Friday, November 1, 2019

James Clapper on CNN




Analysis by Luke  Kukovica

AC;  Director Clapper as the man who was there and oversaw the launch of the Russia investigation, what do you make of this?
CLAPPER; Well, I should uh I uh very curious as I I presumably I guess I am one of those uh  under investigation .. and I I … 
AC; and you just heard about it?
CLAPPER; Yes I just uh uh I read the clip on uhh about twenty minutes ago umm mm I found the the timing interesting uh given the uh increasing heat uh around the impeachment inquiry and so uh it it uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that. And the other thing I I wonder about is whether what we are talking about is the overall investigation of the Russian … the reporting on the Russian interference or are we talking about the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in July by the by the FBI by the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign. So I  … (interrupted) I very curious as to what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this. 
AC; Do you have any idea even what they might think might rise to the level of criminal offense. 
CLAPPER; No, I don’t. uh that’s uh uh obviously an item of great interest to me. uh What is it uh that any of  us did that uh that would rise to the level of uh a criminal infraction uh I I just don’t know.
Jeffery  (other guest) speaking
CLAPPER; No, I uh if I might add to uh what Jeffery just said uh  just make the point that uh that had absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in un January of 2017 and briefed to president elect Trump and his team in Trump Tower on January 6th uh so that uh those again are separate things and uh uh that is a really farfetched uhh theory in my view that that somehow uh Mishud was set up by the FBI to create this uh uh conspiracy that uh you know that he was trying to generate the impression that the Russians  uh were in were in cahoots … unintelligible 

AC;  Director Clapper as the man who was there and oversaw the launch of the Russia investigation, what do you make of this?
CLAPPER; Well, I should uh I uh very curious as I I presumably I guess I am one of those uh  under investigation .. and I I … 
  1. The subject begins with a verbal pause employing the word “well” this allows him time to prepare an answer. It indicates he has a need to give a carefully worded answer and can not or does not want to answer with clear truthful language.
  2. Right after the verbal pause, he begins “I should …” then self-censors and stops this line of response. This leaves the listener with a question, “what should he …?”
  3. Following the self-censoring he pauses, “uh” uses the personal pronoun “I” indicating what ever he is thinking it is close as in personal to himself. Followed by “uh very curious” and then stutters on the personal pronoun “I” repeating it indicating stress relating to the topic. “uh very curious” the qualifier “very” weakens the assertion that he is “curious”.
  4. “… as I I presumably I guess I am one of those …” the subject then gives the reason why he is “very curious”. This is punctuated by two indicators of weakness, the word “presumably” and the word “guess”. The sensitivity of this is buttressed by the stuttering on the personal pronoun “I” and the added impact of “I, I presumably” “I guess” and “I am …”. Even as he distances himself with “presumably” and “guess” he indicates that there is fire in the smoke with the words “I am …” He does not say “others say” or “reports say” he is pointing the finger at himself.  
  5. “I am one of those uh under investigation ... and I I … “.  The subject brings in others to share his situation with the words “one of those” indicating knowledge of others.  The pause, “uh” between “those” and “under investigation” indicates he needs to weigh his words and will not or can not speak freely. He indicates for withholding information in this short line. 
  6. “... and I I … “.  The subject had planned to say something more and stuttered on the pronoun “I” which could be self-censoring. The repeated stumbling on the personal pronoun indicates the subject is likely stressed by the topic. Unfortunately, the interviewer interrupted the subject. 

AC; and you just heard about it?
  1. The interviewer asks a question which requires only a yes or no answer. 
CLAPPER; Yes I just uh uh I read the clip on uhh about twenty minutes ago umm mm I found the the timing interesting uh given the uh increasing heat uh around the impeachment inquiry and so uh it it uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that. And the other thing I I wonder about is whether what we are talking about is the overall investigation of the Russian …(pause) the reporting on the Russian interference or are we talking about the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in July by the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign. So I  …  I am very curious as to what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this. 
  1. “yes” is a sufficient answer. Given that the question required only a yes or no any words after indicate sensitivity of the question to the subject. 
  2. The question should not be expected to be overly sensitive to someone yet the subject speaks at length. After saying “yes” he says “I just uh uh read the clip on uhh …” the word “just” is a comparative word indicating the subject is comparing his answer to at least one other thing in his mind. He then pauses, indicating he needs time to form his reply. Truthful people do not need to think about what they intend to say, they simply say it. “read the clip on uh twenty minutes ago …”  Why does he say “read the clip on uh twenty minutes ago …”? Note he pauses midpoint self-censors and adds “twenty minutes ago”. Note he self-censored at the point of telling us where he read “the clip”. The subject also used the article “the” for “the clip” indicating the clip is a known item to the interviewer otherwise one would expect the article “a” clip
  3. umm mm I found the the timing interesting uh given the uh increasing heat uh around the impeachment inquiry and so uh it it uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that.” Why does the subject use the word“found” in “found the timing”? Was he looking for it?  Note also, he does not say, "I find the timing interesting" even though impeachment inquiry is going on when this interview took place. Did the subject have prior notice that he was the subject of a criminal investigation? Or is he referring to something just 20 minutes ago?
  4. “… umm mm I found the the timing interesting uh given the uh increasing heat uh around the impeachment inquiry and so uh it it uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that.” Is this his talking point? To connect the “timing” to the “impeachment inquiry”? The words “timing” and “interesting” are repeated. Repeated words or phrases indicate increased importance and/or sensitivity to the subject. The unnecessary qualifier “increasing” is present tense. This supports the possibility these are prepared talking points.
  5. “… uh the timing it’s interesting and I’ll just let it go at that.” The subject wants this to be the last or only words on the subject with his saying “and I’ll just let it go at that.” The subject appears to want to link the impeachment inquiry as to him being placed under scrutiny
    (targeted).
     
  6. “And the other thing I I wonder about is whether what we are talking about is the overall investigation of the Russian …(pause) the reporting on the Russian interference or are we talking about the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in July by the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign. So I … (interrupted) I am very curious as to what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this.” The subject begins a sentence with “and” which often indicates missing information between the word and what preceded it. Could it also be the subject remembering his “other” talking point? 
  7. “And the other thing I I wonder about …” Again, we see the subject use the article “the” preceding the word“other”, indicating that “the other thing” is known to both the interviewer and the subject. Expected would be “another thing” in place of “the other thing”. Was this a prepared Q&A between the interviewer and the subject?  
  8. “And the other thing I I wonder about …” The subject stutters on the pronoun “I” indicating the topic is sensitive and possibly stressful to the subject. 
  9. “… whether what we are talking about is the overall investigation of the Russian …(pause) the reporting on the Russian interference …” This is significant as the subject self-censors and then corrects himself. He changes “overall investigation of Russian” to reporting of the Russian interference”. This indicates that he cannot bring himself to say there was interference and limits it to “reporting”. This allows him to maintain the narrative without outright lying. This is what deception looks like. 
  10. “… or are we talking about the counter intelligence investigation that was launched in July by the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign.” Note the subject is separating the two, the “reporting of Russian interference” and “the counter intelligence investigation”. In his separation he brings them together with his words “overall investigation” linguistically linking the “counter intelligence investigation” as part of the “overall investigation of Russian (pause/self-censor …” reporting on the Russian investigation”). 
  11. “… that was launched in July by the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign.” Note, the subject gives us a time period for the FBI counter intelligence as being “that was launched in July” but not the year. If it was before Trump was elected it would mean 2016, if after Trump was president it would be 2017. Both of these dates would become problematic. 2016 would mean they (Clapper and the Obama administration) allowed Russian interference and 2017 because the FBI was answerable to president Trump making it treason. 
  12. “… the by the FBI uh about the potential uh engagement or collusion whatever you want to call it by Russians an and the Trump campaign.” The subject continues to use passive language, “potential”, “engagement” or “collusion” “whatever you want to call it”. The subject is unable to call it clearly, or in plain language and allows “you” to call it “whatever you want”. This indicates that he does not have conviction in it himself. If he as the one, per the interviewer’s quote, “who was there and oversaw the launch of the Russia investigation” will not define it, then this indicates that he knows it is a false narrativeThis passive language shows a lack of conviction to the narrative. 
  13. “So I  … (interrupted)  I am very curious as to what is the alleged criminal activity that prompted this.” The subject begins “so I …” then talks through a question from the interviewer. The subject adds the qualifier “very” to “curious” weakening his commitment to the assertion that he is “curious”. Talking through the interviewer’s question indicates the need to persuade that he doesn’t know what the “alleged criminal activity” is. His need to persuade is an indication of the opposite. Consider that he is aware of the “alleged criminal activity”. 
  14. “… that prompted this.” These words are unnecessary and incongruent, expected would be “what is the alleged criminal activity” and no more. This also breaks the law of economy which states a person will use the fewest words to convey a coherent message. The word “this” indicates a linguistic closeness to the subject where “this” is close and “that” is distance. 

AC; Do you have any idea even what they might think might rise to the level of criminal offense. 
CLAPPER; No, I don’t. uh that’s uh uh obviously an item of great interest to me. uh What is it uh that any of us did that uh that would rise to the level of uh a criminal infraction uh I I just don’t know.
  1. “No, I don’t.” is sufficient to answer the question, simply “no” would be enough. “I don’t” adds a small element of need to persuade. After these words any other words work to weaken the assertion and indicate sensitivity to the original yes or no question. 
  2. “uh that’s uh uh obviously an item of great interest to me.” The subject indicates sensitivity with numerous pauses and self-censoring. He then uses the word “obviously” a word often used to stifle debate, as to assert without question.  There is little doubt that it is of interest to him. He adds the qualifier “great” to “interest”. 
  3. “uh What is it uh that any of us did that uh that would rise to the level of uh a criminal infraction uh I I just don’t know.” The subject brings the crowd back into his language with the words “what is it uh that any of us did …” This indicates he does not want to be alone in this issue and it also tells us others are involved with him. NOTE, he has not denied any “criminal activity” or “infraction”. It may also indicate the defense strategy, “rise to the level of uh criminal infraction”. Will he/they try to minimize the event? Will they claim it doesn’t “rise to the level”? 
  4. “… to the level of uh a criminal infraction …” Note the change in language, earlier the subject used the term “criminal activity” here he uses “criminal infraction” a lesser sounding term. His own language indicates guilt by demurring to say “that would rise to criminal infraction”. It is akin to saying he/they did something but to “rise to the level of criminal infraction” is the question. It is using a subjective argument we often see in guilty people. 
  5. “… that would rise to the level of uh a criminal infraction uh I I just don’t know.” The subject then tells us he is not buying his own argument with “I just don’t know.” The comparative word “just” signifies he is thinking of at least one other thing in context to “not knowing”. An innocent person would not use a subjective argument and would know clearly that they were innocent. The stuttering on the personal pronoun “I” supports that he is stressed and willing to allow a different “level/rise” in regards to “criminal infraction”. 

Jeffery  (other guest) speaking
CLAPPER; No, I uh if I might add to uh what Jeffery just said uh  just make the point that uh that had absolutelynothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in un January of 2017 and briefed to president elect Trump and his team in Trump Tower on January 6th uh so that uh those again are separate things and uh uh that is a really farfetched uhh theory in my view that that somehow uh Mifsud was set up by the FBI to create this uh uh conspiracy that uh you know that he was trying to generate the impression that the Russians  uh were in were in cahoots  … unintelligible …
  1. The subject interrupts the other guest to add these comments refuting the other guest. 
  2. This refuting of the other guest shows a sensitivity to the subject as the guest appears to counter the narrative of the subject. 
  3. “… just make the point that uh that had absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in un January of 2017 and briefed to president elect Trump and his team in Trump Tower on January 6th…”  Note, the subject gives a specific date “January 2017” and a specific location, “Trump Towers” and it includes a specific person, then president elect “Trump”. This may indicate how coordinated the effort made by the intelligence community was. It also indicates planning on the part of the intelligence community. Does it indicate a setup of the incoming administration? 
  4. “… that uh that had absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence community assessment that was done in un January of 2017…” The subject is distancing what the guest said from the “intelligence community assessment that was done in January 2017 …” The guest had not alluded to the “intelligence community assessment” but the launching of the investigation. Does this bring into question the official timeline and the need for the subject to refute it? Did the “counter intelligence investigation” timeline conflict with what was said during the “intelligence community assessment” that was presented to “Trump”? The addition of the qualifier “absolutely” is a need to persuade. A need to persuade is often an indication of the opposite. 
  5. “… uh so that uh those again are separate things and uh uh that is a really farfetched uhh theory in my view that that somehow uh Mifsud was set up by the FBI to create this uh uh conspiracy that uh you know that he was trying to generate the impression that the Russians  uh were in were in cahoots  … unintelligible …” This sentence is filled with passive language. Passivity is used to conceal identity and or responsibility. Words like “really” “farfetched” “theory” “in my view” “somehow” “conspiracy” “trying” “impression” and “cahoots” all weaken the assertion of the subject. With so many passive words the listener should consider that the subject is concealing information and that there is deception on the part of the speaker. 
  6. Inside the passivity we have the words “… to create this uh uh conspiracy …”. Is this an embedded admission? 
  7. The subject’s final words are unintelligible and the subject is no longer part of the interview. Was he edited out? 


Analysis Conclusion:

The subject is stressed by the questioning.

 He likely had prior knowledge of the criminal investigation that he and others face. 

The subject does not deny the allegation of criminal wrongdoing. 

Tangent-Deception

The subject seeks to assign an illicit motive to the investigators by questioning the timing, yet he deliberately censors any information offered. This is to intimate that he has knowledge of the motives but "isn't telling." 

This is consistent with both a lack of conviction and of guilty knowledge. 

This may suggest a willingness to plea bargain and/or cast blame upon another. 

C


Friday, October 25, 2019

Cold Case: Diane Shields



link

https://www.cbs46.com/news/exclusive-a-possible-crack-in-the-cold-cases-of-mary/article_38603214-f6c1-11e9-b397-97fdb9832a0f.html

Exclusive: A possible crack in the cold cases of Mary Shotwell Little and Diane Shields


ATLANTA, Ga. (CBS46) – After years of endless tips and dead ends CBS46's crime scene investigator Sheryl 'Mac' McCollum said she's one-step closer to finding Diane Shields killer. 
“It's potentially a break,” she said.

In 1967, the 22-year-old receptionist was found strangled and beaten beyond recognition, crammed inside the trunk of her car.
“Her fiancé literally had to identify her by the engagement ring and the dress she was wearing,” said.

Mac has been investigating this case for 15 years with some of the city's most prolific cold case experts, including licensed private detective, John Fedack.

“You go through reports. You go on the internet. I've called people in California and Sea Island. And people in Canada,” said Fedack. “There was nothing in the files that just jumped out until our colleagues came up with some information.”

Shields’ death is woven into the fabric of Atlanta's dark folklore: a pretty, young blonde, engaged to be married, last seen leaving work in her Chevy Impala.

But she never made it home.

“All the men wanted her, and all the women wanted to be her,” Mac said.

Her murder happened just 18 months after Atlanta's most notorious missing person's case: Mary Shotwell Little.

In 1965, Little – a bank secretary – vanished into the night outside Lenox Square, which was then a small open-air shopping center not the high-end mega mall we know today.

Her last goodbye was to a friend following dinner and shopping. Little's car was later found with blood smears on the front seats.
“Mary Shotwell Little is literally the largest manhunt in Atlanta history,” said Mac. “Her case file was larger with the FBI than the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.” 

Although the women never met, they're connected by coincidence and immortalized in conspiracy theories revolving around sex scandals and hits by a lesbian mafia.

After Little disappeared, Shields took her secretary job at Citizens and Southern Bank – even sitting at Little's old desk and rooming with her former roommates.

Now 52 years later, Mac is convinced the alleged killer is hiding in plain sight – right here in metro Atlanta.

“I feel very confident he wants to tell it. I think he's been waiting to tell it. I think that's why he keeps contacting people,” she said.
Evidence from both cases has mysteriously disappeared. But CBS46 has exclusive access to hundreds of pages in Shields' case file including emails sent to a law enforcement source from the alleged killer.

“We knew we didn't have the fingerprint. We knew we didn't have the blood. We knew we didn't have the clothing, but what we did have was words,” said Mac. “And these words to me are very critical and I think they're the best evidence we have going forward.”

The emails were reviewed by renowned statement analyst Peter Hyatt with his team of more than 50 experts.

“They concluded that the person who wrote this had knowledge of who murdered Diane, how she was murdered and why she was murdered,” she said.

Fedack, who has been working on the case with Mac for years, said the analysis is validation their investigation is on the track to bring the Shields’ family closure. 

“To me that is startling, it is right on the money. It is everything we thought,” he said.

Fedack said Shields demeanor changed in the days leading up to her murder.

“She was becoming secretive. And mysterious. She told a couple of people she was helping police with the Mary Shotwell Little case,” he said.

They said the killer is an acquaintance of Shields, whose crush turned into a deadly infatuation after he was rejected.

“Diane Shields is beautiful, she's engaged, everybody likes her,” Mac said. “If you can be jilted to the point that you would murder someone, that doesn’t go away. Ever.”

Police found her car in East Point, at a Laundromat at Sylvan Road and Cleveland Avenue. A scarf and a piece of paper from a phone book were shoved down her throat.

“Who would do that level of violence and not sexually assault her? Not rob her?” said Mac. “That level of anger is from somebody that might have been jilted.”

Although Mac doesn’t believe the two cases are connected, she said finding Shields’ killer opens the pathway to solving Little’s disappearance.

“If we can solve Diane Shields then we're going to be closer to solving Mary Shotwell Little,” she said.

Mac plans to turn over a legal brief of findings to the GBI and East Point police before Thanksgiving. She said there could be a break in the case before Christmas.

*************************************************

To study Statement Analysis in your home, or to host a seminar, visit Hyatt Analysis Services 

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Thursday, October 10, 2019

911 Call: 5 Year Old Dulce Maria Alavez Missing


Missing 5 year old child 


Operator: 911 what is your emergency?

Caller: I can’t find my daughter.



This is very likely to be reliable (90%) on its form. 


At the time of this call, the mother cannot find her.  We wait for her to ask for help and to facilitate the flow of information to find her. 

Operator: When was the last time you seen her?

Caller: We were, we were with her at the park and people say that somebody, probably somebody took her.


This is a very strong indicator of parental neglect. She offers that "somebody" (gender neutral) took her, qualified with "probably."  Here we may expect the mother to express concern for the victim and demand/plead that she be found in urgent terms. 

1. A mother of a missing child should speak for herself. (maternal instinct)

2. The need for plurality is associated with the need to lessen guilt by dilution (crowd).

3. "people say" is passive----- she distances herself from her own daughter ("with her" and "we") and from the possible action that caused her to be unable to find her daughter.  
Operator: Ok how old is she?

Caller: She’s five years old.

Operator: Ok and what park are you at?

Caller: Here in Bridgeton Park.

Operator: OK where in the Bridgeton Park are you?

Caller: Umm... The one with the basketball court where the high school is.

Operator: Ah OK so you’re at the basketball courts behind the high school?

Caller: Yes.


Mom is compliant with questions and no further.  She is not offering information. 
Operator: Ok, and what was she seen last wearing?

Caller: (pauses) …She was wearing um…, umm, give me a second (speaks to another person in Spanish). I don’t remember what clothes she was wearing, but she was wearing, I just remember her pants, she was wearing like a flower, flowery pants, and some heels, some white heels.


The neglect is affirmed.  The pauses are viewed in context of the urgent need to find a missing 5 year old, one incapable of self protection. 
Operator: Ok ma’am stay on the line I will transfer you over to the police.

Operator: And you said she was five correct?

Caller: Yes.

Police: Hello ma’am, did you she which direction your child went?

Caller: No we were in the car she, she came down with my son. They were running to the park and then me and my sister we came down. So whe, whe, when we got here at the park she wasn’t here. They said, they said that my son was just crying with his ice cream, because somebody spilled his ice cream on the floor and my daughter just ran away.


Mom is very likely willing to blame others --this should be a strategy in the interview. 

Police: OK hold on.


Analysis Conclusion:

The mother is withholding information from police while her daughter is missing. This information is in context to her own status. 

What is being withheld is her own responsibility/connection to the victim. 

The mother does not ask for help for the victim, nor does she express concern over what her daughter is currently experiencing.  

The mother is more concerned with her own status rather than the victim's. Being against maternal instinct, it does not bode well for the victim. 

Substance abuse should be explored. Mother's lack of personal responsibility consistent with self preservation and lack of parental capacity for protection.

To enroll in training, or to host a seminar, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services

Monday, October 7, 2019

Mother of Missing 5 Year Old Speaks






Note her priority

Note her positive linguistic disposition towards the police who have not found her child. 

Note her negative linguistic disposition towards those who doubt her. 

Note that she does not express concern for what the victim is experiencing in her open statement --- she must be asked. 

Note the question of what she would do differently. 

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Pronouns: The Pronoun "I" in Analysis

Is there a single word in the English language that we use more than the word, "I"?

The pronoun "I" is critical in evaluating a sentence. It speaks to psychological commitment. 

"I went to the store this morning." is, on its form, reliable. As such, it is about 90% likely to be true. If the subject is lying, it signals a departure from the norm, and an ability to fabricate reality. It often reveals a personality type that is very dangerous to society. It is not a panic lie, nor an exaggeration, but something we find to be rare.  It often is later revealed that it is personality driven; meaning the subject has been successfully deceiving since childhood. 

We take note when the subject begins a statement with the pronoun "I" and when the subject does not. When a statement begins without the pronoun "I", yet uses it later, it is a strong signal that the subject does not want to, psychologically, commit to the statement. We often find deception in such statements. 

We take note of the sudden disappearance of the pronoun "I", especially mid-statement. This will be examined in a subsequent post. 

The Language of Addiction 

Active addiction has a language all its own. Similar to sexual assault victims, theft statements and other allegations, studying one subset at a time, methodically, yields accuracy in analysis. 

Such study will have emotional impact as the suffering from addiction is:

a. complex
b. tragically destructive 
c. highly politicized 
d. profitable

Addicts will use the language of manipulation, as the powerful brain impulse for relief (opioid, alcohol) signals, and such relief is sought in desperation. This begins to become a normal pattern which will impact the language. 

Addicts are, due to the constant post euphoric depression (lethargy, increased pain sensitivity, anxiety, etc), in a state of distress. The brain's natural "feel good" disruption is chronic; hence the deceptive nature of drug abuse. The post euphoric state is acute during withdrawal and fades over time, though this can last for many months; called "PAWS", or "post acute withdrawal symptom,"

It can alter the personality; particularly optimism or hope in life.  

Methadone clinics often have very high turn over of counselors because of the high stress in dealing with addicts. It is wearing to be incessantly lied to (consider the inherent insult) but perhaps the greater toll is in dealing with the projective depression, anger and often being blamed as being part of a conspiracy against the addict. 

Those who view themselves as victims of life have the poorest prognosis. We find in the language a shifting of responsibility (often using passivity) in even small issues, as well as chronic negativity. Conversely, those who take personal responsibility with the hope of changing self (rather than changing the world), have much better chances at recovery.  

"Misery loves company" is sometimes the result of being unable to free oneself from chronic low level depression and the pessimism that is all but expected from the hormonal disruption of the brain via substance abuse. 

This is a recent public post.  Note that it does not begin with the pronoun "I"--- 

it is interesting that the subject psychologically distances herself from the statement yet tells us why in the next sentence.  

In analyzing a statement, we not only discern deception from truth, but we look for the subject to tell us what her priority or purpose in posting is, and any dominant personality traits that may emerge. 

The language of addiction takes careful study in applying principles  and is valued for Employment Analysis. Those in recovery, acting in working sobriety, are relatively easy to spot as near opposite of the language of addiction. 

For training in deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services, and do some research into the training. Lie Detection and profiling (pyscho-linguistic) standards in the Complete Statement Analysis Course. 

The advanced work in analysis is vital for interviews, including social science professionals who seek to help mitigate the suffering of others.  Analysts are trained to carefully note each word, the use of ellipsis, order, additional language, linguistic disposition, as well as priority & personality traits. 

They seek to learn more about the subject;

What is her purpose? 
Does she show as empathetic of those suffering?
What do you make of the longest sentences? 

What is her prognosis at this time for recovery? 

Pronouns often "tell the story." 

Look for a new upcoming course release:  "The Language of Addiction" for those who have successfully finished The Complete Statement Analysis Course. 

Below is the beginning of her statement.  

****************************************************



Saw a client at my clinic not get dosed today because the nurse said she was "fucked up"... I didn't personally see her ...but according to other clients in the waiting room she had been upset and crying about a personal problem she was having...Having a bad...stressful time like happens to all of us.