this dependent word:  "only"

"I only had two drinks, officer" with the unnecessary dependent word "only" signaling that the subject is thinking of a number greater than two.  

Patrol:  "How many drinks have you had tonight, sir?"

Subject:  "Just two, officer."

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It must rely upon something else in order to be appropriately used in a sentence.  The subject is thinking, via comparison, of another number, greater than two.  

Deceptive people often use a dependent word, inappropriately and reveal truth inadvertently. 

Here is a question for you.  How many people are involved in this sentence"

"I have  a brother."

Answer:  Two.  We have the subject ("I") and we have a "brother", which is two.  The subject may have more, but that information would be outside this statement.  

Next, how many people are indicated in this sentence?  Note this sentence independently of the one above.  An example of this came up in a criminal investigation in which the subject was deceptive about the number of people involved:  

"I have another brother" 

How many people are found within this statement?
Answer:  3 or more. 

We have "I", the subject, as one.
We have the brother as two. 
Then, using the dependent word, "another" we know that this word only works in a sentence when it is associated with at least one other brother, giving us three, or more.  Here, we say "more" because the number found, within this sentence, is not limited to three.  

Dependent words can even give confessions. 

" I parked my car at the gas station.  A car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..."

This sentence tells us that there are two cars in the sentence.  The car belonging to the subject, and the car belonging to the man who pulled up next to her car, and got out. 

The problem?

This is not what she wrote. The analysts had already picked up linguistic indicators of not only substance abuse dependence but had considered that there was a 3rd party who entered the statement; a drug dealer.  

"I parked my car at the gas station.  Another car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..." 

In the statement, the analysts knew that there was yet a third car within the statement, and going deeply into the statement, discerned that this third car was that likely of a drug dealer.  This changed the dynamics of the "event" that was reported.  The word "another" is a dependent word, meaning it does not work unless there is a noun missing that must be applied.  

Dependent words reveal withheld information, especially in advanced techniques and can not only reveal specifically withheld or surpassed information, but can show attendant crimes; those not alleged, but committed alongside the original allegation.  

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday, September 23, 2016,  that  Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012. 

Barak Obama told CBS News March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.
Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

The question is answered and it appears, on the surface, to be a straight forward lie.  

Let's look more deeply at the response. 


Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?
A:  Obama: The same time everyone learned it through news reports.
Here the wording is changed, and the dependent word, "else" is removed.  

A.  "The same time the public learned of it"  was also not said. Here is an even clearer way of answering the question.  

Remember:  the simplest answers are often the most reliable.  

A.  "I learned about it through media."  

This one would, psychologically, put the subject, himself, into the sentence with the pronoun "I", increasing the strength or commitment to the sentence. 

It is not what he said.

"The same time everybody else learned it through the news reports."

Although some may say that the President of the United States only learning this through the media without media first telling him strains credibility of which I reply:  this is statement analysis and we look for a reason for the opinion of deception.  For our reports, and for prosecution, we must be able to clearly articulate why we have concluded deception.  

The word "else" is a dependent word. It is unnecessarily added, meaning it violated the law of economy, took extra effort, leading us to know that it is very important to the subject.  Effort equals sensitivity.  The brain told the tongue to add this word to the sentence, and where to put it in the sentence, in less than a micro second in time.  

This rapid processing means:

The subject did not stop, pause and ask himself, "Should I answer with the word "else", or should I just say it without the word "else"?

Here the disruption of the editing process would have been severe, instead, we have a signal of proficiency within the answer.  This is a strong signal that the subject is well accomplished and life long in deception. 

Not only did the subject not use the pronoun "I", which would have placed himself within the answer, but we know his baseline is to use an overabundance of the pronoun "I" in most every speech given, from funeral speeches that were intended to be about someone other than himself, to any announcement in which success is claimed.  Some journalists have learned to literally count the number times he uses the pronouns "I", "me" and "my" in speeches, suggesting self-aggrandizement and narcissism.  

Note:  "else" is a dependent word that is not necessary to use here.  It is why we consider this 'coming close to an admission' of knowledge.  "Else" only works when it shows dependence upon a person who is being separated from "everybody" (that is, all) in his sentence. 

The question was, "When did you learn...?" in March of 2015.  

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Most people are uncomfortable with a direct lie, and here we see that he removed 'self' from the sentence by avoiding using the pronoun "I", yet he still, unwittingly, identified himself, as one separate and distinct, unnecessarily, from "everyone else."

"Else" refers to himself, and although those who felt that it was not credible were correct, we seek to, within language, find the source of the deception.  This becomes vital in not only seeking justice, but in a case like this, gives insight into personality and experience in deception.  

Mothers of a 8 year olds who come home from school with a touch of trouble recognize this dependent word.  

Most people are afraid of lying to authority.  It is, therefore, concerning when one is bold enough to lie to a police officer.  

What about someone who lies to two or more police officers?  In early Casey Anthony analysis, she showed fearlessness in the event of lying to several police officers, telling them that she worked at a specific company in which she did not.  

They drove her to the company.  

Think about this car ride and why she allowed this to continue.  

She actually allowed them to do so, without interrupting them and saying, "No, don't bother.  I lied.  I don't work there." 

Time elapsed.  

She then got out of the car and walked to the building with them.  

She could have stopped this at any point and admitted the inevitable:  they will see that she does not work there. 

Why did she do it?

This was a very strong indicator of a sociopathic liar; one who lies so often that she lies even when there is no cause to lie.  She lies as she breathes and has become so successful in her lies, that her confidence told her "I'll think of something..." as time elapsed.

Most people would fear lying to a single police officer. 

What about lying to the FBI?  This is now to lie to a federal agent. 

Think of the confidence in one's own ability to deceive to be willing to lie, with the consequences well known, to a federal agent.  

Now think of one who has the confidence in his own abilities to lie to Congress, under oath to God. 

Lastly, think of one who has the utter blind confidence in his or her own ability to deceive and "put one over" (the element of contempt) to...

an audience of 300 million Americans.  

Liars hold the world in contempt.  

They believe the world at large is beneath them, and without the capabilities to discern their words and catch their lies.  

Where one quickly folds and admits lying to a teacher, or a mother, or someone in authority, we should take note of what a tender conscience looks like.  

When another has no fear of being exposed, we are looking at an entirely different display of human nature within personality traits and the language will reveal itself. 


"I will not allow anyone to impugn my record, just because I misspoke a few words..."

Richard Blumenthal revealed himself as 'god-like' with his ability to control others, outside himself, by refusing them the ability to impugn his record. 

He had talked about what it was like for him, as a young man, when he was in Viet Nam, to a group of Viet Nam vets.  

He had never stepped foot in the country of Viet Nam, nor any country near Viet Nam, nor any country that resembled Viet Nam.  He had not left the United States.  

What is missed in this is right within his language when he introduced the word "record."

As a prosecutor, his "record" (note he calls it "my record") of successful prosecutions entered his language while talking about lying, which he minimized by using the word "mistruths" (signaling inability or refusal to take personal responsibility). 

He was concerned about his professional record under the topic of lying. 

How many convictions did he obtain using deception?

We will never know.  

We do know this, however: 

The people of Connecticut read his "apology" (as media reported it) and elected him to office.  


Friday, September 23, 2016

2016 Training Opportunities


If you wish to study deception detection, we offer both seminars and at home training for professional investigators, law enforcement, human resources, corporate America, social service professionals, attorneys, journalists and other professionals in need of deception detection training. 

The courses and seminars both include:

12 months ongoing e support, which allows the student to immediately begin actual analysis, yet without any submission of errors.  

Entrance into live, ongoing monthly training (spaces limited).  This online, monthly live training allows for hands on application of analysis.  This is confidential training and is limited in both enrollment and acceptance.  A new monthly online training class will be opening up for new students.

These trainings are CEU eligible for professional licenses through the University of Maine.  

Seminars are 2 day seminars, they are intense, challenging and are specifically designed for law enforcement, security vetting, employment hiring, etc.   Contact PHyatt1962@gmail.com to register.  Monthly Tuition payment plan available through paypal for all home and monthly trainings.  

                                Training at Home

Statement Analysis

We offer several courses and certification with the first course,
"Statement Analysis" being a complete course, rather than an introductory or "101" course.  It is thorough, challenging and will cover all aspects of analysis and equip the student for deception detection and content analysis.  Textbook, exercises and test submissions.  Tuition is $595 with 12 months confidential support:  you will not submit errant analysis due to this security support from professional analysts.  

 The Advanced Course 

The Advanced Course is open to those with formal training and covers Anonymous Author Identification, Psychological Profiling from language, Language of Sexual Assault Victims, introduction to Analytical Interviewing and other advanced techniques used by active professionals.  Tuition is $895 with 12 months support. This is an extensive course that is large and can be completed in 6-12 months.  

Ongoing Monthly Confidential Training $50 per month, with 25% discount with yearly subscription.  Your training date is the same day each month.  These are 'live' ongoing cases for law enforcement.  

Certification:

Statement Analyst I:  This certification states that the holder is a professional level analyst.  Satisfactorily completion of the Statement Analysis Course, a minimum of 60 hours of live training, and recommendation from 3 professionals.  

Statement Analyst II:  This level is of a professional nature where the analyst is equipped for advanced, in depth content analysis, consultation, advising and instruction.  Completion of Advanced Statement Analysis, a minimum of 120 hours of live training, with the submission of thesis paper, approved by 3 professional analysts (FBI, Investigator, Business Analyst or Psychological Analyst).  This certification in advanced techniques for detecting deception will equip not only investigators and analysts, but for instructors in analysis.  

Announcements:  

Coming:  Look for more monthly classes to be offered; 

"Distinctives" course, including 

Personality Types and Language 
Urban Speak
Ransom Note Threat Analysis 
Anonymous Author Threat Analysis 
Mental Illness and Language
Analyzing Through Contamination 

Fall 2016 Schedule:


23 September, 2016   HIDTA Training Phoenix, AZ    (closed)

27 September, 2016 Training (online)  9AM to 3PM EST 

29 September, 2016 Training (online) 12 Noon to 6PM EST 

17 October, 2016  Behavioral Science Unit, FBI Academy  (closed)

25 October, 2016  Training (online) 9AM to 3PM EST

27 October, 2016  Training (online) 12 Noon to 6PM EST 

12 November, 2016 UK Madeline McCann documentary 

22 November 2016 Training (online) 

24 November, 2016 Training (online) 



Peter Hyatt on "Crime Watch Daily":  Ayla Reynolds



Thursday, September 22, 2016

Marion Cotillard Statement

In Deception Detection, we study words, not themes.  To learn advanced techniques, one must understand:  "I am not studying arson, nor am I studying murder, I am studying words."

This is important to remember as we take examples, not only from criminal cases, but in any public communication.  To limit it to criminal will hinder the professional analyst who may be employed in:

Analyzing Employment statements of "he said; she said" disputes that are common; 

Human Resource claims and counter claims. 

Statements with elements of relationship deception.  

At times, these words do reveal elements of Domestic Violence and child abuse.  There is a value in studying any communication that captures an audience's attention.  

To not study the words of athletes, celebrities and others in the news, is to miss an entire section of analysis that will be needed in advanced analysis. 

This is the statement of a French actress named, unofficially perhaps, as a 'corespondent' in a divorce case against actor Brad Pitt.

Why it is newsworthy will have to be explained by another.  Here, the media reported that the actress released a statement in which she  "denied an affair" with Pitt:  

This is going to be my first and only reaction to the whirlwind news that broke 24 hours ago and that I was swept up into. I am not used to commenting on things like this nor taking them seriously but as this situation is spiraling and affecting people I love, I have to speak up. 

Here we have a lengthy introduction by the subject.  She did not say "I didn't have an affair with Brad Pitt" which would have been short and it would have been strong. 

In the introduction, she calls being publicly named in an upcoming divorce as "whirlwind news", in her own subjective understanding of what this means.  

She further emphasized this with time:  "...broke 24 hour ago" which lets us know that she has had time to think about her statement for a day.  

Priority?  She wants us to know that she is not "used to commenting..." and that she doesn't "take seriously" these things. 

However, she used the small word "but" at this point:

She doesn't take these things "seriously", with the use of the word "serious", now set into a form of rebuttal by the word "but" here.  We should consider that this allegation is very "serious" to the subject.

Why?

As a actor, fortunes are made with publicity and in our current culture, any publicity is advantageous, which is why celebrities and publicists often create (and phone in) their own "intrusion" or event. 

" but as this situation is spiraling and affecting people I love, I have to speak up. "

She called the allegation a "situation", and used the word "this", making it psychologically, a "situation" that is very close or impactful upon her.  

She stated that the situation is "spiraling", that is, is kinetic and that this "spiraling" is, indeed, "affecting people."

If she did not have an affair with Pitt, why would this not only be "affecting" people, but with "spiraling", why would the impact be increasing?

Best is to write, "I didn't have an affair with Brad Pitt", leaving her without impetus or responsibility to write anything further. 

She needs to tell the public something because there is an ongoing, escalating impact upon "people" (plural), that she loves.  We now listen to hear who she introduces into the statement first. 

Firstly, many years ago, I met the man of my life, father of our son and of the baby we are expecting. He is my love, my best friend, the only one that I need. 

"Firstly" tells us that logical follow through is intended, yet the sentence is long (emotion).  What is "first" that the public is to know?

a.  Time 

it was "many years" that she met the "man"

b.  The man of her life, father of her son and baby, her love, her best friend, which all point to her, and not to the man.  This is how the man impacts her. 

Then notice the change introduced by one word when it comes to "need"; this man is the "only" one.  

The word "only" is called a 'dependent' word in Statement Analysis:  it works when another word (s) (thought representation) is present.  The man is compared to another who is not "needed."

This is a strong indication that the other man she is considering, is not the father of her children, was not met many years ago, and he is also someone she does not "need" in life.  

This sentence does not work unless she is thinking of another.  This is very close to an admission.  

Secondly to those who have indicated that I am devastated, I am very well thank you. 

She told us of a "spiraling" impact upon others, which has caused her to rebut her own norm and respond, yet she is, "very well thank you", which also, via additional language, tells us she is anything but.  


This crafted conversation isn't distressing. 

Here she reports what the conversation is not; that is, in the negative.  

And to all the media and the haters who are quick to pass judgment, I sincerely wish you a swift recovery.

Here she avoids issuing a denial, instead she has the need to insult those who want to know it is true by calling them "haters" who are "quick to pass judgement"; the judgment that she can answer, but avoids doing so.  

 Finally, I do very much wish that Angelina and Brad, both whom I deeply respect, will find peace in this very tumultuous moment. With all my love Marion Ceci

We note the order of the names, and we note the unnecessary emphasis of "both";
We note that the respect is said to be "deep" and that this "moment" is "very tumultuous" but she does not clarify for whom.  


Analysis Conclusion:

She does not deny having an affair with Pitt;  therefore, we cannot deny it for her. 

She gives indication of the need to persuade, while coming close to an actual admission via analysis.   When taken with the lack of denial, it becomes even stronger. 

The need to speak out comes from impact, while then denying the impact upon self, yet it is she, herself, who communicates.  

The subject also uses the Statement Analysis principle: "I love you" element of public declaration.  The need is to tell a world wide audience of her devotion to "only" one man.  She does not state devotion to one man, but "only" one man; herein lies the key.  The word "only" is unnecessary unless there is more than one man, and given the context of the announcement, it is Pitt.  

The relationship is in trouble.