Saturday, November 11, 2017

Judge Roy Moore on Sean Hannity's Program




In previous analysis, Judge Roy Moore was accused of sexually molesting a 14 year old girl.  The analysis had only a small sample, but showed no signals of deception from the alleged victim and that Judge Moore did not issue a reliable denial. 

Here, he was interviewed by Sean Hannity.  

Question for Analysis:

Is Judge Moore telling the truth in denying sexual abuse of a 14 year old?

The complete interview and transcript is at You Tube.  




MONTGOMERY, Alabama — Judge Roy Moore, the GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate in Alabama, told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity on Friday afternoon that his campaign is conducting its own investigation into the allegations against him and has “some evidence of some collusion” against him. This is an exert from the full interview.  The full interview is available on the Foxnews channel on Youtube. 

Moore said when Hannity asked him to respond to the dozens of establishment Republicans demanding he step down from his race for the U.S. Senate:
If you step aside for any allegation, then you might as well not run because when you run you’re going to get allegations.
He uses the universal "you", but this is an accusation against him, right before the election.  The universal would be appropriate after addressing his situation first, as it would be a principle for all to follow. 



First, I would tell these individuals they wouldn’t make good judges.
His "first" point (numeric indicates logic) is that "these" individuals wouldn't make good judges.  Better is that "I did not remove her clothing..."  where a denial consists of:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense "did not" or "didn't" (Reid's distinction is not supported by statistics) 
3.  The allegation answered. 

These three elements present represent a "reliable denial."  It is 90% likely to be accurate. 

If he is then asked, "Why should I believe you?" and answers,

"Because I told the truth", it is 99% reliable.  

Adding to, altering or subtracting from these three elements will make an allegation either "not reliable" or the stronger, "unreliable."  

Next note:  

The use of "individuals" seeks to minimize the now four women who have come forward.  

In Statement Analysis, we look to learn, "is the subject telling the truth?", and if so, the motive or timing is immaterial.  If the subject is deceptive, we then look to the motive for making a false allegation. 

Previous analysis indicated that Roy Moore issued was not reliable.  This interview with Sean is the perfect opportunity to issue a denial and refuse to step down from the race. 

A false accusation is not likely to lead to resignation from a political race.  The psychological "wall of truth" is too powerful. It is something de facto innocence will not allow. 

We need to learn the truth and the truth lies within Judge Roy Moore. 



They wouldn’t make good people in the judicial system because you are innocent until proven guilty.

Tangent noted

The subject is judicially innocent.  We look for him to tell us that he holds to a de facto innocence.  He does not.  Instead, he attacks his accusers.  

In this case, this woman has waited over 40 years to bring a complaint four weeks out of an election? It’s obvious to the casual observer that something is up. We’re also doing an investigation and we have some evidence of some collusion here but we’re not ready to put that to the public just yet.

Here he focuses on the timing of the accusation, rather than the accusation itself. This was not lost on Sean as we see a growing suspicion. 

Note the numeric did not continue logically, but went to lengthy (emotional) tangents. 



Well, just like you said, they’re doing it to defeat this senate campaign. They’re bringing something, they’re trying to mix something up from other girls that never said anything about sexual impropriety and they’re all labeling it on this 14-year-old. I had nothing to do with this. This is a completely manufactured story meant to defraud this campaign. They’re losing. They’re 11 points behind. They don’t like my acknowledgment there is a God. We’ve refused to debate them because of their very liberal stance on transgenderism and transgenderism in the military and bathrooms. They’re desperate. Sean, they’re simply desperate.

Having "nothing to do with this" indicates that something, in deed, happened, but that he was not involved.  It is technically an "unreliable denial" but in the conclusion, it is weighed with other points. 


Here we see the growing doubt within Sean:  
HANNITY: “Well, let me ask you a general question.” 
MOORE: “Yes.”


HANNITY: “Let’s take you out of this for a second. Let’s say, if any Senate candidate who was 32 at the time had done this to a 14-year-old girl, to me it’s disgusting. To me, it would be despicable. To me, that is a predator.


MOORE: “Yeah.


HANNITY: “Do you agree with me, that no such person who ever does that should ever be in the United States Senate?”


MOORE: “Of course. Nobody who abuses a 14-year-old at age 32 or age 17—it doesn’t matter—if you abuse a 14-year-old you shouldn’t be a Senate candidate. I agree with that. But I did not do that.”

In the subject's personal dictionary, he did not "abuse" the 14 year old girl.   This is the same as President Clinton did not have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky; the subjective definition of "sexual relations" being for Clinton, intercourse. 

This language from the subject suggests that he believed it was consensual and not abuse because the girl did not fight. 

The sophistication disparity between a 32 year old Male and 14 year old Female is acute allowing for exploitation. 

Here is where Sean's suspicion rises to the surface.  He begins with projection; something investigators must avoid:  he sees this from his own daughter's perspective, even with a difference of age. 

Although we all think this way, in investigative interviews, we must remain neutral in posing questions: 


HANNITY: “Let’s go back to it one more question, because I didn’t understand this. If you were 32, and you do date a 17 or 18 year old—that’s a pretty big gap for a pretty young girl—is that something that you did when you were dating? I’m not talking about the 14-year-old in that specific allegation. Would it be normal behavior back in those days for you to date a girl that’s 17 or 18?”


MOORE: “No. Not normal.”


HANNITY: “My daughter is 16 years old. If she’s 17 or 18, I don’t want her dating a 32-year-old.”


MOORE: “I wouldn’t either.”


HANNITY: “And you can say unequivocally that you never dated anybody that was in their late teens like that when you were 32?”
This is a yes or no question: 
MOORE: “It would have been out of my customary behavior, that’s right.”
We now know:

he does not believe taking off her clothes was "abusive" but it was out of his "customary behavior."
HANNITY: “In other words, you don’t recall dating any girl that young when you were that old?”


MOORE: “I’ve said no.”


HANNITY: “And you think that’s inappropriate, too, that’s what you’re saying?”


MOORE: “Yes.”
Analysis Conclusion:  

Deception Indicated. 

In previous analysis, we noted that the accuser did not show signals of deception and that in other denials, Roy Moore was not reliable.  

Here, in the perfect opportunity to assert de facto innocence, the subject uses deceptive techniques, including deflection, to not only avoid a denial, but to employ language that indicates an event took place that he knows of.  

He likely believes that it was not "abusive" but harmless, which is consistent with many child abusers, while acknowledging that this was not his normal behavior with the opposite sex.  

Sean Hannity gave him ample opportunity to assert the truth, but Moore shows how the human brain works overtime to avoid making a direct lie.  

No one should resign under a false allegation; it would destroy the nation.  We let the subject guide us to the conclusion of whether or not it is a truthful accusation.  

It is.  

The complete audio with transcript is on youtube.  In it those interested in learning will find many signals of both deception and unreliable denials, including:

a.  tangents
b.  establishing his moral character (unnecessary)
c.  assigning motives
d.  "I don't remember" 
e.   using his 40 year career as a defense rather than denying it.  
f.  deity 
g.  political correctness 

From here, Sean gave a strong statement on morality and reminded Moore that this was not ideological: he only wanted the truth.  This is the point of Statement Analysis:  discerning truth from deception.  

If you wish for training for your law enforcement department, or as a private citizen, visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

We are booking Law Enforcement seminars for 2018


22 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this.

June Bug said...

His statement this (Saturday) morning was interesting, too. Several non-denials and a dropped marble saying the "Washington Post established -err- reported..."

Peter Hyatt said...

By now, too much time has passed to suddenly yield to a reliable denial.

John Ramsey made a prepared statement after his lawyers heard an analyst describe his unreliable denials.

Peter

Bobcat said...

"They're trying to mix something up from other girls that never said anything..."

Ick.

Anonymous said...

Leigh Corfman was not 14 in 1978 (when the alleged molestation occurred). She was 17. This was discussed on CNN on Don Lemon's show last night Nov 10, 2017.

June Bug said...

"It was discussed" = it was claimed by a lawyer for Moore's wife who kept nervously calling Don Lemon 'Don "easy peasy" Lemon "squeezie".'

Media reports her as 53 now. 1978 was 39 years ago. 53-39= 14.

June Bug said...

"The truth of it is, as someone representing the foundation for moral law and Kayla Moore, we have asked news outlets to represent both sides of the story.

There is out there now, uh, the opportunity to report even as that relates to these most recent things, a two sided part of it, one of which includes, uh, Mrs. Cortman at the time probably being 17, but again the judge has adamantly denied it and I believe the judge..."


- Trenton Garman, family friend and lawyer for Moore's wife's foundation

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VqNeTdbl9Qk

Concerned said...


Lawyer who worked with Roy Moore tells that it was a known creepy fact that he dated teens, going to HS games and the mall to seek them out.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359939-former-moore-colleague-common-knowledge-that-he-dated-teen

June Bug, thanks for pointing out the neutral who was on don Lemon's show. If he watched a rerun of that, I imagine he spent the day under his bed!

Concerned said...

June Bug, I said "nutball" but autocorrect didn't like it. Ha!

Anonymous said...

As a Christian I look at the 8th commandment. Judge Moore does not lie easily. This statement analysis doesn’t make him a pedophile. I am bothered by the slandering of a good man while dismissing the facts. This is gossip. You are taking the word of a proven liar. Sorry to see you doing this. Focus on real ongoing criminal investigations.
I don’t hink this helps sell your service.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
As a Christian I look at the 8th commandment. Judge Moore does not lie easily. This statement analysis doesn’t make him a pedophile. I am bothered by the slandering of a good man while dismissing the facts. This is gossip. You are taking the word of a proven liar. Sorry to see you doing this. Focus on real ongoing criminal investigations.
I don’t hink this helps sell your service.


are you able to see that as you do not want me to judge, you have judged me?

Your words reveal your opinion, particularly in saying I am "taking the word of a proven liar."

I did not.

I looked at the accuser's words and found no deception.

I looked at Moore's words and found lots of deception.

As a Christina, I offer these services to churches to help them avoid hiring those who seek to hide their guilt in religious setting. It is more common than you might think.

by discerning who is telling the truth and who is lying, children may be saved from a life time of suffering from sexual assault.

As a Christian, how do you feel about that?

If it were your son or daughter at risk, would you claim the 8th commandment because you disagree with my finding?

How much better would it be for you to say, "I believe Judge Moore over the woman who claimed sexual assault at age 14"? At least that would be sincere, rather than a false invoking of one of the sacred commandments.

Remember: do not carry the Name in vanity. Do not use it to propagate falsehood.

Disagreement is fine, but you both bring the Name of Christ and a commandment to buttress your opinion.

do you know what this reveals about you?

It shows a need for Divine support, when truth needs no support. It is similar to saying, "I swear to God" when you are not making a lawful oath.

It means you do not believe your own words but believe that Roy Moore did, in fact, molest the 14 year old.

Now think, "What if this was my daughter?"

Would you want someone like me getting to the truth, or would you rather it be buried?

Truth is not political. Plenty of conservatives are disappointed; not in me, but in Moore.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

The woman who claimed no political affiliation has been caught lying. She was also of legal age when she dated him.
her motive is political.

My analysis is about the 14 year old.

Even if the victim's motive was illicit, it does not change what happened.

Peter

Skirts.n.Daggers said...

@Peter
Can you explain to me the continual use of "remember/s" when a victim (or anyone for that matter) is giving a testimony/concession/interview. I ask because the WaPost interview has Colfman using that word over and over during her interview and I was wondering if that word specifically was relevant at all.

Thanks for ALL you do!

Skirts.n.Daggers said...

*That would be confession....not concession. lol

Peter Hyatt said...

The Wash Post is, indeed, an unreliable source of news. They did a lot of paraphrasing.
I don't doubt that the other women have politic motive, either, but let me address "remember" in general.

In an open statement, "I remember..." is a signal of suppressed memory.

We all use it.

Consider with this woman that the allegations are decades old.

It is when we know there is more but just can't get it, so what we can get, we "remember."

"I remember being 9 or 10 and going to Shea Stadium with my brother and uncle, in New York."

This is because I have gone into memory and know there are things I can't grab. It frustrates me because it was such a special trip. I wish I could remember more.

though I do not have the full statement from the woman who said this happened to her when she was 14, what I do have has no signals of deception.

It is Roy Moore's own denial that brought me to certainty in my conclusion.

Wash Post wanted to destroy him, as motive, may very well be true, but whatever motive they have, or even the alleged victim has, does not change that Roy Moore liked young girls.

As Ben Shapiro said, "if this was my little sister..."

Emotionally, that's easier than at my age: "If this was my daughter..."

I am hoping potential students will look deeply into the two rape allegations I have posted. Analysts struggle with veracity sometimes, especially in sex cases where a shift of paradigm takes place. This is why Sex Crimes Units must have their own specialized trainings.

Peter

Skirts.n.Daggers said...

Thank you so much for the response.
It was something I was stuck on...and you answered it perfectly!

I have believed Moore's innocence....but I have had a few raised eyebrows over some of his answers. The whole, unable to answer yes or no to obvious yes or no questions, always bothers me.

With that said, in general he is a horrible orator, in my opinion. Maybe its just his laid back southerner way of speaking.

Peter Hyatt said...

Sean's suspicion grew as the interview progressed.

He had a hard time concealing his own disgust and let Moore just agree with him. Sean spoke the words Moore could not.

This country is terribly split. It is a battle of reality and freedom versus tyranny and emotion.
**************************************************************************************************************************

It is fascinating to see how the "moral outrage" against an inappropriate joke by Donald Trump was so deeply committed to, while the same "moral voices" protected actual rapists.

This allows readers to learn, however. When they see unmeasured responses, they can ask the right questions. Some prefer a rapist to a bad joke, but others, no matter what, just want the truth.

I'm still waiting for Meryl Streep to tell me what I should feel, think and believe.

Peter

Skirts.n.Daggers said...

Interesting comment you received. And reading the mislead/dishonest or even just ignorant words is what makes it interesting, to me.

I do not think people understand what Hitlerian or suppression means. Whether one is a DT supporter or not, he has exhibited no Hilter/Nazi/Communist behavior. Zero. In fact, he is operating in the complete opposite direction by ensuring truth is kept sacred and that our Constitutional Rights remain in tact. Nor do they understand the power of propaganda, which the media and it's financiers (the Democrats) is very real.

But your comment about about rage, which is really subjective rage, has never been more blatantly obvious than now. Thanks internet and social media. And the subjective (political) rage is creating irrational thought, comments and flat out lies.

-----I hope "concerned" reads the following:

I am pretty sure you, "concerned", are unaware of Obama's pussy jokes and the Clinton's vested interest and friendship with actual sexual perverts (Hollywood, Podestas, Epstein, et al). I would believe based on your own response to Peter, that you voted for both and never showed outrage over any of the behavior of them or the company they keep. DT's comments pale in comparison. One can only be offended if they allow it. And if one is offended by something said that has nothing to do with them personally, I assume narcissism may be an issue.

"Concerned" should look into the way Hitler used propaganda. The Media was his greatest tool, and it continues to this day. It is fact, anyone can go research, that the majority of media is run by elitist communists who wish to manipulate the citizens. It is working! Those on the left mock those on the right for continually trashing Soros. Go do some research and find out why. For Trump to hark on 'fake news' is legitimately justified. The masses eat up whatever the media says w/out question or w/out their own research to confirm or deny. Even if the media is caught lying (which is more often than not). For one to call out the media is far from being Hitlertarian. In fact, it is literally the opposite. It is demanding truth over lies and manipulation. Hitler never stood for truth. He stood for complete control of one's mind.

Regarding Breitbart and suppression. I have been an active user there for almost 10 years. Never once has Breitbart suppressed the voice of the media or anyone else for that matter. How do I know? Because I am freely able to go to any news source and read what they have to offer. I am also free to never go to Breitbart's site and solely get my information from other select sources, like CNN, etc. I am a journalist (although, not currently working) and I can say for fact that the only VOICE that is ever suppressed is from right of center. My articles were continually suppressed on Twitter and Facebook. My voice was often not allowed to be heard. Who runs both of those sites? Certainly not the likes of Bannon et al.

You give Breitbart such power. You give it to them. But is it Breitbart with that power or simply....truth that holds all the power.


One will have little if any evidence to the claims made by 'concerned'. While 'concerns' opinions and being offended are his/her own right, to speak untruths whether on purpose or not leaves zero credibility to the sincerity of anything said. Especially the claim of being 'concerned'.

Because of my conservative stance, Twitter has suspended me for being a conservative voice. THAT is real suppression. I am still trying to get my account back.

Your account (@ImShaeMac) is currently suspended. For more information, please visit Suspended Accounts. https://twitter.com/ImShaeMac

-Journalist Shae Mac

Nancy Drew said...

LOL. Shae Mac, I can tell from your disqus feed you are no conservative. It takes more than throwing around the word "libtard" and accusations that your political opponent is "fooking a goat" to be a conservative (or a journalist for that matter.) I can see you like to throw the Nazi word around as a general pejorative (that means insult) as well. Reading through, I don't see you even close to uttering a conservative thought.

Nancy Drew said...

Anon @7:24- Nah, that's unfair to people with mental illness. Shae Mac's just rude to people who disagree with her and thinks it makes her conservative.

Anonymous said...

could I get to be as virtuous as Concerned and be morally superior ? is there a course to sign up on how to feel outrage over jokes but celebrate rape?

Concerned said...

Anon @ 10;27
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding
celebrating rape and I shouldn't even respond to you
but I will say this:
I do feel morally superior to anyone (especially if he's the
President) who tells inappropriate jokes. I am also
morally superior to anyone who molests or abuses
anyone.
If you are one of the defenders of Roy Moore, you might
want to check the breaking news for a sobbing woman
describing the way he molested her at 16. He also signed
her yearbook so there's no denying knowing this one.