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. 


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.  

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Rev. Thomas Chantry Child Abuse Trial

While sexual abuse of children is now in media over priests in the Roman Catholic Church, the abuse is not limited to priests, nor to religious organizations. Pedophiles are drawn to anywhere access to children is readily obtained. Religious and civic organizations provide a psychological cover or "justification" to moralize the abuse. 

Rev. Thomas Chantry is on trial for physical and sexual abuse of children from 1995 to 2000, in Arizona. 

He is said to have "disciplined" children corporally, who were not his own children. 

In addition to this, he is said to have done so with bare bottom, leaving bruises, and with at least one victim claiming sexual fondling. 

He is reported to have "disciplined" children at his church, and when caught, fled the state and got a job in a Christian school.  It is alleged that there he won the trust of parents and repeated the alleged assaults upon other children. 

If true, this is a pattern that uses "discipline" as his cover for abuse. 

There was another police report made stating that the accused bruised yet another child, but the judge did not allow this to be heard by the jury. 

Thomas Chantry left Prescott, Arizona, years ago and became a pastor in Wisconsin. He was arrested in 2016 when accusations of molestation and abuse from more than 20 years ago were formally made.  Alleged victims and their families first reported incidents of abuse to the church but no reports were made to the police until 2015.

There are not enough statements for a conclusion, yet using the few thus far, along with behavioral analysis, there may be some strong opinions.  I express mine here.  

I have been viewing coverage of this case and have the following observations:

1. From the few statements I have seen, the alleged victims appear to be speaking from experiential memory. The statements are not reported in full in the media, which reduces this to an educated opinion; not Statement Analysis.  You won't find "Analysis Conclusion" at the bottom of this article. 

The prosecutor stated that the alleged victims, now adults, have no agenda, nor #metoo desire for fame.  This is immaterial to the allegation, and is something that is analyzed only after Statement Analysis has gotten to the truth. 

2.  The accused has not, to my knowledge, issued a denial (or any statement) for discernment. In court, he testified "absolutely not guilty", using the emphasis "absolutely." This is true, judicially; but it is not a reliable denial. It is a "weak assertion" with its need to call upon "absolute" in his status. Deception is not indicated on such a small point. 

3.  Behavioral Analysis: fleeing the church after "disciplining" children that were not his own, the seeking of a school is consistent with predation. 

4.  Claim:  "Children making false allegations is extremely rare."

I am familiar with the research that is used in this claim.  It is oft quoted but not experienced by investigators.  I once had a judge--a judge who presided over family court, say that it was "impossible for a child to make a false allegation" against a parent. For her, there were no exceptions, nor possibility of exception. I shudder, even now, to think of the injustice done over decades.  

This statement was made was shortly after a child confessed to me that she had falsely accused her next door neighbor of sexual touching, coached by her mother. 


She did this because her mother owed the neighbor $1,000 and wanted to get away with not paying him.  The mother was willing to send him to prison to avoid paying this debt. She was also willing to abuse her own daughter to accomplish this.  

I interviewed the child, then interviewed the mother, and then interviewed the accused. 

The child's language in certain parts was parroted to her mother's, who frequently attempted to enter into the interview of the child. 

The accused issued a reliable denial, stated that he "told the truth" to me, and was scared out of his mind.  He was lonely and befriended the single mother, who manipulated him into paying her rent for 2 months.  

The interview with the mother? It was fascinating to see how many times the topic of money entered her language.  I took detailed notes. 

There are parents like this who believe they so deserve custody that it justifies a false allegation. 

Those who work in the field know not to approach any investigation with such foolish preconceived notion. 

Children making false accusations is not "extremely rare."  In embittered custody disputes, it is almost routine. Children parrot the language of one parent over another, allowing for our discernment. 

 In an open statement, however (once they are freely engaged in a legally sound recorded interview) they will go off adult script  and reveal the truth.  Children know how to repeat adult sentences, but it is not part of their own personal internal subjective dictionaries.  

Statement Analysis protects genuine child victims and it protects falsely accused adults. The legally sound interview avoids leading questions but especially avoids interpretation. In the world of #metoo, we have seen genuine victims, copycats, wannabe's and outright false allegations made. 

Many professionals in the child protective world are not only well trained in interviewing, but are most sober-minded with experience.  They seek to bring children to the free editing process, so that the child's own language, uninterrupted, will guide them. 

5. The impact of physical abuse, alone, can be lifetime; including suffering mentally and physically.  Sexual abuse introduces an entirely new dynamic of suffering.  It is very difficult to quantify. It can often lead to generational suffering by generational offense. 

6.  The denomination board  that investigated the accused failed to make a report to law enforcement. I do not know their motive, which is why "coverup" is unfair to state at this time.  If they did not believe the accusations, it does not justify failure of mandated reporting of a crime. 

If they believed the accusations and did not act, they are complicit in obstructing justice and very likely put more children in harm's way. 

The judge in the trial was quoted as saying that the denominational body, if on trial, would likely be found guilty of cover up.  This gives insight into the judge's opinion of the validity of the accusations. 

Denial is an instant reaction to claims of sexual abuse that it is "expected" among others, including close familiar relationships and family.  I leave it to "facebook psychics" or "mind readers" to know motive, where no statements exist for discernment. 

7.  That the accused appears to have admitted "disciplining" children that were not his own, it is not a stretch to consider that he either pulled down their pants, or had them do it. A bold inappropriate act would need to be justified in the alleged abuser's mind, which often leads to repetition and escalation.  (criminal boldness increases with success and lack of legal consequence) In this context, he could use religious justification for his alleged crimes. 

Although both were forms of physical abuse with the element of humiliation, the latter may have an even longer lasting impact, including brain development. self medication (substance abuse) self loathing, suicidal ideation, and compromised immune system.  Child victims blame themselves, show indications of post trauma stress, such as hyper vigilance, and because of this, sometimes become chronically ill due to the taxed immune system.  Some seek relief through suicide.  The betrayal is acute and it is something that may never been fully understood by the victim.  

8. If the accused did commit these offenses, this is likely a reflection of something traumatic that caused his brain, in childhood, to associate pain, humiliation and sexual arousal as one element. He would thus likely be a victim who became a victimizer. This is a typical pattern in child abuse investigations.  There must be a source, including victimized in childhood *(during brain development) , coming upon pornography in childhood. That it includes physical pain suggests the former more than the latter. 

Behavioral Analysis Consistent with Pedophilia: 

That the alleged accuser had a "cooling off period" but still  went to a school where children were is indicative of sexual predation. 

After physically abusing children, with or without parental permission, upon his initial departure, it would have been predicted that he would seek employment where he would have more access to children. It is not a coincidence. 

9.  The coverage of this in media has been scant, yet one blogger's language reveals a contempt which dedicates more language to "gloating" than to news reporting. His lack of empathy for the victims is noteworthy in two ways:

a. its absence 
b. its "need to assert" it. 

Human empathy 

10. This same coverage has the need to claim empathy for victims; rather than it revealed in the language. Very few words are dedicated towards the alleged victims; many words are used to celebrate or "gloat" over the accused.  The volume of both is stark.  This type of coverage is not journalism, but "mind reading" and does more to reveal the background and experiences of the writer, than to cover a trial. The "need to persuade" weakens assertions. The author's claim of "knowing" that one is lying follows agenda, not discernment.  When one believes oneself to be on a "divine mission" (in any language and in any form), such excesses proceed from a damaged starting point that, if unaddressed, can lead to crisis. 

 Deception Detection is not a gift, a television program, nor a means of obtaining knowledge beyond the senses of man.  It is a science to be learned and applied. 

11. Had anyone physically "disciplined" my children, I would have had to have been physically restrained from doing the same to him, lest I be arrested for assault in taking the law into my own hands. Fathers I personally know would admit the same. 

12.  The accused's friends and colleagues are not properly discerning truth from deception due to behavior of the accused that appears to them to be entirely inconsistent with the accusations.  They have known a "good guy" for many years, and cannot fathom one behaving this way in secret.  This is not unusual, even with sociopathic killers, when their family, neighbors and friends are interviewed.  

Chided by the judge, one defense witness yield minimum information prior. This is to withhold truth while under oath. 

Although without direct statements to analyze, my opinion that the accused did in fact abuse these victims, including sexually, either by sexualized environment or fondling,   is only my opinion;  the accused is judicially innocent.  I did not find enough statements for posting analysis. 

I have not spoken to the investigators nor seen the transcripts.  

Pedophiles are notorious for seeking out schools, scouting, youth programs (including sports)  and churches due to access to children.  

The recent news story of 300 priests and the subsequent cover up of their child abuse is in context of waves of similar reports years ago. 

Whether it be sports, schooling or religion, pedophiles seek coverage for their crimes against children.  

The impact of childhood sexual abuse has not, to date, been appropriately classified. Each story is unique and I have yet, to date, interviewed a victim who has not had life long impact. From compromised immune systems (and all that this entails) to substance abuse to suicidal ideation to offending, the consequence is acute. 

I assert that processing is the most useful tool, and one most easily exploited by financially driven therapists. This is often why I reference journaling.  I believe that any form of processing must accompany strong support, nutrition and exercise. 

Peter Hyatt 

update:  The jury found Chantry guilty of physical assault, but deadlocked on the sexual abuse charges.  Due to the context, frequency, cooling off period and return to abuse, sexual abuse is likely. 

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. 


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.