Thursday, August 30, 2018

Deception & Pronouns: Lanny Davis

Here is a short lesson into pronouns.

Pronouns are instinctive.  They do not require pre-thought and represent a strong reliability in Statement Analysis.

Most parents recognize the importance of pronouns from their children, including the disappearance or even ejection (emotional).

"____ Didn't do it, Mom!" often leads to, "but everyone was doing it..." 

We look for commitment from the instinctive, intuitive, and well familiar pronoun "I" in context. 

The need for "others" in a statement is an example of "crowd sourcing guilt"; that is, to either mitigate or hide from guilt, by refusing to be, linguistically, alone with it.  

Hence, human nature is often revealed in pronouns.  

Deception Detection recognizes this principle. 


CNN devolved into narrative driven propaganda long ago.

They aired a video of a black woman calling for peace from rioting violence.

They cut out the racist portion of her calling for the violence to be moved to a white neighborhood.

CNN portrayed her, visibly, to be a peaceful citizen, rather than the racist violent person she is.

This is insight into how Germany's Josef Goebbels conducted news, including cinematic persuasion.


Attorney Michael Klein's attorney, Lanny Davis, gave "bombshell" revelations on how eye witnesses (plural) observed Donald Trump jr. tell his father about the "Russian Collusion" meeting at Trump Tower.

CNN reported anonymous "sources" and this was picked up by the MSM news organizations.

The truth?

He lied.

He, alone, was the anonymous source of "eyewitness" information.

His words guide us even while main stream media reports "backing away" or "walking back" his comments.

He was deceptive.

Last week, Davis told Anderson Cooper, “I think the reporting of the story got mixed up in the course of a criminal investigation. We were not the source of the story.

Did you notice the passivity entering his language?

It becomes even more clear;


I think the reporting of the story got mixed up in the course of a criminal investigation. We were not the source of the story.

He uses the plural pronoun "we" knowing it was he, alone, and does so, "in the negative."

Technically, it is true.  This reveals background of the subject's comfort with deception. 


On Monday evening, Davis told BuzzFeed News that he regrets both his role as an anonymous source and his subsequent denial of his own involvement.

Davis told BuzzFeed News that he did, in fact, speak anonymously to CNN for its story, which cited “sources with knowledge” — meaning more than one person.

Did he admit lying?


“I made a mistake,” Davis said. Regarding his comments about a month later to Cooper, he added, “I did not mean to be cute.”

We not only know about his deception, we know his belief system. Undermining the democratic vote in the United States was, for him, not only worthy of outright deception, but is minimized into a "mistake."


He equates the potential impact upon millions of Americans as "cute."

The lack of personal responsibility and the lack of human empathy regarding what damage he may have done, is noted. 

Hormonal Consequence and Deception 

Some like to say, "yes, but I..." and refute a principle.  This is the "I Effect" instructors warn against which may lead to an instructor needing to ask, 

"How many statements of this accusation have you analyzed?"

Better to ask questions than to assert.  

We seek to note "hormonal consequence" of a statement; the basic technology behind the polygraph.  

Some will assert that they are exception to principle while others will quote fiction.  

Consider that  a fictional character is not facing prison or perjury charges. 

If you are accused of stealing your neighbor's pink unicorn, and are asked, "Did you steal your neighbor's pink unicorn?" you are not likely to have much hormonal response within your words.  

We look at the magnitude of consequence that this false statement represented, and we recognize that the subject has a likely history of corruption, professionally and privately.  It is who he is. 

CNN has refused to apologize but issued this statement, 

"CNN does not lie." 


After Davis publicly backtracked from the claims, the New York Post and the Washington Post outed him as their confirming source and published apologies from Davis, a lawyer and communications expert who became well known for his work for Bill Clinton. 

After publication of this story, Davis added to BuzzFeed News that he did not lie to Cooper, but that he "unintentionally misspoke."

"We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it,” a CNN spokesperson told BuzzFeed News.

The subject's minimization and re characterization reveal his casual comfort with deception that impacts millions of lives. 

Impact

Richard Blumenthal, a rare (10%) outright liar, worked for years as a prosecutor.  

You may search here on his statements.  Then consider what impact he may have had on innocent victims in order to pad his own legal record.  


Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Detecting Deception on AM Coast to Coast August 22, 2018




Peter Hyatt will be on "AM: Coast to Coast" tonight at 10PM Pacific Coast Time 

For details: 






Results: Statement Analysis Quiz for Law Enforcement




In training, I use the humorous but relevant: 

"I am happily married" statement. 

It is reliable on its form. 

It is a strong sentence. 

Even if incorrect, this subject believes his statement. 

If he is knowingly deceptive, he is a rare 10% category liar and poses a danger to others. 


"I am very happily married" introduces sensitivity. Perhaps the subject is more happy than he was previously. 

Perhaps he is more happy than he anticipated. 

Sensitivity does not cause us to conclude deception here.  We do not know the source of sensitivity. It could be deceptive, or it could be something else, including the thoughts above.  

We do not...yet...know.  Let's progress: 

"I am very very happily married" will cause us to pause and consider, 

"Why the need for emphasis?" Is there something wrong here? He has a "need to persuade", weakening his assertion.  What's going on?

"I am very very very happily married" now produces doubt, even in the undiscerning. 

This subject has 3 points of sensitivity to his sentence and has raised concern. 

"I am very very very very happily married" now suggests divorce. 

To communicate, his brain produced 4 points of sensitivity. 

This is context dependent and although the above seems a bit silly, if you follow the principle and ask the appropriate questions, you'll come to the truth.  



Those in training understand what a "promise" or "guarantee" in a statement indicates and the repetition following it. 


                                  Recall our original quiz

 Some of you  recognized the fictitious cover-story I placed upon the statement with the change of language. 

This was done in an attempt to cause the investigator/analyst to neutrality or indifference in analysis. 




****************************************************
How many points of sensitivity can you find in the following denial?

Each point should be identified and classified; use a short explanation when necessary. 

What is your conclusion?

Is it reliable?
Is it unreliable?
It is "not reliable", meaning we need more sample?
Is it "Deception Indicated"?

President Barack Obama denied knowing anything about the Hillary Clinton private email server. His original statement, prior to the Chris Wallace interview is here.  

A server was set up that would be outside government oversight. The technology was both high and it was porous. 

 Statement Analysis previously indicated him for Deception on "when" he learned of it.  

Later it was revealed that he was emailing her under a false name, at the private server.  

This is his denial in a live interview to Chris Wallace.  What does it reveal?

This was a most important investigation for our nation.  Did a Secretary of State, now running for our nation's highest office, set up a private form of communication to by-pass government oversight?

If so, why?

Allegations of quid pro quo corruption, outlined in "Clinton Cash" would indicate that countless millions of dollars have been exploited, national security compromised, and government favors sold.  The subject, Barack Obama, also had much of consequence: his legacy was under threat.  

If corruption has been found, it also would indict the President along with senior officials in the Justice Dept, and in the FBI.  It would be, potentially, the greatest corruption in our nation's history. 

Hormonal Association 

Analysts learn "hormonal association" in statements while both detecting deception and content analysis.  The hormonal association or "response" is vital to the polygraph and it should be "measured" in analysis. The context is key.  If you were home playing ping pong when someone on the other side of the country (where you've never been) was murdered, and you accused, you are going to have a reaction, but it will be measurably different than of something "closer to home." Recall Richard Blumenthal's reaction to being caught fabricating being on the other side of the world from a place he never set foot in.  This type of lying is rare (less than 10%) but his defense tells us of likely corruption while prosecuting others.  It is frightening as it is sociopathic like.  



For one to flippantly say, "'I just killed a person', am I lying?" has no or "low" hormonal association for someone who is non-violent and has not killed anyone.  The subject may have just read a news story (there is no such thing as a linguistic vacuum) but there is no "consequence" for this lie.  

This is why fictional statements should be avoided in analysis. The writings of great literature show a strong connection with human nature, but as a subject, the fictional writer does not have the same physiological response that an actual suspect or accused does. 

Here is the quote from President Obama. It is acute for analysts, and it reveals much.  

"I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case,”  “Full stop. Period. I guarantee it."


Here is the statement with emphasis. 


"I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case,  “Full stop. Period. I guarantee it."



                               What did you find?

Only using basic Statement Analysis techniques to answer the Analytical Question about truth or deception: 

Did you note how many "assurances" he needed? 

a.  "guarantee"
b.  "guarantee" repeated, increasing sensitivity?
c.  "Full Stop"
d. "Period"

Did you note the psychological distancing from commitment by going into the present tense, "is"?

Did you notice the need to expand the answer, similar to the use of the word "never", with "any" investigation?  

Did you notice it was used twice, increasing sensitivity

Did you note the "Rule of the Negative" employed in an open statement? 

Did you notice it was used twice, increasing sensitivity?

Technically, he is not lying...due to present tense.  

Deception Indicated. 

Although we have confirmation of this deception, it is useful for study and instruction.  Psychologically, he is doing something few in the population does:  he is psychologically owning his own lie.  

His need to persuade is "off the charts."

The psychological wall of truth is not destroyed; it did not exist. 

Corruption 


Subsequent analysis of Director James Comey indicated deception as did Asst. Director Andrew McCabe. 

Since that time, we have seen acute government corruption, weaponizing and politicizing of various government entities, including the IRS, by the Obama administration. The loyalty to narrative is a form of religious zealotry, or cultism.  It overrides laws, ethics and morals, claiming a "higher cause."

In statement analysis we recognize statements that show moral authority and we recognize statements that claim moral authority needlessly, revealing the sensitivity.  

Without indictments, arrests and convictions, it may take decades, if ever,  to restore confidence in what has become a two-tier level of justice

Corruption breeds corruption or "lowers the bar" for the next generation of elected official and soft promotions to adjust to the new level of "acceptable " lying. 

Corruption is corrosive when tolerated. 

Rank and File has suffered unjustly due to the corruption of a handful of leaders.  

Former Director of the CIA, John Brennan told us that Donald Trump was guilty of many crimes, including "treason", yet no formal criminal complaint or report of said crimes was made.  That he had our nation's most vital secrets, certainly he would have knowledge of such crimes.  Yet, he was using his security status for personal gain, instead of national security.  

This further eroded confidence in America's intelligence community. 

The "Insurance Policy" soft coup attempt chilled Americans, both liberal and conservative.  Such things, many thought, did not happen here. 

The projective nature of language told us that there was, in deed, a collusion with Russia, except it was not from Trump, but from Hillary Clinton (D) , John McCain  (R) , Barack Obama (D) James Comey (R)  Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and many others, working with a willingly complicit and unethical press to overrule the democratic vote of the American people. 

The high level promotions within the FBI eventually brought Rank & File to despair, as 33,000 employees now suffer from the illicit and likely illegal activities of a deceptive few.  Those who serve and protect, mid 2016, believed corruption would be countered by convictions.  More than a few confided, "you'll see!" Their confidence was in their bureau's ability to obtain justice, lawfully and ethically.  

When James Comey outlined the illegal behavior of Hillary Clinton in setting up an illegal server and transmitted classified information,  he added a new element to the stinging list of wrongdoing: "intent."  

It was a clever innovation that is not a legal standard.  The young navy man who took a photo of his submarine to boast to family learned that "intent" has no place in the statute as he sat in prison. Unlike Sec. Clinton, he had no connections with foreign governments, enemy or friend. America saw confirmation that there here was one standard of justice for an Elite, and another for a minimum wage military personel. 


Projection & Self Preservation

We only later learned that Comey, himself, had used his private cell phone to transmit sensitive government data.  His "virtue signaling" ("unnecessary moralizing" in Statement Analysis) indicated his guilt. His "ethical leadership" tour indicates a linguistic level of guilt yet to be investigated.  

His public statement betrayed the FBI and America and it  demoralized Rank & File, even as it did in an America of which many grew up idolizing the FBI.  



“POTUS wants to know everything we’re doing”was  a "lost" but then "recovered" text between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page read in September 2016 as former FBI Director James Comey prepared a briefing on the email investigation case. 



Following with our humorous opening, 

President Obama is

"very very very very very very very very very very" sure of himself.  

Deception Indicated in what may prove to be the most critical test of our nation's ability to continue under the rule of law.  

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Statement Analysis Quiz for Law Enforcement

Deception Detection is a science based upon principle. 

Principles serve the analyst to bring about a conclusion.  The accuracy rate of those self disciplined is at or near 100%.  If the sample is too small for a conclusion, the analyst does not conclude Veracity nor Deception. 


How many points of sensitivity can you find in the following denial? 

What do they mean?

Each point should be identified and classified; use a short explanation when necessary. 

What is your conclusion?

Is it reliable?
Is it unreliable?
It is "not reliable", meaning we need more sample?
Is it "Deception Indicated"?

Context:  The subject, a CEO of a large business had groomed his protege and assumed successor to take over the company upon his retirement. This was something the Board of Directors had long given positive feedback over, in spite of the person's history, which has a lengthy history of financial fraud and exploitation. The intended successor had never been indicted in any of the alleged crimes. One of the accusations was that he was accepting large payments from foreign investors in exchange for "sweetheart" business agreements.  

The assumed successor was now under federal investigation for fraud, illegal disclosure (insider trading), conspiracy ("quid pro quo" agreements)  and other crimes due to powerful political influences to benefit the successor and the company.  

Two law enforcement  entities were investigating at once; Federal law enforcement and Federal regulators.  

In this publicly traded company, as well as a formal agreement with the federal investigators and his own Board of Trustees, the type of investigation had to be independent of his office. 

The CEO was to have no connection, contact nor communication, including briefs, with this crucial investigation. 

This meant an utter black out of information between the accused and the CEO (subject) as well as no contact between the actual investigators (two teams) for the government entities  and himself.  

With many suspicious of the CEO's history of control, he was accused of "overseeing" the investigation.  There have been investigations previously but without resolution, indictment, closure, etc.  Shareholders had become increasingly concerned about corruption on many levels, bringing their investments into question. If true, millions of investigators, via mutual fund investing, would be impacted. It would be the largest coverup in the company's history, eroding confidence from investigators in the United States as well as the world markets. 

Accusation:  Violation of No Communication: he, the subject, is accused of using his influence to have contact with investigators to corrupt the finding. 

When the subject was asked about interfering or influencing the investigation he made this statement.  Please note that the last 3 sentences came as an interruption to the journalist.  As such, his denial is listed as continuous: 



" I promise that there is no interference in any investigation conducted by either the federal investigators nor the regulatory board investigators, not just in this case but in any case. That's it. No more. I promise."

What can you tell from the subject's words.

Please put your findings in the comments section, explaining each point made.  

For training in deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services 


Monday, August 20, 2018

Deception Detection: Training and Benefits

Deception Detection training is not only for law enforcement, intelligence, or the military. The uses are helpful in many other fields, especially where communication is critical, including social services, human resources and others. 

But what of non-professional use?

Statement Analysis' formal training is useful for those who may not ever use it professionally.  

Here are just a few examples:

1.   Media

The level of trust of main stream media is low.  Narrative driven, the use of deception is now common.  

It is common now to hear political debate in almost every programming, including sports.  Listening to arguments through your training will give you an edge. 

The level of deception is higher, perhaps, than we've seen in 150 years.  At times it appears comic book like, yet regardless of what you think, millions of Americans are being deceived.  

These are "soft targets" for politicians who manipulate them into not only thinking they are morally superior to others, but cause divisions not seen since the War Between the States. 

2.  Consumerism:  This includes learning to spot shill reviews at Amazon, which are now regularly employed by sellers. 

The ability to discern not only deception from truth, but strength from weakness is invaluable. Culturally, as deceptive practices become more acceptable, our need for discernment rises. 

Buying a car? Learn to listen to the sales person.  Expect the "25% language" factor, up and down.

Negotiating a home purchase?

Want to ask questions about the neighborhood, crime and schools first?

Enrolling your child in sports or a camp?

The list is immense and the need for discernment tangible. 

Regarding children, your little ones will, no matter what you think, become teens.  When they do...

3.  Heath Discernment of medical and veterinary practice.  I have found veterinary practice to be one of the most deceptive of professions; particularly in nutrition and medicine.  "Studies have shown..." are the opening statements for sales techniques used by vets who are underwritten by large dog food companies.  You look at your dog's teeth and wonder how "corn" and "chicken meal by-products" can possibly be good for him.  Being able to discern strength and weakness (and follow funding) is useful for your health (yes, read through the lens of analysis the pharmaceutical warnings and studies) and the health of your pets. 

I like reading studies for myself, using analysis, and am always gratified to learn, "This one doesn't get away with it..." when deception is employed.  


4.  Investment  

To be able to read an annual report, through the lens of Statement Analysis, can help you make investment decisions. 

Last year I read of a CEO who made a large purchase of her company's stock; often a useful indicator in how the leadership thinks their company will do.  In her letter to investors, the "need to persuade" and analytical weakness suggested to the contrary.  A month later, the company announced that it did not get the satellite contract it sought. 

Companies communicate to use with words.  

We no longer live in a world where "authority" equates trust.  

5. Private Life

To know when one believes one's own words, while communicating, is a reassurance. To not be taken is also a comfort.  



Successful completion of "The Complete Statement Analysis Course", usually done in 6-12 months, will improve your discernment in life. 

You may not need formal training for your job, but self improvement and exploration is always a benefit. 

Complete Statement Analysis Course. 


This comes with 12 months of e support to make certain your work progresses properly.  

It is done entirely in your home, at your pace, and begins when you enroll, with no set start date. 

Of a matter of course, some enroll for their own personal growth only to later find it has given traction to their resume and career path.  

This week on AM Coast to Coast, Deception Detection will be featured: 

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2018/08/22


Friday, August 17, 2018

Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy Statement Analyzed



The following is analysis of the handwritten statement made by Ted Kennedy following the car accident on Chappaquiddick Island bridge. 

The methodology is Statement Analysis.  For training in deception detection please visit Hyatt Analysis Services


I. Statement 

"On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 PM in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to getthe ferry back to Edgartown. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing hard left on Main Street. After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. 

The car went off the side of the bridge. There was one passenger with me, one Miss Mary _____ a former secretary of my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy. The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom. I attempted to open the door and the window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car.


 I was unsuccessful in the attempt. I was exhausted and in a state of shock. I recall walking back to where my friends were eating. There was a car parked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the back seat. I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown. I remember walking around for a period of time and then going back to my hotel room. When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police."





II.  Statement With Analysis & Emphasis Added

"On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 PM in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts,Iwas dr     driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown. 


1.    The statement does not begin with the pronoun, “I” indicating a psychological refusal to commit to what follows. 
2.    Elements time and location 
3.    Formal intro (even the state is spelled out) 
4.    Note that this slows down the pace
5.    I drove”but “I was driving”



was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road,instead of bearing hard left on Main Street. 


The Rule of the Negative – that which is reported “in the negative” is elevated in importance (sensitivity) –it is doubled; he wrote what he did not “know” and what he did not choose to do.  

Please note:  “bearing hard left” uses “bearing” and “hard” demonstrating incongruence. Was the subject speeding at this point?  And/or
Was he distracted driving due to the physical presence of the victim?
Please consider the impact of alcohol in the above.  

He is deceptive about ignorance of the road. 
He is withholding information about where he just was, and who he was with.

Statement Analysis:  Subject's verbalized perception of reality is not reality. This is the subject's perception as put into his own vocabulary: 

At this point, he is “alone” in the car. 

 The victim is not referenced. 

unfamiliar”: consider possibility that the victim was an “unknown” to him, regarding his intentions of driving the car with her.  That he leaves her out of the statement to this point is remarkable. 


After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge.


a.    After” TL (skips something in time) 
b.    proceeding” ; he is not “driving” but “proceeding”  We need to explore what he was doing at this point. 
c.    The victim is not here.  She does not exist in his verbalized perception of reality.  What has caused this?  It can be many things, from her death to even a refusal of sexual activity to shame to, to victim blaming, to fear of consequence….  

He has not “depersonalized” the victim:  he never allowed her, linguistically to reach existence at this point of the statement.   In the subject’s verbalized perception of reality, the victim does not exist. Even in murder cases, we expect depersonalization; not outright avoidance. 

In his mind, she is not one to be depersonalized; she doesn't exist. 

After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge.

Question:  What did the subject do?
Answer: he “descended a hill” and he “came upona narrow bridge”

He “descended” and he “came” should cause us to wonder if the subject engaged or attempted to engage in sexual activity in the car with the victim. 

story telling
Slowing of the pace 

"came upon" is passive in Statement Analysis. This means he is removing himself from the responsibility of what happened.

why?


 The carwent off the side of the bridge.

The “event” (Form) begins. 


We now see the engagement of the psychological Passive voice. This is where one is now detached from the burden of responsibility and reflects more than just a noted passivity; but a state of mind. 

He  came upon” a “narrow bridge” and then the car went off the side of the bridge.  

"Came upon" is also the language of narrative or "story telling."

The car went off”removes responsibility of driving and who caused it. In fact, it does not state that he went off the bridge with the car. 

The passenger, Mary Jo, does not exist in Ted Kennedy's verbalized perception of reality to this point. 

 One may interpret that the “narrow bridge” is blamed but he does not state anything like this: he may expect his audience to assume or interpret.  We cannot say that the narrow bridge caused him to lose control because he has not told us that. 

We wonder what else caused him to lose control, that he conceals via his psychological passive voice. 

PL Profile:  entitlement to due privilege, wealth status. He does not face consequences as others do.  

There is, to this point, in his statement: 

a.     No driver
b.    No personal responsibility 
c.    No victim 


 There was one passenger with meone Miss Mary _____ a former secretary of my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy. 


Miss Mary ____”. ISI = negative relationship in the statement 

“my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy”  CSI = good relationship in the statement

Q. Who is “Miss Mary”? 

A.  “Miss Mary” is a person who was “with”him, (distance) who is “one passenger” (before name), who has a name, and who’s position is no longer related to his brother; the victim is a “former secretary” of his brother. 

The victim, previously non-existent, is:

1.     “one passenger”  We wonder what other passengers he has had. 
2.    “one passenger” who was “with” him; unnecessary self reference
3.    She is “one Miss Mary___”; were there other “ones” ? Consider the reputation of the Kennedys “sharing” women.  
4.    There is no possessive pronoun linking the subject to the victim; therefore, in the subject’s verbalized perception of what happened, the victim has no connection to him. 
5.    The social introduction minimizes her, indicates a problematic relationship in this statement, which suggests that there may have some struggle, resistance, disagreement, between.  (tension) 
6.    The Linguistic Disposition, weighted by context, is stronglynegative. 
7.    This suggests that the subject not only blames the car, but via the Negative Linguistic Disposition, he may be blaming the victim.  


The car turned over and sank into the waterand landed with the roof resting on the bottom. 

resting”is to slow down time.  It is also an inanimate object being given a human condition.  We are now concerned about this human connection between the author and the car that went over the bridge. 

One of the accusations was that he let the victim drown, deliberately, to save face as a "future" leader or even president of the United States. 

This is very soft language: “turned over” and “resting”; it not only denotes time (resting) but is not fitting for violent accident where one has lost control of his car. 

"Resting" is often used in 
"at rest" to describe a dead person. 

Please take careful note that in Ted Kennedy's perception: 

The victim was “not” in the car until “the car went off the side of the bridge”   It is only here that the subject is no longer alone. This is not only deception via withholding information, but it is to classify the victim as non existent; not depersonalized, but less than de personalized. 

In his verbalized perception of the event, he was alone in the car until it went over the side of the bridge. The victim, compared to the subject, is “nothing, nobody, non-entity.”


attempted to open the door and the window of the car but have no recollectionof how I got out of the car. 


In an open statement, he tells us what he does not remember.  Deception Indicated.

I attempted to open” is reliable on its form. 
“I attempted to open the door and the window” is specific and reliable on its form.
He then refutes, or minimizes by comparison, his reliable statement, with the word “but.”
He then offers what he does not remember, in an open statement. 
The incongruence between specific attempts and lack of memory is duly noted. 

Question:  Why is the subject deceptive about what happened here?

We note that the subject possesses a need to employ deception at this point of the event. 

He is deceptive about the time period when he was down in the water with the non-existent and now “one passenger”, the victim. 

He has a distinct negative linguistic disposition towards the victim. 
His social introduction reveals a negative relationship during this car ride. 

Did our subject allow the victim to remain un-rescued?

came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attemptto seeif the passenger was still in the car. 

“and then” is not“and” (one continual action) but a temp. lac. that exposes a passing of time. 

He did not “dive down” to “Maryjo” but to “the car” (not person)

“in attempt to see” is not “to see”, but to take one step away from commitment.

"I came to the surface" is to continue his "passive voice" in which, in spite of the pronoun 
"I" does not tell us that he swam to the surface or even that he does not know.  This is story telling and removing himself from all responsibility.  It is a priority.  (note its repetition = importance) 

Next:  note “to see” is to explain why he dove down from the surface is unnecessary for any type of rescue.  It is unnecessary to explain why, in an open statement, he went to “attempt to see” and not to rescue. This is very sensitive to him and raises the question as to “why” he went down to the car.  It suggests a different motive.

The subject gave reliable information on how he dealt with the car, refuted it, and now wants the audience to interpret his words as if he did not know where she was.  Deception Indicated.  

Question: Who is the victim?
Answer: the passenger” 

Since the subject has identified the victim by name, this is to “depersonalize” his victim. This is found in murder statements. 

Previously, she did not even exist in his statement. 

When he finally identified her, it was in an incomplete social introduction, yet placed next to a complete social introduction (brother), including his brother's prominent title.

 The Linguistic Disposition towards her was very negative. 

Prior to this, we had 

a.  depersonalization; and prior to depersonalization

b.  non-existence 

This is unusual and may indicate some element of premeditation within him. 


He is deceptive about his actions towards her, and here he has depersonalized her into “the passenger.”  This is consistent with homicide; not with an accident. 


was unsuccessful in the attempt

“the attempt” is to remove or distance himself from his actions, and to continue to depersonalize the victim. 

Note the narcissistic  focus upon self.  The victim did not exist at first, but when she did, she was “one passenger with me” which puts the focus on self. Next note that the victim died but the concern is for self: 

I was exhausted and in a state of shock. 

Note the emphasis upon self and the clarity of his descriptions, yet the assertion of the “state of shock” is incongruent. 

Others may argue how he knows he was in a "state of shock" but suffice for now, in Statement Analysis, this is considered "artificial editing" into an account of what happened.  

He is deceptive. 

Let his language guide you: 

He was “unsuccessful”, not in saving the victim, but in “the attempt” and here he tells us why, without being asked, why he was unsuccessful.  This is a “hina clause” and indicates an extreme level of sensitivity.  This indicates the need to explain why, and continues to press upon other motive. Even in this, it takes effort (in recall) to express concern for self, where no such concern is expressed for “the passenger.” (victim). 


I recall walking back to where my friends were eating. 

In an open statement, he can only tell what he recalls; this is an indication that he is concealing information. 
“eating”: for someone “in shock” this is an incongruent point of detail
Unnamed friends are given a personal pronoun connection; whereas the victim was depersonalized

The subject has given verbal indicators of contempt for his victim.  He is stating that he is in shock, yet tells us what “my friends” were doing.  “Eating” is to sustain life. Please note that he did not dive to Mary Jo, but to “the car.” He gave no details about the victim, but has cared enough to tell us that his friends were “eating.” The act of eating (mouth) in his language should cause for exploration of possible drug use by the “friends” and subject. 


There was a carparked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the back seat. 

Who owned this car? 
“The” cottage is not “a” cottage; showing recognition (while in “shock”). 

He was in "shock" but can describe his entrance into the specific location of the car. 


then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown. 

He has “climbed into the back seat” of a car.  He did not get in the car, but “climbed” and gives the specific location of where he climbed. 

“Then” is to skip over time. 

We know from his statement that he had interaction with “friends” who were “eating” and he asked to bring “me” (himself) to a location.  His concern is for himself.  The victim did not exist in his account until she was “over the bridge”, and then she was depersonalized.  This is consistent with homicide. 

In an open statement, one can only tell us what they remember. When they tell us what they do not remember, in an open statement, deception is present. 


remember walking around for a period of time and then going back to my hotel room. 

a.    “remember” in an open statement is unnecessary; a person can only tell us what they remember. 
b.    “for a period of time” is made more sensitive by:
c.    “and then”, the skipping over of time. 

When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police."

a.    “fully” makes “realized” sensitive.  To “realize” is to process over time. This is consistent with his above delays of time.  It indicates deliberation of waiting. 
b.    What would cause a subject to come to “full” realization?
c.    The language of trauma (“shock”) is inconsistent with his recall of detail. 
d.    “Immediately” is an unnecessary word that seeks to rebut “delay”, which is not known to be accused (in an open statement).  

It is as if to say "I realized" but I did not "fully realize."

This is what clever lying looks like. 


Analysis Conclusion:

The subject is “deception indicated” regarding what happened during the car ride, when he drove off the bridge, when he was in the water, and in the events that took place after. 

a.     The subject has depersonalized the victim, consistent with both contempt and in homicide statements. 
b.     The subject indicated a distinctly negative relationship with the victim 
c.     The subject is deceptive about any rescue effort of the victim
d.     The subject may have attempted to stop the victim from getting out of the vehicle. 
e.     The subject is deliberate in shifting blame to the vehicle, and indicates contempt for the victim. 
f.      The subject is concealing the activities in the car that may have caused the accident. This could include sexual activity, substance abuse and possible resistance by his victim. In his linguistic disposition, she at first did not exist. Then she was a person, female, with full name. Then she was reduced to a “former” secretary.  Then she became a gender neutral passenger.  This suggests possible need to “defeminize”her, which further affirms the possibility of sexual interest. His need to remove her gender is noted. 
g.     The subject did not attempt to free the victim from the car. 
h.     The subject was not truthful about the passing of time. 
i.      The subject was deceptive about his state of “shock” 
j.      The subject shows a strong priority upon “self”; concern only for self
k.     The subject deliberately delayed reporting the accident 
l.      The subject’s language confirms his self awareness in delay of reporting 
m.   The subject depersonalized the victim, while giving strong favorable disposition towards his brother, who was not involved. The subject shows a stronger linguistic connection to anonymous “friends” than for the victim. 
n.     The subject indicates empathy only for self. There is no empathy for his victim. 
o.     The subject shows a dominant personality trait of self-absorption, ease with deception and low personal responsibility. 
p. The subject conceals much about his victim.  His language may indicate sexual abuse or assault of the victim prior to her death. The denial of her existence with several references noted.  
q. The depersonalization of a victim is associated with murder, often with a very personal emotion of hatred, rage, resentment, etc, by the killer.