Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Employment Analysis: Discerning Deception in Motives

Looking to work at Subway?
In the employment process, human resources well trained in Statement Analysis are invaluable.  Some companies will invest in training for their own HR professional, while other companies will sub contract with independent analysts for discernment.  

The purpose is to weed out those who are deceptive in the hiring process.  Those who are deceptive have a need to be deceptive and are the most likely to:

File fraudulent claims, steal, sow discord, bruise the reputation of the company and cause stress for all around them.  

Statement Analysis gets to the truth including in ways where politicians have sought to limit the free flow of information in hiring.  The significant disadvantage to employers by these restrictions are not enforced by most governments in their own hiring.  

We weed out those who intend to push their religion upon others, or those who will be made indignant by those who do not agree with their political position...

before they are even offered an interview.  

Employment Analysis is advanced analysis that goes well beyond deception detection.  What we learn before offering someone an interview is often the guiding elements of the interview.  

Companies which employ analysis in HR save money, stress and their own reputation.  They hire the best and brightest from their pool of applicants and see improvement in sales and morale, as well as reduce turnover.  

It is in the sub $15.00 per hour that we have the most turnover as well as the most frequent exploitation.  Turnover means wasted hours of training and exploitation means payouts, insurance and legal fees on top of reputation protection.  

                                   Never Hire an Artist?

Lots of good employees have talents within art and in getting to know one another, the sharing of art can be fulfilling.  We have our "statement analysis rules" that are seemingly "tongue in cheek" but are not.  We don't discriminate against artists nor any other legal standard.  It is in the analysis that we are given what to expect if hired.  

I play guitar and if you did not agree that I am a good guitarist I will not resent you (I'll  agree with you), nor despise you, nor seek to gain some form of redress for the perceived humiliation of you not liking my guitar playing.  I separate guitar playing from me, personally, and my value in life.  

We tell the truth and we document the truth.  

In the years I have done this work, wherever I have represented a company, we have not lost a single case, from human rights to unemployment hearings.  

Here are some samples:

Case Sample 1:  40 year old female applied for position and filled out Questionnaire.  In it, she was asked to tell us about herself.  This allows her to freely tell me (the analyst) why I should hire her.  We go into the analysis with the same presupposition that we do in allegation based statements:  The person is telling the truth.  In Employment, we intend to hire the person unless she talks us out of it.  

 Questionnaire Analysis Conclusion:  Applicant gave lots of red flags, including indication of experience with formal conflict.  Of all the things she could have told us, she chose what was on her mind:  filing complaints against others was in her language.  Remember, our language reveals four things:
a.  our background
b.  our experiences 
c.  our priority 
d.  our personality traits 

She showed a familiarity (experience) with conflict and the personality trait of "victim status", though she did not intend to disclose either.  

I concluded that the applicant posed a  high risk for exploitation.  No interview recommended. This means that if hired, she will likely find a reason to be a "victim" and want money her hands have not earned. (exploitation).  I also wrote that she is likely to be very talented at manipulation (often seen in the language of addiction) and if interviewed, the IR should be experienced. 

Company Response:  Strong disagreement with analysis and hired her.  I later learned that she had worked for the company years earlier and had been terminated.  The company figured it was easier to hire her than to incur the cost of training a new employee and disregarded the risk. 

In less than one year, she filed a claim against the company, which was addressed to me.  Then, she filed another.  

"1 January, 2017 from the _____ Human Rights Commission.  

Question 1:   Mr. Hyatt, when did you learn that _______ __________ is _________ (sexual orientation) ?"

Answer:  1 January, 2017 

Question 2:  Mr. Hyatt, how did you learn that _____ _______ is _________ (sexual orientation)?"

Answer:   I learned this information from your letter to me. 

I told the truth and I documented.  This is what good companies do.  If someone is genuinely mistreated, good companies want to set things right.  This was a fraudulent claim of discrimination.  

Conclusion:  dismissed 

She was not done there, however.  

Case Sample 2    The same applicant filed another claim. 

Letter from _______ Human Rights Commission, dated 1 April, 2017

"Mr. Hyatt, when did you learn that ______ __________ was diagnosed with _________ (mental health disorder)?

Answer;   1 April, 2017 

"Mr. Hyatt, how did you learn that ______ _______ was diagnosed with _________?"

Answer:   I learned this from your letter, dated 1 April, 2017 

Conclusion:  dismissed 

In the pre-interview Questionnaire, the applicant indicated that she would lie and she showed indication of prior involvement with fraudulent claims.  Hence, the initial recommendation to not even interview her.  Her conclusion showed "pragmatic view point of deception" rather than any signals of a tender conscience.  

Case Sample 3   Child Abuse  

Employment Analysis yields very sensitive information.  When someone is asked to tell the company what they wish to know about themselves, statement analysis reveals information that is deeply personal. 

In this case, the applicant revealed growing up severely abused in childhood and had much that was unresolved. She scored very low for honesty and very low for personal responsibility.  The analysis showed that not only did she pose a high risk for exploitation but would impact morale and sales.  Her distrust of men, in particular, was palpable.  There were no indications of professional intervention in her language.  

While employed, she had bizarre "OCD-like" behavior, including eating the same food every day, 7 days a week.  

Question:  Why would we care that she eats the same food every day?

Answer:  Because she makes it everyone's business in the office.  What she eats is secondary to the why she eats the same thing everyday:   it is her identity.  What did this translate into?

It did not take but a few months for her to first boast of her diet, and then criticize others who did not "see" her brilliance.  From there, she began to rail on her co workers who did not recognize her the "health benefits" of eating the same food every day of her life as she criticized, day after day, what others ate.   Co-workers ended up avoiding her, and sales reports showed poor results so further examination was made.  They found decent results for female customers, atrocious results for male customers, including some customers who left the company after feeling insulted by her.  Yet,   the company feared terminating her because she presents as a victim which means she will file suit.  At last account, sales continued to be poor and turnover continues due to her abrasiveness.  The company knows she will file suit if they let her go.  

For some, OCD like traits translates into efficiency, but not here. If the company had known of such early child hood abuse, they could have legally explored such in the interview process.  For example, 
"Here, you wrote that while growing up, you...this is fascinating!" and let the person talk.  This would allow the professional to learn if the early childhood abuse has been processed and dealt with, or if it will interfere with the material needs of the company.  

We care not for one who prefers to eat meat or not eat meat, but when it becomes "virtue signaling", it will translate to trouble.  For such, to disagree with the Vegan is not to disagree with his diet, but in his understanding, it is a personal condemnation of self.  

For him, the "humiliation" of disagreement will fill him with resolve to not only file some form of suit or complaint but to smear the company, via social media, with false claims, especially when if the suit fails to extort money from the company.  


Creativity can have a cost.  Some with artistic ability lose touch with reality.  Some examples:

An actor plays pretend tough guy roles and so in life, he begins to act tough.  They end up believing their own hype.  
Another plays a role of a United Nations diplomat and uses the fame to get politicians to appoint as such, in spite of having no qualifications.  

Bob Hope was said to throw his servants paychecks on the floor to watch them crawl over small amounts.  

Comedians are well known for severe depression and substance abuse, while projecting a happy-go-lucky funny guy persona.  

We saw the "women's rights march" led by a woman who advocates for female genital mutilation among other things.  Another condemned inappropriate language by using far worse inappropriate language.  

Bruce Springsteen is hailed as the "working class spokesman" while he said he never held a job even as a teen.  He lives in mansions while singing songs about factories and how the guy in the "mansion" has lost touch. 

Recently, at age 70,  he announced himself as the "leader of the Resistance Movement"  echoing the brave French underground military resistance movement against Nazi occupation.  When he was 18, he claimed "mental illness" via "same sex attraction" to avoid the draft.  He recently condemned President Trump as a "classic narcissist" forgetting, perhaps,  that he himself disclosed that he diagnosed as a classic narcissist. I enjoy his music while ignoring his politics.  

Sean Penn went down south to "rescue blacks" because, he said, President Bush was trying to kill them all via a storm because "he hates black people. "  His rescue boat had to be abandoned. It was sinking under the weight of all his cameras and film crew.  

Robert DeNiro on Monday practiced monkey faces in the mirror at his home.  On Tuesday, he gave a vulgar rant about those who did not agree with his voting choice. 

Shia LaBeouf had a small band of followers who chanted the same words in front of a camera day and night.  He may have mental illness or he may be self promoting but what of all the young people who went at all hours of the day and night and chanted "he will not divide us; he will not divide us"  while dividing people?  He was eventually arrested.  

These are celebrities which young people often emulate today.  

They have to apply for jobs at some point in life.  Their self loathing aside, eventually, they will have to get jobs.  

It is not that someone with talent should not be hired:  it is one who identifies as an artist while applying for a job that is the signal of trouble to come.  This is repeated regularly:

The "artist" is frustrated into having to get a "regular" job.  It is not that the applicant is good, for example, at painting.  It is that her identity and self worth is within painting.  It is not her "talent", it is "who she is" instead. This may be all well and good as long as her co workers and customers recognize her talent.  Should one disagree with her, it is not that they do not like or appreciate the painting.  That is not what she "hears."  She heard rejection of self.  

This can fill the one with resolve to not get revenge, but to justify self.  

Contrarians like to say "I am not a yes man."  Being unnecessary, this is a signal, if given in an open statement during the hiring process, that the person is going to disagree for the sake of disagreement and trouble superiors.  The issue is not important to the contrarian, it is the self inflated value of one's own opinion that matters.  If this is not recognized by others, it will lead to trouble in the work place.  

Social Justice Warriors:

SJW show their moral narcissism in the Questionnaire and it is only a matter of time before the trouble begins.  

Like the contrarian, the SJW is not so much concerned about the issue at hand. It only appears this way to the untrained.  Let's say "racism" is the cause of the SJW.  The social justice warrior says he wants to fight "racism."  This is not a problem.  Bringing the "fight" to the workplace, where he should be making widgets, is a problem. 

The racism is actually secondary to the view of self.  He or she may rant about perceived racism but it is his own opinion that is paramount that he shows in the analysis, not the cause.  

The SJW has an acute need to be declared morally superior to others

Q,   How is one declared morally superior to others? 

A.  By demonizing others. 

Q.  How does this take place at the work place?
A.   Step by step:

a.  declaration of position, often in friendly, water cooler talk.  The moral narcissist is seeking to learn who agrees with him, but more importantly, who does not.  Dependent upon the size of the company this will not take long.  

b.  disagreement with others; which is what he was seeking in the first place. Who are those who disagree with him?  It is not just someone who does not see it his way, it is often someone disinterested in the discussion at the work place.  This is an affront to the moral narcissist.  Here is how:

If one says, "hey I don't think we should be talking politics at work", the moral narcissist hears the inherent condemnation which says, "you are wrong to engage in this here!"  The response is often, "this is not politics, man, this is human life we are talking about!"   This condemnation gives temporary satisfaction to the moral narcissist at the work place because it allows him to move to the next stage: 

c.  demonization of others.  This is where his "morality" is now separated and distanced from "the others."  He is now "special" and "unique" and feels best at portraying opposition as "phobic and hateful."  This classification of disagreement of those who disagree as "bad people" does not remain, but moves to: 

d.  attack of others

The attack often comes in areas unrelated to his cause.  This is the passive-aggressive response we see when the moral narcissist now allows a report to be a bit late, frustrating the one he labeled "phobic and hateful."  The attack is assimilated through the moral narcissist's intellect:  the stronger the intellect, the more subtle the attacks.  

Eventually, it will come to the surface:  

e.  complaint of "hostile work environment" which goes from vocal (to the supervisor) to the demand for redress (write ups, correction, etc).  Since the rejection of the belief is a rejection of self to the moral narcissist:  

f.  outlet for the perceived humiliation:  violence?  suit?  projection upon subordinates? 

It is often predicted by the Questionnaire itself, successfully.  

We see today the seeds of civil war germinating in our nation.  Where we used to agree to disagree, especially in the work place, we now see the following:

"You did not vote for the same politician that I did.  I will no longer speak with you." 

Families torn apart by the moral narcissist.  Why?

It is not due to disagreement in policy.  If this was the case, there would be healthy debate. 

The condemnation is this:  "You are morally depraved (hate) and mentally ill (phobia) for not agreeing with me. " 

It is going to exact a toll on the company. 

The moral narcissist will produce this in the language to the trained ear when applying for a job.  Consider the context:  the applicant is attempting to control himself or herself, and present the best possible candidate, yet still cannot help but "virtue signal" which leads to the condemnation of others.  "Others" is:  

co workers, supervisors, managers, and customers.  

They create an "us versus them" triangulation and if the "insult" of not agreeing with her is not remedied, the moral narcissist poses a very high risk of filing a fraudulent claim of discrimination.  

The applicant should be telling us about how she likes to work hard, learn new things and how she enjoys working with the public.  She may mention art, which is acceptable, but if the number of words dedicated to art (or social justice, or politics, or religion, or...) outnumbers the words about work attributes, the company is going to experience trouble.  

Willingness to Lie 

Remember, as main stream media holds no embarrassment for lying, neither does the moral narcissist.  They will lie on the job application and they will lie under oath.  This comes from the inner need of "superiority."  Recently the weather forecasters conspired to not tell the truth about the "record setting blizzard" because they knew better than the public did about safety.  

As college kids protest "fascism" by being fascists, resorting to violence and shout downs of free speech, they are then, (at least eventually) applying for jobs.  

The analysis of their applications shows their intentions and attitude:  they hold the expectation that the company will meet their emotional needs.  

What happens the first week of employment when they learn that someone does not hold the same view that they were willing to inflict violence over?

What happens when there is no "safe space" to coddle them?

What happens when they have been tutored and under the influence that deception is a legitimate tool if you have the "moral high ground"? 

Employers do not want any of this nonsense.  They want productivity because productivity, not the government,  gives job security.  

Whereas we once disagreed in politics, but agreed that politics and religion do not do well in the work place, the civil standards do not apply to those who identify their very being with their opinion.  

An artist in need of work will use the employment process to persuade the company to hire him or her by calling attention to work attributes, not demand, instead, recognition for being an artist.  

Those who approach companies with illicit motive will signal this in the language.  It is so important to them that it will find its way into their words. 

The Remedy

Hire the best and brightest from the pool of applicants by weeding out the deceptive and discerning those with the intention of bringing trouble to the work place.  

Hyatt Analysis Services offers employment analysis on a sub-contract basis. We guarantee that the company will realize significant savings in the first year.  Dependent upon the size of the company and the turn-over, the cost of working with us may save multiples of it alone.  We also have analysts available to work with companies on larger contracts. 

Should a company have a suit filed against them, we intervene from the beginning to protect the company from fraud.  

We train companies in seminars or Human Resource professionals can receive the training individually, at home.  

Due to the advanced nature of Employment Analysis the "Complete  Statement Analysis Course" must be successfully completed.  While this work is being done, we work with the company to develop its own tailored Questionnaire fitting for both their company and the position applied for.  

This will save on insurance costs, legal fees, pay outs, and turn over, while protecting a company's reputation.  

Never hire a  _____________ (fill in the blank).  Hire workers that reveal honesty, a tender conscience and a desire to earn money.  


Unknown said...

Very good post, Peter. I am studying statement analysis for employment and HR purposes presently. You have been a wonderful resource and teacher. We are both products of the Catholic School system in NY, I went to Nazareth Regional in Brooklyn in the 1980s. I find that my excellent education and avid reading have proven to be invaluable to me in this process. Thank you for your feedback, always.

Anonymous said...

Peter , I really enjoyed this article.

Anonymous said...


This post resonated with my on a personal level. In November, I filed a complaint with my company's HR department regarding some very concerning conversations I'd overheard. Here is my email to HR,

"In the weeks and months before the presidential election, I have heard several conversations regarding party politics and personal emotions regarding the possible outcome. Since the election has ended, I have heard conversations of name calling, bigoted and intolerant remarks, and even jokes of violence and death to "the other party" such as "we should take them to the 7th floor and push them off" ... "make sure they listed their beneficiaries on their life insurance plans" ... "the only good [party] is a dead [party]", etc. I am hoping something can be done because I am getting uncomfortable."

These statements were being made on company property, in common areas, during company time. I gave the HR rep the names of the people who were making these statements.

In my in-person meeting with my HR rep, I was told that these individuals were exercising their rights to free speech, and that stopping it would violate their rights. Basically, I just had to deal with it.

A few days later, this memo was issued...

"As you are no doubt aware, this election cycle has brought increased public and media interest to [company redacted], its leadership, and its departments. That interest is likely to remain high throughout the presidential transition and into the first months of the new administration.

You will be seeing numerous media stories about national developments and will likely hear swirling rumors about what this means for [company redacted]. During this time, it is important to keep a couple of things in mind.

First, [company redacted] policy requires that all interactions with the news media be coordinated through the [company department]. If you are contacted by any media outlet asking for comment on any matter, please immediately contact Media & Public Relations [contact info].

[company redacted] will continue working to promote stories about the important work we do, but it is critical that we present only thoughtful, coordinated messages during this time of transition. Media & Public Relations will help ensure that standard is met while protecting you and [company redacted] from possible negative outcomes.

If you are publicly speaking on behalf of [company redacted], avoid comment on any matter pertaining to the election, the transition, or subsequent changes made by [company redacted]. We talk about [nature of work] and leave policy and politics to others. Remember that even at the smallest professional activity, media may be present in the audience and social media can quickly amplify any statement to global status.

Second, be careful about lending too much credence to rumors or media stories you may encounter. [company redacted] leadership is committed to providing its employees with the most up-to-date information as soon as it is available. While it is tempting during uncertain times to try to discern the future using limited information, please be aware that many rumors turn out to be unfounded. Be assured that we will provide you with the most current information as soon as we receive it from confirmed sources.


Anonymous said...

I think I just figured out the cure for world hunger (at least within a small country).

Dont give the sign-holder any more sandwhiches.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I think the bigotry removes hope for justice. I worked for the state of Maine DHHS for a decade. They had "closet conservatives" who did not dare to question out of control spending lest they be ostracized.

College kids were asked about Muslim rights to refuse things and roundly supported the Muslims' rights to freely refuse something with Jews.

Then they were asked about Christians. They did not want to extend the same "freedoms" to Christians.

We have a generation set for failure.

Socialism is dependent upon incessant population and revenue growth.

Each new round of politicians gives away more and more.

This is why the middle class disappears. They cannot afford to have more than one or two children; tops.

Germany's plan for 300,000 Muslims per year for 30 years is to save the socialist structure. Adults generally bristle at the thought of the government (elected self interest officials) controlling life , with "socialism" and "communism" anathema; the opposite of freedom.

college kids think it is "due" them, not understanding that someone has to pay.

Socialism's end is Venezuela. I hope Europe wakes up before it is too late. Playing God with populations is scary stuff. I see Seattle will not rest until it is bankrupt economically as it is morally.

I've got to go and find myself a grievance, paint a sign, and walk in circles.

I'll post later.


Anonymous said...

What employer is so close to national politics that an election outcome would somehow bring media attention to itself and its employees? Its not possible to know if the above post is fictional or factual.

Anonymous said...

The FBI? Are you a spy?

Hey Jude said...

I don't know who that girl is, but she doesn't look like she is making the right choices... :)

Unknown said...

"He will not divide us"

Why these words instead of words like: unite,together, and we?

My first impression was that Shia is a liar and wanted to stir the pot.

Horse Chestnut said...

"Where he should be making widgets"


Nic said...

Peter said,
I enjoy his music while ignoring his politics.

I didn't enjoy his music in the 80's+, yet literally within the last two years I started listening to him -- the old stuff that reminded me of people not with me any longer. His politics overruled my "pleasure" of his music and he has effectively been ejected from my playlist.

Entertainers like Springsteen and Bonjovi have made me out to be this reluctant (unexpected,) rah-rah girl for Trump. I'm a Canadian! In any event, as it turns out, I'm a bigger supporter of Trump/an American president, than I ever knew I could be.

Nic said...

Peter said,
Germany's plan for 300,000 Muslims per year for 30 years is to save the socialist structure.

Interesting. I see what's happening to Germany as a means to undermine their power. (Guilt: The gift that keeps on giving.)

Germany was recovering too well; better than the rest of the EU ergo becoming a power house.

Socialism costs. (To be homogenous, or not to be homogenous. That is the question.)

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Very informative article Peter, thank you! It's too bad Landlords and Rental Companies don't have Statement Analysis training. They could save tons of money.

I once had a new young college grad neighbor, who introduced herself by gifting me a self-produced music CD, the cover emblazoned with Social Justice catch phrases and declaring her a Social Justice Warrior. Her cover read to me: pragmatic in her dogma, moral narcissist, passionately zealous to "her" chosen causes, emotionally-driven, dramatic/histrionic personality type, lacking wisdom and discernment, little real-life experience, gullible, and lacking objectivity and research skills.

The landlords rented to her and her spouse because they were all alumni of the same Christian college. This same young lady had become pregnant during college, which necessitated a marriage. Newly married, heavily in debt, with a baby, she proudly announced that she should be a stay-at-home mom. Their WIC checks arrived each month, along with a delivery box of Organic food from the $500 year Co-Op they had a paid membership to. They thought nothing of leaving their baby sleeping alone in their apartment to walk to the grocery store (cars are bad for the environment). She relayed that she disliked "Mother's Groups" because she didn't appreciate other mothers telling her what she should do to raise her child. Short on money, she began babysitting on the side in a dirty apartment with food bits regularly on the floor (for grandchildren of her professors from the same Christian college). She played her piano morning and evening, regardless of the couple above her with a new baby. Within 12 months, she was pregnant again, he was searching for a higher paying job, and they had ruined what had been a newly renovated apartment (as well as any good will extended to them). The Landlord, who'd rented to alumni for 30 years, was utterly shocked and declared she'd never rent to another alumni based on that alone.

Lemon said...

My favorites: "swirling rumors" and "its employees" :)

John Mc Gowan said...



A Mount Tabor woman facing a murder charge listened Tuesday to a recording in which she told police her husband shot himself. Prosecutors contend the call was a ruse, to cover-up her shooting of David Shores.

“911, where is your emergency?” the dispatcher asked Peggy Shores. Then the dispatcher confirmed Shores’ phone number and address on Brooklyn Road. “What’s going on, ma’am.”

“My husband fell with his gun,” Shores, 51, tells the dispatcher, her voice at times breaking and halting. “Please get somebody here, quick.”

“Ok, he fell where, ma’am?” the dispatcher asked.

“On the stairs,” she replied. “He fell with his gun.”

The dispatcher said, “Did it discharge?”

“Excuse me?” she responded.

“Is he breathing?” he asked.

“Yes,” Shores replied.

The dispatcher said, “Ok, is he injured anywhere?”

“Yeah,” Shores told him.

“Ok, how is he injured?” the dispatcher asked. “Does he have a gunshot wound?

Shores responded, “Yes.”

‘Ok, where?” the dispatcher asks.

“He was walking up the stairs,” Shores told him, “I didn’t think the gun was loaded. I don’t know if he knew it was.”

She added, “He missed a step and fell on his elbow.”

The dispatcher, his voice getting louder, assured Shores help was on the way.

“Where did he get hit?” he asked her.

“I’m not sure,” Shores answered.

“Ok, can we put something on it to help with the bleeding?” the dispatcher said to her.

“Get somebody here, please, quick,” Shores replied.

Seconds later the call drops.

The tape ended there and Rutland County State’s Attorney Rose Kennedy told the judge, “that’s when she disconnects.”

The call lasted under 2 minutes.

In Rutland criminal court Tuesday, Shores sat next to her attorney with her head down at the defense table as prosecutors played the tape of the 911 call.

Shores made the call at about 7:30 p.m. Dec. 11 seeking medical care for her husband, David Shores, 54, who had been fatally shot inside the home.

In a show of support, three rows of friends and relatives, from both her and her late husband’s sides of the family, sat on benches behind Peggy Shores in the courtroom.

Peggy Shores was arraigned on a second-degree murder charge last month. She entered a not guilty plea through her attorney and has been held without bail since.

The 911 call was played to determine if Peggy Shores would continue to be held in jail without bail pending her trial.

After hearing the tape in court Tuesday, Judge David Fenster went back into his chambers to review affidavits from police, the medical examiner and forensic experts. He was expected to return to the courtroom to hear arguments from attorneys. But due to blizzard conditions, the court closed for the remainder of the day, and the hearing was continued. The date of the next hearing was not immediately available.

Prosecutors say forensic evidence shows there is no way David Shores could have shot himself based on the location of his wound and the trajectory of the bullet.

Investigators allege that the gun was fired from a distance and that he couldn’t have shot himself.

The evidence, the prosecutor and police investigators say, points to the only person in the home other than David Shores at the time of the shooting: His wife, Peggy Shores

Peggy Shores has contended that her husband accidentally shot and killed himself. She told investigators her husband was walking up stairs from their home’s cellar, carrying a loaded .44 Magnum revolver when he tripped, fell, and the gun went off, according to court records.


John Mc Gowan said...


An autopsy, conducted by Dr. Steven Shapiro of the state medical examiner’s office, showed that David Shores suffered a gunshot wound to his upper left side, below his collarbone, a police affidavit stated.

Shapiro said it appeared the shot, which had a downward trajectory, came from a distance because there was no contact wound.

Also, the doctor said, the gunshot was not instantly fatal. The bullet didn’t strike the heart, according to Shapiro, meaning that David Shores was alive for a “time duration” after the shot was fired.

Attorney Steven Howard, representing Peggy Shores, has said the entire case against his client is “circumstantial.” It is based, he said, on “assumptions,” with nothing to show his client ever held the gun or pulled the trigger setting off the fatal shot.

The investigation, which spanned more than two months, included police re-creating scenarios inside the Brooklyn Road home, using measurements and other evidence collected in the probe.

That showed, according to investigators, a trajectory “consistent’ with a shot fired from the upper stair area, including the living room. Peggy Shores told police she was at the top of the cellar stairs when her husband fell.

If convicted of the murder charge, Peggy Shores faces 20 years to life in prison.

I'm looking for the full transcript

Anonymous said...

Anonymous on March 15, 2017 at 3:15 PM said...
"What employer is so close to national politics that an election outcome would somehow bring media attention to itself and its employees? Its not possible to know if the above post is fictional or factual."


**We are a government contractor. That is all I am at liberty to say. My above post is true.**

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter

You did an amazing SA of Making a Murder way back when it premiered which proved decisive in convincing me of Avery's guilt and the veracity of SA.

There is now a new, similar documentary, which I think is far superior and has just premiered on the BBC.

I've attached the link to an Avery reddit sub where I discuss this documentary:

The film can only be accessed at the moment on the BBC, so I'm not sure if you can see it, but if you ever get a chance to analyse the male defendants statements I'd be fascinated to hear your thoughts - or those of any UK based Statement Analysers.


Anonymous said...

Paul Flanagan said...

Excellent article!

Linda Ann said...

Peter- I always enjoy your posts regarding hiring, HR, employee assessment, etc. I have been on interview teams for new staff at my company and enjoy the process - especially after finding your blog years ago! I have been on teams to hire supervisors, counterparts and support staff. I have used your techniques of listening during the interview process. More times than not, my observations went unheeded and the wrong person was hired. Which, as you can imagine, caused many hours of frustration, union issues, and good staff quitting! Tired of dealing with unsuitable co-workers. If I had a nickle for every time other interview team members said to me "you must have a crystal ball! you said we shouldn't hire that person!" I could get a cup of coffee :) LOL!!!So, thanks so much for the posts! I so appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experience!!!

Anonymous said...

Hey Peter,I love your blog.
But I had a sour feeling when you wrote "OCD-like behavior" in eating the same sandwich every day, It sounds like she wanted to creates situation that she could hold over others. A way of being superior.
A person with OCD would cause the person eating the same sandwhich everyday, severe stress and mental anguish if they didn't. They don't do it to hold it over someone else. It might be a compulsion, or a ritual such as if I eat this food, someothing bad willing happen to someone I love. Most likely, they'd be embarrassed about how they think and hide that they eat the same sandwhich every day.

I know I'm being not-picky, but as a person with diagnoses of OCD, it can be truly frustrating to make others understand how completely overwhelming it is in life. How it can be all you think about. How your mind is constantly moving. It's not "liking things tidy".

Thank you for reading this and educating us in your wonderful blog!

Statement Analysis Blog said...

OCD is not what she is holding over the employer.
Read it again...slowly.


Anonymous said...

Why does she have a hotdog rolled up in her hair? ��

LeRoy said...

Um, maybe in case noone makes her a sandwhich?

Habundia said...

How can a letter have been dated 1 april 2017? This date has yet to come lol

What she is holding over the employer is that he/she doesnt she her 'briliance' and begins to critize them because they don't see it the way he/she sees it. Therefor people start avoiding him/her......not because of OCD.....but because she wants others to agree with her....and so it's not the 'illness' anymore but it became personal.
Did i understand it okay? Or am I totaly wrong?

Could someone who had training in SA, mislead you while applying for a job? I was wondering.

What about jobs that ain't all about money but of social service and where the average employee doesnt make a lot of money, like teachers, daycareworkers, social workers, trainers, or other occupations where the wage isn't above average, if motivation more is of 'helping out others'. Often these people work with kids and young people. Could you, through application and interview find out he/she could become a potiential risk for the kids they work with? Or is a potential risk. If they have the capability to act as necassary for situations that will come along the way?

happyuk said...

I once crossed swords with such a social justice warrior except that his beef was with so called climate change deniers. What really seemed to annoy him was utter indifference to his pet cause rather than any opposition I may have had. His was a classic example of flagrant nepotism he was given a job by the software director regardless of the negative qualities that any decent HR would have flagged up. He has since gone but my problem is with a system that allows this to occur. As a shareholder as well as an employee this is an issue I will want to raise. Such an important issue I've seen first class people leave companies because of people like these.

happyuk said...

There are one or two social justice warriors in various locations in towns where my company has a base. During a Skype meeting a months back one of them waded in with a comment about what a disaster the new Trump presidency is going to be. My boss, bless him, countered by saying "no interest whatsoever".