"Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation."
Although this is a single quote and Woody Allen has been analyzed before, it is a good example of the Hina Clause in analysis.
It is sometimes difficult for new analysts to keep in mind:
We are not analyzing reality.
We are analyzing the subject's verbalized perception of reality and as such we "stick to it"; that is, we yield our thinking to it.
This means we 'accept' the position given.
The common example I often use as a reference is the analysis of the event in which a relationship is shown in a "void."
Consider a setting where something serious has taken place in the home, and the subject has been asked, by a criminal investigator, to write out what happened.
Subject: "So where do I begin?"
We do not tell him specifically where to begin as where one begins a statement is always important. It can even tell us where the crime began.
The best answer is "Start at the beginning" while carefully avoiding a time period.
"What, from like when I first woke up?"
Great.
Oh, ok. So, let's see. I woke up and then Sheila woke up. I got dressed and..."
Here, we would conclude that the subject is not married to Sheila.
Remember:
a. He is communicating with police who do not know Sheila.
b. Something happened
c. He is not telling us reality, but his verbalized perception of reality.
We conclude "he is not married", not for profiling sake. His record will show, indeed, he and Sheila are married.
This is a critical point in domestic investigations, including homicide and violence.
In this verbalized perception of reality belonging exclusively to him, he is not married. The investigation/interview is very likely to show us why he did not say "My wife, Sheila..." in this context.
This is sometimes the "dual reality" of analysis.
When we do threat analysis, we must learn the threat posed, which means specifically not projecting the case file into the scenario; but believing the subject.
Woody Allen was accused of sexually molesting his step daughter.
Here, enter into his verbalized perception of reality:
"Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation."
Here, you must agree that he 'didn't do it' because "common sense" prevails? No, it is because common sense "would" (future/conditional) prevail.
This is not only a long way from a denial, but it is the reason why he 'didn't do it':
because he was not accused before (or after): length of time.
This means that if you are accused of robbing a bank, you may plead the number of years you have never been accused of robbing a bank, instead of denying it!
In fact, the length of years is vital. Advanced analysis suggests that the subject is considering past sexual molestations in which no accusation arose to the public level.
The need to explain "why" without being asked, indicates the subject anticipates being asked why, and wants to preempt the most sensitive question.
Perhaps one unreliable denial that is not a denial that I have encountered the most is the following.
When a man is accused of molesting a child, instead of issuing a denial, he says,
"I am a happily married man."
This is, in a sense, his 'hina clause' or his explanation of 'why' he would not (not did not) have molested the child.
'Only those "unhappy" in marriage molest children'
What is this?
This is the child molester's 'verbalized perception of reality.' Not only is he avoiding denying the act, but is giving us insight into both his thinking and his state of marriage.
His thinking is to 'normalize' pedophilia.
His marriage is anything but happy.
Only he relates the two together.
This is not only a long way from a denial, but it is the reason why he 'didn't do it':
because he was not accused before (or after): length of time.
This means that if you are accused of robbing a bank, you may plead the number of years you have never been accused of robbing a bank, instead of denying it!
In fact, the length of years is vital. Advanced analysis suggests that the subject is considering past sexual molestations in which no accusation arose to the public level.
The need to explain "why" without being asked, indicates the subject anticipates being asked why, and wants to preempt the most sensitive question.
Perhaps one unreliable denial that is not a denial that I have encountered the most is the following.
When a man is accused of molesting a child, instead of issuing a denial, he says,
"I am a happily married man."
This is, in a sense, his 'hina clause' or his explanation of 'why' he would not (not did not) have molested the child.
'Only those "unhappy" in marriage molest children'
What is this?
This is the child molester's 'verbalized perception of reality.' Not only is he avoiding denying the act, but is giving us insight into both his thinking and his state of marriage.
His thinking is to 'normalize' pedophilia.
His marriage is anything but happy.
Only he relates the two together.