Thursday, March 15, 2018

Mark Cuban's Telephone Interview Analyzed





The Analytical Question is:


Did Mark Cuban sexually assault the alleged victim?


"From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks." 


 There is no greater indicator of truth than our words.  Although we

all use body language analysis (whether we recognize it or not), 
the greatest accuracy comes from the language.  It is in the
language we learn to discern deception from truth, and
reliable content information from fabrication.  

We also learn about the subject, himself.  This is the point 

of profiling.  We get a distinct description so powerful that it 
can identify the author of an anonymous letter, post, email
etc. 

1.  Did the subject sexually assault the alleged victim?


2.  What do you know about the subject?



June 8, 2011
Mark Cuban: This is Mark.
Brendan McGuire: This is Mark Cuban? Good afternoon. This is Detective McGuire with the Portland police.
Cuban: Hi, Detective McGuire. How are you?

Note he uses the detective's title and name.  This is not expected that
one would inquire about the well being of a law enforcement 
official calling.  Expected is: "what can I do for you?" or in any form
that seeks to learn, "what do you want?"

It is the Ingratiation Factor.  Let's note it.  Too often it is 
dismissed as non impactful.  By noting it (technically) we are
aware of it and if it shows impact, we follow it.  If it is only
"business as usual" and just polite, so be it.  The discipline 
is important as critical information is missed when we do not
stay true to principle. We must be guided by the words. 

Consider that the subject is a successful, wealthy businessman at
this very point. This is the "greater context" of a profile. He is 
likely very good at negotiation. 

If so, we consider the "language of negotiation" includes deception.

The deception can be incessant, such as President Trump's 
language reveals.  He is always negotiating and everything 
is open to negotiation.  A negotiator wants "B", so he demands
"C" knowing that his opponent wants to give him only "A."

This is technically deception.  Similar to medical professionals 
who have language that indicates deception via withholding 
information due to HIPPA, we consider it "appropriate" 
concealing of information.  This is also seen in the language 
of lawyers and therapists.  In the language of negotiation, it is
technically "deception indicated" but it must be contextualized. 

Those who negotiate will not say what they mean due to the 
negotiation. This is problematic in business (and politics) but it can yield
success when done appropriately. 

When the businessman wants $10,000, he is "lying" when he 
demands $12,000.  When he receives a counter offer at 
$8000, but settles for $10,000, he is "successful" in that he 
got what he wanted.  

Politics 

Politics is about appearances.  

The politician cannot afford this form of success. If he 
demands "C" publicly, he is now stuck in a position that 
his rivals will use against him. He got the "B" he wanted,
but his enemies claim he "promised us C" and look what a 
"failure" he is.  

If one cares only for the outcome and success, it is very 
difficult to care for one's reputation at the same time. It is to 
see deception in the language almost incessantly. 

High level skilled negotiators often have powerful instincts.

The negotiator will praise anyone at any time, knowing that 
the psychology of such is effective even when the person 
knows that the flattery is false. This is human nature.  The 
negotiator wants what he wants and will consistently be 
"25% above or below the truth" consistently. With the president
it may be higher.  A good example is his ridicule of 
the North Korean dictator.  Media described this as an example
of one who is "mentally unstable", who has issues with 
manhood and one politician used it to launch a vote on
impeachment.  


None of this was lost on the North Korean advisors who may
have considered the president as unstable enough to actually 
attack their nuclear facility.  The result is now an opportunity
for negotiations.  

Consider this context with Mark Cuban.  I have seen several 
of his interviews.  He indicates by his language that he is 
where he is due to instinct as a very astute, tough businessman;
not education. 

McGuire: I'm good. How are you?
Cuban: Um, you tell me. [laughs]

This is similar to answering a question with a question. The 
sensitivity of receiving a call from law enforcement is 
expected. 

However, it is an initial recognition of possible personal trouble 
as the words indicate that the officer calling has the power
to impact the subject's state of well being.  Please keep this in mind,
even as you read him laughing.  



McGuire: Were you ever at a nightclub or bar that had like a tent set up out in…?
This is a yes or no question. 

Cuban: Why? What's the situation?

The subject avoids issuing the answer (sensitive point) but 
poses a question (sensitivity point two).  

It is interesting to note that he does not ask what he was 
accused of.  This would make it very personal and what most 
people would want to know.  The context is very important. 

This is a very wealthy, successful businessman.  His language
indicates that he is not highly educated.  Therefore, his success
in business may be due to instinct. 

Understand the word "situation" in terms of a top businessman who 
has negotiated and gotten what he wants for years. 

Understand the minimization of such with the principle of
Ingratiation and how powerful it is. 

You can tell a criminal that he is going to experience the 
"good cop; bad cop" interview and even prepared for it, will
be emotionally impacted by it and it still works. 

Keep in mind:  The subject inquired about the well being
of the detective.  The detective may be emotionally impacted
by it. 

Cuban creates a natural unity between them.  Like Trump, if we
were to meet Cuban in an negotiation, we might  leave signing
over all of our belongings to him and thanking him for 
taking everything from us.  

These negotiation driven high level success businessmen
are powerful.  By profiling him, the investigator can get
a distinct strategy for the interview, including specific 
questions (tactics) to use.  

Also keep in mind:  they take what they want and they get it. 

They demand, and it is done. 

Success is its own reward to many of such personalities.  
They become accustomed to people doing exactly what 
they want, day after day, year after year, young, old, wealthy
poor, and so on. 

This pattern does not simply "shut down" when it comes to 
sexual activity.  

McGuire: Well, there's a gal who is alleging that you did some inappropriate touching while at that club.

The detective gave him a plain description of the allegation. The allegation is inappropriate touching and the club is 
specifically identified.  Here is where we expect the denial:
Cuban: Are you serious?


McGuire: Unfortunately, yeah.

Note the language of regret or empathy on the part of the
detective.  It comes after the Ingratiation. 

Objection:  But isn't this good rapport building.
Answer:   No need to object:  It is rapport building and it is wise. 

We must not, however, discount the Ingratiation impact upon
the detective.  

A phone interview reduces its impact somewhat, as successful
manipulators operate best in person. In person they can be 
charming, yet even when unseen, it still comes through. 

"Are you serious?" is a question related to Ingratiation. The 
human empathy factor is engaged.  It is to say, "used your 
title, name and inquired about your well being. You and I are "we" 
and as such, "we know" that this accusation is worthy of 
ridicule; it is not 'serious' enough for us to consider. 

Investigators:  Do not minimize the skill of your opponent.  

Stay within principle.  Use his language.  Ask questions based
upon his own wording.  He was the opportunity to ask 
questions about the subject's belief regarding inappropriate
touching:  what is "serious" and what is not serious. 

Instead, we have a term used of empathy.  Although the
response is good, best to note his question and return to it
later.  Let him define what serious inappropriate touching looks
like and what inappropriate touching is not serious.  Look
for words like fun, harmless, good natured, and look for
a "crowd" to hide behind, such as "everyone does that!" 

The detective did not say anything after this comment.  This is
helpful to avoid introducing language or meaning (interpretation)
to a subject. 

Cuban immediately retreats to:

a crowd.  

Plurality is where we find human nature seeking to hide from guilt.

It comes in many forms.  "have you ever told a lie?"  answered by "of course. Everyone lies at
some point in life...:" which not only avoids the word "yes" but goes to the plurality for
refuge.  We now explore its need. 
Cuban: I mean the bar was packed. There were people around us the whole time. How could I inappropriately touch anybody?

Now you know more about him:

he asks a question that reveals guilt.  He is restrained, not by
morals ("are you serious?" introducing "serious" to the 
interview) but puts the responsibility upon the detective.  

He is restrained by eye witnesses.  You now much consider
what "serious inappropriate touching" is within his personal 
internal dictionary, but what he does when he believes 
he cannot be seen.

He has just revealed a norm in his life. 

He did not deny the allegation but allows for it only to be 
discounted due to the presence of eye witnesses.  

Remember;  He does not know if this was an allegation made 
by someone when he was in the bathroom, a back room, his
vehicle, etc.  

This lack of denial is compounded by the question where he 
now seeks proof instead of stating he did not do it.  

This is similar to "I have passed hundreds of drug tests" as a 
defense rather than, "I did not use PEDS." 
McGuire: Well, that's the allegation. I take it…

His question is effective.  The detective did not anticipate 
being challenged.  This is seen in the need to pause ("well")
and now you can see that his Ingratiation Factor used was effective. 
He caused the interviewer to create distance between him
and the allegation:  "that." 

He has a minor victory here. 

The investigator did not say, "this is the allegation" but uses
the subtle distancing language of "that."

Cuban is very likely a man of great persuasion.  Those around 
him can best attest to this.  He is "on the fly", talking with 
law enforcement, facing a serious accusation and he is 
having slight success, so early on, in manipulating the detective. 

Do not discount human nature's desire to be accepted and belong.

Those who do are most vulnerable to it. 
Cuban: There were people taking pictures left and right.

This is to offer another defense without a denial.  This increases
the understanding of who he is.  

Remember: he has put the burden of denial upon the detective.

How effective is he?

The detective was calling a wealthy, powerful celebrity.  This, itself, makes it difficult. 

Yet, added to this challenge is the impact of his use of the 
Ingratiation Factor.  Note how wide a path is now cut by the
investigator.  The investigator's language indicates the empathy
in attempting to introduce "memory issues."  The interviewer's 
choice of wording has given him a defense to follow:

"I don't recall." 

Introducing the word "recollection" is a critical error. 

We teach people how to lie in our formation of questions. Far
better is to put the burden of denial upon him.  Instead
the interviewer is now sharing the psychological burden. 
McGuire: Do you have any recollection of any of those particular instances taking pictures with anybody?
Cuban: No. I mean, I take pictures all night long. Look, there was a bunch of, there were multiple athletes there. There were a bunch of players there.

The yes or no question should not have been asked.  He answers
with "no" and then employs the "normal" principle of what 
he "normally does" with the present tense verb, "take."

It is interesting who was present (in his language):  "athletes" and 
"players." 

Language does not change on its own.  If these two are the same,
it indicates a verbalized perception of change:

something has changed in reality. 

He offered the interviewer a tangent which is tempting:  "celebrity",
yet this still could provide witnesses and could help put pressure 
on him.  

McGuire: Who else was there?
Cuban: Um, Kevin Love, there were a bunch of people there, and I don't want to put out names. I mean, there were a lot of people there.

Pressure felt.  This warrants immediate follow up. 
McGuire: OK.

Although follow up is warranted, it does not need to be
immediate.  Even a pause of agreement ("ok") can cause the
now nervous or uncomfortable subject to speak.  It worked:
Cuban: Look, I'm, I'm, I'm not gonna sit here, I, how did she say I touched her? Look, people, people hug me. People grab me. People grab onto me all the time.

Exploration of "look" should mean one or two paragraphs in the 
analysis, even as a possible habitual figure of speech. 

The pronoun "I" tells us that the sensitivity is now moving into
actual anxiety.  

We know that witnesses that are celebrities has produced anxiety
in the subject. We do not stutter or halt on the pronoun "I"
unless we have an actual stutter issue.  He does not. 

The pronoun "I" is used by the brain tongue connection so many
millions of times that the efficiency of use is peak efficiency. 

When we see this disruption, we are seeing anxiety rise.  

We note "I touched her" and his body posture enter his statement.


McGuire: Sure.

Excellent:  the investigator does not answer his questions. 
Cuban: And it wouldn't shock me if, you know, I like put my arm around somebody or, I mean, but I inappropriately touched? Like in what manner?

We see him embedded twice an admission, formed within a 
question.  It is vital that the interviewer not yield specific 
information to him.  He is seeking information.  We do not
need to provide it.  He already was told "inappropriate touch"
and did not deny it and did not define it.  The investigator 
should have remained in this posture but did not, beginning
with the revelation of being caught, again, off guard by 
his talent with the word "well."

This is a word used when we need to pause to obtain time
to process information. 
McGuire: Well, I'll tell you what the allegation is. And, of course, keep in mind, Mr. Cuban, that I'm not sitting here talking to you, accusing you of anything.

He was successful in the ingratiation he used.  This is seen now
in that the investigator is parroting his words for self.  This is 
not using his words in questions, this is literally one who is 
aligned with him.  This is insightful into why strict training
and practice is essential and how powerful the Ingratiation Factor
can be psychologically.  It impacts us all.  The body posture
followed by the pause tells us that in the chess game of an 
interview, Mark Cuban has the advantage. 

He did not become the successful businessman and celebrity
personality by letting others control.  

He is controlling the flow of information. He is good at what
he does.  
Cuban: No, I understand that. You're just doing your job. I understand that.

Empathy for the law enforcement official that is investigating a
possible crime that could put him in jail and/or ruin his career. 

He continues his Ingratiation into concern for the detective.  He is 
good. 

He has the investigator now to reveal a single detail that at this 
time should not have been revealed.  

Before the investigator reveals this detail, we see the "agreement"
with him in the first word used: 
McGuire: Right. 


this is to agree about his assessment of the investigator's motive.  It is
not a clever tactic used against him.  He is putting together a slow
steady small incremental realm of advantages over the 
investigator. 


The allegation is that she came up to you to get some pictures taken and while sort of doing arm around each other picture-taking thing, you stuck your hand down the back of her pants and inserted your finger into her vagina.
Cuban: Oh! Hell no! You don't think a hundred people would've noticed?

He is relieved.  By going into such detail, the investigator has lost
the opportunity to learn the source of his high sensitivity which
at this point, indicates guilt of inappropriate touching. 

It is so specified that it offers him new ways in which to 
continue to put the burden on the investigator to deny the 
allegation for him. 

His question now reveals why he sought to learn the "serious"
element of the allegation.  

The emphasis of "hell, no!" can be likened to the boy who says,

"I didn't do that" acutely aware that he has slipped a noose 
by doing something else that he has not been caught for. 

He pounces on the error made by the investigator. 

This detail should not yet have been introduced until a larger 
portrait of the night emerged.  

He was avoiding making a denial for a good reason. Now that
he has "something", he can successfully avoid that which 
caused him the concern that was enough to produce the stuttering
 "I" anxiety. 

He answers "no", adds emphasis, and then challenges the 
investigator with a question in the negative. 

The investigator falters: 

McGuire: Entirely possible. But I suppose it's entirely possible, depending on how crowded it was and how many people were around, that no one would notice…

"Entirely possible" yields to him, yet is followed by a rebuttal,
which is good.  What is the rebuttal?

The word "but" refutes, negates or minimizes by comparison, that 
which preceded it.  

"it is entirely possible but..." should not refute the possibility. 

What did "but" produce?

The word "but" in rebuttal produced a repetition of acquiescence. 

"But I suppose it's entirely possible."

Cuban moves another step closer to check mate. 

"I suppose" indicates weakness of reluctance.  It is to say,

"here is my rebuttal to show you that you are wrong.  I  have no 
no rebuttal. "
Cuban: How would I get, I mean, she wouldn't say something right there and then and smack the shit out of me? And while we're…oh hell no. Are you kidding me?

He is now at full advantage and presses it forward.  He is 
controlling the interview.  He is the interviewer now and he 
is asking questions, pressing forward, to one he was able to 
bring in to his circle of acceptance.  His use of the pronoun 
"we" is to indicate his success in saying, "we, that is, 
you and me, you the police, me the celebrity, are on the same
team agreeing how this is just a joke..."

He is good at what he does. 

I often tell investigators that when appropriate, don't have a 
secretary or support staff call and make an appointment:  do it
yourself.  That call is when the interview begins.  

Therefore, the interviewer must be prepared.  This preparation, 
even in time limited scenarios, is vital.  

He has ingratiated himself into the Interviewer's language 
and now, as "friends" or "teammates", he seeks the interviewer's
counsel.  

Cuban: I mean, how do I deal with something like this? 
If someone just makes an accusation like this?

This shows much about his personality.  
McGuire: Um, well, pretty much my preference, of course, how
 to deal with it would be to talk to me just like you're doing.
The interviewer handled this very well.  Note the interviewer
does not introduce language nor strategy. To say "just keep talking" 
as was done was correct. 

This counsel was not what he wanted, so he continues. This is a 
subject so used to getting his own way that he doe snot take '"no" 
for an answer: 
Cuban: So how do I deal with something like this? I mean, why would she wait a mon—I mean, why wouldn't people, why wouldn't she just react right there? You know? I mean, and, and have her boyfriend or whatever beat the shit out of me if I did something stupid like that. You know?

He continues his control and continues to avoid denial.  He is most
uncomfortable with the context but is at comfort with the specific
detail of the accusation. 

McGuire: I think there's a possibility that just you and your situation can, could be intimidating to some folks.
The interviewer is hooked in by him, which causes him to laugh: 



Cuban: [laughs] OK, well, you know what I'm saying, though, right? There would be some reaction. You know? I mean, I just, I don't know what…aw fuck. I don't know what to say.

He now is at a level where he can use profanity since he 
perceives  them to be on the same "side" in this. 
McGuire: Well, I think you pretty much said it. You're categorically denying any of this ever happened. Am I understanding that correctly?

How successful was Mark Cuban?

He was so successful that he got the detective to issue the denial
for him.  
Sometimes investigators will initially dismiss the caution of 
underestimating a subject. This is a very good sample from
which to work from. 



Cuban: Yeah. That's correct.
He does not have to issue a denial:  he got the investigator to do it for him.

Analytical Interviewing begins with rules to follow.  All rules must be, at some point, broken, but it is within the norm of this 
discipline that legally sound questions are posed and information 
is gained.

Mark Cuban reversed roles and was able to avoid having to 
deny inappropriate touching.  

The "heavy lifting", that is the engagement of the internal stress of lying, has been done for him, and greatly reduced down to:

"yeah, what you said; thanks for saying it."


Recall the investigator introduced memory issues before:  

McGuire: Do you know how much you had to drink that night?
Cuban: Yeah, I mean, I wasn't sloshed but I wasn't sober either.
McGuire: OK.
Cuban: But, I mean, but I remember the night. It's not like I don't remember anything.

He no longer needs "I don't recall" with his new comfort level of the
detail of insertion.

Eventually, the detail would have come out.  Had the investigator
not gone that far that quickly, the high level of sensitivity and the 
introduction of anxiety might have revealed its source. 

The investigator's unity with him is now seen in the questions
worded in the negative.  The investigator offers him a defense
that, given the detail, he does not need: 

McGuire: So, but there's not, it's not a situation where you could've done something that you aren't aware of?
Cuban: I can't imagine. Not like that, 'cause that's not my nature. No way, and if I was drunk, I wouldn't have been, you know, had the ambidexterity or whatever you call it to do it. [laughs] I don't even know how you'd pull that off in the first place. You know?

"that" is to distance himself from the insertion detail. 
"my nature" is now to introduce his need to explain why he did not
do what the allegation specifically stated. 

This is the "good guy" principle combined with the high level
of sensitivity in the need to explain. 

What has he revealed here?

This need is indicative of his norm.  

McGuire: OK.

A "gotcha" moment for the subject. 
Cuban: Oh my God, this is just [going to] kill me if she does something. I mean, I just, there would've been all these people around. There was tons of people around. I kept on not even head butting but chest bumping Kevin Love right there. There's tons of people, all those bartenders right there were talking to me the whole time. I was not alone at all with anybody.

He returns to impact upon himself regarding the specific claim 
of insertion.  He broadens the theater with others and begins 
to now speak of physical actions he did that night. 

He was accused of inappropriate touching and he is now 
describing touching.  




This is very significant information. The interview should have 
been over.  He has been controlling it and with the insertion
detail, he could have ended it, with "Well, that didn't happen, so
are we done here?"

Why did he keep going?

Why did he have the need to introduce physical contact with 
another human being while being accused of some form 
of physical contact with a human being?

Had the investigator not yet have given away that detail, it is
likely that we would have learned of other touching that 
was causing him anxiety, from that night, specifically.  

The reader/analyst should now be thinking about:

a.  other persons than the specific female accuser
b.  other contacts besides insertion 
c.  the word "chest" in his vocabulary. 

McGuire: Did Kevin Lowe leave with you?
Cuban: Yeah, 'cause we all went on, I mean, we all went on this bus.
McGuire: Right.

No, not "right."  Follow him from the place of the photograph,
through the establishment and onto the bus.  Follow him.  
Cuban: And there was another lady there, Lindsey McCormick. That's who brought us there. She's a Blazer reporter.
With the word "another" (dependent word) he is thinking about a different "lady" (female) of which
he is comparing to.  He does not wait long to expose who is on his mind: 


Cuban: I put my finger in her vagina?! Are you kidding me?

The analyst should consider what he did to to this specific female, 
outside actual insertion. 
McGuire: Is there anyone that you can think of that may have been around you that I should talk to who…
Cuban: What are they gonna say? I mean, no, I mean, I can bring you…oh man! Did she do this to try to get money?

Although he has not told us that he did not put his finger into
her vagina, the sensitivity around it indicates concern about
something else in relation to this alleged victim. 
McGuire: At this point, I don't think so. But then again, I don't 
know.
Cuban: I mean, how do you defend against something like that?

He seeks the investigator's counsel.  The investigator gave him
license to do so.  

The investigator handles this well, however, by not yielding to
it but moving back in an attempt to regain control.  This is not
easy against such a talented person: 

McGuire: I have seven cellphone pictures.

Perfect.  The interviewer does not tell him what is on it.  Let the 
subject guide you. 
Cuban: And where are my hands in here? There were probably on her shoulder, right?

The investigator should have said, "you tell me" here but remember,
he established the rapport more than the investigator. Note
that this, again, produces the pause.  He is not willing to yield
to the investigator but continues to press forward: 
McGuire: Well, there are two pictures. I will tell that you can't see your hands in any of them. Frankly, the cellphone picture quality is not good enough to do that. There are two pictures that do appear to have your shoulder dipping and your arm sort of, if you follow the direction of it, down below her waist.
Cuban: Are you kidding me?

I share the sentiment.  The negation of impact by the investigator 
stating that the picture quality is not good, not  only is 
unnecessary at this time, it is to reduce the pressure on him.  It 
continues to speak to the psychological power of ingratiation. 
McGuire: No.
Cuban: 'Cause I always make a point to show my ring finger whenever I take pictures with girls. My left hand.
This is close to an admission of inappropriate touching (sans the detail of insertion) and is further linguistic evidence that the interviewer might have gotten substantial information from him had the interviewer not given away information and permitted him to control the interview. 

This is the "good guy" principle and the "normal" principle which tells us:

1.  He is not the good guy--the need of such tells us in analysis;
2. He has a need to avoid telling us what he did that night in particular.  He would rather stay in what he "usually" does, instead of what 
he did. 


McGuire: Well, anyway, back to where this usually would go is, I would talk to everyone, gather as much evidence as we can, and like I said, at this point, it's just a matter of talking to people. I've got the cellphone pictures and such.

He has guilt.  

He may be confident that his finger did not enter her vagina,
but he has guilt that produced anxiety and it is not having to 
deal with a false accusation.  This is a man of success who cannot
stand upon the truth as his defense. 
Cuban: But there's no way that anybody is ever going to say or know. It would've happened right then if they would've seen or known something. They would've stood up. I mean, anybody can make this shit up.
McGuire: That is also true. I will certainly concede that. And then once I've conducted as thorough an investigation as I can, our district attorney would look at it and make a decision if they thought there was enough evidence for a prosecution.
Cuban: And what's your gut feel?
McGuire: At this point, I can't tell you that. And I can't really ethically tell you that anyway.
Cuban: Oh that's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. That's fine. She said I stuck my finger up her crack or crotch?

this may be produced in his language that his finger did not 
enter her vagina.  

Why was this not followed up? 
Very likely due to his control and the psychological impact of 
his "charm" as a celebrity.  His use of ingratiation, including
using "the lost little boy" (coming) was sharp. 
McGuire: Yeah.
***
Cuban: Unbelievable. Unbelievable. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. I'm just gonna be like a pariah no matter what. Oh Lord. Why did this shit happen? Do you have any advice, any suggestions, Detective?


Here we see his continued skill in negotiation.  Even though he has
used vulgarity, he maintains, as a celebrity, respect for the 
investigator, elevating the investigator by proxy.  
He is good at what he does. 
McGuire: I don't. Um, you know my advice for folks in these situations obviously always is, if nothing happened then to be…
Cuban: Right. Nothing happened, but when you're high profile, it doesn't, it's never just about nothing happening.
McGuire: Absolutely. And unfortunately it's not really my place to offer that sort of advice. What my role is to try and get as near to the truth as I can. And…
Cuban: There was no way to prove the truth…Oh Lordy. Unbelievable. Unbelievable.
McGuire: Do you have any, well, any questions that I can answer at this point?
Cuban: I don't know. I don't know what to answer. I mean, I mean, OK, it's like, "Oh he just did it one time, only one time. Just happened to be this girl." There's no way to know one way or the other.
***
Cuban: I get people pulling my head, you know, "I want to tell you something," and they wrap their arms around me and…you know, grab my cro—whatever. Just people just, you know, I mean, it's gonna happen all the time, but just over the course of time, people just do weird stuff.


This is his guilt and his concern is not insertion.  
McGuire: Sure, sure. Nothing that particularly stands out from that night, though?
***
Cuban: And what is the law? What are the consequences on that?

If he did not "do it" there is little concern.  This is to further 
affirm the analysis of what is his norm, and why the detail should
not have been disclosed when it was. 
McGuire: Well, if what she is alleging were true, then under Oregon law, let's see, that would be a sex abuse in the second degree, which is a felony. It's the lowest-level felony there is, but it is a felony. And basically, the legal definition of that is penetration without someone's consent but not any force or threats or anything like that.
Cuban: Right.
McGuire: And then as far as the consequences, I mean, that obviously that's way down the road, possibly farther than we could even look. It's all kind of things could happen.
Cuban: Oh my Lord. Oh my fucking Lord. Oh, that's what you get for being nice.
The words he chooses reveal an inherent lack of reverence for authority (as seen in both police and Deity).  This is part of his 
personality.  He is "above" the rules that apply to others and 
"above" the obligations of religion, society, etc.  

This is common among very high level successful narcissistic types.

They can be hired and do amazing things of success. They 
also can bring disrepute by their behavior. 


Cuban: I mean, wouldn't she have said something to somebody?

He brings the interviewer to debate and to answering his 
questions. 
McGuire: Well, according to her, she did. According to her, she immediately told her friends she was with, her boyfriend, and then basically that started a whole several-day argument as to what they should do about it. Before they actually decided to talk to us.
Cuban: There's just no way. There's just no way. Just no way. If she told five friends right there and then, then that's what they're gonna tell the judge and I'm gonna be fucked. Oh my God. [sighs] I don't know what to do.
McGuire: Well, unfortunately, I can't help you with that.
***
Cuban: Fuck me! I'm so fucked.

Do not dismiss these words.  It is his choice, his life and
words he is most comfortable using, even with law 
enforcement. 



McGuire: My plan is to be getting back in touch with you within a week. So probably early next week. And at any point, you have my number and my email. You can…

Note the commitment is not "I will call you..." but it is a plan.  Plans change.  It is a plan "to" be getting back; which is more distance.
It will be "within a week" which is then "probably", and "at
any point"...

Cuban knows what he has accomplished. This is why the
investigator put it on him with "you have my number..." 
Cuban: Sure.
McGuire: …get in touch with me.
Cuban: I'm just fucked.

He has fed into the empathy. "feel sorry for me, okay?" 
McGuire: So, and then at that point, if you are interested in sitting down and chatting, we can arrange…

Pronouns are instinctive.  This is not strategy.  The pauses tell us who controlled the interview and created this unity. 

Strategy is artificial unity.  This is actual.  
Cuban: I'm happy to do whatever it takes. I just, how can I prove a negative?

Again, the pressure for answers is moved from him to the investigator.  


McGuire: Right. Right. So OK, well, thank you for your time, Mr. Cuban.
Cuban: I appreciate it.
I believe him. 
Analysis Results

 The denial of molesting this specific alleged 
victim is not reliable.  This warrants explanation. 

He likely touched her in an inappropriate manner but likely did not 
physically insert his finger  completely into her 
vagina.  He may have attempted to do so, but did not complete this
act.   He introduced the anus, and the accuser may have had issues 
with sensation location, coupled with alcohol.  In this sense
he is deceptive. 

In spite of this, he reveals a good deal about his background,
experiences, priority and personality traits. 

He was inappropriate with her (and maybe others that night) but
 was able to find comfort in the detail that should have been 
withheld at the time. 

 This is his area of comfort:  the investigator 
under his control, with a specific allegation detail revealed
prematurely. 

"Johnny, the teacher called and said you ran up to Sally and pulled
her pigtails."

"I didn't do that, Mom."

Johnny did not run up and pull her pig tails.  He didn't need to run
at all; he was standing behind her. 

The typical "that" response, with an allegation given a specific
detail should produce a reliable denial with three components:

1.   "I"
2.   "did not"
3.  the allegation answered

He was unable to produce this denial yet had a change once
the investigator gave the specific detail of insertion. 



Controlling 

He also reveals, via profile, that sexually inappropriate touching
women is his norm in life.  

His need to control the flow of information was evident as he
turned from interviewee to interviewer almost immediately. 

The sensitivity dropped when the investigator prematurely 
revealed a specific element in the allegation. Yet, his concern
for his reputation was not as high as his concern for "other"
information in this context, from coming to the surface.

He skillfully asked question after question, ingratiating himself
into the investigator to the point of the investigator not only
yielding to him, but using his language in a self-driven 
maner. (not as questions). 

Critical information was missed and strong opportunities 
were lost.  The anecdote is in both strict training and in 
preparation. 



The subject  is a manipulative driven personality. He has strong 
instincts not only to control, but in how to control.  His need to control is acute and likely something those who, in business or personal life, have learned when trying to resist him.  He is not likely to respond
well to losing, to the word "no" and to someone gaining any form
of control over him.  This includes even small seemingly 
insignificant parts of life. 

The mistakes made were critical and Cuban was adept at 
translating mistakes into his advantage. 

For training in Analytical Interviewing, we begin with Deception 
Detection and how Statement Analysis is successful in obtaining
confessions. 

We offer at home and seminar training for law enforcement, business
social workers, private sector, etc. 







15 comments:

Bobcat said...

"There were people around us the whole time."

"How would I get, I mean, she wouldn't say something right there and then and smack the shit out of me? And while we're…oh hell no."


There is missing information between his question and "And", and then he self censors himself.
I think he sees himself as a "we" with his victim (not the detective(?)), as in, she didn't mind being slyly and dexterously groped. As in, we were being sneaky in a room full of people - and then he suggests that it couldn't have happened because they weren't alone - even though people come up to him and grab his "cro-" all the time.

He even tells us which of his fingers touched her.

She didn't make a stink about it then so it must have been ok.

ima.grandma said...

I go back to my original impression. Perhaps she did not immediately react due to a 'freeze' of shock. Many women, especially single women, dressed for party or club events, will wear tight slinky low cut pants. They dress to feel good about themselves, appeal to the opposite sex and to attract attention. It's common to go "commando" to avoid the panty line. I believe he did begin to caress her lower back, ever so slyly. She might even have had a sensual sensation at first before he began to slowly slip his hand down her pants, going for a middle finger feel sliding near her anus. This is where she froze and didn't immediately move away, but her body tensed up and he felt it. Perhaps, in her mind, he was going to totally go for the V'JJ or worse before he stopped himself.  I also think she carries a bit of guilt or shame.  I have suspicions in the timing of this release, what is her endgame? Or is it hers? Opportunistic people hang with the same.

Habundia said...

Does it really matter if his finger was inserted full, half or not even at all, because he was to toxicated to find the right location?? Being a pervert comes in many ways, and be has shown in this interview hes exactly that....a pervert who thinks hes all that because he has money and fame.......fame is overated and overpaid.

How would it be known what the accuser has intended?
Did she made it public? Or did it became public through others source(s)?
What statements of her is out there to read/hear?
From this transcript I read she went to police with her accusation and a cop then called the accuser to follow-up on the accusation to "come as close to the truth as possible" (which he only concluded himself, it didnt happened, it wasnt told to the interviewer by the accused, he did not get a proper story of that evening in cronical order, only bits and pieces)
Would she have had a copy of that call? I dont think that she would have or has, so why would she be the one who made it public? I dont see anything that would sugest she did. Going to police (even a month after, even years after) does not say "making it public", so I wonder why is it believed she did?

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/nba-investigate-harassment-allegations-against-mavericks-owner-mark-cuban/
Reading this article the acccuser "speaks"
In this it seems she tells us that she was inappropiately "grobed".
It would be interesting to see the police report that was conducted in May 2011 to see exactly what she claimed had happened. Did she say that he had inserted a finger? Or had she said he grobed her inappropiately and touching her vagina/anus?
Can it be that the interviewer (the officer) somehow had made up his own version of the accusation made by the accuser? Or was it exactly stated in the report as the interviewer told the accused? (By "putting a finger in her vagina", instead of "grobing her inappropiately"

http://www.wweek.com/news/2018/03/06/in-2011-portland-police-investigated-a-sexual-assault-complaint-against-billionaire-mark-cuban-he-wasnt-charged-heres-what-happened/
A 50 page police report about an inappropiate touching while making a picture, Thats a lot of pages for a short assault as this was. Does this include the statements of everyone police talked with about that accusation? Or only her side.

She isnt the one who went public this article shows.
It is Sports Illustrated who dove into his business because of unproper behaviour in "Maverick" office, which caused this older case to come up, which led to WW to do an article and contacted the accuser, which made NBA start to look into this accusation. She seem to have nothing to do with the puplicity of this case now. (Imo)

Buckley said...

Awesome read! Great depth on interviewing and being interviewed.

ima.grandma said...

I agree Buckley, it's a great resource for qualified interviewers or interrogators. I hope these people read here and are paying attention. It's to their advantage. Btw: I'm fantasizing I was the ten millionth clicker at this site. This site is progressively read and studied. Good job, Peter. People are reading and learning. Knowledge is power.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't seem like there's a case there. McGuire was going for the long shot of him confessing on the phone. When that didn't happen, that was the end of the case.

Anonymous said...

That was an awfull interview on the part of McGuire. He fed him a denial, albiet unreliable.
While reading it as it progressed he (McGuire) came across submissive.
I found it uncomfortable to read at times the way he (Mcguire) yielded to him.
I guess the initial ingratiation had a lot to do with it.

Anonymous said...

"Look" is a command to start seeing things from Cuban's point of view and stop seeing things from the investigator's. It diverts attention away from the issue at hand. He is trying to bring the investigator into his reality. Cuban already has a particular woman in mind that he did this to. I suppose for him it is a commonly used negotiation tactic that he is almost always successful with. He is trying to combine inappropriate touching with the kind of casual contact people have at parties. Since he repeats "look" it seems he is getting nervous about his situation.

ima.grandma said...

I realized through the interview how he was negotiating in a charming manner. However, until Peter pointed to the dominant control factor, I didn't realize how well he manipulatively plays his game. He's very skilled.

He masterfully obeyed the #1 rule of negotiation. Never split the difference.

Lucia D said...

It would have been fascinating to see how Cuban would have reacted with a female detective questioning him.

Anonymous said...

The allegation of "inappropriate touching" is soft language. I envision him in a crowded party speaking with someone and while gesturing accidentally touches a woman's breast or rear end. The fact that he reacts strongly to "inappropriate touching" means he knows the legal definition and the extent someone would have to go to to be accused of that. He has either been accused of it before or someone close to him has. I think all the investigator had to do was hint at who the woman was and Cuban would have eventually admitted doing it, although not directly.

ima.grandma said...

It would have been fascinating to see how a female detective would have directed this interview responding to Cuban's answers.

Lucia D said...

Yes!

Anonymous said...


this creep in the blue shirts needs to be in jail and figuring out how his lawyer will pay a fine based on his income level.

Nadine Lumley said...

A stink ha ha.


Btw, help, I couldn't find what Peter referred to here:

He introduced the anus,

.