Disappearance of Theresa Lockhaert Updated

Here is earlier analysis on Christopher Lockhart in which the conclusion of "Deception Indicated" was specific:

He was withholding information on what happened to his wife. 

 In October, he committed suicide and left a note with a map showing where Theres's body could be found. 

  Commentary and statement analysis in bold type.

Analysis Question:  

Is the husband of Theresa Lockhart telling the truth?

PORTAGE, Mich. (WOOD) — The man detectives have identified as a person of interest in a Schoolcraft teacher’s disappearance denies any involvement.

Christopher Lockhart told 24 Hour News 8’s Lynsey Mukomel over the phone Saturday morning he has given investigators all of the information he has on his wife, Theresa Lockhart, and that he has been cooperative despite their statements to media.

With no quote, please note that he has told them "all."  This is very important. 

Honest people who are missing a loved one do not ever feel that they have told everything as long as the person is missing.  They lose sleep and often contact law enforcement incessantly with such things as,

"I just remembered..." and "I was thinking that this might be important..."

It is incessant.  

On Friday the Portage Department of Public Safety named Christopher as a person of interest in their investigation.

They have deliberately put him on the defensive.  Since I do not know what interviewing/interrogation detail, I presuppose that this is part of an overall strategy. 

Theresa, a Spanish teacher at Schoolcraft Community Schools, was reported missing on Saturday, May 20, by school officials after she didn’t show up for work. Her car was found that same weekend just a couple miles from her home at a park-and-ride off of Angling Road.

Her husband cites a history with anxiety and depression, plus a potential non-renewal of her teaching contract after this school year as an explanation for her sudden disappearance.

Although we may feel that this is victim blaming, such is often done in very subtle ways and we do not know what questions were asked here.  

Journalists trained in Statement Analysis have a distinct and clear advantage over those without training, absent an agenda which perverts truth.  

Christopher said the district was trying to force her into resigning and she had been struggling the week leading up to her disappearance.

Dr. Rusty Stitt, superintendent of Schoolcraft Community Schools, told 24 Hour News 8 Saturday that Theresa initiated a potential resignation, however.

The district never received a formal resignation though and continues to pray she will return safely, Dr. Stitt said. Her contract runs through the end of this school year.

Her husband believes stress at work was too much and went on to explain that she received help in the past for her mental health without telling him.

“When she left I assumed she was going to get herself some help. That’s why I wasn’t really too worried about it at that point in time because I want to keep her issues private.  I basically told them the same story I’m telling you, that she up and left. She’s done this before. I didn’t think she had a job to go back to.”

Here we find a linguistic indication of withheld information.  This statement alone should cause the interviewer to focus, specifically, in the short time period just before she "left", as he is deliberately withholding information.  

Regardless of her situation at work, why would Christopher not cooperate with police if he’s not guilty of anything? Investigators told 24 Hour News 8 Lockhart will not let them search their home.

“I don’t recall in any way that they asked if they could come in and take a look around. That was never asked of me…,” 

Withholding of Information 

Here, he begins his statement with what he does not "recall."  He then qualifies (the rule of the negative) with "in any way" and uses minimizing language of "take a look around", rather than "search."

Lockhart claimed. He said an officer originally took a statement a few days after she had been last seen, then detectives showed up in his driveway unannounced a few days later.

Here we see what is often called "full cooperation" in a statement.  Those who give full cooperation in a missing person's case do not always feel the need to state it.  

“It was at that point after talking to that detective that it was like, OK, we’re going to handle everything through a lawyer.  I’m not acting unusual. I’m going to and from work. I’m carrying on normally around here as best I can. The initial officer came in the doorway and I let him in… I gave them the ability to contact her friends and her family but other than that I don’t see that there’s any other way I can help the investigation. Her car was found and returned. It’s in good working order… I’m assuming if something looked like had happened there, I’d assume they would’ve kept the car.”

Here is what we know from his statement.  

1.  Ingratiation Rejection   "OK" 

This is where he sought to align himself, unnecessarily (linguistically) with police and now feels rebuffed.  

2. "We're" is him and someone else (attorney in context) as he does not want to be psychologically "alone" with police.  

3.  "Everything" is "handled" (keep this in mind as the statement unfolds)

4.  "I let him" shows authority/control over police.  

5.  "I gave them"shows authority/control over police.  

This is critical information.  

The subject gives linguistic indicators of control when no such control is warranted. 

This is strongly suggestive of domestic violence.  Not only does he show the language of control in an unnecessary manner, but he does it in context of police.  It is this same police that have named him as a Person of Interest in her disappearance.  This requires in depth analysis, but suffice for now, it helps give us insight into some elements of what life may have been like for Theresa.  

Key:  He exercised linguistic control over police while his wife is missing.  This is not about him letting police in or anything similar:

It is about him telling us what he did.  

Remember:  this is not reality; it is his own verbalized perception of his relationship with police while his wife is missing.  

Mentioning the car may indicate confidence that they won't find evidence in the car to indict him.  

6. Normality:  His statement about him being normal is also unnecessary as he belies that his behavior has been anything but normal for an innocent man.  This is why it enters the language.  

We observe behavior.  When someone needs to linguistically cause us to observe behavior, we are dealing with persuasion.  

Next: 

He is now victim blaming:  

About a quarter of the way through the conversation Lockhart added their tenth wedding anniversary is this October. 

“I’m terribly worried about her, I don’t know where she’s at… I’m holding out hope that, you know, nothing has gone wrong. There’s no evidence right now to indicate anything is wrong.  Did something bad happen to her? Yeah, that’s absolutely possible. But could she also have picked up and left and, you know, drove off and decided I’m going to start a new life somewhere with somebody else or did she check herself into a hospital? It’s like all these other avenues are distinct possibilities.”

He does not know "where she's at" which is often used to describe relationship status, not locale.  "I don't know where she is" is stronger unless the body has been dumped in moving water.  

Lockhart said for now his attorney has advised him not to answer detectives’ questions.

Those who care nothing but the safe recovery of their loved one are not hindered by attorneys, nor by threats, coercion, warnings, or anything else.  Instinct to find the missing person takes over for the innocent.  Those who yield to their attorney have a need to yield to their attorney.  

I have seen family members of missing persons get themselves in trouble because this powerful instinct is difficult to control.

When you see it under control from the beginning, consider that the subject may not be displaying urgency.  

“I think the police just don’t have anything more right now and I guess they’re trying to shake some trees and see what falls out. It’s an attempt to embarrass me and put pressure on me.”

He knows why he is a Person of Interest, hence the weak assertion repeated in "think" and "guess." 

Consider the linguistic indicators of control and now add narcissistic indicators to it, as a portrait of this "normal" man emerges. 

In domestic violence, advocates often see "control" everywhere, and make consistent error in their attempts to protect women.  

We look not so much as for control (many couples say one person is better with money than the other), but we look for the verbalized perception of control.  This is far more effective than any checklist.  Remember:  most victims are not controlled by violence.  They are controlled by the threat of violence.  We look for linguistic indicators not only of control, but of narcissistic-like elements and de-sensitization.  Although this topic is too broad for a single article, even within his short statements, he gives much insight into his personality, including the lack of human empathy for the victim.  


Analysis Conclusion:

Christopher Lockhart is deceptively withholding information about what happened to Theresa.  

Even within this article we have a subject who is giving police (and now the public) the "one of two impressions" that every subject, innocent or guilty give:

The subject is either working with police to facilitate the flow of information, 

or the subject is not. 

Here, police have him rightfully named as a Person of Interest. 

We now know he did kill his wife, as he committed suicide and left directions to locate her remains. 

For training in detecting deception, visit "training opportunities" at 

Hyatt Analysis Services 

Nick Carter Denial of Raping Melissa Schuman

Nick Carter accused of raping Melissa Schuman.  Our expectation remains the same:

"I didn't rape Melissa Schuman."  It is the simplest and most straight forward sentence.  It is what he should tell us. 

“I am shocked and saddened by Ms. Schuman’s accusations. Melissa never expressed to me while we were together or at any time since that anything we did was not consensual. We went on to record a song and perform together, and I was always respectful and supportive of Melissa both personally and professionally. This is the first that I am hearing about these accusations, nearly two decades later. It is contrary to my nature and everything I hold dear to intentionally cause someone discomfort or harm.”


The first thing we notice is that he did not tell us that he did not rape her.  

If he is unwilling or unable to say it, we shall not say it for him. 

“I am shocked and saddened by Ms. Schuman’s accusations. 

He begins with his priority:  his emotions.  He offers that he is surprised, an emotion expressed to show a lack of preparedness, and that he is saddened.  

This is a priority:  if he is "shocked", the audience (recipient) may believe that it could not have happened if it is shocking.  Yet, we need him to tell us that it did not happen. 

Beginning with the pronoun "I" is a good psychological position for  reliable information.  Yet, he only addresses his emotions.  

One may consider possible narcissism and possible manipulation not only because this was his priority, but because it comes where there is no denial given.  

There is no denial; reliable or otherwise. 


Melissa never expressed to me while we were together or at any time since that anything we did was not consensual. 

The use of the pronoun "we" shows that he connects himself with her.  This is his perception of their relationship. 

He reports to use what never happened.  This is an elevated point:  the rule of the negative.  Instead of denying raping her, he reports what she did not say, about anything that was "not" consensual.  

Note:  "anything" we did is broad, undefined and not specified to any sexual or even relational language. One must now consider what "anything" includes; very likely beyond the norm of sexual behavior, including force.  Were unusual circumstances present at this time?


We went on to record a song and perform together, 

Instead of denying raping her, he reports on what they did, together, afterwards. 

This is an attempt to indict her as a liar by behavior.  If he raped her, would she have gone on to record with him?

Note:  he sees them as unified here, as well, with the pronoun 
"we."

It would be vital to weigh this versus the pronouns that she uses to describe him, at various points of time, including the rape and afterwards. 

Behavioral analysis of rape victims is very complex.  Some victims will cling to the rapist in an attempt to "win over" the rapists.  His point is to show that she did not fear him.  

Yet, this avoids telling us that he did not rape her.  

It would be interesting to learn if they recorded the song together at the same time and location. 


and I was always respectful and supportive of Melissa both personally and professionally. 

This is a strong assertion.  Being "respectful" and "supportive" both warrant definitions of what these terms mean in his personal dictionary.  He tells us of his demeanor towards her instead of denying the allegation. 

This is the first that I am hearing about these accusations, nearly two decades later. 

The element of time is more important to him than denying the allegation.  He is portraying himself as "respectful" and "supportive", which makes him the "good guy" in analysis, seemingly surprised and even saddened (empathy), whereas a false accusation often provokes anger. 

Yet, it is in this next sentence that we find information relevant to the accusation and maybe even why he has avoided issuing a denial:


It is contrary to my nature and everything I hold dear to intentionally cause someone discomfort or harm.”

This may be the "anything" he described above.  What this "anything" is was likely both uncomfortable and caused harm. 

We all have done things that we believed were contrary to our nature.  This is  for him to come close to an admission.  It is the ancient gnostic belief of "a good person living inside me; the real me..."  We find it in many guilty statements. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject has skillfully avoided issuing any denial in his statement. 

What he sees as consensual, he reveals something quite different in introducing the reader to two words:  "discomfort" and "harm." 

His own emotions are paramount and he portrays himself in glowing terms. Yet in doing so, including the avoidance of calling her a liar, this portrayal shows the necessity of a portrayal to the public.  

This statement is n "unreliable denial" and indicates that he likely did something to her, during sex, that hurt her, even though he sees them as "unified" with her. 

The sense of him being "saddened" stands out as the most manipulative of all.  This puts himself on a pedestal while showing contempt towards the alleged victim, as if she was a child or developmentally disabled.  This is consistent with the priority of focus upon his emotions, as narcissistic and manipulative. 

Were these his words or the words of a publicist?

Either way, we analyze the statement which tells us that the author's belief, who is not denying rape, while introducing "discomfort" and "harm" to the reader. 

If the subject cannot tell us that he did not rape her, we are not permitted to say it for him.  

The author of the statement indicates knowledge that what he did caused both discomfort and harm.  I would not be surprised if we later hear she was pyschologically impaired while being abused,  with extended consequences, possibly needing professional intervention.  


  To cause her "discomfort" may be pressure, both physical and manipulative, but to introduce "harm" in the statement is to indicate the possibility of known emotional harm that he caused.  

The need to be the "good guy" tells us that he was, in fact, "the bad guy" in this event.  

It is sometimes used in comedy:  "that doesn't sound like me..." rather than denying the action.  It is a disassociate tangent which separates one from one's own perception of self.  




For training in deception detection, enroll in our Complete Statement Analysis Course completed in your home.  Tuition increase 1-1-2018.  

John Conyers Issues Statement

The AP asked Michigan Rep. John Conyers  if he paid settlements due to sexual harassment.  A woman claimed she was paid a settlement after being terminated from her job because she refused to have sex with him.  

Conyers told The Associated Press that "knew nothing" about ay settlements 

 and that he's “been looking at these things with amazement.”

That he initially claimed to "know nothing" coupled with his inclusion of emotion indicates that this is not a reliable denial.  

"I didn't fire ____  for not having sex with me" would be a strong denial.  

This publication of the "no knowledge" led to him making a statement:

“My office resolved the allegations  with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative. The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

Let's look at it again, with analysis:

“My office resolved the allegations  with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative. The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

1.  Denial 

We first note that he does not deny the allegation.  The allegation is that he fired someone for refusing to have sex with him.  This is an allegation of "sexual harassment."  It is not flirting, it is not simply inappropriate, but it is an illegal activity. 

2.  He denies "liability"; not the action: the quality or state of being liable or responsible with its consequences.  It avoids denying the action.



3.  The need to explain why:  My office resolved the allegations  with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation.

This anticipates being asked, "Why, if you didn't do it, did you make a payout?" even though no such question is posed. 

This is similar to the settlements of Bill O'Reilly, Michael Jackson, and many others. 

4.  Minimization:  

Here we see "the rule of the negative" in telling us, in the negative, the following: 

The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

He refers to the the dollar amount, in what it wasn't, rather than issue a denial.  This indicates a need to minimize the accusation against him, as if it is "less" of an accusation warranting less money.

5.  The problem with minimization is that he comes very close to embedding a confession, by answering the unasked question of "why" less money was spent:

The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

Considering the claim, this comes close to an admission of guilt:  "severance" is related to the victim's termination. 

Analysis Conclusion:

A woman alleged that John Conyers demanded sex from her and when she refused, he fired her.  

He first said he did not have knowledge of any settlements.  Then, he said he was dealing with "amazement" regarding the allegation.  When this was published, he then issued a statement in which he does not deny the attempt to coerce sex from the alleged victim. 

He goes from "not reliable" to "unreliable" to then giving us more information, including the defense of money:  reporting that it was not "millions."

Deception Indicated.

John Conyers did not pay out money without cause.  He was deceptive when he claimed to have no knowledge of such, and sought to persuade his audience of this fact:  he was in "amazement" because he had no association with it.  

He then contradicted this with distancing language:  his "office" paid out.  This is an unnecessary removal of self. 

Given his "lack of knowledge", and his need to minimize the money issue, the public should not be surprised if more information comes out that he paid off other victims of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault and that it goes back years.  

The passage of time and/or how the press found these files may be the cause of his "amazement." 

MSM: John Conyers Denies Settlement

The AP asked Michigan Rep. John Conyers  if he paid settlements due to sexual harassment.  A woman claimed she was paid a settlement after being terminated from her job because she refused to have sex with him.  

Conyers told The Associated Press that he hasn’t settled any sexual harassment complaints with any staff members.  They do not give us his quote.  This is now reported throughout media:  "John Conyers denies..."

Conyers, who answered the door at his Detroit home Tuesday morning, says he knows nothing about any claims of inappropriate touching and learned of the story just hours earlier.  It would be interesting to learn if he said he "knows nothing."  

Referring to allegations of sexual harassment and assault being made against politicians and others, the veteran lawmaker says he’s “been looking at these things with amazement.”

This is, for now, all we have to go on.  The word "these" indicates closeness, which could be chronological closeness since this was just announced.  It could be closeness for other reasons, but this would only be guess work. 

We do not have a quote to analyze but we do have a short quote about his emotional reaction.

One might consider why the AP did not report the direct quote of denial to its outlets.  

BuzzFeed reports that Conyers’ office paid the woman over $27,000 to settle the complaint under a confidentiality agreement. BuzzFeed also published affidavits from former staff members who said they had witnessed Conyers touching female staffers inappropriately or requesting sexual favors.

Congress’s Office of Compliance has paid out $17 million of our money over the past 2 decades in settlements that include sex harassment cases. However, that’s not where the cash came from to hush this Conyers employee. She was paid off with around $27,000 of taxpayer money, but it came out of Conyers’ office budget. Deceptive accounting practices were employed to cover up the scandal.

The inclusion of his emotion is part of a "need to persuade."  It does not make a conclusion, but it weakens his stance.

Why?

First, the emotional response from one with no connection is expected.

Secondly, the context is important:  there is an avalanche of allegations in politics and Hollywood today.  Some accusations may be true, and others false.

There is no congruence in "amazement" given our context. There is also the question of "This is necessary to state...why?"

We will need a complete statement from John Conyers to analyze.

Roy Moore Yearbook Signature Analysis by Steve Johnson, Veritas

Steve Johnson is a certified Statement Analysis and Hand Writing Analysis.

His work is so precise that in cases we have worked together, he has matched the psychological profile with the psycho-linguistic profile which matched the diagnosis.

Steve's work is principle driven and is subordinated to the wording, yet so strong, that it never experiences incongruence.

After many years of seeing poor, predominantly guess work, Steve's work has brought me new confidence in hand writing analysis; something I've not had.

Steve is now a full time instructor having recently retired from almost 3 decades of law enforcement.

Roy Moore Yearbook

by Steve Johnson, Veritas

There has been a lot of talk and speculation lately regarding the validity of Roy Moore’s year book signature.  This is a great example of Handwriting Analysis and Statement Analysis working hand in hand.  One science should confirm the other and in this case, they do.  

The exemplar we have in the year book raises three questions:

1. Is the signature that of Roy Moore himself?
2. Is the writing after the signature also that of Roy Moore?
3. If the writing after the signature is not Moore’s, does it mean the signature was forged?

Those that say the signature is a fake, have cited the differences in handwriting that appears after the signature, compared to the writing before it.  I agree with them, there are two styles of handwriting.  The author of the inscription and signature, is different than the author of 12-22-77, Olde Hickory House.  The yearbook has obviously been tampered with.  However, that does not mean Roy Moore didn’t sign the year book in 1977.   

Let’s examine the year book signature in comparison to Roy Moore’s signature when he was Chief Justice.  

                      

When examining the signatures, keep in mind that signatures typically have minor changes depending on what is occurring in our lives at the time.  In this case, there are a couple minor inconsistencies, but they pale in comparison to the major consistent traits in both signatures.   

1. We first note the slant and letter size are consistent.
2. The entrance stroke of the capital R begins with an upstroke, followed by a down and up stroke.  This appears as a muddy or pasty area in the known signature on the right.
3. The R loop is consistent, followed by the exit stroke that ends slightly higher than the afore mentioned down/ up stroke to it’s left.  
4. Also note the slight exit to the right in both signatures.
5. The R in both signatgures is disconnected from the “oy” in both signatures.
6. The y cup is at the top end of the o to it’s left.
7. The capital M begins with a “clubbed” or pasty entrance stroke, creating a third hump in the M.
8. The Humps and strokes within the M are identical to each other, with a point in the final hump.
9. The M is disconnected from the rest of the letters in Moore.
10. The o’s in Moore are different size, with the right o higher than the left.
11. The r in both signatures is consitent.
12. The e exit stroke is identical in both.   
13. We do not see hesitation points in the yearbook signature.  It was written in one flowing motion, greatly increasing the validity of the signature.  

The many consistent traits in both signatures leave no doubt they were written by the same person.  Roy Moore has not denied signing the year book. He has however, spent much time highlighting the differences in the writing after the signature, which he can truthfully do.  During my 28 years in Law Enforcement, I often witnessed criminals do this same thing.  They spoke with confidence and at length about that which was truthful and led focus away from their crimninal actions.  However, they spent very little time or avoided all together the incident in question.  It is a common tactic among liars.  

Regarding the year book signature, Roy Moore came very close to an embedded admission when he said, the signature has been “tampered” with.   We have to believe him.  If it wasn’t his signature, how would he know it had been tampered with?  Furthermore, what would it matter?  If he did not sign the year book, he could stand with confidence in front of the wall of truth and reliably deny signing the book.  He knows the signature is his, and he cannot deny it.  I believe him.