Monday, August 10, 2020

Short Interview on Prescribing Hy-droxychloroquine

by Colin Ector 

On Wednesday 5th August 2020 a short clip of an interview of both Scott Morrison (Australian Prime Minister) and acting Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly was posted online.


This comes 2 days after Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly asked the question online whether the Victorian Premier and others could face jail time for preventing doctors from being able to prescribe the drug Hydroxychloroquine to patients suffering with Covid19.


The Australian reported the question was asked on Monday 3rd and that Mr Kelly was condemned for his online comments by Labour leader Anthony Albenese.


What can we learn from Scott Morrison and Paul Kelly’s responses?



Journalist (Tim Lester, political reporter for 7 news) 5th August


“On hydroxychloroquine. Can I ask you both If I might first professor”


The interviewer addresses them both and directs the first part of his question to the professor.


Scott Morison


Not a subject I’m an expert in so I will have to leave it to the the chief medical officer.”


1.     Morrison interrupts the interviewer even though the first part of the question is not being directed towards him.

2.     He begins in the negative without a pronoun making it sensitive, important and giving us unnecessarily the reason why he will not be answering.

3.     Morrison has a need to distance himself. What caused this need? Answer. The introduction of the subject hydroxychloroquine.





“Well the chief medical officer if I could ask you professor if you’re happy with the current settings that prevent prescription of the drug in Australia and prime minster can I ask you if you’re happy with your MP Craig Kelly promoting it to the point where he says that Dan Andrews could be jailed because he bans the drug in Victoria.”


The questions posed to the two subjects.


Question to Chief Medical Officer “professor if your happy with the current settings that prevent prescription of the drug in Australia”


Question to Scott Morrison

“if your happy with your MP Craig Kelly promoting it to the point where he says that Dan Andrews could be jailed because he bans the drug in Victoria.”





Well I, I’m not going to get onto what people talk about on facebook on a day like this but on the medical issues I’m happy for the Chief medical officer to speak to it.”



1.     Morrison pauses to think (“well”), before going into the negative again to tell us what he is not going to “get onto”.

2.     He does not answer the question about MP Craig Kelly.

3.     He avoids using MP Craig Kelly’s name and even reduces it to the passive “people” rather than even one specific person.  This is likely an indication that the relationship between himself and MP Kelly is not good at this point in time.

4.     “On a day like this” What is he referring to? If the date these words are spoken is correct, he may be referring to the first full day of the stage four lockdowns in Victoria.  He gives this as the reason why he will not be “getting onto” this subject. This is unnecessary language and leads to the question is there another reason why he does not want to talk about it.

5.     Is he chastising the reporter for asking this question “On a day like this”?


Acting Chief medical officer Paul Kelly


“So er hydroxychloroquine has been used for many, many years for various er er er things including for malaria prevention. I took it myself for many years when I worked in Africa um and very safe for for that particular er way of using that drug and oth other things er currently involved in terms of er of er arthritis and er other matters but in terms of its use for this particular disease er the jury’s pretty much out, it doesn’t work.”


A reminder of the question posed to Mr Kelly


professor if your happy with the current settings that prevent prescription of the drug in Australia?”


This is a yes or no question. The simplest and expected answer is either “yes” or “no”. The subject may then elaborate on their answer.


The subject does not answer the question.


Instead of answering the “yes” or “no” question the subject is going into a lengthy description of hydroxychloroquine whilst avoiding answering the question that was posed. This is common in deception in that the deceptive subject prefers to keep talking about something they feel more comfortable saying, rather than getting to the part where they will try to deceive. Lying is stressful to the brain, even to habitual liars.



 “So er hydroxychloroquine has been used for many, many years for various er er er things including for malaria prevention. I took it myself for many years when I worked in Africa um and very safe for for that particular er way of using that drug and oth other things er currently involved in terms of er of er arthritis and er other matters but in terms of its use for this particular disease er the jury’s pretty much outit doesn’t work.”


1.     Notice it is used for various “er er er things”.  The unusual amount of “errs” or pauses is a likely indicator of an increase in stress as the subject tries to think of what to say whilst not answering the yes or no question.

2.     The subject reliably reports that he took the drug himself and that it was very safe.

3.     Notice the subject distances himself from hydroxychloroquine with his use of the word “that”.  It is now “that drug”.  We use “that” for what we don’t want close.

4.     What has caused the change of language from “things” to now “matters”.  These aren’t the medical terms that would be expected from a chief medical officer.

5.     “way of using that drug”.  Is the subject avoiding the expected word “treatment”? Is he in effect minimizing or distancing the drug to “use”, rather than “treatment”?  “Use” being a more derogatory word for the use of a drug?

6.     “this particular disease” is passive.  He is avoiding making the direct commitment to Covid19.

7.     “the jury’s pretty much out” is passive.  It removes the identity and the responsibility of whom the subject is referring to.  It is a saying that weakens the subject’s words in context.  If we are in a global pandemic where people are dying, people have been locked down in their homes and many have lost their livelihoods a passive response is not expected.  The expected is clear evidence based scientific opinion on whether the subject is happy with the current settings preventing doctors from prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

8.     The inclusion of the qualifying language “pretty much” weakens the subject’s words further.

9.     Lastly, we do not know what the “it” is in the subject’s final sentence “it doesn’t work”.  This is unreliable language. We do not interpret it to be hydroxychloroquine.  Those who are deceptive wish us to interpret their words for them. If they cannot say it, we will not do it for them.  This is weak, passive language from the subject where we expect clear linguistic commitment with detail. Is zinc needed for it to work against viruses?




Scott Morrison


1.     Morrison is uncomfortable with the question about hydroxychloroquine.

2.     Morrison demonstrates a need to distance himself from this topic and is likely concealing the reason why.

3.     The relationship between Morrison and MP Craig Kelly is not good at this point in time.


Professor Paul Kelly


1.     Kelly’s language indicates he is likely not happy with the current settings preventing prescription of hydroxychloroquine.

2.     Kelly’s language is indicative of a subject who does not believe his own words.

3.     Kelly may be under instruction and restricted on what he is permitted to say. 

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

Virginia Roberts Giuffre Statement

Virginia Roberts Giuffre, 36, recounted a time when Epstein’s lawyer, emeritus Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, allegedly walked in on her and Epstein after sex.

The statement, if accurately reported, indicates what the subject, as an adult, perceived of this specific alleged event: 

“After an explicit session of Jeffrey’s vulgar pilgrimage into my body, we were interrupted by a knock at the door by Jeffrey’s good friend Alan."

We first note that this statement is allegedly from a written affidavit and we do not know what preceded it. 

It begins with the element of time:  "After an explicit session..."

We know that timing is important to the subject. 

Next we view "explicit session" which is the language of an adult, using commentary, in her recall of what took place.  

What do we know about this "explicit sessions" from the subject?

a. It was "vulgar"

b. It was a "pilgrimage"; that is a journey. 

We would need (in an interview) to have the subject define "vulgar" and "pilgrimage" for herself--

is "vulgar" that which is crude, coarse, common, etc?

is "pilgrimage" a journey?  A journey warrants the passing of time, making the element of time in the short statement consistent. 

Keep in mind, this is the adult perception --not one speaking as a teenager, using recall. The subject is looking back in memory and describing what took place. 

“After an explicit session of Jeffrey’s vulgar pilgrimage into my body, we were interrupted by a knock at the door by Jeffrey’s good friend Alan."

"into my body" is strong, personal language. It is her body (possession) and in her perception, Jeffrey Epstein in a vulgar manner took a pilgrimage "into" it.  

She does not say "into me", but into her "body." 

This form of distance (or subtle disassociation) is congruent with "vulgar"--- just as it would be congruent with shame and/or embarrassment. 

The commentary language does not suggest present trauma in recalling what took place.  This could be because she has long processed the event, or her perception of it was that it was "vulgar" but not trauma producing. (other possibilities exist as well). 

"...we were interrupted..."

Question: Who was interrupted?

Answer:  "we"

The pronoun "we" is to indicate unity between them.  In her statement, she perceives herself and Epstein as unified. 

Objection: This is from a child or teenager and we should expect that one so young would be confused or persuaded. 

Answer:  This statement is alleged to have been made as an adult, using recall, to when she was a teen. 

The word "we" is not expected from an adult looking back to this event, though she describes Epstein as on a pilgrimage (time elapsing) and the event as "vulgar", rather than assaultive. 

Objection:  Regardless of her perception now, she was a young girl. 

Answer:  Agreed.  We are not looking at the event, but of her adult perception of it----this is how she perceives it. 

Question: What were they psychologically unified in?

Answer:  The answer should cause us to pause and listen to her language carefully. 

The passage of time when Epstein, in a "vulgar" manner, went on a "pilgrimage" (which takes time---as well as we note that this is her chosen word, as an adult, highlighting the element of time) produced the pronoun, "we."  Sexual assault victims may use the word "we" prior to the assault, but abandon it after the assault as they do not perceive any unity. 

But the "vulgar pilgrimage" is not the only wording that creates this psychological unity.  

Question: What was the source of the interruption?

Answer: we were interrupted by a knock at the door by Jeffrey’s good friend Alan."

It was not Alan Dershowitz that interrupted the unity, in her language. 

It was sound. 

"...we were interrupted by a knock at the door..." 

This is congruent with embarrassment and shame. 

In a sense, it is somewhat confessional. 

The subject looks back and may resent herself (or worse) as she considers her thoughts and decisions she made, even though she was young, impressionable and was in a position of sophistication and economic disparity. 

Yet she may still blame herself.  

We may also consider her disposition towards Dershowitz, though we may analyze her allegations against him separately. 

The recall of sound is important to her. 

"knocking" is a forewarning, rather than "opening" the door.  The latter might suggest childhood sexual abuse.  A "knock" slows down the pace of the event. 

As the subject recalls events, the commentary (evidenced in her choice of words) is that of an adult, looking back on her life; likely with much regret. 

To study deception detection please visit Hyatt Analysis Service

Thursday, July 9, 2020

The Use of Divine Witness in a Statement

How does the use of a Divine witness impact language?

"I swear to God that..." indicates the subject has a need to call upon a Divine witness to his words. It may be that the subject is telling the truth in this point, but is not elsewhere. Habitually dishonest people will feel a need for affirmation of their words.  It belies the lack of confidence one may have in his own words.

What of prayer during an assault? It is a signal of emotion.  It is not that the person prayed that we analyze: it is the entrance into the language.  

This was from an assault investigation: 

"...and as he grabbed me I just prayed 'Lord help me' and ..."

An interview in an assault case produced this sentence.  As the Interviewer listened, he was convinced of the pain he was hearing in the woman's voice. He asked me to listen to the audio and provide feedback into whether or not she was truthful. 

I had said that the pain is real, and the assault is real, but she's lying about when this took place and by whom. 

...and as he grabbed me I just prayed 'Lord help me' and..."

In the interview she produced sensory description which is something that can signal that it was experienced but exactly when it was experienced...years ago, or today, as the crime is being alleged, is not answered. 

Perseveration can be indicated in adults with developmental disabilities as well as trauma victims. 

This is where one repeats detail from an earlier assault, yet states it in the present, with a new subject accused. 

It is challenging to discern. 

Then there are those who are outright falsely accusing someone of an assault and when they deceive, it is impossible to do so from a vacuum, therefore they choose wording from somewhere:

a movie, book, story, or...

from an actual event from the past. 

In this interview, I believed that not only was she lying about what happened now within a criminal investigation, but she was truthfully reporting what happened to her years ago.  

The inclusion of her emotion tells us that this account has been processed by her, which takes time. This assault was reported to have just taken place. 

Discourse Analysis: listening to an interview. 

If one can picture a system of (+) and (-) as an interview 'goes by' audibly, this can help.  

It is sometimes difficult to follow the formula for reliability at first, but with practice that is specifically done with audio and then transcripts, the twain do eventually meet.  

As the audible goes by, each signal of reliability is given a mark on the notebook that shows a (+) and each signal of sensitivity is given a (-) and when there is a near balance of the two, such as

5 (+)


It is something that must be further explored because there is enough signals that memory is at play, but there are also enough signals that deception is at play, too. 

People often want easy answers, but human nature is complex.  

Sometimes people reliably report an assault, but will indicate selfish, illicit or exploitative motives. 

The motive does not negate the reliable reporting. 

Another may report reliably some facets of an assault, while being deceptive in others. 

For example, one who was reliably assaulted may also reveal the use of illegal drugs during the event. This can undermine credibility, yet we seek to separate the allegation from possible attendant crimes. 

...and as he grabbed me I just prayed 'Lord help me' and..."

The word "as" speaks to time and the reaction to being suddenly grabbed is hormonal---fight or flight survival.  

"just" compares praying to something (or everything) else in the mind. It takes time to think of alternatives to compare prayer to.  

When initially recounted, the commitment is strong:

"He grabbed me and I screamed..."

This is to report what happened. There is no equivocation and there is strong psychological presence in the pronouns.  

When this has been processed via re-telling often, the emotions are added as the subject has had time to speak of it, allowing for deeper thought. Each time the account is recalled, the subject ponders further (which often produces, "why?" in assaults, which may lead to distress). 

I believed the subject experienced an assault, and that her pain was real, but the assault was not current, and not from the man she has accused. 

This is where someone is lying but using experiential memory to do so.  It is something to specifically train for. 

I said that I believed this particular allegation would lead to a failed polygraph in spite of the strong sensory description and the affect of the subject during the entire interview.  

I watched the video of the interview.  

In listening to the subject, I too heard the pain coming from her and the accurate description of an assault, but I did not hear her connect the assault with the accused. 

I also noted "Divinity" in her statement.  

"Divinity" within the interview, in various wording, when used to affirm one's words,  is a red flag for deception and beneath it is a desire to persuade someone. It may also be a form of ingratiation where the subject hopes the interviewer will pity the subject, with emotion clouding judgement. 

"I am a God fearing..." in a criminal investigation is to say 'we wouldn't do such a thing because of our belief...' rather than "I did not..." 

It is similar to one accused of pedophilia who says "I am a happily married man..." rather than to deny the accusation. 

The signal in the statement above shows that this event had been long processed in the brain and the fear of it something that was reflected in the voice. 

She failed her polygraph.  

It is not so much that a person uses some form of Divinity in a statement but the context of the statement, audible or written that is key.  

An assault victim in counseling will have emotions within the statement as exploration of thought and reaction has taken place. This is a form of contamination that must be considered. Repeat interviews can cause it as well. 

This was a police investigation of a crime that was alleged to have just taken place.  

If you wish to study deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

The Murder of Amber Gaddis: Colin Ector

Daniel Gaddis
by Colin Ector 

Amber Gaddis was found killed in Jacksonville on the morning of Saturday 20th June. Her husband Daniel called 911 to report he had been kidnapped and robbed by three men in a dark vehicle, but was later let go near his home.
Daniel says he believes the same men went to his house and tried to rob Amber. Her body was found at neighbor’s house where she had purportedly tried to seek help after the attack. Other neighbors reported hearing three gun-shots early Saturday.

Daniel Gaddis gave a short interview to First Coast News.  His language is concerning.

“She was perfect man, she was a great person just with a big heart, she loved everyone and cared about everyone,” 
“I loved Amber with all my heart man. She was like the air in my lungs,”

First of all, it is noted that the subject (Daniel) refers to his deceased wife as a gender neutral person rather than a woman.  This could be an indication that he does not see her as a woman anymore or is no longer attracted to her.

Where was Amber shot?  Was she shot through the lungs?  If Daniel has guilty knowledge in the death of his wife could this have produced this language?  We do not know this yet.  This is a question to be answered.

Daniel Gaddis says he left his house willingly with acquaintances then was dropped off at an apartment complex where he was robbed.
He believes those men went back to his home and tried to rob his wife.

“She opened the door because it was someone she knew, and then they tried to rob her again and steal electronics and I wasn’t there,” 

This is an important sentence.  The subject has the need to tell us why his wife opened the door.  This is the highest level of sensitivity. 
He also has the unnecessary need to tell us he wasn’t there.

This sentence alone is unexpected and concerning coming from the husband of a woman who has just been shot and killed.

“When I came back all I noticed was my flat screen TV was in the road.

When a subject tells us what they noticed it is often an indication that they were consciously looking for something.  Here, it is “all” the subject noticed and he takes possession of it. It is his flat screen TV.  

Why is it the only thing he noticed and was likely looking for?
Why does he have the need to take possession of it? Why is not “the TV”.
Why does he have the need to tell us it is a “flat screen”?  This should not be important at this time, but it is important to him.
Did the subject and Amber have an argument about his flat screen TV?  We do not know but his language leads us to the question.

 I came back to the house and I couldn’t find my wife. I went inside and couldn’t find my wife. I told police I can’t find my wife. I think she was kidnapped,” Gaddis told First Coast News.

Her name is more expected here rather than “my wife”.  Is she more possession than person?

Does he have a need to persuade us that he didn’t know where she was?  He has said it three times in succession.

Police and Daniel Gaddis searched the area and found Amber Gaddis dead at a neighbor’s home.
Daniel Gaddis is now focused on consoling their children and is hoping that police find the men who did this.

“I wasn’t kidnapped, it was planned. It was like a setup. They planned it out, came to the house. Their intention was to rob us,” Gaddis said.

The subject is pushing a conclusion to the media.

“Now I’m just waiting on justice and I’m just waiting on justice to happen”

He is not telling us he wants the men found and charged.  

There is not enough language to make a solid conclusion yet, but Daniels language to this point, is unexpected and should be carefully investigated. 

Substance abuse may have played a role in this case. 

If you wish to study deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services