Monday, January 14, 2019

Hospital Neglect Allegation Statement Analyzed

In a mental health hospital in-patient wing in Chicago, a male, aged 30 patient was reportedly locked out by the hospital, in the cold (below 10 degrees F), without proper clothing and was not permitted entrance. 

        Analyze the accusation for content to learn what happened.  

_____ Hotline:  "What's happening?" 

Subject:  "I went outside to smoke a cigarette and that's when I saw him. I go outside to smoke like 20 times a day.  He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on. I would not even know about this if I had not gone out to smoke. I was right out there with him. He was freezing and they wouldn't let him in. They were yelling at him from the window. I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it. This is wrong on their part. He didn't even have a jacket on him. " 

So, what happened?

Let's take a look. 

_____ Hotline:  "What's happening?" 

The present tense was due to live call, rather than "what happened?" 

What is the very first thing the subject wants authorities to know?

Subject:  "I went outside to smoke a cigarette and that's when I saw him. 

This sentence has the elements of location and time as a priority. 

She tells dispatch the reason for her to see the patient (man) in question. 

This means she anticipated being asked, "Why would you be in a position to see him?" rather than reporting the event (neglect, cold)

As a dispatcher, you would not have thought to ask her, "Hey, wait a minute here.  You say there's a guy out there in the cold.  How did you come to see him there?" 

This concern came from the subject; not the dispatcher. 

In fact, it is a priority for the subject; greater than the priority of what she saw.  

By anticipating being asked this, her verbalized perception tells us that there is something very sensitive about being outside, at this time, to witness this particular patient, of which she is very concerned that authorities will ask her about. 

As she began her answer with the pronoun "I", we should consider that she is psychologically committed to this statement and we should believe her. 

I believe her. 

I believe it is a priority for her to tell us why she was outside and able to see this particular man. 

This is why we listen and do not interpret. 

This location - time element is very strong (important) in her language.  She revisits is: 

I go outside to smoke like 20 times a day.  

Analysts flag this as "normal" or "the normal factor" in language. 

"Once upon a time, on a day like any other day..." signals even to young audiences, that this day is anything but "normal" to the speaker (subject). 

The portrayal as her norm to go outside 20 times a day to smoke tells us that we should be thinking:

What was not normal about this one? 

He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on. 

His body posture is important to her. 
The additional word "even" is added. 

Analysts believe her. 

Then, she repeats the dependent word "even" here: 

I would not even know about this if I had not gone out to smoke

This is her third reference to smoking. 

We would not have given much thought to her smoking had she not kept repeating it, but since we believe her, we believe that smoking is very sensitive to her, in spite of doing it 20 times a day.

For clarity: smoking is very sensitive to her in the context of this phone call. 

She repeats her location; not his, but her location:

I was right out there with him. 

It is very important to her that the authorities know that she was so close to him, out there to smoke often, that she must be telling the truth. 

We should continue to believe her.

We only cease to believe a subject when they talk us out of it.  Thus far, she has followed the most likely pattern in deception of "missing information" while her content appears to be:

100% accurate.

He was freezing and they wouldn't let him in. 

Note the shortness of this sentence.  It is very likely to be reliable. 

They were yelling at him from the window. 

This is also short (non emotional) and likely to be reliable. If she is making this up, she is a very dangerous (-10%) liar. 

She is concerned that we will not believe her: 

I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it. 

She has now told us why she took a picture.  She anticipated being asked, "Why did you take a picture of him?" though dispatch would not likely have thought to ask such a thing, even if offered photographic evidence. 

She now tells us an "unnecessary" point of morals or ethics. 

Unnecessary sermonizing is often projective.

Q. Why would she need "proof"?
A. Because she needs proof.  

Believe her in this, as in other points.  

Let the subject guide you to the truth. 

This is wrong on their part. 

She would not have the need to tell us that locking a patient outside in the cold without a jacket is "wrong" unless...

she had a need to tell us that locking a patient outside in the cold without a jacket. 

He didn't even have a jacket on him. " 

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Yet, what does "deception indicated" really mean here?

It means she is deliberately withholding information about this allegation. This is to say:

While she is making this call (choosing her words), she is consciously engaged in making certain she does not tell them certain information about what happened.

What information?

This is a good lesson in how most people lie.

It is not true that "the average person tells xx number of lies per day" as oft claimed.

In fact, people rarely "tell" a lie.

Here is what happened:

It is true that a patient was outside the facility, without his jacket, in the very cold temperatures and they would not let him in. 

What happened?

The caller hates the hospital. She has a lengthy history of fraudulent complaints against them.  She has her own mental health issues and may even wish to be residential.

She knows this patient well. They're smoking buddies and likely drinking buddies as well.

He likes to drink and when he does, he knows he cannot reenter the facility but must either go to the ER or to a homeless shelter.

She was outside smoking with him and took his jacket off him for the photo op.

By knowing what areas are "sensitive" to her, simply asking her (often repeatedly) about smoking (location and time) will produce the truth.

If you wish to study deception detection, we offer seminars for law enforcement, military intelligence, private businesses, etc, as well as "The Complete Statement Analysis Course" done entirely in your home, at your pace, with 12 months of e support,


see training opportunities


Bobcat said...

Thank you for the update! 8-D

Nadine Lumley said...

Fascinating. So much info. Packed in a tiny purse.

Aside, can I get a translator on aisle three please:

and may even wish to be residential. 



Hey Jude said...

I didn't do well. I missed the context of it being a call made by the subject, which as it was stated, should have been obvious. Lazy reading. The subject wasn't obliged, or reluctantly part of an investigation, therefore that she wanted to get the 'they' in trouble would have been more evident as a motive for the call, if I had got that it was a call. Duh. I should read better and write less.

Anonymous said...

I knew there had to be a reason why the subject kept hammering at the smoking. It's so obvious once you see it.

For what it's worth, Hey Jude, I actually think you had many excellent, essential points. You suggested several times that the subject didn't go outside to smoke but to take a photo and that she brought up the smoking in order to justify why she went outside. You also suggested a coat was handed from one person to the other (just the other way around). You even explained that and why you thought the subject was a woman.


Anonymous said...

I didn't save my earlier notes to "show my work", but I am pleased that I was on the right track! I broke down the statement as usual, bolding each person, all negatives, "like", "even", "to/because", "here/there", "this/that", body posture, and counted frequency of words used more than once.

What drew my attention the most were these two sentences:

1) "He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on."

The sentence includes five sensitivity indicators:
a. like b. body posture c. negative d. even e. tense change
Although some sentences in the statement are true, this particular sentence is likely deceptive.

2) "He didn't even have a jacket on him."

Now, he didn't even have a jacket on him, where before he didn't have a coat on (not on "him", but just "on")

So I wondered, why the change of language? Was his jacket removed?


What does a coat look like?
What does a jacket look like?

Anonymous said...

I concentrated on the pronoun "i" stating that there was on it's form, a lot of truth in the statement.

As Bobcat points out, i also commented on the change in language, was it justified?

Subject: ""I went outside to smoke a cigarette and that's when I saw him."

Would this be considered a "Hina Clause"

- David

Hey Jude said...

Ah, thanks for your kind comments, Autumn. You got some points too - that it was another patient who called, and the change in language.

Bobcat - you got it in one that the subject had 'borrowed' the patient's coat - Impressive :)

SS said...

OT on Death of Oli Herbert

Major suspicions of wife, a new will in her favor was supposedly signed a week before his death.

Her statement is below, ripe for SA.

ALL THAT REMAINS guitarist Oli Herbert died of drowning, his widow has confirmed.

Herbert was found dead on October 16 near his home in Connecticut. He was 44 years old.

According to TMZ, police were dispatched to Oli's Stafford Springs residence after someone reported him missing. Cops searched the area and found Oli in a nearby pond.

Earlier today, Oli's wife Beth released a statement via his official Facebook page in which she revealed that her husband drowned after apparently ingesting antidepressant medication and sleeping pills.

She wrote: "Good morning everyone this is Beth. And indeed it IS a good morning; Toxicology results are back as is the official cause of my husband's death!

"Cause of death- Drowning. Toxicology- Oli was apparently self-treating for manic-depression that has run in his family for several generations. Anti-depressants were found in his system, as well as a sleep aid. The psych meds found in his system were the same ones that a close relative has been prescribed for a long time, so he knew what to hunt down for the 'treatment'. Seeing how he was not going (and WOULDN'T GO) to a doctor to get diagnosed with the issue and was not being prescribed the medications and monitored on them, it explains his occasional erratic behavior here at home.

"If anybody knows where Oli was getting the psych meds, please call CT State Police, Troop C in Tolland, CT."

In the comments section below her original post, Beth offered a possible explanation for how Oli ended up in the pond. "One of the drugs can have a hallucinogenic effect, also restlessness," she wrote. "Oli kept wanting to go outside that night before he disappeared and he kept walking towards the pond, which is a pitch black part of our property as well as very slippery. Add to that fact that it was raining that evening. Apparently he left the house after I went to bed so I couldn't stop him and bring him back inside."

Hey Jude said...

OT - Oli Herbert

"Good morning everyone this is Beth. And indeed it IS a good morning; Toxicology results are back as is the official cause of my husband's death!"


Unexpectedly cheery (she can't hide that she was anticipating a different outcome?) How's that good news? He's just as dead as he was before.

She's so keen to let everyone know he and his family apparently had mental health issues, despite he was not diagnosed or seeing a doctor, which seems denigrating of her late husband. "Manic-depression" is more usually called "bi-polar" these days, to avoid the stigma associated with the term-"manic depression" - that's so in the UK, where one might question why someone might choose to say "manic-depression" rather than "bi-polar" to spare anyone's feelings. Would that apply in the US? If so, that might be even more denigrating.

Who "hunts down" the "treatment"? That's an unexpected choice of words? Prey is hunted.
Why does,she put 'treatment' in inverted commas?
"I went to bed so I couldn't stop him" - is a hina clause and could be an alibi.

"Apparently" he left the house after she went to bed. Either he did or he didn't leave the house after she went to bed, so why does she use "apparently"?


"The Hartford Courant reports that although Herbert did die from drowning, the manner of how he drowned remains "undetermined." Read an excerpt from their report below.

While the state medical examiner’s office ruled this week that Herbert, 44, drowned, it called the manner of death “undetermined.” The manner of death is usually homicide, suicide or accident but state Chief Medical Examiner Dr. James Gill said Herbert’s case will remain undetermined unless new information is developed.
State police sources said that police are treating his death as suspicious at this point. The Eastern District Major Crime Squad is investigating the case."

Anonymous said...

OT: Oli Herbert

Beth sounds very cheerful. Why is this cause of death such good news for her?

I feel Beth’s entire statement is intended to convince us that:
(1) Oli was depressed,
(2) Oli took psych meds,
(3) she doesn't know where Oli got the meds,
(4) the meds caused Oli to go to the pond and drown; and
(5) she could not prevent his death.
Why is that? The toxicology report already indicates that Oli took psych meds and that he drowned. Is that not enough explanation?

Beth says: "The psych meds found in his system were the same ones that a close relative has been prescribed for a long time." She does not say they were of the same sort. No, they were the same ones. Maybe she is leaking here that the meds were prescribed to Oli by a close relative (just remove the word “been” from the sentence) for a long time?

Beth continues: “Seeing how he was not going (and WOULDN'T GO) to a doctor (…)”. Why the capital letters? It feels like a cry from the heart. Why does she think Oli needed to go to a doctor? Nowhere does she say that he was actually depressed. Beth merely says that he had “occasional erratic behavior here at home” (that doesn’t sound too serious and it seems quite convenient that it was apparently only at home (?)) and that manic depression has run in his family for many generations. She also talks about “the issue” but doesn’t explain what it was. So why the cry from the heart? Let’s assume a Beth actually prescribed the psych meds to Oli for a long time. What would be her objective (keeping the supposed , (very) recent change of will in mind)? Maybe it wasn’t for Oli to go to a doctor but for him to simply go (e.g. by suicide)? Was that the issue? That he was not going? That he WOULDN’T GO?

Beth says Oli “kept walking towards the pond”. How would she now? After all (in her own words) "the pond is a pitch black part of (...) [their] property" and "he left the house after (...) [she] went to bed".

Beth also says Oli kept wanting to go outside. How am I supposed to imagine that? What prevented him from actually going outside? Was he not in his right mind? Was he drunk? Did he stumble and fall? In that case, why did Beth not prevent him from going outside in the rain instead of going to bed?

It seems like Beth is subtly blaming the victim in the following sentences:
Seeing how he was not going (and WOULDN'T GO) to a doctor to get diagnosed with the issue and was not being prescribed the medications and monitored on them, it explains his occasional erratic behavior here at home.

She also talks about the official cause of death. Is there another cause of death? An unofficial one? A real one?


Anonymous said...

OT: Oli Herbert

I also found the below statement made by Beth. I feel the parts highlighted in bold (by me) may tell Beth’s real story (just my opinion). It seems remarkable that she says the words property, estate, house and home (in capital letters) a whopping 12 times whereas she mentions her husband’s name only twice.

Near the end of the statement she says: “(…)information will be made on this page. For the record, (…), and all of his personal belongings are in a secure, undisclosed location. Everything is still in my possession (…)” .
I feel she may be subconsciously alluding to the (supposed) changed will here.

I also highlighted the words "trespassed"/"trespasses"/"trespassing" because trespassing also means "an unlawful act committed on the person".

Hello everyone this is Beth.
I can’t say anything about the investigation because it is still open.
I am making this post today because something very disturbing happened yesterday; a group of four men trespassed onto my PROPERTY to go poking around where Oli’s body was taken out of the pond. The police were called and a report was filed.
I know that there has been a lot of talk about everything going on with the PROPERTY and the ESTATE. Without getting into too much personal ESTATE/family information, whatever is happening with the ESTATE and PROPERTY it’s happening for a reason and under the guidance of attorneys. This HOUSE is still and will continue to be very much occupied and the family HOME. It is still considered private PROPERTY and anybody who trespasses will be reported to the police and charges will be pressed for trespassing and disturbing the peace.
As much as some people are presenting themselves to know what’s going on with this ESTATE, they don’t. If there is something that needs to be said regarding this ESTATE, that information will be made on this page. For the record, none of Oli’s PROPERTY or EQUIPMENT has been sold or given away. The guitars, his EQUIPMENT, and all of his personal belongings are in a secure, undisclosed location. Everything is still in my possession and NOT for sale.
Thank you all for your support during this difficult time.


Bobcat said...

In the subject's personal internal dictionary, is a coat longer than a jacket? At the point "he" was not wearing a coat, was he in fact wearing his jacket - before it was removed for the photo op?

This was a great short lesson!

SS said...

Oli Herbert

This is a local case for me. I really appreciate the insightful comments, thank you. I am praying for justice.

I think it was "good news" for her, because she felt she was off the hook with these findings.

Her second post after Oli's body was found.
"Please do not show up to my house or come onto my property without notifying me first, NO exceptions. Thank you. "

They had shared the home, she says "my property".

Another of her posts:

"Elizabeth Herbert
@Missus Oli
Realtor licensed in MA & Ct.
I love jewelry, shoes, handbags, and Welsh Corgis, and my husband Oli, too! ;) "

As Peter has said, order matters.

Another quote:
Today marks two weeks since my husband left us. The family memorial gathering is over, and we are planning a public memorial for the fans. In the meantime, I need to get back to my real estate, and I need to get the house straightened out which is going to include the difficult task of getting my late husband's home studio and equipment room cleaned up, and his belongings sorted out. I am not going to be on Facebook for a while but I will be checking in occasionally. I'm going to be fine, and even better when my house is straightened out, and this task is behind me. "

Two weeks after his death, she is cleaning house.
She never names Oli, and she calls it "my house", not our house.
She says since "he left us".

After the memorial service, she posted a photo of herself, and someone commented that she looked lonely.
Her response:
"Thank you, but I am not stricken or alone. I am very strong in my solitude right now."

John Mc Gowan said...


The 911 call made to authorities after 13-year-old Jayme Closs escaped the Wisconsin home of her suspected killer has been released.


Hey Jude said...

OT. Jayme Closs

I compared - it's mostly there, but there are some short parts missing from the transcript.

Here is the probable cause document - gruesome shotgun injuries:


Jayme brought to mind the case of the siblings Dylan and Shasta Groene, of whom only Shasta survived their ordeal - they also were kidnapped, their family members murdered.

Anonymous said...

OT: Oli Herbert

"Oli kept wanting to go outside that night before he disappeared and he kept walking towards the pond, (...)”

This sentence immediately struck me as so odd. Like I said before: how to imagine the first part (“kept wanting to go outside”). Oli, a grown man, must have been seriously impaired if he kept wanting to go outside but didn't succeed until after Beth went to bed. I get visions of a dog on a leash or a dog scratching the door. Of course it seems highly unlikely that Oli was on a leash. But something prevented him from going outside although he kept wanting to. What was it?

And then the phrase “kept walking towards the pond”. Apart from the fact that Beth could not have known about this (she had already gone to bed and the pond area is pitch dark), this seems equally hard to imagine. If you keep walking towards something, you keep trying to reach it but don’t succeed. How do you do that? Do you take a few steps and then fall down, get up and try again? Over and over? In that case I would have rather said: “He kept trying to walk towards the pond. “ What prevented Oli from reaching his intended destination?

I find it interesting that Beth uses the word “kept” twice in this sentence. I think it’s important. Oli kept wanting to go outside and kept walking towards something. Kept wanting. Kept walking. I think Beth may be unwittingly giving us details about his death. We know that Oli drowned, that the manner how he drowned remains undetermined and that State Police treat his death as suspicious. Could it be that someone tried to drown him in the pond and that Oli "kept wanting to go outside [THE POND]" and "kept walking towards [THE EDGE OF] the pond" "before he disappeared [UNDER WATER]"? In that scenario, the odd wording all of a sudden falls into place in more ways than one. In that case, the person (or those persons) who drowned Oli also kept him from going outside the pond and kept him from walking towards the edge of the pond.

Like Hey Jude said: "to hunt down for the 'treatment'" is a weird choice of words. If someone (or multiple persons) drowned Oli, their 'treatment' of Oli consisted of hunting (killing) him by keeping him down. In that scenario, Oli may also have escaped at one point in which case he had to be hunted down.

"Apparently he left the house after I went to bed (...)" -> I think Beth may have used the word apparently to move herself away from Oli's death as far as possible (we must think that she has absolutely no clue about it whatsoever). However, the unintended result i.m.o is that she adds doubt to this statement: if she cannot say for sure that Oli left the house after she went to bed, we cannot be sure of it either.


Anonymous said...

OT: Oli Herbert

According to his fans Oli wanted to divorce Beth. He indicated as much in text messages to a friend. The messages are published on a.o. this web page. This web page also shows messages sent by Beth in which she is drooling (for lack of a better word) over their house and property. The real estate seemed very important to her.

With that in mind (assuming the said messages are real), I have looked at Beth’s below statement.

"Today marks two weeks since MY HUSBAND LEFT us. THE FAMILY memorial gathering IS OVER, and WE ARE PLANNING a public memorial for the fans. In the meantime, I NEED TO GET back to my REAL ESTATE, and I NEED TO GET THE HOUSE straightened out WHICH IS GOING TO INCLUDE THE DIFFICULT TASK OF GETTING MY late HUSBAND's home studio and equipment room CLEANED UP, AND HIS BELONGINGS sorted out. I am not going to be on Facebook for a while but I will be checking in occasionally. I'M going to be FINE, and EVEN BETTER when my house is STRAIGHTENED OUT, and THIS TASK IS BEHIND ME."

I think this is what she may be telling us between the lines (read the words in bold and capital letters):
My husband had left me. Our marriage was over. So I made a plan. I needed to get the real estate. I needed to get the house. The plan also included the difficult task of cleaning up my husband. I needed to get his belongings (home, studio, equipment) and straighten it out, sort it out. Now I’m fine. Even better. The house is mine. I’ve straightened it out. This task is behind me.


Anonymous said...

OT: Oli Herbert

Further to my previous comment: there's one thing I overlooked. Notice how Beth talks about a "memorial gathering". She mentions the word memorial twice. Another word for memorial is testament (see here).

According to this source Oli signed a will one week before his death at a nearby car dealership. Oli reportedly had the will notarized by Beth and a friend of Beth who works at the dealership. Two other employees of the dealership were pulled off the sales floor to act as witnesses. Could Beth be subconsciously alluding to this when she says "memorial gathering"? It would fit perfectly in the timeline of the scenario that I think Beth may be leaking: Oli wants a divorce, the marriage is over, Beth forms a plan, starting with a change of will by Oli.

According to the Washington Pundit, Beth and her friend are suspected to have forged the will (see here). Also, no attorney signature is present on the will, leaving its legal power questionable. The will lists Beth as Oli's executor and sole benefactor. The will specifically excludes Oli's sister. All according to online info.

Interestingly one of the witnesses says that Oli was wearing a black t-shirt and "didn't really say anything" during the transaction (see here). So he was actually present during the signing of the will (unless it was a stand-in).


John Mc Gowan said...

Nadine Lumley said...

Fascinating. So much info. Packed in a tiny purse.

I agree, Nadine, i love these sort lessons i learn so much from them.

Bobcat said...

OT: Scientology letter to A&E

January 11, 2019 Paul Buccieri President, A+E Networks Group 235 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017
Re: Blood on your hands
Mr. Buccieri: A young Scientologist in Australia has been murdered. Prior to committing this heinous act, the murderer spouted vicious religious hatred and propaganda, incited by A&E and the Leah Remini/Mike Rinder series. On January 3, 2019, a man fatally stabbed a member of our Australasian headquarters in Sydney. Previously the assailant had stated his intent to burn down the Church. The attacker was inspired by an anti-Scientology website that featured your people and included a link to Remini’s show. Week after week, month after month, and now year after year, this series has poisoned the airwaves in an avowed effort to create hatred against the Scientology religion and Scientologists. Hatred and propaganda always find their mark, especially among those weak and vulnerable to their appeals. And now it has born strange and bitter fruit. For years, A&E executives ignored our warnings that the series was inspiring bigotry and violence. You knew what you were doing. Your intent was to stir up hate and turn it into cash. Now somebody has been murdered. Your indifference and obsession with stirring hate underwrote his murder. You are well aware that whistleblowers have described how Leah Remini coaches people on the show to incite hatred against Scientology. We have repeatedly told you that all evidence points to the fact that every person on that program has been compensated, often “under the table” to try to hide it. You could care less what that scandalous bigotry—lie after lie after lie—can cause.

We warned you. Six hundred threats of violence, caused by your programming, meant nothing to you. Assassination threats against the leader of our religion meant nothing to you. You put a convicted felon on your show to praise him for vandalizing our Church and threatening to kill the leader of our religion. It didn’t matter to you, because it was what you were trying to do. For ratings, for sales, for money. So consider your answer to this letter. Do not give us some lawyered-up response. We urged you to stop the hate and repeatedly told you the harm it was causing, which was escalating with each paid-for, hate-filled episode.
Now, somebody is dead. You paid for the hate that caused his murder.
And you profit. Stop your program. Karin Pouw

Anonymous said...

Anybody offended by gilette ad?

Anonymous said...

Drag kid Desmond the amazing, this is disturbing.

His mom's defense


Hi, it's mom. I can't believe I have to type this. Articles have been coming out claiming that my son danced half naked and stripped in a sleazy gay bar for grown men who threw dollars at him and is being exploited and forced to perform. THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN BLATANT HOMOPHOBIA and display of the grossly outdated belief that gay men are pedophiles. The truth is, Desmond is a professional drag performer. No one forces him to perform, performing is what he loves to do and has always loved to do. He was a ballet dancer for four years and is currently earning an A+ grade in drama at his school. He is extremely talented in his celebrity and character impersonations. His costumes are less revealing than a dancer's or cheerleader's uniform, and are always age appropriate. While he dances, he does not move in a sexual manner. He often collects tips, as drag queens sometimes do, which we allow him to keep and he uses to buy clothing and the toy trains he wants. His engagements are contracted and booked by his management agency. All of his performances are conducted in accordance with the Dept of Labor's regulations for child performers. Desmond is never allowed into the bar area of any club, nor the main floor. He stays backstage with me, in the dressing room, or on stage only. It must be noted, however, that it is not illegal in NYC for a minor to be in an establishment that serves alcohol as long as they are accompanied by an adult. Desmond was the sole performer for the event at the center of this controversy and he performed 3 numbers. The venue took measures to make sure it would be age appropriate and audience members that attended were respectful and in good conduct. The performance was promoted and anyone who did not wish to see a drag kid perform in a club did not have to attend. No one forced you to go. I know a lot of drag fans/drag queens do not want to see kids in what they consider an adult form of entertainment or venue, but drag is changing and becoming more widespread and popular with people of all ages, genders, identities, races, abilities, and disabilities. Instead of tearing drag kids down, why not mentor them? They are the future of drag.

Anonymous said...

Can you do an analysis of this video Peter?

the mother of the allegedly missing Kelsey Berreth, she is showing all the signs of duping delight, she is quick to insert a divine witness by using god a few times, she seems way too happy, my gut tells me this is another GoFraudMe money grab fairytale story played out in the media.

Anonymous said...

The mom does seem strangely calm and unrattled and she does not act like one would think.

I do not see flashes of duper's delight, just an unusual calm and casual demeanor. If I were Kelsey's mom, I would be freaking out.

Maybe she is highly religious and feels strongly supported by this and/or she is partially numbed by meds.

Is there video of her after the charges were filed against the baby's father?

Hey Jude said...

OT - Desmond Needs Help

I've watched a few of Desmond's YouTubes. He is so sad, and hardly goes off his mother's inappropriate script of his 'LGBTQ advocate' life.

I wonder what would body language analysts make of this, where he speaks to the camera?

I think he is a kid who does nor want to be there, resentful, yet anxious to please

I wonder how is he feted, so uncritically, in the media, and when will someone save him? Not meaning Desmond should be criticised, rather that his mother should be stopped from continuing her lifelong sexualisation and exploitation of her malnourished, ill and sad looking child. She's pimping him out at gay clubs, making him dance for tips - there would be outrage if Desmond was a girl.

In interviews/videos it is clear he's been groomed since he was a toddler, by his parents, for his 'drag-kid' role. The mother defends her Desmond-income by making Desmond claim that objections to 'his' lifestyle are bullying and discrimination - he speaks the same script over and over as if he has been programmed.

Buckley said...

I do not see duping delight in that mom. Her daughter had been missing awhile so I think she’s have time to move past shock. She’s focused on finding her, getting picture out. After she said she hadn’t seen grandchild, it’s clear there’s strife between her and daughter’s fiancé, yet she doesn’t take bait to badmouth him as he’s likely key to finding her. She’s a smart, determined, we’ll spoken mom.

Buckley said...

There are a few places where she deep breathes to calm herself, she seems determined and hopeful enough to self-regulate so she can keep moving forward. She’s not just blindly inserting divinity, as in, “Oh God! Oh God!” without cause. She’s talking about her faith in the context of how she’s coping and how churches are helping.

Anonymous said...

A LOT of projection going on in the Scientology letter it seems (see Bobcat's comment above).


Anonymous said...

I had never heard of Desmond before, and ported the links above.
There are many disturbing images online of him posing as instructed.
There are no words for how sad and disturbing this is, and the fact that it is accepted and even lauded is even more worrisome.
Yes, he does need help, and will probably not get it, since he is generating profits and furthering an agenda.


The Exploitation of “Drag Kid” Desmond Is Amazing
Desmond is Amazing is an 11-year-old drag performer who became a mainstream media darling. However, after a video of him performing at a gay club for tips surfaced online, a dark side was exposed. Is Desmond being exploited?

Desmond Napoles (aka Desmond is Amazing) is an 11-year-old drag performer who rose to fame due to his appearances on national television, fashion magazines and LGBTQ-related events. He became an instant media darling when a video of him dancing at a gay pride parade became viral.

Desmond dancing at a gay pride parade at age 8.

According to his official website, Desmond is a “performer, drag kid, awarded LGBTQ advocate, outspoken gay youth, editorial model, public speaker, founder of his own drag house, fashion designer, muse, and icon”.

Hey Jude, great comment about what would happen if he were a girl being exploited in that manner.
(It made me think of Jonbenet.)

I believe he ie is being feted because he fits an elite agenda, and generates profits.
He undoubtedly is "at risk" if a child ever was. :(

Anonymous said...

Oli Herbert

Another post that screams that something is seriously off.

She posted this after his death, unbelievable.

I hope LE is onto her, CT State Police are involved.

Hey Jude said...


Anon - I think JonBenet's pageants seem almost wholesome alongside the way Desmond is paraded - at least the beauty pageant audiences are restricted to family members, and the children (or their mothers, more like) compete only with each other, whilst poor Desmond is the lone child amongst all those often scarily made-up drag queens in adult environments. There are others like him, but he seems particularly tragic.

I agree - Desmond has been made part of an agenda, one which appears to be to erode boundaries and to confuse children with regard to gender and sexuality; he has been made a type of mascot where no child should be, let alone grow up within. It must seem to him that no-one is there to really care for and protect him - his mother has made him part of a freak show, and his father seems not to object. I wonder does anyone ever get chance to ask Desmond if he is okay, and if he needs help or wants a different type of life. Maybe he would’nt know that he isn’t and he does - he speaks as from a script.


What might cause Desmond even more trauma? Knowing that, for entertainment purposes, he was caused to sit next to, and interact with, a convicted killer who had also dismembered his victim?- Michael Alig had served a seventeen year sentence for killing a young man.
Knowing that his mother had arranged that?

The video is on YouTube - it’s disturbing, incomprehensible. Desmond is not safe, and his mother acts like it is all his choice. Well, even if it was she just could have said, no, and enrolled him in children's theatre, or something, instead, - she saw dollar signs in creating a mini drag artist.

Desmond recding his mother's version of 'the Night Before Christmas" was sad, poor kid - not only did he have to read it aloud himself, it also was lousy.

Hey Jude said...

^^. Needs clarifying - the mother arranged the interview/hang-out with Desmond, , not the killing/dismemberment of the host's victim.

Mike Dammann said...

"He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on."

The time change here seems sensitive. He WAS likes standing there ... and he DOESN'T even HAVE a coat on.

Why the need to point out he still has no coat on?

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

Prosecutors on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating alleged “collusion” between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia knew all along that the anti-Trump “dossier” compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele that fueled their probe was biased and likely phony.

Yet instead of investigating those individuals at the FBI and Justice Department who actively participated in the dossier fraud – as he should have done – Mueller hired several of them to investigate Trump.

Newly confirmed congressional testimony of former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr shows that he warned both the FBI and the Justice Department that Steele was “desperate that Donald Trump not get elected.”

This conspicuous bias should have been enough to deposit the dossier – a series of memos from Steele – into the nearest trash can. But top FBI and Justice Department officials were determined to damage or destroy President Trump. So they ignored Steele’s patent prejudice and sought to exploit his dubious document – despite Ohr saying of the dossier: “I don’t know how reliable it is.”

These same FBI and Justice Department officials also deliberately disregarded the source of Steele’s funding –Trump’s political opponent, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

And incredibly, the officials concealed all of this vital information from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court in obtaining a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate. But that’s not all. They used the Steele report to launch the original Trump-Russia “collusion” investigation.

The sordid scheme began on July 5, 2016 – the very day Clinton was cleared of mishandling classified documents by FBI Director James Comey.

As Comey was twisting the facts and contorting the law to absolve Clinton, an FBI agent was meeting secretly in London with Steele, who had composed the first of his memos.

Three weeks later – on July 30, 2016 – Steele met with Ohr, who would serve as the conduit between the FBI and the former British agent, who was now on the Clinton payroll and being paid simultaneously by the FBI.

Immediately thereafter, Ohr met with Comey’s top deputy, Andrew McCabe; FBI lawyer Lisa Page; and FBI agent Peter Strzok to convey the details of Steele’s report alleging – without evidence – that Trump was “colluding” with Russia to steal the presidential election.

Page and Strzok were key players pursuing the “collusion” probe and eventually joined Mueller’s special counsel team.

After meeting with Steele and the FBI, Ohr also shared his improbable intelligence with Justice Department officials Andrew Weissmann, Bruce Swartz and Zainab Ahmad. Weissmann and Ahmad were subsequently hired by Mueller as part of his assembled team of prosecutors.

It has now come to light that Ohr warned all of these FBI and Justice Department officials that Steele was riven with bias. They were also informed that the Clinton campaign and Democrats had paid for the Steele dossier through the company Fusion GPS and its founder Glenn Simpson, who also employed Ohr’s wife, Nellie.

Here is Ohr’s specific testimony to the joint House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees that was elicited behind closed doors last Aug. 28, but that has not been fully made public:

Question: “So, the record is clear, what the Department of Justice and the FBI was aware of prior to the first FISA application was your relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, your wife’s relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, Mr. Steele’s bias against Donald Trump, Mr. Simpson’s bias against Donald Trump, your wife’s compensation for work for Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, correct?”

Ohr: “Correct.”

Tania Cadogan said...


Ohr later added: “I told them that Chris Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected.”

Ohr also told congressional investigators that he knew the entire effort to target Trump was being financially underwritten by the Clinton presidential campaign. The FBI and Justice Department knew this, too.

Ohr said he warned the two law enforcement agencies: “You’re going to have to check it out and be aware. These guys were hired by somebody relating to – who’s related to the Clinton campaign, and be aware.”

None of the salacious and uncorroborated information in the Steele report was ever verified by Ohr. Steele refused to provide his alleged sources to Ohr. Most were anonymous and the information Steele collected was based on double and triple hearsay.

In British court documents, Steele himself confessed that his document was “unverifiable.”

Ohr admitted that the Steele dossier could never be used in a court of law. Yet, that is exactly what the FBI and Justice Department did. Their application to the FISA Court was based largely on information provided by Steele that they had failed to verify.

Even though Steele was fired by the FBI for lying, FBI and Justice Department officials nevertheless represented to the court that he was a reliable source. They l knew he was not.

These same officials deceived the judges by not fully revealing that the dossier had been paid for by Clinton’s campaign and that the source of their information had been discredited.

FBI regulations strictly prohibit inaccurate or unverified information in FISA warrant applications. The Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide states that “only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications to the (FISA) court.”

Justice Department regulations embrace the same rule and requirement. Relying on the unverified Steele dossier was a clear violation.

Beyond the regulations, it can be a felony to conceal relevant information and deceive the FISA Court. A half dozen statutes make it a crime to perpetrate a fraud on a court, including Deprivation of Rights (18 USC 242), Perjury (18 USC 1621 and 1623), and False Statements (18 USC 1001). Several obstruction of justice and fraud statutes would be applicable, as well.

Who signed off on the four successive warrant applications, attesting to their veracity? James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Justice Department officials Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein.

Mueller’s special counsel team should be investigating Clinton “collusion” with Russia and the complicity of FBI and Justice Department officials.

Clinton’s campaign paid for Russian information that was fed to the FBI and Justice Department to damage Trump during the presidential election. According to Ohr, at least two of Mueller’s prosecutors – Weissmann and Ahmad – knew this all along. And so did two of his investigators, Page and Strzok.

Instead, Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump, became the target of a dilating investigation based on the faulty and likely fabricated information she commissioned.

The investigation of Trump was a hoax from the outset. But now, the integrity of Mueller’s special counsel team has been compromised. The credibility of any forthcoming report should be viewed through the lens of deep skepticism.

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

Charles said...

Mr. Hyatt, on YouTube a man named Richard Hall uses your credentials, name and image to promote his "man-never-went-to-the-Moon" theory. If you choose to allow him to do so that's your business, but it casts Statement Analysis and you personally in a very bad light.

Buckley said...


General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Charles Crisp said...

have you watched the youtube? Richard Hall has done several shows with Peter.

I found the shows very good and nothing that diminishes Peter's work.

S said...

Charles Crisp, you are sadly mistaken if you think this collaboration is negative in any way.

Did you even watch the video, or have you decided without any critical thought or analysis that what you believe must be true, and what Peter concludes using SA must be false, just because it threatens your world view?

Peter's videos with Richard Hall show that he has the courage to consider and analyze, and not just assume that whatever we have all been told and have believed must automatically be the truth. He simply tells it as it is.

If anything, his analysis of the astronauts adds to the esteem I hold for Peter Hyatt; he is a patriot and has courage to apply SA, period.


Buckley said...

Peter’s analysis of Armstrong’s interview is sound; Hall fumbles over the conclusion, too quickly choosing the one he wants, the one that fits his agenda.

For example, Peter rarely says the words “I analyzed...” If we are to believe Hall’s logic, we must conclude Peter doesn’t analyze statements, which we know to be false.

Hey Jude said...

No, it's the McCanns who Richard D Hall puts in a bad light - he must be a thorn in their flesh.

He is too controversial for the mainstream - he might raise some people's eyebrows, but he is also a truth-seeker who is willing to admit when he is mistaken. I'm a fan - I watch or listen to his YouTubes without needing to agree with all his theories, some might be a tad outlandish. I like that he sometimes does some statement analysis himself in his videos.

His bias is evident - he doesn't believe they set foot on the moon, but he does a pretty good job of presenting Peter's analyses - he does include the other possible conclusions and says the audience should make up their own mind. He goes with his own preference, which is fine, imo.


There are three videos in that series, 'Analysing the Astronauts' - there is a Buzz Aldrin analysis, too. Those analyses are also online in text format if anyone doesn't know - no link: treasure hunt. :-D.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

From the above.

Peter Hyatt, said

Thus far, she has followed the most likely pattern in deception of "missing information" while her content appears to be:

100% accurate


I found this funny 😄 yet it illustrates the above perfectly.

I was watching an episode of "Everybody Loves Raymond". Raymond, his Dad Frank and Brother Robert were convinced to go to therapy for one reason or the other (Basically to become better husbands) by their wives. They end up skipping therapy and go to the races. (their therapy)

Frank see's a horse called "Marie's mouth" (his wife's name).

They win.

They get back home and Marie asks . So how was therapy?

Raymond. - l gotta tell you, it was kind of a fulfilling experience.

Marie - Yeah?

Robert - Yeah.

Marie - Oh, isn't this wonderful? What did you think, Frank?

Frank - Well, when you were yanking me into this, l was, as you know, very skeptical.
But then l got there, (the races) and l have to say it really PAID of. (Words don't come from a vacuum)

Frank - And l owe it all to Marie's Mouth.

Marie - l'm so happy l helped.

Raymond -To Marie's Mouth!

Debra -This is so great!

Even script writers know how deception by missing information works.

Willow said...

My testimony is fully warped.
What comes to the gentlemen Peter Hyatt, Richard D. Hall and, I don't care if I say it, Andrew Johnson, with his light blue fleece, is, I'm a great fan since many years.

These exciting men produce must-see material with zest, and they deliver their message in an old-school, authentic and funny way.
Analysing The Astronauts, three-parts video is an enjoyable collaboration of my favorite internet stars, that I hope many more viewers will discover.

Anonymous said...

OT: John Coughlin

In mid-January 2019, just two days before his death, Coughlin was suspended indefinitely from figure skating by the U.S. Center for SafeSport and U.S. Figure Skating,

He was also barred from any and all activities that had to do with the skating body or the U.S. Olympic Committee.

This suspension followed a December 2018 restriction by Safe Sport. The committee was founded in 2017 and investigates allegations of sexual misconduct in sports along with other forms of abuse.

Coughlin statement after December 2018 restriction:

"While I wish I could speak freely about the unfounded allegations levied against me, the SafeSport rules prevent me from doing so since the case remains pending," he said. "I note only that the SafeSport notice of allegation itself stated that an allegation in no way constitutes a finding by SafeSport or that there is any merit to the allegation."

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Bobcat said...
OT: John Coughlin

"While I wish I could speak freely about the unfounded allegations levied against me, the SafeSport rules prevent me from doing so since the case remains pending," he said. "I note only that the SafeSport notice of allegation itself stated that an allegation in no way constitutes a finding by SafeSport or that there is any merit to the allegation."

oouch denial. "unfounded allegations" means they haven't been proven yet. while it doesn't mean they will be proven it is not a good sign. innocent people clearly state they "didn't do it"

Bobcat said...

Wouldn't Mr. Coughlin have initiated his own case regarding false allegations if they were indeed false?

Lorenzo Miles said...

She went outside "to smoke a cigarette"

There might have been other reasons why she went out to smoke a cigarette.

Lorenzo Miles said...

There might have been more reasons why she went out to smoke a cigarette.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Lorenzo Miles said...
There might have been more reasons why she went out to smoke a cigarette.
January 22, 2019 at 7:50 AM

Don't be naughty!

But yes, you're right.

I think she really really really liked him. :)

I wondered if she hated the facility more than she liked the man.