President Trump on North Korea Threat

The media and elite have incessantly told us that Donald Trump[ is going to start a nuclear war. 

Is it true?

"We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening and it will be done, if necessary. Believe me.”

It is best to let President Trump's words speak for themselves rather than rely upon the main stream media's presentation.  A recent study stated that 95% of all media coverage of the President was "negative."

Thursday night he had dinner with military leaders and their wives and spoke to reporters. 

 President Donald Trump  called the press in  Thursday evening at the conclusion of this meeting when a photo was taken. 

“You guys know what this represents. Maybe it’s the calm before the storm. Could be the calm, the calm before the storm.”

“What storm, Mr. President?  ISIS? North Korea? Iran?" asked a reporter. 

“You’ll find out,” the president said.

He said,  “We have the world’s great military people in this room, I will tell you that.”

If you have been reading here, you know that Donald Trump's language reveals the lack of political experience we are accustomed to.  Understanding his language is to embrace the language of negotiation.  

The language of negotiation contains necessary elements of deception.  Trump's language shows that this is who he is; not what he does.  It is inseparable from him.  The article on "25% up or down" is found here. 

Earlier in the evening, the president had praised the group, including his defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and said they would be discussing the most pressing military issues facing the country, including North Korea and Iran.

Trump said “tremendous progress” had been made with respect to the Islamic State group, adding, “I guess the media’s going to be finding out about that over the next short period of time.”

He also denounced Iran, saying the country should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and then turned to the threat posed by North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.  The estimates of a single nuclear warhead are terrifying.  

The president of North Korea has threatened nuclear annihilation of South Korea, Japan and the United States.  They have both tested nuclear weapons and dry-ran missiles.  

President Trump then said: 

“We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening and it will be done, if necessary. Believe me.”

In analysis, we recognize the sensitivity of a defensive posture.  With the recent report of 95% negative press coverage, often ignoring specifics such as economic positive news, jobs, etc, we must view the two contexts:

1.  The Greater Context

2.  The Lesser Context

The Greater context is a media that uses some outright fabrication  but often commentary and emotional manipulation that is both deceptive and personal. It often is absurd, as a "commentator", for example, finds a way to communicate illogical issues, such as Trump causing hurricanes, or "not hugging enough" or the First Lady's heels.  

 This leads to what we find regularly in Trump's language:  a highly defensive posture. 

The Lesser Context is closer to the sentence structure. 

The media is routinely stating that "Trump is going to destroy the world through nuclear war."

Recently I saw with a retired Cornel professor who, herself, exceptionally intelligent, struggled to shake off the narrative given by the media.  An example of Trump's intellect is the "Muslim ban", as the media calls the travel ban from countries known to export terror.  Universally condemned by the elite, Trump's first "Muslim ban" was specifically duplicating Barak Obama's.  Obama was portrayed by media to be sober minded and protecting of American lives. 

The almost identical restriction was said to be "racist", "Islamophobic" and "nazi like" by media.  

Q.  Is Donald Trump about to use nuclear weapons against North Korea?

A.  No 

Listen to his words:

“We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening and it will be done, if necessary. Believe me.”

If we were to change the name of the subject, and analyze it on the surface, we would see:

a.  Unnecessary qualification 

b.  weaknesses 

c.  a Signal of deception 

We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening and it will be done, if necessary. Believe me.”

1.  "We" is appropriate.  In context, the military leadership is present.  He is speaking, here, not only as duly elected Commander-in-Chief, but with the actual presence of the military leaders who will recommend to him what course of action to take. 

2.  Note the verb:  "cannot allow" is used instead of "we won't allow."  This subtle difference is the difference between commitment and the language of negotiations.  He never stops negotiating.  This is why someone is "a very very good person" in his language.  A negotiator has an end in mind and works towards it.  The "25% above and below" is used in context to learn what the negotiator wants and what he is willing to do to get it.  

3.  "this" dictatorship:  North Korea is pressing upon him.  It is psychologically very "close" to him, especially in the context of what was likely discussed. Iran has been given powerful traction in obtaining nuclear weapons, including currency from the United States.  The deal was put over the American people by a boasting deceiving Hollywood and has brought Iran closer to its openly stated goal of utter destruction of the nation of Israel.  It is of concern to the President but North Korea, at the time of this statement, is more pressing. 

4.  "our nation or allies". Note the order:  "our nation" comes before "allies."

Trump's "America first" is plain.  He has also plainly said that he expects every other country to act in its own best interests, even when negotiating with the United States.  This is philosophically opposed to the media and elite of "globalism" and the spreading of Islam throughout the western world via the moving of entire peoples.  

5.  Now notice commitment and expectation within his words:

We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening

"We will do" begins very strongly.  

Q.  What happens to the commitment?

A.  He qualifies it. 

It is now conditional which tells you:  he is making this statement on purpose so that North Korea will hear the message. 

He does not say "we will do this" but:

We will do "what we must do", with "must" being obligatory. This is a signal of lesser willingness.  It is not desirable, but a duty. 

Yet, he is not done there:

We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening

He does not say "we will prevent" but "will do what we must do", with the object being:

"that."

This indicates a psychological distancing from that which just brought him psychologically "close."

What does it mean?

"This", being psychologically close to the President, is the threat that North Korea has made to kill millions of citizens.  It is very much on his mind. 

"That", in context, is military use now, at the time of this statement. 

The immediate qualification (reluctance to commit) is followed by his own distancing from taking military action at the time of this statement. 

In other words, Donald Trump has something else in mind. 

We cannot allow this dictatorship to threaten our nation or allies with unimaginable loss of life. We will do what we must do to prevent that from happening and it will be done, if necessary. Believe me.”

Let's look at the final three points:

1.  "and it will be done" is repetition of what he already said with "we will do..."  This is not only repetitive, but it is unnecessary.  This gives us two distinct points of sensitivity.  It is to weaken the assertion via these two sensitivity points.  

2.  He then qualifies his weak assertion with "if necessary."

This tells us that he believes, at the time of this statement, that options other than military still exist.  This explains why he has been pushing China repeatedly, both publicly (avoiding media) and through diplomacy means. 

3.  We then come to a point where, if the topic and subject were different, one might readily state, "deception indicated."

"Believe me."

This is a "need to persuade" that he is telling the truth when he does not believe his own words at this time. 

Q.  To whom is he speaking?

A.  To North Korea; not to the press.  

This is a phrase that one uses when they need to believed because of the weakness of his own assertion. It is commonly used in deceptive statements.  In this context, he is revealing his own belief in his threat to use military force against North Korea at this particular time.  Any event could change this, but at the time of this statement, Trump does not believe his own threat.  To change this, North Korea would have to take a more belligerent step.  This is a fluid situation.  

Corporate media and the elite are claiming he wants nuclear war. This is false. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Donald Trump does not want war with North Korea and he is doing any and everything to avoid military engagement by using the language of negotiation.  

It is his norm.  It is so engrained within his personality, that he is ceaseless in its employment; topic notwithstanding. 

He is a negotiator.  He is a builder.  He is likely to defeat, one way or another, North Korea and immediately set up trade. 

There is nothing in his language nor history that media elite should claim he is out to destroy.  He is a builder.  

According to his own words, Donald Trump continues to believe that there is a financial negotiation that he will find to successfully reduce the threat.  He has focused upon China mostly, but also Russia and may be considering more steps to intimidate North Korea into standing down. 

Please note that any action by North Korea that warrants a military response would change this immediately.  This is why I have repeated that this is his belief at the time of the statement.  

This same language of negotiation is used intuitively in business.  Trump sees the danger in terms of what he has lived by:  "the art of the deal." 

He will use all tactics without concern of political ramification, including trying to soothe, provoke, isolate, invite, ridicule, praise, and other such common tactics in an overall strategy to bring about his end. He cares not for its appearance, but its end result.  He does not show any familiarity with the language of politics.  If "Rocket Man" gets everyone's attention, it will help his goal, without any care who makes fun of him for using it.  Sometimes it works ("Little Marco, Crooked Hillary") and sometimes it backfires, as with the case of John McCain who will stop at nothing, including provocation of international relations, just to get personal revenge. 

Priority

*The language of negotiations'  priority is outcome.  

*The language of politics' priority is appearance. 

Should North Korea continue its escalation, Trump may yield to the military but it will likely be in an attempt to prevent the launch of a nuclear missile.  If North Korea were to even attempt a nuclear launch, Trump is likely to yield to the military. 

Short of this, expect "negotiations" to continue, including attempting to pressure North Korea through any and all means. His language indicates that any means that will work will be employed. 

Given his history and language; should he take out the facility militarily and the people gain a new leader, he is likely to help engage North Korean and American businesses in investing into the economical depressed region. It is what he does and what he says should be viewed as goal orientated. 

For training in Statement Analysis, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services 

Eric Paddock, Brother of Terrorist Stephen Paddock

W

Stephen Paddock killed 59 people and injured hundreds in a planned terrorist attack at a Country Music Concert in Vegas.  

With unexpected rapidity,  local FBI Special Agent in Charge Aaron Rouse in Vegas announced it was not a "terror" attack.  

The concert, itself, is considered representative of conservative Americans; those who wish to "conserve" that which established America.  This was not lost on a CBS executive who publicly posted her lack of empathy for the victims because they were different from her political ideology.  

If Paddock targeted conservatives, it would be Leftist Terrorism.  

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017,  the local Sheriff announced that he may have been "radicalized unbeknownst to us."  

The term "radicalization" is a  politically correct form of deception that avoids identifying obedience to Islam's precepts and precedent in the killing of those who do not adhere to Islam's ideology.  

If Paddock targeted Americans out of obedience to the Koran/Haddiths, it would be Islamic Terrorism.  

Corporate or "Main Stream Media" (MSM) has used headlines such as "gambling debts" and "prescribed anti-anxiety meds" to suggest motive.  

Politicians and the elite blamed the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

The crisis of confidence the western world has over its media is why we prefer to hear the words of people, for ourselves, rather than the narrative driven deception so common.  This is why lay people enroll in Statement Analysis training, including writers, bloggers and others interested in truth.  

Here we have the brother of Paddock answering a few questions from media. 

                            What do his answers indicate?

I.  Knowledge or Suspicion of Planning

Here, he was asked if he saw signs that indicated something was going to happen:

"I'm not even going to answer that stupid question. There's, I've already told. There's absolutely no. It's like an asteroid fell out of the sky.

If an asteroid fell right here, you would feel the exact same way as I feel right now. There's exactly no logic, no reach even for me, where my brother would have done this."

What  can we know about his answer?

1.  He initially refuses to answer the question.  This means the question about seeing signs or indications of something bad to come, however worded, is sensitive to him.  We would expect someone without any suspicion of a deadly attack to say, 

"I did not see any signs that he would become violent."  

Remember that the subject had a large cache of weapons; far more than self protection or hunting.  This, alone, if he was close to his brother, would naturally lead to a question as to why the volume of weapons was kept.  

This could have been addressed as well.  "My brother was a collector" or "my brother was an avid hunter..." and so on.  There are 59 dead victims and hundreds hospitalized, so the context must not be minimized.  

2.  After initially denying the question with "I'm not even going to answer..." we see the need to ridicule the question with "that stupid question."

The need to ridicule the question as "stupid" when it is a commonly asked question regarding startling events of all kinds, shows yet another increase in sensitivity.  It is not a "stupid" question in context of both the action, the toll and his cache of weapons.  There is, however, another aspect of the greater context involved:  money. 

3.  The question may have been in the form of "yes or no" as media generally asks leading questions or yes or no questions.  He does get to the word "no" here: 

There's, I've already told. There's absolutely no. 

This broken communication tells us that he is self-censoring his information.  He began by saying he would not answer the question and then answered it with ridicule, and now we have indication of missing information.  

4.  Passivity 

Passivity, or in lengthier views, "passive voice" is used to distance oneself from responsibility.  A basic example is "the gun went off..." which avoids telling us who caused the gun to go off.  We note passivity and then assign it a classification of appropriate or inappropriate.  If someone said in a riot, "rocks were thrown", the passivity may be appropriate if the subject does not know who threw the rocks.  It would be inappropriate if the subject knew, but sought to conceal the identity of the rock thrower (s).  

"There's absolutely no" is not only to use passivity but do do so 

a. in the present tense
b. in self censoring

This will only increase concern that his brother either knew or was suspicious of Stephen Paddock's attack.  

As you will see when he answers the question about money, Eric Paddock's concern is Eric Paddock; not the victims, the victims' families, the country, nor even his own family.  

He now offers his reason why he had no suspicion of his brother's intent.  This is, in this sense, a "hina clause" where the need to explain why is given when no such question has been posed.  It is a signal of very high sensitivity:  

It's like an asteroid fell out of the sky.

If an asteroid fell right here, you would feel the exact same way as I feel right now. 

He has used a hypothetical comparison regarding his own emotions, telling the interviewer that the interview would feel exactly as he does in this moment in time. He does not say he was surprised but gives a specific imagery to declare what "you", the journalist would experience. 

This is to avoid plainly stating, "I was shocked." 

Leakage In Statement Analysis 

"Leakage" is an advanced form of statement analysis in which we ask why certain words are used and what they may possibly indicate.  With detection deception normally running at or near 100% accuracy, and content analysis at 80%, leakage is speculative.  It asks questions that sometimes means answers come later. 

An example: 

Baby Ayla was reported kidnapped by her father, Justin DiPietro, from his own mother's home in Waterville, Maine, several years back.  The case is covered here in the blog of which using the search feature will give you analysis.  

Baby Ayla was not kidnapped as Justin DiPietro, his sister and his mother were all deceptive.  Yet, even in their deception, information was inadvertently "leaked" out. 

When confronted with the allegation that he was not cooperating with police, he said, 

"Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with Waterville police..."

Police were thus advised:  search water for her remains as this was likely on his mind when issuing his denial:  "Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have..."

Later, he was asked about his polygraph and he refused to answer if he passed or failed it, finally stating, "I smoked it."

It is no surprise that DiPietro was a drug user, as to why he would choose a dismissive, juvenile taunting phrase while his own daughter was allegedly in the hands of strangers.  

Another example commonly cited is when Cindy Anthony threw out Texas Equasearch from her home and told media why:  

"George and I don't believe that Caylee's in the woods or anything."  

As she explained why she demanded Tim Miller and Equasearch to leave, she inadvertently revealed her knowledge of Caylee's remains as they were found "in the woods" a few blocks from her home.  

Leakage warrants exploration and further questioning.  Here, we not only examine Eric Paddock's answer, but his choice of words in formulating his answer.  

It is interesting to note what imagery he invokes to explain why he has no knowledge: 

a large object falling from the sky.  

An astroid falling to earth not only invokes surprise, but damage from above.  

Advanced Analysis would consider this as possible leakage; the inadvertent dissemination of information.  

As we consider the rain of bullets poured from the sky into victims, this is the imagery that Eric Paddock has chosen to employ.  

It is now vital that we learn his linguistic disposition towards victims.  

There's exactly no logic, no reach even for me, where my brother would have done this."

The defensive posture for Eric Paddock is very high.  The answer reveals self protection without any mention of the victims.  

 II.  Money 

Stephen Paddock transferred $100,000 to an account in the Philippines a week before his attack.  His girlfriend was identified with the announcement that she was not a person of interest.   The transfer of money just prior to the terrorist attack means investigators must learn if Marilou Danley had guilty knowledge of what was planned.  It also means that investigators should seek to learn if his bother had knowledge, or in the very least, suspicion of what was to come, specifically through financial transactions.  

She left the country and then it was announced that she was a person of interest and has flown back to the United States. 

"Steve is the reason that she has substantial funds right now and is comfortable. That's the Steve I know. Now, the other thing someone said that Steve transferred $100,000.

Woo, a hundred thousand dollars. We're wealthy people, $100,000 isn't that much money, A., and I'm sorry if that hurts people or something, but a hundred thousand dollars isn't that huge amount of money." 

1. "That's the Steve I know" is now "separating" or compartmentalizing his brother.  This would suggest a positive view on giving away $100,000 yet it is found in the incomplete social introduction.  His brother has shot hundreds of innocent victims and he indicates a need to portray him in a positive light.  

Why?

The answer may be found in the choice of words. 

Note it is "the Steve" he, himself knows.  This is to deny knowledge of the "other" Steve.  The denial is about self, not about money and not about Danley.  

The focus shows self-concern.  This is important to recognize and consider, again, with the reminder that the dead have yet to be buried by the time of this interview.  

Again, consider the context:  the transfer was a week prior to the killing of so many.   This is suggestive that Paddock knew he would not survive the attack, whether by police or his own hand.

2.  He affirms the wire transfer with the explanation of "why" Marilou Danley's, alleged to be Stephen Paddock's girlfriend, has "substantial funds."  

3.  He avoids using Marilou Danley's name. This "incomplete social introduction" suggests a less than good relationship with Danley within the context of money.  

It could be not good because he does not know her.  Statement Analysis allows for a wide variety of causes, yet if he does not know Danley, he affirms knowledge of her financial status and does so within the element of time:  "...she has substantial funds right now." which suggest that she did not have substantial funds prior.  

Therefore, it is not likely that lack of knowledge has caused the incomplete social introduction.  

Question:  Maybe he is just  protecting her name from this mess?

Answer:  This is not likely either, since it has bee well published. 

The incomplete social introduction is in the context of money.  One might consider if the relationship was poor, either with her or even with Stephen, due to disagreement over her and money.  

Woo, a hundred thousand dollars. 

While there are 50 dead and hundreds injured, he ridicules regarding money.  

We're wealthy people, $100,000 isn't that much money,

There is still no mention of the victims, but note what now comes into his language:  

 A., and I'm sorry if that hurts people or something, but a hundred thousand dollars isn't that huge amount of money."

Hence, further insight into the calloused and defensive personality of Eric Paddock.

The words, "I'm sorry" often enter the language of the guilty.  

Question:  Who is the recipient of the ridicule?

Answer:  Those who consider $100,000 a "huge" sum of money.  

Media reported that Stephen Paddock went to an anti Trump rally.  
If this was Leftist Terrorism, targeting "country music fans" due to their connection to working class status, consider the following:  

Here we have no empathy for victims, only a condescending insult regarding economic status.  This may be considered in light of the recent presidential campaign where "deplorables" (sic) were classified as lower income, lower educated people lacking the intelligence to vote for the "right" candidate.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Further investigation is warranted but in the least, Eric Paddock shows a need to avoid issuing a reliable denial. 

It is very likely that he had, in the very least, suspicion of his brother's activity.  Investigators will need to learn if he had more than suspicion.  

For training in your home, department or business, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services to learn how to enroll.  

Human Nature: The Key to Statement Analysis

Why did he murder and injure so many?

Police rushed a killer armed to the teeth. This is what police do when the call of duty is made.  They do not stop to count the cost to their own lives nor the lives of their families.  They rush in.  They do this in big cities and they do this in small towns.  This is what they do:  serve and protect, at personal risk.  

 Thus far, no NFL player has risen from his knees to praise such bravery.  

Yet if one did, would corporate media report it?

Why did this killer open fire on a country music concert in Vegas?

To learn the answer to why, we will have to pay attention and not expect main stream media to report the truth unless it fits their narrative.  

Statement Analysis, like other disciplines, does not have one key to success; but many keys.  Some are more important than others, especially given the varied contexts we deal with, but there is one dominant key that analysts must seek to learn.

Human Nature.

A talented young analyst came up to me after a seminar recently and asked about my personal relationships and Statement Analysis.

This is not unusual.  It is often wrapped in nervous laughter. "How does your wife even talk to you?" is the single most commonly asked question during the first coffee break at seminars and trainings.

In Advanced Analysis, content emerges readily and as it does, so does profile, and "on the fly", leakage becomes inevitably noticed.  As a person speaks, his or her priority comes to the surface and the words they choose indicate dominant personality traits.  

I gave her my usual explanation:  being honest with your spouse precludes worry, and acceptance of human nature is key because we are all creatures of frailty.  Knowing human nature means not taking yourself too seriously.  

Show me the perfect family and I will show you the facade.  Show me the perfect man and I will show you a well polished surface.  

Perfection does not exist, including in marriage. Everyone has his struggles, failures, losses, hopes, dreams and victories.   If you have two imperfect created beings living together, you  have trouble. If both husband and wife understand human nature, however, the remedy once employed in self discipline, can be applied.  He learns what her nature must have, and she learns what his nature must have.  The complementary nature of marriage works well when human nature is accepted and we enjoy our differences.  

Many people expend a great deal of energy in life fighting against their own nature.  "Virtue Signaling" is something that we see in analysis frequently, just as we see it in life.

The mother, for example, who jumps up furiously when her toddler falls, making sure everyone can see how "concerned" she is, in a show of anxiety, does so in order to quell her own guilt.  

The child responds to the anxiety predictably; he or she develops anxiety.  Yet, the mother's  "show" satisfied a need within her to be seen as a concerned mother.  

The impact on others is also to be noted:  the mother who does not jump up may now feel as if she is not as good as a mother for allowing her child to experience a rough patch in life.  This is a regrettable consequence but it is the point of "Virtue Signaling."  It is not for the benefit of the child, nor society, but of self:  to let everyone know just how "virtuous" self is.

This same "Virtue Signaling" is being seen today in the massacre at Las Vegas.  These are those who seek to deny human nature for what it is.  

Yet, some are still asking the right questions:

1.  Did the shooter convert to Islam and do this in obedience to the Koran and out of loyalty to the Islamic State?  ISIS has not made a habit of false claims, though they could thus begin.

This would make him an Islamic terrorist.

2.  Did the shooter do this because the concert was "country music" often associated with conservatives?  The shooter was seen in a video at an anti-Trump rally.

This would make him a Left Wing terrorist, similar to Antifa or other fascist, communist,  or anarchist socialist organizations.

3.  Or, was there another motive we must learn?

Yet, neither of the first two motives would  fit the narrative of Main Stream Media which would respond in deception via deflection or withholding of information. 

MSM has been focusing its attention on minor issues, such as gambling debts.  Recall the lies politicians and media made about the Florida Islamist terrorist, first insisting that it was "homophobia" and then on to mental illness, and finally the weapon used.  They said anything but the truth to protect narrative.  

The deception from MSM bases itself on the belief that people do not have the ability to discern truth from deception, and will be enticed into helping shift blame away from where it belongs because they, too, want human nature excused. The entire "Black Lives Movement" and "take a knee" at the National Anthem is based upon hatred of police, with the deceptive claim that police are racist murderers.  It is the narrative of both the  elite and MSM. 

It is a lie that gets votes but it also raises anger and gets police killed. 

Deception always has its toll.  

Expected Versus Unexpected:  Behavioral and Statement Analysis 

In Vegas, if the gunman was upset about gambling debts, human nature, being what it is, would likely have found its outlet in going into a casino and shooting up the place where gambling debts may have accumulated, or some place similar, like a bank.  

Yet there is still one "motive" that all of MSM agrees with:

It wasn't the shooter who was responsible, it was the weapon.  If you say you "pray" for wounded victims, they say, your prayers "aren't working" and you, too,  are also responsible for the death toll.  

In fact, taken from the language, it is not even the weapon that did it, but voters who support the 2nd Amendment.  It is their fault, according to the celebrity elite.

 It is as if everything must have a blame assigned to someone or something politically. 

 When you heard an assistant Vice President of CBS posted that she had no sympathy for the victims in Las Vegas because the dead and injured were likely Republicans, you are looking at the pre civil war hostility and the baseness of human nature that provokes violence.

This is a subtle twist within human nature that helps expose itself:  it is not inclined to take personal responsibility for its own actions; it seeks to shift blame.  It has a deep powerful need  to shift or in the least, mitigate blame.  If you hear "Uh, I only had like 3 drinks", you almost intuitively know it was considerably more.  Law Enforcement professionals need little prompting to acknowledge truth about human nature. 

Human nature operates in denial and minimization, which is precisely what we find in language.  

By not acknowledging human nature, the politicians tell us that if we outlaw a weapon, the murderous criminal will, somehow,  obey this law and not act upon his murderous impulse.  Then, if you don't agree, you somehow "hate" others and want more violence.  This is how it works itself out:

1.  It removes human responsibility for evil acts
2.  It thus condemns and attacks anyone who does not agree in alleviating human beings of responsibility.  

It is like passing a law that says you must be 18 years of age or older to buy acid, as Islamists use acid to disfigure women who act like Westerners.

The thinking is this:  the acid is to blame, not the "honor culture" of Islam. This is an example of a political decision.   This is to pretend that one who is so calloused as to burn the flesh of another is going to be hindered by a law requiring ID.  The morals of one who would destroy his sister's face for dating a non Muslim will somehow be brought to heel by a minor procedural rule.  He will need photo ID to buy acid; that will stop the "honor punishments" of Islam.

The truth is that police are not killing black males and that gun ownership does not increase gun murders.  Yet, these truths impede politicians' ambitions.  

Victim Blaming

In statement analysis we always look for the guilt of a deceptive subject to find a way to justify his criminal action.  The number one justification?  Blame the victim.  

This is found in criminal statements readily.  No matter how hypocritical it may be, and no matter how subtle it may be, it is almost always present for the analyst to find.

"Well, the baby would not stop crying..."

Here we find in Shaken Baby Syndrome cases a subtle victim blaming.

Communicative Language

In criminal domestic homicide (and even domestic violence) the language of communication often tells us precisely where the assault took place.  We look for the word "said" to change to "told" to reflect the increasing tension and authoritarian position leading to the violence.  Even the deceptive perpetrator will perfectly guide us into what happened.  

Studying Human Nature 

In the seminar the young analyst explained that as a young woman, she had been confronted with training that challenged the narrative she had learned in high school and college.  She knew that men and women spoke differently, thus recognizing that the different in speech represents difference in thought patterns.  She represents a growing movement of those who have been under exclusive narrative teaching but are seeing its contradictory application:  it is not life.  It is not reality.  It is not truth. 

Police need little convincing that human nature contains evil.  Those who understand this grasp the purpose of self disincline, disciplining children, societal rules, restraint and other necessary elements within life that limit the damage that human nature can do in life.  

This understanding impacts every day life, from how they cast a vote to how they see the world.  More than anything else, it is the key to the "expected" within a given statement's work.  Those who accept and study further into the truth of human nature are best prepared to set up the proper expectation within a statement.  

It is a major key to success in detecting deception.  

To train in detecting deception, The Complete Statement Analysis Course is completed in your home, generally within 12 months.  

Drug Traffickers: "At All" Examined

Drug Mule 

                "...and I, I, I have not heard from them at all."

So went the statement where the woman claimed that her two drug contacts did not contact her for a scheduled transport.

In this short lesson, we examine the difference between:

"I have not heard from them" and "I, I, I have not heard from them at all" in her language.  

By halting on the pronoun "I" we recognize that there is an increase in anxiety for the non-stuttering subject.  

But what about the two additional words, "at all" in her statement? Lets remove anxiety and look at the reversal of the "Law of Economy" of words to see if more information is available for us.  

We hear this phrase, "at all" regularly.  Recently, I noted how often it came up in casual conversation as I listened to adults interacting with children.  In relationship language, it is even more seen especially when one person is accused of some form of romantic disloyalty and uses it in a denial.  The context is going to be very important.  

"I have not heard from them" is shorter which means it not only took less effort, and it indicates  sensitivity but it is a verbalized perception of a different reality from "I he not heard from them at all."  

Question:  is the subject who added "at all" lying?

In studying deception detection we carefully arrange our expectations according to the context. 

Faithlessness

"I haven't heard from her at all" said the husband to the wife about another woman where suspicion was evident.  

Why didn't he just say "I haven't heard from her"?

"At all" is all inclusive rather than the singular "haven't" (or "have not.").  

Why the need for emphasis?

Why the need to be all inclusive?

In Analysis:  We get answers by asking questions.  

Here is the key:

All Inclusive.

Examine the phrase "all inclusive" and you quickly realize that the word "all" is what we call a "dependent word."  This means that the word only works when it is in consideration of at least one other thing. 

If you have one student in a class room and you gave the student a lap top, you would not say, "I gave all the students laptops" even though, technically, it is true.  Every student in the class did receive a lap top.  

Dependent words are flagged both in context and within examination so that we can learn what else the subject might have been thinking. 

Romance Gone Wrong:  Relationship Language  

"We only kissed" is an example in relationship language.  

"Only" does not work in meaning unless the subject is thinking about something other than kissing.  The listener needs to explore what else is on the subject's mind other than kissing.  Perhaps the subject will take it even higher:  

"We just kissed" is similar:  it compares kissing to something else, but with a new dynamic:  "just" is a dependent word of comparison.  "We just kissed" means the subject is comparing kissing to something more than kissing.  It other words, he talks about "kissing" but he is thinking about something else as he does.  

In the drug case, "I have not heard from them at all" indicates a denial which is sensitive.  In classification we would not say it is an "Unreliable Denial" but we would say it is "not reliable."  

"Not reliable" indicates that more information is needed. 

 It may or may not be true. 

Why did she say "I, I, I have not heard from them at all"?

What caused her to call in the need for reinforcement of her denial?

In this case, she was not lying.  She was not contacted by the two drug traffickers.  Anxiety aside, we have an important question to ask: 

What was she thinking about when she used the words "at all"?

Here she had indeed expected contact from them.  She was telling the truth,  but she revealed to us an expectation of the means of contact. 

The means of contact was plural, not singular.  She did not expect them to show up at her door or meet someplace.  She expected the contact to come in one of three ways, exposing how they had contacted her previously.  

Sometimes they called her from unidentified numbers but sometimes they text'd her and once they had even emailed her.  It developed over time as the relationship between them grew.  As they went from suspicious to confident, so the boldness increased to traceable email.  With confidence, they let their guard down.  

She checked all three sources of contact and blurted out, "I, I, I have not heard from them at all!" while clutching her phone. 

It was a multitude of means of contact that caused this unnecessary additional wording to enter her statement.

She did not pause and ask herself silently, "Which should I use?  Should I tell this officer that I have not heard from them, or should I say I have not heard from them at all?  Hmm.  Which sounds better?"

No, she processed the information in less than a millisecond of time in the brain to reflect the reality of having checked her phone's 3 means of expected communication.  

To receive training in Deception Detection, please visit 

Hyatt Analysis Services and see what others are saying about this training.