When we speak, the words we choose reveal us. They reveal:
A. Our background
B. Our experiences
C. Our priority
D. Our personality traits.
These four elements are the profile of the subject. This is how we identify anonymous authors.
Statement Analysis training begins with:
1. Deception Detection and moves on to
2. Content Analysis. From there, we seek to learn the four elements (above) regarding the subject:
3. Psycho-linguistic Profiling.
For law enforcement, given an allegation and a statement, the investigator can know:
If the subject is lying;
What really happened; and
How the subject should be interviewed.
In a shaken baby case, a lengthy interview and interrogation produced nothing, as the investigator lost patience (overnight hours) and screamed in the face of the suspect.
What he did not consider was the suspect's profile:
The investigator gave up, frustrated, but convinced the suspect (boyfriend of mother) did, in fact, shake the baby, who was brain dead.
I very quietly asked the subject to tell me what happened.
Katrina Vetrano was allegedly raped and murdered by a Chanel Lewis, now in custody. From the NY Post:
The sister of Karina Vetrano’s accused killer said Monday that her sibling was framed—and that he was only arrested because he’s black.
“I think the cops framed him because he’s a black person. They couldn’t find anyone else to pin this on, so they pinned it on my brother,” Theresa Forbes, 36, told reporters.
Here, readers may say "race card!" or "she is blaming police" but to listen to her, note her language:
"I think the cops framed him because he’s a black person. They couldn’t find anyone else to pin this on, so they pinned it on my brother..."
First, notice that she reveals weakness in her own assertion. Does she believe he didn't do it?
She can only say she "thinks" they framed him. This is a weak assertion, which allows for her, or others, to "think" differently; that is, to change her mind.
Yet, we have two high sensitivity indicators very close together with the need to explain "why" she "thinks" they did this.
The need to explain why means she anticipates being asked,
"Why do you think the cops framed him?"
What does her answer show?
a. First, because he is black.
Here is where we see our deception. It is not only in the weak assertion (which, by itself, does not conclusively indicate deception), but in something else:
it is not in the need to explain why (racism), either.
It is only natural that in making an assertion, one might anticipate the need to prove it.
It is in the second need to explain: "so they pinned it on him" is a different reason than race:
b. Secondly, it is police incompetence she identifies.
She gave us two reasons why she only "thinks" he is framed:
Racism and police incompetence.
The order is important.
In less than a millisecond of time, her brain went to "racism" first, and then "incompetence" in an attempt to support a contention she herself refuses to commit to.
Chanel Lewis, 20, was charged Sunday with murdering the Queens jogger in August based on DNA evidence and two videotaped confessions, authorities and law-enforcement sources have said.
Asked about the alleged forensic evidence against her sibling, Forbes said,“The DNA lies sometimes. They wanted to get confirmation so they framed him for murder.
Here, she feels the need to give us a third reason, this third reason is the weakest of all: "confirmation."
Confirmation of what?
Although this part is missing from the article, we learned that he has confessed.
Note her use of the word "lie" regarding DNA; rather than 'error' in any form. This is the word of her choosing. Consider it while considering her use of "coerce."
Next, she seeks to issue a denial. We expect her to say "he didn't kill her."
“My family, we are God-fearing people. The Bible tells us ‘Do no kill’—we do not kill,” she said.
Here we have the invocation of Deity (-) and we have present tense language (-) and we have the plural "we" rather than her brother (-). This gives us 3 negative marks, on this alone yet, there is more.
She needs to explain why they are God fearing: The Bible tells us. To be "God fearing" is to suggest fear of negative external consequence for murder.
As for his alleged confessions, “I think they coerced him into a confession. They tricked him,” Forbes added.
We have another weak assertion with "think" but we have a change of language:
a. coerce is to use force or threats. It changes to
b. trickery, which is to use cleverness.
She knows her brother killed Karina Vetrano, and she likely knows his motive as well.
We do also know a bit about her. In spite of her status (plural) of "God fearing", we know she is not afraid to lie, and to bear false witness against innocent police.
There is one last thing to consider regarding the subject:
We later learned that her brother refused to speak to a white investigator but confessed to a black investigator his racial motive.
“I’m sorry for their loss, but they have the wrong person in custody,” Forbes said.
It is interesting that she calls him "person", gender neutral. Here may be the reason:
She added that her brother “did not have any problem with women.”
This assertion, given in the negative, is very important. She goes from "women" to:
“He has nieces, and he played with them,” Forbes told reporters.
This is an indication that the subject knows her brother "problems" he has with women. "Nieces" for the 20 year old, is not likely a reference to "women" but to female children.
This is very concerning.
Lastly, she reveals his serious history from school:
She said his behavioral issues in high school consisted of “regular stuff. He made regular problems.”
This is, within analysis, the principle of "normal" which tells us that she is aware that he was anything but "normal" in high school. The need to minimize is computed with this theme. When one says "I am a normal male", it is likely due to either the subject believing himself not to be normal, or that he is aware that others consider him not normal.
We sometimes hear this from pedophiles and child molesters as a 'defense':
"I'm a happily married man!" rather than "I didn't do it." This subject wants us to believe he did not molest a child because his sexual desires are fulfilled in marriage.
It is also not the thinking of normal men. Innocent men do not feel compelled to defend their sexuality. There is no need to justify. This is akin to a pragmatic view that says 'if I were not married' or 'if I were not happy in my marriage...'
The Post reported:
Lewis had a history of threatening female students in high school, telling a teacher’s aide at the High School for Medical Professions in Brooklyn in 2011 that he wanted to “stab all the girls.”
Besides racism, there may be an element of humiliation as the final 'trigger' to the murder .
That same year he “cursed at a female student and threatened both her and her family,” according to law enforcement sources.
Lewis also told authorities that he had gone to Spring Creek Park to cool off after fighting with family members the day of the murder.
He became “startled” by Vetrano’s presence and took his anger out on her, Lewis told cops, according to sources
For training opportunities, go to www.hyattanalyisis.com and on to "training", including exploration of some cases covered.
In at home training, tuition payment plans are offered for Law Enforcement only.