Intellectual Liars: Debbie Wasserman Shultz

The intellect is often seen in the quality of lies.  It is a form of contempt that is elevated through superior intellect and educational development built upon successfully deceiving others.  

An example is seen in audacity.  

"I smoked marijuana, but I did not inhale." 

The audacity reveals not only a lengthy history of deception (from childhood) but an ever growing contempt which leads, in natural progression, to lowered self awareness or "emotional intelligence."

Herein lies the larger strategy for law enforcement, journalists, investigators and interviewers.  

The liar seeks to avoid the internal stress of direct lying by parsing words carefully.  It is as if one is preparing for court where lawyers are well paid for this form of deception. 

             "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is' is."  

This type of statement infuriates and often fills the interviewer/opponent with resolve.  The audience recognizes the inherent insult and the liar fails to grasp the age old concept of not poking a tiger in the eye.  This is where intellect and experience is subordinated to ego, with inevitable consequences.  

It is an essential technique for investigators in Analytical Interviewing.  

The contempt that liars feels is greatly increased by success which leads to the loss of self awareness.  The feeling of one's own superiority means, by necessity, judging self on a curve, compared to others.  The liar feels superior to others, and this enters the language.  

When kindergarten teachers note a child's ability to directly lie (fabricate reality), they are seeing a personality trait that will only grow with each successful deception of an adult, and it is within the age and sophistication disparity that is most alarming.  The contempt becomes contempt for authority in general.  Contempt for authority tells its victim that he or she is above the law.  It is why all children must be trained not to lie and why even small, arbitrary rules are set for very young children, just as they are within military training:  one learns to follow orders.  In children, the lack of such leads to anxiety, which has many consequences in adulthood.  

As analysts and investigators learn the power of emotion, do not underestimate the emotional impact of inherent contempt upon increasing the focus of the recipient.  

The investigator who is insulted may become even more purposeful, just as liars also know the "ingratiating factor" in analysis seeks to reduce resolve through empathy.  

The subject loses the ability to see just how self is perceived by others.  Here is an article with quotes about the on the fly interview with Debbie Wasserman Shultz and police.  

Note the contempt within the language.  Analysis is added to the article via bold type and emphasis of underlining  and the use of color has been added to draw your attention to specifics within the language.  

To study Statement Analysis, please visit our website:

Hyatt Analysis Services. 

 We offer in house seminars for law enforcement and business, but also a Complete Statement Analysis Course completed in your home. This comes with 12 months of e support. 

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

Article:  Daily Caller 

Nearly three months after Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) engaged in a terse exchange with Capitol Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa over the ownership of IT aide Imran Awan’s laptop, the Democratic lawmaker is claiming concern over “racial and ethnic profiling.”

Let's start from the beginning.

In February, it was revealed that Imran Awan, an IT specialist who worked for numerous Democrat lawmakers, was under investigation for allegedly “stealing equipment from members’ offices without their knowledge and committing serious, potentially illegal, violations on the House IT network” according to Politico. Four others (three relatives and a friend) are also under investigation.

The Washington Free Beacon reports that “the accused staffers are believed to have had access to sensitive intelligence information related to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as lawmaker's personal information, prompting concerns the breach could be far deeper than initially suspected.”

For five months, Wasserman-Schultz kept Awan on her payroll, refusing to fire him despite other lawmakers terminating his employment. The congresswoman claims she was simply “[standing] up for what’s right.”

After the investigation went public, however, Wasserman-Schultz was forced to redefine Awan’s position as he was no longer permitted to access the House IT network.

 She told the Sun Sentinel that “there are plenty of technological issues that an IT person can assist with. He didn’t have access to the network, but he was able to give us guidance and advice and troubleshoot on a wide variety of other technological issues.”

The story took an unusual turn when a piece of hidden technology was uncovered.

The Daily Caller reports that during the course of the investigation, a laptop “hidden in an unused crevice of the Rayburn House Office Building” was found and seized by police. The laptop allegedly belongs to Imran Awan.

However, at the annual budgetary hearing for the Capitol Police on May 18, Wasserman-Schultz grilled Chief Matthew R. Verderosa about the laptop, implying that it was her property.

The partial exchange is as follows.  Please note the articles and pronouns: 

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: I’d like to know how Capitol Police handle equipment that belongs to a member or staffer that’s been lost in the Capitol complex and found or recovered by one of your officers. What happens?

VERDEROSA: It’s processed on a PD-81 which is a property record, and depending on the property, depending on how you can legitimately determine ownership, it’s generally turned back over to the owner of a property. If it’s part of an ongoing case, then there are other things that have to occur for that to happen.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTS: So if a member says there is equipment that has been lost, and you find it it would be returned to the member?

The back-and-forth continued, with Verderosa repeatedly noting that if the item in question is “part of an ongoing case, then there are additional things that need to be done.”

Wasserman-Schultz persisted, implying that because the laptop was allegedly her property, and because she herself was not under investigation, it should be returned:

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Members’ equipment is members’ equipment. My understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate members’ equipment when the member is not under investigation. It is their equipment and it is supposed to be returned.

Note the seeking of information by the subject and the avoidance by police 

VERDEROSA: I think there are extenuating circumstances in this case…

The officer remains in the realm of appropriate weakness; it avoids an accusation.  This is not lost on the subject, who now does what liars do when cornered:  they attack.  

There are many examples of such on the blog.  Begin with Lance Armstrong.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences.

On July 24, Awan was arrested as he attempted to board a flight to Pakistan via Qatar. He was subsequently “charged with bank fraud after a months-long investigation that found he wired nearly $300,000 to Pakistan,” reports The Washington Free Beacon.

Politico details the charges: “Awan is accused of attempting to defraud the Congressional Federal Credit Union by obtaining a $165,000 home equity loan for a rental property, which is against the credit union’s policies since it is not the owner’s primary residence. Those funds were then included as part of a wire transfer to two individuals in Faisalabad, Pakistan.”

Fox News adds: “[Awan] pleaded not guilty Tuesday to one count of bank fraud during his arraignment in federal court in Washington, D.C. He was released but will have to wear a GPS monitor and abide by a curfew.”

It wasn't until Awan’s arrest that Wasserman-Schultz decided to terminate his employment.

Following previous reports that Wasserman-Schultz was in “negotiations” with Capitol Police regarding the extent to which they could examine the seized laptop, she told the Sun Sentinel on Thursday that she has allowed an examination to go forward. 

She also admitted: “This was not my laptop. I have never seen that laptop. I don’t know what’s on the laptop.”

It is vital to note any unnecessary repetition.  Note the use of "this" versus "that" in terms of psychological or physical closeness versus distance. 

In a sense, linguistically follow the lap top.  

The analyst should ask self:

How else could this have been worded?

If she had no connection to the lap top, how would such innocence sound?

Why does this sound so awkward?

Given her intellect and educational background, what does this awkwardness suggest?

Moreover, the congresswoman said her distress is due to possible violations of Awan’s legal rights:

I had grave concerns about his due process rights being violated. …When their investigation was reviewed with me, I was presented with no evidence of anything that they were being investigated for. And so that, in me, gave me great concern that his due process rights were being violated. That there were racial and ethnic profiling concerns that I had.

The congresswoman released a similar statement on July 26, just after Awan's arrest and termination. Both statements mirror the ones provided by Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Marcia Fudge (D-OH) in March. However, Meeks and Fudge didn't wait five months to take action.

Regarding her exchange with Police Chief Verderosa, Wasserman-Schultz added: “I was trying to get more information, I wanted to make sure they were following the rules.”

She also balked at the idea that Awan was fleeing the country because he filled out a form concerning his leave of absence, and bought a round-trip ticket.

This situation is baffling, and it brings to the fore several questions. Why did Wasserman-Schultz imply the laptop was hers? Why did she fight against an examination of the laptop so vociferously? Why has it taken her so long to allow an examination? Why did she continue to employ Awan when numerous others fired him upon discovery of the investigation? Why did she wait so long to reveal the alleged motivations behind her defense of Awan and his laptop?

These questions need to be answered. Perhaps the contents of Awan’s laptop will do that.

Col. Wil Riggins: Rape Allegation Denial Analyzed

4 August, 2017  REPOST 

People often ask for examples of truthful statements and reliable denials to accusations. 

Here is an example where one is accused of rape and gives a Reliable Denial and we are now able to learn more about the case.  

Several years ago, the following analysis was given regarding the allegation of rape.  

At the conclusion of the article, an update is given. 

Question:  Could not the military discern truth from deception in her blog posts?

Colonel sues West Point classmate who claims he raped her 30 years ago in blog that led to end of his career

• Susan Shannon claims she was raped by army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986
• Former cadet waited 30 years to speak because of army's 'code of silence'
• She made the allegations against her former classmate on a blog in 2013
• But Riggins denies claims saying they've cost him a promotion to general
• He has now launched a multi-million defamation lawsuit to clear his name

A retired army colonel is suing his former West Point classmate for more than $2million after he says her 30-year-old rape claims cost him a promotion.

Susan Shannon first alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986, while they were both cadets, on her blog in 2013. She says she waited three decades to come forward about her experience because of the army's 'code of silence'.

But Riggins, who vehemently denies the claims, said the 'false' allegations had cost him a sparkling military career.

Army Colonel Wil Riggins  is suing his former West Point classmate Susan Shannon  for more than $2million after he says her claims that he raped her 30 years ago cost him a promotion

The combat veteran from Alexandria had been on the cusp of being appointed to general in 2013, when Army leaders saw Shannon's rape allegation on her blog.

His promotion was snatched away and Riggins says his name was dragged through the mud after 'Susan Shannon decided to play judge and jury on her own.'

The decorated colonel denies all claims, telling ABC 7 On :

 "I did not rape Susan Shannon. I did not sexually assault Susan Shannon. Every aspect of her story is verifiably false.'

This is a very strong denial.  He not only issues the singular Reliable Denial, but in the case where "rape" may be debated, or changed to another allegation, he goes on to clarify:  "I did not sexually assault Susan Shannon."

this is to deny even an altered allegation which can be anticipated in sexual assault cases.  

Now he is mounting a multi-million dollar cases against his accuser -  which experts on survivors of sexual assault warn could have a 'chilling' effect on whether future victims come forward.

Riggins is seeking more than $2million in damages to his career and reputation after he says he 'never got a day in court' to defend himself. 

However, Shannon's attorney Ben Trichilo said his client had one, simple defense - 'the truth.'

Susan Shannon  alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel Wil Riggins in 1986 while they were both cadets at West Point

Shannon said she had finally been inspired to speak about her alleged experience after reading about several high profile convictions for sexual assaults in the military.

Despite the law suit she now faces, she said she does not regret coming forward.

'Frankly the day I started saying his name was the day I started blaming him instead of myself, she said.

'I didn't ask for this day. I'm being forced into a courtroom,' Shannon said, 'It's costing me and my family pretty much all that we have saved. I knew that risk when I wrote it and I don't regret it a day.'

She says she is planning to fight the law suit, not only for herself, but for all other victims of sexual assault.

Shannon alleges she was raped by her former cadet classmate at the United States Military Academy in New York in 1986. She dropped out shortly afterwards.

Now a jewelry designer and a mother living on the West Coast, she added that the pressure in the army to keep quiet and not turn in her peers meant that she did not even report the alleged rape at her exit interview. 

'There was no way I was going to report that. The blame would fall squarely on me,' she said, adding she had only told a few friends at the time.

She made the claims on her blog Short Little Rebel in 2013 -  which followed the announcement that Colonel Riggins had been nominated for general.

Shannon denies having any knowledge of his nomination until she was contacted by Army officials investigating her blog post.

Riggins was 'euphoric' after his nomination but his joy was not to last long after he was hauled in front of the Army's Criminal Investigations Division for questioning and had his DNA and fingerprints taken at Fort Myer in Arlington.

While investigators were not able to prove or disprove Shannon's claims, Riggins' pending nomination was pushed to Promotion Review Board.

Despite the board declaring Riggins 'fully qualified for promotion', army documents obtained by ABC 7 show Secretary of the army John McHugh still decided to cancel his promotion. Army officials refused to confirm why the colonel's name was pulled from the promotion list.

But Riggins, who feels he has been 'abandoned' by the army, believes the secretary was simply not willing to risk his reputation defending him. 

The decorated colonel has now filed the multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit, claiming it was 'the only avenue left to me to clear my name.'

Both parties, who will argue whether the sex was consensual or rape, will meet in a Fairfax County courtroom.

UPDATE  3 August, 2017    link 

August 03, 2017 12:30 PM EDT

A retired Army colonel who sued a former West Point classmate for defamation related to blogged accusations of rape has won a multi-million dollar decision in a Virginia court. Wil Riggins, a decorated veteran from Alexandria, claimed the online accusations from a woman named Susan Shannon cost him a military promotion. On Tuesday a jury agreed, awarding Riggins $3.4 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The case was unique in that Shannon's accusations of rape came nearly 30 years after the alleged assault.

Statement of Parking Lot Altercation Exercise

I was minding my own business, out for a swim...

Pop Quiz:  Is this account truthful or not?

Deception defined in context:  

Most deception (90% +) is by the means of deliberately leaving out information.  We find in analyzing statements that a deceptive statement is often 100% technically truthful, sentence by sentence.  This is why Content Analysis is so useful:  even a liar will guide us to the truth.  

This is a report of an altercation being investigated by police.  

Question for Analysis:  Is this reliable or is there information missing from it?

Remember, when two people give an account of what happened, the perspectives are different.  

Deception is deliberate.  

This means the one who is deceptive is deliberately (willfully) withholding (or changing) information in order to alter the recipient's perception of what happened.  

This can be within content, but we also look at what the words reveal about the subject.  This is called the "Pscyho-linguistic Profile" which reveals:

1.  The subject's background
2.  The subject's experiences in life
3.  The subject's motive from priority (priorities)
4.  The subject's personality traits. 

In profiling, the greater the same, the more information we have.  


The subject is a  40-year-old woman who was waiting for a car parking space when a man approached her vehicle.

Posting anonymously, she wrote the following:  

“I was waiting for his parking space and was  minding my own business.

I heard shouting and slamming of doors and thought nothing of it.

It wasn't until I had my full attention on him.

I was shocked he had been talking to me as I caught the tail end when he said "you're all disgusting!”.

 He obviously saw a Muslim lady with a headscarf sat there and thought he could intimidate me

His wife or partner was so embarrassed she couldn’t look at me,

 everyone else in the car park were looking at us so must’ve heard what he was shouting too.

The irony is that just before this incident I was watching and partaking in a two-minute silence at 11 as I watched crying as it aired live on the BBC.

I am angry too just as you are.

I would like to remind people that we are Muslim and not terrorists.

All I wanted to do was do a food shop.

 I am not the victim here, the tragedy that unfolded before our eyes were the victims.

Their families, friends and loved ones are all the victims and we need to come together,

let’s not let them divide our close community. Educate yourself.”

Statement Analysis Training: Emotion

Question:  What makes a good investigator?

There is the standard of inquisitiveness, a lively mind and perseverance well known and recognized.   Most investigators possess, to some degree, these basic qualifications.

    A Statement Analyst is a linguistic detective. 

Question:  What makes a top, world class  investigator?

I work with some of our nation's top crime analysts and instructors. I note a consistency among them: 

They greater their professional achievements and status, the more they seek to learn.  They listen patiently and show a humility that surprises new analysts.  If they disagree with a point, they will respond privately so as not disrupt the flow of learning.  They reached the top for good reason.  New analysts receive from the not only encouragement, but inspiration.  

How did they get there?

Remember that in teaching deception detection and criminal analysis, they are not only theoretical; they assist in live, ongoing cases which puts their abilities and knowledge to the test.  

Like soldiers, they take orders.  As leaders, they give orders from the foundation of having learned to take orders.  It is a natural flow.  

What makes them reach such high levels professionally?

This question was studied by Israeli psychologists in their quest to build a powerful intelligence community for the purpose of national survival.  Human survival is a powerful motive.  Israel is a tiny nation surrounded by nations who hold to an ideology that calls for their destruction.  They have to be good at intelligence and investigations.  


In seeking to hire the best and brightest investigators for intel survival, the psychologists researched carefully and learned that the existence of a single trait is what separated top investigators from good  and even very good investigators.

It came down to the element of emotion.

Answer:  The subjugation of human emotion.  This is readily seen in the ability to emotionally accept the incomplete puzzle.  This subjugation of emotion reveals itself in professional indifference.  

Professional Indifference 

The professional investigator lets the case details lead.  In the same way, the professional investigator lets the language guide him or her, buttressed by statistical likelihood, within the context of experience.  On any given turn, a mistake is easy to make, but over the course of an entire statement, the "left turns" and "right turns" of the language within principle and statistics, bring forth truth.  This is something that we seek verification, with confession (or admission) being key, even more so than the polygraph or conviction.  

Statement Analysis seeks truth.  It is not subject to external influences, including the element of time, nor of culture.  

Truth has no feelings, nor does truth hold interest in the feelings of humans, even if the human is a politician. 

Example

 If one takes 2 eggs, breaks them open and puts them on a hot flat surface while whisking, one has:

Scrambled Eggs.

If this is done today, it will produce Scrambled Eggs.
If this was done yesterday, it produced Scrambled Eggs.
If it is done tomorrow, it will produce Scrambled Eggs.
If your great great great great grandmother did it long ago, or your progeny a thousand years from now does it, it will be Scrambled Eggs. 

Time has no bearing upon it.

Change of Language 

The rose by any other name...

Should someone state that whisking broken eggs over heat produces  rare Prime Ribs of Beef, and gives it this new wording, and demands that everyone call the eggs "Prime Ribs", the wording will not change the essence: it is eggs; it is not beef.  Even under coercive means, renaming or even ignoring, will not change essence. 

If a politician claims that not calling it "Prime Ribs of Beef" is offensive, hateful and even a display of  irrational fear of beef, the taste, texture, appearance and content will not change.  No matter how much outrage (emotion) is shown, and how many consequences are applied, the truth does not change.

If one has two apples and adds two more, the final count of apples stands at four even if this offends, creates victims, or is made taboo.   

                     How powerful are human emotions?

Emotion is the number one factor in the change of language.

We have seen how a powerful emotion can literally change language in a single statement. 

It produces not only more words than logic, but can even challenge logic or reason, within any given person.

In rape allegations, the two letter tiny word "we" has produced precise results, depending upon its location in a statement.  This element is so powerful, we have "confession by pronoun." 

In domestic homicide cases, communicative language is indicated for great importance just before the assault as it gives us insight into what happened and when the assault began. 

  This is the key within communicative language; one person said something to another and the crime commenced.  

Rape and the Pronoun "We"

Pronouns are intuitive and are not part of our subjective understanding of words.  They are, in a sense, "pre thought" and reflect ownership or the refusal to take ownership, linguistically.  

"Media reports about my collusion with Russia"  POTUS

"Those of you who believe in my guilt..."  OJ

In rape cases, the pronoun "we", which shows unity, cooperation, and a connection, is ejected without thought, from rape victims' statements once the assault has taken place. 

In my own career, whenever I have found the pronoun "we" to enter a statement uniting the alleged victim with the alleged perpetrator, the claim was proven to be false.  Alleged victims admitted (not confessed) to lying. 

Why?

Because they felt "hurt" was the number one answer, though exploitation is not far behind. 

"We drove to the park and he then raped me.  We drove back here and I told my father."  

The victim's disgust is so extreme that there is no "we" or unity to be found after the assault.  

An exception can be found among adult victims of childhood sexual abuse where the perpetrator was specifically a trusted family member.  

In rape cases where doubt existed, pronouns and careful analysis of passive language, has justified victims who normally would not have been believed.  

A rape victim who is not believed will experience even more trauma through the inability of some to discern truth from deception.  We offer an entire teaching on rape victims and why passivity cannot be conclusive by itself.  

Emotion is powerful. 

Domestic Homicide 

Emotion, in the face of logic and reason, is still powerful.  It is powerful enough to have a person ruin his entire life in a moment of emotion, by ending the entire life of another human.  

At the moment, the perpetrator does not consider that he not only ends the life of another, but may spend the rest of his own life incarcerated.  

How much worse is this when emotion is placed above logic?

When emotion overrules logic, the human race experiences a rash of negative consequence.  From this, conflict is inevitable.  

Historically, the West has taught the necessity of self control.  For humans who settled where they experienced cold weather, they soon learned that in order to survive winter, some form of civil cooperation was necessary.  Without self control, neighbors would not work well together.  

In Islamic culture, self control is considered weakness to be exploited.  This is a precursor to interpersonal violence (along with supremacist ideology).  

Self control; that is, the governing of one's own passions, is key to so many successes in life that in military, for example, the loss of control can be catostrophic for survival.  Training seeks to overcome natural fear and desire for self preservation.  Without it, chaos and death may result.  Individualism is subordinated for the greater good or for necessity of survival.  Only politicians turn military from its purpose (killing) to social justice arenas.  

Domestic Violence. 

Men are violent towards women.  This is a generality which is now shifting in increasing percentages, just as we have seen more women being incarcerated.  We establish principle on general terms; not upon exceptions.  Here is one that needs more examination.  

Personal Experience 

I have worked in D/V since the mid 1980's. 

 I have found the most consistent factor is that the male was not taught to govern his own passions. I have not, to date, conducted a single interview where the violent one was able to identify with anything resembling nobility in self control.  In going through their childhood, "self expression" was valued more than civility and kindness towards others.  This has been exasperated in the "self esteem" movement of a few decades ago.  

The second powerful element in language is the lack of basic human empathy.  

In interviewing children in child protective cases, the lack of empathy for others was consistently indicated.  

In screening for law enforcement, I focus upon not only the insecurities (need to be respected by strangers) but upon sportsmanship, which can reveal either empathy for the vulnerable citizens, or a frightening lack of such.  

Sports and Males 

 This was, culturally,  the basic teaching of boys in sports:  self control was called "sportsmanship."  Culturally, males were targeted for such training (testosterone) as girls did not present the same acute need; they generally behaved more appropriately towards one another.  

The essence of "sportsmanship" is respect.  

How does one cultivate respect for his fellow human?

The winner is not in need of respect; the loser, or vanquished foe is.

   Therefore, "unsportsmanlike conduct" was conduct deemed culturally inappropriate towards the loser.  The key to the training of boys was that in a moment of great emotional (hormonal) elevation, where maximum mental and physical effort collided for success, one must always have empathetic respect for the defeated foe.  Culturally, this has changed dramatically, and the consequences of such are not surprising. 

Absurdity on ice

I often state that I wish a prerequisite for political office in America is military experience where leadership is formed in the crucible of hardness. 

Hall of Fame pitcher, Tom Seaver, said he learned his professionalism and preparedness for the big leagues  in his two years in the Marine Corps.  Childhood lessons of sacrifice and team work came marvelously together in the rigors and disciplines of Marine Corps life of the early 1960's.  

Like soldiers in the military, athletes use controlled violence to achieve an end; therefore, training in self control is necessary.  When two huge hockey players face off in a fight, they are often seen in a local pub later, sharing a beer and shaking hands.  Politicians allow them to pummel each other, and insult each other while doing so, but restrict their use of insults to specific areas only, while doing so.  . 

Conducting extreme levels of physical and emotional energy sans personal hatred is essential to maintaining order and life, itself.  

History teaches us what conquerors can and have done to populations where they were not exercised in self restraint.  

Logic Versus Emotion 

Since emotion is powerful even in the face of logic consider how powerful it is when a subject is taught and/or believes that his or her emotions are:

1.  more important than others
2.  more important than truth, logic, reason, science, etc. 

The result is absurdity.  

Where there is absurdity, we have unleashed emotion without restraint.  

The natural result is violence.  Even the violence done to civil discourse is to lead to acts of senseless violence.  

When "Antifa" resorts to  acts of violence (including targeting animals like injuring a police horse) they do so in the name of enforcing their emotional status upon others.  "Antifa" is a fascist movement, named for "anti fascist."  The irony of the illogical position is not lost on the audience; but it is not seen by the violent fascists themselves.

How can this be?

As they scream "nazi!" they refuse to engage in dialog.  Why?  Because they do not want to hear sense or reason.  In one such posting they called logic a form of "racism" used to "enslave."  

In other words, 2 apples plus 2 apples does not equal 4 apples, it equals racism.  

This absurdity negates consequence and when fueled by emotion, is dangerous.  

This is like watching someone stand upon a building's ledge, high above the ground, and declare gravity to be "hateful." 

In smaller snap shots, it is seen in entitlement, believing that one's emotions should overrule all else, including the emotions of others and even to the point of overruling logic. 

Several years ago, a fairly well known man in the world of crime fighting, once took to publicly posting his complaints about his son's treatment in the US Marine Corps.  What was his complaint?

He wrote that he was angry at financial cut backs in spending for the care of Marines.  

His son's barracks lacked curtains.  

This was what he identified as proof of financial disrespect.  

Facebook and other social media outlets are good places to find such samples. 

Facebook 

Recently, I posted condolences to the parents of Baby Charlie, who's parental rights were overruled by their country's government machinations. 

                          Commentators 

I did not expect much response other than, "sad" or "condolences to the family..."

I was wrong.  

I suspected that there might  be a few who would want to defend socialism, even in this case.  Socialism is one of the topics I seek to learn more about specifically from the European position.  I know the United States' founding fathers' position well, but I enjoy hearing opposing views from others.     

Rather than defend socialism, commenters went into forms of emotion that overruled even sense. 

One wanted me to remove peoples' opinions and stated her reason:  

so that the deceased victim, Charlie, could "rest in peace", as if he was being disturbed by comments in social media.

  When I asked about this disturbance, rather than admit that it was her own emotions that were disturbed by peoples' comments, she resorted to insulting me, personally.  

Emotion versus logic.  

Was Charlie at rest?  Were the comments from people disturbing him?  I hoped for an explanation that did not come.  

The conclusion:  In her view,  I was guilty for the opinions of others.  

Others joined in with the insults, maligning me for the opinions held by others.  

Some comments were passive aggressive. These are those who are complimentary, but seek to conceal bitterness.  

 Some who, for whatever reason, feel slighted, took to the attack.  They may have a perceived emotional "insult" from disagreeing with past analysis. 

How absurd?  

Some wrote that "no government was involved", as if the court's decision was a friendly suggestion of guidance and the parents were free to take Charlie to the US, or to allow Charlie to die at home. 

 Others wrote that the parents, themselves, were just "attention seeking."  I do not know the parents' intentions, nor was that the issue.   

Some used it as a platform to attack Donald Trump, including the need for vulgarity.  

Some wrote that this condolence was an  "attack" on the "good doctors and nurses" of the hospital needed to end.  

The post did not include anyone, including medial professionals. 

Another wrote about "showing respect for the dead", which was particularly interesting since such respect did not extend to the living, who were assailed with insult. 

Facebook, itself, is fascinating in that comments about others reveal about us. 

 What would people think of me if I went to someone's home post and typed in insults about them personally, where their friends and family would read?  

Rightfully so, the opinion would not be favorable.  I would be ashamed of myself for doing such.  

Disagreeing with Analysis:  Madeleine McCann 

Recall the reaction to the analysis of the McCann investigation. 

 It was not a debate or even a questioning of principles used to bring about a conclusion.  It was a personal attack of motive and of character.  

When the McCanns spoke publicly, some believed them thus attacking those who chose to not believe the McCanns stating that such were "hateful."  Some unhinged sought to go well beyond insult and had to be brought to the attention of law enforcement.

Why?

Because I disagreed with their opinion, in such an emotional case, means that disagreeing is equated to moral depravity and poor mental health.  ("hateful and phobic.") 

To disagree with a moral narcissist means to be labeled with terms given to us by politicians for the purpose of silence dissent and healthy scientific scrutiny.  

They have learned the lessons brought to them by their elected officials  well of which the only beneficiary of such is the vote grabber.  Identity politics has its victims. 

The Analyst and Emotions   

The analyst will hear things he or she does not like. 

We will find those of whom we wanted to be truthful and upright who were not. 

We will find those of base character and most disagreeable, to be innocent and truthful.  

Over time and experience, we will, eventually, find where truth and our emotions are not in sync.  

We will find a place where it is our Emotion Vs. Truth. 

                                       Which will prevail?

Rectifying the Problem 

How can this be overcome?

Training and exposure is key.  If one can first recognize, "I am shutting down here" due to emotion, and process it through with a trusted friend, half the battle has been won. 

We ask questions in analysis and asking ourselves questions can be of endless benefit.

Why does this bother me?

What is it about this that has stirred my emotions?

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me" is not true by itself; it it were true, it would not be need to be taught to children, nor would we ourselves need reminders.   

What do I disagree about here?  and here is a big question: 

Where does my opinion originate from?

This person disagrees with me.  This person is not saying I am invalid; the person is just saying that he or she does not agree with me.  

My own opinions change.  

Simply stepping back from the ledge and pausing to consider Gravity as a law. 

It, too, has its exceptions, as we have seen in space exploration.  Yet, it remains a principle.  

Q.  does gravity really mean hate?

Q.  does gravity really mean phobia?

Q.  Might there be a consequence if I  happen to jump?

Q.  Could I be losing some valuable training because my feelings are hurt?

Q.  Could I be 'cutting off my nose to spite my face' here?

Q.  Will I feel the same way in 5 years?

Q.  How does my narrative make me feel?

Q.  How does my narrative make me feel about others?

Q.  Does my narrative lead me to think negatively of others?

Q.  Does my narrative lead to insulting others?


Q.   Is this politician really worth dividing my family?

Q.   Is this politician really worth dividing my friends?

What if I am wrong?

At what age do we "know it all"? 

How does this all impact language?


This is all about our emotions, which are very powerful.  Emotion is the number one impact in change of language.  

The good investigator must deny himself or herself emotional satisfaction, deliberately with anything and everything; from the incomplete picture to any personal emotional reaction to any given point, statistic, word or element.  

They must harness their strength and subjugate emotion in order to get to the truth. 

Someone asked (on Facebook) about the phrase, "smothering", regarding Princess Diana and her sons.  There was not enough context nor sample for me  to have an opinion but it was an interesting question, posed as such.  

You would think by the comments that several people were personally intimate with Princess Diana when she raised her children, living in the home as they made definitive pronouncements about them.  

The incivility has its purpose:  silence an opinion that my emotions do not find favorable.  

The person who asked the question did not have her question answered.  Her question was neutral, but "hurt feelings by proxy" arose to silence her.  

For some, the step after incivility is violence.  

For others, the violence is already indicated, but it is further fueled the more they distance themselves from reality, including the reality of consequence. 

We lose when we allow emotions to reign over us.  Emotions can by tyrannical over us. 

We lose when we attempt to be emotional tyrants over others. 

Moral narcissism is a destructive force but the good news is that an investigator/analyst can learn. 

The analyst with self awareness can make examination. 
The analyst can develop self honesty.  
The analyst can rely upon other professionals to assist. 

I once sat through a training in which one of the most talented physicians was teaching.  

He is, perhaps, at the top of his career, as a forensic scientist, yet he is universally disliked due to his ego.  

The training material was brilliant. 

In discussing the training, I was surprised how many colleagues learned nothing from this brilliant man.  They were so turned off emotionally by his demeanor, that they simply tuned him out.  

I understood this; even the attorneys who relied upon his expert testimony in cases hated to work with him.  


Yet, the material proved of great value to me then, and is now, today, useful in analysis.  



Certified analysts know the warning they received prior to enrollment.  They are prepped with the caveat that what they face may challenge their personal narrative.  Over time, they develop a professional "disinterest" in anything but the truth.  

Unless they seek change, narrative driven investigators and analysts will, sooner or later, end up in absurdity.  The change of language, the attempts to alter reality and the desire to be the most "moral" among others, when overruling truth, is to end in illogic.  

If you wish for the truth, above all else, no matter where it leads, perhaps you should consider enrolling in training.

It is not easy, nor short.  

If it was easy, everyone would do it and be good at it.  101 Course are terrific to not only introduce deception detection, but to help isolate those who are most serious about their learning.  

It takes intelligence, dedication and submission to science.  It warrants being guided by not only principles, but by statistics.  It means carefully finding the exception in principle, or the lowered statistical likeliness but quickly returning to principle. 

It means getting to the truth even when the truth is unpopular or difficult to process.  

It means success.  



Don't let talent be squandered to satisfy emotion.  Emotions come and go. 

Talent has a window of opportunity of which to cultivate.