Friday, November 10, 2017

Kristina Cohen Public Rape Accusation




Kristina Cohen alleges that she was raped by Ed Westwick in a public posting on social media.  I have not heard of either of them, but it appears they may be actors.  

Question for Analysis:  Does she reliably report being raped, or is she deceptive?

To this public posting, Westwick responded on social media:  






“I do not know this woman. I have never forced myself in any manner, on any woman. I certainly have never committed rape.
He does not say he did not rape her. 
He does not say he did not meet her; only he does not "know" her.  I would have expected that he never "even met her..." 
Technically, this is classified as "not a reliable denial.
 It is not classified as "unreliable" which is a stronger term.
  "I did not rape Kristina Cohen" would be a reliable denial. This could even be followed by "I have never met Kristina Cohen." Although unnecessary, if he has never met her, it would likely enter his language; especially if he was concerned about being believed. 
 What I do not like about his statement is the unnecessary persuasion of referring to other women.  If he never met Kristina, he could not have raped her.  If it is learned that he did, in fact, meet her, the weakness of his persuasive language is heightened.  
With victims of sexual assault, we also must consider how the brain is impacted by sexual assault, including such things as disassociation and perseveration.  Therefore, we examine any use of passivity, as well as looking for a specific allegation made against a specific. perpetrator at a specific time.  This is not a contextual issue, but something we look for within the sentences used.  It is possible to accuse someone falsely of rape because of a previous rape or sexual assault.  
First is her public statement, followed by it with some basic analysis and a conclusion. These can be complex which is why it is vital for Sex Crimes Units to be not only trained in Statement Analysis, but to have in-depth training on the language of sexual assault victims.  


I.  The last month has been incredibly difficult. Like so many women I too have a story of sexual assault, and the outpouring of stories have been both triggering and emotionally exhausting. I’ve gone back and forth over and over again, unsure if I should speak up. If I could speak. And if so, will I be heard?
I was sexually assaulted three years ago. It was a dark time in my life. My mom was dying of cancer and I didn’t have the support system or time to process and deal with the aftermath of the rape. I buried my pain and guilt to make space for the onslaught that came after my mom’s death, just three months later.
Even now, I grapple with feelings of guilt. Unfounded worry that in some way I was to blame. I don’t know where these feelings come from. Social conditioning that everything is always the woman’s fault? That a man’s inability to keep himself off of our bodies is somehow because of us, not him?
I’ve grown considerably in the three years since my assault, so to revisit is painful. To dig in and relive this night in order to accurately share the events, feels like a continued violation. My stomach is in knots, scared as hell to share this publicly, as even fully reconciling with myself has been a tough process.
I was briefly dating a producer who was friends with the actor Ed Westwick. It was this producer who brought me up to Ed’s house where I met Ed for the first time. I wanted to leave when Ed suggested “we should all fuck”. But the producer didn’t want to make Ed feel awkward by leaving. Ed insisted we stay for dinner. I said I was tired and wanted to leave, trying to get out of what was already an uncomfortable situation. Ed suggested I nap in the guest bedroom. The producer said we would stay for just another 20 more minutes to smooth everything over, and then we could leave.
So I went and laid down in the guest room where I eventually fell asleep, I was woken up abruptly by Ed on top of me, his fingers entering my body. I told him to stop, but he was strong. I fought him off as hard as I could but he grabbed my face in his hands, shaking me, telling me he wanted to fuck me. I was paralyzed, terrified. I couldn’t speak, I could no longer move. He held me down and raped me.
It was a nightmare, and the days following weren’t any better.
The producer put the blame on me, telling me I was an active participant. Telling me that I can’t say anything because Ed will have people come after me, destroy me, and that I could forget about an acting career. Saying there’s no way I can go around saying Ed “raped” me and that I don’t want to be “that girl.”
And for the longest time, I believed him. I didn’t want to be “that girl”.
I now realize the ways in which these men in power prey on women, and how this tactic is used so frequently in our industry, and surely, in many others.
I’m sickened to see men like Ed respected in such a public way. Interviewed by prestigious platforms such as the Oxford Union Society at Oxford University, where he was honored as one of their “People who Shape our World.” How does this end? Men like Ed using fame and power to rape and intimidate but then continue through the world collecting accolades.
I hope my coming forward will help others to know that they are not alone, that they are not to blame, and it is not their fault. Just as the other women and men coming forward have helped me to realize the same. I hope that my stories and the stories of others help to reset and realign the toxic environments and power imbalances that have created these monsters.

II.  Let's look at the statement with some basic analysis applied. 

  The last month has been incredibly difficult. Like so many women I too have a story of sexual assault, and the outpouring of stories have been both triggering and emotionally exhausting. I’ve gone back and forth over and over again, unsure if I should speak up. If I could speak. And if so, will I be heard?

The priority of the statement is what she has been personally experiencing the last month. 
Remember, this is not a police statement in which she is asked to write out "what happened" and should not be measured as such.  Therefore, we do not put heavy weighting into the general formula of reliability (25/50/25) by percentage. 

Nor is the word "story" here indicative of "story telling."  The amount of time that has passed make it part of her "life story" or history.  

The language employed strongly suggests that the subject has been in counseling or therapy.  

It is interesting to note the following words:

"speak" is used twice and "heard" is used. 

These are words consistent with adult victims of childhood sexual abuse and young adulthood trauma. 


I was sexually assaulted three years ago. 

This is a very strong statement.  Following the principles of Statement Analysis, we are going to believe the subject unless the subject talks us out of it. 

We note that three years ago, she was "sexually assaulted", but we do not know by whom.  

Remember:  this is not contextual, but implicit within sentences that we seek strength. 

She commits to this sentence with the pronoun "I" and the past tense verb.  


It was a dark time in my life. 

This emotional narrative is not a red flag of artificial editing due to the passage of time and the language of therapy which will now become more evident: 


My mom was dying of cancer and I didn’t have the support system or time to process and deal with the aftermath of the rape. I buried my pain and guilt to make space for the onslaught that came after my mom’s death, just three months later.

Besides the language ("support system" and "process") of therapy we have "sexual assault" changed to "rape."

"Sexual assault" is a much broader term than "rape."  

We note that she uses the article, "the" when it comes to "rape."  This is to specify a specific sexual assault, in which she classifies it as "rape."

As in all sexual assault cases, every term must be defined by the subject. 

If this is not done before the polygraph, the oft-reliable polygraph is now brought into question.  

Every subject has a personal subjective dictionary (with pronouns and articles exempt) but with the topic of sex, the dictionary becomes very wide. It is critical in all cases, that child protective caseworker's training in interviewing children be mimicked.  Children are asked, 

"What does that look like?" and "Tell me about _____"

The child defines each term and meaning.  This is how perpetrators are often caught when they manipulate a child. A child once talked about "monopoly' game with mom's boyfriend.  Because of the training, the child was asked, 
"What is monopoly?"

The answer was the perp's code word for sex games.   

Another child talked about "WWF" wrestling and had to demonstrate what this meant, using a teddy bear, to uncover her father's sexual assault.  

By never assuming, we get to the truth.  "He has a special snow cone" and another, "I get rewarded with special juice treats from the freezer!" (vodka frozen with flavored ice).  Another taught to perform oral sex:  ".We play the magic ice cream cone game...like magic it comes out for me to lick." 

Even with adults, we never assume to know the meaning of any term used in sex. Bill Clinton would have passed a polygraph had they offered, "Did you have 'sexual relations' with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky?" because "sexual relations" was, in his own subjective dictionary, distinctly intercourse; not oral sex.  

Here, we would ask her, 
"What is sexual assault?"
"What is rape?"

Even now, I grapple with feelings of guilt. Unfounded worry that in some way I was to blame. 

This is consistent language with both victims and victims who have had therapy. Those without therapy might not use "unfounded." 

I don’t know where these feelings come from. 

A therapist trained in analysis knows precisely what this means and where to go with it to help.  


Social conditioning that everything is always the woman’s fault? That a man’s inability to keep himself off of our bodies is somehow because of us, not him?

She reported conflicting emotions.  Here she asks, in an open statement, two questions. 

It is very likely that she has asked these questions to herself, repeatedly in life. 

I’ve grown considerably in the three years since my assault, so to revisit is painful. 

This is more evidence of professional intervention.  She "owns" the assault, which is the language of processing. 

To dig in and relive this night in order to accurately share the events, feels like a continued violation. 

"violation", although a term found in counseling, is found, in some form, in the language of victims.  There is a sense in which they did not have control over their own bodies. 

however, there is a major caveat to be noted here, especially for Sex Crimes Units.

**Adult female victims of childhood sexual abuse who experienced sexual abuse prior to speech development not only fail to possess language to describe the assault, they distinctly do not always use intrusive language.  

This has to do with brain development. 

Pre-speech childhood sexual abuse has more ramifications for adult victims than is currently known.  Not only are they incapable of articulation, but there are two distinct elements that may be present:

1.  Disassociation

Even a child's brain may disassociate from the assault and during this critical developmental period, move into such a pattern as to create what is commonly referred to as "Dissociative Identity Disorder" (in various forms).  

For us, disassociation in language can mimic deception due to its passivity.  

2.  Personal Development of Boundaries

The child repeatedly subject to sexual assault at a very young age, will sometimes not develop the natural understanding of boundaries and it will impact them acutely in adolescence and beyond.  They do not have an intuitive understanding of where their own body ends and another begins. 

The example I use in teaching is this:

Your little daughter comes out of the bathtub and runs around the house gleefully naked, with no shame.  

One day, when she came out of the bathtub, she wrapped herself in a towel, rather than run around the house naked.  If someone said, "woo hoo!", she suddenly turned red with embarrassment and said, "don't say 'woo hoo' to me!" defiantly. 

The natural boundary development became evident early and this form of modesty would serve a role in protecting her.  

For children who experience acute or ongoing sexual abuse, this natural development sometimes does not take place as it should. 

The little girl becomes a teenager and feels that she has "no right" to tell anyone, "hands off me!" because it did not develop within her brain. 

As an adult, if she did not experience this, the sense of "intrusion" is not as pronounced in her as it is in others.  She may not use the language of "invasion" or "violation" in such cases.  

       This should not be dismissed as consensual sex.  

This is why we do very specific Sex Crimes Unit statement analysis training.  


My stomach is in knots, scared as hell to share this publicly, as even fully reconciling with myself has been a tough process.

The struggle continues in spite of professional intervention. 

Linguistic Disposition:  

We look for the linguistic disposition of the perpetrator by the victim in assault statements, just as we do in threats.   


I was briefly dating a producer who was friends with the actor Ed Westwick. 

Note that the pronoun "I" could not be further away from "Ed Westwick" in this first introduction to the alleged perpetrator. This is an appropriate psychological distancing. It is our first classification of the linguistic disposition of the alleged victim towards the alleged perpetrator. 

"A producer" does not use his name (ISI)  This follows after the element of fear.  She will need, going forward, to make such details. 

Thus far, we believe her that she was sexually assaulted three years ago, but we need to hear her linguistically pull it together and tell us who did what to whom; not contextually, but within the sentence structure.  

We now follow "Ed Westwick" (linguistically) from her perspective.  

Recall the analysis of one of Bill Cosby's accuser in which Veracity Indicated was concluded:  she continually "downgraded him" linguistically, during the account, until the point where she could barely use his name at all. 

It was this producer who brought me up to Ed’s house where I met Ed for the first time. I wanted to leave when Ed suggestedwe should all fuck”. 

Here the word "we" does not unite the subject to the alleged rapist:  it is a quote of his language.  In an adult victim of rape, we do not expect to see the pronoun "we" enter the language after the assault.  

But the producer didn’t want to make Ed feel awkward by leaving. 

Here she ascribes motive to the producer, subordinating himself to the actor. 


Ed insisted we stay for dinner. 

Here, the pronoun "we" unites the subject and the producer; not the alleged perpetrator

We have two thoughts coming from Ed, according to the subject's verbalized perception of reality:

1.  suggestion
2.  insistence 

The "suggestion" is:  "we all fuck". 
The "insistence" is:  "stay for dinner."

The communicative language is appropriate and it is "congruent" within its use. 

Congruence is critical because it suggests experiential memory in play. 




I said I was tired and wanted to leave, trying to get out of what was already an uncomfortable situation. 

Q.  What would make the subject "uncomfortable"? 

A. a. suggestion we "fuck"?
     b.  insistence we stay for dinner?
      c.  insistence we "fuck"
     d.  suggestion we stay for dinner?

The sex act was a "suggestion" not a demand or threat.  This is why being "uncomfortable" is congruent with the language.  Had it been reversed (c and d above), it would be threatening and dangerous, far more than just discomfort, but fear. 

Up to this point, the consistency of experiential memory is evident. We need it to continue and we need her to commit to the allegation. 


Ed suggested I nap in the guest bedroom. 

In response to being "uncomfortable" we have a polite response of suggestion.  
Note she includes the location of where he suggested she nap.  In narrative building (story telling), this may not be included.  A "guest room" is not "his bedroom."  Sometimes statement analysis will deal with what one does not say. 

It is interesting that she included the location as "guest room" here.  We wonder why and look for answers within the text. 

Communicative Langage should show congruence.  When we see incongruence, we are on alert for deception:

"The man said to give me the money" rather than "A man told me..."

She uses consistency in the communicative language.  This is a sign of working from her actual memory of the event (experiential memory) rather than memory of something seen on TV or read in a book. 

The producer said we would stay for just another 20 more minutes to smooth everything over, and then we could leave.

The consistency of communication continues and now includes "the producer" having a need to not insult or inflame Ed.  The pronoun "we" is to identify the subject and the producer. 


So I went and laid down in the guest room where I eventually fell asleep, I was woken up abruptly by Ed on top of me, his fingers entering my body. I told him to stop, but he was strong. I fought him off as hard as I could but he grabbed my face in his hands, shaking me, telling me he wanted to fuck me. 

We now see why "guest room" was so important to her:  She reliably reports a sexual assault in the guest room.  Note the word "where", as distinctly location (element) within her memory.  

Note the use of the pronoun "I" with the past tense verbs. 

The following sentences are reliable on their form using past tense language with strong pronoun commitment and no qualification:  

1.  "I was woken up abruptly by Ed on top of me"
2.  "I told him to stop"
3.  "I fought him off"
4.  "...he grabbed my face..." 

Question:  Where does the formula for reliability end?
Answer:  "entering my body" and"shaking me" and "telling me"

Here we find the complete past tense commitment altered with "entering." It is not a  completed event in her language.  It is a point of weakness. 

Is it weakness of deception? 

This is found in deceptive statements as well as in statements of sexual assault where the event has psychologically not ended for the victim. 

Given the language of processing and the current pain (in the past month), these are likely three things that still terrify her:  entering her body and being shaken as well as him telling her.  A therapist trained in analysis would seek to help mitigate the suffering associated with this. 

Recall earlier I highlighted her language of being "heard" and "speaking."

Victims of sexual abuse often use these terms.  They are told to be "silent" or believe they should be silent because they will not be believed, or even that their own reputations will be damaged.  Being "heard" is a consistent theme among sexual assault victims. 

I was paralyzed, terrified. I couldn’t speak, I could no longer move. He held me down and raped me.
It was a nightmare, and the days following weren’t any better.

The editing in of emotions is consistent with the passage of time and processing.  It is not a signal of artificial editing. 


The producer put the blame on me, 

The Incomplete Social Introduction makes sense contextually for more than just avoiding using his name here. The impact continues for her:  


telling me I was an active participant. Telling me that I can’t say anything because Ed will have people come after me, destroy me, and that I could forget about an acting career. Saying there’s no way I can go around saying Ed “raped” me and that I don’t want to be “that girl.”
And for the longest time, I believed him. I didn’t want to be “that girl”.

Note the theme of being "audible" continues for her. 

I now realize the ways in which these men in power prey on women, and how this tactic is used so frequently in our industry, and surely, in many others.

Recall where she began her statement:  the past month. 


I’m sickened to see men like Ed respected in such a public way. Interviewed by prestigious platforms such as the Oxford Union Society at Oxford University, where he was honored as one of their “People who Shape our World.” How does this end? Men like Ed using fame and power to rape and intimidate but then continue through the world collecting accolades.
I hope my coming forward will help others to know that they are not alone, that they are not to blame, and it is not their fault. Just as the other women and men coming forward have helped me to realize the same. I hope that my stories and the stories of others help to reset and realign the toxic environments and power imbalances that have created these monsters.

Analysis Conclusion: 

She is telling the truth that three years ago, she was sexually assaulted. 

We need to learn more about her definition of "rape" versus "sexual assault" but her description of the actual assault is reliable.  

Whether he digitally entered her or with his penis may be the cause of the change of language for her, but in either case:  it is a forced violent sexual assault.  She reliable stated, "he held me down and he raped me." 

The damage done to her has had some mitigation but that she continues to suffer from it is evident.  

She likely has experienced much guilt for going into the guest bedroom, where the location is now a source of pain for her.  This is evident in her need to explain why she was in the guest room.  

In sexual assault cases, we often find attendant guilt and even attendant deception.  This is sometimes due, for example, to the use of illegal substances.  However, the assault, itself, is what the language analysis seeks to show to be reliable or unreliable.  Attendant guilt is expected in reliable rape statements where the victim blames herself for even going to the locale.  

Kristina Cohen shows reliability.  

Based upon her characterization of his language as well as the producer's response:  my guess is that Kristina Cohen may not be his only victim.  

I also will not be surprised if said producer sides with the actor against Ms. Cohen. 

The helplessness (paralysis) may revisit her often, particularly in night terrors, which is why it is critical for competent professional intervention.  The trauma's deepest impact may come when the victim reaches an age approaching menopause with the declination of hormones means a natural weakening of the brain and body's defenses. 

It may impact her immune system's ability to fight off all manor of illness in her future.  Depression, anxiety, and a compromised immune system can lead to a life time of suffering.  Few understand the impact of sexual abuse, including professionals and victims.  The verb tenses are telling.  

This is only a basic analysis done of her statement.  For training in Statement Analysis, including Sex Crimes Unit's specific need to understand the language of victims versus false reporters, please visit www.hyattanalysis.com. 

We offer training for your department, at your locale, as well as individual training in your home.  This is for law enforcement, non-law enforcement, social workers, therapists, journalists, bloggers, investigators and so many others.  


23 comments:

Mimsie said...

Peter, this is OT. I am eager to have your analysis on the Rand Paul situation--his injuries by an angry neighbor?

Anonymous said...

You should know that she is producing a movie with the Kaine who was "the producer" from her story and they need funding for the movie... It puts it in perspective doesn't it.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
You should know that she is producing a movie with the Kaine who was "the producer" from her story and they need funding for the movie... It puts it in perspective doesn't it.
November 10, 2017 at 6:17 PM



No, it doesn't. Motive is irrelevant to whether or not it happened. If she was deceptive, then we would move to motive.


I understand why you would not post something like this with your name signed.

Peter

Natasha said...

Bravo, Peter (for your final comment to Anonymous)! Thank you for studying this. Statement Analysis is so intricate I worry I will never fully grasp it. I’m studying counseling and am keeping your notes about the clever ways predators use terms to protect themselves, e.g. Monopoly. That stunned me. I’m glad you pointed those out and I will share those techniques with my classmates. I hope to take your course when I’ve graduated.

Anonymous said...

OT:
I would love to see an analysis of this by Louis CK:
http://ew.com/tv/2017/11/10/louis-c-k-statement/

Anonymous said...

Anon,
Some women are raped in their sleep or when passed out. In her case she may have been partially intoxicated and the mere mention of "why don't we all fuck" made her depressed (emotionally exhausting)to the point she could no longer stay amicably among the people who they came to have dinner with.

The producer's advice wasn't wise, but she took it. She knows she was the one that did not insist on leaving at the time and could have left the house or sat outside for that 20 minutes. Her laying down in the guest room may have been seen as an invitation by the producer. He (producer) wasn't the one raped, so he had no dog in the fight in the first place.

She never calls the producer a friend, a confidant, or anything other than a producer.

Having said that, if a person is raped by a co-worker does that make the employer a pimp? Or, did the producer know in advance that the rape would occur?

She never blames the producer other than for the ill words blaming her which are used daily in America to dismiss rape allegations. If he hadn't said them, someone else would have.

She "briefly" dated the producer. 'nuff said

Anonymous said...

Peter Hyatt said...
Anonymous said...
You should know that she is producing a movie with the Kaine who was "the producer" from her story and they need funding for the movie... It puts it in perspective doesn't it.
November 10, 2017 at 6:17 PM



No, it doesn't. Motive is irrelevant to whether or not it happened. If she was deceptive, then we would move to motive.


I understand why you would not post something like this with your name signed.

Peter
November 10, 2017 at 6:50 PM


And it's clear you can't tolerate disagreement.

What name would you want the poster to use....anonymous or some fabricated blog name? There is no difference, so why not scold nearly all your commenters for using fake names?

Are you implying you don't know identities from IP addresses? For instance, I'm almost positive you know "who" I am....at least the name I sometimes use here.

Anonymous said...

Natasha said...
Bravo, Peter (for your final comment to Anonymous)! Thank you for studying this. Statement Analysis is so intricate I worry I will never fully grasp it. I’m studying counseling and am keeping your notes about the clever ways predators use terms to protect themselves, e.g. Monopoly. That stunned me. I’m glad you pointed those out and I will share those techniques with my classmates. I hope to take your course when I’ve graduated.
November 10, 2017 at 9:21 PM




????

Bravo, Peter??

But why? Do you admire his petulance when anyone questions him? If he wants real names, he could also discourage fabricated names and/or refuse to publish any comments other than those who use their real names.

Fan worship is ridiculous, but it is much less pronounced here than it was previously.

Anonymous said...

Yes, this is a good post and perhaps the childhood sexual "code words" also apply to adults working in cooperation.


Though the 25/50/25 rule of what happened does not apply here, I get confused on where to start applying the 50 part as often I see it sprinkled before and after.

Anyone with any quick tips for remembering?

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous,

You're a coward.

Clear enough?

Kristina Cohen is telling the truth. In fact, she is telling the truth from A to Z on this event. People like you add to the suffering of a victim because you assert without reason.

If you could analyze her words for me and show the principles used, and we can take the principles and apply them to known liars, and my analysis is wrong,

I will publicly apologize and post my error.

Fair enough?

Peter

General P. Malaise said...

I was briefly dating a producer who was friends with the actor Ed Westwick. It was this producer who brought me up to Ed’s house where I met Ed for the first time. I wanted to leave when Ed suggested “we should all fuck”. But the producer didn’t want to make Ed feel awkward by leaving. Ed insisted we stay for dinner. I said I was tired and wanted to leave, trying to get out of what was already an uncomfortable situation. Ed suggested I nap in the guest bedroom. The producer said we would stay for just another 20 more minutes to smooth everything over, and then we could leave.
So I went and laid down in the guest room where I eventually fell asleep, I was woken up abruptly by Ed on top of me, his fingers entering my body. I told him to stop, but he was strong. I fought him off as hard as I could but he grabbed my face in his hands, shaking me, telling me he wanted to fuck me. I was paralyzed, terrified. I couldn’t speak, I could no longer move. He held me down and raped me.
It was a nightmare, and the days following weren’t any better.
The producer put the blame on me, telling me I was an active participant. Telling me that I can’t say anything because Ed will have people come after me, destroy me, and that I could forget about an acting career. Saying there’s no way I can go around saying Ed “raped” me and that I don’t want to be “that girl.”

It appears the producer was not invested in the actress as boyfriend (dating). What boyfriend would facilitate and then bury the fact. It seems he was complicit and kept moving the plot forward each time she wanted to leave it was on the producer's insistence she stayed. I see him as a pimp not a boyfriend.

Anonymous said...

I very much doubt YOU know/dated ANY producer.

Peter Hyatt said...

General,

an excellent point to which the ISI and some other points agree.

See how the producer sought to "calm" a situation.

It is very likely that the rapist was not used to hearing the word "no" and the producer's attempt to assuage the rapist's anger is akin to pimping the victim out.

Peter

Hannah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hannah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Hyatt said...

The anonymous poster did not attack me or challenge the analysis. I invited challenge to the analysis.

instead, the anonymous poster went after Kristina Cohen's motive which is circulating on Twitter.

She was raped and reliably reported it.

Now, a second woman has come forward.

Look at her account.

Note the same principles apply to both statements.

If anonymous is going to doubt a rape victim, I'd like to see the reasons. If it is just to attack motive for that which is truthful, it should be done elsewhere.

Peter

Hannah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Thank you peter, for making a difference! You bring awareness on a very important Topic and as we can See with The stupid Comments it is very much needed!!

Thank you for your work!

Sofia

Vicki Nicole said...

This is an awesome analysis. Maybe you can testify in court for Kristina as an expert. I wish you could do an analysis of all the accusers statements.

CptKD said...

It's 'Enough' Now ALREADY, Anon!
Take your Games & Go play THEM elsewhere . . . Find another Blog, Web Page and/or Social Media Site, that WILL not mind partaking in your 'VICTIM' BLAMING - BASHING & BERATING¡!
Add to that, the entertaining of your trifling Nonsense, alongside of Your Nonsensical Stupidity!
To be HONEST, as I can be - With an absolute 'Stranger' who further chooses to identify themself as 'Anonymous'!
THEY aren't going to be 'wanted' HERE, nor are they, in effect, really needed!
We are all, trying to LEARN or better understand 'Some' part of Statement Analysis!
Whether one is at the very beginning, FIRST time HERE & Simply trying to wrap their minds around the Logic of S/A! The Rules + Regs & The VERY First Basics on how it is PRACTICED, in order to get one going!
Meanwhile for others, they are farther advanced & Are HERE, to continue to work on Analysis ...
Some are here, to read ONLY!

Whatever the Case!
Whichever the Reason!
You don't see, or hear - Any of US being RUDE, crude, let alone DISRESPECTFUL To, or towards Peter, or his Blog!
He 'IS' after all, putting ALL of THIS out THERE for us, FREE of Charge!
&
If you took the time to check out the Costs, for attending the Course(s) for Statement Analysis
You'd come to recognize, that it is & can be costly. ESPECIALLY, for an Individual to cover said Costs!
Anyways, the fact that he does help guide the MANY that come to Read up, and LEARN - Even if, but the BASICS!
It is still, at NO CHARGE Whatsoever!
&
IT Has helped MANY of the people, over the years!
In one way or another ...
It HAS been a blessing! In many ways!
ALL in of itself ...
Just thought I'd mention it!
(On the off chance, that you are, So HIGH on that damn horse 🏇 of yours!
That you have FAILED to see THAT, too ...)

Oh ya!
In closing, please allow me to address this point with you, as well!
Peter has absolutely NO Issue With any of us, having differing opinions. Nor how we each have varying degrees of viewing the way the World 'Weighs' - Along with the way it ROCKS & The Way it WRONGS us!
The ONLY thing that Peter wants, or INSISTS on, more-so where it pertains to the Analysis of a Statement & The 'Answer' or conclusion, one is adamant about forming . . .
Peter EXPECTS - That you WILL have EVERYTHING that you can possibly have, that Supports the findings for which you are standing on!
Whether it be through any &
All Document(s) - Follow-up Statements [Analyzed to the BEST of your abilities, then CHECKED & Have another Analysis performed by another Analyst]
In other words; If you're going to shoot off at the mouth, especially if you're just going to spew Trash!
BEST to have your shit, backed up & Supported!
Or, you'll end up being left there, standing All ALONE & Looking like a '$©¥t-H€∆d'!
Now, if THAT is Really - Like REALLY what you're ABOUT ...
Then perhaps, I've just discovered
&
In the same token - That same vein, I've also just created your new 'Name' ~

CptKD said...

I can only hope ...
That the 'Stupid' & Totally Nonsensical Nonsense Comments,
WILL NOT
Lead to us
ALL
Being sent into the dreadful
'MODERATION' Bin, or Bucket!

Just when things, were
THOUGHT
To be coming along just fine ~

HERE it comes ...
Crashing DOWN!
ALL because of 'some'
ANONYMOUS Fools & Tools, or two!
Like,
Thanks, Guy(s)!
Much appreciated!
~ • N O T • ~

CptKD said...

FAN WORSHIP?
I sense a HEAVY Shade of GREEN oozing out, and Flaking OFF of You - You poor, pitiful & Pathetically JEALOUS Being!

I'm guessing, that it Is YOU - THAT you would much prefer, having US fanatically 'Rave' Over & About...
Instead of,
&
As opposed to,
It being . . .
OUR Heavenly Saint - Statement Analysis HERO, Peter Hyatt!
Formerly known as,
Seamus O'Reilly!
&
YES!
I WAS
A HUGE Fan
Of His, too!
THAT is how FAR Back
I go,
Historically - To Being a Reader
&
Learner of S/A!
&
Guess what?
You probably won't believe this,
BUT
I have had, the 'exact' S A M E
NAME
Ever Since,
I first came HERE!
Imagine that!
&
While, it isn't my FIRST name, per se ...
It is, my precise 'Rank & File' - Followed by my TRUE Initials!

Lastly, and only because you have truly caused me a serious 'Irk' this morning . . .

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Metaphysics - In any way, shape, form or capacity¿?
Still, I must admit ...
To having a FULL Out, hearty Chuckle at your comment about Peter being 'Petulent'!
For goodness sake, ANONYMOUS!
Life IS - But Many'Mirrors' & Much of the 'TRUE' Reflections of the 'WHO' That we ARE!
Giving back to us, that which it is that we exude 'Out' into the World
&
'Untowards' Other People!

Wherever it is, that we feel & Further find ourselves in a position, WHERE we have come to a point of 'Judgement' or 'criticism' of ANOTHER!

Look Closely & Look CLOSER!
At your OWN Self!
At your Own TRUTH!
Trust me, as I tell you ...
If you look deep & SERIOUSLY, into YOUR Self
If you are capable, of being 'TRUE' to You - Of TRUSTING, in that TRUTH

The Judgement, Criticisms, Hurts, Critiques, Angers, etc.

They WILL . . .
In some way return & Reflect BACK Onto & towards YOU!
This is Why, there are times when people we simply 'Deteste' for no reason, whatsoever - Just come into our lives!
At times, they just as quickly are removed. Other times, we get to know them, which in reality, we've actually done our own 'Self- processing' & They become acquaintances, or funnier yet, in some situations, a Best Friend!

Some know this ALSO as being similar to, or being called the Laws of Attraction!

Either way,
&
Anyway . . .
I see YOU being the PETULANT CHILD, Anonymous!
NOT Peter! Not by any means . . .
&
Do You want to KNOW WHY, I think it's THIS Way?
AS opposed to that, which you would like to have us BELIEVE¿?

I honestly BELIEVE, that you're probably still THERE, with a big Ol' POUT happening, ALL because -
YOU Don't have a 'FAN CLUB' of your Own!

Which, in all reality is fine!
I just ask, this one favor, okay?
Please don't bother the 'Victims' of CRIME! ESPECIALLY, the ones who have experienced anything to do with THAT of a Sexual Nature!
Please & Thank YOU!

Peter Hyatt said...

Captain,

go easy; it's just an anonymous trolling with insults.

Remember, there are some who will challenge analysis. This is good for all.

There are some who will avoid challenging the analysis and instead assign motive, ridicule, divert and so on.

It is like those who have a "high standard for the office of President" who condemn an inappropriate joke, but then justify a rapist as president because it fits their narrative.

The woman who took over for Hilary Clinton New York Senate now says that when Juanita Brodderik came forth, Bill Clinton should have resigned.

She did not say that back then.

In fact, Hillary's campaign said that she took Hillary's support, Hillary's money and ran on Hillary's name and now condemns her?

Are we to believe that rape is bad now, but it wasn't then? Is this what it means to be "progressive" in morals?

Hillary attacked Bill's accusers, rather than protect women's rights or even let their voices be heard. She did far more than enable the pummeling of victims; she laughed at destroying a child victim of rape.

Anonymous defense of a rapist by attacking the analyst is meaningless. It is not worth the effort.

Peter