Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Anonymous Author Identification is an inexact form of Statement Analysis. With deception detection, the expectation is at or near 100% accuracy. Once trained, this can become routine for analysts, which can lead to complacency.
In identifying the author of an anonymous letter, if 70% accuracy of the four dominant themes is realized, it is likely that the recipient of the threat will know the identity. In this, team analysis is essential, particularly employing male and female analysts to work together.
Threat Assessment Analysis
We view the linguistic strength of a threat. Qualifications, delays, and weak commitment are to reveal an alternate motive.
Sex in Anonymous Threatening Letters
The anonymous threatening letter has a correlation with same sex attraction. This may be due to the psychological need to "come out" for male authors.
For female authors, which are less frequent and with reduced or non threat status, we often find betrayal, infidelity or sexual abuse, where the author has a need to be heard.
With whistle blower style letters (threatening to expose), if the letter is deemed "reliable" (genuine), there is no connection to sex.
We seek four elements:
The author's (1) background, (2) personal and professional experiences, the author's (3) motive (priorities) and the author's (4) dominant personality traits. These four elements are within all of our communication, though the larger the sample, the more we know.
Jussie Smollett reported being attacked by "MAGA" (Donald Trump slogan) males who used racially charged and homophobic slurs, while assaulting him with a chemical and a noose.
Many doubted his account. I wrote of these doubts, but prior to his statement, I could only state that his manager does not believe this to be true. Why? Because his manager spoke.
I do not conclude deception with implausible circumstances. Weirder things have happened in life.
The idea that 2 MAGA white males would recognize an actor I had never heard of, knew his show, (which I had never heard of), and happened to be in a sub zero freezing Chicago night at a Subway, waiting with bleach and a noose, is implausible. Yet, strange things happen in life and I trust the science of Statement Analysis to guide me to the truth. Smollett had not yet spoken, so I did not "know" what happened.
When he spoke, the truth came out.
A few days after Smollett received the above threatening letter, he was alleged to be attacked.
He spoke on Good Morning America and from this, I posted "deception indicated."
He did not connect himself to an assault, and he did not connect himself to the truth.
He offered "if I told the truth", guiding us to question him. If he cannot say, "they attacked me; I told the truth", I am not going to say it for him.
What do you notice about the letter?
"You will die" is truthful. We all will die and one day, the recipient will die.
Threats contain threats. The author does not say "I will kill you" (strong) or even who will kill the recipient or how he will die. Intimation is not a strong threat. Those who intend to cause harm state is plainly. Those who wish to frighten but without intention of carrying out the threat will heavily qualify and reduce priority.
"If you want to live, you should..." (advice).
Recall the "threat" to the black family of Lindenhurst in which the author said she knew it was not convenient for the family to move, but they needed to. The author actually held the family's best interest in mind and was not a racist. (the author was living in the home; a family member).
Consider that the anonymous threatening letter does not articulate a threat.
What do you make of the crayon coloring style?
This is a form of psychological comfort after using "black fag" in cut out letters.
The author wishes to bring a form of comfort, such as in a children's writing, of which it will be difficult to take seriously.
The noose is around the neck of one who looks sad.
The author of the letter has empathy for the recipient. The author (s) will not terrorize the recipient, but make him "sad" for calling him a "black fag."
In this strange sense, the author feels sorry (empathy) for the recipient. This is called
We know how the author feels about the recipient: he likes him. He has a "Positive (+) Linguistic Disposition (LD) towards the recipient.
He is either Jussie Smollett or one who Jussie Smollett hired to do so, and who personally knows Smollett (the brothers) and has a good relationship with him.
Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated
The letter does not threaten the recipient.
The author of the letter likes the recipient.
Jussie Smollett knows the identity of the author.
Jussie Smollett either authored the letter or he directed it by someone who had, at the time of its construction, a favorable relationship with Smollett.
Jussie Smollett may face federal charges as well as local.
The noose is key. It is an instrument of asphyxiation. It is human nature's normal reflex to tear it immediately off the body.
Smollett left it on.
Smollett linguistically referenced it in the Good Morning America interview, without language of fear or more importantly, disgust.
Smollett used sexually charged language in the interview. The Good Morning America interviewer should also be considered for deception, in that she knew he was deceptive, but provided the cover that Smollett expected, for his fraud.
There is also an indicator within the language that should warrant further exploration:
illegal activity on his phone.
At one point, Smollett began his sentence with,
"I want a young gay boy..." regarding fear.
In an interview, it is natural to parrot; it is the expected. It requires less brain processing which allows for the Interviewer to focus more energy upon a point.
When there is a point of parroting where the Interviewer (or even the subject) changes the language, we know that there is an addition effort for processing necessary. There is a change of perceived reality.
The interviewer parroted and interrupted her parrot with a change of language in her follow up:
"you want a gay man to..." changing "boy" to "man."
It is very likely that this interviewer knew he was deceptive and there is something alarming that she did not want to raise.
She entered into his deception as the narrative was consistent with the anti-Trump media.
"I'm sorry" enters the language of the polite and it enters the language of the guilty. We look to see:
"What is the context of the statement?"
When Casey Anthony was put on the phone with police (911) by her mother, Casey used "I'm sorry?" as a pause, indicating a need to think of what to say next. The context of a missing child call to police is not where politeness is the expected.
An assault is "personal" in that it happened to the person, intruding upon his personal space of safety and survival. The language should reflect this. When a woman is sexually assaulted, even when traumatized, she connects herself to the assault. It is how we discern truth from deception.
Context: 2 Men who are racist homophobic murderers, looking to lynch a gay black male, are on the loose. They know who he is and they found him once, they can find him again. They represent a great risk to society and are free to fulfill their plans. They were willing to do this in the freezing cold and in the middle of the night. They are serious sociopathic types of whom Smollett should be scared out of his mind of, for himself and for the public.
When asked about his phone, he referenced his refusal to hand it over with the words, "I'm sorry" while speaking of "photos" as one of the reasons for not handing over the phone. It took weeks before he was ready to hand it over.
Consider this in the many sexually charged expressions that he used in the short interview. Sex is in his words because sex is in this event.
Police should seek to learn if child pornography or another illegal activity (drugs, fraud, etc) is evidenced in the deletions.
The initial reports showed the language alleged to come from the perpetrators is similar to the language of Jussie Smollett tweets in his attacks on President Trump.
His "love" (a constant theme in his language) is projective guilt which, as "unnecessary information" tells us to the contrary. Media, politicians, and Hollywood sermonized with unnecessary moralizing to condemn anyone who did not agree. Even in "mea culpa", we find continued unnecessary informant. One actress tweeted "it is wrong" as if anyone thought to the contrary. She also used vulgarity to show the personal impact upon her; the narcissism linguistically pronounced in a short venue of a "tweet."
2 white males could have been falsely arrested.
Racial conditions could have exploded.
Genuine victims will fear cynical disbelief, which furthers injustice.
Jussie Smollett's "love" is to divide and destroy, yet to bring him the attention he craves. The lack of threat reveals the motive is not to terrorize the recipient, who is "sad" according to the childish drawing. The author needs attention and he needs it to make him no longer "sad."
I would not be surprised to see a continuation of his manipulation within the upcoming weeks where justice is sought in this case. He is a skilled deceptive manipulator with some acute unresolved psychological issues. This could include various attempts to employ deception tangent (its Trump's fault), contempt for blacks, Muslims and homosexuals (used in the interview), mental health issues and possibly suicidal ideation that is either verbalized to willing media, or put out by his publicists.
For training for law enforcement, military, intelligence and the private sector, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.
Thursday, February 14, 2019
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Analysis seeks to understand human nature. Although it is beyond our complete grasp, the greater our acceptance of it, the more accurate our analysis.
Statement Analysis (deception detection) teaches that mankind is religious in nature. This means that everyone has a "religion" or belief system.
Religion is classified as ideology.
We then look to see if the subject is faithful or unfaithful to his ideology. Therefore, we will always have examples of fine outstanding people and unjust, unlawful people without regard to the ideology. The claim of ideology is vital for understanding.
Begin with the premise of no god in this exercise. Accept the contradiction of terms.
This is no insult to people of faith.
Western Civilization was founded upon the "Ten Commandments." The hundreds of laws written in antiquity found in Scripture are all based upon one or more of these laws. These 10 commandment were followed, long after, by the historically radical ideology of the Golden Rule: Do unto others...the law of reciprocity.
Contradiction-- consider that there is no God, no afterlife, no reckoning, no justice, no reward, no punishment, etc. Attempt to recognize your own prejudices in this. You want to learn the impact of ideology upon human behavior.
For example, if you were going to buy a house, and you choose between three houses, all the same price and value:
House A has neighbors who believe (ideology) that which they grew up with; the 10 commandments forbid them from entering your property, stealing your possessions and...from killing you, lest they receive justice in this life or the next.
House B has neighbors who believe (ideology) that there is no creator, no afterlife, no eternal consequence for any actions and that the strongest survive by exploiting the weaknesses of others.
House C has neighbors who believe (ideology) that they and their ancestors have long been victims of you (or your ancestors) and that as victims, they are entitled to redress these perceived wrongs at your expense.
Which of the three equally valued homes just went up in value?
In the interview we begin with the premise, not in the existence of a specific God or "god", but of the subject's own belief system. To whom (or where) does one appeal to the final arbitration of right from wrong, life and death and transcendence (or the lack thereof).
It is due to human nature's apparent instinctive reaction towards guilt.
A "conscience" is an informed decision.
If someone is raised with "thou shalt not steal", we note:
a. the rule of the negative in language tells us that which is stated in the negative is often more sensitive than that stated in the positive. The standing example I cite is the large sign on the plate glass window that reads, "Do Not Throw Rocks."
If you've raised a little boy, or was one yourself, you know the Rule of the Negative is provocative.
B. "Thou shalt not steal" culturally, must be overcome by the thief.
Q. How does he do it?
A. Human Nature.
Minimization, Rationalization and Justification.
Analysts deliberately look for the thief to tell us he is not a thief.
He will, almost intuitively, begin the brain processing that results in language that will deny what he has done, rationalize it, yet still minimize it.
"Just 2 drinks, Officer."
The subject is thinking about more than 2 drinks and uses the dependent word "just" which indicates his comparison.
Minimization is universally accepted in substance abuse, yet we find it in all manner of guilt and we seek to understand, and perhaps for some skilled analysts, even measure the level or intensity of guilt, based upon the reference point of the subject's ideology.
We say, "no one ever steals" in Statement Analysis. Can you spot the minimization, rationalization or justification?
They "reimburse" themselves.
They "balance the accounts."
They were "owed" by someone, somewhere. This is why employment analysis excludes anyone who sees himself or herself in the victim status. They are an exploitation looking for an event.
"The company is going to just write it off, anyway."
"Its not like anyone is going to miss it."
"I was fired unjustly."
"But I did not steal from this company. It was the other."
"I have been ripped off many times, myself."
It is interesting to note that we can predict, in general terms and descriptions, what may happen in the future based upon the process of desensitization.
When someone breaks into a building and successfully steals, he is very likely to go from his initial vow to "never take this risk again", to reliving the thrill of success to boredom to his next attempted robbery.
Success breeds repetition.
We do have examples of those who apparently just "graduated" to higher levels of crime, but this is often misleading.
I had a murder suspect of whom I said he was a known child abuser.
The record search was unable to locate any allegations or even investigations into child abuse.
Yet his language was clear.
Collateral interviews with ex girlfriends later proved this to be true.
The Ten Commandments summarized and with brief explanation will help careful readers to learn that the most revealing commandment is the first. Learn the first and you'll learn how the subject views numbers 2 through 9. This is particularly of interest with regard to theft, homicide and how to conduct the interview.
1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods. Everyone has a "god" that we should identify in our analysis/interview/investigation.
2. You will not make graven images or monuments to these gods, nor obey them- why the person does what he does. To what esteem does the suspect hold his "god" up to? Who are the "heroes of the faith" of the subject? (this addresses influences, including criminal and restraining influences, upon the subject). Can the "heroes" be wrong? Do they so admire celebrities that are even inspired by movies? Copy cat crimes?
3. You shall not take (carry) the Name of the Lord, your God, in vain. This is where we seek to learn what impact hypocrisy has on language and especially contempt for others and lack of human empathy. Being in error is not the same as knowing and deceiving. It is more dangerous to society than most realize. This is where cults are born, nurtured and even able to profit.
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy; no work--get rest-- what are the consequences or results of...
rested bodies, rested minds? Is the subject a "balanced" person, or do we find obsession? Type A personality? Does the subject have elements of self loathing and possible high risk behaviors, "tempting fate"?
Here the god of state, or government, intrudes upon our social or private lives and seeks to dictate how we should live, rest, eat, raise a family, retire, and so on.
5. Honor your father and mother that your life will go well & long-- this is where we measure respect for coaches, teachers and, regrettably, the popular political contempt for law enforcement. When the lie "hands up; don't shoot" went main stream, consider young impressional black males who were taught that police were to be despised and feared. How many kids will end up incarcerated because they did not respect laws and law enforcement officials? How many cops have died from this ideology?
6. Do not commit murder--- does the subject respect life?
Doe the subject burn with hatred? (few accept the power of actual hatred)
Worse, did the subject burning with hatred experience recent humiliation? (a dangerous trigger for violent crime)
What has the subject been taught about human life?
Does the subject have any working knowledge of history? This is essential in grasping crimes such as the mass shooting at the synagogue this past year. The ideology of national socialism was studied by America as she went to war with Germany in late 1941.
Ideology has consequence:
a good risk to not buy a house next door to someone who believes in Jihad against "infidels."
7. Do not commit adultery--- what was the suspect's childhood like?
Did he experience abuse?
Was it sexual abuse, with its added elements and destructive consequences?
Does the subject practice self discipline?
This is important for many professions:
what does "best practice" in the social sciences mean?
Statistically, what child is most at risk for
a. substance abuse
b. depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation
c. poor grades
d. poor education
"Best practice" was once studies or "literature" driven...before politicians entered the equation.
8. Do not steal -- consider how dangerous it is for businesses when someone can claim "offense" at most anything, to receive a payoff rather than the scorn of bad publicity. Al Sharpton used this tactic to become fabulously wealthy while claiming moral superiority. Payoffs are preferable to expensive court battles and bad publicity. Employment Analysis can spot the "professional victim" before a company (or law enforcement department) even interviews them.
9. Do not bear false witness: when lying under oath is unpunished, it becomes tolerated and eventually acceptable to the point of being expected. When a nation has two tier justice, anger rages. When anger rages long enough, even over decades, historically it can lead to war.
10. Do not covet your neighbor's wife or possessions --
This is a chilling reminder of what institutionalized envy looks like: Socialism.
Note that instead of each of us paying our fair share (ex: 10% of whatever we make), the successful are being demonized by politicians to exploit the masses.
How is this done?
It is done by using morally charged language, as is my paying of 10% is "fair" but a far more successful person's "fair" share is 70% or 90%. The unnecessary language of being "fair" should catch the attention of the trained and untrained.
See French Revolution's "national razor"; the guillotine for reminder.
In socialism, there is no single "issue" but a series of issues, ever changing, presented, not for the good of others, but for another reason.
This is because the central element is the psychological need to control.
It is not freedom but it is, in its final essence, a violation of the first commandment.
This must, if unchecked, lead to a violation of each following commandment, in both theory and practice. What appears to be morally or ethically strong will not require coercion. Discernment is needed, even with seemingly compassionate or ethical ideas.
Ask: does this politician plan on forcing us to...?
Violation of the First Commandment becomes violation of all Ten Commandments upon society.
In the interview process, context dependent, we want to know: who is the subject's "god" though we do not word the question in this manner.
Who is the principle passion, binding arbitrator, or final source of judgement?
What does this subject believe?
What kind of conscience does the subject have?
Does he/she indicate remorse?
The answer is their "god" in this sense.
A subject's (or suspect's) god will tell you a lot about the subject; from the belief system to the conscience. It can help you determine how likely a suspect is to confess (or admit) to the crime, and what strategy to take. It gives insight into dominant personality traits that we seek to obtain from the language, and used in the overall strategy of the interview. (Tactically, we use the subject's own language in our questions)
For training in deception detection, please visit www.hyattanlaysis.com
Please also review examples here and in the you tube videos prior to inquiring about training.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Racism, like any word in analysis outside of pronouns and articles, needs definition.
In the culture borne by Judea Christian ideology, racism is a grievous transgression that warrants the seeking of forgiveness. In said ideology, it is forbidden.
"Racism" is not disagreeing with a politician's policy.
In a free society, however, we recognize that the reciprocal "do unto others" cannot (or should not) be legislated by politicians and enforced by coercion. Where it is attempted, tyranny is historically indicated. This is why "communism" and "socialism" have always been identified as direct threats to western freedom. The latter being the former's little brother, howbeit without the use of violence...yet.
We recognize that offense, itself, cannot be redefined as "hate speech" in order to quell disagreement. "Hate speech" in the sense of yelling "fire" in a theater causing the outworking of hate (injury, death) is already illegal. We also have legal remedy for libel and slander.
To shift the burden to "offense" is to make any and everything we disagree with "hate."
I may not find it humorous to see people dressed up like me making my appearance entertainment, as I cannot control others; but I can control my response. This is the lesson our mother's taught us as we went off to school, "sticks and stones may break our bones..."
We are the ones who give or deny the power to those who seek to offend. Ask a police officer who hears all manner of taunts every day if being "offended" should result in government action.
Was racism intended by Ralph Northam's costume?
What of his nickname, "coonman"?
Statement Analysis does not interpret but listens. The Analytical Interview is legally sound and it is successful. It does not interpret but allows the subject to define his own language. This is "best practice" in child interviewing, and for those trained, it is best practice in sex crimes, yet successful in all interviewing, from criminal to employment.
We have a life long familiarity with our own words. This is why when a polygraph is properly administered, using the subject's own words, it is at or near 100% reliable. Where we see error or inconsistency, is when we see linguistic contamination, or the introduction of language from the examiner.
When a subject does multiple interviews, or has to be re-interviewed, we not only have to deal with contamination, but we do, on the positive, often get to hear the subject define, or make clear, his own words.
I use the word "boy" to demonstrate this principle.
In the audience, the word "boy" generally gets a 21 year spread of interpretation.
For some officers, the "boy" is a new born.
For older officers, the "boy" is her 21 year old son, in Afghanistan, in the U.S. military.
Child protective investigators and caseworkers often receive tedious but effective training to ask children what "______ looks like."
"I play wrestle with Daddy Ronald."
Rather than presume this to be nefarious sexual abuse or affection play wrestle, the trained interview will ask:
"What does 'wrestle' look like?"
"Who is 'Daddy Ronald'?"
"What does 'Daddy Ronald' say?" and so on.
Sexual abuse investigations share something in common: Perpetrators change language to conceal (deception) their crimes.
In a particularly case where the child was being sexually abused, I asked the child, "What do you do after school?" as her mother was at work. Mother had history of meeting men and moving them into her home, subjecting her child to strangers. In this case, the newest "Daddy Ronald" was the babysitter. The child's acting out caught the attention of an astute teacher.
"We play Monopoly..."
I play Monopoly. Kindergarten aged children do not play Monopoly.
"What does Monopoly look like?"
The answer was sickening.
"When do you play Monopoly?"
Follow up questions are to utilize the child's language; not our own.
"Racism" is a term that has lost its meaning due to politics.
I do not believe that someone who dresses up as another race is necessarily racist. Teenage boys do lots of stupid things, not from malice, but from the reaction of outrage. It is a basis within humor.
It does not mean that it is not offensive, nor even that the teen can be racist.
It means that some may due so out of racism, while others may do so for the attention that outrage brings.
Ralph Northam's photos may or may not mean he is racist. Better to follow his language.
Upon viewing his language, there are several considerations. The first being his use of "racist" as a term of derision in his campaign.
His opponent wanted security in the borders as the gang "MS 13" has a strong presence in Virginia.
Rather than agree with his opponent, Northam made repeated assertions that his opponent was "a racist."
Abortion and Racism
Abortion was championed originally to limit the number of black children being born. It is ironic that this case came together as it it, in the scope of 48 hours.
Last week, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, MD, came out in support of legislation that some call "birth abortion" and "post birth abortion."
In listening to him, the attempt to portray his words as "out of context" was deceptive in its assertion. The video was not cut. When he made this attempt, he made his position, as the governor and as a doctor, clear.
It was later revealed that Ralph Northam, a medical doctor, received almost $2,000,000 in campaign donations from the abortion industry's most profitable organization, Planned Parenthood.
WTOP-FM interview, he said the position on a woman aborting the child while dilating was “was really blown out of proportion.”
“When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physician—more than one physician, by the way—and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s non-viable.”
He gives a hypothetical response which is appropriate given the question about "what if a woman is dilating...?"
He should not be cited for the hypothetical scenario language ("may") yet calls our attention, via emphasis with "by the way."
It is to be noted that Northam’s response, however, is inconsistent with the actual language of the legislation. HB 2491 specifically eliminates the requirement of more than one physician’s “consent”:
The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman’s death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman’s health would be substantial and irremediable.
This is an added emphasis, but it is not clear if it is an error on his part, or deception. It may be, but it is not conclusive in the language.
His use of "fetus" is consistent with the generally stated position of Planned Parenthood.
Additionally, research does not support the common pro-abortion rights narrative that late-term abortions are performed primarily in cases of “severe deformities” or when the unborn baby is determined “non-viable.”
A study released in 2013 by the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, found women seeking both first-trimester and late-term abortions provided the same reasons for delaying their abortions, including “not knowing about the pregnancy,” “trouble deciding about the abortion,” and “disagreeing about the abortion with the man involved.”
For women in the late-term abortion group, the most commonly cited reason for delaying the procedure was ‘raising money for the procedure and related costs.’”
It is not known here if Northam is ignorant of the research (no deception) or if he is attempting to deceive.
H then gives us insight into his personal subjective dictionary. We now see the confidence increase as he went from "we" to "I" in the following:
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So, I think this was really blown out of proportion. We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.
The pronoun "I" produced the word "exactly." This is an increase in confidence. It thus throws doubt upon the error v deception above. He says "I can tell you" which suggests that there were things that preceded this that "we could not tell you."
When a liar is fabricating and has the opportunity to make a truthful point, he is very likely to avail himself of such.
Recall when the mother of missing/murdered 13 year old Hailey Dunn was describing the night the child was killed.
"I did see her in her bed, but I did not touch her."
She did not say, "she was in her bed" nor even "I saw her in her bed..."
but "I did" is to affirm with emphasis that which did not warrant such.
Did you notice the negative?
"I did see her in her bed, but I did not touch her."
"She was in her bed" would emphasize or focus upon the "missing" child, yet the subject focuses upon her own self. This was what indicated her immediate guilt: alibi building on the Nancy Grace Show.
Here she tells us what she saw and what she did not do.
The word 'but" is used to counter what "I did" and the "rule of the negative" elevates what she did not do: she did not touch the dead body.
Deceptive people relieve some level of stress by emphasizing something they know to be true while being overall deceptive. Keep this in mind when less than 24 hours later, Northam would have more explaining to do.
Back to his statement. What of the "fetus"?
If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered.
From a doctor, "the infant would be delivered" has the change from "fetus" to "infant."
If he had hoped to claim anything other than infanticide, the following words reveal insight into his personal subjective internal dictionary:
The infant would be kept comfortable.
Here the infant's living status quality is addressed. He is in a hypothetical response (appropriate) and now gives human comfort to a human ("infant" in his language).
What comes next in his statement?
The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
It is no longer a "pre born" or a "fetus" but an "infant" who is alive outside of his or her mother.
It is now the "desire" that decides if the child, who has been made "comfortable", lives or is put to death. He uses passivity as the means of death.
"So, I think this was really blown out of proportion. "
In this sense, it is true. The question was about aborting a "fetus" that is still within the mother's womb, but that she had only begun to dilate.
Ralph Northam took the hypothetical scenario outside the boundary of the question. In this he took it further (inflation) than what the called for.
He then used a conservative talking point:
We want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions.
The subject is deceptive about infanticide. This is "who" the subject is in 2019. Having received almost $2,000,000 dollars from the abortion industry leader Planned Parenthood, the bill not only allows for increased abortion profits, but for infanticide. His attempt to deny this was not only deceptive, but it affirmed the accusation of supporting infanticide.
Hours later, a photo from 1984 was published in which he was in seen in offensive costume.
Here is his statement.
“I am deeply sorry for the decision I made to appear as I did in this photo and for the hurt that decision caused then and now. This behavior is not in keeping with who I am today and the values I have fought for throughout my career in the military, in medicine, and in public service. But I want to be clear, I understand how this decision shakes Virginians’ faith in that commitment.”
In training, investigators and analysts are taught to trust pronouns. They are instinctive, intuitive and 100% accurate. We use the pronoun "I" so many millions of times, we are efficient at brain-tongue processing.
Conclusion: he is in the photo.
Note the statement begins with "I", increasing psychological presence.
Note he takes ownership of the decision for the costume.
Note embedded (and reliable) pronoun admissions. "...decision I made" which speaks to the period of time before the photo where brain processing ("should I wear this?") took place.
Consider that either costume would take both imagination and physical effort. This is the investment of thought and emotion (psychological).
Either costume would require the investment time to obtain and to adorn.
If he is not one of these two photos, he knows there is a photo of him dressed as such that may come out. Why? Because of the pronoun "ownership" he reports. It is coming from experiential memory.
He went on to "crowd sourcing guilt", similar to the little boy who claims innocence to his mother because "everyone did it, but the teacher only picked on me!"
It is not only crowd sourcing guilt, but it is a psychological shift of blame and a justification for faux righteous indignation as a victim...
from the lips of a 6 year old boy.
Northam said that his growth mirrored the growth of "the commonwealth."
This is to move from singular responsibility, to "crowd sourcing guilt" of an entire racist entity.
It is an affirmation of his own guilt.
He could have said "this was a stupid and thoughtless stunt" rather than the oft-cited fraudulent, "I take full responsibility."
In statement analysis, we note those who take or own responsibility versus those who have the need to state that they are "taking" responsibility. This is evident in Employment Analysis of recovering addicts. They do not state that they are taking personal responsibility; they simply take it. There is a stark difference.
In his later denial, he said that he had consulted with classmates and family and that it is not him in the photo and he is doing an investigation.
The initial apology shows pronoun ownership of the event.
He then went on to not only introduce the entire state and history of Virginia "the commonwealth" as to water down guilt and blame his culture, but he then invoked a deceptive tangent.
To change the topic is a form of avoidance. It is something manipulative personalities do well, but honest people often struggle with when they lie.
Recently, a supervisor received a report that his employee was not out working but out partying on a business trip.
"You were seen smoking marijuana while you were supposed to be working..."
The subject said, "Me? Where would I get marijuana? Where in ____ city would I find marijuana to buy?"
The allegation produced a sensitive response which its first words indicate the strategy the employee is very likely to take when facing internal discipline:
He will embrace the role as victim of some form of injustice.
Next, he uses questions to move the focus of words from himself and his action to purchasing and the location of a large city. He went from small ("me") to large ("city").
It is something he is comfortable doing and in employment analysis, this would be someone flagged for "low personal responsibility."
"I am not the person in that photo," Northam said at an afternoon news conference.
He apologized, however, for the photos being on a page with his name on it.
Gnostic Distancing Language
It is common for guilty people to say "that is not who I am" (in some form) rather than
"I did not do it."
"That doesn't sound like me..."
need to persuade --self and police, rather than deny the action.
Northam, at age 59, employs this same technique.
"I am asking for the opportunity to earn your forgiveness," the governor said, adding, "I am far from perfect and I can always strive to do more."
Several points here:
1. If this is a fake photo, he is the victim.2. If it is not him, he is also a victim (genuinely) as falsely accused.
"The reason I so vividly don't remember is because it didn't happen,"
a. note the negative
b. note the need to explain why he does not remember
Consider "it didn't happen" is passive from one who has used passivity, yet works in "passive voice" the psychological mindset of distancing language away from guilt. It is a psychological term, not a grammatical, used to enter into the mindset of the subject as he has an ongoing need to remove or distance himself, seen in his words, from guilt.
As in deception mindset he does what the pattens call for:
"Get the heated attention off this topic" by moving to larger quantities, but then he does something he likely considered to be clever.
He preempted the next accusation knowing a photo may now surface:
"I did darken my face to dress up like Michael Jackson."
An ingratiating journalist asked him if he could "moon walk" of which he appeared to be stopped by his wife from doing so.
This is important because it speaks to his expectation of a friendly press.
Ralph Northam "saw" racism in his opponents' policies against illegal break ins to the nation by criminal gang members. Those who "see" racism may be exploiting but may be racist themselves. Those who "see racism everywhere", do so because it proceeds from their own selves.
"From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."
Planned Parenthoods' origins of eliminating black births was in stock with the KKK's ideology of racism.
That this organization would donate money to him only to have him promote their interests is not lost on the public.
The awkwardness of his language first in explanation of infanticide and then in his yearbook photos is, for the non trained, the level of discomfort they sense in liars.
His reaction to the journalist indicated his level of comfort with the press. This, too, would cause him to lower his guard and speak freely, allowing us to obtain information. This is the contempt of which is evidenced in expectation that his audience will believe whatever it is he says because he is "morally" superior in his popular or trendy positions.
That he would remember and then suddenly not remember an event that took time and effort (costume idea, design, adornment) and took effort to remove (recall his remark on how difficult it was to remove black face), tell the untrained that he is lying.
That he would, as a physician who took an oath to "do no harm" advocate for infanticide should be considered in the "need" (analysis) of morally charged platitudes so often heard.
Those who seek ethical or moral policy are often low on the language of such.
Because it is unnecessary.
It is the unnecessary language of morals or ethics that audiences should focus upon. In analysis, we flag for sensitivity.
The unnecessary language of the "higher moral position" in a statement often indicates to the contrary.
In a criminal interview, the unnecessary "sermon" or "moral lecture" often means: we have the right suspect. And if he "didn't do it", he did something else that triggers such language. We often solve attendant crimes simply by listening.