Saturday, April 22, 2017

Analysis: Murder of Missing Person

Peter Hyatt at FBI National Academy
In the midst of an interview, a subject was asked the following question about Robert, a missing person believed to be murdered.

The pattern was broken in the interview.

Question:  "When was the last time you saw him alive?"

Subject:  "The last time I saw Robert was when he was on the mat beside the bed, just before I went to work."

Expected Response:

Date, and time frame.  

"That Monday before he went missing" or something similar.  

Context:  "Robert" was the theme of the interview.  After using his name several times, both the detective and the subject referred to Robert as "he" and "him."  This is an expected flow of the law of economy where speech moves towards the simpler and shorter.  It is the norm.  The brain is very efficient in doing this.  Any change becomes important.  

a.  parroting

Parrotting is the repeating back of words and it takes less effort (ease) in doing so.  It can also be used as a pause in the event one needs to carefully consider his words.

Q.  "What time did you get in last night?"

A.  "What time did I get in?  Oh, it was just after 11."  

Here the proverbial teen may have used the question to stall for an answer, making the question, itself, sensitive. 

Had the answer been, "What time did we get home last night?  Oh, it was just after 11." it would have disrupted the parroting in order to make changes, including, "we" and the introduction of "home."  This would signal that the question is more than just sensitive regarding time, but now both at least one other person is on the mind of the subject and location.  An astute dad would have caught this naturally.  

Not only was there a parroting, but there was change.  

           This is significant for investigators and interviewers.  

When the law of economy is disrupted the analyst/interviewer/investigator should take notice.  As effort is needed, sensitivity and importance is increased. 

It is here that we find a subject is very likely telling the truth:

When was the last time you saw him alive?

He we expect, "on the Thursday that..." where the question is answered directly.  He does not go to a date, but a body position instead:  

"The last time I saw Robert was when he was on the mat beside the bed, just before I went to work."

He imported Robert's name after the interview was already on to the use of pronouns.  This heightens importance. 

He parroted back his response with the change of name.  

He parroted back with deletion of "alive."

When these two portions are taken together,  we see that he does not answer the question and uses additional effort to do so.  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The subject is deliberately concealing information about the murder. 

For training we offer:

1.  Law Enforcement Two Day Seminars

2.  Private Corporation Seminars

3.  Intense and Advanced Seminars 

4.  Individual study at home:  "Complete Statement Analysis Course" which is where most begin their work.  This is a course designed to build a solid foundation which is necessary for avoidance of error.  It comes with 12 months of e support, ensuring that the analyst/investigator will not commit error.  

5.  Ongoing Live monthly trainings: 3 to 6 hour segments where the work learned is put to use.  Team analysis is so popular that analysts are now signing up for trainings more than once a month.  Significant discount offered. 

6.  The Advanced Statement Analysis Course

The Complete Course is a prerequisite for this course.  No exceptions are offered.  The Advanced Course moves from deception detection to profiling to anonymous author identification to employment analysis.  

Please note: individual courses expected in 2017 and 2018 including Employment Analysis, Sexual Abuse statements, Ransom Note analysis, Threat Assessment, and more on identifying anonymous authors.  


Statement Analyst I 

This comes from successful completion of the Complete Course, a minimum of 60 hours of live training and recommendations from three professionals. At this point, the analyst is an expert at detecting deception.  

Statement Analyst II:

Completion of Advanced Course
Minimum of 120 hours of live training 
Final Thesis Paper with written approval from three professionals, including federal, state and civil realms.  This is where the expert deception detector goes into content analysis, psycho-linguisitc profiling, threat assessment, and so on.  

The live training is approved for Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) from the University of Maine, for professional licenses.  

To begin training, go to Hyatt Analysis Services and go to training opportunities. 

Tuition payment plans for law enforcement available.  

We have staggered time zones for live training of international students.    


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Negotiation language

C5H11ONO said...

Did the person being asked this question also see the person "after" he was dead? Why didnt they just ask "when was the last time you saw him?"

John Mc Gowan said...


Sean Hannity Accused Of Sexual Harassment.

The Fox News host categorically denies the claim.



In an interview with the Pat Campbell Show on Friday, former Fox News contributor Debbie Schlussel claimed that Hannity had invited her to his hotel room — twice — when they appeared together for one of his programs. But when she rebuffed him, Schlussel said that she was never asked back on the show.

Schlussel claimed the “awkward” incident began when Hannity invited her to a store where he was signing books. While there, she said Hannity asked her: “Why don’t you come back with me to my hotel?” Schlussel said she responded: “No, I have to get ready for the show.”

Schlussel said Hannity pressed her again to come to his hotel room after the show taping, which did not go well. She refused.

“I wasn’t booked on his show again, and he called me and yelled at me,” Schlussel said. “It was made clear to me that I didn’t go back to his hotel with him after. I got a very weird feeling about the whole thing, and I kind of knew I wouldn’t be back on his show.”

She added: “This kind of stuff is all over the place at Fox News and anything that has to do with Sean Hannity.”


Fox News provided a statement to The Huffington Post from Hannity, who said that Schlussel’s claims were “100 percent false and a complete fabrication.” He called her a “serial harasser who has been lying about me for well over a decade,” and threatened to sue her using a “team of some of the finest and toughest lawyers in the country.”

Hannity also characterized Schlussel’s comments as part of a “coordinated effort afoot to now silence those with conservative views.”

Anonymous said...

Liberal Democrats are out for blood, one step at a time.
Squeaky Wheels get the Grease.

John Mc Gowan said...

Woman Who Settled With Fox News Over Sex Assault Case Comes to Sean Hannity’s Defense

In an exclusive interview with the LawNewz Network, former Fox News contributor Tamara Holder talked to us about the harassment she says she endured at the hands of a Fox News executive, who was later fired by the network. Tamara has since settled with Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, for more than $2.5 million. She had been a Fox contributor for years, and a large portion of her appearances were on Sean Hannity’s show. The interview was timely, as on Friday one of Hannity’s former guests, Debbie Schlussel, made some serious allegations against Hannity himself. Schlussel claimed that Hannity had once invited her to his hotel, and when she rebuffed her advances she was ostracized by the network. This morning, however, she told LawNewz that she would “never accuse” Hannity of sexual harassment.

Tamara, who has been on Hannity’s show scores of times and considers him a friend, said “I personally know Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity is a really really good man, probably one of the best men I’ve known in my life. He’d been a mentor to me. I have exchanged thousands of text messages and emails with him over the course of 8 years. Not at any point has he even suggested anything inappropriate.”

She further explained that if Hannity did invite Schlussel back to his hotel, Shlusserman misinterpreted it. “When he says come to the hotel with me, that’s not come to the hotel room and get naked and let’s do something inappropriate.”

She agreed, however, that allegations that are made and then would make it harder for other women to come forward. It makes things more confusing.

The EEOC defines it as “verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature….it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.” This definitions doesn’t give men or women much guidance. Where is the line between teasing, flirting, and harassment?

The best way to find that line may be to talk about it. Most women do not report sexual harassment. In fact, statistics show that only ¼ to ⅓ of women report such behavior to a supervisor, and only 2-13% file complaints. If sunshine truly is the best disinfectant, it is time to shine the light on sexual harassment. That may be the silver lining in the cloud of the allegations against Roger Ailes, Bill O”Reilly and Fox News. The sun is shining on the broader issue of sexual harassment in America.

Trigger said...

Is it true that Rachel Maddow was charged with treason?

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger John mcgowan said...
Woman Who Settled With Fox News Over Sex Assault Case Comes to Sean Hannity’s Defense

I am so glad I found this blog as it is revealing what is behind the words.

Hannity needs to work on his denial or stay quiet. I suggest the later.

Anonymous said...

Trigger said...
Is it true that Rachel Maddow was charged with treason?
April 24, 2017 at 3:51 PM

Treason against her gender?

Statement Analysis Blog said...


She did a rambling 8 or 9 minute statement that I don't have time to transcribe but I heard it. In it, she is deceptive.

Even in her retraction, she shows signals of guilt.

She is a lawyer.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

PS: I am referring to the accuser, not the defender. PH

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Rachel Maddow is a shameless liar.

by this, I mean:

She, like other Marxists, justify lies with the end. She may have gone a bit too far this time, but she is aware of her own deception; acutely so, as her language shows.

There are those who believe their moral position justifies the lies they tell, similar to tacquia. To disagree with Rachel Maddow is to be homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, mysogynistic , racist, white supremacist, nazi, charlie manson and so on.

Truth is "hate speech."


She stirs it and gets the Marxists to cheer.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
Liberal Democrats are out for blood, one step at a time.
Squeaky Wheels get the Grease.

Interestingly enough:

if shifting language is discounted, they are neither liberal nor democratic.

Yet, I understand your meaning.

I am old enough to remember debates, reason, logic, and authentic desire to grow, even if misguided or in error.

I've always enjoyed listening to strong view points that oppose my own, but it is difficult to now find, as when the argument is, "but that's not how I feel; you're hateful!", there is no argument.

I would like to see one of these absurd Marxist professors stand up to Ben Shapiro, in front of their adoring students, and take him on.

Instead, they chant, "no hate speech! no hate speech!" and have kids wear black masks and turn violent.

If you ever want to know who is the instigator in violence, note the one needing to cover his face from the camera.


General P. Malaise said...


I see Sean Hannity's non denial something Lance Armstrong would say and do. So far I am on Debbie's' side.

I heard her on the BlogRadio that started this. I think she has make the claim before.

Anonymous said...

right on!