Sunday, March 29, 2015

"No Man Can Lie Twice": Statement Analysis of Cat Stevens

Yusuf Islam

Readers here know that "no man can lie twice."  This is a principle that my healthy scientific skepticism caused me to carefully research, including employing the help of many others, including analysts, investigators and researchers. 

I asked for any information that could defy this principle. 

*This is why we "lock one into his lie" on a statement.  We know that "no man can lie twice", which is now a powerful tool in our hand.  We cause the subject to focus in upon his lying statement.  If we know "he did it" while he says "I never did it", we then bring his attention to his lie, knowing it will force him to tell the truth. 

We can force someone into the truth.  

This is the power behind the principle that "no man can lie twice."  I will give a short explanation here, but please use the search feature to grasp this amazing rule in Statement Analysis, and learn how you can use it to gain truth.  

Here it is:

If one says "I didn't do it" and really did "do it", the subject will not be able to look at his lie, and lie about it, saying "I told you the truth."  We can use "never" as well, once it is confirmed that "never" is not only "unreliable", but it is a lie.  

We "lock" the subject into a position, truth or lie, and then focus his attention on his statement and force him to tell us the truth. 

In Analytical Interviewing:  

We psychologically force the liar to tell the truth.  

In trainings, we do it over and over and over, until the investigator knows how to pounce on it.  Once we have locked the subject into an answer, truthful or deceptive, the right technique will always yield the truth. 

If he did it, and says he "didn't do it" or "never" did it, and we focus his attention on this lie

The pronoun "I" and the word "truth", coupled with "told" or even "telling", will not exist in his response.  "Lie", "lying", and other such words may, but "I told you the truth" will not exist on top of a lie, but will exist on top of the truth. 

In other words, by locking the subject into one or the other, we now use his own ego against him, clearing the innocent, and exposing the guilty in the interview process.  

Analytical Interviewing is the sharpest sword in the arsenal of all lie and truth detection.  

Rule:  No man can lie twice. 

When the liar is asked, "Why should we believe you when you say you didn't do it?", he may say 
anything along these lines:
"I don't lie.  I'm not lying.  I am not a liar."

He may use the word "lie" but he will not be able to use the word "truth" with the pronoun "I" and "told" or "telling" in his response.  It is that psychologically, he cannot look at his own lie, and lie about it.  

I know, I know, it is not something easily understood but the years have proven this out. 

Perhaps Cat Stevens can help us understand it. 

If you grew up in the 70's, you likely heard Cat Steven's, "Peace train" "Morning Has Broken" and "Father and Son."  It was almost required learning for anyone trying to play the guitar.  

If you've read this blog anytime in the past few years, you've come to see that the word "never", when referencing a specific allegation, is deemed "unreliable" for our work.

We play the odds. Cat Stevens, having spoken up recently, has given us the opportunity to test our principle.  

We work by percentages. We are guided by odds, turning left when it says "70% turn left" and turning right when it says "80% turn right" and, with enough signals, we get to the truth, whether one is guilty or innocent.  We will know.  

It can be that "never" is an appropriate response, especially if the question is, "Have you ever...?", but when found as a denial, in substitution of "didn't" or "did not", is not reliable. 

Sometimes, unreliable does not necessary mean deception, but where it is that one will not make the simple reliable denial, we are likely looking at deception.  

Back to Cat Stevens. 

He eventually dropped this stage name, converted to Islam, denounced his records, but continued to cash royalty checks, giving away money from "offensive" songs he sang. but keeping the rest, with Rolling Stone estimating that from the few hits of the 70's, he has brought in about 1 million dollars per year, every year.  

Some wondered if the 70's folk-rock star would return to popular music  but 9/11, however, brought anger from Americans, though, perhaps, less from his home country.  

As the years went by, he moved to the middle east but his children kept urging him to return to music.  
Yusuf Islam, (he new name), was conflicted about playing again, but the war in Afghanistan was raging and another conflict was looming in Iraq.  Over the years, Yusuf's children tried in vain to get him to begin playing guitar again. Then, a few months after 9/11, Yusuf found himself holding an acoustic guitar his son had brought home. It made him cry, he said, even as he continued to use his money to build Muslim schools in England, and even sought to raise money for victims of 911 as a way of countering the negative publicity for Islam. 

 Yusuf Islam said  that the world needed "to see at least one nonviolent Muslim on TV. " He chose himself to be that Muslim but, he was confronted about the death sentence pronounced by Muslims on the author, Salomon Rushdie.  
Recently, after recording another album, he addressed the issue and said, 

""I was never a supporter of the fatwa, but people don't want to hear that" to Rolling Stone magazine. He said that he was sick of everyone bringing this back up to him, over and over.  He was serious about showing a non violent Muslim to the world.

Was this a reliable denial?

A reliable denial has three components:

I.  The pronoun "I"
II. The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"
III.  The specific allegation answered.

"I did not support the fatwa against Salomon Rushdie" is an example of a reliable denial.  If asked why he should be believed, were he to say "I am telling you the truth.  I did not support the fatwa against Salomom Rushdie" the odds of him telling the truth are now above 99%.

We play the odds and where the sample is increased, so is our success, when we stay in principle.

"I was never a supporter of the fatwa, but people don't want to hear that" has the pronoun "I", and the accusation ("fatwa") but the verb "didn't" is not there, violating component number II.  The entire quote will follow, with analysis.  

"Never" is something we hear a great deal from deceptive people.  Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones and David Ortiz "never" took PEDs, and all three relied upon the number of tests they passed as "proof", yet were unable or unwilling to say the word "didn't" in their denial.  

"Never" can be considered, psychologically vague, as it expands over indefinite time.  

Cat Stevens did speak to a college audience and it was recorded.  Stars often get "passes" on things.  Michael Jackson's child molestation pay offs and lack of denials did not stop the hero worship, even after his death, in spite of the lifetime of pain inflicted upon his sufferers. 

Women were raped by Bill Cosby, yet his audience support is strong. 

Methinks is A-rod hits home runs, the man who not only cheated, but threatened to sue the game of baseball, while lying, will be cheered in the Bronx.  

Yusuf Islam

Now, if "I was never a supporter" is a lie, will he lie about it, should he refer back to it in the complete statement?

Our principle says that if "I was never a supporter of the fatwa" is, indeed, deceptive, he will be unable to refer to this statement and lie about it.

Even in the Islamic rule of deception.

This means that even if it is his religious belief to lie to non-Muslims, or "unfaithful Muslims" in the cause of Islam, psychologically, he will be unable to look at it (if it is a lie) and lie about it.

I will not keep it a mystery.  It is true that he publicly stated that Salomon Rushdie should be murdered for his exercise of free speech.  Therefore, the unreliable use of "never" is deception indicated."
I will give the quote shortly. In fact, he has said he "never supported" it, more than a few times over the years.  Yet, he did, in fact, support it, publicly.
In the entire quote, spoken recently, we have him addressing his lie.

Question:  Will he be able to lie about his lie, affirming the "never" to be true?  If so, the principe is broken.  

Yusuf Islam
Yusuf Islam playing in London in 2009. Samir Hussein/Getty Images

After the Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie in 1989, Yusuf had told a crowd at London's Kingston University that "He must be killed. The Quran makes it clear: If someone defames the prophet, then he must die.
This was recorded.  Herein proves that "never" was deceptive, but there is no surprise there, and, perhaps, not a big deal.  We see a lot of deceptive statements here, in the, you know, deception blog.  However: 

We now have the chance to see what happens when he is referred back to this.  

That he really did support it, had some repercussions for his money making. When Rushdie heard about Yusuf Islam supporting the fatwa and did a comedy sketch with  Jon Stewart, he called Stewart, quite angry about the apparent hypocrisy of Stewart, since Steward claims to be a freedom of speech supporter. 
Jon Stewart's reply also is here for analysis: 
"It became very clear to me that [Yusuf] is straddling two worlds in a very difficult way," Stewart said two years ago. "I wouldn't have done [the bit], I don't think, if I had known that. . . . Death for free speech is a deal-breaker."
You may note the weakness in Stewart's statement.  "Death for free speech is a deal breaker" but he only "thinks" he would not have done the comedy bit.  
In a recent interview, Cat Stevens defended himself, and clarified his belief.  Since his denial was unreliable, and video tape proof to the contrary, would he ask for forgiveness?  Would he say it is wrong to condemn someone to death for free speech?
Would he lie about his lie?

Remember:  We, the Statement Analysis world,  claim this to be impossible. 

What about the two worlds?  Not only do we have the "no man can lie twice" rule, but Stevens is now faced with a dilemma:
If he says he was wrong to support the fatwa, he has to deny the Koran and could be killed for it by the "peaceful religion."
Can he say "I never supported the fatwa.  I am telling the truth", it would mean that he has to lie about his lie.  

He was in a tough place.  Since I believe in the rule, he would have to look back at his lie, using the word "never" and contradict it, and admit the truth:  he believes that Rushdie should be killed.  

*Please note that this is what we mean when we say we want to "lock the liar into his answer."
We get the liar to commit to his lie, and then we focus on the lie, and produce truth.  

If he says that killing over free speech is wrong, he speaks against Islam. He could be sentenced to death for it. 
If he believes in Islam, seeing that he denied it the past, will he come clean?
Will he be deceptive?

Remember:  it is impossible for a liar to lie about his lie.  "No man can lie twice."  There is something within us that will not allow it.  The reporter said he made this remark clearly irritated:  

 "People need to get over it.  It's 25 years ago. I've got gray hair now. Come on. I was fool enough to try and be honest and tell people my position. As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't be the subject of my life.  I'm a firm believer in the law.  I was never a supporter of the fatwa [against Rushdie], but people don't want to hear that because they keep saying that I believe in the law of blasphemy. All I'm saying is, how can you deny the Third Commandment? It's an Islamic principle that you must follow the law of the land where you reside."

Here is the same quote with analysis: 

 "People need to get over it.  It's 25 years ago. I've got gray hair now. Come on.

He begins with the responsibility of "people." This is not about whether or not he said an author should die for expressing his opinion, but of "people" having to "get over it. "
Next, note the passage of time:  "25 years" and "gray hair", spoken close to getting over it, showing the reason people should "get over it" is due to time. 
"come on" shows a persuasion.   Is he saying, 
"I was young and foolish but now I have gray hair and am wiser and of course, I do not want someone beheaded for free speech.  I disagree with him but defend his right to say it."?

Remember:  we do not interpret: we listen: 

 I was fool 
The emotional impact of this word, "foo", with the pronoun "I", is that one is now older and gray, and wiser, and was a "fool" as being young.  
Again, do not interpret, but listen: 

"I was fool enough to try and be honest and tell people my position. 

Note that being a "fool" when he was young was not for the position, but because his "foolishness" was in being honest. 
In his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, being a "fool" is telling the truth to the college audience. 
This is similar to the doctrine of Aisha, where a Muslim can be deceptive, but only to non Muslims and only for the cause of Islam.  
Note "my position" takes ownership of the position:
The author who ridiculed Islam should be put to death. 

As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't be the subject of my life

Note that "this" is close; and it "shouldn't" be the subject of his life.  This recognizes that for many, particularly Americans who saw the multitude of death in the name of Islam in the New York City, and 911 attacks, it is associated with a pop star who took for his last name, the very word associated with death:  "Islam" and his very public declaration of support for its call to kill. 

This from a man who wanted to show a non violent Muslim on television.  He was only a "fool" for telling the truth about Shariya law.  The law comes directly from the Koran and for him to deny it, would be to have the "peaceful religion" visit violence upon him.  
Deception Indicated. 
Keep in mind his use of "this" and "that" in his language.  "This", that is, the fatwa, should not be the subject of his life.  "This" is close to him.  It was caught on recording that he did support it, and even here, he not only reaffirms it, but blames himself for being a "fool" when he told the truth to the audience.  Next, he gives another reason for believing the "fatwa" against Rushdie: 
 I'm a firm believer in the law.  I was never a supporter of the fatwa [against Rushdie], but people don't want to hear that because they keep saying that I believe in the law of blasphemy. All I'm saying is, how can you deny the Third Commandment? It's an Islamic principle that you must follow the law of the land where you reside.

The word "that" shows distancing language.  Yet, even as he distances himself from the fatwa, he now defends it:
1.  it is the law
2.  It is the third commandment in Islam
3.  It is an "Islamic principle" that "you" must follow the "law of the land."

Not only is it Koran, Islam, but he also says "the law of the land."

Question:  In his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, what "land" does he refer to?
Saudi Arabia?

Please note:  When he said he "never" supported it, he was deceptive.  Yet, a more powerful principle is in play:
Referring to his lie about denying it, would he lie about his lie?

He would like rock and roll hall of fame and what it brings but he refused to reinterpret the Koran to make it sound peaceful.  He refused to lie about his lie.  

This is one of the most complex of principles, and in the live training, it is done best through repetition, but it is also one of the most powerful of all tools.  It is what makes the questionnaire so brilliant:  It locks every person into an answer, which we then pound away with questions, getting the subject to defend or deny his answer. 
It gets us to the truth. 

Analytical Interviewing is for law enforcement, human resources, employment, journalism, therapy, counseling, sales, business negotiations, and just about every place where truth is needed to be known. 
Analytical Interviewing clears the innocent, and exposes the guilty. 
It uses the principles of Statement Analysis within the accepted guidelines of psychology and human nature, and gets a subject to commit himself to an answer, "yea or nay", and then re-focuses the subject back to his answer, knowing:
if he is lying, he will not lie about his lie.  He will come clean. 
If he is telling the truth, he will truthfully asset this.  

Cat Stevens fell on his own sword. 
He, as a "peaceful" Muslim, called for support of the death of a expresser of Freedom of Speech.  When pointed back to his statement, which was deceptive, he could not lie about his lie.  He had to come clean. 
No man can lie twice. 
In Steven's case, he not only was unable to look at his lie and lie about it, but actually went to the point of supporting the violence of his religion.  He yielded even more information, giving the reasons for his violent belief.  

In the interview, he continued to back peddle from his statement.  We all have our own internal, personal, subjective dictionary.   Remember, the word "dog" is often used to describe non Muslim.  The recent article, "Is this my Jewish boyfriend or my dog?"that was controversial, and in the news this week,  touches upon this theme. 
Stevens, or Islam, sings one song that he was challenged upon.  Was he calling Rushdie, the "dog" of the song?
One song on the new album seems to take aim at the controversy: "Cat and the Dog Trap." "Cat's in a cage," he sings. "Chained to a stone/Empty bowl by his side." He admitted it was autobiographical, but he refused to ID the inspiration behind the antagonistic dog, though Rushdie is a likely suspect., said the author "I used to be followed by a moon shadow," Yusuf says when pushed on the topic. "Now I'm followed by all these misconceptions, and they're like a ball and chain. I just want to write music from my heart and give people a message of hope and the search for a better place."

It would be interesting to learn what "hope" and "better place" he has for Rushdie, who lived his life in fear and hiding.  
Yet for us, it is another example of how Statement Analysis can not only get to the truth, but how its principles are so powerful; so very powerful, that they may be employed in the interview process, and "force" the subject to "show his hand."
The liar does not wish to be seen as a liar.  
The liar will not look on his lie, and lie about it.  He will come clean, or he will be silent. 
There are linguistic indictors that most subjects find irresistible, and will talk.  More on that later...


spent the night in frisco said...

Cat Islam is a bearded cartoon god worshiping freak of nature.His "views/beliefs"do not matter.You peter ,highlighting them only secure my view of him.

Matilda said...

Good article about the principle of not being able to lie about a lie. So sad and disturbing, all of it, even him giving up his music bc he was so talented. How did "Peace Train" turn into "Fan of Fatwa"?!?! SO SAD!!!!!

John Mc Gowan said...


Bill Cosby Accusers Sunni Welles And Margie Shapiro Say He Drugged, Sexually Assaulted Them

LOS ANGELES, March 27 (Reuters) - Two more women came forward on Friday accusing veteran comedian Bill Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them decades ago, when they were in their teens.

Sunni Welles and Margie Shapiro joined the more than three dozen women who have accused the 77-year-old comedian of sexual assault, reading statements alongside celebrity attorney Gloria Allred.

Welles said she was a 17-year-old aspiring singer at the time of her encounter with Cosby, which took place in the mid-1960s in Hollywood after a visit to a jazz club.

"He was a star. He was Bill Cosby and I buried it in my memory until all of these brave women began to come forward," said Welles, who sobbed during her statement.

Best known for his "America's Dad" persona Dr. Cliff Huxtable on the top-rated "Cosby Show," Cosby has never been charged over any of the allegations. He settled a 2005 civil suit alleging sexual misconduct.

Representatives for Cosby did not respond to requests for comment on Friday. Cosby's attorney Marty Singer has dismissed similar allegations made by other women as "discredited" and "defamatory."

The allegations have scuttled Cosby's television projects and led to cancellations of numerous comedy performances, although he continues with his "Far From Finished" tour.

Shapiro said she was 19 and working at a donut shop in Santa Monica, California, in November 1975 when she met Cosby, who drove her to his place, where she took a box of matches with his name on it as a souvenir.

He later drove her to Hugh Hefner's Playboy mansion, where she said she took a pill after losing a bet with Cosby, and woke up to him sexually assaulting her.

She presented the matches on Friday, which had November 18, 1975 and "from my evening at Bill Cosby's house" scrawled in pen inside.

Cosby is set to perform concert shows on Friday in Baltimore and Saturday in Charleston, West Virginia.

Allred, who represents several accusers, said Cosby "appears to be treating the allegations of so many women who have spoken out previously as a joke."

She criticized him for wearing red silk pajamas in a 10-second video last month plugging his West Virginia show.

"Given so many allegations that he drugged and sexually assaulted women and that they awakened naked in his bed, his decision to appear in his pajamas is extremely offensive," Allred said.

John Mc Gowan said...

Update AJ Hadsell

Missing university student's father was trying to interfere with probe, prosecutor says


Hadsell told WAVY-TV he was arrested after police interrogated him for 15 hours, and asked what he knew about his stepdaughter's disappearance.

“They asked me where she was at,” Hadsell, 36, told WAVY-TV March 21 during an interview at the Norfolk County Jail. “I know, give them the answers. I can bring AJ home. Their words last night [Friday].”

It would be interesting to know if this was said in the free editing process ?

Was he answering the question. Or is this is what he was thinking at the time of the question ?

Hadsell said he had nothing to do with Anjelica’s disappearance and just wants her found safe.

The Virginian-Pilot said police have declined to say whether Hadsell is a suspect in the disappearance.

John Mc Gowan said...

This is one of my favorite principles.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


It took me a long time to grasp, and even today, it still amazes me. I am still learning.

It is difficult to put it into practice outside the simple, "Tell me why you should be believed?" but with constant rehearsal, including via video tape, it does come.

The subject, once his stance is obtained, is then challenged, but it is not the stance that is challenged, it is the WORDS he employed in his stance, that we then go after.


jen dugena said...

Im a fan of Cat Stevens - i like his songs - but Ive always wondered about his honesty & authenticity. Yrs ago I saw the vid on youtube where he said that he wanted to see Rushdie be burned alive. When he was asked about this, he said it was a `joke' and attributed the 'joke' to his "dry humor".

"Two months later Yusuf Islam appeared on a British television program, BBC's Hypotheticals, an occasional broadcast featuring a panel of notable guests to explore a hypothetical situation with moral, ethical and/or political dilemmas. In the episode ("A Satanic Scenario"), Islam had an exchange about the issue with the moderator and Queens Counsel Geoffrey Robertson.[5][6] Islam would later clarify the exchanges as "stupid and offensive jokes" made "in bad taste", but "part of a well-known British national trait ... dry humour on my part."[1]-Wikipedia

Yet I also thought his response was in a way similar to the response & thought process of PH boxer Manny Pacquiao wherein Manny 'condemned' homosexuals as sinners & that they're bound to hell (the way some born again xtians in our country think & the way a few friends I know who are also bornagain xtians think - yet Pacquiao & some friends I know actually have & like gay friends/relatives,people,celebrities. I thought they just say it because thats what theyre supposed to say accdg to their religion but thats not what they really are inside). The same way, in our country, there is an area in Manila where a mosque and a catholic church actually stand together peacefully & have done so for decades. Though the same cant be said in southern Philippines where a war is going on against muslim rebels but I think this is more about territory & greed than it is about religion - civilians killed in the war are also muslims. Still, I suddenly remember a muslim govt official chase a waiter with a knife (it was featured in the news) because the waiter accidentally served her with pork (which is a no no because muslims believe eating pork would send them to hell - but chasing a waiter with a knife wont?)

The "No man can lie twice" principle is very enlightening. I think more practice & examples would further help me understand the principle. I also remember an ex I had where he would tell me stories about his experiences & then follow it up with a question `You think Im lying huh?' -- which would make me think, "I dont think ur lying at all, are you?" - but I never did ask that question. Years later I discovered he is a pathological liar& my question actually made sense. & now I think the "No man can lie twice principle" applies here.

Anonymous said...

Vicki Says..

I have done this twice on my husband. The first time I got NO answer, just I got my answer. The second time I got the real truth out of him instead of a vague non-answer.
I find this so cool!

Tania Cadogan said...

they keep saying that I believe in the law of blasphemy

This caught my eye as an embedded admission.

Would people not say "he believes in the law of blasphemy" if it came up in conversation or cat stevens/yusuf islam believes in the law of blasphemy.

He would be repeating what other people say and they wouldn't use the pronoun I, they would use he or his name.

Debbie Hooper hubahuba x said...

Ok analyse a murderers statement"I didn't kill him"AND "He was murdered by somebody else,not me,I have an signed witness statement,and ctv as proof I did not kill him",ill later reveal who said that.Please analyse? thanks Debbie xx

Statement Analysis Blog said...


good point.

I am reading about rapes in Sweden, and the statistics. I am also reading the same about the UK.

I don't understand why women's groups are not more vocal in the UK.

I get the "phobia" taunts, but in some of these locales, non Muslim women are in danger, every day of their lives.

The citizens either have to completely avoid an area (a de facto 'no zone' area) or do they need an armed escort?

I went for a hike with Christina and Dex yesterday (see the video and photos she took!) and I told her about "Sweden apologizes for insulting Islam" when the official raised the issue of women's rights.

She looked at me incredulously, so I took the iPhone, and went to the news story.

The official brought up the human rights violations of women in Saudia Arabia.

Saudia Arabia said "she has insulted Islam." and removed their people.

She apologized because businesses sell arms to Saudia Arabia.

Yet, what is missing here?

a. Sweden: Do not abuse women.

b. Response of abusers: Do not insult our religion.

c. Sweden: I'm sorry.

And what does this prove??

I hope thinking people are seeing how words have consequences. The "devaluation" of women is like calling murder "harmful" to the victim.

Even as Sweden attempts to hide the identity of the rapists, it is ineffective.

Where is Michelle Obama's tweet about these women?

Where is the outrage?

What must it be like for a victim to learn in court that she "wanted" to have sex with 7 men!!!

It is going to come to an explosion of backlash if it is not stopped.

We need to talk about this.


Anonymous said...

I love this principle! I want to learn how to corner people with it that I know are lying. I am so disappointed. I did not know about any of this and I love some of his old songs. For some reason, I thought his new name was Jewish.

This makes me think of Jane Fonda and her Vietnam statements and if we can apply the principle to her.

Anonymous said...

What if you ask someone something, he makes a denial, you ask him "why should I believe you?" and he says "I guess you shouldnt."

Tania Cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

What if you ask someone something, he makes a denial, you ask him "why should I believe you?" and he says "I guess you shouldnt."

March 30, 2015 at 7:49 PM

He is telling you the truth right there, don't believe his denial. sad to say.

People tell you exactly what they mean if you listen to what they say.

tania cadogan said...

I eat biscuits!!!!!!!!!!!

tania cadogan said...

I eat HobNobs! mmmmmmmmmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Anonymous said...

Amanda Knox mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic BBM

A bizarre California "kidnapping" case took another strange turn Tuesday when the lawyer of a woman who was allegedly abducted last week -- only to be "found" unharmed days later and 420 miles away -- said the culprits only abducted her as a practice run for kidnapping future high-profile victims.

Denise Huskins, 29, was allegedly abducted on March 23 in Vallejo, Calif., only to turn up unharmed two days later in Huntington Beach, Calif., her hometown. Police called the case a hoax last week shortly after Huskins resurfaced, but have since declined further comment.

Douglas Rappaport, the attorney for Huskins, told ABC News Tuesday that he received a "15-page, single-spaced email" from the kidnappers. He said the group compares itself to the crew from the heist movie "Ocean's 11," who refer to themselves as college-educated career criminals who only nabbed Huskins as a practice run so they could kidnap higher-profile victims in the future.

“They felt terribly when they discovered it was her, but since this was a training mission, they decided to carry it out regardless,” Rappaport said.

They then dropped off Huskins in Huntington Beach, Calif., where they felt she would feel safe, ABC News reported the email said.

Rappaport declined to show the email to ABC News or discuss how he received it, but the outlet said it was able to view it from "another source."

Messages left with Rappaport's office and Vallejo police by were not immediately returned Tuesday.

Also on Tuesday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that it had received a series of emails from someone claiming to be one of Huskins' kidnappers, saying that her ordeal was real and that they wanted to clear her name.

One email demands that police apologize to Huskins for calling the incident a hoax.

The Los Angeles Times also has received an anonymous email.

The emails include details about the alleged kidnapping, and refer to auto thefts and burglaries that the sender says his group committed.

Authorities had originally treated Huskins' disappearance as a kidnap-for-ransom case after her boyfriend, Aaron Quinn, reported her as missing to police on March 23. But police said last week they had been unable to locate her or any of her family members after Huskins resurfaced, retained an attorney and stopped cooperating with police.

Vallejo police spokesman Lt. Kenny Park said last week that Huskins and Quinn, 30, have now become the targets of an investigation into whether they did anything illegal in reporting a random, violent abduction and a ransom request of $8,500.

"There is no evidence to support the claims that this was a stranger abduction or an abduction at all," Park said in a statement last week. "Given the facts that have been presented thus far, this event appears to be an orchestrated event and not a kidnapping."

Park told reporters at a news conference last week that police had doubts about Quinn's initial report of the abduction, but said they had a responsibility to investigate thoroughly and speak cautiously to the public.

"It was such an incredible story, we initially had a hard time believing it and upon further investigation we couldn't substantiate any of the things he was saying," Park said.

Park also expressed disgust at the resources the two squandered -- saying more than 40 detectives had worked on the case -- and the fear they instilled in the community over what was reported as random violence.