Thursday, March 2, 2017

Greg Neal Analysis: Video Voyeurism



Was Clay County Sheriff's Office justified in their work?

Deception Detection Training for Law Enforcement 

We train law enforcement, human resources, business professionals, security, polygraph examiners, investigators, journalists, therapists and private citizens how to detect deception and analyze content with an accuracy rate at or near 100%.  

We have seminars and have at home training, using MP3 lectures.  In all training, we provide 12 months of support, so that from the very beginning, no investigator or analyst will submit an errant report.  

Enrolling in formal  training also allows for enrollment in monthly, live on-going training.  

Successful completion of the Complete Statement Analysis Course is a prerequisite for the Advanced Course. 

Professional Certification:  

With successful completion of the Complete Statement Analysis Course and a minimum of 60 hours of live on-going training, and the recommendation of 3 professional analysts, you will be granted certification of Statement Analyst I.  This includes 60 hours of Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) for professional licenses, from the University of Maine.  

Statement Analyst II Certification upon successful completion of Advanced Course, minimum 120 hours of live training, and submission of thesis paper approved by three professionals, state, federal and business.  

The words one chooses to use allows us to:

1.  Know if they are truthful or deceptive
2.  Obtain Content of what really happened
3.  See the person, himself:

a.  Background
b.  Experiences
c.  Priority
d.  Personality Traits 

Accusation

Here we have an accusation against a religious leader in which the Clay County Sheriff's  investigators had one conclusion and a polygraph examiner, unrelated to the church, had another. 

          The statute of limitations expired on the charges.  

Who do we believe?

If he is telling the truth, his words will guide us.  The key is trained listening to his words.  Remember: 

The average person has a inner dictionary about about 25,000 words.  When we speak, we go into our dictionary and choose:

*what information to reveal
*what information not to reveal; after all, if we told "everything" that happened 'this morning', we would go on for hours
*what words to choose out of the 25,000 +
*what verb tenses to use
*what pronouns to use
*where to place each word next to another, to make sense

This all takes place in the brain in less than a micro-second of time.  This is where we get our accuracy from.  


Statement Analysis reveals the truth. 



Context:  Video Voyeurism

The accused allegedly video taped women changing their clothing at church. 

The pastor was accused by the State of Video Voyeurism and reported that the State had concluded, as reported by Tom Neal (father and sr. pastor) that  Clay County Sheriff Office found “that the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.  We strongly disagree with that finding.”

Polygraph

When a polygraph is administered properly, using the subject's own personal subjective dictionary, it is fool-proof.  The error of contamination is the most likely to yield errant results.  

In the press conference, they introduced a polygraph examiner who said that on the “relevant” questions, Greg Neal told the truth.  He stated that the questions were designed, not by him, but by Neal’s attorney working with him.  He did not explain the qualified statement regarding “relevancy” nor did he reveal the questions asked nor address the non-relevant questions. 

Since 2001, I have only had  two cases in which I have worked where the analysis disagreed with the polygraph results:

a.  Child Molestation

The subject's words revealed the location and time of the molestation.  This matched the child's account.  The subject was cleared and allowed to move back into the home of his girlfriend and daughter.  He reoffended. 

b.  911 Murder-Suicide 

In this case, I worked from the 911 call and concluded the caller murdered his girlfriend and her son, revealing the timing, the motive, and his background.  

He had passed a polygraph, cooperated with police (more than 2 decades of homicide investigation experience) and satisfied the coroner and DA to close the case. 

Upon submitting analysis, the coroner's office re classified the cause of death, the DA reopened the case, and the subject was arrested.  24 months later, he was convicted of double murder.  

Polygraph Shopping

Defense attorneys "polygraph shop" and should not construct nor assist in the construction of questions for the subject.  The Ramseys took several polygraphs until they found one who would "pass" them, but signed a life contract to not release the questions asked. 

Although the polygraph is highly effective, such cases cast doubt upon the industry. 

My respect for the polygraph is high, and I will only oppose its results on one condition:

The subject's words have overwhelmed me with deception.  

The polygraph is used today by the world's elite for protection.  When a polygraph examiner combines his work with strong training in statement analysis, he learns how to avoid contamination and only ask questions based upon the subject's own subjective dictionary.  

President Clinton would likely have passed a polygraph if asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" due to his strong personal definition of sexual relations. 

Had he been asked, "Did you have sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky?", he would not have passed.  

By first obtaining the subject's own definition, and asking simple short questions based on his language, the polygraph is highly efficient.  

Sociopaths and Stress

From Hollywood, some argue that sociopaths can pass a polygraph due to the lack of conscience. 

This is not true. 

Lying causes internal stress. 

This stress stems from the results of lying; being caught, being labeled a liar, consequences, as well as conscience. 

In the free editing process, lying disrupts the rapid speed of transmission of words to speech, which is highlighted within statement analysis and deception detection.  

Greg Neal:  Is he telling the truth about the video voyeurism?


The subject’s own words will guide us. 


“Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh.”  The “heart” is understood to be the ‘seat of the intellect and affections’, that is, the transmission of the brain to the tongue in choosing which words to use. 

Denial.

A reliable denial, statistically, is one in which the subject (Greg Neal) states that he did not participate in what has been alleged.

Statistics within analysis show that if one says freely, “I did not…” and addresses the specific allegation, he is likely to be telling the truth.  If he follows this denial with the statement, “I told the truth”, it is more than 99% likely to be reliable. 

When one alters by addition, subtraction or change in wording, any part of the denial, it is deemed “unreliable.”

This still does not mean it is deceptive, however, as we listen carefully to what one tells us.  In a statement or press conference, those who have no guilty knowledge of what is alleged often state this plainly, and use few words.  This is called the “law of economy”, where a person of de facto (not judicial) innocence, feels no need to persuade nor influence, as the truth, itself, is without need of assistance.

The “reliable denial” is simple and often ends a press conference as the subject feels no impetus to speak further.   

The subject made two statements.  This is the first for analysis. 

I.                The Statement of Denial
II.             The Statement With Analysis
III.           The Conclusion



I.               The Statement of Denial

This is presented 'as is' including bold type, capitalization, etc.  




Good morning. I am Greg Neal, and I'm the co-pastor of Berean Baptist Church.

I categorically state that I am innocent of the allegations of video voyeurism. I do not deny that there is a tape - there apparently is. I DO deny that I was aware that such a video tape exited, or that I saw it before it was released by the Clay County Sheriff's Office. I have NO KNOWLEDGE of HOW the tape was made, or BY WHOM the tape was made.

I have not spoken out before now because we were told that the Clay County Sheriff's Office did not want us making any statements until their investigation was concluded, as it may interfere with the their investigation. I of course welcomed a fair and complete investigation, therefore I cooperated.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, it was clear to me however that it was not fair nor complete, therefore we immediately asked our attorney to obtain what evidence the State's Attorney's Office said was "overwhelming;" we JUST RECEIVED that information late yesterday afternoon. I have in my hand what they say is their 'overwhelming evidence'. A quick review of the information reveals NOTHING, NOTHING, substantiating my guilt of the charges. Apparently, the only evidence is the recording, which I had no knowledge of. The recording is not even an original recording, and is apparently on in digital format, not tape. There is no evidence of who made the recording, or on what type of device it was made, nor to my knowledge has an original recording ever been produced. Most tellingly, there is not telling is no explanation for the movement of the camera while I was which I was, when I was seated at my desk - the camera moved, and the recording itself proves that I did not move it make the recording.

Some stations have not shown the entire video. I don't know why. I have first [inaudible] and you can clearly see the camera movement.

I have fully cooperated with the investigating officials. I have not discussed this case with the Clay County Sheriff's Office because after being told that I would talk to the CCSO upon presentation of some evidence or charges, my attorney informed them that I would not talk to them until they were ready to make a presentation of evidence or charges. THEY CHOSE NOT TO TALK TO ME.

Since these malicious allegations were made, my family and the congregation of Berean Baptist Church have suffered. Many members have left the church, many students of the Academy have left..... damage has been inflicted to our credibility within our the community.

These allegations and malicious attacks have financially crippled Berean Baptist Church. As a result of these allegations, Berean has we have been unable to complete its our Chapter 11 Reorganization, however we have entered into an agreement with our Lender, and will continue to occupy this the Church property. A Joint Press Release from Berean and its Lender will be issued tomorrow.

I directly want to say to my accusers, first of all, I forgive you, and  that despite your efforts, the Church will go on. Berean Baptist Church will remain active in our community and in our many, many missions efforts spreading the word of God gospel and helping the needy.

Thank you.


II.             The Statement With Analysis

This is the same statement, with emphasis of underlining-color added.  The analysis is in bold type.  The subject’s statement includes italics and bold type, which have not been altered. 

Statement Analysis

Good morning. I am Greg Neal, and I'm the co-pastor of Berean Baptist Church.

The subject begins with a greeting and introduction.  It is noted that he is a public speaker.  It is here that we now expect him to  follow his greeting with priority and simply say,

“I did not videotape women.”  

This would be a strong denial and would be without qualification.  There would be few questions or words necessary beyond this. 

The Reliable Denial has three components:
1.     Pronoun “I”
2.     Past tense verb
3.     The specific allegation addressed.

Any addition, subtraction or alteration means it is statistically unreliable.  Therefore,

Didn’t videotape women” would be without the pronoun “I” effectively removing the subject personally from the denial.

I never videotaped” would exchange “did not” or “didn’t” for “never.” The use of the word “never” as a substitute is unreliable.  “Never” allows for no definitive time period and is frequently used by deceptive people.  Lance Armstrong repeatedly said, “I never used PEDS” in his public statements, while avoiding saying “I did not use PEDs.”

“I would not video tape women” alters the verb, “didn’t”, into future/conditional tense “would not.”  This is also a common form of deception when a reliable denial is absent. 

Lying directly causing internal stress; not always due to conscience, but to the element of being caught.  Deceptive people will often use many words to address an allegation, while not stating “I didn’t do ____” within their statements. 

I categorically state that I am innocent of the allegations of video voyeurism.

This is an unreliable denial.

The subject declares that he is “innocent”, which is truthful.  He has, at the time of this statement, not been found guilty in a court of law.  Many deceptive people have made this claim but it is used to avoid issuing a direct reliable denial.

Note also that in this unreliable denial, the subject has a need for emphasis with “categorically state”, rather than say, “I didn’t video tape women.” 

This is a ‘low internal stress’ statement because it is technically true.

I do not deny that there is a tape - there apparently is.

What one reports to us in the ‘negative’ is elevated in importance.  Truthful people will tell us what happened, what was said, what was thought, and so on.  Therefore we highlight when one tells us what did not happen, what was not said, etc.  Here the subject wants us to know that there is a tape.  This is to introduce the subject (“I”) in association with “a tape.” 

A de facto innocent person has no need for any such assertion.  He did not video tape women and has no need to acknowledge anything.  This is a technique of ‘pre-emptive strike’, that is, to go after evidence before hand, rather than deny the event. 

Please also note that it is important to the subject that he allows for knowledge of such a tape to exist.  That he is concerned about it makes its presence ‘sensitive’ to him; as reported ‘in the negative.’

Note that he qualifies the existence of such a tape with the word “apparently.”  This is a subtle distancing word from knowledge of the tape’s existence.  In what would be considered ‘needless’ by one without involvement in the taping, the subject has connected himself, linguistically, to a video tape. 

He is “innocent of the allegations” but does not deny the activity. 


I DO deny that I was aware that such a video tape existed, or that I saw it before it was released by the Clay County Sheriff's Office.

The analyst began by avoiding a reliable denial and giving a statement of judicial innocence, instead.
Here, he denies awareness of the tape’s existence.  One may wish to question if said tape was reportedly destroyed. 
Please also note that in this denial of “awareness”, the subject also has the need for additional and unnecessary emphasis with the word “do”, which is a subtle distancing.

I deny being aware…” is a shorter and more ‘direct’ way, fulfilling the ‘law of economy’ in which the shortest sentence is best. 

Next, note the second part of his sentence:  or that I saw it before it was released…”

This indicates seeing it after it was released.  This should now be compared with his use of “apparently”, as one ‘reluctant to be truthful.’  If he can only deny seeing it “before”, it is not in existence “apparently”, that is, only “apparent”, particularly since it was released.

That of which’s existence is in doubt cannot be “released by the Clay County Sheriff’s Office.  The reader/analyst should not be on alert for the inclusion of deception regarding awareness of the video tape’s existence in the language of the subject. 


I have NO KNOWLEDGE of HOW the tape was made, or BY WHOM the tape was made.

We now note that the subject continues to avoid issuing a denial of video taping women.  Here he uses all capitalization for emphasis, further weakening his statement.  The truth needs no such emphasis and the more emphasis one feels is needed, the weaker the statement. 

Note that in avoiding stating that he did not video tape women, he has focused upon “how” the tape was made. 
Please note that he refers to it, appropriately, as “the” tape.  He no longer calls its existence “apparent”; that is, not confirmed.

What has caused this change?

The context is in the unreliable denial of “knowledge” of “how” it was made.  This is a tactic common within deception where the guilty subject makes a series of denials; all while avoiding stating “I did not…”

Deceptive people have an acute need to persuade that they are truthful and will often use “compound denials” to sound ‘strong’, while avoiding stating that he did not “do it”, that is, answer the allegation. 

I have not spoken out before now because we were told that the Clay County Sheriff's Office did not want us making any statements until their investigation was concluded, as it may interfere with their investigation. I of course welcomed a fair and complete investigation, therefore I cooperated.

In the English language, pronouns are the single most reliable form of speech.  Pronouns are instinctive; one does not pause to consider, “Should I say “I” or “we” here because I must figure out if I was alone or with someone else.”  Pronouns are stated without pre thought.  We know intuitively whether or not we should ‘stand alone’ or with someone else in a statement. 

Pronouns often pre-date speech, where even a child can signal “my” (possessive pronoun) with his hand. 

Repeated so many millions of times, we are perfectly adept at their usage. 

As humans, we are possessive creatures; we take possession, verbally, of that which is ours.  We say “my wife, my job, my car” and so on. 

Pronouns do not lie. 

Due to this instinctive use of pronouns, accuracy is reliable. 

The subject says:  I have not spoken out before now because we were told that the Clay County Sheriff's Office did not want us making any statements until their investigation was concluded, as it may interfere with the their investigation…”

Here, the subject feels the need to explain why he has not spoken out, though he has not been asked in a direct question, “Why did not you not speak out?”

It is interesting to note that in this need to explain why, he says

we were told”

a.      Note he changes from “I have not spoken” to “we were told”, not “I was told.”
b.    Next, please note the passive language of “we were told” which does not identify precisely who told precisely whom, not to speak out. 

One should also consider that generally, investigators encourage suspects to speak out, while defense attorneys implore their clients not to speak out.  Investigators glean information each time a suspect speaks.  Here he says “we” and “us”, not allowing himself to be “alone” with the accusation.  This is a signal of guilt, as humans do not like to be ‘alone’ with guilt.  This is something mothers of young children learn early:  “everyone was doing it” as a psychological mentality where guilt is minimized via sharing with others. 

One should also consider the nature of the allegation:  video taping women in the state of undress is sexual perversion.

One who has no involvement with sexual perversion but under accusation will often, in spite of his attorney’s counsel, say “I didn’t do it” as there are no consequences for a truthful person to make this assertion. 

In accusations of a sexual nature, many falsely accused refuse to be silent.  Contrary, those with guilt will often say “on advice of my attorney” or, “please be patient until all the evidence comes out” or “I look forward to my day in court”, and so on.  These statements all have one thing in common:

They avoid issuing a denial that is reliable.  The above were made by such accused as Michael Jackson, Woody Allen and Marv Albert. 

A follow up question to this statement is:

How might you telling the people that you did not video tape women affect their investigation?”

This is a strong indication of the need for silence, even as seen in the need to put the responsibility for the silence, particularly to the church, upon the investigators.


“I of course welcomed a fair and complete investigation, therefore I cooperated. “

Consider that guilt will drive a person to use more and more wording in an attempt to persuade.  The deceptive often feel that they can ‘overwhelm’ their audience by the ‘strength’ of many words.  The additional wording allows for deeper analysis.

The inclusion of “of course” is used to accept what one says “accept without question.”  Yet here, it should be unnecessary. 

If the subject did not video tape women, he would feel no need to have his audience, accept without question, that he cooperated with police.  The use of “of course” continues his theme of “need to persuade” rather than reliably deny the activity.  The more “need to persuade” the weaker the assertion.

Please continue to follow his pronouns.  He was accused and the expectation of de facto innocence is the willingness to speak for himself: 

Upon conclusion of the investigation, it was clear to me however that it was not fair nor complete,

Note that it was “clear” to him that the investigation was not “fair” nor was it “complete.”  It is here we expect him to say it was “wrong” because “I did not video tape women.”

Instead, he tells us that it was not “fair” but without explanation as to why, and that it was not “complete.” 

The fairness and completion should be of no concern because, if he did not video tape the women, the investigation is “wrong.”

With “complete” taken with the plural pronouns, it would be interesting to learn if he felt that there was someone else, beside him, that should have been investigated.


therefore we immediately asked our attorney to obtain what evidence the State's Attorney's Office said was "overwhelming;"

Here, he allows for the evidence to be “overwhelming” instead of rebuking it or stating, “it is wrong because I didn’t video tape women.”

The reliable denial of truth is strong and needs little or no emphasis.  The investigation has to be “wrong”, not “incomplete” or unfair. 

No amount of more investigating, making it “complete” will change the fact that “I didn’t video tape women”, so the element of volume should be immaterial.  It is, however, very important to the subject. 

We JUST RECEIVED that information late yesterday afternoon.

Here, the element of time is introduced, with the emphasis of capitalization.  The timing of reception of information is addressed here, though it should be of no consequence if wrong.  Therefore, why is timing so important?  Why does he have the need to show that he “just” reacted to the information?

Please consider this in light of the context of having the sensitive explanation of why he was silent. 



I have in my hand what they say is their 'overwhelming evidence'.

Here he does not say it is “wrong” but that it is “overwhelming evidence.”  He is allowing, by his own choice of wording, even in ascribing it to “their” opinion, the statement of “overwhelming evidence” to stand.  Here we expect him to state that he did not video tape women, therefore, the evidence they claim is wrong. 

Sarcasm

The use of sarcasm, of secondary nature in analysis, is noted by the need to ridicule, rather than deny, the evidence brought forward.  By repeating the phrase from law enforcement of “overwhelming evidence” , it is very likely to be true and he is, himself, “overwhelmed” by it.

What follows next, however, is a confession. 

A quick review of the information reveals NOTHING, NOTHING, substantiating my guilt of the charges.

Pronouns are instinctive.  Here, he takes ownership of guilt.  It is his guilt that he acknowledges.  This is a “confession by pronoun.”

This is something that the guilty do.  He tells us that “his guilt” (ownership) has been “substantiated” with “NOTHING NOTHING” both capitalized and repeated for emphasis.  This is a strong indicator that when he read the report, he, himself, experienced an overwhelming emotion. 

Those who do not have guilt of having committed what is alleged, will not take possessive ownership of the guilt because it is not theirs.

“For those of you who believe in my guilt…”  OJ Simpson.

Pronouns solve many crimes. Pronouns answer many questions. It is estimated that as much as 70% of murders are due to the pronoun "mine". (That is, people clashing about what is perceived to be “theirs”).

Pronouns are understood by children at a very early age. Even for children who cannot speak, the concept of "mine" is strong. Adults and children with developmental disabilities understand "mine". It is one of the earliest of ideas communicated by humans.

At an early age, children will use the pronoun "my" and "mine" for everything from food, to toys, parents, siblings, to even attention. The pronoun is the single most focused indicator in Statement Analysis.

Pronouns show ownership.  Consider how young children are when they accurately use pronouns, particularly, the possessive pronoun: 

"Mine!"

"My daddy!" "My cookie!" or how about, “my money!”?

It is something ingrained within the human mind from the first moments of language. Most parents recognize it as something they need to monitor and control otherwise it will lead to narcissistic like behavior as an adult.  Left unchecked a child will believe everything is “mine” (except disagreeable things). 

“My” and “Mine” are exhibited by pre verbal children, using their hands and arms to indicate ownership.  We recognize pronoun ownership in life and therefore, we recognize it in verbal and written communications.

It is something we do not suddenly dismiss in Statement Analysis. We recognize it in 2 year olds, in 10 year olds, as well as in adults who may be, cognitively, 2 or 10 years old.  It is common to all of us. It is among the first words uttered by a human. It is used millions of times by us and its accuracy is indicated.   

If someone does not take ownership of something, we do not ascribe ownership of it to them.

If someone takes ownership of something, we do not argue with them.

When an arguing parent says, "maybe if you controlled your daughter more, we wouldn't be in this situation!", one parent is not owning responsibility for the current crisis, but is casting blame on the other.








Within a pronoun, we find ownership. When we see ownership of an allegation, we have a confession.

Innocent people will not take ownership of guilt. They have been using possessive pronouns since they could talk, and likely even before. It is decided in less than a micro second and if there is one thing a person will not make a mistake over, it is something they learned before they could even walk, and have practiced it every single day of their lives up to now:

"my".

Pronouns show ownership, even of guilt.

For those of you who believe in my guilt, I want to say to you..." OJ Simpson.

Innocent people will not take ownership of something they did not do. When a person is guilty of a crime, they will use the possessive pronoun to lay claim to the guilt.  Picture a child walking around the room, claiming everything they see as their own.  That same child, when asked if they made the mess that their brother or sister made, will not label the mess with the same declaration of “mine!” that they have given everything else in the room.

In the murder of 6 year old Jonbenet Ramsey, in at least 3 interviews, as well as in her book, Patsy Ramsey said "our guilt" in her statements.

Scott Peterson used the phrase “my guilt” when he thought he was cleverly asking the public to wait for his trial before making a decision about him.  He was convicted of murdering his wife, Lacy Peterson, and preborn child, Conner.

It is a powerful habit, deeply embedded within us, to recognize what belongs to us. If it is guilt that belongs to us, the pronoun will be used to frame a sentence fulfilling this as truth.

Stephen Truscott, 14, was convicted, in 1959, of murdering raping and murdering his 12 year old neighbor.  He sparked national outrage in Canada and had a large following, especially among politicians, who demanded his release.  10 years later, he was paroled and eventually wrote a book to show his alleged innocence. 

In 2000, he agreed to appear on a Canadian TV program which investigated the crime, which would spike book sales for him. 

His book shows many indicators of guilt, as well as deception, but for the sake of time, I focus upon only some pronoun usage:

"I gave her a lift on my bicycle."


"She wanted a lift to the highway and I gave it to her."

"I hardly knew the girl, I kept trying to tell them. We were classmates but she was not among my friends. What she did outside school (and inside it, too, for that matter) had never interested me."

Truscott down plays his relationship with Lynne Harper. Twice he states that he was just giving her a "lift." He further distances himself from her when he says "I hardly knew the girl" and "she was not among my friends."
It was important for Truscott to show that they weren’t friends, even though her family had said otherwise. But much later, forgetting what he had said previously, he said,
"The first knowledge I had that something unusual had happened to Lynne was the morning after our bicycle ride."

The pronoun “our” shows cooperation.  This usage is in line with what Lynn’s family testified about them playing together.

Truscott went on to ask the public to answer the question “why” he would kill her.

He said “She was my neighbor.  I wasn’t friends with my victim, but I didn’t hate her.”

Pronouns show ownership, from the time you first began to speak, you claimed things for yourself.  Here is Stephen Truscott’s verbal confession. 

She was my neighbor.  I wasn’t friends with my victim, but I didn’t hate her.”

The subject, Greg Neal, has taken ownership of guilt in his statement. 

After “NOTHING NOTHING” he now qualifies the evidence further: 


Apparently, the only evidence is the recording, which I had no knowledge of.

Here we are given insight into possible defense strategies:  the recording was done without his knowledge, as possible.  Recall he already made a statement about not possessing knowledge.  Here we see the increased need to persuade element.  Next, we are given more insight into possible defensive claims: 


The recording is not even an original recording,

This allows for the subject to accuse investigators of corruption.  Instead of saying he did not video tape women changing their clothes, he is prepared to question the authenticity of the recording, as he is concerned with its content. 

Note the distancing language continues with “apparent” used repeatedly. 

and is apparently on in digital format, not tape. There is no evidence of who made the recording, or on what type of device it was made, nor to my knowledge has an original recording ever been produced.

Here, rather than lie outright, the subject is attacking the evidence and the police.  Going on the “offensive” is a technique of the deceptive who refuse to issue a reliable denial, instead using sarcasm and insinuations of wrong doing.  It is very likely that the influence of an attorney is within his wording. 

Instead of saying “I didn’t do it”, he is going to distract and distance himself from this by discussing technology. 

A person who has no guilt of this accusation would not care what format or technology is used.

Please note that he is also concerned with who ran the camera.  This should be carefully considered alongside the statement where he changed from “I” to “us” above. 

It is very likely that the subject, himself, is aware of his presence on the video. 

Note the qualifier “to my knowledge” is also unnecessary.  The tape is not “apparently” in existence, which he indicates in his own choice of wording.  The diversion method, as well as focusing upon technology is an attempt to persuade his audience rather than say,

I didn’t video tape women.”

Since the subject did not video tape women, he should show no concern, nor cast doubt upon the integrity of investigators: 


Most tellingly, there is not telling is no explanation for the movement of the camera while I was which I was, when I was seated at my desk - the camera moved, and the recording itself proves that I did not move it make the recording.

Here he continues to disparage investigators rather than deny the allegation.  Note that as we are proficient at pronoun usage, when one ‘stutters’ or halts on the pronoun “I” (and is a non-stutterer), it is an indication of an increase of stress and/or anxiety.  Here, the anxiety is increased while he talks about his own bodily position. 

The guilty who lie are often like wounded and dangerous wildlife.  They are incapable of saying “I didn’t do it” and will resort to attacking others. 

He first brought the integrity and technology of the tape into his language, and here he questions media: 

Some stations have not shown the entire video. I don't know why. I have first [inaudible] and you can clearly see the camera movement.

That the camera has “movement” should be of no consequence to one who has no connection to it.  The “camera movement” is a linguistic connection between the camera and the subject. 

I have fully cooperated with the investigating officials.

Note the need to repeat this from above (sensitivity indicator via repetition) and the qualification of his cooperation (“fully”) further makes this statement sensitive to him. 

Here we are seeing a linguistic sense of ‘betrayal’; he “cooperated” with them, “fully” but they still produced “overwhelming evidence of my guilt.” 

 I have not discussed this case with the Clay County Sheriff's Office because after being told that I would talk to the CCSO upon presentation of some evidence or charges, my attorney informed them that I would not talk to them until they were ready to make a presentation of evidence or charges. THEY CHOSE NOT TO TALK TO ME.

The sense of betrayal is confirmed.  Note “THEY CHOSE NOT TO TALK TO ME”  is personal, along with the emphatic capitalization.  This is an indication of an increase of emotion. 

It is here we continue to wait for him to say, “but that makes no difference because I didn’t video tape women.” 

He does not. 

Since these malicious allegations were made, my family and the congregation of Berean Baptist Church have suffered.

Here he talks about suffering.  Please note “my family” comes first, and then “the congregation.”

Note that he does not mention the humiliation of the victims.  He now deals with the consequences and as he makes the statement void of denying the action, he says “our credibility”, rather than “my credibility”, which would have been, psychologically, personal. 


Many members have left the church, many students of the Academy have left..... damage has been inflicted to our credibility within our the community.

Note also the passivity of “damage has been inflicted.”

Passivity is used to conceal identity and/or responsibility.  He does not assign responsibility to anyone, but allows the passivity to stand on its own.  This is another indicator of “my guild” within him, and insight into a personality that is not likely to take personal responsibility for what has happened.

We continue to wait to hear him deny the activity, as well as express human empathy for the victims:

These allegations and malicious attacks have financially crippled Berean Baptist Church.

Here he introduces the financial consequence instead of mentioning the victims.

As a result of these allegations, Berean has we have been unable to complete its our Chapter 11 Reorganization, however we have entered into an agreement with our Lender, and will continue to occupy this the Church property. A Joint Press Release from Berean and its Lender will be issued tomorrow.

Note that he addresses, again, the allegations and their repercussions, without denying the allegations.  He denies judicial conclusion, but not the action of video taping women. 

I directly want to say to my accusers, first of all, I forgive you, and  that despite your efforts, the Church will go on. Berean Baptist Church will remain active in our community and in our many, many missions efforts spreading the word of God gospel and helping the needy.


Thank you.

Here he says “I directly want to say to my accusers”, which is also distancing language. 

“I want to say” is not to say, “To my accusers, I did not video tape women and you have...”

“I say” has become “I want to say” and on to “I directly want to say”, which is an attempt to use emphasis where no emphasis is needed, further weakening his statement.



III.          Analysis Conclusion


Deception Indicated.


The subject is unwilling or unable to say that he did not video tape women, therefore, we are not permitted to say it for him.

The subject would not pass a polygraph administered by law enforcement, using his own words, and not one designed in consultation with an  attorney. 

Although there are many indicators of deception within his statement, the “pronoun confession” is definitive.  

In it, the subject, Greg Neal, takes linguistic ownership of guilt.  This is consistent with his entire statement in which he uses excessive persuasion, attacks the evidence, the investigators and the evidence itself, rather than simply say

I did not video tape women.”

This simple denial, statistically reliable, would have ended the statement and the press conference, and would have left the subject in a position of strength. 

In the language, no evidence can ever possibly “prove” that which did not happen because the subject did not do it.

The language shows one who is not likely to take responsibility for his own actions, even as he sees the toll it took upon the church. 

The subject attempts to portray the video’s very existence in question, while affirming its content.  This is also an example of his deception. 

The subject showed a preparedness to fight the allegations in court, and revealed the likely strategies, including claiming falsified evidence.  It is also likely that if this proved unsuccessful, he would likely have blamed someone else in the church.

His use of deception is predominantly deflection, but his public speaking career likely influenced him in the form of manipulation, employing persuasion rather than relying upon the truth.

What do we know about him?

What do we know of his background, experiences, priority and personalty?


The subject indicates an experiential connection with video technology.

It is interesting to note one truthful statement in not moving the camera as his linguistic priority.  This is commonly seen when one is deceptive, point after point but finally comes to an ‘arena of confidence’ where the pattern is broken:

He relies heavily on persuasion throughout his statement.  The exception is regarding the moving of the camera:  this sentence needs no such help.

It is very likely to be truthful, that at this point in the video he, himself, did not move the camera. 


 Priority


He introduces this as his linguistic priority. 

The reason it is not called “priority” but “linguistic priority” is because this is the only part of the statement where he calls attention to it, linguistically, as a priority.

Priority can be determined by chronological order and repetition, but here, it is a linguistic indicator:  “most importantly.”

For the one lying, this is the “most important” part of the statement because he was able to, finally, be truthful. 

We are given further insight into his personality not only in the absence of sympathy for the victims, but in his own wording of what he will continue to do:

“I directly want to say to my accusers, that despite your efforts, the Church will go on. Berean Baptist Church will remain active our community and in our many, many missions spreading the word of God and helping the needy.”

“Helping the needy” is not needed for inclusion since this is what churches do.  Yet for him, the need to portray him as “the good guy” is evident.  Not only does he not express any concern for the victims, while both acknowledging the tape’s existence while simultaneously calling its existence into question, he addresses “my accusers.”

Who has accused him?

Law enforcement was investigating the secret video taping of women dressing within the church. 

Are the victims his “accusers?”  Are the husbands of the women videotaped his accusers?

Here, he portrays himself, not as one who did not do this and is falsely accused, but in magnanimity of forgiveness first, and then one of civil good:  “helping the needy.”

The need to persuade throughout is strong, and here he indicates that he is not above using the church, Scripture and his position to deceive and portray himself in personal greatness.  In statement analysis, this is to recognize the lack of greatness, via the need for portrayal.  This is similar to mothers accused of child abuse actually boasting on motherhood (see Billie Jean Dunn)

His need to cast doubt on the existence of the tape he describes (he was on it, so it “proves” he did not move the camera) is a form of manipulation that is reserved to those of stronger intellect and, perhaps, a history of deception.  If his “accusers” are these women, would he consider it beneath him to express sorrow for the embarrassment and humiliation they experienced being video taped without their knowledge?  They had no choice in the matter.

The subject has a strong intellect and here shows its employment in self defense.  In the subtle disparagement of investigators (by raising the issue of tape copy and status (digital), he reveals one who is not afraid to defy authorities with deception besides the mix of Scripture.

There is an inherent disrespect not only for the women victims, but also for the audience of his church:  he must presuppose that they are not smart enough to discern his inability to say “I did not tape the women.” 

When a deceptive person is able to address larger and larger audiences (beginning with his wife, his father, law enforcement, the church and then the public at large) and maintain his deception, it becomes embedded even deeper in his personality.  Confidence in deception yields more deception and more boldness.  The inevitable by product of contempt for his ‘audience’ (the public at large) increases. 

Video Voyeurism

The video secret videotaping of the women in his church is sexually related, but it is not exclusively sexual.

When one wishes to view women in states of undress, the outlets for such are common, including television, movies and the internet.  If it was to view women and be sexually aroused only, it is unlikely that he would chose voyeurism to satisfy himself. 

By video taping women, unawares, in the church, the subject shows a need to humiliate those he purports to serve. It may be that he did not target specific women but any woman who happened to be there; of any age.  


There is the element of danger, in which the hormonal increase or “rush” is often cited as a factor where one, particularly with depression, seeks out means to feel “alive” or “excited.”  Sexual dysfunction within the subject is likely.  This is likely related to a childhood experience, whether inadvertent or by environment.  

There is also an element of “spying” or obtaining knowledge or information in an illicit manner that arouses him.

The complexity of setting up a video camera and “producing” such indicates more involvement and depth than the subject is likely to admit, even in intense counseling.  There is often a connection to pre pubescent exposure to another undressing, or in the act of sex.  A childhood sexualized environment is a form of child abuse, in which children are exposed to adult sex, including lack of privacy, pornography, sexual discussion, and so on. 

The origin of some instances of voyeurism may be accidental observation (in the home) with subsequent fantasy and sexual gratification.  It is not always indicated from an abusive or neglectful home environment. 

It is in most states, a criminal act and unless the subject wants change, he is likely to become emboldened from his success at ‘beating’ law enforcement, of whom he likely feels anger towards.  With a childhood connection, only a dedicated and willing subject will find success at behavioral modification. Here, not only did he 'defeat' law enforcement, but he also defeated his 'enemies' (his accusers) as well as the congregation, and eventually, via media (you tube included), the public.  

This  provides resolve for his position and impact future behavior and deception as confidence grows.    


The need to humiliate the women of the church is to be understood with the inherent contempt that liars feel towards the public at large. 

For training, please go to Hyatt Analysis Services and click on training opportunities.  


38 comments:

Hey Jude said...

I think there is a mistake in the transcript, and that he says he has no knowledge 'about whom the tape was made' rather than 'by whom the tape was made'? (If so (or if not), it seems he was he not concerned that his female family members, assuming he might have a wife, mother, or daughter in his congregation, might have been amongst the victims?)

Shocking, especially the attitude of the various speakers towards the victims or 'accusers' - who, apparently, should be ashamed of themselves. The NTP congregation gathered behind the speakers, also jeering at the victims, despite surely they must have known the only reason their pastor was not prosecuted was because the statute of limitation had expired.

---

I googled and found Greg Neal had loaned the tape amongst others, and the person to whom he loaned it took it to Greg Neal's pastor father, after which both father and son denied the tape existed. I wondered if the tape Neal refers to as not being the original was copied by the person to whom he unknowingly loaned it, just in case the original disappeared, which it did.

Who moved the camera, if it was not Greg Neal?


Jane said...

OT: I would be interested in an analysis of the Uber CEO's statement available at https://newsroom.uber.com/a-profound-apology/. Background is here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-uber-ceo-argues-with-driver-over-falling-fares

Bobcat said...

I see many similarities between this statement and various comments made by Davey Blackburn's most verbose 'anonymous' defenders here.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Jane said...
OT: I would be interested in an analysis of the Uber CEO's statement available at https://newsroom.uber.com/a-profound-apology/. Background is here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-28/in-video-uber-ceo-argues-with-driver-over-falling-fares

I think he found it difficult to apologise (or ddin't want to) given it's last on his agenda.

lynda said...

Another great analysis Peter

Sara said...

Agreed, excellent analysis and very instructive.

Anonymous said...

"My guilt"

Certain things jump out at me during a casual reading of a statement and this is an example of one of them. When I read that line I shifted in my seat, smiled a little bit, and thought, "Uh oh."

-Akula

tania cadogan said...

AN excellent analysis and as always i snort when i see the phrases my guilt or our guilt, The mccanns have spoken repeatedly of their guilt both as i and our in reference to Maddie , plus claiming to be responsible parents, to which i ask, responsible for what?

I love when suspects open mouth and insert both feet

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Thanks Peter for the very informative analysis. There was quite a bit packed into Greg Neal's statement to learn.

Anonymous said...

Any one see the news feed suddenly tonight? Jane Fonda is revealing she was sexually abused as a child.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only person who wants to know WHO sexually abused her as a child?? There are countless news stories tonight, with ZERO of them addressing WHO she was abused by. I dearly hope she will be willing, after taking this first huge step, to finish it by SAYING who abused her as a child. Sorry for rant.

Anonymous said...

For a long time I've suspected celebrities aren't willing to talk about childhood sexual abuse (Carrie Fisher). They are doing a dis-service (to everyone else) by not stepping up and taking a voice for others who maybe aren't so wealthy and protected as they are.

Sara said...

I wouldn't go so far as to say that celebrities sexually abused as children are doing a "dis-service" to other victims. Could they do good by speaking out and sharing their history? Certainly. But, that's true for ALL victims. Maybe even more so, because when "Mom" stays quiet, her predator is not stopped from abusing others in the family. Would knowing Jane Fonda's abuser at this point save anyone? Probably not. And what does being wealthy have to do with anything? Does she hurt less? Are her feelings less real or less important because she's wealthy? Why would it be easier for a wealthy woman to speak out as opposed to a poor one?

Anonymous said...

Sara,
Money/wealth provides security. That's a fact no matter one's age/race/gender/country. Speaking out about childhood abuse can mean revealing a terrible secret about one's own family. When you're poor or have scant resources, the results of speaking out can mean getting cut off from family and family support and resources. Being wealthy and taking that same risk, could mean the same thing, on a different level. Revealing the childhood sexual abuse, celebrities have the additional consequence of public shame to the parent or whoever did it. That's a HUGE deterrent.

Anonymous said...

...especially when the abusing parent is a celebrity him/her self.

Anonymous said...

Sara, wealthy people have access to resources normal people don't have. If a rich middle-aged celebrity suddenly remembers being sexually abused by a parent, she would have immediate access to professional care that the vast majority of people do not have.

Anonymous said...

Why is Jane Fonda obligated to say WHO abused her? It's nobody's business. Perhaps talking about the abuse or her abuser triggers PTSD symptoms for her. The world doesnt actually work like an Oprah Winfrey show where people just love to talk about being abused in front of millions of people

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

SEX-TRAFFICKING kidnappers mistook California mum Sherri Papini for a child when they abducted her, a shock theory suggests.

The 34-year-old has rarely been seen since she was allegedly kidnapped and then returned 22 days later with a strange branding on her skin and after being beaten and starved.
Sherri Papini was allegedly kidnapped while out jogging near her California home

More three months after she was found, it is still unclear who was responsible, although there has been speculation about a possible cult connection and that the kidnapping could have been staged.

But according to US crime show Crime Watch Daily, a source close to the investigation believes those who took Ms Papini may have mistaken her for a much younger woman.

“It was sexual trafficking. I think they saw what appeared to be a young girl and took her for that purpose,” the anonymous source said.

Petite Ms Papini, who is 5ft 3in, was allegedly abducted while taking a routine jog along the Mountain Gate trail near her home in Redding, northern California on November 2.

Authorities, family members and dozens of volunteers searched for weeks before Mrs Papini surfaced on Thanksgiving Day morning — more than 240km from where she was last seen.

It would later emerge her skin had been branded with “a message”, a practice common in sex trafficking circles and street gangs.

It is believed Mrs Papini was targeted by two, possibly three Hispanic women who may have thought the 34-year-old was actually a teenager.

According to sources, Mrs Papini was held in a dark, dinghy holding cell where she was starved.

She is also believed to have been so badly beaten that bones were broken in her face and her long blonde hair was also chopped off.

Cameron Gamble, a controversial kidnap consultant credited with helping to bring Ms Papini home, said the alleged abduction could be cartel related.

He has pointed out that two Hispanic women were arrested south of Sacramento recently after an Uber driver found them bringing a minor to a hotel allegedly to traffic her.

It turns out Redding, the quiet town where Ms Papini lives, could be a hunting ground for sex crimes. Mr Gamble said statistics show it is one of the most dangerous places for women in the US.

Another three women around the area also vanished around the same time Ms Papini went missing. However, two of those women were aged over 40 years old.

The Shasta County Sheriff’s office won’t confirm any of the sex trafficking allegations.

Mrs Papini’s release came less than 48 hours after Mr Gamble released a video offering a ransom from an anonymous benefactor in exchange for Mrs Papini’s safe return.

Mr Gamble believes his “reverse ransom” (when money is offered in the absence of a ransom demand) address, which went viral on social media, directly resulted in Mrs Papini’s release.

Mr Gamble believes Ms Papini may know who took her but is too scared to reveal the truth.

But one of Ms Papini’s friends said the mother had told her she did not know who had taken her.

“I think if she knew the whys ... she would be saying,” Lisa Jeter said.

“I think she is still haunted by why they took her and why they returned her.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2991922/sherri-papini-kidnap-latest-theory-child-sex-traffickers/

Anonymous said...

Childhood sexual abuse is RARELY talked about, especially by celebrities. Jane Fonda probably won't tell who sexually abused her as a child. But I must take issue with your statement: "It's nobody's business". Actually, childhood sexual abuse is everybody's business. And that's true even when the victim is speaking out at 79 years of age.

Anonymous said...

"Professional care" is not a magical cure. How come everyone Ive known who's entered and stayed in therapy has come out of it 100 times crazier? Literally. Oftentimes developing new mental problems including psychosis?

Anonymous said...

It is not our business WHO abused her or what was done to her.
I was not sexually abused, but I had very severe abuse done to me outside the norm of what most people hear about AND IT IS NOONE'S BUSINESS.
That is why I say that. People have a right to not announce to a million people what was done to them or by who. And I will tell you something else: People do not believe what victims of abuse say about what was done to them, and that may be more traumatic than the abuse itself. Look at Cosby's victims as one example--even when there is an army of people saying they were abused by an individual they are still not believed. People have the right to talk about it or not. The world is not an Oprah Winfrey show. That's just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

If you look at Cosby's victims, people either dont believe or they only kind of believe it, they minimize it, they blame the victim etc. What is the point?? Unless someone's been through serious sh&t there is a huge resistance to believing that some people are just MONSTERS!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

I need to clarify though it is other people's business if the abuser can still harm others. Although the victim WILL pay a steep price for warning others...the perpetrator will have cultivated a saintly image and the victim will be villianized, pathologized, disbelieved, further traumatized, but still they need to warn others.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update

Special Report: Justice for Hailey

SPECIAL REPORT -- The story of Hailey Dunn is something West Texans are all too familiar with.

The young Colorado City cheerleader went missing back in 2010, but there are still many questions that surround the case and no arrests have been made.

Hailey Dunn was a bright kid with a winning smile.

"She was a tomboy but she like glittery stuff and pretty things," said Hailey’s mother, Billie Dunn.

But 6 years ago she became the focus of a murder mystery.

Her mother, Billie Dunn, says the last time she saw Hailey was few days after Christmas.

"I was on my way to work, so just peeking in her bedroom, seeing her in the bed and off to work."

But when she returned home later that night Hailey wasn't around. She says she had a hard time believing that Hailey would run away.

"Anybody could have been driving through this town and saw my daughter playing outside or walking to the store and picked her up."

Police focused on those closest to Hailey. Billie and her live-in boyfriend Shawn Adkins were already on their radar.

911 records show the couple had a tense and combative relationship, but Shawn eventually moved in.

In the days after Hailey’s disappearance friends, neighbors and police combed the fields around town for any sign of the missing 13-year-old. But her mother Billie never joined the search party.

“I wouldn't partake in looking in the fields because for me that meant we're looking for a body. I couldn't bring myself to do that so I did the flyers and the Facebook and the media,” explained Billie.

And what about her live in boyfriend Shawn Adkins? He wasn't involved in foot searches at all.

“He really didn't help me pass flyers and things. I think he just wanted to stay out of the spotlight,” said Billie

Police asked both Billie and Shawn to take polygraph tests. Billie does so willingly.

According to a police affidavit, she was under the influence of narcotics when she sat down for the first test. So days later she sits down again, and the outcome was a shocker.

“I was told by the DPS reviewer that gave it that deception was indicated.”

Neither Dunn nor police will say exactly which questions raised concerns but the results make cops dig deeper.

A search warrant uncovers an alarming stash of disturbing literature in the house. Police found Billie and Shawn had collected many articles about serial killers.

“Anything to make me look bad. I mean I’m not the only true crime fanatic I’m not the only viewer you have,” said Billie

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

..Cont

But our partners at Crime Watch wanted to hear what Billie’s ex-husband Clint Dunn had to say about her reading habits.

“They were doing a lot of research, a lot of research for some reason and it's awfully peculiar that they did all this research and then my daughter is missing murdered.”

Clint says he was disgusted by what is happening at Billie’s house in the days following Hailey’s disappearance.

“They threw a new year's party 4 days after she was missing. They had beer and watched the ball drop on New Year’s while I was standing on my back porch watching my house waiting for Hailey to come home. That's how I know they partied. I was watching them carry the beer in.”

When Adkins is hooked up to a lie detector everything changes.

According to affidavits, he failed the first two tests and on the third try investigators say he showed deception.

Billie says even she's got some serious doubts about her on again off again boyfriend Shawn Adkins.

“Maybe he's pretending to be this nice guy and my friend and my comforter but maybe he's actually evil enough to do something.”

And then two years after Hailey’s disappearance a break in the case. A hiker comes across a skull and bones at Lake J.B. Thomas about 20 miles north of Hailey’s home.

The case gets colder by the day but Billie promises that will change.

“I will find your killer. It's my job to take care of that now. Hailey has no worries. Be in heaven and sing with the angels I’m the mom. I'm your voice.”

After six years, Hailey’s remains were finally released to family earlier this year.

She was laid to rest in January in Luling Texas, just outside of Austin.

.....

Includes two calls (Vt snippets) Billie and Adkins made to Police complaining about each other.

http://www.cbs7.com/content/news/Special-Report-Justice-for-Hailey-414996133.html

Hey Jude said...

Ps - Thanks for the analysis, Peter - I tend to assume that's taken as read.

I think, besides no reliable denial, what is further telling of guilt is the disregard and contempt for the victims - it is so misplaced, especially considering they are pastors. Even if the 'accusers' had been mistaken in their accusation against the pastor (co-pastor), he, and his pastor father, should and would have reacted quite differently. I think they surely would have acknowledged that the women on the tape were victims and expressed dismay that someone in the church had made the recordings - then plainly stated that it wasn't him/them.

I found it quite nauseating, especially the need for the 'respectable' gang of cheerleaders, who can't not know really, surely.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
"Professional care" is not a magical cure. How come everyone Ive known who's entered and stayed in therapy has come out of it 100 times crazier? Literally. Oftentimes developing new mental problems including psychosis?
March 2, 2017 at 9:39 PM

Damaged people are often drawn to this profession.

I know few trusted therapists. Very few.

Those I do trust are the rare examples of excellence who bring victims of trauma through processing and that is all.

They do not make the narcissistic personality even more selfish, nor do they get weak people addicted to them for the money.

They are ethical, competent and when they are trained in S/A, learn to listen even deeper.

Hence my love-hate relationship with psychology in general.

I love studies.

I hate when politicians change study results or erase them.

I hate that political protests and threats changed the DSM.

Above this, however:

I hate the "cures" that some very damaged people claim to their clients. There is an endless search for novelty to sell a book and build an addicted client base for the money.

I have spent a good deal of effort protecting people from the "cures" offered, especially trauma victims.

Peter

Anonymous said...

From an innocent person I expect them to immediately state they didn't do it and to be angered by the violation of the women and be shocked and angered by the accusation that they'd do such a thing to another human being.

Anonymous said...

Peter

Yet another thorough and very enlightening blog. What is already in plain sight only becomes so obvious when you highlight it. Before I read your analysis I watched the video and within seconds of starting to watch the video, I was almost certain there was going to be deception revealed.

At one point you say:

"Here he says “we” and “us”, not allowing himself to be “alone” with the accusation. This is a signal of guilt, as humans do not like to be ‘alone’ with guilt."

At the press conference he is accompanied by not only his father and guy who performed the polygraph test but dozens of his congregation. That for me set off major alarm bells as it was like he felt the need to be surrounded (to comfort him whilst he was being deceptive) instead of standing alone. It's not as if he is not used to standing alone and addressing a large audience.

Nothing to do with what he said, but what also set off alarm bells for me was that the press were invited to ask the polyographer questions but we're not given the opportunity to ask the accused. If he was innocent, then he would have been happy to answer any question that was thrown at him.

Nic said...

Thank you, Peter.

The language shows one who is not likely to take responsibility for his own actions, even as he sees the toll it took upon the church.

Typical behaviour of a liar who when caught will not take responsibility for the consequence of their actions. IMO, this is right up there with the non-apology. i.e., “I’m sorry ‘Nic' feels that way.”


It is very likely to be truthful, that at this point in the video he, himself, did not move the camera.

Spreading the blame aside (we), could this be interpreted as he had a partner?

On the topic of forgiveness, (deity?) it always strikes me how deceptive [people] are so quick to “forgive” their accusers. They are such big people about being “ruined" in the court of public opinion. IMO, this points to what’s really important. Not what they are being accused of, or by whom, but by the outcome (freedom).

jmo

Nic said...

Anonymous @ 8:39,

Because the victims are discredited by their accusers, ostracized by the friends of the accusers (in the case of Hollywood, very powerful elite so their livelihood is cut off,) and finally are made to defend themselves in the public arena against a hostile reporting industry.

One case come to my mind: Mackenzie Phillips

Nic said...

"I was on my way to work, so just peeking in her bedroom, seeing her in the bed and off to work.”

IMO, this is an awkward statement. IMO, […] “on my way to work” implies that she had already left the house. No just that, but that the action of being on the way to work is interrupted, except she doesn't inject the word, "when". So to me, it sounds like there is missing information. “I was leaving for work” or, "I was getting ready to leave for work, ..." sounds more in keeping with the time she said she last saw Hailey.

There is a dropped pronoun at “just”; which, is dependent word (tandem activity).

“seeing” is an unexpected verb conjugation/out of place. BJD is talking about the last time she supposedly saw Hailey, but she says “seeing”, not “saw”. More expected would be: "I peeked in her bedroom and saw her in bed and then I left for work." Or, "I peeked in her bedroom and saw her in bed, and then I watched for my drive to arrive."

“the” bed, not “bed” or “her bed”, although BJD already said that she peeked in Hailey bedroom, so who else’s bed would she be in?

IMO, "The" bed is sensitive. Wasn't Hailey's mattress removed from the house during the period of time Hailey's disappearance was classified as "runaway"?

jmo

Nic said...

Further to above, "so" is highlighted in blue.

"just" peeking in her bedroom" is BJD's answer.

What else was she doing (in) her bedroom?

"seeing her in the bed"

Dropped pronoun before "seeing". BJD is not reporting the last time she saw a "live" Hailey.

jmo





Sara said...

RE-Resources of the wealthy---Public school teachers are not wealthy, but they have excellent insurance and access to mental health care. Millions of non-wealthy people do. There is a vast range between wealthy and poor. I disagree that being victimized creates obligations for the abused. Like, sure, you were horribly abused and scarred for life, but at the same time you're kinda a jerk for not going public, and you're kinda responsible for the abuser being able to continue abusing people, yea, you're a victim and sorta a perpetrator. That's the mentality I abhor.

happyuk said...

"Hello there, my partner has been missing since Monday and not contacted anyone. Said she was going away, hasn’t gone... ended up where she said she was going, so I’m... we’ve just decided we should report it."

Leaving aside his trite greeting (I have heard of the 'banality of evil') he starts with a strongly-pronouned statement "my partner has been missing since Monday". I believe him.

"and not contacted anyone". - is unnecessary, given that going missing implies non-contact.

And then instant confusion, in which he then drops pronoun after pronoun, or uses inappropriate ones - "Said she was going away, hasn’t gone... ended up where she said she was going". He does not say that "she" said she was going away. I would want to clarify WHO said "she" was going away. "she" either did not say this (ie some one or some thing else), or did say it and did not do it.

"we’ve just decided we should report it."

Who is "we"?! Why would would one need a collective approval to report a missing partner / spouse? This would definitely ring alarm bells for me.

This reminds me of a member of senior management at a company where I once worked, who would use "we" instead of "I" as a means of delivering unpleasant news such as lay-offs, thereby diluting the responsibility from the individual responsible to the collective. A form of cowardice.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, big off topic, but really interesting:

http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/

All grouped together in one neat little package.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I'm sorry for my inappropriate reply from the other day. I'm glad you deleted it as it made me pause to think about what I wrote which is something I should've done before I posted my reply. I was careless with my words on a delicate subject.



Patty Cake said...

I love this Blog. Peter, keep being amazing!