UK Testing of Statement Analysis Revisited

                      Increased listening produces results.  

Canadian musician Neil Young has made headlines over the past few years decrying the music industry's severe compression of music, making it easier to store on phones, but at a cost of quality.  

What do the science tests say to Mr. Young?

In double blind tests, most people cannot hear the difference between a lossless file and a 196 mp3 file...the exception?  Musical engineers and audiophiles who make it a point to learn the difference.  On the average, however, the general public cannot discern the difference, in spite of Neil Young's assertion to the contrary. 

Is this settled science? 

Let's consider it and its relationship to Statement Analysis training which claims not only extreme results, but a natural move from analyzing statements to analyzing speech.  

Music is audio; that is, sound waves for discernment by the brain, through the mechanisms of the ear.  To record it in "digital" is to make millions and millions of tiny 'bits' of information, for just one song.  This digital file is huge, (called "lossless") so it is compressed into something much smaller  (called "lossy" with much data lost) and much more easily stored:  Mp3 format.  The size of "CD Quality" is 196.  To hear it, the digital bits must be converted to audible sound.  Every phone and lap top has this converter built in.  It is most cost efficient and they do not use expensive ones; after all, the public cannot hear the difference.  

Testers have then taken expensive DACs (digital to audio converters) and done the same tests and have found out:

The average person still cannot tell the difference between a severely compressed file (196 Mp3) and a lossless file.  Thus, the purchasing of more expensive lossless files is a waste, as is the purchasing of more expensive DACs, to supplant the one in your computer or phone a waste, and it is 'snake oil salesmen' who are profiting off the foolish public.  

Scientific testing, using the A/B blind method has been conclusive, therefore, Apple and others'  use of low cost DACs within their products is a wise cost saving move. People cannot tell the difference anyway.  

Has the science been settled?

Many years ago, testers in the UK had investigators trained in Statement Analysis  and then tested them.  They outscored the untrained and were about 20% points higher than average.  This, they concluded, may not be enough to invest the millions of pounds (or is it still Euros?) into training (though some argued that going from 50% to 73% was quite a jump worthy of investment).  The training was 2.5 days in length, which works out to under 20 hours.  

I reviewed their report and the samples they used in the testing.  

Science settled?

Not so fast.  

Let's take a deeper look.  

First, let's begin with how we hear and how we read; for we do not hear with our ears and see with our eyes, so much as we do with the brain.  

"A" 'ah' apple"...'B 'ba' ball" and "C, kuh, Cat"

Let's begin with recorded music.  

We hear in analog.  

It is recorded in digital.  It must be translated back to analog (audio) for our ears to hear it.  

The digital information is converted (DAC) to audio for our ears to translate the sound waves so that our brain can tell us:

*what we hear
*the pitch of which we hear
*the distinction of what we hear 
*the proximity of what we hear
*the emotional response to what we hear, or, the "discernment" of what we hear ("this is good" and "this is not good") 

The brain learns early that a siren has sound waves that tells the brain, "emergency!"

The brain has a positive emotional response (hormonal) to harmony; that is, 2 or more sound waves that work together in a 'pleasing' manner. 

The brain has a distinct opinion of nails against a blackboard, or Yoko Ono singing.  

When the sound waves reach the ear, the brain can often tell if the sound is that of a young female child, or an elderly male speaking.  It can discern if the sound is hostile, or friendly, imperative, or suggestive.  The brain tells you that the sound is far away, or right up behind you.  

In digital, millions of bits of information is lost during the conversion.  Much of this is outside the human range of hearing, however, but lots within that range of hearing, too, is lost during compression and conversion.  

A converter is used to convert the millions of digital signals of music, including little bits of information regarding a single note; when the note begins and when it ends.  

Lossless has it all while MP3 has much less.  Larger MP3  (320) is closer to lossless but for this purpose, 196 mp3 versus lossless is used for the blind tests.  196 is called "cd quality."

If you take a high quality digital to analog converter to the source and give someone high quality headphones upon their first listening test  of which is which, lossless or lossy, they will still likely score the guess rate of 50%.  This is similar to the results of lie detection.  

Then, do it again. 

And again. 

And again. 

In fact, give the person the high quality DAC (converter) and headphones and let them listen to either lossless or large mp3 (320) with their favorite music, every day...

for a month.  Test them now. 

And...for another month.  Test them again. 

And another month of daily listening...

You will see significant increase in the scores.  

The high quality DAC is taking millions of bits of information more than normal and giving it to the brain to interpret.  At first, the brain did not recognize this overwhelming amount of information but in time the brain recognized the information until, as time goes by, the listener who could score no higher than 50% guess rate is at or near 100% and may now even be able to tell the difference between even closer rivals; lossless and 250 MP3...

and so on. 

Sometimes the person who has purchased the headphones or DAC says, "it needed time to burn in" and it is "much better now that it has 300 hours on it", or something similar.  The testing of the equipment at 300 hours is the same at 1 hour:  the electrical wiring is moving signals just as it was the day before.  The difference is not in the speaker, but in the brain's ability to interpret the complexity of sound.  

The DACs within phones and computers are generally of much lower quality with the money invested elsewhere.  When one purchases a quality DAC to bypass their computer or phone's DAC, and quality headphones, the music appreciate increases immediately, but over the course of days, weeks and months, the increase is significant enough that they will not want to return to severely compressed music files again.  Neil Young was right.  

The Scientific A/B blind testing was correct; but it was not complete.  

Listener Fatigue = Dulled Listening

Two years of intense training and someone has the right to call themselves an analyst.  Given course semesters and breaks, this is about the equivalent of a 6 year degree. 

True enough, they begin to work in analysis within 24 hours of initial training and often find success due to guided work, but by the time they have completed all work, written a thesis, and have a minimum of 24 months of peer fueled guided training:  they are proficient in their craft of lie detection.  

During this time they have gone from 50% guess work to near 100% accuracy in written statements, but as the brain became accustomed to signals of sensitivity, the transition from statement analysis to discourse (live, conversational) analysis is realized, quite naturally, without any overt training to the such.  

Dulled Listening is a survival mechanism in the brain uses not unlike "listener fatigue."

People commonly report that after listening on their headphones for "too long" they felt tired, irritable, fatigued, had a headache, or even dizzy. 

This is a regular report. 

In the conversion from digital signals to the audible sound, the length of notes is also within this digital code.  A converter needs thousands and thousands of a specific part to ensure that the length of the note is accurate, but this adds to the expense of the DAC.  When notes are 'off', even though we do not recognize it as such, the brain has to 'readjust' the communication (the tiny muscles within the ears) and cause the ear to work harder at reorganizing the signal to 'make sense' to us.  

This overwork of the ear muscles and devices is fatiguing.  

Listener fatigue is real, just as dulled listening, something we all adjust to do in childhood, is real. 

"Be careful!  There are 'big ears' in the room!" 

Children hear very well and parents often report, "they don't miss a thing!"

The 2 1/2 hear old who says, "Oh ***!" much to the embarrassment of her parents is often met with, "Where did she learn that word?"  (which was preceded by, "Did she really just say $%^&?")

The same parent will find, in just a few years, that the child will have learned how to 'tune out' more, and although they must be careful with what they say, they do not find that they have to be 'as careful', which is why by the time she is in her teens, she might be oft to say, "Oh, you were talking to me?"

The brain "sees"; not the eyes.  

Think of photos with more megapixels.  Over time, our eyes adjust.  

Recently, I watched "New York Mets 1973" rerun on television only to have the kids ask, "You watched this??"  

The picture is dull, I cannot see the faces, and the crowd is a blur, but yes, religiously, I watched this.

Of course, I may not be so enthusiastic today if our games were broadcast in such low definition.  In fact, when an entire game from 1986 was recently broadcast, I fond that I could not watch the entire game due to the dulled picture.   

Statement Analysis is the training of the brain to recognize and interpret signals of sensitivity within language. 

In early training, some are enthusiastic but grow discouraged and what they learned in seminar dissipates without practice.  

Yet, of those who give themselves to training, as they approach or pass the two year mark, they become so proficient at a higher level of listening, that they cannot 'shut it off', and often remark, particularly on little things, verb tenses, TL, or pronouns, on what they just heard.  

The brain's efficiency is not only at a new level, but it has 'rehearsed' itself at this new level enough to fix it solidly at this point.  

Can this level be lost?

I imagine it would take years to reverse and may have to be an act of the will to ignore speech in others for, perhaps, years.  

In reviewing the UK study, had they taken the same law enforcement who had 20 hours of training and gave them the exact same training, daily for the next 6 months, they would have found far greater results.  For example, in one case, the investigators said, "this is a reliable denial" because they saw the pronoun "I", the past tense verb, and the allegation present in the denial.  This is a 101 error: the subject added to the denial pushing it to "unreliable."

The testers also did not classify anything as "reliable or unreliable" only "did he do it, or not?" The proper answer was that he has given an unreliable denial and we need more information for a conclusion.  (he did it)  Instead, testers wanted a 'yes or no' response when it did not exist.  The Reliable Denial could have been fed to the subject by the investigators inadvertently, which would then be contaminated.  

Testers gave no room for contamination, either.  (We train to spot contamination in a statement and can even still analyze it in part). 

Training teaches us to go much further into a statement.  He may not have done "it", but he did do "something else", which is signaled in the statement. Or, he may have "done it" but the statement is not complete within itself.  Tell us what he said next, or what question he was asked, or if he was interviewed first.  All of these factors were ignored, leaving the Free Editing Process, the single most critical element within discernment, out of the equation entirely.  That these rookies scored over 70% is a surprise and a signal of just how effective training can be. 

From the entire 2015, investigators, security experts, psychology experts and human resource experts report either 100% accuracy, or  very close to it, in training.  

The habit of peer review does not end at the 24 month mark; it is life long and it is used whenever it can be used.  Those with decades of experience know this, and they know why it is necessary, even while the new analyst begins to analyze on Day One and will apply it to his or her work.  

How valuable is training?

When someone attends training who has been a long term reader of the Statement Analysis blog, I always ask them to review their comments and conclusions that they came to prior to training.  

They all report the same thing:  The difference is huge.  Everything from "I should have been more cautious!" to "this is more difficult than I thought" on to, "Where can I get more training?!"

Training is available in both seminars and from your home.  Please see Hyatt Analysis Services for opportunities for:

Statement Analysis Training
Advanced Analysis and Profiling
Ongoing Monthly Training and Peer Review. 

Email Analysis: Customer Service Question

A woman was attempting to purchase a rare or difficult to find part for her boyfriend's car and wanted to know if the small company was deceptive or not.  She sent him an email after days of debate; he has it, he does not have it; he has it, but it is on backorder, no, it is right here, and so on.  She was exasperated with not getting a firm answer.  She sent this email:  

"Hey, I have had enough of this going back and forth.  I want to cancel my order. "

She received the short reply:  

"Sorry about that.  Shipped already."

She wants to know if he is telling the truth or not.  

The part was already shipped out  and the return policy for the customer says that the customer pays return shipping within 7 days of receipt.  

The fact that the supplier responded without pronouns reduces commitment to both sentences. 

Why?

Why did he not say (or write), "I am sorry, but I have already shipped the product"?

If he is  in the U.S., but the product shipped from overseas, this could impact the language, too. 

Note that  he could have said, "I am sorry but the item already shipped from...", which would show the  geographical issue which can cause distance or lack of commitment. 

In this case, it is believed that the business owner shipped from his own locale.  

"Sorry" is without the pronoun "I" and
"shipped" is also without the pronoun "I."  

This means he is 'owning' neither statement.  

Does it indicate deception?  

Will the tracking thus show that it was shipped after the customer received this email? 

Melania Trump Statement

The inadvertent release of information is simply a polarity of thoughts that intertwine. 

I am guilty of A, but I speak of B because if I speak of A, there will be consequences. 

While I speak of B, what am I thinking about?

My thoughts are with A; that which I must avoid while I speak freely of B. 

Because I am thinking of A, while I am speaking of B, and words flow from the brain processing, these two parallel thought patterns sometimes blend. 

Recall the case of missing baby Ayla Reynolds when the deceptive father, Justin DiPietro sought words to defend himself against the allegation that he was not assisting police efforts to recover the child he, himself, had reported kidnapped.  

Ayla is "A" for DiPietro. 

"B" is the allegation that he is not cooperating.  

These are two separate thoughts. 

He knows the truth:  Ayla was not kidnapped.  No one had entered that home, and the trail of blood led straight to him, with the volume of blood only confirming what analysis of DiPietro's own words revealed:  Ayla did not survive the Waterville home that dreadful night.  

Yet, DiPietro cannot reveal "A" due to the consequences.  Ayla had been a victim of abuse in his care before, including bruises, leg injuries and lastly, a broken arm of which he did not seek timely medical attention for. This, including her death that night, is his "A", that he must avoid.  He must address "B", the allegation of lack of cooperation.  

These two should be separate thoughts which have separate word, even though they are about the same topic.  They should run parallel and not intersect.  

Yet, the pressure upon the brain to avoid this form of 'leakage' of words, is stressful and challenging. 

"Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with the Waterville Police" 

The word "with" between people shows distance.  The pronoun "I" and "Police" are separated by this word, "with", belying his own assertion.  Yet, we cannot say that the pronoun "I" could be no further from "Police" in this case because he prefaced his remark, showing us priority:

"Contrary to rumors floating around out there" suggests Ayla's remains, or Ayla's belongings (pajamas, etc) were dumped in water.  

This work is subjective. 

1.  The word "with" between "I" and "Police" indicates distance. 
2.  The word "floating" suggests possible water and something floating is on his mind and this should be explored in both the interview, and in searching the rivers that touch both Waterville and Portland.    

One is an "indication", which is strong, while the other is a "suggestion", that needs follow up in an investigation.  In analysis, these two are dealt with separately and an analysis should never confuse the language.  

The distancing language was because he was not cooperating with police and was given the chance to 'negotiate', via media, with the alleged kidnappers.  He refused and when shown a photo of the blood he had cleaned up, ran out of the station.  He did what he could to make sure Ayla was not found.  Thus, the distancing language regarding cooperation was used instead of, "The Waterville Police and I..." or something similar.

*When successful classification of leakage is noted, such as pajamas found at a river, the analyst is tempted to become more 'definitive' about leakage and profiling in general.  When taken to an extreme, we have Andrew Hodges work which says, without reference or principle:  "this means that" with its 'hit or miss' success.  Although I agree with some of his conclusions, the methodology can be used to assert and 'prove' anything means anything we wish.  In the barbaric violence of the Koran, the same is used today in stating it means something else.  Hermeneutics has principle to follow, which is why "backwards language" and extreme, unprincipled 'leakage' cannot withstand scientific scrutiny.  A talented and well trained therapist or other professional can have good success with this but only with plentiful contextual knowledge that must be affirmed by the facts of the case.  This is where Statement Analysis' work is compared to confessions and polygraph results.  

The words are not "subconscious" nor "secretive", though such terms sells books.  When principles are followed strongly, and information is gleaned from both the statement and the interview, the "suggestions" of profiling and 'leakage' are followed for affirmation or denial.  

The talented therapist who, week after week, is told how "cold" the weather is, may eventually seek to learn if the client is lonely.  Yet, to insist that "cold" is "lonely" is without discipline and allows for anyone to begin with a premise, and prove it through almost anything one says.  

Melania Trump made the following statement about Donald Trump which is given for both analysis and for the inadvertent revealing of information. 

What might this suggest, not about the actions of what Donald Trump will do, for this is plainly stated.  We seek something else. 

Our focus is upon the subject herself, and the words she chose to use.  

 What might this suggest about the subject's own experience?
If you were questioning her about possible abuse, how far back would you need to go?

If you began with "Tell me about yourself" and found her answer to begin in the here and now, such as, "I am a wife, mother and a businesswoman.  I am supporting my husband's campaign, and I believe..." (and so on). 

might you consider,

"What were you like growing up?"
True enough, this brings the subject to a much earlier time but it will still allow her to begin, in childhood, where her priority exists. Is it her first memories?  Or, does she begin at age 10?

Note the specific language, including numbers, while formulating a strategy of questions. 


"As you may know by now, when you attack him he will punch back 10 times harder. No matter who you are, a man or a woman, he treats everyone equal."

False Allegation Perpetrators: Contempt

We just looked at the Biblical story of Joseph's brothers, falsely causing their elderly father to believe his young son was dead. 
They felt terrible envy towards Joseph and had first conspired to murder him, but then had the "moral high ground" to make money off of him instead, and sold him into Egyptian slavery which was chattel slavery.  This they could use to tell themselves how morally superior they were:  they were going to teach Joseph how to work, and were responsible men with money.  Thus, the insight into human nature's tendency towards self deception is highlighted, and all this at the cost of Joseph's suffering for the next 13 years as well as the broken heart they caused their own father to experience. 

Yet, the emotion of envy had to be satisfied.  They esteemed themselves important enough to sacrifice other lives for their own benefit. 

Those who falsely accuse others of crime, for whatever reason, are those willing to see someone suffer unjustly, just to satisfy, often, an emotional desire, while for many others, it is an emotional desire coupled with the spirit of larceny. 

"Fake Hate" is not a victimless crime and it is one that should be prosecuted for the fake victim is the one full of hate.  

A women claims to have been beaten outside a hotel, "in the dark" where the hotel was "negligent" in lighting, therefore, she wants money her hands did not earn, in order to 'feel' better.  

Her statement revealed the identity of the attacker, via a "statement analysis confession" when she said, "the other person..." while the statement only had a single attacker; using the word "other" to connect herself to the attacker.  

She used make up to feign injury.  She would have signed a no-suit contract for a quick $2500 check.  

The NYC Muslim woman who said a "man in a black jacket and black hat" asked her if she was a terrorist and slashed her face had the terrorist designate organization "CAIR" rushing to defend her with yet another "Islamophobia" claim with media refusing to say the obvious:  black hat and black jacket in NYC suggests Hasidic or Orthodox Jew.  She cut her own face. CAIR would have been glad to see a Jew imprisoned, after all, their hatred of Jews is pathological.  

"Relentlessly Gay" Baltimore case had a woman raging against Christianity, while willing to victimize the homosexual community to the tune of $43,000.  Julie Baker was allowed to avoid prosecution by refunding the money.  Her contempt was not just contained to Christians, but to homosexuals, of whom she claimed to be one. 

Robert McKnight claimed to have been the victim of racial profiling by a "blonde" woman.  He wrote that his race was a "loaded and difficult calling" (it is not a 'calling'; where one can refuse the choice), twice using the word "loaded" in his fake hate claim (it was a black woman who called police on the aggressive McKnight) and his profile shows:

He is going into politics and is capable of stirring a riot like situation to gain votes; no matter how much hate and divide it brings, as he shows his contempt for black people and for "blondes" too.  One might consider why "loaded" was sensitive to him and how he lacked the self awareness to be foolish enough to actually write "blonde" in his published article.  It makes for powerful profiling in analysis, to consider just what he is capable of doing, and may be a name you want to watch as the years go by, and see the toll of those he harms.  

When caught, liars often rage towards those who exposed them. 

Lance Armstrong financially destroyed people who accused him of doing what he was doing.  He used his millions, with lawyers fully knowing what they, too, were doing, to destroy.  All this instead of saying, "I didn't use PEDs."

When Billie Jean Dunn agreed to take a polygraph, she showed up under the influence because she thought she was smarter than the machine.  Forced to, by her own pride, return sober, she promptly failed.  Her reaction quickly turned to attacking the polygraph examiner, personally.  The liar, when caught, turns vicious. 

In each case I personally interviewed the accusing parent who had falsely accused an adult of child molestation, the liar was willing for the innocent to go to prison just to keep her from being seen as a liar. 

How do we trust journalists today?

Last week, protestors in Europe marched to tell its government to stop importing violence via Islam into their country when a Muslim woman was run over by a car.  Headlines everywhere screamed about it including "right wing", "fascist", neo nazi" and so on, regarding those who disagreed with the government's policy of importing Islamic males, with little or no education, and an utter disregard for the basic civil rights (and safety) of women.  

When the identity of the car driver was known, media refused to report that the drivers were Muslims, with one named...

"Mohammad." 

The CNN and Daily Beast contributor, Dean Obeidallah,  who used this story to propagate his extreme narrative, when challenged how news outlets had to now change their headlines reacted with vulgarity, saying "Go F*** yourself!" instead of issuing a retraction, apology and correction.  


Charlie Rogers' "3 perpetrators" could have ended up with 3 men in prison falsely, yet, this did not matter:  she felt the need for recognition as a "person" who had "feelings" and "this matters."

I have not heard about who paid for having all those Charlie Rogers solidarity tattoos removed from their skin, to date.  

Liars destroy.  

This is what they do.  

Everyone lies, but not everyone is a liar.  

Honest people lie, own it, learn from it, and hate it.  It is not their norm, nor their 'walk' in life. 

Liars sometimes tell the truth.  It is not their 'norm' and it is not something they are comfortable with and will only use the truth when it is advantageous to do so.  

You have to discern the difference between who is a liar and who is a truthful person, howbeit of human frailty, for yourself. 

Know this, however:  the liar is known by patterns, and these patterns are often exploitative in nature as the liar benefits from them, and then goes on the attack when exposed.  He does not show penitence, but rage. 

We now live in a world where the lines between right and wrong went from blurry to crossed and lying and propaganda are higher now than anytime in the 20th century.  When an American President can order to mute a single word from a French president, the rules have changed; the reference points have changed.  

To stand up against an ideology that rapes and kills is to be a "nazi."

To tell the truth can mean loss of income, and even loss of freedom. 

To post a term from the Bible, in Scotland, can mean armed police officers at your front door.  

Societal Acceptance of Deception 

With millions and millions on fraudulent disability in America, millions more are, every year, are seeking money their hands have not earned with all stigma erased.  Thousands simply illegally walk across the border and are given money they have not earned.  People everywhere are trying every scam they can think of to get money their hands did not earn.  

Each week I profile job applicants for companies, or assist other analysts in doing so, and I am seeing, regularly, those who reveal that they too, will find a way to obtain money that their hands did not earn.  

I receive, on average, 4 or 5 requests, via Facebook, for money.  The two most common?

"I am a missionary in Africa" to which I write, "Great!  I am glad to hear this.  The Apostle Paul, too, was a missionary.  He supported himself by making tents.  What do you do for money?" which does not receive a response. 

"I am a refugee living in Iraq."


I write, "Shall I give you my bank account information here?"or "I am a refugee from Maine's cold, can you send me money?"  

Neither gets responses. 

I get 7-10 per week that say "Hi!" with nothing else. 

I have figured this one out, too.  

Do not underestimate the cruelty of the liar.  Those who send pictures of women are deliberately seeking lonely males to exploit, just as the "missionary" and "refugee" are also gaming the system, via human empathy, for the same person:  

Give me money my hands have not earned. 

Satisfy me at your expense. 

Satisfy my need or my want, no matter the expense to you, or anyone else. 

When one young woman accused a 22 year old male of rape, she did so because he had broken off with her and she raged.  
She was exposed by Statement Analysis and in this case, Statement Analysis only. 

When I asked her, when all was said and done, how she felt about falsely accusing someone she once cared for and did not want to break off the relationship. 

She just shrugged her shoulders. 

I couldn't let it go. 

I asked, "But what if he had gone to jail for it?"

No answer. 

"Were you really willing that he go to jail for hurting your feelings?"

She finally answered. 

"Yes."

I believed her.  

After all the years of analysis, study and more analysis, I sometimes consider how little I know about the nature of deception, and how far we, as a race, will go to deceive ourselves. 

Ancient Deception and The Damage Liars Do

                  The Damage that Liars Do
by Peter Hyatt

Here is an ancient account that was touched upon in a sermon yesterday.  The "Sovereignty of God" was the focus:  the brothers of Joseph had done incredible evil, but it was part of a greater, long term plan of which life for both his family and Egypt in large, was spared from horrific famine.  Within this long term 'strategy' is a small point or 'tactic' that is worth examining. 

The small detail:

Joseph's father indulged him, which is never healthy for a child.  By the time he was 17, he was not about working, but walking amongst his older brothers, sharing his dreams with them, while wearing a very expensive, and eye-catching coat.  

They bristled with envy.  Besides the lesson to every indulgent parent, there are lessons of Statement Analysis for us to observe. 

They took him and sold him into slavery, profiting off of the young man's life.  To satisfy their burning envy (emotion), they were willing to destroy Joseph's life.  (At first, they considered murder, but that would not be "moral", so they decided to sell him into slavery, to, you know, give Joseph his life, while financially profiting off of him.  He was likely well fed and strong and would bring full price for a slave.  This, too, could be used to silence the guilty conscience, reminding themselves how they are not murderers.  They were responsible businessmen who made a business decision, since Joseph didn't appear to be one of good worth ethic.  Perhaps, even, they could tell themselves:  'We teach him a lesson.'

Deception begins with self.  This is why those of harsh judgement towards others eventually fail in analysis, as the inability to discern truthful statements harms their record.  

Yet, to ignore human nature's bent towards deception and its 'moral cloak' is to be just as imbalanced. 

Joseph was beloved of his aging father so they took his fancy expensive leather coat, and dipped it in goat's blood and handed it to the patriarch.  

Will they lie?

Note the deception first, and the consequences of deception upon the victim, next. 

Consider:  would they dip the coat in goat's blood and say to their father, "A wild beast has killed our brother, Joseph!"?  This would be a direct fabrication of reality which, in deception, is rare.  They would like to accomplish this while maintaining the luxury of telling themselves what good, moral men they are:  they don't lie.  This is a strong insight into human nature.  

"And they took Joseph's coat and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood.  And they sent the coat of many colors and they brought it to their father and said, This we have found, know now whether it be your son's coat, or no."

Regardless of translation chosen, we may step back from the minute detail and see the plural:  no one wants to step up, singularly, and lie directly. 
Note the "kid" of the goats would also make for a nice celebration banquet, and not be wasteful of the environment or their resources. These are good, 'moral' men, with the moral 'high ground.'

Note "your son" and not "our brother", to further distancing themselves from their guilt.  

Please note that the deception is via missing information, rather than the difficult direct lie.  They let their father come to a false conclusion, while avoiding telling a direct lie.  Human nature lies most often in this manner, allowing itself to say "I didn't lie."  

By using the plural pronoun, the human nature's little 'distancing trick' is to distance an individual from personal guilt; as if to dilute it by spreading it around, like a school boy who says, "Everyone was doing it!" as if erases the line between right and wrong.  

"And he knew it and said, It is my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him.  Joseph is, without doubt, rent into pieces."  

Now, they withhold the truth via their silence and allow the old man to suffer:

"And Jacob rent his clothes and put sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son many days.  And all his sons and daughters rose up to comfort him but he refused to be comforted; and said, I will go down to the grave unto my son mourning.  Thus his father wept for him."

Nothing could comfort him, even the support from a large family.  Jacob said he would suffer every day until his own death. 

The liar is intent upon self satisfaction, even if this satisfaction is nothing but emotional:  the liar will destroy a life for this sole purpose.   

The liar uses deception to satisfy self, covering the guilty conscience with a multitude of excuses and psychological distancing.  What one man or woman might not do, the group can accomplish.  

The liar destroys the lives of others.  

Consider the many "fake hate" and false criminal reports of our day.  

In interviewing such, I have found a consistent streak:

Each liar was willing for an innocent person to suffer incarceration just to satisfy the liar's desire.  

Hilary Clinton's Language on Abortion

Our language reveals us.  

What do you make of the language of Hilary Clinton's two answers regarding abortion?

Can we learn anything from the words she chooses?

TODD: Give me your straightforward position on the issue of abortion.

CLINTON: My position is in line with Row v. Wade, that women have a constitutional right to make these moment intimate and personal and difficult decisions based on their conscience, their faith, their family, their doctor. And that it is something that really goes to the core of privacy. And I want to maintain that constitutional protection. Under Roe  v. Wade as you know there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions after a certain point in time. I think the life, the health of the mother are clear. And those should be included even as one moves on in pregnancy. So I have been — I’ve had the same position for many years.

TODD: When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights?

CLINTON: Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that, you know, don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had refined under our Constitution.

Politicians and Lying

As there is a difference between criminal and moral laws, so we know there is a difference among liars. 

When you brought your kids to the movie theater last week, you told the manager that your 13 year old daughter was 12. 

You lied. 

Should you be classified as a liar, of whom no trust can be given?

Is there a difference between the personal, relationship lie, and bribes?

What about just returning an item on day 31 of a 30 day return policy?

We consider such things as 'white lies', 'personal lies', and panic lies, and how honest people react to lying:

Do they hurt over them?

Do they seek to make amends?

Then, there is the fabricator of reality...

and the habitual liar; the narcissistic type, who puts himself or herself before others.  

You, alone, must decide what classification to put a liar into.  As the political season is in full steam, is there a difference between an affair, and a serial cheater?

Is there a difference between a predator and a weakling?    

For one, the lie is embraced, enjoyed as successful, and a stepping stone;

for another, it is a hurt to confront, amend, and learn from.

For one, it is not really noticed, while for another, it stops them dead in their paths, and makes them reconsider life. 

Everyone lies, but not everyone is a habitual liar who will bring harm and destruction. 

When you listen to the politicians, listen carefully, with discernment.  

When they attack each other:

do they attack policy?

do they attack personally?

is the personal attack one of character, or is it an attempt to exploit error and human frailty?

Does one reveal a serial fabricator of reality who's narrative trumps truth?

Does one seem to make the same mistakes of all men, but has humility to learn from mistakes?

Does one seem immovable, while another seems to have no solid position on anything, waiting for the next opinion poll to dictate character?

For many of us, America has been going on a steadfast downhill path in the last several elections and recognizing our country is a challenge. 

The lack of civility is as remarkable today, as the lack of truth has been in the last 7 years. 

Even people considered professional seem to become emotional, and unhinged, vulgar, and will project their own thinking on to others, without considering one may disagree. 

Name calling, labeling, slogans, and bumper-stickers appeal to the lazy minded.  It is easy to recite 'if it don't fit, you must acquit' than it is to carefully weigh all the evidence. 

In the very least, readers of Statement Analysis come here with 'pause' in mind. 

It takes time and consideration to analyze anything and quick fix bumper-stickers, even when echoing a principle, may not fit well with truth seeking.  

Proceed with discernment.  

Fake Hate: Islamic Woman Slashes her Own Face

She said that the perpetrator wore a black hat and a black jacket...and called her a terrorist and took a razor to her face.  

Please note that in NYC, Hasidic men dress in black and wear black hats. 


 Would the leftist newspaper report this basic fact from NYC?



Consider how far one with an agenda will go.

NY Daily News:

Woman admits she lied about being slashed in face, called ‘terrorist’ in lower Manhattan

A woman who told cops she was called a terrorist and slashed on her cheek in lower Manhattan on Thursday later admitted she made up the story, police said early Friday.

The woman, who wore a headscarf, told authorities a blade-wielding wacko sliced open her face as she left a Manhattan cosmetology school, police sources said.

The 20-year-old student at the Make-up Designory on Broadway near Rector St., said she was walking toward Trinity Church at 4:10 p.m. Her attacker, she said, came up behind her by Wall St., grabbed her arm, and slashed a roughly 2-inch gash into her cheek, police said.

Police leave an ambulance after talking with the woman who claimed to have been called a "terrorist" before being slashed in downtown Manhattan. She recanted her story early Friday.

But police could find no video or witnesses to back up her account and she ultimately admitted her wound was self-inflicted.

Jefferson Siegel/New York Daily News

The woman claimed incident took place outside Trinity Church in downtown Manhattan on Thursday.

The woman was taken to Bellevue Hospital for treatment and later a psychological evaluation.

The incident comes as the city wrestles with a 22% spike in slashings and stabbings so far this year compared to the same period in 2015. NYPD Police Commissioner Bill Bratton last week said the the department will start giving blade attacks the same level of scrutiny as shootings.

Obama Mutes President of France

Obama Mutes President of France

When Barak Obama first announced his run for the White House, the racial stifling began:  if you disagreed with the Senator, you were a racist.  This silenced his critics who were concerned about his Islamic roots and how Islam, as an ideology, is opposed to democracy and freedom. 

In his first term, he repeatedly alarmed freedom watchers with his socialism, but more so, with his increasing boldness regarding Islam. 

When he won reelection, he came out of the "Islamic closet" and his policies have been from arming an enemy with mankind's most frighteningly powerful weapon, to removing "Islam" from "Islamic terror" training manuals.  He has placed Islam in prisons, chiding and blamed Christians, and even fabricated history, the perfect "Tacquia" of Islam:  to cause Americans to think that Islam founded the nation.  

He divided us by race, encouraged the riots of Baltimore, and when Islamic terrorists killed Americans, he lectured Christians. He has placed Islamics in all portions of government, including federal law enforcement and security and portrays the sexual violence of the koran as "American values."  

He has facilitated the importation of Islamic migrants, ridiculed those who disagree, and as the enemies of Europe simply walked in, with tens of thousands of ISIS fighters, with tons of weaponry, he said the young men were "widows and orphans." He has even tied feminist groups to Islam; while turning his back upon Christians in the Middle East, with his refusal to call it "genocide", though the numbers are almost nil.  He invokes a war from 1,000 years ago to justify the killing today.  Iraq says Obama drops food and supplies, not bombs, on ISIS, in spite of what he claims.  

No where in our history has anyone lied so boldly, consistently and with such purpose as Barak Hussein Obama.  

Now he has removed "Islam" from all of his speeches on Islamic terrorism.  

Now, in a crude attempt to continue his Tacquia, he has imitated Nazi Germany's Ministry of Propaganda, gapping out the word "Islam" from yesterday's speech.  

Americans elected a Muslim president who has, consistently, helped only the cause of Islam, including flooding the borders, while cities like Baltimore, Chicago and others drown in unemployment.  

This muting of the official record is cartoon like.  



From nypost.com

Note the denial issued.

White House censors video to remove ‘Islamic terrorism’ quote

President Obama is so paranoid about linking terrorists to the Muslim faith that when French President François Hollande used the phrase “Islamist terrorism” at a meeting in Washington, White House officials posted their official press video with audio of the words cut out completely.

The 8-minute clip was posted on the White House Web site and showed Hollande discussing the global terror threat at a Nuclear Security Summit meeting with Obama and advisers Thursday.

The White House’s transcript of the event shows the French leader declared at the 4:49 minute mark that “the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq.”

But rather than include Hollande’s remark in its entirety, the Obama administration posted footage in which his interpreter’s English translation of the words “Islamist terrorism” was missing.

The audio gap was first reported by the Media Research Center, a media watchdog.

After initially posting the video without the edits, the White House took it down and uploaded it again with the interpreter’s voice muted, the MRC reported.

The nonprofit group reported that the White House’s official MP3 recording of the meeting was also censored, but that the transcript was not.

“Thanks, of course, Ministry of Propaganda offices at WH for going ahead and simply posting the proof!” a user wrote in a comment on the White House’s YouTube page.

Another wrote: “Nice backtracking, White House. You tried to censor Hollande and you know it.”

Obama — who has come under fire for refusing to say “radical Islam” or “Islamic terrorist” — made three mentions of terrorism throughout Thursday’s meeting, uttering the phrases “hands of terrorism,” “scourge of terrorism” and “counterterrorism.”

A White House official said the audio gap was the result of a technical error that happened to come as Hollande was uttering the controversial words.

Here is the statement:  

“Nothing was edited out,” the official told The Post. “A technical issue with the audio during the recording of President Hollande’s remarks led to a brief drop in the audio recording of the English interpretation. As soon as this was brought to our attention, we posted an updated video online with the complete audio, which is consistent with the written transcript.”

Modal Trigger

Photo: Getty Images

As of 6 p.m. Friday, the White House had posted footage with the words “Islamic terrorism” included.

Obama has stayed away from the phrase and others like it to avoid tying the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims to terrorism.

He has been blasted by Republicans for the practice, with one of his biggest critics being Ted Cruz, who took aim at Obama after last month’s Brussels terror attacks.

“Radical Islam is at war with us,” the Republican presidential candidate wrote on Facebook. “For over seven years we have had a president who refuses to acknowledge this reality. And the truth is, we can never hope to defeat this evil so long as we refuse to even name it.”

Profiling Success Versus Statement Analysis

In analyzing a statement for deception or veracity, the expectation is 100% accuracy.  The only error that should surface will be one of two things:

1.  Error due to contamination
2.  Error due to failure to have peer review 

I do not include the single most common error in statement analysis:  the miss.

There is good reason for this omission as an error and it is simple:

The analyst has made his or her conclusion (male and female analysts are uniquely and marvelously different in  thought, language, and emotion) as either Deception Indicated or Veracity Indicated (with a rare "inconclusive" due to brevity, or "contaminated") and will almost always have a point "missed", but this will not impact the analysis conclusion.  It will, however, be another point of information helpful in the investigation or interview. 

This is because the brain can only process so much information at any given time and overloading can take place.  This is heightened when a trail or 'scent' is picked up by the analyst and he knows the subject is lying.  This is a bias that he must be aware of and continue to 'enslave himself' to the statement. 

As questions arise, the analyst seeks answers from the statement, or will seek them in the interview; but wants them answered.  Some of these questions are posed by the analyst as he "thinks aloud" and keeps himself 'alert' for the answer even as the subject 'takes him on a different road, entirely.'

In such analysis conclusions, the "Deception Indicated" and "Veracity Indicated" holds an expectation of 100% or quite close, over the long haul.  This length of time speaks to the long-term health of the results and far outpaces all other sciences and the coin toss results of the untrained.  

But profiling is quite different.  

Once the analyst has the conclusion, which, for the sake of this article, is "Deception Indicated", he then begins to "add up" his questions and concerns to uncover 4 specific things about the subject:

1.  His Background.
2.  His Experiences in life. 
3.  His priority or priorities.
4.  His personality. 

It is here where if the analyst, who has at or near 100% conclusion record of lie detection, over a period of years, will be a success if he has north of 70% accuracy in the profile.  

The subject claimed to have been injured at work and instead of getting into the issue with him, the Human Resources professional said, "Please sit here and write out what happened from the time you got to work until now.  If you wish to change any word, just draw a single line through it.  We want to hear what happened from you."  She handed him paper (lots), 2 pens, and brought bottled water.  

The statement is then sent to an analyst with the following information:

"This subject claimed to have fallen down stairs where mopping had just taken place.  He has not been interviewed.  English is his first language.  We'd like to know if he is telling the truth.  I know you've said not to give details but I heard that this happened at his last job and he does not seem injured.  Thank you. "

She was right and had to be reminded that she is setting up the analyst for bias.  English first language is okay, and any blaring mental health issues (hearing voices) can be added, but that is it.  

Here is why and where the 30% errors may often be found:

1.  Background:  male, mid 30's, white, English first language, above average intelligence 

2.  Experiences:  language suggests college degree 

3.  Priority:   Larceny.  He is seeking to game the system by making a fraudulent claim  

4.  Personality;  Selfish, high minded, narcissistic-like, stubborn, bully....

Among these, errors often occur as, for example:

A recent profile showed what was very likely to be a 4 year college degree.  The grammar and usage was not perfect, but it was proficient.  

It wasn't. 

It was high school only.

What was my response?

"What year did she graduate? It was likely pre 1985."

It was 1975.  

A college grad (4 years) recently submitted one in which she wrote, "I feel like I am really a great worker!  even if I say so myself.  lol!"

I had known before hand the degree, otherwise, I would have been off. 

The profile must shift.  


The analyst must shift with culture in order to be correct.  

When the average college grade jumps from a "C" to today's "A" either we are getting a whole lot smarter or...

expectations and results are in decline.  

When "racism" is invoked, consider it is "racism" by the accusers when they attempt to make vulgarity a "race norm", by lowering expectations for children based upon the color of their skin.  This  hinders  education with the only ones profiting being politicians and textbook sellers.  

The kids are betrayed.  Learning proper English takes more effort, therefore, the value of anything in this life requires effort, determination and hard work, whereas 'victim status' and excuse making cause politicians to prosper while they destroy children's educations and earning potential. Regarding the dropping of grades,  you can read Daniel Greenfield's  Snowflake Nation and consider why many college professors fear free speech and scrutiny. 

With the success rate in Statement Analysis' "Deceptive or Truthful" near or at 100% for those formally trained (which presupposes peer review) the profiling of Background, Priority and Personality will not produce numbers this high, and are  impacted particularly in discerning educational experiences of a subject.  

"Priority" or "priorities", is likely the closest to "Statement Analysis" as it is often included in the work, but in profiling, the single most important element is "personality" type as this is:

1.  The number one element of security vetting.  Personality, more than anything else (sans deception, which is a game ender) tells us risk. 

2.  An important element (crucial, mostly) is personality in Interview strategy.  This is where, in following our steps of Analytical Interviewing, we will set our own stance; neutral, subordinate, etc, and where we allow the subject to take "the most control" of the interview.  It is where we find our confessions:  actual.  

3.  Personality type is critical in hiring the right person for the right position.  Cleared as an honest person, the personality will allow us to know:

a.  does this person work well with the public?
b.  does this person work well with co workers?
c.  Will he impact morale positively or negatively?
d.  Is he better suited for a position working alone than with others?
e.  What will this person be like when a customer disagrees with her?
f.  What about sarcasm?  Does she disarm with humor, or is it nasty passive-aggressiveness?
g.  Does the personality suggest eager to learn?  Or
h.  Does the personality suggest an egotist who is pedantic?
i.  Does the personalty suggest responsibility or...
j.  Does the applicant have a ready-made-all purpose excuse?
...and so on.  

It is in the points of education, age, and experiences, that we find error, though the error is not 'game changing' error, and anything north of 70% is going to be highly useful.  Once we are beyond 80%, we are close to identifying an anonymous author of a threatening statement. 

Training Seminars are offered for law enforcement and businesses, while private training in Statement Analysis includes 12 months of e support, with various opportunities for professional expertise for the individual.  This provides traction for careers and establishes strong resumes, all the while, providing an invaluable service to your department, company, and society at large.  

Hyatt Analysis Services

for tuition, payments, scheduling.