Saturday, April 21, 2018

Vehicle Defaced Jeff Carter Post Analyzed





What if we apply Lie Detection principles to a short post?  Can we know the truth?

Statement Analysis:  Letting the subject guide us to the truth.

Question:  Is Jeff Carter a victim of a hate crime?

"Woke up to this" is to avoid telling us who woke up and only by implication did the unknown person  wake up to a vandalized damaged vehicle.

The subject would like his audience to believe that what happened was:

a.  a surprise or shock
b.  took place while he was sleeping

He does not commit to either, via his dropping of pronoun.  The need to distance himself from this, is his priority #1.  

He has another priority, which is his narrative or message, but principally , the need to persuade readers into believing this was a shock to him because he was asleep is not only unnecessary information, but it is self preservation. It is to anticipate readers thinking, "he could not have done this because he was asleep." Yet he does not tell us "I was asleep" or even "I awoke to find..."

The subject is familiar and comfortable with this form of deception:  counting upon others to interpret his words, rather than listen to him. 

Statement Analysis is trained listening. 

Sub priority:  message

It is here we we see affirmation of the analysis of "woke up..."

Next, "My atheist bumper sticker is gone" now introduces his priority.  It is "his" priority to first introduce a connection to himself.

Instead of the intrusive criminal destruction of property, he is able to discern and mark as his priority that a bumper sticker has been removed.

It is not just a bumper sticker, but the additional language unnecessarily tells us the message carried by the sticker is "atheist."

If you saw your vehicle defaced and its damage acute, would you note what was not present? The damage to his vehicle will be, in the least, time costly.  What does it cost to get another bumper sticker? 

Note that a bumper sticker removal is a quiet more passive action, while defacing property in this manner is something that is intrusive, invasive and tense:  one must rush not to get caught if one is engaging in criminal activity.  This increases tension of destroying property.  

Analysis Conclusion:  Fake Hate

This poster is  deceptive about what happened to his vehicle. He ejects himself from the opening statement (no "I") which is to void the responsibility for the action.  This is affirmed by the implication of being asleep.  One must be asleep in order to awaken.  Yet, he avoids telling us that this is him. 

This is to conceal responsibility of this defacing of his property.  He either defaced it himself, or he knows the identity of the defacer.  Either way, it is "guilty knowledge" of the event.   

This poster is narrative driven.  He is deceptive about what happened, divorces himself from the statement, while leading his audience to believe he could not be responsible because he was asleep.  

It is interesting to note:  he does not lie overtly in the statement.  

Projection 

We often find guilt within projective messages.  

His hatred of Christians is evident in his attempt to implicate them, yet even here, he posts it as a question, rather than a direct lie.  This is consistent with his self preservation of the dropped pronoun "I" which began his short statement. 

An analyst also noted that the subject went on in other posts to blame US President Donald Trump in defacing his vehicle and posted rants of hatred and intolerance.  

Dismissal 

It is easy to dismiss one as in need of mental health intervention, but consider the historical examples of falsely blaming religious groups for criminal behavior and what it has led to. 

This is an example of extremism to inspire hatred of a particular group by the subject.   This is the type of individual of whom may be inspired to commit crimes that Hollywood celebrities seek to inspire with words of violence.  

Nero, Hitler, and...

A "false flag" is as old as history.  Attempting to blame a particular group falsely, to inspire hatred and violence, is found in every era.  Blaming a religious group is also seen in precedent, including the blaming of Jews in Nazi Germany, to rouse the populace into violence.   

"Krystl Nacht"

That the subject was willing to go this far (criminal behavior) is indicative of the risk he poses to society.  


If the subject made a police report, he could be charged with filing a false report.   

Friday, April 20, 2018

Starbucks: Statements for Analysis


We are known by the words we choose to use. 

Two men were arrested by police for refusing to leave a Starbucks. The claim is racism as the two refused to leave.  We have a few statements to look at only, though the video is available. 

The police commissioner originally stated that his officers did nothing wrong.  

The public outcry in media was strong and the commissioner has now apologized. 

Starbucks is going to close for one day for racial sensitivity training. 

Question:  Was this a genuine act of racism or is there more here to be uncovered?

Media Narrative:  Two black male businessmen were waiting for a third to arrive in a very large life changing real estate deal when a white female manager called police on them, who removed them due to their skin color.  They are victims of racism by a white female manager.  

The claim is also that the manager did not warn them that she was calling police.  This "warning" is akin to a threat and if the manager has experience in this, a threat to call police is to increase personal risk.  

One subject asked to use the restroom which is only for customers, and was declined.  This is a practice of small business.  It is likely that many readers have quickly purchased something in order to use a restroom. 

The subject sat down with his partner but did not make a purchase. 

In a TV interview, one said:

 We’re at the table. We sit down we’re just talking amongst each other, she comes from around the register, walks up to us, asks if she could help us with anything… could we start with some drinks, water. We had bottles of water with us so we’re fine. We’re waiting for a meeting we’ll be out really quick, type thing. And that was it.

There are several important points to look at.  

1.  The pronoun "we"
2.  The verb tense is present tense

A commitment to a past event is found in past tense verbs.  When someone is not committing, or even fabricating, they can slip into present tense language.  We do not conclude such by itself, but flag it as not reliable. 

3.  The word "just" is a dependent word. This means its communication is found in dependence upon another thought.  It is used in comparison. That he says "we were just talking" is to compare "talking" with something else. 

What might this be?

We may have insight into the word "just" via the police report and the 911 call.  The 911 call reports they refused to make a purchase and they refused to leave. The police report gives us more insight:

The police report:   "cursed at the store manager and refused to leave even though officers asked “multiple times.” 


The two subjects do not believe it is necessary to follow the rules of the store.  This is a possible mindset to consider.  They entered a beverage store with their own beverage.  

The subjects also refuse police orders.  Police are armed with lethal force.  

Over a minor violation, they have refused to follow the store rules and now refuse to obey orders of law enforcement.  

This is insight into their thinking. 

"we're fine" is the subject's classification. 

Now notice:

4. "And that was it"

Analysts will recognize that the present tense language and plural pronoun, from one subject, is indicating concealment of information. 

"And that was it" is unnecessary closing which seeks to stop the flow of information either from the subject, or through questioning.  If "that was it" there is no more information to be gleaned; so "don't ask me questions."

This is often seen in guilty statements in which the subject does not want any more information to be revealed about the topic (context) at hand. 

He is not only unreliable, he is withholding information. 


One of the subjects taunted police, giving us further insight into the mentality 

 “Cops don’t know the laws,” 

 “Y’all make 45G a year.” 

This is to claim both ignorance on the part of law enforcement, and to demean law enforcement by pay. 

This is to affirm the lawless mindset: 'the rules and laws in society do not apply to me' by the subject. 

This is a very dangerous ideology and a very popular one, facilitated by politicians against police. 

The subject described the interaction with police.  This is critical to understanding Content Analysis: 

"As soon as they approached us, they said we have to leave. There was no question of, ‘was there a problem here with you guys and a manager, you know, what happened?’ At the time, we’re not read any rights. Nothing. Just double locked. Handcuffed behind our backs and escorted out and put into a squad car.”

The Rule of the Negative 

The subject continued to use the plural pronoun but notice that he tells us what the police did not say:

a.  "No question of"
b.  "we're not read our rights" (note the qualification of time with "at the time" 
c.  "just" is again used, comparing what happened with something else. 

The video is revelatory as well, including the demeanor of the police and the overt disrespect towards them. 

The men were asked to purchase something or leave.  They not only refused, but became the police report says they cursed the manager, which would increase her fear. 

The statements made by the subject indicates the attitude of not only disrespect but of being above the law. 

That they claim racism is an example of "fake hate" and exploitation.  

Recall the budding politician who pounded on a "white blonde girl's door", in a menacing manner because he "had to bear the burden of being black" only to learn that the young woman who called 911 on him was black.  

In the above case, we have statements from both the alleged victim and the actual victim for analysis and comparison. 

As the subject continued his TV interview, he then revealed something critical in analysis:  "unnecessary information."

Unnecessary information is of vital importance to the analyst. 

Were these two men there to cause trouble, or were they two young businessmen who were racially discriminated against?

Note the unnecessary wording, in. context with a nationwide media favorable setting, the CEO of Starbucks apologizing, closing down and the police commissioner apologizing. 

In this context, note the unnecessary word, "real" in the following: 


"We were there for a real reason, a real deal that we were working on. 

The word "real" is used to combat an allegation of "fake" or "not real."

There was no apparent allegation in context.  Yet, even more so, he repeats "real" (versus "fake") with not only their "reason", but with their "deal" which he tells us, unnecessarily, was also "real."

How "real" was this meeting?


We put in a lot of time, energy, effort. We were at a moment that could have a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families. So I was like, ‘No, you’re not stopping that right now.'”


It was going to have a "positive impact" on a "whole ladder of people, lives, families."

This is the Ingratiation Factor meeting the "Good Guy" principle in Statement Analysis.

Deception Indicated.

The need to buttress the "deal" as "real" comes with the need to persuade the audience that much good for many people would have come from this meeting and that the failure of the good to come to a "ladder" of people has been caused by racism. 

Without knowing the facts of the case, nor the subjects' backgrounds, but going solely from the quotes in media, the subject is deceptive. 

He indicates a deliberate provoking of incivility as well as showing an entitled attitude of one who has been throughly indoctrinated by politicians' exploitation of race baiting and cop hating.

The subject is deceptively withholding information while revealing his own desire to insult authority and police in general.  

It is "Fake Hate" and the manager who trusted her intuition by quietly calling the police may have saved her own life.  This is based upon the contempt the subject has for the rule of law, for authority and his deception.  Willing to curse out the female employee should be seen in context with resisting the initial requests of law enforcement to leave, and then in resisting the command to leave. 

If one is unafraid of an armed police officer, the female store manager was correct in seeking protection for herself.  

This was belligerence and it is why women are taught to trust their instincts.  

To train in deception detection:  Hyatt Analysis Services 

Update:  Link to Pat Brown's article.



James Comey Memo


The following is an exert from the Comey memos. 


"I had dinner with President Trump in the Green Room at the White Houae last night at 6:30pm...I explained that he could count on me to always tell the truth. I said I don't do sneaky things, I don't leak, I don;'t do weasel moves."

Readers may recall his "weasels and liars" tweet and now may understand more into his dominant personalty traits. 

The narcissism is pronounced.  This is not "success narcissism" statements in which someone becomes more egotistical with success.  His statements reveal a disconnect with reality of his audience.  He stated that he wrote his book on "ethical leadership" for the "young people" of America, so that they can "learn ethical leadership from me."

The title, alone, is fascinating. 

He talked openly about "falling in love" with his own opinion. He did not see how the public would react to such; it is his norm. 

The narcissist doesn't "see" what the audience sees.  He lacks "emotional intelligence" or the general "self awareness" of the perception of others.  This is sometimes evident when a narcissist is confronted and appears unfazed. 

The Rule of the Negative:

This is a critical element in Statement Analysis.  Truthful people will tell us what happened, what they saw, what they thought, etc.  When someone tells us what they did not see, say, etc, it rises in importance.  

When a sentence is quoted in the negative it is also seen under the "Rule of the Negative"


What one tells us in the negative increases importance or sensitivity.  What we tell our children not to do has more weight than telling them what to do. This is human nature.  The "thou shalt nots" are more weighty and memorable than the affirmatives given. 

"Don't Throw Rocks" on a large plate glass window will provoke the thought of throwing rocks.  This is human nature and how we see the negative.  Even lies spread quicker than truth.  

Comey wrote in his memo that which not only appears juvenile (he is very intelligent) and self serving, but should be considered carefully. 

It is interesting to note that he did not take memos during meetings with Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch or Hillary Clinton. 

In the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton, there is "no memorial of the interview."

This means that there is no recording, no transcript, no notes, nor even memo of a federal criminal investigation of the upmost importance to the American people and the future of the Republic.  

The criminal investigatory interview has no tangible evidence of it except the memory of the interviewer, Peter Strzok, and the subject, Hillary Clinton.  The reader is likely familiar with Strzok's personal opinions of Donald Trump who was running for president of the United States against Hillary Clinton. 


"I had dinner with President Trump in the Green Room at the White Houae last night at 6:30pm...I explained that he could count on me to always tell the truth. 

Here he "explains" which suggests ongoing conversation.  

Next, we have The Rule of the Negative exampled three (3) times in single sentnece: 

I said I don't do sneaky things, I don't leak, I don't do weasel moves."

1.  sneaky things
2.  leak
3.  weasel moves

Recall the "after thought" email of a meeting with Barack Obama by Susan Rice in which we see the "Unintended Recipient" analysis element in action. 

Here is the same.  I likened this to mafia boss John Gotti receiving the tip off that his meeting house was being secretly recorded.  He then tells the underbosses of the criminal organization, 

"We are not Cosa Nostra. We do not do anything illegal.  We do not do shake downs.  We do not extort.  We do not murder.  We are a legitimate business" to the squelched chuckles of his audience. 

The "intended recipient" is literally the underboss mafia.  The "unintended recipient" is the wiretapping investigators for the government.  

What Comey's memo notes state he did shortly after being fired. 

Comey's Motive 

Comey reveals, via projection, his motive and his intention in taking notes.  He took notes because he was going to do something "sneaky" by "leaking" out his notes in which would appear, especially to Assistant Director, Andrew McCabe, to be a "weasel" or self serving move. He broke the unity between them.  

"Mob Boss" 

After overseeing a lengthy investigation into the Hillary Clinton scandals, including the Foundation, Pay for Play selling US favors in exchange for millions of dollars of donations, setting up an illegal private server, transmitting classified information, lying to the FBI, and physically destroying evidence, he had spoken with Trump for a few minutes and called Trump a "crime boss."  

Note the element of projection in his narrative language.  

Deception Indicated

Analysis of statements by James Comey has shown deception, as it also has with Andrew McCabe and Loretta Lynch.  

Comey has angered Andrew McCabe and Loretta Lynch, and he has angered Democrats, Republicans and former FBI and intelligence professionals.  It may be that his book tour is a fund raiser for facing criminal charges to come.  

He should be prepared to have both McCabe and Lynch testify against him.  

Some readers have taken exception to my evolving opinion about Andrew McCabe. 

McCabe appears to be an investigator; not a politician.  He had a distinguished career fighting crime.  His language is very different than James Comey's.  Although more sample is needed from McCabe, it may be that McCabe's corruption came very late in his career, beginning when they accepted $700,000+ of Clinton cash for his wife's political run.  They may have felt safe in doing so, in campaigning and even in lying.  

Yet I believe we will see indictments and arrests forthcoming.  

We will continue to follow the language. 

The "Russian Collusion" narrative appears to be another example of projection where one makes a claim against another, of the very thing they are guilty of.  

The Russian Dossier was financed by Hillary Clinton and it appears it was Peter Strzok's "insurance policy" along with McCabe, Lisa Page and others, should Hillary not win the election.  

This now appears to be a conspiracy (collusion) with Richard Steele and Russian operatives entered into by the corrupt investigators and political leaders. 

Please consider this when you hear the "crowd" defense of

"Attacking me is attacking the entire FBI" or

"attacking me is to make war against law enforcement everywhere..." arguments.

Guilt seeks a crowd to hide within.  

It is like a teacher committing a crime and claiming that "teachers everywhere are being attacked" or "education, itself, is on trial!" rather than allow the focus of guilt intensify upon self. 

James Comey said he made a critical decision based upon the polls that showed Hillary with a clear win in the White House.  Had she won, none of this material would have come out. 

Deception takes a tremendous toll. 

A host of retired FBI personnel are now publicly condemning James Comey and expect to see charges brought against him.  

A criminal report was filed against Andrew McCabe.  

Based upon the language of distance, we should consider that McCabe is likely to testify against Comey. 

For training in deception detection, please enroll at Hyatt Analysis Services 






Thursday, April 19, 2018

Truck Defaced in "Hate" Crime






Is this a criminal destruction of property and a "hate" crime,  or is it another example of "Fake Hate" by one with an agenda. 

If it is "fake hate", the element from which it is produced is projection of contempt for Christians.  

Which do you think it is, and why?



Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse: Part Two


Here is part two of introducing the language of adult victims of childhood sexual abuse.  It is vital for professionals to receive language specific training, not only to spot the potential abuse, but to discern false allegations from truthful.  Perseveration of past abuse with present allegations can present unique challenges. 

The advanced training for Sex Crimes Units, psychologists, counselors, child protective and adult protective caseworkers, nurses, etc, addresses this specifically.  Learning to detect deception is the first step.  

Hyatt Analysis Services for seminars and at home training. 


Monday, April 16, 2018

Video Lessons Introduction Adult Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse

This is a short video lesson introducing distinctive elements within the language of adult victims of early childhood sexual abuse. 

Their language often mimics deception due to dissociative memories.  Some may be perseverating on an event from the more distant past, while others are telling the truth about the allegation that is presented.  

Specific advanced training is required.  

For Training, we have seminars, including advanced seminars for those with solid foundational training in deception detection that is geared towards investigators of sex crimes, psychologists, therapists, child protective caseworkers, counselors and other professionals. 

We also offer an advanced seminar for law enforcement that uses Statement Analysts and Handwriting Expert Steve Johnson that combines the two schools of deception detection to:

1.  Discern Deception
2.  Discern Content (truthful reliable)
3.  Psycho-linguisitc profile (identifying anonymous authors)
4.  Dominant Personalty traits through handwriting analysis d

As these elements come together, the professional in law enforcement is given investigatory tools that can take their success to new levels.  

For those already trained, the career traction and depth of work is invaluable. 





Mark Sanchez NFL Player Denial PEDs


Mark Sanchez tested positive for PEDs and made a statement on social media. 

If you did not use PEDs, you are going to say so.  It is your priority and it is your "contextual psychological profile", that is, it is your "psychological wall of proof" as seen in language.  

It makes no difference what the blood test showed because, "I did take PEDs." 

In training for law enforcement, discerning truth from a lie is oftentimes more challenging than spotting deception. 

Let's look at his statement. 

A Reliable Denial consists of:

1.  The Pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't" (both are reliable; only Reid differentiates)
3.  The allegation answered. 

These three elements must be present.  

If there are less than three or more than three, the denial is no longer reliable.

We flag some as "Unreliable" while others we may flag as "not reliable."  The difference is within context and how the analyst sees the statement. 

Theft Allegations 

In theft allegations, Statement Analysis is a time saver that gets to the truth.  This is why I advise investigators make their own phone calls to set up the interview. 


In some cases like theft, a suspect in a crime may not even realize he is being accused, therefore, his denial may be "not reliable" and may change when he is made aware that he is the recipient of the allegation.  When he realizes why he is being questioned: 

"Oh, no, I see.  I didn't take the money. I thought you were asking me if I knew who did..."

Here he framed the words, "I didn't take the money."  If then asked, "Well, why should I believe you?" his answer is vital.  The psychological "wall of truth" rises in the truthful (de facto innocent; not judicial) because he did not do it.  If he says, "I didn't take the money.  You should believe me because I told the truth", using "truth" in this manner, it is more than 99% reliable.  He didn't take the money. 


“I was blind-sided by the news and I want to say unequivocally that I have never cheated or attempted to gain a competitive advantage by using a banned performance enhancing substance. During the past 9 years as an NFL player I have been subject to 73 drug tests — an average of over 8 tests per season — and all but one have been clean. I have taken the same regimen of supplements for the past five years without any issues.The timing and results of my tests establish circumstances of unknowing supplement contamination, not the use of performance enhancing substances.”

What do you know about Mark Sanchez?

1.  His priority 
2.  His revelation 


“I was blind-sided by the news and I want to say unequivocally that I have never cheated or attempted to gain a competitive advantage by using a banned performance enhancing substance. 

1.  His priority is to express shock or surprise.  "I was blind-sided" is to communicate his emotion rather than deny.  

Where one begins a statement is always important and tells us that these are the first words his brain chooses, so they are important. 

Next we ask: 

Q.  What surprised or "blind sided" him?

A.  "the news." 

Not a false test, and not even "a test" but "the news", which uses the article "the" as a settled matter. 

For those who did not "do it" (de facto innocence), it is never settled because it cannot be settled because it did not happen. This is the type of language that may, after years of wrongful imprisonment and repeating account, move into.  The years of processing, for example "rape" can mimic language that says "my story."  

 It is not the language of one who is shocked or surprised. It is not the language of an event that just taken place.   

The subject has has processed the failed drug test and has accepted its conclusion.  It is not "news" but it is "the news." 

2.  Question:  Does he say he never used? 

Answer:   No.  

He does not say it.  

He says he "wants to say" instead.  I'd like to say that I am young, slim and handsome but I can't because 2 of those points would be lying. 

This is a subtle form of psychological distancing from the internal stress and confrontation of a direct lie.  

Law of Economy tells us that the shortest sentence is best and the more effort (more words), the greater the emotion. 

This sentence is emotional weighted.

He shows himself to be a practiced or accomplished deceiver. We listen to his words.  Not only is is something he "wants to say" instead of saying it, but listen to what he actually says when he gets to it. 

He wants to say that he's never used "to gain" a competitive advantage.  

Not only is this unreliable, but it is to assign a specific motive. 

We may now consider:  He used due to injury recovery and perhaps aging. 

The motive for use should be irrelevant and unnecessary.  By viewing all "unnecessary information" the investigator gains valuable insight. 

He is very concerned about motive and the public's perception of the motive. Now we understand why his emotional state is his priority. 

In fact, he may be telling the truth that he used for injury recovery.  This is how the human conscience seeks to cover deception while justifying guilty behavior. 

His priority is image; expressing surprise.  Yet he reveals something else:

“I was blind-sided by the news and I want to say unequivocally that I have never cheated or attempted to gain a competitive advantage by using a banned performance enhancing substance.

He used more than one.  

He wants to say and he wants to say "unequivocally" (added emphasis is unnecessary) that he did not "cheat" or "attempt" to gain...

This is to recognize that it did give him competitive advantage but only that this was not his motive. 

Then he goes singular on a "banned" performance enhancing substance. 

He did not deny yet.  

Now he defends his character (reputation...remember his priority?) by going back in time, not to the failed test, but 9 years ago: 


During the past 9 years as an NFL player I have been subject to 73 drug tests — an average of over 8 tests per season — and all but one have been clean. 

He relies on all the times he was tested. 

This is akin to a bank robber saying, "but I have used this bank for years and not once did I rob it!"

This is a tangent which indicates not only the need to distract from the accusation, but affirms his motive for writing: his reputation.  

This is similar to rape suspects lecturing on how they have stood for women's rights in Hollywood. 

a.  It is unrelated. 
b.  It is unnecessary. 
c.  It is to inflate credibility instead of relying upon truth (the psychological wall of truth which cannot be penetrated). 

He is an accomplished liar as seen in this sophistication.  He now introduces another tangent in the word, "supplement."


I have taken the same regimen of supplements for the past five years without any issues.

What is an "issue"?  A failed drug test?

It is rare, but it has happened before that a test has been a false positive.  

In one such rare case the subject told the doctor he did not care what the test said. "I didn't take ____."

He was given the opportunity to allow for the possibility of it being taken "by accident" with "supplements" but he refused.  

"No.  I don't know what caused your test but its wrong.  I didn't take ______."

He was tested again and failed but refused to yield.  The next test found the error in methodology.  

This subject stood behind the psychological wall of truth and blamed the test.  He was telling the truth. Later he said he did not even know what the drug looked like.  

After introducing "supplements" we expect him to blame them. 

He does not, however, blame supplements.  Listen to him and do not interpret.  Listen. 

He simply allows "supplement" to influence the reader without a direct lie. 

He introduces a new element: 

The timing and results of my tests establish circumstances of unknowing supplement contamination, not the use of performance enhancing substances.”

He introduces "time" as an element. What does "time" have to do with a failed test?

"I did not use PEDS. The test is wrong."  

The timing of the test would be immaterial.  

Yet, it is what he employs in an attempt to indict the supplements and the test without the direct accusation. 

It only "establishes circumstances" of "unknown supplement contamination."

He knows.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated. 

He not only issues an "Unreliable Denial" but indicates his motive for the statement and his motive for usage being not directly to gain competitive advantage.  

He knowingly used PEDs and gaining competitive advantage was a side effect or attendant result. 

His excessive use of tangents indicate a guilty conscience with an acute awareness of his reputation.  

He does not deny using PEDs, instead focuses on the times he was not caught.  

This is in contrast to those who say, "I am sorry I did this, accept my punishment and will work hard to regain the trust of my teammates and the league..." 

The caution in directly blaming supplements may not only be due to the internal pressure that direct lying causes, but may be related to various supplement contracts, past, present and future endorsements by him and others in the league.  

The blood test failure could be illicit drugs, but in context, PEDs is more likely. 


Lie Detection training is invaluable for all professional and personal use. 

To study with us, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.  

We offer seminars and at home complete courses. 

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Loretta Lynch Interview Part 2



Talking about the meeting (starts with question cut out)

Lynch: It was still 107 degrees outside. Umm and I was told he wanted to come on the plane and say hello, umm and 

This is part two of the analysis of Loretta Lynch's interview with Lester Holt.  In Part One, Lynch was indicated for deception.  Her specific strategy was evasion, using tangents as tactics. 

Her intellect and verbosity indicate a "Filibuster" deceiver; that is one who will talk through questions, avoid answering them, and when confronted with inconsistencies or outright deception, will appear impervious to reason and continue to introduce new, unrelated topics. 

Here we see this small tactic introducing the weather.  This is another indication of intellect.  

Deceptive people are counting on their audience to interpret their words. 

 Here she does the same:  

'I only talked with former President Bill Clinton because saying 'hi'
 outside where the press was near, was inconvenient due to the excessive heat.'

There are two basic strategies that are successfully used against Filibuster deceivers. 

The first is to let them go on indefinitely, which will produce much information later, including potential attendant crime information. This is time consuming, and requires patience with a later commitment to thoroughly analyze the transcript.  This analysis alone, for example, of a "15 minute rant", can consume 6 hours or more of analysis.  

In law enforcement in which time is limited, a different methodology is used, including strategic patience and confrontation.  For Lester Holt, this would have meant saying to her,

"I asked you why you told Director Comey to change his wording from 'investigation' to 'matter' and you did not answer the question, instead you introduced...why did you need to avoid answering?" 

This takes skilled listening and even some live training for those well trained in Statement Analysis in which audio without transcripts are used, and intensity is used in the exercise where they flag pronouns and sensitivity indicators.  It is stress inducing and it works.  

In her answer, she uses passivity ("I was told") which conceals the identity of the speaker (which may be appropriate dependent upon circumstances) and then introduced the weather as her tangent.  She  claimed he wanted to say 'hi' which is, in context of what happened, a use of "technical truth" to deceive the audience into believing it was a personal, non professional discussion. 

This is similar to the clever child who ate three cookies and told his mother, "I ate one cookie."  

In eating three cookies, it is true that he ate one cookie.  This type of intelligence, when seen in a child is alarming, but if unchecked, will lead to danger for society. 

Holt: Did a part of you go oh no no no no, turn him around?

He heard the passivity, which not only concealed the identity of the speaker, but put the burden of responsibly upon President Clinton in a subtle manner.  

Here, Holt asks a plain question:  'You know this is wrong to speak to the husband of a target of a criminal investigation, so did you say 'no' to the person?'

Yet, that is not what he said. 

We know and are known, even by the questions we ask.  Analytical Interview training is for those trained in Statement Analysis and teaches them to ask open ended, legally sound questions and to use the language of the subject.  

Here, Holt indicates to us (the unintended recipient of information) that he recognizes corruption within his subject.  He asked if only a "part" of her say 'no', with the word 'no' unnecessarily repeated. This is to reveal:

a.  Holt knew this was unethical
b.  Holt knew his subject, Lynch, was compromised in some manner
c.  Holt knew his subject was also conflicted; a "part" of her knowing right from wrong. 

This is a poorly worded question and is more of a "plea" than a question.  

This is not lost on the subject, who began with the habit of speech, "You know", which means her awareness of his presence (intended recipient) and the presence of the TV camera (unintended recipient; the nation) has become acute due to this question. 

The question is, "Did a part of you say 'no' to this meeting?"

Lynch:  You know, at first, my thought was, you know I speak to people all the time. Ah..people in public life people not in public life (interrupted)

a.  "You know" shows increase of sensitivity to this question
b.  "at first" is a numeric, indicating that logic may be at play, and we should expect subsequent and tertiary thoughts or answers. 
c.  "you know" is repeated.  The question was so difficult that it has produced this habit of speech, which is now used to stall to allow the brain to reset and think what words to use.  This is, in a sense, a disruption.  
d.  "I speak to people all the time" introduces the "crowd sourcing" element and is another tangent.

She speaks to people all the time, but how often does she speak in 107 degree temperature to the former President of the United States while his wife, running for President of the United States, is under criminal investigation?

This is thus the "Normal Factor" in Statement Analysis. 

Lesson:  

The "Normal Factor" indicates anything but normal.  Some examples:

a.  Allegation:  Child Sexual abuse.  

Statement:  "I am a normal married man."

When a person calls himself or herself "normal", it indicates that either the person, or others, has considered than not normal. 

"Married man" is to say that pedophile cannot be indicated due to the sexual relationship within marriage. 

This short response is indicative of guilt. 

b.  Allegation:  Work Place Theft

"I went to work at 9am and did my usual chores until lunch time.  Then, at 12 noon I ate lunch and at 12:30, I..."

By "normalizing" the period of time between 9 and Noon, the subject has indicated a "need to appear normal" meaning that during this time period, something "not normal" happened.

c.  Allegation:  Homicide

"I was taking to her like I aways talk to her."

Particularly in domestic homicide, the conversation that preceded the assault is often what gives us the guilt. "Like I always talk to her" is to say, "This conversation was normal" indicating the need to normalize which tells us:  it was not normal.

Remember the children's story telling hour, 

"Once upon a time, he woke up and it was a day just like every other day..." which causes the children to sit up and pay attention because something "not normal" is about to happen. 

Loretta Lynch has just indicated that this meeting was unique and unlike all the other "people" she has spoken with. 



HOLT: Interrupts her – right but his wife was under investigation by the justice department

Holt does not buy into "normalcy" of the subject's wording. 

Lynch: (continuing speaking during question) ordinary citizens

She introduced the weather, she introduced people, and now she uses "ordinary citizens" which reveals her own elitist status as well as the elitist meeting with the former U.S. President. 

(Interview video interrupted by commentary.  The actual transcripts should be by now subpoenaed for investigation) 

Holt: Did you have any moment where you said, Mr. President, this is probably not appropriate or this is gonna look bad?

Holt does not let it go.  She introduces tangents (weather, people, 'ordinary citizens') but he goes back to what a "part of her" would have to recognize.  



Lynch: Well I will say in the course of the conversation we spoke and it seemed like we were going to say hello how are you and move on. Ah, and then the conversation would..would continue.

a.  First she begins with another pause ("well") to collect her thoughts.  She indicates sensitivity to this basic assertion of only the appearance of impropriety.  

b.  She used the pronoun "we" to unite herself to Bill Clinton under specific context (saying hello)

c. She reported what "seemed like" which now tells us that the actual is different from the appearance. 

d.  She then indicates deception by breaking linguistic commitment of past tense verbs.  

She is slowing down the pace to avoid the inner confrontation (and legal consequence) of direct deception. 

She has, thus far, successfully avoided the question.  

(Holt interrupts) Holt: In this hyper-partisan environment we’re in did you ever once considered recusing yourself from the Clinton Investigation?

This is a "yes or no" question borne of frustration at her refusal to answer a question.  

Lynch: Well that’s always an issue. 

a.  She does not answer the question
b.  She pauses again
c.  She reports what "always" is an issue, which avoids the context of the question:  This was a past event. A reliable answer must use past tense verbs. 


As I said at the time 

Here we have a self reference.  This means she is avoiding giving a current opinion, instead using memory of what she previously said. This is another indicator of one who must keep track of one's own words, rather than work from experiential memory in the free editing process. 


I knew it was going to raise questions in peoples minds.

She reports what she "knew" and then introduces "peoples' minds", with "people" entering her answer.

Question:  Did the subject debate with her boss, President Obama, about recusal?


 So what you do is you always consult the legal experts. You always get a legal answer as to whether or not recusal is required. 

The pronoun change is significant. She was asked about herself, not about "you" (others). 

This topic, which she attempts to distance herself from ("that") is so acutely sensitive, that she must now "universalize it" by taking it from herself, and the past tense, to the present tense of "all people", universally, who are legal authorities and meet with former Presidents of the United States while their wives are under criminal investigation. 

This is very likely more than just "deception indicated" but may be related to the protection of her own boss, and her own unwillingness to take responsibility. 

This simple legal decision (a 'no brainer') is an embarrassment to her.  

She cannot bring herself to say, "I asked the legal authorities" which would be humiliating to her. 

Instead, she uses deception which, itself, is not challenging to discern. 

The pronoun "you" is used when something is commonly done, or universally done. 

It sounds contrived because it is contrived. 

Q.  "Did you rob the First National bank on Friday at 2pm under gunpoint?

A.  "You don't rob banks..."

This subect cannot say, "I did not rob the bank."  

Can Loretta Lynch say, "I followed the advice of legal experts"?


Umm, and had it been that’s what I would have done.

She did not. 

She describes the Tarmac Meeting with President Clinton as if it was a hypothetical event.  

Deception Indicated. 

(Interview video interrupted by commentary)

Holt: Rod Rosenstein wrote in his memo recommending Comey’s dismissal that he was wrong to usurp the attorney general’s authority on July 5th, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case, the Clinton case, should be closed without prosecution. Was Comey wrong, did he usurp your authority?

This is a "yes or no" question.  Director Comey laid out the crimes committed and the findings.  Then he added that although she was guilty of these things, she didn't "intend" to commit these crimes. 

Intention:  a 19 year old Navy sailor was assigned to a submarine.  He took pictures on his iPhone of how "cool" it was and sent them to his family.  Investigators found no sharing of information nor contact with foreign governments, hostile actors within the United States, or anyone outside his family.  He spent one year in federal prison.  

Lynch: Well it certainly was an unusual move. Ah, it was.. It was a different.. ah, way to deliver a recommendation to the attorney general. Ah, I had not had any of my other law enforcement agencies deliver a recommendation in a case to me in that way.. before.

(Holt interrupts) Holt: Unusual but it was either right or wrong..was it right or wrong?

He has failed to get her to commit to any ethical or legal standpoint and presses.  

Lynch: .. And well I think he’s going to have to speak to, ah, to why he took those actions.  

She avoids answering the question again.  

Holt: What was your reaction when you heard Comey had been fired?

Lynch: … Well, you know, I was, I think I was as surprised as, ah any American. You know I don’t know the circumstances behind it, and that (Holt interrupts her).

a.  "well" sensitivity point to pause
b.  "you know" sensitivity point to pause
c.  "I was" is now interrupted (self censoring)
d.  "I think" is a weak assertion rather than reliably report her emotion as "surprised"
e.  "any any American" is to employ the Normal Factor, and the crowd. 

Conclusion:  She was not surprised.  

Holt: Did you at any point wish that he’d been fired?

This is a better question.  Comey refused to submit to changing the wording of "investigation" to "matter" and circumvented her to make this public announcement rather than allow her to.  

Holt recognizes the personal insult (or impact) to Lynch. 

Note what it produces:


Lynch: No, I..I ..I think that, ah, umm, you know the FBI director as well as well as the other leaders of the, of the law enforcement agencies of the department carried out their, their tremendous responsibilities under a great deal of pressure.


a, "No" should have been left alone.  
b.  "I, I, I" is the "stuttering I of stress. We use the pronoun "I" millions of times and are experts at using it.  When one stutters on "I" it is an increase of stress and often anxiety.  The more stuttering on I (from a non stutterer) the greater the anxiety.  If it hits 6 or more, it is generally only found in a personal close homicide and the subject is likely to be hospitalized with a nervous breakdown. 

c.  Note she then includes "other leaders" in her response, which then 'crowd sources' her answer, as she did prior. 

We see that the immediate psychological distancing from James Comey in both the language and in the need to "bring in others" to water down or "hide" him in a crowed.  

This is contempt of James Comey and it was what Holt likely sensed in the interview.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Loretta Lynch would not pass a polygraph.  

Loretta Lynch "filibustered" the questions rather than answer them. This is her mode of operation and should be expected to be seen in upcoming investigations. 

Her contempt for James Comey may be something that a prosecutor (grand jury) will use to get her to testify against him in this conflict. 

Comey gave a list of the crimes committed and in doing so, indicated Hillary Clinton of lying about confidential information. 

President Obama was asked when he learned that Hillary set up a private server.  The analysis showed Deception Indicted" as he claimed to "just" find out when "everyone else" did.  We later learned that he and Loretta Lynch used fake names to email her.  

This is backdrop which may help readers understand the stress of this meeting and the anxiety produced by James Comey.  

Did President Clinton threaten both Loretta Lynch and President Obama, should Hillary be indicted? 

The meeting with President Clinton its a source of great stress and anxiety for Loretta Lynch, who normally speaks with fluidity and command of thought.  How ever much she may resent the Clintons for putting so many government officials in difficult places, the contempt for Director Comey may be even deeper and one that may become a factor in future indictments.  She may seem him as not a team player and a rogue to be punished.