Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Vegas: Jesus Campos Statement on "Shots Fired"


Jesus Campos disappeared from media and canceled his appearances, including on the Sean Hannity Show,  but then went on main stream media's the Ellen Degeneres show. 

We note that several months ago, Ellen Degeneres signed a contract with the hotel to use her likeness.   We have only one statement to work with.  The analysis is only of this statement. 





"As I was walking down, I heard rapid fire and at first I took cover. I felt a burning sensation. I went to go lift my pant leg up and I saw the blood. That's when I called it in on my radio that shots had been fired."



Let's break it down to learn if he is truthful or not.  

"As I was walking down" addresses the element of time.  The article did not tell us what question was asked, but if it was, "when did you...?" in any form, this would be an appropriate response. 

"I heard rapid fire and at first I took cover."

This uses the pronoun "I" and past tense language.  

Numeric:  "...and at first I took cover" tells us that as he considers what he did, in recall, he is currently thinking about what he did next.

I felt a burning sensation. 

This is also stated with the pronoun "I" and past tense language affirming commitment.  It uses sensory description, consistent with not knowing the conclusion of a matter. 

He reports not that he was shot, but what he felt.  This is significant in discerning  deception from truth.  It is to give an incomplete answer.  He will need to tell us why he is not telling us plainly.  


I went to go lift my pant leg up and I saw the blood. 

He tells us the reason for his action:  he felt burning and then his intention to uncover the source.  This makes the action sensitive to him.  

He plainly reports the sequence of activity in recall.  He did not know he was shot.  

This is an indication of experiential memory in play. 

"I saw the blood" is a strong statement.  The article "the" is in reference to the source of what he was "feeling" and why he went to lift up his pant leg.  This incomplete action is very likely due to the volume of blood.  It is not "blood" nor "my blood" but "the" blood; which, in his language, was already identified, by "feeling" (sensory) but not knowing the source. 

This is not the language of story telling, but of recall.  It is processed information for him.  He is working in sequence of his experience.  

An example of story telling would be to not identify ownership of blood, which would require creative thought on the recipient.  This is not his intention.  

The immediate intention of story telling is to create reciprocal thought in the hearer.  Instead, he is  using experiential recall. 


He then returns to the element of time, of which began his answer.  This further affirms that the question was very likely "...When did you...?"  The specific question could have been, "When did you call in that shots had been fired?" based upon the answer. 

That's when I called it in on my radio that shots had been fired."

Analysis Conclusion:  Veracity Indicated. 

The subject is not intending to deceive in this answer and is reliably stating when he called in "shots fired."  

He did not know he was shot, but knew he felt a burning and when (time) he went to lift up his pants' leg, he saw "the" (specified earlier in his thought of what he felt) blood.  This is consistent with chronological order, which is how experiential memory works. 

It was likely due to a direct question.  

This conclusion of this analysis is of the above statement only.  Every so often, I am asked for an example of what honest recall looks like.  This statement is an example of such. 

For training in deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 



25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is it possible in the context of the statement that he in fact wasn't shot, but injured his leg some other way? He doesn't actually tell us he was shot, but he certainly describes a course of events that are consistent with realizing he had been. It comes across as a logical recall of events, but often times people lie logically.

He also reports shots fired on the radio, after realizing he's bleeding and has a burning sensation, but doesn't say (or conclude?) he also reported he had been shot or had been hit.

"I went to go lift my pant leg up..." is an incomplete action. Based on the context of his statement, lifting his pant leg seems to have been interrupted once he saw the blood. Is it possible he stopped the action upon seeing the blood and didn't actually lift his pants leg and see the wound itself?

I know the statement is reliable and likely comes from experiential memory and I know I might be trying too hard to find deception here! Just curious as to whether the fact he didn't say he actually got shot might flag in the analysis?

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous, this is the entire point of the article, "the" responding to blood. The interruption of the process is key: what will he identify?

In story telling, anything other than "the" would have been a red flag.

The overall passivity is appropriate given the context.

You ask an intelligent question. I also respect your introspection. It is always wise to question ourselves.

Well done.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Peter thank you for the feedback. Very much appreciated!

Habundia said...

What if he had said "I saw blood"? Instead of "the blood"? Would that have made a difference?

Peter Hyatt said...

yes, it is a slight turn towards story telling; allowing for the recipient to wait, with anticipation. It is a very subtle signal and something for advanced analysis. It might not have changed the conclusion, but it would have been a factor.

Building up anticipation and causing the reader to "wonder" and "wait" are often used in narrative building (story telling in "cop speak"). The explanation is a lot longer than I could post here.

We also have a separate category of "witness statement reliably" in analysis. This is where we determine the quality of a statement for the specific purpose of usability by prosecution. This is different than just "deception detection,."

Peter

TimA said...

"And at that time I uh what I assumed it was drilling sounds and I uh I believe they were in the area working somehow."

He hesitates about the timing of hearing drilling sounds, he's uncomfortable with relating this, then uses plural language. Does this mean that he's thinking there was an accomplice?

Love your blog.

Anonymous said...

Can you provide a full analysis on the full dialogue?

http://progressive-na.assetsadobe.com/warnerbros/_renditions_/bd3/bd376602-d094-45f1-856c-a07d7d7acbe7/avs/video--2728751654987218111-0x360-1116k.mp4

A transcript can be provided upon request.

General P. Malaise said...

would it be hinting story at telling if he had said, "...and I saw I was bleeding." or does he not have that information without seeing the wound?

Anonymous said...

I peeked on fb & then deactivated cause it was giving me panic attacks, but saw that a gay male friend said Trump wants people like him and his husband hanging from a tree?!?! What did Trump say? What is he talking about?

Jerry Sussman said...

Greetings, I happened upon this blog this evening by chance, and--though I am unfamiliar with the author's credentials, infer that they are well regarded. Having said that, I wholly disagree with the analysis and conclusion that there was no indicia of deception in the quoted passage.

Preliminarily, I note that most communication is non-verbal; absent an analysis and comment on Campos's demeanor and the related actions of Campos and the building engineer (Schuck), an effort to assess truth or falsity of the statements made is speculative at best. Watching the interview, I was struck that Mr. Campos's gaze invariably was downward and askance rather than to Ms. DeGeneres. Indeed, if one looks at the demeanor of both guests, the actions of the building engineer appear more akin to a lawyer tapping on his client's shoulder to suggest that a statement not be made rather than that of a colleague consoling a bereaved victim. I thought as much when I first saw the interview, unaware that the person sitting next to Mr. Campos was the building engineer and not Mr. Campos's attorney.

As for the quoted passage itself: I have, in my years, encountered many truth tellers and many liars. The more practiced and sociopathic the liar the more convincing the tale. I know not whether either guest lied. For the purpose of this comment, I'll assume that they did not, and that both were honest and forthcoming. Nonetheless, insofar as my opinion is concerned, there is for me an equally as compelling an inference that the various references to the timing of the particular events was not a recall based on experience; rather, the timing and passive voice were used as one telling a tale mindful of patent incongruities and in anticipation of inferences of manifest inconsistencies that otherwise would have been apparent to viewers. By anticipating the obvious inconsistencies, the guests artfully avoided a later challenge of inconsistency. "Why did you say you did this when you said that you did that" was rendered moot by a carefully rehearsed presentation that said "I did this at 8:00 o'clock before I did that at 9:00 o'clock."

Anonymous said...

Thank you Peter.
Statement Analysis is an effective antidote to conspiracy fever.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Jerry Sussman said...
Greetings, I happened upon this blog this evening by chance, and--though I am unfamiliar with the author's credentials, infer that they are well regarded. Having said that, I wholly disagree with the analysis and conclusion that there was no indicia of deception in the quoted passage.

Preliminarily, I note that most communication is non-verbal;


seems like you should be on a body language blog.

Anonymous said...

Jerry,

Welcome! This blog deals with analyzing statements not body language.


You said, "....an effort to assess truth or falsity of the statements made is speculative at best."

It's not speculative, it's based on a wealth of collected and analyzed data over time. Keep reading. Chances are you'll be convinced.

Anonymous said...

I just watched the Ellen video...why is the guy next to him rubbing his back? Honestly I have no problem with men supporting each other, but that seems kinda gay. Imo, the guy is lying. Also, he keeps saying "door". Could he have been the shooters lover?

Anonymous said...

doors open
doors locked
burning sensation
pants leg up

Anonymous said...

Why are you so liberal??? Is your head all confused like liberals?

Anonymous said...

The man seems accommodating and humble. I don't think he's lying. Why would he? And, regardless, he was injured as an employee and he is still employed by them I'd assume. He must speak as if he is at work as this interview may still be considered his part of his job.It is job related.

I'd be surprised if he mugged for every camera in town. And, hopefully they have his family covered in the event the conspiracy theorists decide to barge in on their own like they did at Paddock;s house.

Anonymous said...

He keeps looking down. Why? And when his boyfriend rubs his back he keeps looking down. It seems like he's nit being totally honest & the boyfriend seens to be in on it, cause it seems like he's "faking" convern w the back rubs like the guy did not even have a run-in with the shooter & he'a just making it up.

Ruby said...

Peter wrote that this short extract was an example of an experiential memory.

He didn't write that this experiential memory was from the night in question.

He didn't write that the guard's whole statement was truthful.

Anonymous said...


off topic,

Anyone agree with me that it sounds like Trump is being
extorted for $25,000 by the maxine waters wanna-be from
Florida who has inserted herself into the serviceman's
sympathy call?

Peter Hyatt said...

"As I was walking down, I heard rapid fire and at first I took cover. I felt a burning sensation. I went to go lift my pant leg up and I saw the blood. That's when I called it in on my radio that shots had been fired."


If someone sees deception in this sentence, they will have a very hard time with all other statements. They will need to identify why they see deception here, and then apply this principle ("why") to all other statements. It will quickly prove to erroneous and not Statement Analysis.

If someone has a transcript of the entire interview and wish it to be analyzed, email it to Heather at hyattanalysis@gmail.com

Peter

Bobcat said...

Jerry's introduction is revealing.

Jerry and Ruby are spider legs of evil hell bent on discrediting SA. Deception is the bulk of their livelihood, and as advanced practitioners, 'customer' awareness of Peter's analyses are a threat.

Attempts to discredit will continue, and the creativity will be limitless.

Anonymous said...

His looking down may be symptoms of other emotions going on. Maybe he is an introvert by nature. Maybe he is a regular everyday Joe and being thrust into the limelight is intimidating (the limelight can be explosive and had it been used, more people would have died that night). Maybe he feels guilty because he survived when so many people that Paddock shot at did not.

They are trying to make super heros (this man, the police and emergency workers) and super villians (Paddocks relatives and friends).

Now they find after what appears to be some sort of investigation, the response time wasn't all that timely. It puts this man on the spot.

Anonymous said...

No, he should not promise and then not do it, stupid very stupid!

LC said...

I do find it concerning that All of the original scheduled interviews did not take place.
It would be interesting to know if they were squelched by employer, or law enforcement authorities...
The small excerpt of the interview I saw Did show Ellen interpreting the "Drilling sounds" as gunfire - Twice. It was reported early on, that investigators found Several power tools in the room - and Campos insists that the initial sounds he heard were "drilling sounds". This would seem to affect the timeline of reporting.