Tuesday, May 8, 2018
AG Eric Schneiderman Denial
Eric Schneiderman has been accuses of sexual abuse and assault by 4 women.
Schneiderman has been an outspoken supporter of #metoo and with similar patterns to others accused, he often projected guilt via unnecessary moralizing or "sermonizing."
In Statement Analysis, the "virtue signal" is carefully analyzed for context and sensitivity. In particular, the need to condemn that which warrants no condemnation is deemed "unnecessary language" as a point of sensitivity.
The language, itself is also examined.
In light of these allegations, Schneiderman issued the following denial. The accusers stated that the contact was not consensual and two reported obtaining medical intervention after being "slapped" and "choked."
Misogyny is not disagreeing with a female politician. Misogyny is a deep contempt for women in general, often experienced by female police officers when arresting a violent male suspect. When present, misogyny is frightening. The politicizing of this word has impacted its definition for many. For female officers who describe "that look" in the eye and body language of a suspect they attempt to arrest, there is no confusion as to its meaning. Some describe it as an unrestricted "delight" in seeing a female officer take out handcuffs.
A government employee climbed ranks over the course of years by using his body size and his deep voice to intimidate female superiors and coworkers. It was a deliberate exploitation of bodily weakness to obtain his goal of promotion. Several women described bursting into tears in meetings where he would raise his voice, slam his fist into the table and storm out of the conference room. This led some females to attempt to pacify him, or "win him over", which did not work. It is victimology 101 in Domestic Violence, mirrored in the workplace. Two resigned as their health was impacted by the elevated fear experienced.
If masculinity sacrifices strength to protect weakness, this is an example of contemptuous exploitation of weakness. The instinct of fear was a survival mechanism for the women.
Eric Schneiderman held himself up as a champion of the #metoo and gave unnecessary "sermons" on the topic. It is the need to persuade of one's moral supremacy when no such opposition exists, that we find the most easily discernible projection of guilt. There is no opposition party calling for more abuse of women.
We expect de facto (actual) innocence (not judicial innocence which he possesses) to "stand behind the psychological wall of truth."
"I did not sexually assault _____." "I did not assault..." are examples of a direct denial.
What does his denial teach us?
“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity. I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”
Here is his statement analyzed.
“In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity.
1. His denial begins with an affirmation of activity.
This is his priority; things he has done. We note:
a. He does not begin with the pronoun "I" in his statement. This alerts us to a subtle psychological distancing from the statement. Technically, it increase the likelihood of unreliable information in his statement.
b. He does not begin with a denial. (negative)
c. He begins with an activity (positive)
The expectation is "I did not" which is to assert the negative in light of context: allegations.
The activity, therefore, is his priority and we should allow this to be as such for him, if we wish to understand his:
We accept or "receive" this from him. It is his priority (technically) and the analyst should consider that this is a significant part of his personality: he may define himself by these "relationships."
d. "privacy" indicates an expectation between him and the accusers. At this point in the analysis, the investigator should be considering: Are there more victims?
It is something that is a priority for him, including the expectation of privacy. As a priority, we recognize the context of one who has been public, vocal and "front and center" in this movement. Before he denies anything, he must first define himself. His job, career and reputation are all on the line at this point. (he has resigned subsequent to the denial).
2. "have engaged" and not "engaged" is to elongate time. This further affirms how important this is to him. He does not simply relegate it to the past (via past tense verb) but uses it without time discrimination. It is something done over time, which again should cause the investigator to anticipate more victims.
3. "other sexual activities" with the word "other" is a dependent word. It only works in communication if, at the time of the statement, he is considering activities not addressed here in the statement of "private", "role playing" and "relationships."
What else has he done?
Question: When is he thinking about "other" consensual activity besides role playing?
Answer: When under accusation.
He has just alerted investigators that there is not only the possibility of "more victims" but activities not described here that are sexual that he is concerned about coming out.
I have not assaulted anyone.
This is a denial which, by itself is "not reliable" in that he avoids using "did not" or "didn't", instead allowing for more "time", in his mind, as an expanse.
I do not call "anyone" an "unreliable" denial because there are at this time, four accusers and only two used their names publicly.
This is "not reliable" by itself. "Not reliable" sometimes proves to be deceptive, while for other cases, innocent.
Note a subtle change of language here:
I have never engaged in nonconsensual sex,
Did you see it?
He went from "I have not" to "I have never", in a very close (proximity) and similar (accusation) sentence.
This means that there is a change of reality for him.
The former is not reliable but the change now puts even more unnecessary emphasis upon "engaging in nonconsensual sex."
Investigators may hear allegations of rape.
As chilling at this may be, what he says next is why defense attorneys do not allow their clients to speak out:
"...which is a line I would not cross."
What do we know about him?
We know that in his sexual relationships, he has a "line" that most men do not have.
A "line" between consensual and non consensual (rape) exists in his verbalized perception of reality.
For him a "line" exists. This is his personal subjective dictionary. This is his language. Remember where he began his statement; not with a denial, but with an affirmation of activity.
A line exists which means it has to be drawn (defined) and it can be approached but he "would not" (future/conditional) "cross" it.
While for many no such line exists because no such drawing of a line is necessary, it is for him.
Objection: He is accused of nonconsensual sex.
Answer: Agreed, however, we have the absence of a reliable denial (a) of which said denial was not even his priority (b).
This is to indicate that he has a line in his mind
Next, we know that he has a need to portray himself as "the good guy" here.
There is no "psychological wall of truth."
I find this "good guy" principle enters the language of rapists and of child pornographers and molesters. They need to present themselves as moral, when innocences requires no such affirmation.
Child Molestation Allegation Answered:
Rather than say, "I did not sexually touch ____", the guilty often use, as a substitute for a reliable denial, an affirmation of their own high moral standing. Some go as far as to attempt to connect two unrelated elements.
"I am a happily married man" which means two realities clash, first for the subject, and then for the analyst, but not for innocent people.
Child molestation is not a result of an unhappy marriage. The two topics, marriage and sexual perversion, are unrelated.
They are not related except in the verbalized perception of reality of one whose life is "private consensual role playing..." and so on.
In his activity (priority) he has a line and does not say, "I didn't cross the line" but "would never."
Having the line in his language is the first indicator of weakness, only to be followed by the unreliable future conditional.
He is revealing the depths of his misogyny.
Misogyny is contempt for women that can quickly escalate to violence.
That this subject sexually enjoys hurting women, in the guise of role playing, is indicative of misogyny.
It is the very thing used by misogynists in accusing others.
Virtue Signaling is unnecessary moralizing or giving a "sermon" where no such sermon is necessary. It reveals the subject to his audience.
Eric Schneiderman's statement is "Unreliable" as he is deceptive.
He likely has more victims.
He likely has more allegations than those already stated.
This is who he is and what his life revolves around: dominating, exploiting and harming women.
This is why he has been such an outspoken condemner of abuse of women.
If you were accused of non consensual sex, you would deny it, but have no need to tell us what kind of sex you have.
The "line" comment:
It is an addition to his statement that is likely to have a most chilling impact upon readers/listeners. For most men, there is no such line in existence. For those who need a line, they've already indicated something is very wrong with how they view women. For this subject and his "relationships", a "line" is present and a line is required.
Now that this is established, consider the unreliable "would never" used.
For training in deception detection, we offer seminars and in-home study: Hyatt Analysis Services
Also see our new You Tube channel