Saturday, May 31, 2014

Statement Analysis in Everyday Life

Statement Analysis in Everyday Life 
by Peter Hyatt

This is one in a long series of simple application of Statement Analysis principles displayed by submission from readers. 

The following was sent in by a reader who prefers to remain anonymous. 

Dear Peter:

I am a chef who must have certain speciality knives in my collection, particularly when dealing in seafood.  Anything less than razor sharp in a particularly expensive knife impacts my work and contrary to what others think, a less than sharp knife is more dangerous, but that's for another story. 

Anyway, I bought this speciality knife on line from a reputable dealer, who is known for his expertise in sharpening.  It was very expensive and all of his speciality knives are sharpened by him personally.  Only an expert would know how to sharpen to the degree needed, and only an expert (or someone with a microscope) would know when it is done professionally. 

When I received the knife, I found that I was not able to debone certain seafood the way that I expected this knife to work, so I wrote to him about it.  His reply was that it was not the knife but my technique. 

Of course, this is possible, but I know the technique he sharpened this knife for and although I am not an expert at it, I am not a novice, either.  

I wrote back to him and said, "Did you sharpen this before you shipped it?"

I received the following response:

"All of my knives are professionally sharpened before leaving the store."

I then asked, "Is it possible that this one slipped through without being sharpened?"

He wrote, "You are not handling the knife properly.  It is sharpened to work at slightly less than the 45 degree angle.  You need to try using your non dominant hand to pin down the bone area while cutting with the angle prescribed.  I think you need more practice."

What do you think of his response?  I hate accusing anyone of deception.



I wrote back that he should have the knife re-sharpened.

I noted that the seller did not answer the question, "Did you sharpen this before you shipped it?" with the pronoun "I", as in, "I sharpened the knife" in any form.  Everyone makes mistakes, and it is likely that the knife was shipped without sharpening but the seller does not want to own the error.  As Anonymous said, the seller has an impeccable reputation.  

I wrote, "Better to admit error than to lose a customer. "

I did not hear from Anonymous for a few weeks, and was curious as to what happened. I like to know the result of my analysis, 

He wrote that he apologized for not getting back to me but had forgotten.  He took the knife to an expert sharpener who showed him, under the microscope, that it had not been sharpened other than a factory sharpened, and certainly not with the specialized tool the seller is known to use. 

He paid to have it done properly and is very happy with it now. 

He also will likely buy from someone else.  

People do not like to lie outright, because it is stressful and it is avoided, sometimes by deflection, that is, not answering a question directly. 

It is possible that one may say "All knives leaving here are sharpened" and it to be true, but in this case, not only did the seller avoid answering the question, but blamed the purchaser.  I look for pronoun usage, particularly the strength of the pronoun, "I."

A recent study showed that the higher up the chain of command in business, the less likely the "boss" will use the pronoun, "I" in emails. 

I believe the study to be accurate.  

But, does this not go against the principles of Statement Analysis, and the power of the pronoun, "I" in analysis?

For discussion:  

What do you think of higher management avoiding the use of the pronoun "I" in emails?

Reliability Versus Doubt in Documentaries

Most often, readers wish to learn "is this guy lying?" in their submission of statements.  This is a fascinating aspect of Statement Analysis, perhaps the most interesting, but it may not be the most valuable.

The greatest value in Statement Analysis may be the Reliability of statements given.  We can deem something reliable and bank upon it.

When someone says "I didn't do it" in an open statement, it is highly likely to be true.  This same principle of following pronouns can yield truth.

The following is a quote from a World War II veteran on a history documentary.  As one who has seen most of the World War II era documentaries, I find interviews with vets, ages 85 to 92, interesting.

I also know that in Pacific combat, most historical records site that combat participants were 40% or less, of total participation, with some battles having 9 support troops for each single fighting man.

Next, consider how few combat vets are alive for these modern documentaries.  Then, listen to their pronouns.

I find those who use the pronoun "I" are often those who become emotional, while those who use the pronoun "you", make me carefully consider their language.

I've also become accustomed to the film usage and narration not being accurate.

"The soldiers lined up for food..." and the same footage, but not from this location, runs across the screen.  The film footage and the narration do not always match.  If you've seen enough of the WWII footage, you soon learn that the same scenes are applied to various locations, without concern of accuracy.

In the Pacific campaign, this vet said the following.

Question for analyst:

Did he participate in the hand to hand combat?

"I saw the Japs running from one side, and I saw the Americans running from the other side.  I knew there was going to be hand to hand combat. I ran as hard as I could.  I zagged when I should have zigged, and I zigged when I should have zagged.  Hand to hand, well, it's so close you could smell their breath."

I believe he saw the running and I believe he ran from the scene, and did not participate in the battle, even though the documentary filmmakers want me to think he did.  The sudden change of pronoun reduces reliability.

Note the strong use of "I" and the past tense verbs.

Although it might be difficult to verify, the fact that he was there and he did see things, is likely true.  People do not like to lie outright.  If he did not use such strong use of "I", PTSD could be considered. The analyst must weigh all factors.

Since he so well used the pronoun "I" (including in a description of seeing mutilated corpses, indicating trauma), his sudden change to the pronoun, "you" reduces reliability.

Watch some of the documentaries and listen for yourself, and post some examples when you hear them.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Tammy Moorer's Children Statements

does the apple fall close to the tree?

This is an article from with Statement Analysis added in bold type.   

The teenage son of the couple charged with murdering Heather Elvis says he and his younger siblings have lived in fear for months because of constant threats to their family.
They are afraid to leave their home and they don’t understand why someone would want to harm them.
There have been men with rifles standing across the road looking up here,” said 15-year-old Christian Moorer. “It’s hard to just live our lives knowing somebody out there is threatening to kill you.”
Note that he does not say "us", but the second person, "you", reducing reliability in something this personally frightening.  This is distancing language and it is not expected under a threat.  

Note that somebody is out there, not trying to kill us, but "threatening to kill"

One should question if this 15 year old has been told these things and is entering into the language of another, and not in fear, for himself.  
Christian’s parents, Sidney and Tammy Moorer, face charges of murder and kidnapping in connection with the disappearance of Elvis.
The 20-year-old Carolina Forest woman disappeared in the early morning hours of Dec. 18. Her vehicle was found the following evening at Peachtree Boat Landing in Socastee, about eight miles from her apartment and about two miles from the Moorers’ residence on Highway 814.
All activity to her cell phone ceased at 3:41 a.m. Dec. 18, and her body has not been found.
The Moorers were taken into custody on Feb. 21 after police executed a search warrant at their home. They were indicted on March 21. A trial date for the case has not been set.
Harsh reality
Tammy Moorer’s relatives say they have prayed for the family of Heather Elvis since they first heard she was missing.
They’ve hoped she would be found safe and returned to her loved ones. But they say some people have treated them harshly since Elvis vanished. The Moorers live just off S.C. 544 next to Tammy’s parents’ home.
Her father, William Caison, died of a heart attack in March and his family says it was the stress of the case that killed him.
The Moorers’ children — Christian, 12-year-old Nikki and 8-year-old Caison — have been living with their grandmother Polly since Tammy and Sidney were arrested in February.
Last week, a host of aunts, uncles and cousins gathered in the Caison home to discuss how they have been forced to live since Elvis disappeared.
From the beginning, family members say, the police focused primarily on the Moorers.
According to police records, Sidney Moorer and Heather Elvis were in a relationship last year. Joanne Todd Dry, Tammy Moorer’s aunt, said 38-year-old Sidney Moorer may have gotten mixed up with Elvis, but he’s not a killer.
Another aunt, Lisa Bonechans, said every family member, especially Tammy Moorer’s mother and children, have been scared for their lives for months.
Our family shouldn’t have to live in fear just because the police say Tammy and Sidney did something,” she said.
Note "something" minimizes murder
Christian Moorer said the police have been called to their property dozens of times since December because people have come into their yard, thrown bricks at the house and even called on the phone threatening their entire family.
Waccamaw Publishers has requested reports about these incidents from the Horry County Police Department. Lt. Robert Kegler, the agency’s spokesman, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
It’s unclear what Kegler could say anyway because police are under a judge’s order not to discuss the Heather Elvis case. Family members said the police have searched both houses twice, trying to find evidence.
The first search came just a few days after Elvis was reported missing.
“They haven’t found anything,” Dry said. “And that’s why they’re trying to keep everybody quiet.”
Intense questioning
Christian Moorer said on the February morning that police arrested his parents, the three children were taken by investigators to a small office at Coastal Carolina University.
With no other adults present, Christian Moorer said the police interrogated him and his sister while their little brother remained in the car.
They started off being nice,” he said. “Then they started telling me I was lying about things and I wasn’t. I was being very truthful with them.”
Christian said on the night that police say Elvis was murdered, he never heard his parents leave the house or any other noises.
As the family was recounting what everyone has gone through, one cousin started crying as she was looking at a picture on her phone.
Someone had just posted a picture in a private Facebook room of Tammy Moorer with a Photoshopped gunshot wound in her forehead.
Her aunt screamed that this is the kind of things they have been dealing with. They talked of a poster that had been circulated showing Tammy, Sidney and Tammy’s dad with the caption, “one down and two to go.”
Dry said the police told them that their complaint about the poster would be forwarded to the planning or public works department since it dealt with a sign.
Sitting on the floor near her aunt, Nikki said she is always scared. Christian just shook his head.
“I don’t understand how people can do this,” he said.
Bond denied again
Last week, Tammy Moorer’s lawyer asked Judge Steven John to release his client from the J. Reuben Long Detention Center on homebound security because the 42-year-old is pregnant and remains fearful for her life and that of her baby.
Attorney Greg McCollum said Tammy had been to hospitals in Loris and Conway and both facilities confirmed she was pregnant.
“She was trying to get pregnant prior to her arrest,” McCollum said during a bond reconsideration hearing Friday. “This is something she and her husband [Sidney] were trying to do.”
Senior Assistant Solicitor Donna Elder questioned whether Moorer is really pregnant, saying Moorer refused medical attention after receiving positive pregnancy tests.
“I do not believe it is a foregone conclusion that she has a viable pregnancy,” Elder said. “Ms. Moorer has continued to refuse prenatal vitamins and prenatal care. She refuses to be seen by an OB-GYN.”
The revelation of Moorer’s possible pregnancy had been widely discussed on social media in the weeks prior to Friday’s hearing. But Friday was the first time her pregnancy was discussed in open session.
It wasn’t enough, however, to sway the judge, who upheld his March 17 decision to deny bond. John said the court would treat Moorer as if she was pregnant, but stated her pregnancy didn’t warrant release from jail.
“The previous decision to deny bond continues in full force,” he said.
John also wanted Tammy Moorer’s condition monitored closely and any anomalies put in writing.
“If the defendant refuses to accept these services, I want that noted in the record,” he said. “It will be documented in writing.”
At one point during the hearing while John was in the process of denying bond, Tammy Moorer spontaneously spoke aloud, interrupting the judge.
“Excuse me, but can I say something,” Moorer said. “No ma’am,” John sternly replied.
After consulting with his client, McCollum said Tammy Moorer wanted to express concerns about conditions at J. Reuben Long where, McCollum said, Moorer is exposed to bedbugs and fellow inmates have HIV, herpes and other ailments.
“She doesn’t think that in her condition it’s healthy, appropriate or safe,” he said.
John said the court can’t force Moorer to accept services, but he reiterated his desire for the jail to document any instance of her refusing health care.
“At this point in time, it’s not the court’s responsibility to force her to seek medical attention,” he said. “The court will consider her to have a viable pregnancy at this time. She will be afforded the full services of the J. Reuben Long [Detention Center] health center as well.”
‘Our family is sticking together’
In the past, Moorer has had two miscarriages and McCollum said he fears she and her unborn child may experience medical complications if she’s allowed to remain behind bars.
“She’s in the second trimester right now,” he said. “She’s pregnant.” Security was tight for Friday’s hearing, with deputies turning away two citizens for inappropriate dress. Inside the courtroom, a man sitting among Elvis supporters had his cell phone confiscated for taking photos before the hearing.
Note the additional words "right now" and the redundant and unnecessary "she's pregnant"
This is sensitive.  Is it due to deception, or is it due to not being believed?   
At least one other man was ejected for unspecified reasons while a Caison family member broke into tears following John’s ruling.
Outside, after the hearing concluded, deputies had to disperse a small crowd that had gathered and was engaged in a shouting match in the parking lot of the Horry County Government & Justice Center.
Also in court Friday, McCollum restated that his client is innocent.
There’s a misconception and misbelief about the lack of evidence against Tammy Moorer,” McCollum said. “There’s been a lot of speculation that they found forensic evidence, that they’ve found a hair sample or a tissue. That’s absolutely not true. There’s no evidence to link Tammy Moorer to the disappearance or possible death of Heather Elvis.”
This is not to say that she is innocent as the article says. 
McCollum said law enforcement focused on the Moorers almost immediately after Elvis disappeared on Dec. 18, and that arrests were made to quell public pressure.
“The desire for law enforcement to do something, it’s my belief the method of arrest was done in such a way that [the Moorers] would be taken into custody, they could be interviewed and that [law enforcement] would crack the case,” McCollum said. “They arranged to have her [Tammy Moorer] arrested with the intention of trying to get some kind of incriminating statement.”
Elder took exception to the notion that law enforcement buckled under public pressure, noting that investigators didn’t file charges until two months after Elvis disappeared.
“This is not a case where law enforcement rushed to make an arrest because of public pressure,” she said. “This is a case where law enforcement, contrary to public pressure, they waited.”
Back home after the hearing, Christian Moorer fought back tears. He said he wasn’t sure how his family would endure this.

“Our family is sticking together,” he said quietly. “It’s tough when you hear and see these things about your parents and you never know when someone out there is going to try to kill you. But we’ll just keep praying. That’s all we can do.”

Founder Resigns from Sex Slave Foundation

Sex-slave crusader ousted from foundation as her tale crumbles

One of the world’s leading anti-sex slavery activists got bounced from her own foundation because her heartbreaking tale of being sold into child prostitution and years of abuse fell apart.
Somaly Mam had become the pretty, glamorous face of the anti-sex trafficking movement, courting celebrities and world political leaders.
The Cambodian claimed she was an orphan, sold into sexual slavery and repeatedly raped and abused for years. She only worked up the courage to escape after seeing a friend killed in front of her.
But over the past several years, Mam’s life story has been slowly picked apart by childhood friends, culminating in this week’s stunning ouster.
“Effective immediately, Somaly Mam has resigned from the Somaly Mam Foundation,” the anti-sex slavery group tweeted.
 - Somaly Mam Foundation On Twitter

The foundation said it hired US-based law firm Goodwin Procter LLP in March to check out the life story of Mam and her fellow activist and protege, Long Pross.
It’s been reported for years that Pross had been rescued by Mam’s group, ending years of sexual enslavement at a Cambodian brothel.
While not revealing any details of this internal probe, Somaly Mam Foundation executive director Gina Reiss-Wilchins said both women are no longer affiliated with the group.
Mam has rubbed elbows with some of the world’s best-known celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey, Susan Sarandon, Katie Couric and Queen Latifah.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Mam’s charity in 2012, meeting girls and young women rescued from sexual slavery.
But friends of Mam said she grew up with both parents, graduated from high school and led a happy, comfortable childhood.
Mam has always struggled to keep her story straight, according to a front-page exposé by Newsweek magazine this week.
Modal Trigger
Somaly MamPhoto: Getty Images
During a White House visit in February 2012, Mam she said was sold into slavery at age 9 or 10. That contradicted an interview Mam gave to “The Tyra Banks Show,” claiming she was 4 or 5 when her sexual enslavement began, according to Newsweek.
In her book, “The Road of Lost Innocence,” Mam said she was trafficked when she was “about 16 years old.”
The 40-something Mam — whose precise age has never been stated — always knew when cameras were rolling, according to a psychologist who did volunteer work for Mam’s Cambodian charity AFESIP.
“[With donors], she’s very polished and very on and very charming … exceedingly charming,” the whistle-blower told Newsweek.
“And when people are not there, she can be tyrannical; she’s moody, she’s erratic, she’s entitled.”

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Statement Analysis in Job References

by Peter Hyatt

People are deceptive in most everything in life and wherever there is self interest, there is a choice:

Do I put myself first, no matter what ethical line I cross?


do I tell the truth, and rest upon my accomplishments thus far, knowing that I can still grow as a person?

This is something that is taught to children at a very early age, and it quite challenging to facilitate any necessary change in adulthood.  It is also something that will impact your company.  A liar, that is, one who will fabricate reality in order to put one's own needs first, will trouble your company in ways you might not have previously considered.

When I was young in school, I attended a private school that operated on the honor system.  If one cheated on a test, one was expected to tell the truth, and it was "honorable", culturally at the school, to withstand the repercussion of the offense, with silence.  This silence was, culturally, interpreted as dignity and grace.

The cheater was thus able to earn back the respect and esteem he had forfeited in his unethical method of gaining a higher grade then he deserved.

I note that within my own language, the use of the word "culture" twice, with the repetition signifying a sensitivity about the topic.

Why is it "sensitive"?

There is a different standard today as raw competition, that is, unhindered by elements of constraint, is seen differently than it was a generation ago.  The "means" are often justified by the end result, and if one has "won", then the victory is not questioned.  We see this in the "win at all costs" of defense attorneys today; truth (and justice) be damned, a "w" is all that matters.

Employers should recognize the change and measure the trend even upon reviewing applications and resumes for employment.

I strongly urge that a writing sample be obtained prior to investing the time to interview a future employee, and if such an interview does take place:

1.  The interview should be based upon analysis of the written statement (Analytical Interviewing)
2.  The interview should contain a scoring system which can be produced in the event a person sues the company for not hiring.

Analytical Interviewing is basically this:

A legally sound interview based upon analysis of a written statement.

It is non threatening, and it is non interpretive.  We recognize that each of us has an internal, personal, subjective dictionary and it is the job of the Interviewer to de-code this.  In Analytical Interviewing, we avoid interpreting one's words, instead rely upon the subject to explain anything that necessitate explanation, avoiding errant interpretation and miscommunication.

Recently, I was faced with an interesting situation.

A manager in charge of interviewing had said that "Statement Analysis is not legal to use in interviewing."

I countered with the United States Supreme Court's recognition that the "Reid Technique" (a brand name of the generic wording, "Statement Analysis") was, indeed, found to be legally sound, and that in Analytical Interviewing, there is no interrogation techniques, making it non-combative.  (Interrogation is interviewing with accusations and threats of consequence).

Rather than respond to the Supreme Court's decision, the manager pointed to his resume in which he was an "Instructor" for the "Maine State Police Academy", and knows what interviewing can be used in training and what cannot be.  This sounded absurd to me, which caused me to verify.

Maine does use Statement Analysis in training.

A simple call to the Academy would help me verify the resume's claim.

The Academy informed me that this manager was not an "instructor" for the Academy, but had come to the Academy to, quite basically, tell cadets what 800 number to call in the event that they need the assistance of social workers.

For the manager, this translated into being an "Instructor" on his resume.

It is a lesson for employers to receive:  verification.

Reference Calling.

Companies scoff at reference calling because they know that many applicants simply put down family or friends, even when asked for "professional references" but more so, they scoff because, today, culturally, most companies will not give a positive nor negative reference for an applicant, fearing lawsuit.

No one wants to be sued.  It can be costly to defend a frivolous lawsuit and if you are current with reading judge's decisions, you know that some of the most bizarre, legislative like decisions are rendered all over the country.  It's unpredictable.  Where as once, a person was only a "partial" person, which was later condemned as racist, in some counties in the United States, this same "3/8ths of a person" or "5/8ths of a person" is being used in voting.  The bottom line is this:  no one wants to be sued, no matter how foolish the claim may be.

Here is where Statement Analysis can shine.

When I call for a reference, 9 times out of 10, the company being called declines to give a reference.

"I'm sorry but according to our policy, we do not give job references.  We can only confirm that the person worked for us."

The song begins to play in my head...

"Do you hear what I hear?"

Are you listening?

I'm sorry but according to our policy, we do not give job references.  We can only confirm that the person worked for us."

When I hear the words, "I'm sorry" I recognize that they are politely spoken.  I like politeness.  It shows respect for self and others. When I have a polite person on the phone, I get them to talk and talk will reveal what they know about the applicant.

I hear "I'm sorry" and I listen to the tone and I say things like, "I understand" and "isn't that the way things are today!" and I empathize and make small talk.  Once the person on the other line is talking, I am confident I am going to get information.

"We don't give references."

This one is not as likely to yield information.  I see it as a "stop sign" but not as a red light.  I usually make a comment about understanding and sometimes the person will just hang up the phone.  Rudeness is not helpful.

I had one such call, however, that I was able to get information from, which ended up being critical.  It was a medical office which, by nature, is used to being "confidential" in conversation, due to laws and statutes, therefore, I commented upon the weather, which made her laugh.

Once she laughed, we conversed.

Eventually she said that the applicant was fired because it was a poor fit, and not because of poor work.  It was the type of office in which silence was cherished, and she was a talker, and because she was on probation, she was terminated as a poor fit.

In the job I was calling about, her social skills would be an excellent fit (and they were) and I offered her the position.

I have also had experiences where the company refused to give reference, but was willing to talk, and revealed some dark and alarming information about the applicant and likely spared me some difficulties.

Statement Analysis on the fly means jotting down words that are repeated, and listening carefully for pronoun drops as it is just a few minutes on the phone that might help decision makers stay on a good course.   I listen for commitment.  In pronouns there are three things to listen for on a short phone call:

1.  Consistency
2.  Change
3.  Drop offs

1.  Consistency

If the person uses "we", they are speaking for the company.  This is appropriate.  If you are speaking to someone in HR who is in charge of hiring and firing, the word "we" is still expected but if they use the pronoun "I", it is to be considered very strong.

2.  Change

When one goes from "we" to "I", I always write down this sentence.  Whatever it was that triggered the change from "we" to the much stronger, "I", is going to matter in this conversation.  When I hear the change, I write down the sentence.

The same is in reverse:  if the strong "I" suddenly turns into "we", there is a weakening, a sharing, a plurality, a...a something that has caused a change in the language.  Usually an emotion will be joined to this sentence.

I ask questions based upon any change.

3.  Drop offs

The missing pronoun means the person has not removed himself or herself from the equation, or in the case of using "we" representing a company, a dropped "we" means that the subject is removing the company from the sentence.  This is a very important sentence and should make you think.

You may now have decided, based upon the reference calls

But what about those who attempt to sue your company for not hiring them?

What can a company do to protect itself?

Stay tuned...

Monday, May 26, 2014

Elliot Roger's Words

Unfortunately, the NY Post article did not give the full manifesto. 

The vile manifesto of a killer


He scripted it like a sick Hollywood movie, starring himself as the pathetically wronged victim who would exact revenge on those who spurned him.
Deranged, privileged California loser Elliot Rodger filled a 141-page manifesto with hate and loathing — for himself and his targets, from the most popular sorority girls to his annoying roommates — detailing everything from their tortured deaths to his own suicide.
“I am Elliot Rodger . . . Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent . . . Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god,’’ the 22-year-old college student, son of a “Hunger Games” assistant director, boasted.
“Humanity is a disgusting, depraved and evil species. It is my purpose to punish them all. On the day of Retribution, I will truly be a powerful god, punishing everyone I deem to be impure.
“This is the story of my entire life. It is a dark story of sadness, anger, and hatred. It is a story of a war against cruel injustice . . . I didn’t want things to turn out this way, but humanity forced my hand.’
The demented document reveals the troubled mind of the self-described social outcast who killed six and wounded 13 in a seething weekend revenge-for-rejection rampage in Santa Barbara.
The killing spree ended with Rodger — who grew up seemingly wanting for nothing — taking his own life with one of his three guns.
Modal Trigger
Two students place flowers at a make-shift memorial set up outside the Alpha Phi sorority where two women died during the deadly shooting rampage.Photo: EPA
Modal Trigger
Police investigate the scene of a drive-by shooting that left seven people dead, including the attacker, and others wounded on Friday.Photo: AP
Throughout his rants, he seethes that despite his wealth and relative good looks, he was still a virgin, unable to get a woman into bed despite many attempts while other, lesser guys got the gals. Because of that, “Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with,’’ he fumed in the tome. “That decision should made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate offspring.
“Women are like a plague,’’ Rodger wrote. “They don’t deserve to have any rights . . . Women are vicious, evil, barbaric animals, and they need to be treated as such.
“In an ideal world, sexuality . . . must be outlawed. In a world without sex, humanity will be pure and civilized. Men will grow up healthily, without having to worry about such a barbaric act. . . . In order to completely abolish sex, women themselves would have to be abolished.
“In order to carry this out, there must exist a new and powerful type of government, under the control of one divine ruler, such as myself.’’
Among those Rodger killed were at least two male roommates and a third man whom he stabbed to death in his Santa Barbara apartment.
Authorities identified them Sunday as Cheng Yuan Hong, 20, of San Jose, 19-year-old George Chen, also of San Jose, and 20-year-old Weihan Wang, of Fremont. All three were students at the University of California at Santa Barbara, where Rodger also studied and carried out part of his bloodbath.
Two sorority sisters and a male student at a deli were shot dead by Rodger.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Red Lobster: Million Dollar Lawsuit

Taxicab coming down the street with its doors open.

There's something so blasé about a million dollar lawsuit.  Why not 1. 2 mil?  Can't a little imagination be applied to these matters?

Oh, that pesky "N" word again in the news...if someone is not getting fired for using it, (depending upon the pigment of their skin), someone's seeking to cash in.

is posted below.

How difficult would it be to write or say, "I didn't write "nigger" on the receipt"?  That's all it would have taken.   The truthful and innocent will say to, early, and as often as asked.  There is no debate left after that.


A Tennessee man has filed a $1 million lawsuit Thursday against Red Lobster and one of its waitresses after the waitress claimed last year that he wrote a racial slur on a tip receipt.
Last September, the waitress, Toni Jenkins, posted a picture on Facebook of the receipt which had the words “none” and “Nigger” scrawled on it.
Jenkins, who is black, claimed that a white patron had written the slur.
The name and signature of that patron, Devin Barnes, were visible on the receipt.
But Barnes denied writing the epithet. He said he was out to dinner with his wife at the seafood chain’s Cool Springs, Tenn. location.
Something came up which interrupted the couples’ meal, Barnes said. They asked Jenkins to have their food boxed up to-go.
Barnes, 20, admitted that he wrote the word “None” in the tip line. But not the derogatory word.
His lawsuit, filed Thursday, is meant to cover suffering he says he and his family endured by being labeled racists.
He says that Red Lobster didn’t do enough to address the situation before it got out of hand, WSMV reports.
Jenkins was initially suspended after the picture of the receipt went viral on the internet. But she was reinstated after a number of prominent news outlets picked up the story. A website raised nearly $11,000 for Jenkins in a “Tips for Toni” campaign.
The waitress used the money to buy a car.
But two handwriting experts who looked at the receipt and at writing samples from Barnes, his wife, and Jenkins determined that it was unlikely that the couple had written the slur.
The expert hired by Barnes and his attorney concluded that both Barnes and his wife were unlikely to have written the slur.
Another expert, contacted by The Daily Caller News Foundation, analyzed the receipt, comparing it to a copy of a writing sample from Jenkins. The expert determined that “within a reasonable degree of certainty” Jenkins had written the slur.
Please note:  we do not need handwriting analysis experts to take opposite sides.  We only needed to listen to the denial.  
Here is the original analysis:

The Red Lobster Racial Slur Controversy 
by Peter Hyatt 

A waitress claimed to have received a racist note on the check at a Red Lobster.   Where the line for tip was, it said, "None" (this was a pick up order).

Underneath it, it said "Nigger" (my assumption since it is partially redacted).

Statement Analysis deals with words.  Was it the customer's intention to be racist?  Or, as others have asked, was it the intention of the waitress to exploit sympathies and make money?

Neither question will be answered here. Instead, we will look at what he wrote.

Statement Analysis deals with words spoken and what is not spoken.  What did he tell us?  What didn't he tell us?  What did we expect to hear?  Did he fulfill our expectation.

Presuppositonal Analysis is that we presuppose that the subject is truthful and his words will guide us.  Even as we project ourselves into the statement, we do so presupposing that the subject is being falsely accused.  This is our "expected" in analysis.

The "subject is dead; the statement is alive." This means that we are not analyzing the customer, nor are we analyzing the waitress.  We are analyzing the letter the customer wrote in response to the accusation that he wrote "None Nigger" on the check at Red Lobster.

Will the picture of the waitress holding up a large check influence your opinion?
Will the color of the pigments of either participant influence you?

Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN, from deals with principle and repetition.

In Statement Analysis, we seek truth.  We must begin with a question to answer.  We are not concerned with him being a racist, or him not being a racist, or with her being an opportunist, or not being an opportunist.

We want to know:  Did he write it or not? We will allow him to guide us.  The basic question is this:

Did he write the word, "Nigger" on the check below where the word "None" was written?

To do this, we need to view the words through the Scientific process (SCAN) and not through inflammatory pictures or thoughts.

My focus is his letter and what it tells us.

I.  The Letter He Wrote

II.  Specific Analysis of the Letter

I.  The Letter He Wrote

This is the letter, first in photo, and then in typed form, as it appears.  Then, we will break down the analysis:


I.  The Letter 

In Statement Analysis where there is an allegation, we begin with the "Expected" and ask ourselves, "If I were to be accused of writing "None Nigger" on a check to a black waitress, what would I say?"

If I did not write these words, I would say "I did not write these words"; quite plainly.  I would feel, emotionally and intellectually, that the burden of proof of this false accusation is with my accusers.  This is a certain form of confidence that says, "I didn't do it.  Either figure that out for yourself, or find a new job, because you're not qualified here..."

"The righteous are as bold as a lion."  Of course, its no secret that false bravado seeks to imitate the quiet confidence of the innocent.

Therefore, in a letter defending himself, I expect him to say "I didn't write it" and that's just about all I can think I would write.  I would not apologize, nor would I deliver a sermon on race, nor refer anyone to my attorney, and I would not likely call upon my character as a witness, or friends.  I don't think I would even write a letter, but since I must do some work on the "expected", I have to think of something.

Then, as in all accusatory analysis, we are left with "the unexpected"; that is, things within the statement that were not expected.

Kaaryn Gough did a wonderful job in demonstrating this in the Baby Lisa case.  Baby Lisa was reported missing by her mother, Deborah Bradley, who we indicated for deception.  Statement Analysis concluded that Bradley was deceptive, and Lisa was dead, and Bradley knows how she died, and where her remains were unceremoniously dumped.

Bradley went on television to protest those who doubted her, and wanted to convince her audience that Lisa was kidnapped.

Kaaryn wrote that we should look for words that accompany a kidnapping...simple words such as "kidnapping, ransom, contact..." and so on.

During the televised interview, these words were disturbingly absent.  Kaaryn demonstrated how Statement Analysis deals with what someone tells us, and sometimes, what someone does not tell us.

This was also seen plainly in the interview of Charlie Rogers where she claimed three men broke into her home, carved hateful slurs into her flesh while holding her down, and set fire to her home.

In a training exercise, I describe the above, and then I ask investigators to make a list of words they expect to hear.  "Brutal, scared, cut, justice, outrage..." and so on.  It took less than a minute for investigators to write out between 10 and 20 expected words.

Then, I play the video of Ms. Rogers and have them place check marks when they hear those words, and write down words of Ms. Rogers that were not expected.  They had blank marks next to the expected column, but added words that were surprising (unexpected) to them, including "game, pawn, respect" and not being afraid, in spite of the contention that three brutal nazi-like killers were on the loose.


It makes one think, or perhaps, it should.

Thousands supported Ms. Rogers and donated large sums of money.

I expect, in the Red Lobster customer letter, to tell me "I didn't write that on her check."  but not much else.

Let's see what he tells us, and let's see what he does not tell us.

II.  The Letter With Analysis 

The analysis is in bold type, with emphasis added by me.

"Please accept my apology for not being here in person, I had to work."

Where someone begins a statement is always important.  Sometimes it can even tell us the reason for the written statement. We note that the statement begins with the unexpected:

"my apology."

In Statement Analysis, we always note, for whatever reason, if apology or "I'm sorry" enters the subject's statement, anywhere. 

When Cindy Anthony called 911 to report her grandchild missing, she handed the phone to Caylee's killer, Casey Anthony.  When asked a question by the 911 operator, Casey said, "I'm sorry?", in the context of "excuse me?" as if a question was not heard.  We seek to learn if these words creep into the language of the guilty, as, perhaps, "leakage."

"Leakage" is a term we use to describe how words creep out, inadvertently, perhaps, from the brain.  We all have leakage when we speak.  Guilty people will sometimes leak that they have sorrow or regret, even while attempting to persuade that they have no reason for such.  Therefore, we note that in the first sentence of the letter, an apology exists. 

This is not expected to me, as one projecting himself into the situation, falsely accused of writing a racial slur to a waitress.  It is a red flag. Where one begins a statement is important and often the reason for the statement.  Here, he begins with an apology.  

Note next he used the word "here", and not "there", which would cause me to wonder where he was, geographically, when he wrote the statement.   Falsely accused, I would not care to travel to any location, nor would I apologize for not traveling or showing up.  I didn't say it, so they need to look elsewhere.  I have a job to go to.  

"I want to start out by saying I am innocent."

A weak assertion. 

Please note that he only "wants" to "start" out this way, and not that he is "innocent."  There are several problems with this sentence. 

There is a difference between saying, "I am innocent" and "I want to say I am innocent", with the latter being only a desire expressed.  Yet here, there is even more distance:  he only wants to "start" out by making this assertion.  This tells us that there is more information, since this is only a "start."

Next, note that many guilty people have no problem saying "I am innocent" instead of saying "I didn't do it."  

He is innocent, in fact.  

He has not been found guilty, nor pled guilty, to anything.  Therefore, judicially, this is a truthful statement and had he said, "I didn't write the N-word" and added, "I am innocent", it would have been acceptable.

Principle:  A declaration of innocence is not a Reliable Denial.

A Reliable Denial has three components.  If it has two, or more than three, it is not reliable. 

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  the past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"  (only Reid makes differential here) 
3.  The allegation is answered. 

Therefore, these are unreliable denials:

"Didn't do it."
"Didn't write the N word"
"I would not write that."
"I never wrote the N Word"

"would not" and "never" are not substitutions for "did not"and are Unreliable Denials.

"I didn't write the N word"
"I did not write Nigger on that bill..." or anything similar would be a Reliable Denial.  It also may have been found in the first sentence, perhaps only after a greeting. 

Judicially, he is innocent and not lying. 

"I was not raised that way in my household."

I have both done and said things that I am ashamed of to this day.  Unlike Frank Sinatra, I have many regrets, and hopefully I have learned from them.  If I could go back and change my life, with my understanding firmly "under the sun", I would take back every hurtful thing that I have ever said to anyone.  I don't appreciate those who boast of their pasts when they should be ashamed.  

I have both done and said things that I was not raised to do nor say.  Yet, in this letter, he asserts that he was not raised "that" way, with the word "that" showing distance.  Perhaps I might use distancing language too, yet I note it just the same. 

But there are three additional words in which, if removed, will still allow for a complete sentence:  "in my household."

The law of economy in sentences says that the shortest statement is best.  Why did he feel the need to add "in my household"?  Was something with him raised differently?  Was he raised in more than one household?  These three simple words generate questions that I would like to ask him. 

Yet, I still note that how one was raised is not to say "I didn't write it."

"When me and my wife got our meal to go, the ticket was brought to the table."

"My wife" is an incomplete social introduction, but it answers the question that I had about him being with someone else who might have been raised differently than the way he was raised in his household.  

Does the incomplete social introduction have bearing here?

It might. 

A complete social introduction of a spouse includes the name, title, and possessive pronoun.  It indicates a good relationship IN THIS PORTION OF THE STATEMENT.  

Objection:  maybe he did not want to use his wife's name.

Answer:  It is a good point and one to always remember.  Here, however, he signs his full name. 
Therefore, it is deemed an incomplete social introduction.  It does not sound bad, as "the" wife, but it does show a slight distancing point here in the statement.  

Did his wife write it?
Did his wife, perhaps raised in a different household, encourage him to write it?

I have questions for him, as statements help me prepare for interviews.  

"...the ticket was brought"

This is passive language.  Passivity in speech is often used to conceal identity or responsibility.  It may be that he does not show the identity of the person who brought the ticket because he does not know.  In the interview, I would explore this.

But what if it was the waitress that brought it?  Why didn't he say "the waitress brought the ticket..."?

More questions for him to answer.  Note that the ticket was not brought to him, but to the table.  
Was he not at the table at that time?  This is distancing language.  Does he not want to say that it was brought to him?  Does he not want to say it was brought to his wife?
Was he in the bathroom when the ticket came?

It is distancing language (passivity/inanimate object) which makes this less personal.  Why?

"I signed "none" in the tip line and my name on the signature line and left my ticket on the table.

I take notice of the pronoun "my" in the statement.  Here, he takes ownership of a ticket that has the word "Nigger" written on it, though it is not here in the statement.  What would I have written?

"I wrote "none" on the tip line, signed it and left it on the table" or I might have written "I wrote "none" on the tip line, signed my name and left the ticket on the table"

I would not have written the pronoun "my", since I was leaving it.  I would take "my copy" of it with me, if I paid with a credit card.  It would be mine because it has my credit card number on it and I am going to take it with me.  

Why the need to take ownership of a ticket with the racial slur written on it?  This is important. We often see possessive pronouns taking ownership of what belongs to them.  "My guilt" (OJ Simpson)  "My victim" (Stephen Trunscott)   "Our guilt" (Patsy Ramsey) 

Pronouns are instinctive and trustworthy. 

Thus far, he has told me it is his ticket, he is apologetic, and thus far he has not told me he did not write it.  

It was not until the next day that I discovered that somebody wrote the "N" word on my receipt.  

How was such a discovery made?

When one "discovers" something, there is generally a search found out.  I would not have used "discovery" here.  Would you?  

"The next day, I learned someone had written..." or "The next day, I heard that..." but the word "discovery" has an artificial feel to it, as if he wishes to convey an element of surprise. Was he searching for this?  Was he searching for someone else when he came upon "my" receipt?

Next, we have a change in language.  A change in language indicates a change in reality.  If not, it may be that the subject is deceptive and not working from memory.  For example, a "gun" on a police officer, may become a "weapon" while it is being fired, but then a "gun" when re-hostered.  A "girl" may become, in a young man's language, a "woman" when romantic contact has taken place. 

We look for a change in context that would cause a change in language. 

It was not just "a ticket" but it was "my ticket" when it was "left" on the table, but now, upon discovery, the "ticket" has become a "receipt", so what has changed?

Was the change due to the carbon copy that belongs to the customer?  This may explain the change in language.  The ticket is left for Red Lobster, but the receipt is with the owner. 
This may justify the change of language, but...

pronouns do not lie. 

It was "my" and not "the" in both places.  He takes instinctive ownership. 

If I had been falsely accused of writing a racial slur to a waitress, the paper it was written on would not be "mine" in any sense.  I would not take ownership of something like that.  It is not just a political hot potato, it is insulting, inflammatory and above all, ungentlemanly behavior and language.  I would not take ownership of it.  

Pronouns do not lie. 

"Somebody" wrote it is truthful. "Somebody" did. 

"At that time, we called my pastor who happens to be an attorney and asked his advice."

This is also the "unexpected" and there are problems within this sentence.  The least of which is that the pastor should be reminding the writer of the Scriptural mandate, "speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor", but that is commentary, and not analysis. 

Note first, "we" called "my" pastor.  "We" made the call.  Now there is some unity...hmm.  

Consistently over the years, whenever I hear "we called", I always ask, "Who called?  Did both of you dial the phone?"

This is an indication of desire to spread out responsibility.  

Did his wife speak to the pastor?

Why is it his pastor, but not "our" pastor?

Was the fact that he is his pastor, and not her pastor related to the different households they were raised in?

"who happens"

This is secondary, which indicates that the subject did not want to immediately say he called a lawyer. 

This is also unexpected. 

If I did not write the racial slur, and "discovered" it, I might call the restaurant to file a complaint against who did it, but my first call would not be to a lawyer.  (nor a pastor...) 

"I do not approve of that kind of talk, not now or ever!!!

He may not approve of it, and likely his pastor/attorney agreed, but he did not say that he did not write it. 

Please also note that he brings in a demarcation of time:  "not now or ever" which may cause one to wonder if there were other times when such language was approved of.  Does the subject anticipate the need to not approve later in life?

Note that "not approve" is not to condemn.  This is a softer statement than to actually condemn a racial insult. 

What do we have here, and what is missing?

The subject wrote a letter in which he apologized in the letter, and he took ownership of both the "ticket" and the "receipt" with the instinctive possessive pronoun. 

He gives a 'sermon' of sorts, though he does not condemn racial slurs, but only does not approve of its use. 

He feels the need to defend himself by his background, yet indicates that there is something else, perhaps, in someone else's household.  

The subject was accused of writing the racial insult on the check from Red Lobster.  He wrote a letter in which he was unwilling or unable to say "I didn't write it."

Therefore, I am not permitted to say it for him.