Hinderances to Deception Detection Training

We receive inquiries for formal training daily and have been taking steps to filter out those who enroll.  

Statement Analysis is a science.  This means it is a systematic and analytical process of which, when applied evenly, the same results should result, no matter the analyst or where the analysis is completed.  

Where one presupposes understanding in communication, analysis can be done.  

If an applicant is of reasonable intelligence and applies himself or herself to the work, the expectation remains:  in detecting deception, 100% accuracy.  Contamination of a statement is the most likely element to cause error for the experienced analyst.  This is why, when recognized as such, the analyst will set aside the statement rather than analyze.  (Contaminated statements can be analyzed, but only by very experienced analysts and generally only in team analysis, rather than one alone).  

We caution new applicants that there are two major issues that will impact their work:

1.  Unresolved mental health issues. 

This can appear to be insulting, particularly to those with unresolved issues, but it will lead to error.  Those with unresolved issues pose a high risk for projection into a statement. They will "see" in a statement what is not there.  When accompanied by a strong intellect, it becomes even more problematic because instinctively they may find some success.  Eventually, however, it becomes "instinct versus principle" and over time, error will prevail and destroy the analyst's reputation. Moving forward in 2018, we will be including Questionnaires in the enrollment process.  

2.  Narrative 

The second issue we address with those seeking to enroll is Narrative Driven Ideology, or commonly called, "political correctness."

Political Correctness is a form of deception.  It is to exchange counterfeit linguistic currency and is used to exploit.  

The example I often cite is this:  If you believe Bruce Jenner's barking dog is a cat, you cannot do this work.  It is this simple.

You will be, one way or another, confronted in your narrative ideology where truth opposes emotion and if you yield truth to emotion, you will fail in analysis and bring your own professional reputation into disrepute. 

Here is why: 

Deception that is fueled by moral narcissism is a form of projection, itself.  

Question:  Why are we demanded to accept a man in women's clothing as a woman?

Answer:   Because it is the faux morally superior position.  

The findings of neuroscience agree with thousands of years of human observation:  men and women are different.  Their brain's develop differently and under the influence of different volume and frequency of hormones.  At just 8 weeks of gestation, the female baby experiences a dramatic increase in oxytocin which begins the vast difference between male and female babies.  The woman is formed.  

In analysis, we identify the gender of the writer for many more reasons than just Anonymous Author Identification.  The psycho-lingusitic profile's accuracy is based upon the differences between male and female.  

If someone is "offended" (emotional disturbance) 

Political Correctness seeks to change the meaning of language and must, due to its deceptive origin, resort to tyranny.  

Why is it "morally superior" to insist that Bruce Jenner is not a 65 year old grandfather, but a college co-ed?

The answer is found in a young college student's stance she took against Ben Shapiro.  She claimed "transgender people are being attacked and killed all over our nation today!"

Shapiro first asked her to name a single instance of such, in a country of 300 million people. 

When she could not, he then addressed bullying and dignity, stating that we cannot equate lying about one's gender to dignity and adding that no one should be mistreated.  He said that as a small Jewish kid, he experienced horrific bullying in school.  

The resultant thinking is this:  Unless you led a mentally ill man, wearing a dress, into the girl's bathroom, you are "attacking and killing transgendered people" and are "hateful", mentally ill with irrational fear, and a "Nazi" (a member of the German National Socialists party circa 1929-45) and a Fascist (government control of private business).  

It is truth that all of the assertions are deceptive.

Lying is not rational and habitual liars, especially the "Virtue Signalers" will appear illogical as the above picture shows.  

When driven by ideology, truth is not just sacrificed, but deception is embraced. 

Such a one cannot do this work.  

President Donald Trump did not call for the death penalty for the Vegas shooter because he was dead.  
Keith Olberman is not a person with developmental disabilities intellectually.  Yet, he reveals much of himself in the language he chooses, and the reality he overrules with emotion.  

College kids are inundated with infantilism and its generation embraces emotion above logic, and politicians know exactly how to appeal to it. 

'The whole point of Orwell's 1984 is to get people to trust government'.  Hillary Clinton said.   

Indeed. 

When statistics tell us, plainly and collected outside the realm of politics, about murder rates, but a person chooses to believe, emotionally, that, for example, "police are racists and are killing black males at will", the lie that overrules truth is emotion based.  Eventually, they will be confronted with the same squaring off:

Emotion versus principle in analysis. 

If they are accustomed to having emotion overrule truth, it will not suddenly cease in lie detection.  Today, some who claim to be experts in lie detection are more akin to Keith Olbermann in their conclusions.  

In analyzing statements:  Sometimes the "good guy" did it, and sometimes the "bad guy" is innocent. We let the statement guide us.  

Every analyst must deal with his or her own beliefs, but remain committed to the principles of the science.  

When someone enrolls in training and has unresolved mental health issues, or is "politically correct", they will fail, sooner or later, in the work. They will become frustrated, disillusioned and often become combative, no different than those who want criminal penalties  sentences "mis pronoun'ing" someone.  The same name calling, labeling and assigning of motive that we see today from illogic, enters our science.  "Sexist" for identifying the gender; "racist" for identifying the race, and so on.  

Q.  You have given examples of Narrative Driven Ideology.  Can you give an example of an unresolved mental health issue?

A.  Yes.  We all have mental health issues no different than physical health issues.  The key comes down to recognition and accepting observations from others.  

Why?  Because our own mental health issue clouds our thinking. Here are some examples:  

If one sees himself or herself as an ongoing "victim" in life, (victim status)  they will "see" others as "victimizers."  This lack of personal responsibility is readily projected onto others, including the subject of a statement.  They may clear the guilty, for example, if they assimilate with what the guilty experienced. They are quick to blame.  

Another example is found in trauma.  Some victims of early childhood trauma remain hyper-vigilant. They will "see" deception where reliability exists. 

Q.  Isn't there any hope?
A.  Of course. 

When someone is acutely aware of such, it is openly discussed in team analysis.  Those who are honest with themselves do very well in such settings because they rely upon the judgment of others.  

We have, in any team in any session, experts in various fields.  Each analyst brings his or her background and experiences into the session.  When there is a strong willingness to get to the truth, overriding one's own need to "be right", the work is fabulous. 

When one, due to trauma, struggles to see reliability in a statement, the prescription for remedy is lots of reliable statements analyzed, until it, too, becomes part of the brain's pattern recognition.  Both deception and reliability are discerned through the applicator of principle. 

Keith Obermann, like "social justice warriors" that emulate him,  is incapable of journalism because he is incapable of truth.   His emotions have long overruled truth, and he is a habitual deceiver.  He will hear "Hitler" in every word that President Trump uses. When it becomes absurdity in language, he increases his strength.   He can see hundreds of thousands of dead from Islamic terrorism, but say that President Trump is more dangerous and will use all of his powers of persuasion to appeal to others who have a need to be morally "superior" to others. 

Obermann is manipulative and exploitive.  He seeks to not only condemn the president, but to appeal to people who are not white and people who are Muslim.  It is not only insulting to "people of color" and "Muslims", it is exploitive and gives insight into his own association with deception.  

From Richard Hall's documentary on Madeleine McCann, we saw many commentators who could not study Statement Analysis.  They "know" Madeleine was kidnapped and is alive today and they "know" that disagreeing with them is "hateful" towards the parents.  They "know" this to be so.  

It becomes evident in an ongoing process. 

They learn basic principles. 

They apply the principles to OJ Simpson and see: he killed Nicole and he lied. 

They then apply the principles to Michael Jackson and see:  he molested not only the claimed victims, but many more. 

They apply the same principles to Casey Anthony and see that she killed her daughter, Caylee and lied about it. 

And on and on this goes...

but then they see that the same application of principle to their pet case or narrative driven ideology means "deception detected" and refuse to believe it.  

Instead of presenting arguments as to why PERSON X is really truthful, they go to the moral narcissism and say, 

"If you do not agree with me, you are mentally ill and are so morally deplorable, that I must silence you."

I often ask people what they would think of the science of Statement Analysis if I told them that disagreeing with me reveals that they are suffering from phobia and are morally reprehensible.  It is met with laughter.  

Laughter is, sometimes, the best response to absurdity.  

If you consider enrollment in training, you must be prepared to discern truth from deception. 

This presupposes that truth exists. 

We have some exciting announcements upcoming for trainings for 2018.  

If you are thinking of expanding your knowledge, building your resume and gaining traction for your career, consider enrolling in our Complete Statement Analysis course by December 31, 2017, for savings.  

Part one of Richard Hall's documentary as a sample of Statement Analysis' use to a general audience:

Judge Roy Moore Accusation

A 53 year old woman has accused Judge Roy Moore of sexually molesting her when she was 14 years old. 

We do not have enough sample for a definitive conclusion but thus far...


“These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign.”

This is not a reliable denial and it assigns motive.  Best is, 
"I did not molest her" or "I did not touch her sexually" or anything similar.  

The written statement from his campaign is even weaker, including "...this garbage is the very definition of fake news.”

Leigh Corfman says she was 14 years old when the then 30 year old judge gave her a ride home, kissed her, and told her how pretty she was.  On the second ride, he took her to his home where he took off his own clothes, removed her clothing, and  touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

Here is one statement from her as she goes into recall:  

“I wanted it over with — I wanted out. Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over.

This statement indicates age sophistication disparity. 

Analysis Conclusion can be made when we have larger sample, but thus far, there is no indication of deception in her statement and his statement, both what he said and what was released, are "unreliable."  


"Not reliable" often indicates that we need more information as the subject may not have done it, while "unreliable" is stronger as a classification.  In this, the analyst classifies it as such and would need to hear a reliable denial to alter this view point. 

"Not reliable" is considerably weaker in this sense, and often indicates that the analyst is waiting for the subject to issue a denial.  This happens, at times in an interview,  when a subject does not realize he is accused. 



For training, contact Hyatt Analysis Services 

Billie Jean Dunn's Attorney John Young: A Study in Depravity

John Young, the attorney for Billie Jean Dunn has finally been brought to justice.

He has been sentenced to 11 years in prison after a career of ever increasing depravity and perversion of justice.

John Young threatened to "show Peter Hyatt what Texas justice looks like", and "we're gonna bring this, this fool... here to Texas and show him..." on television,  due to the analysis of the murder of Hailey Dunn, but shortly after making this bold claim went to the home of a police officer, with alcohol (and possibly cocaine) in his system and pulled a gun on the cop.  Disarmed and tackled to the ground, Young was able to wiggle his way out of prison time and was even able to continue practicing law while being "mentored." 

How many people pull a gun on a police officer and live to talk about it?

The need to insult, rather than answer the analysis' accusations, was noted. 

At the time, it was conceivable that such an event would have a sobering impact upon Young, but the  opposite is true.  Where justice is perverted, dismissed or otherwise not employed, an emboldenment takes place in the human heart, as well as in the hearts of others who observe the profiting from illicit and illegal behavior.

The pulling of a gun on a police officer was not John Young's first entanglement with the law, having killed a woman with his car, the jaded attorney was able to claim that the victim was intoxicated and stumbled out into the street.

The problem with this assertion?

Close connections in what was called "the good ole boys' club" led to learning that the victim was  cremated, perhaps quickly and quietly.   Young emerged victorious and steadfast in his life of flamboyance,  publicity seeking and exploitation.

He was an incessant insult to law enforcement, including local and the Texas Rangers.

Accused of constant bribes, quid pro quo deals, and a serial philanderer, John Young took on the case of Billie Jean Dunn "pro bono", yet used language to suggest a much deeper relationship with stripper mother Billie Jean than professional ethics call for.  He called Hailey "our little girl" and "our child" and had a need to persuade and threaten, rather than answer analysis.  He showed himself to be a pathological liar, incapable of even self honesty.

He kept friendships with money, and stood as an embarrassment to justice and a thorn in the side of law enforcement.  It seemed that for John Young, there was no bottom.

His last acts of an attorney appear to have taken on a sexual perverse client, with child pornography, which fits his psycho-lingtuistic profile, and orchestrated his new client's fake will to entrust millions to...

himself.


The Texas Rangers stayed up on this one, however, in spite of any political pressure and influence Young could muster against them.

John Young is a career offender, exploiter and an example worthy of study in understanding human nature and the ancient understanding what happens to society when justice is delayed, destroyed or ignored.

His law career over, his family is left bereft of its provider, which may be the best thing that could ever happen to them.  The money he earned in living the wealthy life style was dirty, from A to Z, tainted through perversion of justice and exploitation.  They have benefited on the destruction of others and may find some semblance of peace by honest work, instead of the scheming and exploitation of society. 

The article about the defense's attempt to mitigate sentencing (a co conspirator got 6 months) is fascinating.  The defense called 26 people to swear how honest this most dishonest man was. As expected, the defense blamed alcohol (an inanimate object) for much. Defense even tried to copy "the race card" with the Orwellian "restorative justice" claim: 

Here:  

The defense urged the jury to consider "restorative justice" with a community supervision or probation option requiring Young or his family to pay back the estate.

"Make them (the Young family) pay," said Daniel Hurley, an attorney on Young's defense team. The easy option, he said, was to put him in jail and "let the taxpayers pay."

The prosecution team said Young had three years to pay restitution before now and "probation is not revoked for a failure to pay restitution," especially if the defendant has no assets or income to pay with.

The prosecution also pointed out that Young transferred ownership of his 5,000-square-foot home to his wife about two and a half weeks before the trial.

Prosecutors were able to introduce the death of the woman from Young's car, his pulling of a gun on a law enforcement official and his exploitation of justice, women and society.

After listening to more than 2 dozen "character references" who swore, under oath, as to John Young being an honest, religious, God-fearing family man", justice came swiftly to Young, with the sentence and fines.  At this point, it is likely that investigators will have to seek to learn where Young hid money and assets.  

The Texas Rangers deserve the highest praise for staying the course, and the prosecutor's office for looking not just at the crime, but at the man, himself, and his impact upon society. 

Society is now just a bit safer with John Young behind bars. 

The Texas Rangers can stand just a touch taller having not yielded to political pressure in an age where perversion of justice has become deeply emboldened, not just in Texas, but across America, as some of the highest level felonies ever in America have been, to date, swept under the rug. 

This, however, may not remain this way, as I have hope for 2018 that politicians, in particular, will all be put on notice should the international felonious crimes be prosecuted.  

For John Young, himself, I pray for mercy.  

For those unfamiliar with the murder of Hailey Dunn, it is a case which is of assistance to learn deception detection.  

The mother reported her 13 year old "missing" and went on national television and lied from the opening statements.  

From her first appearance, Statement Analysis showed:

The child is dead; the mother needs an alibi. 

This continued in appearance after appearance, failed polygraph, drug abuse, child pornography, bestiality, domestic violence, child abuse/neglect, and "blood lust" videos.  

The mother and her boyfriend, Shawn Adkins, are still not charged with Hailey's death and remain judicially innocent. 

The mother later verbally signaled where the body would be found and her large sample allows analysts in training to learn, step by step, both deception detection and content analysis.  Journalists familiar with this case, alone, have enrolled in training, as they were able to learn how to follow principle, even from instinct, and sharpen their own investigative journalism skills. 

A great exercise for advanced analysis is to compile Young's statements, particularly in TV appearances, for a fuller profile.  His language is, if anything, consistent in what it reveals about his interests, priorities and his background. 

For training for your department, or for training for individuals in their homes, go to Hyatt Analysis Services to register for our 

Complete Statement Analysis Course. 

Vegas Shooter Girlfriend Withholding Information

Withholding information 

Investigators have said:  Marilou Danley is withholding information from them. 

Thus far:   We are not given answers in the Vegas terrorist attack. The statement that "we may never know the motive" is not credible. 

That he may have left a suicide note or letter that is "not relevant" is not credible.  

This was a well planned, trained, financed  and executed terrorist act.  

Officials reported that they now believe  Marilou Danley is deliberately withholding information from them in their investigation into the terrorist killing in Vegas. 

To this, the analysis of her released statement agrees.  


The Sheriff said that the killer may have been "radicalized" and did not likely act alone.  He also said that the shooter intended to survive and continue to another killing.  It was planned, financed, trained and it was methodical. 

His girlfriend, Marilou Danley received $100,000 from Stephen Paddock just prior to the attack and was a "person of interest."

The statement is made through her attorney and must be analyzed as a statement, not of her, nor her attorney.  We analyze the statement here:  


We are analyzing the statement, not the person, as it could be her words and her words and the  words of her attorney.

What does the statement tell us?

Analysis Questions:  

Does the girlfriend show knowledge of his intention?
Does she reliably deny knowledge of motive?
Does she reliably report no suspicion of him?


Here is his girlfriend's denial of knowledge: 

“It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone,” 

He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.”

Let's look at it again, using Statement Analysis.  In this analysis, we break down the statement into small parts examine or analyze, and then put it back together again. 

“It never occurred to me 

Instead of saying, "I did not know he was going to do this" the statement began without the pronoun "I."  A statement that begins with the pronoun "I" means the subject is putting herself, psychologically, into the statement.  This is called "linguistic commitment."

Instead, she uses a "passive voice" of what "never occurred to" her. This is to use language that reflects a general indirect obtainment of knowledge.  There is an infinite number of things that never occurred to her.  This is a deliberately vague denial, which is given in the passive voice; which is a form of distancing language. 

The attack was not something that was vaguely committed, or would be lost in memory.  It was specific and memorable, which then warrants specific, memorable language. 

It also uses the word "never" rather than "I did not know..." with the verb "never" being unreliable for the purposes of classification.  It is to avoid the strong "did not", and it comes after a passive, rather than active and directive, introduction.  

"I did not know he was going to do this" would be very strong and would not need an attorney's approval or guidance. This would begin with "I", go to "did not" and "do this", would bring the obvious (shooting) close to her, psychologically with "this."  

Preferable would be to call it specifically "attack, killing, terrorist, shooting" etc; something to identify a most unusual, memorable and specific event. 

We now see that she begins without stating with herself in the statement, uses qualification with her denial:

"It never occurred to me in any way " uses the unnecessary qualifier of "in any way."

She has not been asked, "did it occur to you in any way?", nor would this be something anyone would ask.  

Q.  Why not? 

A.   Because it is a unique specific memorable event.  It is not a passing ordinary event.  She now introduces multiple ways in which she might have known his plans.  

This is a very important point in advanced analysis;  she is anticipating being accused of specific ways in which she knew his intention and seeks to preempt the questioning. 

It is as if to introduce a defense where there is no attack or accusation.  

We would not have thought to ask, "Well, he didn't tell you about it, but did he write to you about it?" or, 

"He did not say he was going to do this, but did you understand that he was going to do this when you observed the cache of offensive weapons he was amassing?"

This expression, "in any way", seeks to cut off accusations that we would not have even thought of.  This is how we catch liars.  

But, she is not done yet.  She is more concerned about other possibilities; possibilities that we do not know of, but she does, that she fears being addressed.  

Let's note:  

*missing pronoun "I" is the first signal of weakness. 

"Occurred to me" using passivity is second signal of weakness. 

"never" is unreliable (3rd point of weakness) and now we have 

the unnecessary emphasis of "in any way" as the fourth point of sensitivity (weakness), but she is not done yet: 

It never occurred to me in any way whatsoever that he was planning violence against anyone,” 

The subject adds "whatsoever" as another attempt to persuade us. This is not only a call in for reinforcements, but it is to tell us that his communication of his intentions was done in a way that she is thinking of and wishes to tell us that he didn't, without the internal instinctive repulsion from direct lying that the brain does. 

This was a planned, specific, memorable event that took place at a certain locale, at a specific time and had intended victims.  The passivity and vagueness are used for self protection.  We have better memories (linguistically) over 'the big game' from yesteryear than she shows in an horrific event of bloodshed.  

The need to be vague is a form of distancing language.  She is vague about his communication, but she is also deliberately vague about the victims. 

She states:   "violence against anyone" as unnecessary directing towards the victims.  

The victims do not need to be pointed out as "anyone":  59 dead, 500 injured of the specifically chosen victims.  

At this point, the statement is so weak that suspicion that she knew and is concealing information continues to rise. 

Yet, the statement continues: 

He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.”

1.  "never" is not "did not" is unreliable. Lance Armstrong "never" took PEDs.  He was incapable of saying "I did not take PEDs." In the same sense, she does not say, "he didn't tell me..."

2.  "to me" is specified.  She does not say, "he didn't tell me" but designates the preposition, "to" here instead.  This is to consider that it was not "to" her, that he "said" or "took action."  This raises the question, unnecessarily:

 Did he say something to others that she is aware of? 

If not for her statement, we would not have known to ask this.  This now brings someone else into her denial, which means collateral interviews are likely to produce results. 

Because she has raised questions by her denial, we now have more questions that need answers: 

 Did he write or type things?  Did she witness things?  Did she see his expenditures of weapons? ...and so on. 

This puts the emphasis upon self, even while being unreliable, signaling to us that others also know.  

3.  Action:  Let's look at what she said about "any action"

"Action" is a witnessing or awareness of events.  This unnecessary addition has provoked new questions for us.  She is introducing witnesses "things" (actions) that further weakens the denial while simultaneously giving us new information.  

a.  Action that she was aware of.  Would she need identify something she was not aware of?

Actions such as...

going to trainings for the weaponry. 
purchasing the weapons. 
cleaning them, practicing with them, including dry runs,
storing them, 
hiding them, 
cataloging them, 
print out receipts, 
e receipts,
book keeping
deliveries
drives to locales 
booking of the hotels
travel plans 

This is unnecessary unless because she is acknowledging the possibility of action that she was "not aware" of.  This is an unnecessary qualification.  

She has invited us to consider "actions" while being both unreliable and vague. 

He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.”

b. "that I understood" is now a qualification of Paddock's actions. This is to acknowledge that he did take actions that she was aware of, but she did not "understand" them to be violent. 

"That I was aware of" was first qualifier of action. 

"that I understood" is the second.  

She now wants us to believe that his actions were open to interpretation. 

This is to admit eyewitness actions, but the actions had to be "understood" a specific way to conclude murderous attack upon innocent lives. She piles weakness upon weakness: 

The subject  is not done yet: 

c.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.”

"in any way" now should cause investigators to learn of his actions' expressions in various means.  The subject is broadening the scope. The interpretation of his actions is now given by her:

"a warning."

She now is telling us that she witnessed actions, but did not "understand" them to be a "warning."  

d.  He never said anything to me or took any action that I was aware of that I understood in any way to be a warning that something horrible like this was going to happen.”

Here is the center of the subject's denial:  "to be a warning."

It is unreliable and it is heavily qualified and it is about something specific:

her understanding, interpretation, or grasping of "warning."

This is to specifically avoid saying "He did not tell me he was going to kill people" and instead gives us an unreliable and heavily qualified specifically classified  denial "warning."  

This should cause suspicion that the subject did not need to be "warned" because of "agreement."

Minimization:  "something horrible like this."

Like what?

Like shooting innocent victims with sophisticated weaponry?  She has a need to distance herself to something that even strangers would not have a need to distance themselves from. 

What is the "something"?
What is "this"?
What is "horrible"?

This is how guilt operates:  it seeks out words to cover itself, and while doing so, literally leaks out information.  Some of the most sensitive and powerful information we gain is when a subject presumes an accusation is coming. 

Often, only the guilty make these very specific presumptions because investigators (and readers) would often not have even thought to ask certain questions. 

It is to show that "only the guilty" would be concerned with specifics that would not have occurred to others.  Only the guilty worry about a specific because this specific is not only unknown, but likely would have not even entered into the mind of the investigator had not the subject stated it. 

This is why in Analytical Interviewing, we do only 20% or less of the speaking:  the subject has the information; it is not within us. 

The interrogation is short and flips this around:  we do 80% to 90% of the speaking, making accusations and threats of consequence. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The statement is an  Unreliable Denial. 

The statement not only increases suspicion but it tells us some specific areas in which the Vegas terrorist's girlfriend knew of his plans.  

It broadens the investigation telling us:  she was not alone in her knowledge of what he was doing.  

To learn Deception Detection to the point of 100% accuracy, enroll in our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" which comes with 12 months of e-support.  

Our Advanced Course, which includes content analysis and psycho-lingustic profiling is not offered until successful completion of our Complete Course.

Certification requires minimum of 60 hours live training after completion of course.  

Judge Timothy Bibaud's Denial

Mug shot Alli Bibaud

Article from Boston Globe.com Andrea Estes, author.     Analysis in bold type and after quotes.  Emphasis added, including italics.  Link to full article here. 

Article:  

Alli Bibaud had just crashed her car on Route I-190 in Worcester on the evening of Oct. 16. She reeked of alcohol and had what state Trooper Ryan Sceviour described as a “heroin kit,” including a dozen needles and a spoon. She admitted performing sex acts on men to support her heroin addiction, according to Sceviour’s official report, and offered him sex as well in return for leniency.

And she started ranting that her father was a judge.

“He’s going to kill me,” screamed Bibaud, the trooper reported.

Two days later, Sceviour was awakened by a state trooper at the door of his home, who ordered Sceviour to drive 90 miles to the State Police barracks in Holden. There, he said he was disciplined and told to remove Bibaud’s references to sex and her father, Judge Timothy Bibaud,who is first justice of Dudley District Court and presides over its drug court.

Now, Sceviour is suing top commanders of the State Police, including Colonel Richard D. McKeon, charging that they punished him and forced him to falsify records to avoid embarrassing the judge and his daughter, who faces several charges, including driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

“We expect the State Police administration to enforce the law, not break it,” said Sceviour’s lawyer, Lenny Kesten. “What they did to Trooper Sceviour is shameful.”

A State Police spokesman admitted that the order to change the report came directly from McKeon, commander of the 2,200-member State Police. However, the spokesman, David Procopio, said it’s perfectly acceptable for a supervisor to edit a police report. He also said that Sceviour was wrong to include comments in his report that were not relevant to Bibaud’s arrest.

“The revision consisted of removal of what the Colonel and senior commanders felt was a sensationalistic and inflammatory directly-quoted statement that made no contribution to proving the elements of the crimes with which she was charged,” Procopio explained in a statement.

Direct quotes are not only routine, but protect both the public and law enforcement as they are the best indicator of truth or deception.  Her quotes affirmed the trooper's findings and indicate attendant crimes, including bribery and prostitution. 

Procopio declined to say how McKeon learned about the contents of Bibaud’s police report. He also said Sceviour’s punishment was not technically discipline, but “an observation report for corrective action.”

end of article. 

Always note the need to change meaning of language. An agreement may be made because of protocol:  would the commander of such a large troop normally edit a report?

Judge Bibaud gave this denial, while admitting his daughter needs treatment. 

“I absolutely, vehemently deny making any contact with anybody."

What can we tell from this denial?

1.  He does not state that he did not make contact with the police.  "I did not have contact with State Police" would be a denial of contact by him. 

2.  Instead of issuing a denial, he states a denial.

A denial is a refusal to accept and is a legal term.  It is to avoid saying "I did not..." directly.  He is stating a denial rather than making one.  But what does he deny?  Before we get there, we continue with the denial itself.  

3.  He "absolutely" and "vehemently" denies.  This is to call in for reinforcements, something that we see from:

a.  those who are not truthful

b.  those who may be telling the truth, but normally do not

c.  those who know they will not be believed

d.  those who worry they will not be believed. 

Each additional word weakens a denial, as it increases sensitivity.  The need to persuade takes precedence over the truth.  This is where the weakness is processed by the reader/hearer, with more questions. 

4.  Note the vagueness:  "...with anybody."  

This is similar, psychologically, to "never" in analysis; a broad, undetermined sketch, rather than a specific.  "...with anybody" is not to be interpreted.  If he wanted to say "State Police" or even use the name of the supervisor who ordered the report changed, he could have.  The argument that, in context, "he means State Police" is to interpret; something Statement Analysis does not do. "Anybody" is to specifically avoid designating information. 

Question:  "Who is anybody?" 

5.  His unreliable denial raises the natural question, "Did you have someone make contact for you?"  

6.  "...making contact" raises the question, "Did anyone make contact with you?"

Analysis Conclusion:

“I absolutely, vehemently deny making any contact with anybody."

Deception Indicated.

When one has a need to avoid issuing a reliable denial, instead using vague language, it highlights the need to confuse or cloud the issue, which only invites more questions.  The statement is as if he lives in a "black hole" of nothing in life.  

The judge issues an unreliable denial to avoid a direct lie.  It is very likely that he was instrumental in having the report changed; whether through him contacting the authorities, or someone contacting him.  It could be even be "the expected" between the commander and the judge, but the unreliable denial, itself, tells us that there is a story here, where he wishes his audience to believe there is no story.  The "quid pro quo", even if expectation that had no contact, would trigger the unreliable denial.  Even where there may be "technical truth", the need to deceive is because there is no psychological "wall of truth."

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is an indicator of "technical truth" having a story behind it.

This is what the Judge's unreliable denial indicates. This is why "deception indicated" is found.

He is a judge over a drug court and his daughter is a drug addict according to the article.  This is embarrassing but it is not why he issued the unreliable denial.

He did so to protect himself and the one responsible for altering the report.

This is why he issued the unreliable denial.  This is an indication of his "threshold" for deception.  He would have been better of remaining silent, as lawyers tell their clients.

What does this say to both law enforcement and citizens about obtaining justice in his court?

Where there is corruption in leadership, citizens suffer.  Corruption rolls downward.  It erodes confidence and it multiplies as subordinates quickly learn to hold truth, itself, in contempt, for personal gain.


For training in deception detection, go to Hyatt Analysis Services and see our training opportunities. 

Analysis: Woman Accused of Theft

In a crowded store, a man yells, "Stop, thief!  She stole my wallet!" pointing to a young woman. The store detective takes the young woman by the arm. 

Subject:  "Let go of me.  Who are you?  I haven't done anything.  How dare you!" 

Store Detective:  "Is this the one, sir?"

Male Victim:  "Yes, she took my wallet."

Subject:  "Let me go, let me go, you're hurting me. Where are you taking me?  Let me go!"

She is taken into the store's executive office. 

Detective:  "This gentleman claims his pocket has been picked. 

Male Victim:  "This girl bumped into me, then I felt for my wallet and it was gone.  I am sure she's got it.  I felt her hand in my pocket."

Subject:  "I didn't take your wallet.  I'm a respectable woman.  I never stole anything in my life.  

Victim:  "You did take it.  You're a pickpocket."  

Supervisor:  "Call for female detective and have her searched."

Subject:  "I won't be searched.  You've no right to search me.  How dare you say I stole your wallet!"

Victim:  I saw you put your hand right..."  (reaches into top right inner coat pocket and discovers wallet)

"It must have slipped down. Excuse me, miss, I'm sorry, I...it's been a terrible mistake"


Subject crying as accuser leaves.  



The writing is fascinating. 

1.  "I didn't take your wallet" is a very strong denial.  If this is followed by, "I'm telling the truth" it is 99% likely to be truthful.  This is why detectives often ask, "Why should I believe you?" knowing that the psychological "wall of truth" removes the burden of persuasion from the honest, truthful subject. 

2.  The Sermon:  "I'm a respectable woman" is unnecessary persuasion which belies the "wall of truth."  This is where we see people who did not do what they have been accused of, but have likely done enough other things to warrant a need for sermonizing about self.  

3.  "I've never stolen anything in my life" is an unnecessary addition to the denial.  It does not mean the denial is not reliable, but it does mean that this subject has a need to not only sermonize, but assert that her innocence goes beyond the context of this accusation.  

"What about me?  I'm a respectable woman.  What about all those people who saw me arrested?  I'll never be able to live it down.  (crying)  Oh, the disgrace of it!  I am going to my lawyer.  I will show you that you cannot falsely accuse innocent people of theft!"

At this point, store security enters to tell supervisor that a male-female team have been scamming stores in this manner.  

In this storyline, the man and woman are working together to game stores out of money.  It is not unlike what we see today with bus accidents or fraudulent claims of falling.  For every fake accident, there is a doctor and lawyer willing to join the deception for pay.  

Exploitation via fraudulent claims, especially in the "victim culture" today, are very successful. 

Deception Detection training for business not only stops the payouts, but it can screen out the thief from employment, even before the interview is conducted.  

The writer hit on truth:  the woman did not take the wallet but her character, in deed, has reason to persuade.  

Notice the accuser's use of passivity in his statement:  "It must have slipped down. Excuse me, miss, I'm sorry, I...it's been a terrible mistake"

Not only is passive voice employed here, but it is that he does not accuse himself of making a mistake.  

The writer was paying attention. 

When you enroll in the Complete Statement Analysis Course, you get 12 months of e support but also a free invitation to a 6 hour live training.  This is where you are able to apply your knowledge to actual cases, in a confidential, supportive environment.  

Most end up joining this monthly training, including year after year, as their skills are continually sharpened and improved.  

They run at 100% accuracy in detecting deception, but move on to content analysis (learning the details of what happened) 

Stores routinely make payouts and insurance costs rise.   Statement Analysis training or sub contracting with a certified analyst will save money, time, stress and...

the company's reputation. 

Who is in our training?

Police, insurance investigators, journalists, writers, therapists, full time instructors, attorneys, medical professionals, grandmothers, IT professionals, private investigators, teachers, grandfathers, moms, Human Resources  and...

Emergency Call: Killer of Teacher

 Listen for Relationship language between the caller and the victim.

Using only the caller's language?

1.  Who is the victim?
2.  Who is the victim in relation to himself?
3.  Who knifed her?
4.  What happened to her?
5.  What does the caller want?

Contamination Sample: 

From here, you can ask, "what language impacted the husband's call, which followed shortly thereafter?" 

To learn Deception Detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.