Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Poll: What Happened To DeOrr?

A. Neglect: Unintended Death; deception by family in cover up

B. Kidnapping: Sex Offender, Drugs, etc, but no knowledge by family

C. Accident, missing remains, no knowledge by family

D. None of the Above (fill in your comment)

Steve Rannazzisi Lies About 9/11

Comedian Stephen Rannazzisi admitted he lied about a story of escaping the Twin Towers on 9/11.

No joke: This truth-twisting comedian might have just killed his career.

Days after the fourteenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, standup star Steve Rannazzisi admitted Wednesday he made up a tale about escaping from the World Trade Center.

“I was not in the World Trade Center that day,” his publicist said in a statement to The New York Times.

Note the quote is a reliable denial:

"I was not in the World Trade Center that day" includes the pronoun "I", the past tense "was not" and the specific location and day used.

What makes this RD interesting?

It came from the subject's publicist; not the subject. Let's listen to what the subject, himself says.

Here is a quote from him:

“I don’t know why I said this. This was inexcusable. I am truly, truly sorry.”

"This" is a word to indicate "closeness" while "that" is distancing language. For this subject, this lie is "very close" to him (note repetition) which causes us to explore the reason why.

One thing that may be is what the Daily News article began with: he might have just killed his career. If he is concerned that this lie is going to impact his career, it would explain why the word "this" is used (twice) instead of the distancing language of "that", which most of us would have used.

Note that he is not "sorry" but uses the word "truly", which makes the "sorrow" sensitive; however, by adding a second "truly", he indicates an even greater increase in sensitivity.

What might cause this?

It is noted for weakness but it is deceptive?

Some will conclude that the weakness of being "truly truly sorry" is because it is false, and this may be correct, yet, in context, we would need to know more about him. For example, as a comedian, he likely offends people on a regular basis, which may mean he apologizes a great deal, not out of any sorrow, but of obligation.

It is in this extreme environment that a comedian tries to entertain people while avoiding the myriad of "offenses" and it may be (I don't know this to be so) that he has "apologized" for various "offenses", but it is here that he wishes now to be believed because his other apologies are artificial.

The point is: We indicate sensitivity and it is either in context, or in the interview that we seek to learn the cause of sensitivity.

I once had someone object to "answering a question with a question indicates sensitivity to the question" because...

she had hearing difficulty.

I was able to show:

Answering a question with a question = sensitivity to the question. For this particular example, the sensitivity is caused by hearing difficulty.

In this specific case, however, 'easy' questions were heard and it become evident that the sensitivity was more related to the wording, than the volume.

In the comedian's case, the "truly truly" weakening could be because of the above sensitivity, or, as initially stated, it could be disingenuous and he gives us now his longer statement to discern:

He offered a longer apology to his 110,000 Twitter followers in a series of run-on tweets Wednesday morning.

"After I moved with my wife to Los Angeles from New York City in 2001 shortly after 9/11, I told people that I was in one of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. It wasn’t true. I was in Manhattan but working in a building in midtown and I was not at the Trade Center on that day...it is to the victims of 9/11 and to the people that love them--and the people that love me--that I ask for forgiveness."

Let's look at the statement again:

Note "it wasn't true" is not to say "I lied" but "it wasn't true" is passive voice, and it is this subtle distance that is commonly heard in apologies. This is somewhat expected, which is why, "I lied" or "I told a lie" is considered even stronger.

Note the inclusion of the word "love" in his apology. What do you make of its inclusion?

Note that "I was not at the Trade Center that day" is a reliable denial, in the formula of RD. The article continues:

His reps did not return requests for an interview.

So far, the fabricating funnyman has already been slammed by one of his sponsors, Buffalo Wild Wings, which uses him for ad campaigns in sports games.

“We are disappointed to learn of Steve’s misrepresentations regarding the events of September 11, 2001,” the chain said in a statement to the Times. “We are currently re-evaluating our relationship with Steve pending a review of all the facts.”

Fellow funnyman Pete Davison, whose father died in the 9/11 attacks,

slyly mocked Rannazzisi in a tweet that lying comedian didn't get.

"It's ok @SteveRannazzisi people make mistakes ... Can't wait to meet my dad for lunch later," Davidson wrote to him.

"thank you pete. i really appreciate it.," Rannazzisi replied.

Davidson wrote back: ""I think you missed the point ..."

With hyper-sensitivity and "victim status" limiting freedom of speech, a sense of new bullying comes into play where some topics lied about are acceptable and some are not.

Rannazzisi, 37, was set to appear in another line of ads for the chain during the N.F.L. season.

The comedian told Marc Maron in a 2009 interview he was working as an account manager at Merrill Lynch on the 54th floor of the south tower when the first plane struck. He claimed he ran to safety just minutes seeing a plane smash into his tower.

He told the story in vivid detail, saying he was worried about his girlfriend at the time, who also worked in one of the Towers, and said he had "falling dreams" after witnessing the horrors of the day.

He continued telling the story in interviews for years, despite claiming it was a tough topic for him, telling the Sklarbro Country podcast in 2011 he didn't want to seem like he was "cashing in or anything like that."

But in a 2013 interview, Rannazzisi suddenly started changing his story, saying he was "outside" when the attacks began.

The future comedian was working in Midtown that day, and not for Merrill Lynch, his publicist said. And his girlfriend, now wife, was working in the World Financial Center, not the World Trade Center.

Rannazzisi has a one-hour Comedy Central special, "Breaking Dad," scheduled to run Saturday. The network did not immediately offer comment on Rannazzisi's lie.

He also stars in the sitcom "The League," which is now in its final season.

Rannazzisi also apparently lied about his alma mater on his personal website, saying he went to SUNY Purchase when he in fact graduated from SUNY Oneonta, the Times noted. His publicist called this an "oversight."

Statement Analysis Training Announcement

The violent also revel themselves in language

For Law Enforcement and Human Resource Professionals, and other professionals who wish for formal training in Statement Analysis:

Our individual course is available for you now, with more police departments and businesses paying for, or reimbursing the cost of the course for individuals.

It is not just law enforcement benefiting from the ability to "catch the lie" in the day to day profession.

More businesses are reporting successes in reduction of shrinkage, fraudulent claims and other deception related issues after both study and implementation of Statement Analysis and Analytical Interviewing.

Violence Among Women

In the past 30 years, America has seen an extreme increase in the number of females incarcerated due to violence. Percentages, just a generation ago, by some estimates, have seen the dramatic change with estimates as high as 600% increase. Companies must screen for violence found within language of female applicants. It is no longer just an issue with males in our society.

By way of example, an applicant's general employment statement revealed "belligerent language" in the analysis with the conclusion of "Do not hire" due to high risk of violence in the work place. The company soon learned her record that included several convictions for conduct that included violence. Unknown to many, what one is convicted of is most always "less" than what one is accused of. The analysis that warned the interviewer did not include knowledge of any criminal record but consisted of a series of questions to ask in the interview, specifically, that would uncover a penchant for violence.

Legal Benefits

Statement Analysis is a sharp tool for litigation preparation. In several recent cases, prosecutors were better prepared to press their cause for justice, with a greater willingness on the part of the defense to seek a guilty plea. In child abuse cases, in particular, Statement Analysis can show the reliability of a disclosure to the point of obtaining a guilty plea which may allow for the parents to spare their child the potential re-victimization of having to testify. If the analysis can show, and be testified to, the reliability of the victim's statement, it further emboldens prosecution in protecting children.

Ongoing Training

Successful completion of this course will allow the investigator or professional to join one of several groups of professionals around the country in live, on going training.

This training is accredited for Continuing Education Units (CEUs) from the University of Maine, and is less then the cost of piano or guitar lessons. With two years of consistent training, expertise will emerge, though it is from the very beginning, as live cases are analyzed, that immediate results are realized. The applicant is offered one date (of several) per month, to join in the live training at Go To Meeting, and can participate from the privacy of their own home, or office, while still being able to attend to duties, such as answering the phone, etc. It is from 9am to 3PM, one per month, with a confidentiality agreement entered into.

The emotional satisfaction of seeing a live case concluded, and justice obtained, is close to indescribable. Even when, as in the recent sample, a company is spared an applicant who revealed an agenda before being hired, brings about a civil minded satisfaction, as theft in any business not only harms the bottom line and morale and reputation of a business, but eventually, costs are passed down to the public in general.

Those who wish to advance themselves, particularly law enforcement, human resources, social services, attorneys, business professionals, and journalists, will benefit from the deeper and challenging training, as well as the natural emerging understanding of personalty type that is seen within statements.

We offer payment plans as well, so that the professional can begin the course immediately.

For more information, go to HYATT ANALYSIS to request registration.

If your department wishes to host a seminar, discounts are available for the hosting department or company.

For individuals who complete the individual course, 12 months of ongoing support are included which allows for analysis work to be reviewed and improved.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Statement Analysis and Child Abuse: DeOrr Kunz Photos

Although I am not a participant in "internet sleuthing forums" (under various names), I do know some police who, anonymously, join, read and learn. I also receive copy/paste info or commentary, from time to time, on a case that has caught the public's attention. Why might an investigator anonymously join a forum of those who are not formally trained, (nor paid) to investigate?

This is because at any given time, a person of intelligence and insight might post something useful to an investigation. Those who love learning, learn.

Therefore, when insults are tossed at "web detectives", "web sleuths" or "internet investigators", it is often by one who wants to dismiss an opinion because of disagreement. Rather than answer the assertion, the forum, itself, is condemned. Guilty parties, defense attorneys, and those with a particularly inordinate attachments to a case may provoke the harshest condemnations.

Within such forums, there is another element which can hinder the flow of knowledge: those desperate for "higher moral ground" positions than others, which is readily evidenced in the sacrifice of truth for "appearance sake."

No matter, there are often enough honest, truth seeking, intelligent people who come at cases with many viewpoints, angles and projected views. Those with strong emotional intelligence often cite their own projection; something I find not only fascinating, but admirable.

The case of missing toddler, DeOrr Kunz has puzzled many.

I have not posted an analysis conclusion that most cases have, and readers have been, in large, generous to me in this matter.

What is it about this case that I have not posted a strong conclusions?

Perhaps another question should accompany this:

Why haven't I given a strong opinion on what happened to little DeOrr?

Before answering these two questions, let's look at the position of child abuse and photographs, which is a topic recently raised. Some have said that the happy photos of DeOrr prove he was not abused or unwanted.

1. Photos are not, by themselves, conclusive.

There are children who are subject to abuse, but are not "unwanted" children, at the same time, even while there are some children who may not suffer physical abuse, but are, in deed, unwanted and this is a powerful form of emotional abuse that can take its form in chronic neglect, or disinterest.

The photo is not always a reliable indicator either way. The best insight into a child's life is the words of the parents, in particular, how they relate to the child.

I often say, "this parent likes her child", which raises a few eyebrows. I then explain that most all parents "love" their children, but it is those that "delight in them", or quite simply, "enjoy spending time" with their children who do so much better at parenting. What we like, we repeat.

For one, "the terrible twos" is something to "get through", while to another, it is a time of heightened vigilance, but also heightened humor and exciting exploration time.

Photos are not always definitive.

This means that, at any time, a child can appear happy in a photo which should not lead someone to conclude that he was a wanted or well cared for child. Did you ever notice the instinctive reaction of Jews on their way to death smiling for the camera?

I cringed whenever a defense attorney introduced photos at a child abuse trial as if a single moment in time could tell a story.

In the same sense, a photograph of an injury could be a result of child abuse, or it could be the result of an accident, rough play, sports, etc.

I once had a case where a boyfriend had been accused of beating a toddler to the point of marks on his face.

Having had too many cases like this, I had to remind myself to remain open and let the one thing above all else that I trust in, to guide me: the language.

When asking a subject "What happened?" while looking at the marks on a baby's face, the subject, in this case, a young boyfriend of the baby's mother, had, perhaps, less than average intelligence. Let's guesstimate that he had a vocabulary of 20,000 words, under the scoped average of 25,000 held by most.

In less than a microsecond of time, as I asked this question without even introducing myself or saying anything else to him, his brain told his mouth what to say by:

*choosing what information to reveal to me;
*choosing what words to best convey this information to me;
*choosing what verb tenses and pronouns to use in speaking to me;
*choosing where to place each word, in position to complete sentences

I stared at him as he spoke, noting that this less than average intelligence young male did so without interruption of even the slightest.

He had sat the baby up, and went into the kitchen, and heard a noise, and found the baby on his side, screaming. He picked the baby up and the baby eventually stopped crying.

"On the fly" I noted to myself that his sentences were short, they used the appropriate past tense commitment with the pronoun "I" and the sentences were without noticeable sensitivity indicators. I then continued the interview, beginning with open ended questions only, moving on to questions about the specific language he used and then onto more direct questions.

I took careful notes and "knew", from analysis training, that what I was told was, statistically, "reliable."

I also found some things about the young male I did not like. I remained aware of this and knew that the recorded interview would have to be analyzed to make sure my "on the fly" work matched the written statement from the transcript.

I took photos of his marked up face.

I then presented my information to my superiors who concluded "physical child abuse" by the photos, as they (two) dismissed my analysis that the subject was reliable in his account of what happened. The things I did not like about him, including substance abuse, work ethic, and a few other things, were relevant to the child's life, true, but this investigation was to learn:

did he inflict injury upon the child?

This is what I was charged with learning.

My superiors were certain that this was to be both civil and criminal in scope, and wanted procedural fulfillment for the removal of the child, should the mother "fail to protect" the child from the "abusive" boyfriend.

The photos were sent to an expert who concluded that the injuries "somewhat appear inflicted" and that the explanation of how it happened was "suspect" at best. He did not feel strong in his conclusion, but the marking pattern was strange. He could not conclusively say one way or another. This was not his norm, as I had found him to that point, to have accuracy. I felt somewhat emboldened by his refusal to commit, one way or another. His testimony was something I had come to respect in keeping children safe.

I had a powerful conflict between what I know and understand to be the most reliable form of investigation, versus being instructed on what to do. My analysis said, "The subject did not directly inflict the injuries to the face", while the photographic evidence, and peripheral issues said otherwise.

I returned to the home.

I had the subject set up the entire scenario again for me, while saying nothing about my analysis. I also asked him if he would be willing to take a polygraph, which he was. In it, he would be asked, "Did you cause the injury to the child's face?" of which he said, "But, yes, I did, in that I shouldn't have left the room."

I told him that the polygrapher would interview him and then, together, they would form the questions.

The pictures looked bad.

As he set up the blanket on which the child was seated, I asked him to give me the baby's bottle, pacifier and play things from that morning.

I photographed everything and asked if I could keep the items for a few days.

That night, I wrestled with knowing that in all the interviews I have done, this kid 'fits the bill' of someone who might snap and hit a child but his statements were not even close to 'neutral'; he was truthful.

I then discovered something generally outside my scope. I am a linguistics person; I listen with trained listening to the point where I sometimes put in headphones just to shut things out. I am not an "expert investigator" with a "photographic memory"; for me, seeing the trajectory of a body falling after a suicide will sound like something special, but is as foreign to me as is the New York Jets winning the Superbowl in 2016 is to Jet fans.

But I know language.

His language was not only truthful, it was not the language of child abuse; distancing, violent, etc.

I noticed that the toy the child fell upon was a face and the face had elevated (obnoxious) eyes, nose, mouth, eyebrows, etc.

I took out my kids' clay and molded against it.

It was a perfect match.

I then emailed photographs of the clay model, alongside the other photographs, and photographs of the ugly toy, alongside with the child's weight.

The next day I received his reply: "it fits!"

What appeared to be damning photographs of inflicted abuse were not. I was relieved.

This week, a frightening photograph made international headlines where it appeared that European police were assaulting a migrant, as he hovered over his wife and baby, on railroad tracks. It looked like police brutality.

A day or two later, the "photograph" was revealed to be a stop image from a short video and small, independent media wanted to make certain the photo's context was seen, too.

In it, we see a man shove his wife and baby down to the railroad tracks and jump on them, while police try to stop him.

The agenda driven main stream media used only the photograph to further their own agenda by employing propaganda.

My point with DeOrr:

Photos of happy DeOrr may not prove he was not abused, even as a bruised DeOrr may not prove abuse.

At any given time, even the most horrific child abusers can pull out a Christmas photo of a happy child.

What gives us greater insight is the language, and how a parent relates to a child.

In the following sample I use in training, we see that a child who is abused can have both, a loving status as a daughter, and the distancing, gender specific language found within abuse.

How a parent speaks of a missing child is critical in understanding.

Recall Baby Lisa, who's mother could barely ever utter Lisa's name. It was extreme distancing language. She didn't like her child.

In other cases, we carefully note when, for example, she is "my daughter" and when she is "Jonbenet", or "Hailey" or any number of children who were initially reported "missing" but the language of the parents revealed a need to psychologically distance themselves from the child, in certain contexts.

Deborah Bradley was extreme, however, which revealed that Baby Lisa was not only a victim of "adult time" claimed by Bradley, that Lisa fatally interrupted while Bradley wanted to party, but showed that Lisa was, quite likely, a victim of neglect by Bradley. This is not the norm but more akin to an unwanted child. Bradley didn't "delight" in Lisa.

Some parents will claim "ownership" of the child while speaking of the child, in context, "safe in Heaven", where no abuse exists.

In DeOrr's case, we do not find this extreme distancing language. This does not mean that the parents are truthful or are not responsible for his disappearance; it means that he was not a child from whom they want complete distance from. Even guilty parents will linguistically "embrace" their child under some contexts, but then upon the "guilty context", quickly linguistically distance themselves. The McCanns example this, as does even Haleigh Cummings father, Ronald Cummings.

Ronald Cummins was, as some parents are, abusive to Haleigh, oftentimes out of ignorance. Raised to be slapped in the face, for him, it is his "value" and "norm." He left her with some dangerous people and when it came to drugs and self interest, he chose himself over his daughter. This is not to say that he didn't want her: it was more that he could not handle being a parent, and couldn't be trusted around children while being in authority.

Baby Sabrina comes to mind, as well. Something happened to her, but it does not mean that they did not love her all other days.

In shaken baby cases, it takes only a split second of loss of self control, and the child is gone.

These are situations where something, likely unintended, took place and the guilty negligent parents go into cover up mode. It does not mean that the child was unwanted always. I don't think Jonbenet was unwanted by her mother, but her mother was either unwilling or incapable of protecting her from John Ramsey, which may have some roots in Patsy's own upbringing.

Understanding causes does not excuse responsibility.

Caylee Anthony was an unwanted child who was, as her name suggested, nothing more than a novelty to her mother, from whom the mother loved the attention Caylee brought to her, the mother, but beyond that, "little snot face" was in the way of the mother's life style.

I have used photographic evidence to help prove physical child abuse, while I have also used photographs to clear someone as the above case shows, or the many cases where "it he can cruise, he will bruise" toddlers who loved to explore would often injure themselves in ways where innocent parents were afraid of being falsely accused.

I worked with pediatricians who were trustworthy, not only to me, but to the parents. These professionals did not ever lightly make reports as they had to, on the fly, often make judgements on whether an injury matches the explanation. As mandated reporters, they would say, "I make this as an obligation, but believe the explanation."

I found, overall, a good consistency in their accuracy. Parents would urge me to call the doctor who told them that he or she was obligated to make the report. These usually ended well as doctors often really get to know parents, including risk factors. It is not always, but at least from my experience, quite often their instincts, like teachers, served them well.

The example, here in the form of a test, shows how a change of language can reveal the truth:

Child Abuse Analysis Test

Photographic evidence is useful and can assist in cases, but it is an element of an overall case, even as language is, as well.

An investigator in the above test "knows" that the father abused his own child, yet, even while testifying to "why" (the analysis) he will need more to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, including, perhaps, the testimony of the young girl, which is almost always, problematic to parents.

I have always warned parents of what a defense attorney may do to their child, if the child takes the stand.

The re-victimization can be powerful, and I always encouraged the parents to seek out the assistance of other professionals in gaining an opinion on whether or not the child should take the stand. It is never an easy call.

Those that follow this case are passionate and investigators are wise to be open to the public forums where discussion takes place.

There is always a chance that someone in the family, perhaps even a parent, may, under another name, write in and attempt to influence the mindset.

As to the two questions on why I have not had a strong conclusion and why I have not offered my opinion, the next article will address these questions and ask you what you believe happened to DeOrr.

Saturday, September 12, 2015

DeOrr Family Video: "Tell The Truth"

When a subject says she wants someone to tell the truth, it indicates that the subject thinks someone has lied; hence, the call to "tell the truth." Father: "You hope" is not "I hope" but is distancing language. "You hope for closure" is not something most would "hope" for, but rather a signal that the subject may not believe the child is alive. "that baby" is distancing language. This is not anything expected from a mother though it might from a grandmother who did not have regular contact. We must use caution and be acutely aware of context in our measurement of the expected versus the unexpected. The change from "I" to "we" is also not expected, even in the setting of being seated together, as the pronoun change comes mid-statement. The avoidance of using DeOrr's name is not expected by any family member and is distancing language.

Statement Analysis Test: Rear View Mirror

Very late in the game...

How good are you at catching liars?

Liars, statistically, destroy. When one lies about small issues, they will lie about greater issues. Are you able to catch them when they fabricate insignificant or needless issues?

When the liar gets beyond you on the small lies, it is often too late when the big lie is sprung upon you: the damage is acute to you, your life, your business, your reputation, your bottom line...your freedom.

Here is a test for you to take to see how good you are at catching the liars.

Put down your responses in the comments section, choosing a name.
Then, check your work against some of what is known about the statements.

Third, go back and enter a follow up comment seeking to answer the question:

Did the subject give you an indication into personality type?

This should be made as your follow up comment.

I. 7 Claims Made, with statements. Are these truthful or deceptive? Reliable, or Unreliable?
Please give some detail, even if you feel the statement, alone, is not enough for you to draw an opinion.

II. The Eternal Information, or "rear view window" hindsight and/or some analysis insight.

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

I. Claims and Statements for Analysis

Here are a series of statements for analysis. The subject's statement and external ("rear view mirror") information follows below that you must scroll down to reach. Analyze first, and then check your work with the external information by scrolling down and compare it with your analysis. Each subject's statement is in italics and represents a quiz for you to test your abilities. What will become obvious, for at least one subject's statement, is the connection to politics which, due to its import of persuasion, is always in position for deception.

Politicians will sometimes lie even when using a tragedy, to capitalize by awareness of employing higher levels of emotion in the recipient of the lie. This is a signal that the subject may lack self-restraint as to how far he or she is willing to go. Does it reveal a personality type?

1. Claim: The subject was in a helicopter, forced down while being shot at. The subject made 2 statements about it:

a. “If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.”

b. “Where is that safe haven? It is not Baghdad. It is in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan where my helicopter was recently forced down. The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down. John McCain wants to know where bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That's where Al Qaida is. That's where bin Laden is.”

2. Claim: The subject heard the gun fire from a school shooting while playing golf.

“I happened to be literally, probably, it turned out, to be a quarter of a mile at an outing when I heard gunshots in the woods. We didn’t know, we thought they were hunters.

3. Claim: This subject, as a father, addressing a claim initially made about being present for his son's death in which he had to admit he was not present. Do his words give you insight into anything?

"“I’d be lying if I said that I knew I was there. I’m being completely honest. Nobody has a right in my view to seek that office unless they are willing to give it 110 percent of who they are."

4. Claim: The subject claimed to have 3 college degrees.

“I think I have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect. I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship. In the first year in the law, I decided I didn’t want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class and then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school, and, in fact, ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot-court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political-science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits — only needed 123 credits. And I would be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours.

5. Claim: Plagiarism

The same subject defended himself on the charge of plagiarism:

''My intent was not to deceive anyone. For if it were, I would not have been so blatant. If I had intended to cheat, would I have been so stupid?''

''I value my word above all else. This is a fact which is known to all those who are or have been acquainted with my character.''

Years later, he said he had misunderstood the rules of citation and footnoting:

''I was wrong, but I was not malevolent in any way. I did not intentionally move to mislead anybody. And I didn't. To this day I didn't.''

Is this a reliable denial? (explain your answer)

6. Claim: This subject claimed to have played college football at a commencement speech at a college:

"I played football at Delaware. I’m not supposed to become an aficionado of the Gamecocks.”

Later, in writing memoirs, he wrote about his football career.

What does your analysis show regarding these written statements?

a. "“When my first semester grades came out, my mom and dad told me I wouldn’t be playing football.”

b. “I surprised my coaches by moving up the depth chart fast and, after the annual spring game that April, it looked like I had a shot to start at defensive back.”

c. “I couldn’t wait for next September and could almost see the fall season unfold in my head” until he headed to Florida for spring break “after our last practice.”

During spring break, the subject met **** ***** , who would later become his first wife, and “fell ass over tin cup in love — at first sight.”

On pages 32-33, the subject wrote that he was so in love with Hunter he had to decide “about football.”

d. "I realized that if I played football, my weekends were taken and I wouldn't see much of ***** in September, October, November … into December if we made the playoffs”:

I called the coach a few weeks before preseason started. “Coach, I’m not coming.”

“Who is this?”

“It’s **** *******, Coach. I’m not going to play this season.”

“****! (using the subject's last name) You realize you’ve got a shot to play this year?”

“I know, Coach, but I’m not coming. I’m not playing…. See, I met this girl, and she’s at ******–“

These individual statements can be either under one analysis, or several, but give at least some commentary on them.

7. Claim: The subject made repeated claims that his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver, while campaigning for tougher laws against drunk drivers. This statement should provide the analyst with much yield:

"Let me tell you a little story. I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries."

Later:

"It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit a tractor-trailer, hit my children and my wife and killed them,"

SCROLL DOWN AFTER ANALYSIS COMPLETION FOR EXTERNAL INFORMATION

External Information and/or analysis points.

This is the "rear view mirror" of looking back in hindsight along with some checks of your own analysis inclusions.

How did your analysis stack up?

1. Helicopter Claim: The helicopter landed due to a snow storm. There was no gun fire.

2. Golf Course School Shooting 2006. The nearest golf course was 5 miles away and they denied the subject was there. The second closest was 10 miles away and they said 'we neither confirm nor deny' the subject's presence. The shooting was indoors.

3. Death of Son: The subject had to admit that he was not there for his son's death. Note the percentages used: were these two numbers in your conclusion?

What do you think of a man using his own son's death as "impetus" for being ready for political office? What does this say about personality?

4. College Degrees: The subject has one college degree, not "three."

5. Plagiarism: The school found that he was deliberate and that the 5 complete pages were claimed to be his own but were copied, word by word, with precision.

Did you analysis include his own "embedded" words?
What did you make of his use of a question within his defense?

This became a controversy for the school in not expelling him, nor taking greater disciplinary action against him, such as failure in the course. That it is in law school, itself, is of interest. He graduated 76th in his class...of 85.

Did you analysis include such things as "tangent" and "offensive" ("attack" etc)?

Did you gain insight into the subject's personality in the two college claim statements?

6. College football.

There are no records to show he was on any roster of any team.

7. Drunk Driving claim:

External information: It was an accident in which the truck driver was exonerated, by State police; not charged. They said there was no evidence that he was speeding, drinking or driving a truck with faulty brakes. Alcohol was not part of the case.

The driver had died shortly before these campaign statements were made.

His daughter said, "To see it coming from his mouth, I just burst into tears. My dad was always there for us. Now we feel like we should be there for him because he's not here to defend himself."

MSM did not challenge the claim, even after the family protested, which left the subject free to repeat the claim in another campaign speech.

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

Conclusions:

Did you include details in your analysis about the specific forms of deception employed?
Did you make any commentary about how he may have sought to profit from deception?

What insight did he give into his personality type?

In a subsequent comment, using the same name, could you follow up, now, with an answer to this question?

What insight did he give into his personality type?

I am curious as to what readers think, especially his statement about his IQ.

Did you note that he makes not only complete fabrication of reality, but that he also has many 100% technical truthful statements?

Friday, September 11, 2015

Jessica Mitchell and DeOrr Kunz Issue Statement

The following was given to media by Jessica Mitchell and DeOrr Kunz after the 2 month mark of their toddler's disappearance.

“Please keep your eyes out for our precious baby boy. We miss him so much and just want him home where he belongs. If you have our son, please don’t hurt him just bring him home to us. We love you so much Lil Man. Thank you to everyone for your loving words and kindness.”

Crystal Rogers: Brook Houck's Brother Officer Suspended

Crystal Rogers, 35, mother of five, went missing and her fiancé went on the Nancy Grace Show in which he was indicated for deception. He gave linguistic indication that the information he is withholding is critical to the case. He did not issue a reliable denial, though he employed the language of persuasion which revealed the weakness of his statement.

Brooks Houck's brother is on the Bardstown Police Department and Chief Rick McCubbin has announced his suspension.

The family of Crystal has been suspicious of Houck, and concern has been raised that he may have had some assistance, or guidance, from his law enforcement brother.

Early on, police indicated an issue as Nick Houck's vehicle was "in for repairs" but not released, fueling speculation of evidence collection.

For specific deception in this case see the analysis: ANALYSIS of BROOKS HOUCK

Lack of comment on his suspension "until further notice" signals a connection to the case.

Brooks Houck method of deception is to suppress information which has an element of emotion in it enough to provoke interviewers to discern "leakage" which may be valuable.

"Leakage" is simply the inadvertent release of information via the free editing process.

When a subject is asked (sometimes, repeatedly), "what happened?", if the subject possesses guilty knowledge, he will be thinking of what happened while carefully editing out damning information. The words he chooses, however, will be closely associated to the guilty knowledge, within the brain, which reduces the internal stress of deception. This is because there is a source of information to refer to, unlike fabrication of reality, which has no experiential memory (including emotion), and often lacks sensory description.

In the words chosen to avoid revealing what happened, the subject often signals critical information, including location.

A good example of this is in the disappearance of Ayla Reynolds, toddler from Waterville, Maine.

When Ayla's mother could not get information from Ayla's father, Justin DiPietro, she told media that he was not "cooperating with police."

This angered DiPietro who said, "Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with..."

He employed the language, "floating around out there", which, when weighed against his personal or professional interest in truck driving, was seen, not as an expression common to someone who's "wheels are firmly on the ground", instead, signaling that Ayla's remains were likely dumped in water.

As he thought to defend himself from the mother's charge of lack of cooperation in Ayla's case, he was likely thinking of Ayla, perhaps weighted down, fearful of her "floating" up and being discovered.

This is a simple example. Much more complicated analysis is necessary from the transcripts of a full interview where Brooks Houck may have, inadvertently, signaled where Crystal's remains may be located.

Here is the article from WHAS11.com

Bardstown police officer suspended

BARDSTOWN, Ky. (WHAS11) -- In this brief statement released Thursday Bardstown Police Chief Rick McCubbin said officer Nick Houck has been suspended until further notice.

McCubbin did not give a reason or any further details. WHAS11 learned Houck is suspended with pay.

Officer Houck is the brother of Brooks Houck, the boyfriend of missing Bardstown mother of five, Crystal Rogers.

Bardstown police would not comment on if it has anything to do with the investigation into Crystal Rogers disappearance.

We asked Rogers' parents about the suspension.

"We have no comment on that at the moment," Sherry Ballard said, Crystal's mom.

"The one thing I'd like to say is I want, I'd like to know why," Tommy Ballard said, Crystal's dad.

Tommy and Sherry Ballard learned about Houck's suspension while they were just across the parking lot at the Nelson County Courthouse in a custody hearing.

They are asking to see their youngest grandson, Crystal's son with Brooks Houck, 2-year-old Eli. The Ballard’s said they have not seen Eli since Crystal went missing more than two months ago on July 3.

They said the judge did not make a decision on Thursday.

"We are hopeful that we will get to see Eli," Sherry Ballard said, "We have to wait for that but I'm hoping it won't be very long and we will finally get to see him."

The Houck family did not have a comment on either the court case or the suspension.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Tracking Method of Deception Subject by Subject

In advanced Statement Analysis, the investigator learns various (dominant) personality types and what methods of deception they regularly employ in interviews. The dominance is noted as closely associated with deception due to the inherent contempt a liar must hold for the interviewer, in order to consider any possible success in the fabrication.

Since most deception is via withheld information, the majority of the statement is often reliable for investigation. It is in this area that we often find hints of "leakage" and training can teach the investigator how to promote this leakage, especially when the interviewer understands the basics of the personalty type being interviewed.

Some of the techniques are commonly known, such as 'sharing' of guilt and/or responsibility, a la your fourth grader who changes his pronoun from "I" to "we" in order to dissipate the guilt by watering it down with a crowd. Moms know this almost as well as fourth grade school teachers.

The challenge comes when the investigator has had enough training and enough practice that he or she will begin a natural "profiling" of personalty type.

A far-more-common personality type than known is the aggressive bully who "seeks his own above others", that is, holds to a personal ambition that appears almost blind to the "rules of life", including even legal restraints upon their ambitions. To even know the "type" of person being interviewed, is to have a great advantage in employing strategy to obtain the truth. This specific type often will reveal a personal belief that he, or she in this case, considers herself above the standards of others, with a different twist on the typical "liar's contempt" often cited.

Reading it can be challenging.

This is, perhaps, best seen when a social services professional excels at Statement Analysis, such as a social worker, therapist, psychologist, and so on. When police work is met with psychology, the efficiency can sky rocket in criminal psychology first employing statement analysis, but then the integration of its principles can (and should!) reach the level where it is no longer "employed" but always active.

The professional recognizes certain personality types will employ certain deception techniques coupled with the withholding of information.

This is because silence unnerves the deceptive subject.

First, because we are created to communicate and it is something that we must do. It is a human burden and the brain is designed in such as way as to canabalize itself when communication is cut off. This is where acute segregation, such as in prisoner of war campaigns, will yield more information than even torture, and can lead to mental illness.

I approach every interview with the presupposition that the subject wants to tell me everything I want and need to know, and then some.

I also know the subject is counting on me to interpret, rather than 'listen' to the choice of words used.

Certain personality types will use specific methods of deception that they have successfully used since childhood, and have developed through trial and error, especially those of above average intelligence.

One such technique is to 'control the interview.'

Most commonly taught, investigators are told to not allow the subject to "control" the interview, and most commonly implemented, this is a huge mistake.

In Analytical Interviewing, we seek to almost never interrupt a rambling subject knowing that even though he may be employing the "tangent" method of deception, he still must access his memory bank of words to do so, which can result in valuable leakage of information.

On the other hand, the subject cannot be allowed to move the topic outside the realm of the allegation, due, especially in time constraints.

When no time constraint exists, I will outlast any subject.

Period.

If he chooses to go off into a rambling tangent and I am not limited by time, I am prepared to 'stay the course' and obtain a confession. I bring small amounts of food with me, to make sure that, as hours pass, my sugar levels do not fall to where my concentration wanes, for example, and will even use bathroom breaks to 'accompany' the subject, right to the door, because the interview is not over.

The tangent, however, can be a very difficult technique to combat, and there are often time constraints that must be recognized. There are different remedies for such, and in this case, we do not let the subject control the interview.

Too often the mandate to not allow the subject to control the interview equates to the loss of valuable information. If a time restraint is upon you, carefully choose your remedy.

A. Return to topic at hand by simple diversion. Make certain that you have written down (even when recorded) any new language introduced during the interview. You must return to these words, in this interview, and ask about them, even if it appears you are following the red herring away from the topic. Even allowing the subject to believe he has successfully drawn you away can be a good technique, reducing his defensive guard, and catching him off guard when you appear to have "suddenly" asked a relevant or direct question.

B. Ask questions, using the subject's own language from within his tangent to seek connection to the allegation. This is where "leakage" is obtained and requires a separate teaching, in advanced Analytical Interviewing training.

C. Challenge

The Challenge is plain:

With confidence, the Interviewer may challenge the subject.

"I have noticed that each time I have addressed the allegation, you have talked about sports, instead. As I have brought you back to the allegation, you have returned to the topic of sports.
You appear to have a special need to avoid addressing the allegation."

Silence.

This is a shot that must be carefully chosen and only after other techniques have failed. It now tells the subject, "I am on to you."

Nancy Grace will use an abbreviated form of this which is necessary due to the hard commercial breaks that must be upheld. It is a shortcut that we often avoid, but, for example, in her interviews with Billie Jean Dunn, she had no choice.

Huma Abedin works for Hillary Clinton, who's pattern of lying shows a pathology all its own. For Ms. Clinton, her language is one of incessant deception; that is, habitual, and with 'lesser' interruptions of processing speed than expected. She has a well-above average intelligence so that when she appears 'flustered' by a question or topic, she is put 'off her game' and very likely into deception. Ms. Clinton, like many other leaders from all walks of life where authority is obtained, her words show a disconnect between lawful submission and activity: that is plainly stated: She appears to be someone who believes herself to be above the expectations of lawful adherence, as if laws do not apply to her, even when she may seek to impose them upon others.

Most of us have experienced someone like this in our lifetime; whether it be someone we knew from childhood who spoke (and acted) as if rules in school didn't apply to him, or someone we worked for who seemed as if "untouchable" by consequence. It is likely that we all have met, dealt with, or even had some difficultly in dealing with someone like this.

If you worked for someone like this, the level of difficult you experienced was likely directly related to how close in authority you were. If you were a distant subordinate, the impact of negativity kept you on your guard, but if you were somewhat close in authority, you were faced with a "black and white" choice, with little "gray" existing between choices: Either yield to the belief and embrace it, or resist it and suffer acute stress and eventually change in status. In dealing with one who believes himself or herself above "the law" (which can include rules, social mores, etc, as it is not limited to just civil laws), there is little room for neutrality. Liars are always difficult to cope with and in employment the common mantra is "go along to get along", with resistance very challenging.

I knew of one bureaucrat who literally bullied his way through meetings with those who were peers but with management one level above him in authority. His technique was not the tangent, but the actual outright bullying of a particular target: women.

Each meeting he carefully "scoped the landscape" and if the meeting was mostly women:
He would aggressively argue his point, raise his voice, slam his fist on the table and watch the reaction. If the female superior showed the slightest signal of fear, he continued, and would then move to berated whatever position she held. He used this method for advancement successfully. One of his former superiors retired when her health could no longer withstand the onslaughts, as her complaints were met with, "put your big boy pants on", "we are all grown ups", "hey, this is serious budget debates", which, for this quiet, intellectual, meant constant insults.

When she did stand up to him, he declared the meeting "over", with "no progress made" only to leave the manager now targeted by her own superiors for "wasting time."

When she finally got her own superiors to attend a meeting, her nerves were fried. Her own superiors saw her confidence fail and without surprise, the bully was a perfect gentleman, clever enough to know to tap his hand on the table, and show some "passion" in his voice; just enough to make her seem as one who was exaggerating out of jealousy.

What of the "eye witnesses" who were in the meetings? They were all met with, privately, by the bully, who "talked of promotions, progress" generously using the word "we", always.

I attended one of his meetings and saw his technique, as he ridiculed and demonized "someone who's name I won't mention" in a persuasive manner which said to the audience: "if you are not laughing, you are not one of us." What surprised me was the misogyny that his language revealed, was not challenged by those females 'close' to him in authority. This was part of the "no gray" zone of pressure.

His narcissistic and bullying manner, a bane to his own wife and children, was successfully employed in a bureaucracy, which does not have a "bottom line" that private business does, which sometimes reveals bullies because their success is often short-lived. His deception was evidenced in tangents that were "forceful" in nature, to the point where to disagree with him was not to disagree with an idea, but to personally disagree with everything he is, and everything he says. It is an "all or nothing" mentality that demanded allegiance in total, or status of enemy. It wasn't that you did not want a Coke, you wanted a Pepsi, instead, it was that you were his enemy.

The female superior that he destroyed did not know me personally, but of Statement Analysis and "wanted to talk."

This is something that those of you who endeavor to grow deeply in analysis will experience: just as you might think that liars want to avoid you, it is the very opposite to be found:

Truthful people will love talking to you. By "truthful", I speak of those who openly talk about their weaknesses, frailties and losses in life, just as they do with successes. This particular woman thought that I might "understand" what she had gone through, and although her retirement had been planned, its hastening wasn't, nor was she able to retire on her own terms. It was very sad, but, as all interviews are, it was a learning session for me. Truthful people like to talk to those who are discerning and discernment is the center of analysis.

But it is also that deceptive people may be drawn to you as well.

In law enforcement, officers regularly deal with internal bullies, hoping that they are not promoted, knowing how difficult they can make life for a job that is, itself, wrought with enough stress to tax the body's immune system without having to add in the deception of one who's personal ambition rises above "the rules" within the department. They can see some of their "success" was due to bullying, but know how difficult it is to speak up. I have had some officers disclose that if their superiors are intellectuals, they are able to present analysis in a well-received atmosphere, with superiors that are also driven to get to the truth, while others have a much greater challenge convincing their own superior of the value of, let's say, a single pronoun.

Bullies like shortcuts and are pragmatic. This goes against the very core of Analytical Interviewing which gets the most information from anyone, while not violating anyone's rights, nor by coercion. Because of its techniques, it requires a good, solid, well developed intellect, and it requires a quiet, patient mentality that says, "stupid like a fox, I will get to the truth, even if it means letting the subject walk all over me, leaving footprints on my scalp. I will get to the truth and I will get justice for his victim." This is the officer who remembers his or her oath: to protect and to serve. They rarely make the press, but they are the life blood of civility for communities. When a bullying type is promoted, especially one who has ambition that is "politically correct", meaning, appearance means more than truth, the work suffers.

In business, at least, enough negativity towards the bully can result in measurable morale drop: sales are down; customers driven away, or top sales professionals leave. In the bureaucracy, no such delineation exists and managers may, and often do, promote those who pose no threat to their own position. This is something the public is now beginning to understand as the number of government employees, percentage wise, increases in the US.

Huma Abedin and the State Department

Huma Abedin could not survive working for Hillary Clinton for as long as she did without embracing the same mentality towards the law that is consistent with all liars:

Contempt.

Recall that those who fabricate reality, hold you and I in contempt, presupposing that we are incapable of discerning their lie. All criminals, in this sense, have this element of 'superiority' over others, lest they would not lie as they do. Success in childhood built the pathology of deception, as the rebuke was absent, and often, the example of deception set.

Huma Abedin's wealth makes any form of theft or embezzlement seem needless, but this is only to reveal a lack of understanding of human nature. I owe much to a former manager who insisted that investigators hold tiny theft as high as great theft, as she understood that one who is successful at stealing $10, will eventually steal $10,000 if given the opportunity.

We sometimes see a celebrity arrested for shoplifting and marvel:

Why would she risk this? Is this a publicity stunt? Is it a 'cry for help'?

Recall the pizza parlor owner from Utah who said he was a victim of "homophobia" and had raised more than $23,000 in a "Go Fund Me" campaign. His words did not "connect" him to the attacks, and when he was confronted with this analysis, he confessed. His lawyer sought to publicly pressure officials by claiming it was a "cry for help."

It may have been, but it was also a crime and like Julie Baker of Baltimore, he may skate due to refunding the money, though his "fake hate" crime could cause future victims to fear being believed, and could serve as a deterrent to reporting.

Recently, a multi-millionaire actress announced she was suing a restaurant for millions of dollars for burning her.

Could she possibly use her celebrity status to obtain money, for an accident, that her hands did not earn? Or, is she seeking to jump start her stalled career by getting her name back in print?

If a restaurant is negligent, it should pay the medical bills ensued, and, perhaps, if a person has been unable to work because of the negligence, appropriate compensation. We may discuss justice, in this manner, but in her case, in a world where "gaming the system" has been taken to an almost art-form, and has been so commonly accepted, is there motivation well beyond justice? Should quotes enter the news, Statement Analysis will be listening, and will learn.

Human allegedly got illicit and illegally paid for time off and took a vacation, humorously (or sarcastically) called a "babymoon" in Europe.

She stood accused of embezzlement, howbeit on a much smaller scale than her net worth might suggest, but is she, too, "above the law" with entitled expectations that tax payers "owe her" some time in Europe to recreate?

Does she consider herself above the law?

We listen to her language.

We also then ask, "Is she above the law?"

This is not to say, "does her language reveal that she thinks she is above the law?" but what of the State Department's refusal to investigate and prosecute?

Here is what she told investigators when she was accused of embezzling thousands of dollars for her vacation. Listen carefully to the words employed, and the topics used, while considering the allegation:

“You are 100 percent right on the Babymoon. I don’t recall. 100 percent right. I don’t recall filling out any paperwork saying I was taking leave,” she told the investigators. “I’m not even going to blame it on my pregnancy brain.”

There is much here for analysis, but for the purpose of seeing the tangent, you know that Statement Analysis highlights "negation", that is, what someone says "in the negative" as sensitive, or important. The "thou shalt nots" are more forceful than instructions to do something

When a large window has a sign that says, "Do Not Throw Rocks", what is the first thing that comes into your mind?

We know that, from stats, the failure to remember is the number one deception in court. "I don't recall" used in court, Dr. Ekman found, was the top deceptive response.

When someone is giving an open statement, entering the free editing process, they should tell us what they know, not what they do not remember. If a single response to a direct question is, "I don't recall", we know we need more information for our analysis. Here, "I don't recall" comes after the assertion of investigators being "right" using a percentage, but anything that is repeated is sensitive for the subject:

A. "100 percent" is affirmed and repeated.

B. "I don't recall" is offered, and then repeated. We sometimes, with a touch of humor, ask how often someone can repeat not remembering before they confess remembering.

It is here that we note that she offers something in the negative for its importance.

She tells us what she will "not" blame: her child, as in the words, "pregnancy brain."

The analyst is already concerned about:

1. The use of percentage

2. The repetition of percentage

3. The assertion of not recalling

4. The repetition of not recalling

But now she introduces, in the negative, a tangent.

This is to exhibit the need for a tangent, as well as the introduction of a new topic: her pregnancy.

It is to exhibit a well-above average intelligence, as well.

This tangent is offered in the negative, and introduces the topic of pregnancy, child bearing, child birth, and so on, which is often associated with empathy.

How is this any different from a reckless driver pulled over by an officer only to cry while pointing to her large belly containing a pre born child, to attempt to elicit sympathy to influence the officer?

Next, after introducing the emotional tangent (I cannot help but feel sorry for a pregnant woman, but I recognize that not everyone is like me. This is a personal issue for me, and pregnancy itself, something I consider so noble, that I cannot help but think of the pregnant woman's discomforts, sleeplessness, aching back, and so on), comes:

a new topic. This was is also a tangent and does not provoke sympathy from me:

“My husband handles all the finances in our household,” she told investigators during a recorded interview in October 2014.

The article continues: Abedin and her lawyer maintain that she did work while she was on vacation. She claims a lot of work on unlikely days:

Investigators concluded the missing paperwork allowed Ms. Abedin, among other things, to be paid eight hours by taxpayers on the day she actually delivered her son, the documents show.

The article goes on to say that the Justice Department did not appear interested in investigating her.

What we take away from her quotes is the example of how one might use a tangent in an interview, to move the topic away from the allegation, and to, in this case, attempt to elicit emotional responses.

Knowing who her husband is, and having analyzed his own words, the inclusion (blaming) of him did not bring positive emotion to me, as did the inclusion, even in the negative, of her pregnancy.

One who believes herself to be above the law holds to a specific personality type that demands full and utter allegiance, or will take a hostile posture. There is no disagreeing with any specific topic: it is an "all or nothing" scenario only.

Hillary Clinton gives us many examples of deception to learn from, as well as insight into her personality and specific techniques of deception, but here we have someone close to her that may end up facing criminal charges, and who's words may also echo those of her boss:

That she believes herself above the law.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/09/justice_department_declined_to_prosecute_huma_abedin_on_10k_embezzlement.html#ixzz3lLivGKCI

Statement Analysis ®