Saturday, May 4, 2019

Anita Hill v Clarence Thomas


                  Anita Hill- Clarence Thomas  Hearing

The conflict of this hearing is in the news again, particularly as former Vice President Joe Biden has talked about "apologizing" to Hill. 

The following is exerts from the large transcripts of the Anita Hill Clarence Thomas hearings conducted during the Thomas confirmation process. Please note that this does not include the context of questions posed by politicians, which is necessary for complete analysis. This is a limited exercise in "Linguistic Disposition." 

Statement Analysis is the scientific study of deception detection. In advanced forms, content analysis and psycho-linguistic profiling, used to identify anonymous authors, relies upon the principles taught in detecting deception.  

I.              Linguistic Disposition 

The "linguistic disposition" is the perspective of a subject towards another (including crimes, persons, ideals, etc) in which the language is viewed against the context.

For Example:

When a child is reported kidnapped, we not only note linguistic commitment, that is, what "we must follow" in language, but the subject's disposition towards the victim, as expressed in language. 

Context:  A missing young child where the biological parent speaks can often reveal the truth before an investigation begins. This first "statement" can be the emergency call, or a public address. 

Contextual expectation: 'my child is missing and I want to facilitate the information to get her back' followed by linguistic concern for the victim. This means that the biological parent, physiologically created to protect and provide for the child (victim) will, based upon this unfulfilled need, express concern (frustration) for what the child is experiencing.  

At its basic, "Someone kidnapped my daughter and she needs her blankie..." 

This expresses, through words, a "positive linguistic disposition" towards the victim.  

It is expected.

Its absence is for a reason. 

Another oft cited example --

"When you know your house is being cased and you are waiting for the sheriff to call about your grandchild..."

This was a statement by the grandmother of a missing child, who turned the event into a 'common, universal' experience that most anyone could relate to.

She was deceptive. She knew that her house was not being cased (unless she was thinking of media) and that her grandchild was never coming home. Rather than directly lie (internal stress), she used psychological avoidance as well as the mitigation of guilt (from guilty knowledge) by employing a crowd (universal pronoun "you").  

Her son killed Baby Ayla. 

The "LD" towards the victim is "neutral", which in context of the victim's status; decidedly negative.

Learning the principles of linguistic disposition solves crimes and can clear the innocent from false accusations. 

Anonymous Threatening Letters are assessed in this manner. The Jussie Smollett threatening letter showed a "positive linguistic disposition towards the recipient."

In other words, the author of the anonymous threatening letter had a positive view towards the recipient (Smollett). The author had pity upon the recipient.  

The conclusion is that Jussie Smollett was the author and sent this to himself.  

It is human nature to not "hate on" one's self in hormonal consequence (importance, memorable) statements. 

Anonymous Authors often declare their identity in this matter. This is something taught and studied in advanced analysis. 

Pronouns are revelatory. 

"I learned a lot from another person, too.  A person who for more than 20 years has worked hard to help our children.  Paying the price of time to make sure our schools don't fail them... studying, learning, listening... Doing it all while building a distinguished legal career and being a wonderful loving mother. That person is my wife..."  

1992 Bill Clinton -- 

Calling his wife a "person" is associated with a more  asexual relationship between the husband and wife than loving intimacy.  Using "that person is my wife..." will tell us about the distance between the two; as "that" indicates distance rather than the closeness of "this." 

When taken together, it indicates a strong perception of the relationship as perceived by the subject.  

Purpose of Hearing 

In the hearings, opponents of Clarence Thomas sought to show him as "unfit" for the Supreme Court.  They brought forth Anita Hill, who had formerly worked for Judge Thomas.

The FBI investigated and found her statements to be inconsistent. 

Those close to Joe Biden said that he sought to protect her, but also knew she was lying. 

Can we know the truth?

Statement Analysis shines light; particularly as we see the linguistic disposition of each subject, to the other. 

Accusation: Thomas engaged in unwanted perverse sexual discussion. 

I. How did Anita Hill view Clarence Thomas? 

In Senate testimony, Anita Hill addressed  Thomas in the following pronouns:  "person", "individual" and "someone":

a.         "...I believe then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill advised. I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so..."

b.         "Well, I was really upset.  I felt that my job could be taken  away or it could be at least threatened, that I wasn't going to be able to work, that this person who had some power in the new administration would make it difficult for me in terms of other positions..."

c.         "...I was attempting to make an objective statement about the individual based on his record as a public figure, and I was not relying on my own private understanding and knowledge."
d.         "I did not say that he would be appropriate for the court,  Senator. I said that he would make a better judge. I didn't say that I would consider him the best person for the Supreme Court."

e.         "But at any rate, one of the things that I have said is that I intended--I hoped to keep a cordial professional relationship with that individual and so I did him the courtesy of driving him to the airport."

f.         "It seems to me that the behavior has to be evaluated on its own with regard to the fitness of this individual to act as an associate justice.  It seems to me that even if it does not rise to the level of sexual harassment, it is behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the court."

g.         "That was really embarrassing, because I thought--it even  personalized it more to the individual who I was looking at.  I mean, it's one thing to hear about something that someone has seen; but it's another thing to be face to face with an individual who is describing to you things that they have done.   And that was very embarrassing and offensive, and I did not like it.  I felt--it was just--it's hard for me to describe.  It just  made me feel very bad about the whole situation." 

h.         "Today I feel more angry about the situation. Having looked  at with hindsight, I think it was very irresponsible for an  individual in the position of a kind of authority as was Mr. Thomas at the time to engage in that kind of conduct..."

Here, always note questions made in an open statement: 

i.         "What we were talking about was process, what could happen along the way.  What were the possibilities?  Would there be a full hearing?  Would there be questioning from the FBI? Would there be a questioning by some individual members from the Senate?  We were not talking about or even speculating that simply alleging this would cause someone to withdraw."

j.       "...And so the choice to continue with the same person to another agency involved a belief that I had stopped the behavior that was offensive."

There are only three places in her  testimony in which  Hill used the word "man." 

We now have significant additional information by following and trusting in her language. 

        "...I had a normal social life with other men outside the office.  I believe then, as now, that having a social relationship with a person who was supervising my work would be ill advised.  I was very uncomfortable with the idea and told him so..."


What caused the word "men" to enter her language?  We submit to the language to allow the subject to guide us: 

The word "men" is used only in regard to "a normal social life".  

In the same context, Thomas is referred to as a "person."

The subject said she found it to "be ill advised" to have "a social relationship", which here the usage is as a  "person".

Understanding The Normal Factor: In word or context. 

In an open statement, we take careful note of the use of the word, "normal" or its portrayal to alert us to the contrary. It is the need of portrayal that we focus upon. 

As we view gender neutral versus gender specific pronouns, the word "normal" is used unnecessarily indicating that the subject has thought of self, at one time, as not normal, or that others may have thought of the subject as not normal, according to the perception of the subject. 

We find it also in theft statements, particularly company or work place theft. 

"It was a normal work schedule, you know,  just like any other...

The "Normal Factor" will cause even small school children to take note:

"Once upon a time, in a day like any other..." to which a 7 year old will recognize that information that is anything but ordinary is about to be introduced.

Sexual predators of children, rather than issue a reliable denial will either employ the word "normal" or the topic of "normal" with:

"I am a normal male!" or

"I am happily married man!" indicating potential guilt. 

The subject could have said, "I had a social life with other men outside the office".  However, she didn't have just "a social life".  She had "a normal social life".

Question: why did Professor Hill use the unnecessary label "normal" in regard to "social life"?  Is it possible that she might have "an abnormal social life"?

We are given further insight into this status from her own words. 

Context: By saying "I had a normal social life with other men outside the office" the subject acknowledged indirectly ("other") Thomas as a "man".

The word "other" is a dependent word, meaning that it relies upon another thought to be necessary.  Analysts and investigators are trained to flag all dependent words to explore what else is in mind. 

Here is more context for the analyst.  Did she believe she was being "sexually harassed" by Thomas? Her testimony was said to be incongruent or conflicting.  She addressed this in weakened commitment: 

"Well, I would suggest that saying that it is sexual harassment and raising a legal claim are two different things.  What I was trying to do when I provided information to you was not say to you I am claiming that this man sexually harassed me. What I was saying and what I state now is that this conduct took place."

We take careful contextual note that this is the only place in the entire testimony in which the subject labeled  Thomas as a "man". It is a negative context ("...was not to say...") elevating its importance. This change is very powerful. 

Contextually, the word "man" is in proximity to sex, and specifically to being "sexually harassed".

Hill also answered questions about John Doggett, who claimed that the subject was sexually interested in him in spite of him not being interested in her. Here, we listen for linguistic commitment (strength v weakness) and the pronoun usage.  

Will John Doggett be a "person, individual, someone" in her personal subjective dictionary? 

Or will he be a "man" which is gender specific? 

Would Hill deny the assertion by Doggett of some level of unwanted sexual interest?

"Well, I would only say that I'm not given to fantasy. This  is not something that I would have come forward with if I were not absolutely sure about what it is that I am saying.  I weighed this very carefully.  I considered it carefully, and I made a determination to come forward. I think it's unfortunate that that comment was made by a man who purports to be who says he knows me.  And I think it is just inaccurate."

The subject uses the word "man" in regard to John Doggett. 

Further context: the word "man" is used in proximity to "a normal social life...outside the office" or in proximity to someone whom the had interest in.  

This is insight into Hill's thinking; her linguistic disposition towards Doggett is, in context, also negative. This is consistent with her LD towards Thomas as "man" in the negative context. 

Yet, we continue to look for her linguistic disposition in gender neutral versus gender specific and we find her referencing others that we expect would be gender specific. 

   "At the time, in addition, I was dating someone--John Carr--and we discussed it because I was upset by it and I wanted to let him know why I was upset and again, just trying to see if there might be some way that he could handle this differently."

"Dating" produced "someone" and not "man".

 "I might add that at the time that I had had an active social life, and that I was involved with other people."

                               Change of Language 

Note she was not involved with other "men", but gender neutral "people.  Yet, she has given us more information:

Prior, "a normal social life" was with "men". In this place, the subject used "an active social life" which is connected with the gender neutral "other people".

The subject couldn't bring herself to say that she was involved with other "men" during this hearing. 

The two uses of gender specific "man" were contextually negative. 

Allegation:  Pornography and Bestiality 

Anita Hill made only weak commitment to being sexually harassed but did claim that Thomas told her of pornography and the sexual abuse of animals. 

Experiential Memory 

Pornography is a topic of "hormonal consequence" in Statement Analysis. 

There is a physiological difference between ordinary and extraordinary in hearing and brain processing. (Disassociation from trauma must be delineated from larger context and will have indicators to be noted). 

If I told you that I had a glass of water, you are not likely to have much reaction to it. We all drink water daily. It is of no significance to you, as the hearer, and processor of the audio communication. 

If I told you that you just won the mega millions Lottery, there would be a significant accompaniment of hormones in your brain's processing of this extraordinary information. 

A judge talking about sexual activity in the work place is a "memorable" event. When one adds in the sexual abuse of animals, it is a topic that will elicit a reaction, furthering the imprint of memory. 

We now listen for her accusation: the linguistic commitment with the expectation that something this extraordinary will flow easily because it is experiential memory; it is true that he said these things.

Statement analysis presupposes truth.  This is not a moral nor an ethical stance. It is a strategic position in lie detection. It causes us to have a "confrontation" with words we do not expect to hear.

Here is Hill on the allegation of pornography, including bestiality;

 "He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess."

Note the sentence includes both "large penises" and "large breasts" it seems as if the word "individuals" includes "men" and "women".  Note that the subject didn't use the word "man/men" in proximity to the word "penis".

She continued, this time with "penis" only, which we expect to be attached to a "man" in her language:

"This was a reference to an individual who had a very large penis.  And he used the name that he had been referred to in the pornographic material."

Incongruence in language in noted.

This is an indicator of deception

The language does not appear to come from experiential memory where hormonal consequence or attendance exists

She does not use "man" to "penis."

But what of the word "woman" or "women" in context? 

The word "woman/women" in the larger statement: 

  "...After a brief discussion of work, he would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters.  His conversations were very vivid.  He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals, and films showing group sex or rape scenes.  He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts.  On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess..."

Note the context of which "women" appears in her language: in a negative context ("...having sex with animals...") 

 "...On other occasions, he referred to the size of his own penis as being larger than normal and he also spoke on some occasions of the pleasures he had given to women with oral sex.  At this point, late 1982, I began to feel severe stress on the job..."

Here the context is women being pleasured by one with a "penis" (she used the pronoun "he" for Thomas here). 

 "I think the one that was the most embarrassing was his discussion of pornography involving these women with large breasts and engaged in a variety of sex with different people or animals.  That was the thing that embarrassed me the most and made me feel the most humiliated."

People can only tell us what they remember: 

 "I really cannot quote him verbatim. I can remember something like, you really ought to see these films that I've seen, or this material that I've seen.  This woman has this kind of breast, or breasts that measure this size.  And they've got here in there with all kinds of things, she's doing all kinds of different sex acts, and you know, that kind of--those were the kinds of words, where he expressed his enjoyment of it, and seemed to try to encourage me to enjoy that kind of  material as well."

"The most embarrassing aspect was his description of the acts of these individuals, these women, the acts that those particular people would engage in. It wasn't just the breasts.  It was the continuation of his story about what happened in those films with the people with this characteristic, physical characteristic."

In response to more lecturing/questioning: 

     "Then I have been misunderstood. It wasn't the physical characteristic of having large breasts. It was the description  of the acts that this person with this characteristic would do, the acts that they would engage in--group acts, acts with animals, things of that nature involving women."

The word "woman" is used in regard to "having sex with animals" , "oral sex" , "different sex acts" , "group acts" , "variety of sex with different people" .

This is an unusual and unexpected avoidance of the word "man" in her language.  As a victim of sexual harassment, or at least, sexual inappropriateness that included graphic pornography and the sexual abuse of animals, we expect experiential memory to be in play with a direct linguistic connection to that which upset her most. 

Remember: she is testifying about Clarence Thomas and the topic is sex. 

She said about her life: 

"I was reared in a religious atmosphere in the Baptist faith, and I have been a member of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, since 1983.  It is a very warm part of my life at the present time."

 "At the present time" means that there was a time in the subject's life in which the Antioch Baptist Church was not "a very warm part" of her life.  

Question: Who would feel that the church is not a very warm part of his life?  

Answer: Someone who perceives herself as a sinner.

This gives us further insight into what may have happened between Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. 

We continue to listen for two things: 

What did Clarence Thomas say to the allegation of pornography?
What was Clarence Thomas' linguistic disposition towards Anita Hill?

The Denial:

We do not have the original denial given during the FBI investigation but a denial that we expect to be inflated due to the accusations from politicians. There were several, with this being Reliable, but a another unreliable:

"I did not discuss any pornographic material or pornographic preferences or pornographic films with Professor Hill."

Regarding the allegation of pornography, Thomas gives a "Reliable Denial" and uses appropriate distancing language from "Professor Hill" in what he contextualizes as a false allegation. 

But did they discuss sex?

To this he later gave another denial, yet even with inflation likely due to the ongoing allegations (see Kavanaugh denial), we may have better insight to the truth: 

"Senator, I would like to start by saying unequivocally, uncategorically, that I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her."

This is an unreliable denial, which is likely contaminated by context.  The allegation is plural, which makes it difficult, though the subject addresses each portion:

a. sexual nature conversations 
b. pornographic material 
c. attempted to date her
d. personal sexual interest in her 
e. harassed her 

With the allegation of pornographic material being discussed we can come to a conclusion:

Anita Hill used incongruent language indicating she was not speaking from experiential memory and Clarence Thomas issued a Reliable Denial. The latter is 90% likely, yet this increases due to the weakness of the allegation. 

Linguistic Disposition:

Anita Hill addressed Clarence Thomas with formal propriety which suggests a good relationship.  "Judge Thomas" or "Clarence Thomas" became "Thomas" when the topic of sex was in context. This is a linguistic downgrade that indicates that when sex was discussed, she no longer viewed him favorably. 

Clarence Thomas addressed Anita Hill in a positive linguistic disposition for the most part with the exception being where (contextually) she became the accuser. 

Fascinating point: 

He was remarkably consistent with her being a "person" and not a "woman."  

For Hill,  the word "man" is used in  "normal social life...outside the office".

The word "people" is used in  "active social life" and being "involved" with. 

         "Dating" is in proximity to "someone" and not to a "man".

       The word "penis" did not come in proximity to the word "man/men".  Instead, the word "individual" was used.

   Another most unusual element where many words are used and the topic is sex:

Anita Hill didn't label herself as a "woman" or "female".

 Thomas used the word "woman/ women" or "female" often. At times, we see the defensive posture expected under constant accusation, including asking the committee to interview the women who had clerked for him or who had worked with him. 

 "As a boss, as a friend, and as a human being I was proud that I have never had such an allegation leveled against me, even as I sought to promote women and minorities into non-traditional jobs.  In addition, several of my friends who are women have confided in me about the horror of harassment, on the job or elsewhere." 

 "And to my fullest knowledge, she did not speak to any other women working with or around me, who would feel comfortable enough to raise it with me, especially Diane Holt, to whom she seemed closest on my personal staff."

  "I have worked with hundreds of women in different capacities.  I have promoted and mentored dozens.  I will put my record against any member of this committee in promoting and mentoring women."

 "I have hundreds of women who've worked with me, dozens who've worked closely with me on my personal staff--you can call them.  You can bring them up, give them as much air time as you've given this one, one, person, with uncorroborated, scurrilous lies and allegations.  Give them as much time, see what they say."

"I attempted to conduct myself in a way with my staff so that there were no jokes that I would listen to or tell to men that I could not listen to or tell to women."

This was not what he "did", but what he "attempted" which suggests less than complete success. 

 " attitude was, in my work environment: my staffs were almost invariably predominantly women.  The senior person on my staff was a woman."

More responses (without the politicians' words) for consideration. Deeper analysis must include the politicians lecture/questions. 

This is only for the LD: 

Anita Hill as a "person" 

       "...When informed by the FBI agent of  the nature of the allegations, and the person making them, I was shocked, surprised, hurt, and enormously saddened. I have not  been the same since that day...

     "...It was sapped out of me because Anita Hill was a person I  considered a friend, whom I admired and thought I had treated fairly and with the utmost respect.  Perhaps I could have been--better weathered this if it was from someone else.  But here was someone I truly felt I had done my best with."

 "Give them as much time as you have given one person, the only person who's been on my staff who's ever made these sorts of allegations about me."

Note verb tense--

"Again, Anita Hill was someone that I respected and was cordial toward and felt positive toward and hopeful for her career, and I may have on occasion, and I can't remember any specific occasion, picked up the phone just to see how she was doing."

   "...when the FBI informed me of the--of the person, first, there was shock, dismay, hurt, pain, and when he informed me of the nature of the allegations, I was surprised, disbelief, and again, hurt... As I said in my statement this morning, that when you have allegations of this nature by someone that you think--have thought the world of, and felt that you've done the best for, it is an enormously painful experience..."

In his language, she continues to be "de-sexed"

    "You can bring them up, give them as much air time as you've  given this one, one, person, with uncorroborated, scurrilous  lies and allegations.  Give them as much time, see what they say."

      "I would say that she was a bright person, a capable person.  "Meek" is not something, a characterization that I would remember."

   "she was a good debater.  She fought for her position.  I don't remember her as being someone who was a pushover."

We note some weak assertion as well as the "rule of the negative" elevating importance.

       " indicated that she was meek, and suggesting that she was not an aggressive, strong person.  I remember Anita as aggressive, strong and forceful in advocating the positions that she stood for..."

  These are responses to lengthy declarations by the politicians followed by questions or challenges. The entire transcript must be consulted for deeper analysis; 

      "That's what I asked the FBI agent, I believe, the first  time. That's what I've asked myself.  How do I defend myself?  If I used that kind of grotesque with one person, it would seem to me that there would be traces of it throughout the employees who worked closely with me."

There is only one place throughout Thomas' testimony in which he used the label "woman" with Hill and it is in the negative:  

"That is not as I remember Anita.  Anita is--I can say that, and you can ask others who visit her; Anita would not have been considered a meek woman. (here the assertion is strengthened)  She was an aggressive debater.  She stood her ground.  When she got her dander up, she would storm off.  I would say that she was a bright person, a capable person. "Meek" is not something, a characterization that I would remember."

The only time in which "woman" was used for Hill and was in context with "meek", and in the negative. 

For all others, Thomas used "woman" or "women" in his testimony including female workers, associates and friends. Every one was a "female" except Anita Hill.  He is giving us insight into how he viewed her.

   Anita Hill moved back and forth with her claim, appearing to indicate a struggle between truth, deception, her status as a lawyer, and her status as a person: 

     "Today I feel more angry about the situation. Having looked at with hindsight, I think it was very irresponsible for an individual in the position of a kind of authority as was Mr. Thomas at the time to engage in that kind of conduct. It was not only irresponsible, in my opinion; it was in violation of the law."

This may be the "trigger" of humiliation that analysts look for. 

Thomas referred to  Hill in the following ways:

  "The first I learned of the allegations by Professor Anita Hill was on September 25th, 1991 when the FBI came to my home to investigate her allegations."

Thomas stayed to the legal: 

  "I cannot imagine anything that I said or did to Anita Hill that could have been mistaken for sexual harassment.  But with that said, if there is anything that I have said that has been misconstrued by Anita Hill or anyone else to be sexual harassment..."

  "But I have not said or done the things that Anita Hill has  alleged."

Her Truth?

Lawyers know better than to attempt to make truth subjective, (1991) though this is today "politically correct"; it was not in the 90's. 

The assertion of "my truth" perverts justice for all. 

To infer that she did not volunteer but was asked may be a shifting of responsibility. In one exchange she responded with something that indicates deception in awareness of the law and what took place in "conversation" (two way) between them: 

 "Well, Senator, I would suggest to you that for me these are more than mere allegations, so that if that comment were made, these are the truth to me.  These comments are the truth to me.  And if it were made, then I may not respond to it in the same way that you do."

Analysis Conclusion:

Clarence Thomas did not sexually harass Anita Hill. 
Thomas was likely deceptive about having no conversations of sex with her. 

Anita Hill was deceptive about pornography and bestiality. 

They likely discussed sexuality and I believe under a specific context, and as friends.  

I believe Clarence Thomas' original denial (reliable) about pornography.  It is short and direct. 

Regarding his longer unreliable denial regarding conversation with Anita Hill is because he was likely deceptive in part here. 

An "Unreliable Denial" does not equate with deception. It is sometimes deceptive while other times we need more information and the subject may be telling the truth.  It is in the change that makes it difficult to discern, especially with the constant barrage of accusations from politicians with an agenda that likely had nothing to do with getting to the truth. 

Both used the word "conversation" regarding discussion of sex. 

I believe they both have given us, via the Linguistic Disposition and the use of pronouns, insight into what they discussed. 

Sex and Religion 

I believe that Thomas, a Roman Catholic, and Hill, a Baptist, discussed their respective ideologies and the teachings on human sexuality.  

Both Roman Catholicism and the Baptist faith teaches that homosexuality is a sin. 

Both Thomas and Hill were lawyers, intellects and strong personalities. These conversations may have been friendly debates (note the inclusion in the language of both words, "conversation" and "debate.") 

Anita Hill's language is consistent with one who was engaged in a homosexual relationship which caused her inner conflict with her conscience as a Baptist. 

I believe that they were friends, but these conversations (if there were more than one) were a source of personal discomfort to her (as she grappled with Christian ideology) and humiliation, and was the impetus for her to testify falsely against him. 

Here, Thomas allows for some discussion that could have been misconstrued. This should be taken in context of the Unreliable Denial:

"...if there is anything that I have said that has been misconstrued by Anita Hill or anyone else to be sexual harassment, then I can say that I am so very sorry and I wish I had known.  If I did know, I would have stopped immediately and I would not, as I've done over the past two weeks, had to tear away at myself trying to think of what I could possibly have done."

He allowed for discussion and would have even stopped it is there was discomfort. By the words "anyone else", he allows for the topic of sex to have been discussed with others. Hence he is deceptive about conversations they held. 

The Linguistic Disposition is fascinating. It appears to be from two people who respected each other, but that the disagreement between ideology (Statement Analysis classifies religion for its ideology) and the attempt to persuade Hill regarding heterosexuality. 


Thomas' acute avoidance of her gender strongly indicates that he perceived her as a lesbian. He likely approached debate with her on the basis of religion (ideology) but also nature and, I believe, personal experience.  

I don't think he pursued her sexually.  His language shows that he perceived her a non sexual. 

The disagreement likely bruised Hill personally, compounding her religious conflict and was likely the impetus to betray him.  We do not underestimate the element of humiliation within a human.  In criminal analysis, we look for it as the number one trigger of many crimes.

Crimes even of temptation that may have been resisted, can go forward if one is humiliated. It is a "justification" in the language that is to be identified and analyzed. 

Hill knew this was not the legal definition of sexual harassment, yet forward with a smear campaign against Thomas.  She likely experienced conflicting emotions because she  testified against him knowing he was, as a constitutional jurist, appropriate for the position. There are many quotes which show the positive linguistic disposition and there is testimony of others gathered in the investigation. 

Readers must consider these as "conversations" from the perception of both subjects, and not from the politically correct sensitivities of 2019 culture. 

Thomas was strong in denying the pornography, but not discussions  of sex and likely religion that were likely, at times, debates.  Recall Hill's introduction of religion as part of her life.  This is similar to the "Deity" factor in which guilty will cause one to attempt to portray self as some form of a standing of righteousness. Thomas does this with portrayal of championing women in the work place. 

Anita Hill does show some signals of psychological issue with males in general, likely from childhood (extremity of pronoun avoidance) as it is unusual to see one diligently avoid using gender specific where no deception is needed for self preservation or to serve a cause. 

A subject speaking freely will not pause and think to herself, "Hmm. Should I use the word 'man' here, or should I use the word 'individual'?

This is an immediate processing of the brain to the tongue. There is no pause for reflection, which increases our accuracy in analysis. 

They were once professional colleagues and friends. 

As a Baptist, Anita Hill likely resented the conflict between life and ideology, and this may have been the only negative aspect between them. 

 For her, however, it was enough to bring her to attempt to stop his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Analysts are taught to never underestimate the strength of humiliation. Thomas may not have sought to humiliate her, but his position as a Roman Catholic may have been plain and articulate and placed her in opposition to her own  religious beliefs. This would also, to an articulate lawyer, increase her frustration. 

The Linguistic Disposition reveals that the betrayal of friendship was recognized by Thomas and his descriptions of his reaction to the FBI indicate that she returned the humiliation. 

With human nature evident in language, analysts are not often given the luxury of "good guy versus bad guy" status. 

There is deception in both subjects. Anita Hill brought false allegations against Thomas, very likely for personal revenge, knowing that she was not meeting the definition of sexual harassment. 

To study deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services


General P. Malaise said...

Thank you Peter, this is a great insight into the power of advanced Statement Analysis.

Anonymous said...

What a delicious mental feast of analysis. Wow.

Anonymous said...

Peter, would you take a look at these 911 calls from a cold murder in St Paul. Unusually, both the wife who was murdered and the husband who is still a suspect called 911.

Alert said...

Alert: Off Topic: Bubonic plague spreads in Mongolia from a couple who ate raw marmot liver

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It's fascinating (and I think, telling) that Anita Hill yielded the "same weapon" against Clarence Thomas that she perceived he was using against her in conversations/debates regarding religion and sex. It seems sort of like overkill or accidentally announcing/spotlighting her own personal issues, in what was intended to be "exposing" him.

Nadine Lumley said...

Freaking amazing and fascinating. This is a barn burner fer sure.


Maria said...

There is still something that bothers me though.

"As a boss, as a friend, and as a human being I was proud that I have never had such an allegation leveled against me"

Why would he be proud? I think it is very strange to mention pride right here. If he is a man that does not harass women, it should be a given that no allegations were made against him - so why does the lack of allegations spark pride in him?

"I have hundreds of women who've worked with me, dozens who've worked closely with me on my personal staff--you can call them. You can bring them up, give them as much air time as you've given this one, one, person, with uncorroborated, scurrilous lies and allegations. Give them as much time, see what they say."

I think the anger is alarming. Why is he angry? If you are innocent you are calm because you know that you have nothing to be afraid of. I think he is angry because he is afraid. Also, I think it is strange that he says "I have hundredes of women who've worked with me" and not "I have hundreds of women who've I have worked with". Furthermore it is irrelevant to mention that this allegation comes from a single person. Perhaps he did not harass hundreds of other women, but that dosen't mean he couldn't have harassed one.

Perhaps this is overinterpretation.

Trigger said...

I think that Anita Hill had issues that had nothing to do with Clarence Thomas' pending appointment to the Supreme Court.

Her statements seemed to be scripted to support the idea that Clarence Thomas was the text book pervert. It is similar to the scripted statements that Jussie Smolett's that supported the idea that white Trump supporters were text book racists.

Kitt said...

Off-topic. THREE men? And they released dad and son but kept stepdaughter?


Habundia said...

The father's story seems off
3-the liars number

Habundia said...

oh I see you already posted the same article, didn't notice before

Phoenix1966 said...

An additional article with more details regarding the abducted girl. The step-father blacked out for 24 hours, the mother was picked up by her mother at the airport when he was a no show and she did not report missing child. The little girl has had brain surgery in the last two months. Maternal grandmother said “If someone took her” “if someone hurt her” and spoke about her in the past tense (“she was...)”

The car the step-father was driving belonged to the maternal grandmother and was spotted on some camera Saturday afternoon before the step-father “came to”.

This story is so absurd it would be funny if it wasn’t for the sad fact that girl is probably dad.

Kurt said...

"If anybody hurt my grandchild or they took my grandchild, I want them to be punished the way they are supposed to be because she was the sweetest little girl," said Bowens. "I miss her terribly."

Sounds like grandma is very angry with Mr. Vence.

Anonymous said...

"If anybody hurt my grandchild or they took my grandchild, I want them to be punished the way they are supposed to be because she was the sweetest little girl," said Bowens. "I miss her terribly."

Sounds like Grandma doesn't hold out any hope


Maria said...

The step-father reported that one of the men said: "Maleah looks very nice, looks very sweet,'".
How did he know her name?

And why did the three men allegedly drive around with the step-father and the toddler? The most logical thing would have been to just take the girl and drive away as fast as possible. It makes no sense at all.

Btw; do we know if the toddler is the biological child of the father?

Anonymous said...

Maleah Davis Amber Alert: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know


Anonymous said...

Is the stepfathers bruises where someone would hit him from outside a car? It looks more like as if he had smashed his head against the windshield. Did he have an accident that fatally injured Maleah?

Kit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Maleah's mother, Brittany Bowens, spoke exclusively to ABC13 on Monday, saying that she's terrified for her daughter.

"My spirit is so broken, I feel so lost. I can't concentrate, I can't focus. It's so overwhelming for me. It doesn't seem real," Bowens said tearfully.

RAW VIDEO: 'I'm terrified for Maleah' Mom of missing girl speaks to ABC13
Ad Duration00:00


Habundia said...

he is called 'step-father', so no biological parent I would think

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

A 4-year-old Houston girl who recently underwent brain surgery and who requires frequent medical care was reportedly abducted by a trio of men who beat her stepfather unconscious before absconding with the child.

Authorities in the nation's fourth-largest city were desperately searching Monday for Maleah Davis, who was last seen Friday with her stepfather, Darion Vence. Vence told authorities he was in and out of consciousness for nearly 24 hours after being beaten by three men who later abducted the child.

The Houston Police Department said an Amber Alert was issued Sunday for Davis, who had brain surgery within the past two months.

Vence and his 2-year-old son were on the way to pick up Maleah's mother at Bush Intercontinental Airport at about 9 p.m. when Vence pulled over on U.S. 59 after experiencing what he believed to be an automotive issue, HPD Detective Mark Holbrook said.

"He hears a popping noise like he has a flat tire," Holbrook told reporters.

But Vence told police he was soon approached by three men who got out of a 2010 blue Chevrolet crew cab pickup truck.

"One of them makes a comment saying that Maleah looks very nice, looks very sweet," Holbrook said.

Vence then said he was hit on the head by one of the men and lost consciousness as the men took Maleah and drove off. Vence said he didn't really know where he was until 6 p.m. on Saturday, when he said he woke up along the side of another highway with his son, according to ABC13.

The vehicle that Vence was driving, a 2011 Nissan Altima, was also reportedly stolen by the alleged abductors. The vehicle was last seen driving through an intersection in Sugar Land, Texas at about 3 p.m. Saturday, ABC13 reported.

After coming to and wandering along a highway, police said Vence went to the hospital Saturday night and reported Maleah missing while he sought treatment for his injuries.

The Houston Police Department released a photo of Vence's father on Twitter that showed an injury to his forehead.

Authorities are not considering Vence a suspect or person of interest in Maleah's disappearance, according to The Houston Chronicle.

"I realize there's a lot of blanks in that story, but we're hoping that the public fill in the blanks," Holbrook told reporters.

The girl's mother told ABC13 she was waiting for Vence at the airport but did not initially report him, his son or her daughter missing when the trio failed to show up. After getting another family member to pick her up, Maleah's mother told the television station they called police Saturday morning to file a report after Vence still remained unaccounted for.

Maleah is described by police as having black hair and brown eyes, according to FOX26. She is approximately 3-feet tall and weighs 30-40 pounds, and was last seen wearing a light blue Under Armor jacket, blue jeans and a gray Under Armor tennis shoes with pink and white details.

Detectives are asking anyone who saw Darion or Maleah between 9 p.m. on Friday and 6 p.m. on Saturday to contact HPD Homicide 713-308-3600 or Crime Stoppers at 713-222-TIPS.

Tania Cadogan said...

Vence told authorities he was in and out of consciousness for nearly 24 hours after being beaten by three men who later abducted the child.

For a man allegedly beaten up by 3 men leaving him in and out of consciousness for almost 24 hours, he looks remarkably unmarked.

I would expect a serious amount of bruising on his face, black eyes, damage to his nose, cuts, bruises, blood clots. I would also expect bruising and cuts to his body.
I would be interested to see what his body looks like.

This story is definitely off, to be battered enough to cause unconsciousness for almost 24 hours would be extremely traumatic, i would expect to see memory loss even prior to the beating.
I would be expecting to hear more concern for his missing daughter, calling out to her, telling her he loves her and is looking for her.
I would be expecting to hear appeals to the alleged abductors to leave her unharmed and safe somewhere.

I would also be looking into his background, criminality or gang membership.
Drugs perhaps?

Are the family known to CPS or LE?
Vence then said he was hit on the head by one of the men and lost consciousness as the men took Maleah and drove off. Vence said he didn't really know where he was until 6 p.m. on Saturday, when he said he woke up along the side of another highway with his son, according to ABC13.

How did his 2 year old son manage if his dad was allegedly in and out of consciousness?
How come no one on said highway stopped on seeing someone lying on the ground and a toddler being present?

Is he the bio dad?
Given her complex medical needs why is he not calling out to her alleged abductors telling them her medical needs?

Are there medical bills?
How much are we looking at for her treatment?
How are they being paid?
Is he insured?
Have they started a go fund me for medical treatment for his daughter or for any other reason?
Have they had anyone talk to the 2 year old son to see what he saw/remembers?

When was Maleah last seen by an independent witness?
How was the father and son transported to the location he claims he originally woke up at?

If the 3 men allegedly abducted his daughter and stole his car, why would they move him to a different highway and dump him?
Surely they would have simply got them out the car, beat him up and then steal the car and his daughter.
Why his daughter and not his son as well?

Is the boy his bio son?

Why would 3 strange men pull over ostensibly to perhaps help him if he was changing a tire and then steal his vehicle with the possibly flat tire as described by the father.
They would have to change the tire first before stealing it.
If he was in stead hearing gunshots, why would they be shooting at him?
We aren't told he has a flat tire only that he believed he had an automotive issue after hearing popping sounds like a flat tire.

I will not be surprised if his story is deceptive and there weren't 3 men who abducted his daughter.
There is definitely something fishy going on here.

Habundia said...

why do people keep asking if he's the biological dad?

a STEP FATHER never is biological as far my knowledge goes at least

Tania Cadogan said...

Habundia said...

why do people keep asking if he's the biological dad?

a STEP FATHER never is biological as far my knowledge goes at least

Hi Habundia, my oops, i missed the step bit.

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

Mother of 4-year-old child who is the subject of an Amber Alert speaks to KHOU 11 about the disappearance of Maleah Davis. WHAT WE KNOW:

"Maleah is a sweet girl, she loves to dance, she's always happy, she's very helpful, she's full of life, she has a beautiful spirit..."

She's very reluctant to do an appeal. She does not want to answer questions. There is no plea to her "kidnappers". Again she shows no concern for her welfare. WHY!

John Mc Gowan said...

This interview is more than likely edited and contaminated.

This answer, however, i didn't not expect.

The intense search now in its fourth day. We're now hearing from the little girl's mother, who said she just wants her home.

"It's like a nightmare. It just keeps going and going," said Brittany Bowens, Maleah's mother. She said she is distraught over her daughter's disappearance.

"What would you say to your daughter right now?" CBS News' Janet Shamlian asked.

"That mommy loves you," Bowens said, crying. "And I'm sorry this had to happen to you."

Habundia said...

Tania....that explains.
Though it's a good lesson too I think
it can help us reminding SA is about reading every single word carefully (I often find myself in the same position thinking....why did I miss that word?
That's why I love this blog. You can learn from and with others.

Nadine Lumley said...

I read an article once that was mocking the way Hollywood movies depict people becoming unconscious for days after getting hit on their head.

Apparently you only check out for a few minutes.


Habundia said...

OT Maddie McCann