Thursday, June 25, 2015

Statement Analysis of Charlie Rogers

“Fake Hate”
By Peter Hyatt

This is a copy of the analysis report  from July 30th, 2012.

Event:  A 33 year old female had reported a vicious attack by three masked men, who broke into her home, carved hate slurs into her flesh, poured gasoline and set her house on fire, leaving her for dead.   Initially, state and federal law enforcement did not release the victim’s name, as they reported it as a “hate crime” and wanted to protect her identity.  

When the 33 year old female appeared on television, she spoke for 5 minutes,  using 462 words.

People responded by donating money from around the country, holding protests, vigils, got memorializing tattoo,  and the University of Nebraska closed down, in protest of the crime.

I concluded that she was deceptive, and had self injured.

On August 21, 2012, police arrested the subject for making a false report.

Below is the transcript of the interview given by Ms. Rogers.

Charlie Rogers reported to police that she was the victim of an assault in which three masked men entered her home, assaulted her, tied her up, and carved slurs into her flesh.  She reported that then they spray painted slurs in her basement, poured gasoline around the house, and lit it in fire, making this crime attempted murder. She reportedly escaped, ran naked to a neighbor's house, where she told the neighbor about the attack and called 911.

Analysis is in bold type.  Italics and underlining are added for emphasis in the analysis.

In  Analysis, we look for linguistic indicators of veracity, ranging from the most elementary ("I told the truth") to the more complex (use of sensory detail) in order to discern truth from deception.

Many people feel intuitively that someone is either truthful or deceptive.  Each person, upon hearing (and watching) the televised appearance, makes a decision to believe the account, or to question it.  With analysis, we are able to not only give an opinion, but are able to express the specific reasons why we believe the statement to be truthful or deceptive.

The horrific nature of the reported crime is one that has caught the nation's attention. Analysis dates back to the time of King Solomon and is based upon the very language that one uses, presupposing that someone is truthful and a truthful response or reaction is expected.

With this presupposition, we are then to move forward, from word to word, with an expectation of truth.  If we are 'surprised' by what is not expected, we note this carefully, allowing the subject (speaker) to guide us along the way.

Eventually, the analyst will draw a conclusion:  Truthful, Deceptive, or Inconclusive.  Given the length of the sample here, an analyst should be able to rule out "Inconclusive" in the conclusion.

First we have the statement in its entirety, as aired by media, followed by its repetition with emphasis and analysis in bold type.  In the color coding schematic of Scientific Content Analysis, blue is the highest on the sensitivity scale.

"Being a victim in a situation like this, or a survivor, um, and then having your, uh, integrity questioned I guess, it feels very victimizing again.  It feels very, uh, saddening, uh, it makes an already difficult situation more difficult.  Um.  Because you know my world, has been changed forever by these events and and uh, so that the idea that that people think its a lie so, uh, it's hurtful.  

It's understandable, I mean, intellectually, I understand that people sort of have a hard time wrapping their heads around the events that have happened as do I. 

Um, but I'm a person, you know.  With feelings, with concerns and just so uh, it feels like I don't know, like a punch in the stomach, kinda.  Like a betrayal.  
Instead of the focus being on safety and healing and the investigation the whole things turned into a defense and it starts to feel like, oh, you know like, you know it doesn't even become about the situation.  It becomes something about all together different and then I started to feel like a pawn in a game.  That isn't my game, you know.  This isn't, you know, I didn't ask for this, I don't want this, and so you know the, I , whatever peoples intentions are or are not, um, it is important to me that they understand, for myself and future victims, hopefully there will be none but.

People are people.  Agendas are agendas and I think that this is so important that we distinguish between those two things.  Um.  I was hurt.  And, like what matters is the story.  You know?  That's awful.  It feels awful to me.  This is an investigation.  This is a crime.  This is not, it deserves a level of respect.  I know when these sorts of things happen, it, it ignites fires and that's a good thing, in some ways, um, it can also be a very bad thing.  Um. 

I'm not a pawn in a game, you know.  I'm a person and it very much feels like I'm being used as a pawn.  I want people to know I'm not afraid.  I want other victims to know that it is important to come forward.  I also wanted some control over what was happening in the media.  Um.  And I though that the best way to do that was to do it myself.  I want people to understand.  Maybe you don't know me. 
But you probably know somebody that something like this has happened to. So, for people to think that this doesn't happen here; it does.  It did. 

Everyone is worthy of safety, of justice and of fairness and I'm not hiding from this anymore.  There is fear, but there is resilience, you know, there is, forward."    
                                                               (end of statement

I.               Presuppositional Expectations
II.             Line by Line Analysis
III.           Analysis Conclusion

The subject reported a horrific attack.  We expect her to assert that she was attacked.  
Since the attack was very violent, we have an expectation of sensory description.  Victims of violent attacks often talk about things they sensed, through sight, smell, or touch.  This is a signal that someone is entering into experiential memory and being truthful.  Some examples include:  "the smell of motor oil on his hands", "his breath smelled like beer", "his hands were cold..." or the feel of the knife used to cut, the sound of the gunshot, and so on.  We all have a connection with the past through our senses which firms the events in our memory. 

We expect rage at anyone who questions the account.  When someone is the victim of an attack, there is no possible acceptance that it did not happen:  it is too real, too painful, too close.  Anyone who says otherwise will be met with a harsh reaction. 

We expect to hear fear.  The three attackers are on the loose, and even when someone wishes to conceal fear, it is evident.  

Because she reportedly came forward and gave her name due to her veracity being challenged, we have an easy expectation that she will connect herself to the attack.  This is done simply, without qualification, by the single most used word in the English language:  "I."  We expect to hear, "I was attacked" and "I told the truth."  We would not expect her to not say these things, nor to qualify with "I think I told the truth..." or, "I think it happened,"  Both the absence and the qualification would be flagged for deception on such a plainly horrific violent attack.  The statement here is in italics, as we break it down for signals of truth or deception.  We seek to learn;  Is memory playing?  Does she speak from experiential memory?  

We let the subject guide us.  

People do not like to lie; therefore, they simply leave out information rather than directly lie and cause internal stress. 

I.               Presuppositional Expectations

The following is 464 Words.  
Because this is not an account of the attack, we are unable to measure the statement on its form.  

Of the 464 words, we now count commonly expected words in a violent crime situation 

1.  The word "attack" is used:    0 Times
2.  The word "crime" is used:    1 Time 
3.  The word "truth" is used:      0 Times 
4.   The word "assault" is used:  0 Times
5.   The word "danger" is used:   0 Times
6.  The word "pain" is used:      0 Times 
7.  The word "cut" is used          0 Times
8.  The word "violated" is used    0 Times
9.  The word "blood", (in any form) 0 Times
10.  The word "arrest" is used     0 Times 
11. The word "violent" is used:    0 Times 
12.  The word "pain"                 0 Times
13.  The word "cruel"               0 Times
14.  The word "hurt" is used    2 Times (emotional, not physical) 
15.  The word "pawn" is used 3 times. 
16.  The word "agenda" is used 2 times. 
17.  The word "people" is used 8 times.
18.  The word "person" is used 2 times. 

These are all terms expected in reporting such a violent, sadistic crime.  Their absence is noted as is their frequency of use. 

II.  Line by Line Analysis

"Being a victim in a situation like this, or a survivor, um,

It should be noted that deception is often indicated in statements that begin without a pronoun. 

Where a subject begins a statement is always important.  Here, the statement does not begin with what happened, or an assertion that the subject has told the truth, but rather a classification:

"Being a victim" is then changed to "survivor."

There is no pronoun connecting her to being either.  

She does not tell us that she is a victim, nor does she say she is a survivor. This is why we listen, and do not interpret.  We need a pronoun to connect her and it is absent.  This is an example of passivity in language.  Passivity is often used when concealing identity or responsibility.  She does not tell us who is a victim nor who is a survivor. 

We should also note that "survivor" is a status that is desirable.  Since she is speaking for herself, this may be an attempt to portray herself as a "survivor" in a complimentary form, without making a direct statement.  This should lead the analyst to question if the subject is making a truthful report, or is attempting to persuade.  Since she does not connect herself to the crime, we cannot connect her to the crime.  Because of this, the analyst should be on the outlook for language that distances the subject from the crime, but instead ties the subject to a motive for making a false report.  

Question for analyst:  Since the absence of words describing the crime is noted, and an attempt to portray the subject as a "survivor", is there other language that supports or refutes the notion of having another motive?

 and then having your, uh, integrity questioned I guess, it feels very victimizing again. 

Note that the subject distances herself from having her integrity questioned by using the pronoun "your" instead of "my integrity"; and weakens it even further by reducing this to a "guess."

The subject has not told us that her integrity was questioned.  
In reading the online accounts of the attack, this analyst did not find a single article questioning the subject's integrity.  
That she uses the second person "your" and reduces it (or its impact) to only a "guess", the reader should wonder if the subject, herself, has fabricated the notion of having her integrity questioned in public, especially since television is a public medium for her refutation. 

Please note that the subject does not tell us who feels "victimized again", noting that the word "again" may indicate that if it is not her, than she was not "victimized" the first time. 

When someone is deceptive, they wish to avoid the internal stress of lying so they withhold information instead, allowing the reader/listener to simply believe the subject is talking of herself.  Later she can say she did not lie:  she did not say she was a victim, nor was she victimized again. This is how deception is discerned. 

Since she does not tell us she is being victimized "again", we cannot say it for her, but we can also conclude that if the "again" is deceptive, the original is also not about her, but is deceptive.  She cannot be victimized "again" if she wasn't victimized.  The distancing language of the use of the second person affirms this. 

 It feels very, uh, saddening, 

Note the passivity.  Previously I stated that passivity in language is used to conceal identity or responsibility.  "The gun went off" is an example of passivity.  It is truthful, the gun was fired, but it conceals the identity (and responsibility of the shooter). 

Note that she speaks of emotions, not of physical pain from a horrific assault.  Physical pain, especially from the up close and personal carving of flesh, is something we would expect to hear about, not emotions of sadness.  We expect anger at such a terrible intrusion and invasion into her personal body.  

We continue to note that she does not say that she is feeling sad, only "it" feels "saddening" (rather than "sad").  This distances her from "sad" twice; once by the absence of a pronoun linking her, and the other from being "sad" directly, as it is only "saddening", or that which causes sadness.  This distancing language is noted for deception.  

uh, it makes an already difficult situation more difficult.  

Note that she reported a horrific attack, but here it is reduced to a "situation."
We do not expect someone to call a vicious and violent attack a "situation."  this is called soft language.  Soft language is an indication that there is no linguistic connection to the assault. 

 Note that she does not say for whom an already difficult situation exists.  If she cannot use a simple pronoun to connect herself, we cannot do it for her.  Now, we find that she uses a first person pronoun:  

Um.  Because you know my world, has been changed forever by these events and and uh, so that the idea that that people think its a lie so, uh, it's hurtful.  

Here she uses "my world", in the present, has been changed.  By what?  She says "these events", with "events" being plural.  What events?  The attack?  The TV appearance?

1.  Note that "event" is not a word linking to the "attack" as it is softening language. 
2.  Note that "events" is plural indicating other "events" have "changed" her world.  
Now note what is so "hurtful":  it is not the vicious attack with knives and gasoline, it is only the "idea" that "people" think.  It is not even the questioning of her account which is hurtful, it is only the "idea" of it.  This distancing language indicates that the questioning of her account may not be real, but only an "idea"; which is buttressed by the fact that I have not found any news agency questioning her account. 

Please note "it's a lie" may be an embedded admission.  This is especially note worthy because we have not heard any interviewer say to her, "people say it's a lie", or, to match her language, "people have an idea that it may be a lie"; both of which would have been excused as entering into the language of another.  Therefore, this appears to be an embedded admission of lying. 

It's understandable, I mean, intellectually, I understand that people sort of have a hard time wrapping their heads around the events that have happened as do I. 

Truthful people do not accept the possibility that they are lying, but when it comes to experiencing trauma, personal and violent, but when it comes to physical assault, there is no allowance for someone to question the veracity.  Any questioning brings anger and biting words.  This is similar to the report of violent crime:  "the SOB stole my life!" and not "the gentleman caused me discomfort."  Language must match reality.  Here, the subject allows for others to not believe her.  Her allowance is wise.   Psychologically, liars sometimes do not want to be in the position of defending their lies; they do not wish to be linguistic adversaries, therefore, they "understand" or allow for doubt.  When someone allows for doubt, it is wise to believe them. 

The most important word in the English language is "I."  It is used more than any other word, and it is a word that humans are perfect at using.  They do not say "we" when they mean "I", as they know if they were alone, or were with others.  Here, she finally ties herself, via the important pronoun, "I" to something, making it a very important sentence. 

"I understand..."  Since this is the first entrance of the word "I" into her statement, it is an important sentence and it is something she links herself to:  understanding that she will not be believed. 

She does not use the word "I" to tie herself to "attack"
She does not use the word "I" to tie herself to "truth."
She does use the word "I" to tie herself to disbelieving her story.  

This is called allowing the subject to guide us. 

Even she, herself ("") has trouble believing it. If it happened, why the trouble?

If the subject allows for even herself not to believe or "wrap her head around", while bearing the physical scars of a violent, sadistic attack, we should allow ourselves room not to believe it, either. 

Um, but I'm a person, you know.  

She declares herself to be a "person", which is gender neutral, instead of a "woman."  We now have "person" introduced and will note its further use in the singular or plural form.  We seek to learn how she identifies herself.  She did not call herself a "victim" nor a "survivor" as the pronouns were absent.  Here, the pronoun "I" is used.  Why the need to declare that she is a “person”?

With feelings, with concerns and just so uh, it feels like I don't know, like a punch in the stomach, kinda.  Like a betrayal.  

"She is a "person" with feelings.  This indicates that she may believe there are others without "feelings" and is a focus upon the emotional.  She then describes her feelings like "a punch in the stomach".  This is unusual since we learned that her stomach was reportedly carved with a knife, a terribly painful and humiliating experience.  Yet, there is no mention of it, only a "punch" related to emotions and not a physical attack. 

Instead of the focus being on safety and healing and the investigation the whole things turned into a defense and it starts to feel like, oh, you know like, you know it doesn't even become about the situation.

The subject introduces the word "focus" here and then tells us what the focus is not on:
1.  safety
2.  healing
3.  investigation

1.  Safety.  There are 3 violent, sadistic, hateful men on the loose who "found" her (as reportedly written in her basement) of whom we would expect her to be in terror of.  
2.  Healing.  By the time of this interview, the wounds are fresh.
3.  The investigation is mentioned last. 

Note "starts to feel" is emotions and not physical. 

Note the word "situation."  Why is it that she cannot bring herself to call it an "attack"?  Why is it reduced to a "situation."? This is a linguistic disconnect and another signal that she is not linking herself to a violent crime.  

In order for us to link her to the violent crime reported, she must tell us so.  

If she cannot bring herself to link herself to a violent assault, we cannot do it for her. 
If she cannot bring herself to say "I told the truth" while interviewing over her veracity, we are not allowed to do it for her. 

  It becomes something about all together different 

"It becomes" is also passive language.  Who made it become something?  This is an indication of deception as she does not want to say who it is that is making it become something.  When a deceptive person employs passive language to avoid being recognized or responsible, it is often the subject, herself, who is responsible but does not wish to be revealed.  Without a pronoun, there is no strong statement made. Next, the pronoun reemerges: 

and then I started to feel like a pawn in a game. 

We always note when someone reports something as having begun, but not completed.  She "started" to feel, which uses "feel", another emotion, instead of physical or sensory descriptions of the attack. 

She introduces two important words to the reader:

"pawn" and "game."

A "pawn" is a small piece used in a larger scheme. 
A "game" is not a word we would expect to hear over a vicious attack.  She has introduced to the audience the notion that a "game" is being played out before them, and she is a part of the game.  This is a strong disconnect from a violent crime. 

 That isn't my game, you know.  

Analysis takes note of anything reported in the negative as highly important.  Here, she tells us "this" isn't "my game."  This affirms that it is a "game" but only that she does not want ownership of it.  This is evidenced not only by the negative denial, but also by the word "that".  

The word "this" indicates closeness; while the word "that" shows distance.  "Please pass my that book.  No, not that one, but this one..." showing closeness and distance.  She denies that the game, of which she feels like a pawn, is hers, and uses the distancing word "that".  With “that” there is a “this”, just as with “this” there is a “that” in language.  When someone says, “I didn’t do that” the follow up question should be, “What did you do?” (Parents know this instinctively)

Since it was she who was physically attacked and it is she who is talking so that people will believe her, why is she employing distancing language?  Why is it "that"?  Why is she distancing herself from the report,  linguistically?

This isn't, you know, I didn't ask for this, I don't want this, and so you know the, I , whatever peoples' intentions are or are not, um, it is important to me that they understand, for myself and future victims, hopefully there will be none but.

Here we have broken sentences, which indicate incomplete thoughts, or self censoring.  She began with telling us what "this" is not, but then stops and tells us that she didn't "ask" for "this" and that she does not want "this."  
She then began her sentence with the strong pronoun, "I", but quickly changed to "whatever peoples'..."

She introduces "pawn", "game" and "intentions" into the statement.  This is very important in understanding what it is she is doing.  

By now, it is evident that she is not asserting that her police report was truthful.  
She does not link herself, linguistically, with a violent crime. 
She introduced "game" and "intentions" to the statement, telling us that something else is going on, and it is not about a physical, violent, sadistic and cruel assault. 

We also take notice of "people" being used; the plural of "person" which was something that she called herself.  The link is not lost upon us:  intentions, game, pawn, are all related, just as "person" is related to "people."  

Investigators should see to learn if she acted alone. 

She then tells us what is important to her:  it is not that the three assailants are caught before they return to finish what they started, but that people "understand." 

In a truthful account, we expect to hear terror, physical descriptions, and harsh language of a harsh attack.  We expect of upmost importance that the three attackers be caught so that she, and others, can be safe from such horror. 

People are people.  Agendas are agendas 

She introduced the word "agenda", and repeated it, making "people" and "agenda" two things that are sensitive to her. 

She does not speak of the attack, nor does she affirm truth, but speaks of agendas, games, pawns, understanding and feelings. 

and I think that this is so important that we distinguish between those two things. 

It is important that "we" distinguish between "those" (distance) two things:  "people" (of which the single is "person") and "agendas", that is, a reason that someone has for another purpose, like a pawn being sacrificed tactically, in an overall strategy to fulfill an agenda (checkmate) in a chess "game."

 Um.  I was hurt.  

The "um's" are added as spoken, as they show pauses, which indicate sensitivity or time to think.  For some, it is a habit of speech.  Habits of speech are noted for when they appear and when they do not appear.  Here we have a strong statement:  

"I was hurt."

The problem for the analyst is that in a horrific attack as described, including attempted murder and mutilation, the words "I was hurt" are needless.  In Analysis, whenever we have unnecessary words, or "unimportant" information, we deem it "doubly important" to the analysis being done.  That she was hurt in such a brutal attack does not need to be said; in fact, simply saying "I was hurt" is an understatement.  What caused her "hurt"?  We follow the context for answers.  Just prior to this sentence she spoke of being a pawn in a game that is not hers.  This is emotional and not physical.  We rely, then, upon the next sentences to help us understand what "hurt" she experienced: 

And, like what matters is the story.  You know?  That's awful.  It feels awful to me.  

She does not make us wait long to find out:  emotional.  She now introduces another new word to her account.  It is a word that truthful people who have experienced violence against them do not like to use;  "story."

She introduced her audience to the themes of "games" and "agendas" and now tells us what matters.  

What matters is not the three dangerous men on the loose, or who they may harm next.  What matters is the "story."

This is a very strong indication that Ms. Rogers is telling a "story" as part of a "pawn" in a "game" because she has an "agenda."  

The subject, Ms. Rogers, is leading us to understanding. 

Note the emotional description of the hurt:  "it feels."

This is an investigation.  

Yes it is.  It is now not only a local investigation, but a federal one, as well.  If it is a hoax, it has just gone from misdemeanor status, to felony status in which she could face prison time like her university's professor who reported a fake hate crime as well.  (Kerry Dunn case)

This is a crime.  

This is also a truthful statement, as seen in its plain language.  "This" is close and may refer to the false reporting. 

This is not, it deserves a level of respect.  

Note the call for "respect" and not for "fear" or for catching the three violent perpetrators who can get to her again.  Instead, she begins with what this is "not", stops herself, (missing information) only to introduce a new word, "respect."

Why would the respect enter this?  She has spoken of her feelings and now speaks of not only respect but a "level" of respect. 

The broken sentence shows an incomplete thought.  Here she tells us what "this" is "not", which shows the closeness of the word "this" and the importance of the "negative"; which she then self-censors.  What she was about to say is important and would be learned in a follow up interview. 

"This is not a hoax"   If this is a direct lie, it would be difficult for her to complete the sentence.  It is very difficult to make a direct statement against reality.  Recently, a subject yelled at me, "I didn't do..." and stopped.  I did not respond but just listened and took notes.  In the entire lengthy interview, the subject was unable to put together a complete simple sentence of "I didn't do it" in spite of many opportunities.  

A brutal and horrific attack does not need to be said to need "respect" as it either happened or it did not happen, as reported, regardless of sexuality.  It needs to be investigated and prosecuted.  The level of brutality described, including the attempt to burn down the house, is attempted murder.  Yet, she wants "a level of respect."  This is an indication that she is not speaking of the crime, but of her story.  (Note: At this point in the analysis, my emotions are engaged.  It is something I needed to be aware of:  I feel sorrow for the subject who seems to crave respect and relevancy.  It is important for an analyst to gauge emotions.)

For the subject, the vicious attack deserves only a "level" of respect:  why the need to qualify "respect" by level?  That "this" only deserves a "level" of respect brings doubt upon her story.  She allows for understanding of doubters and instead of being scarred from the assault "demanding" justice, she speaks of a "level of respect".

This is a strong indication that she feels in life, that she is not being given a "level of respect" and it is likely attached to her advocacy.  These are indications of motive.  

Should her story prove to be a story and a hoax, people will speak of her mental health and excuse her behavior, yet here she may be signaling her intentions, which she understands and is purposeful.  If it is a hoax, she is not "insane"; in that she does not understand what she is attempting to do with regard to her advocacy. 

I know when these sorts of things happen, it, it ignites fires and that's a good thing, in some ways, um, it can also be a very bad thing.  Um. 

What are "these" short of things?  Breaking into a home and carving someone's flesh?
Please note that "these sorts of things" are rare.  Carving into flesh?  When was the last time we heard of assailants carving slurs into someone's flesh?  To reduce it to commonality is a red flag for deceptive hoax.  

 Note the reference to igniting fire.  Did she ignite her own fire, which, in spite of three men with gasoline, did minimal damage to the home?  

If she started the fire, it makes sense that it would enter her language. 

This shows an attempt to portray this horrific crime as common.  It is not.  This is very unusual because it downgrades the special status of such a unique victimization and seeks to "share" common ground with others.  When did we last hear of someone being brutally attacked and have slurs carved into the skin?

Note that igniting a fire, in "some" ways is a "good thing" but it also can be a "bad" thing, with "good" qualified by "some ways" but "bad" having no qualification.  The "bad" here, in her statement, is stronger than "good."

I'm not a pawn in a game, you know.  I'm a person and it very much feels like I'm being used as a pawn. 

What we hear in the negative is always important.  Many times someone says "this is not personal" and you learn:  it was personal.  
"It's not about the money" is often exactly about money. 

Here, she may be signaling that she is playing a "game."

 I want people to know I'm not afraid. 

With three violent men, who hunted her down and attempted to kill her, on the loose, she wants people to know she is not afraid.  This appears to be an attempt to portray herself in the role of "survivor", that is, favorably, rather than report truth.  This is status, including "heroine" status she attempts to bestow upon herself, and must be weighed in correlation to people, or a person, having an agenda. 

 I want other victims to know that it is important to come forward. 

She assumes that others who have been attacked, tied down, carved into their flesh and house burned would not come forward.  This shows no connection to the reality of what she reported. 

 I also wanted some control over what was happening in the media. 

"Control" and "media" are linked together.  This should be understood with the introduction of the word "agenda."

 Um.  And I thought that the best way to do that was to do it myself. 

This is another linguistic indication that the subject may not have acted alone.  She "thought" it best may be because someone else thought otherwise and indicates that even in coming to do the televised interview, there may have been some debate. 

 I want people to understand.  Maybe you don't know me. 

Here is a perfect place to say that she told the truth.  Instead she wants people to "understand" and she recognizes that people do not "know" her.  This links "understanding" to "knowing" her.  This is very personal.  She wants understanding and it is likely that she has felt very misunderstood in her agenda and this may explain what she is doing. 

But you probably know somebody that something like this has happened to. So, for people to think that this doesn't happen here; it does.  It did. 

This sentence may be embarrassing to her as she tells the audience that they may know someone of whom "something like this has happened."

Do you know someone who had his or her flesh carved with slurs?
Do you know someone who had 3 men break in and attempt to burn someone to death in their house?  

This shows a disconnect from reality.  She did not report a common hate crime of any sorts, but went very far into sadistic details along with reportedly slurs spray painted in her basement.  "We found you *****" as if she was being hunted down.  

This is terrorizing and could paralyze someone with fear.  No one would be safe until the three monsters are found, yet...she speaks of her feelings, respect, games, and agendas.   She does not, even once, reference the horrible nature of the attack. 

Everyone is worthy of safety, of justice and of fairness and I'm not hiding from this anymore.  There is fear, but there is resilience, you know, there is, forward."  

"Everyone" is a word related to "person" bringing focus, not upon the attack, nor even upon attackers at large, but upon Charlie Rogers, herself.  We look at all references to persons within a statement, in all analysis, even in a short interview like this. 

"Victim" or "survivor" appears to be attempt to portray herself in media terms that is favorable to subject. 

"There is fear" is passive.  This is not expected in such a personal vicious attack.  Passivity suggests concealment.  What is the fear?  Who is afraid?  What is she afraid of?  Being caught and found out as a liar? In a vicious attack, we expect one to be

She was interviewed because she has been accused of lying.  This makes the question, "Are you lying?" the non spoken question.  It is simple to answer:  

"I did not lie.  I was attacked by three masked men."  She did not say so. 

If she cannot bring herself to assert herself as having told the truth, we cannot be expected to do it for her.  This is a rule in analysis.

III    Analysis Conclusion

Based upon this interview, void of any and all physical evidence:  

There is nothing within this short interview that shows that Charlie Rogers is telling the truth about the assault.  Not even Rogers, herself, affirms it to be true.  

We expect her to say she told the truth but she did not.  If this really happened to her, why doesn't she make a simple assertion to say so?

This is indicative of a hoax that she, along with her agenda, has perpetrated upon the public.  The public has responded with overwhelming support, rallies, politicians and the raising of money.  The subject has a lawyer now, and will likely need one.  

Ms. Rogers is deceptive about being the victim and survivor of a horrific attack.  

She will likely face charges of lying to law enforcement, locally and federally.  

Part Two:  After the video was released, a friend of Ms. Rogers spoke to a media outlet, who agreed not to use her name. 

Question for Analyst:  Did Charlie Rogers act alone?

We know that her story was a hoax.  What we do not know is if she acted alone, or with someone else. 

Were the carvings self inflicted, or did someone help her perpetrate this hoax?

A woman who would only say she is a "friend" of Charlie Rogers spoke to a media outlet and described the wound on the stomach.  Before we look at the quote from her friend, , we do what we always do with  Analysis:  Review the expected. 

What would you expect to hear from a friend who has just witnessed the horrific carving up of her flesh in order to communicate something so vicious as this?  

How would you describe such a wound on a friend or loved one?

What words would you use?  Angry words?  Words that contain forensic descriptions?  Words such as “blood, cuts, deep, harsh, painful”?  Imagine she is your friend and you saw this gruesome barbaric cruelty perpetrated against someone you care about.  What words would you choose?  We expect anger, disgust, and repulsion, as carving into a friend's flesh is abhorrent and shocking. 

Her friend said this about the mutilation of her flesh:

 “things carved on her body that can only be described as hate, that somebody can only be taught and we need to stop teaching it.

1.  Notice the word "things" is the noun here.  It is not that she was cut into, the noun shows us the topic is not the carving into the flesh, but what it was that was cut "on" the flesh which is the topic of interest for the friend.  This means that the injury is not of interest, but the message.  This is not what is expected. We now see if the rest of the statement agrees with the noun, or does she talk about the brutal attack and barbaric carving, or is it the "things" or messages, that is the friend's focus: 

2.  Notice the "things" carved "on" her body.  This should lead investigators to learn how deeply cut Rogers actually was.  This is an indication that the cuts were not deep "in" the flesh, but were more likely surface cuts "on" the flesh.  

I noticed that as I wrote here, I felt the repulsion of such an act, and I have written carved on her "flesh" but in looking at the subject's statement, she uses the more distant word "body" instead of the more detailed "flesh" which I used.  This suggests that I, and readership, are more horrified at the thought of this crime than the "friend" of Rogers. 

They can "only" be described as "hate"; which causes us to ask, "What limits the subject from describing it other ways?  Size?  Scarring?  Blood shed?  No description is given, which is distancing language. 

3.  Note "somebody" is singular.  Rogers reported that it was "3 masked men" who attacked her, but here, the friend instinctively calls the perpetrators "somebody."  

a.  Does she have knowledge that only one person did it?
b.  If only one cut her with a knife, but the other 2 encouraged or did not stop him, it would be that "they" did this.  

This "friend" should be investigated as having participated in the hoax in order to get the message of "teaching" hate out to the public. 

The friend gave no forensic descriptions of the wounds, instead used it as a platform of the message, echoing Rogers' own words about being a "pawn" in a "game" played by more than one piece ("pawn").  

4.  That she uses the word "we" when it comes to "teaching" suggests that the friend is part of the hoax and likely wishes to be part of the fame in gaining a platform for her and Charlie Rogers' agenda.  The pronoun "we" shows unity and cooperation.  

That Charlie Rogers did not act alone may come from indications from her own words, but this "friend" appears to have knowledge of the wounds, themselves, yet uses no language to indicate the brutal attack, nor anger towards the attacker (s) whom she identifies in the singular. 

Police should seek to learn if Charlie Rogers was assisted by this friend in perpetrating the false hate crime hoax which has stirred the passions of many, and now is soliciting donations. 

Question for analyst:  Did Charlie Rogers act alone?

Answer:  It is likely that Charlie Rogers did not act alone and that this friend may be the one who carved "on" her flesh.  

Update:  the police affidavit reported the following:
  1. No blood stains on the bed where she said the attack took place
  2. Location of the store where the knife and gloves and ties were purchased
  3. Ms. Rogers denied ownership of the gloves.  Police found her DNA inside of them as well as the DNA of another person:  female DNA
  4. FBI forensic medical doctor said the wounds appears self inflicted, except some appear “passively” inflicted, perhaps by another, and they are superficial and avoid sensitive parts of the body.
  5. Ms. Rogers wrote on Face Book, a week before the report that she would be watched and would change the world.
  6. Inconsistencies from Ms. Rogers’ statements. 
  7. Implausibility of various aspects of her report.

We also learned that her original attorney did not release funding for her, but withheld the money until the police completed their investigation. She has a new attorney for the criminal charges.

2013 update:  Ms. Rogers pleaded guilty to various charges including filing a false report. 


JC said...

I was a tad sceptical in SA when i first started visit your blog, which was before this case broke. My intuition, without knowing the principles of SA, was telling me, something is off here. I couldn't put my finger on what it was about the events she had reported happened to her.

I logged in to see if there was any analysis posted. I was OMG, this is scary (analysis that is) The accuracy, not just the principles that you have taught us, but, the "expected" Vs the "unexpected, explained in a manner that (laymans terms if you will) gripped me and galvanized the science that is SA and put pay to any scepticism i had.

Thank you for passing on your expertise and knowledge. Language has never been the same since :)

Statement Analysis Blog said...


Take some of the cases you are familiar with and search the blog for them.

You will see an evenly applied principle. Most have conclusions. A few say "more information is needed", or "this subject needs to be investigated further" but they are in the minority.

You may see some of your 'heroes' touched upon, as politics, sports and entertainment (some may argue that these are all one and the same) figures are analyzed.

If there is someone you prefer "not knowing", I understand.

My wife, Heather, does not want to know anything about Bob Hope.

Sometimes analysis brings sorrow.



just sayin' said...

Off Topic - I've been fascinated by the magnitude of the lies told by Rachel Dolezal. She was interviewed on tape in 2014 about her "experience as a black woman" as part of a graduate student Lauren Campbell's thesis project. The video is in five parts on youtube, and much too long to transcribe, but it is a stunning, jaw-dropping example of how liars respond to the "open question." If you've been reading Peter's blog, you will recognize many of the common devices that liars employ to deceive.

I can't believe how many stereotypes she embraces to make her story sound plausible. Cringe!

Anonymous said...

Peter do you think parents can raise non lying trustworthy kids without religion? My initial thought is YES I AM DOING IT RIGHT NOW. I've busted my kids lying, i've told them it's not acceptable and nobody likes a liar etc. But am i doing enough? When i was around 5-6 i figured out that religion is an insitution to affect control over a society. They should not have written such fanciful out of this world stories about Jesus and God, or perhaps not have Santa and all the other fake stuff that degrades your trust of what is truthful in the world. At any rate, I am a truthful person. I believe my kids will grow up to be truthful people. I hope i am right!

Unknown said...


There was a psychological study I read about that stated that we, parents, teach our children to lie. That, through disciplinary actions teach children there is a consequence to lying. Not just consequences of lying, but of getting caught. Only by learning the difference between right and wrong Whether through religion or without, and when to apply those principles is what determines, I think. The level of honesty in children.

On topic:

Charlie Rogers says "um" and "uh" a lot throughout her statement. Also adds in "you know". If you look closely you will notice that ums and uhs only seem to appear when she's speaking about the event and her feelings. Due to the relative infrequency, I feel confident that her ums and uhs are to pause to think of what to say next and their location within the sentence suggests constructive language.

The presence of you know throughout the statement is positioned such to give the impression of attempts to pursuade, like she is wanting us to fill in the blanks, or to believe what she said. " You know, that guy who has a really nice car at work!"

Unknown said...

All you can do anon is the best that you can and be the shining example :)

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Regarding lying and children, I will let you decide about religion; instead, I will focus upon business.

In business employment, we screen out liars because, statistically, they will steal, file false claims, trouble others, harm morale, ruin reputations, and so on.

In a recent example, an applicant withheld a theft that he had when he was 17.

This came to light due to small town knowledge.

The employer asked me if it was possible from the point of analysis, that the 30 year old "learned his lesson" on theft and would not steal should he hire him.

I addressed this with HR.

There are two things necessary to protect the company from hiring a liar who will steal. This particular company has had yearly success using Statement Analysis in HR, including major drop in theft, unemployment, and even putting the right person in the right position. They need no persuasion that the statistics and principles are trust worthy.

There must be two elements present to consider giving the young man the position.

1. Acknowledgement of the crime, truthfully, with regret for what he did, which means no deception and no minimization.
2. Emotional distress. He must express, somehow, that the theft damaged his conscience or person, internally, which bothers him; not for being caught, but for an internal distress. In religion, this is easy to spot, but outside of it, the person must show remorse beyond just being caught.

If these two elements are present fully, he should be interviewed and not ruled out.

After all, we all make mistakes. What businesses are looking for is people who learn from their mistakes.

It means a disruption in "success" in lying. Thievery is lying in action.

This is my advice to HR and statistically, with the companies employing this system, the results are astounding.

One company has gone several years without a single loss in unemployment hearings.
Another reduced theft from average $50,000 per year down to zero in four years running.
Another has not had an assault (in a business known for this type of crime regularly) since using Statement Analysis specifically seeking those who are prone to using physical assaults. (A company works with mentally retarded children and adults: these are those who are statistically most likely to be physically assaulted and to be sexually abused; especially the non-verbal and screening of employees is critical).

Police departments WILL reduce embarrassing assaults and police brutality by using this process. One bad cop makes 1,000 look bad.

Personally, knowing that there is a God, and an afterlife, makes sense to me, and offending Him in sin, including lying, stealing, and racism, can bring about an internal sadness that will lead the person to making a life long change.

If all that is in life is to go through 70 years and bury my bones in the ground, for what purpose was life? This is where philosophy says it is jealous of religion. I don't blame it.

I will address:

"The deception of deception" in a series of articles coming up. I am still working on the Genesis of Human nature, which will likely be met with a few raised eyebrows.


a baby (infant) that is sexually abused, and not physically injured, can have life long negative impact.

Why is this so?


Tania Cadogan said...

Regarding hiring the 30 year old that withheld the theft when he was 17.

Was he asked if he had ever stolen anything?
Was he asked if he had ever committed a crime for which he was caught?
Had he ever had contact with police?
Had he ever been in court?

If he was asked these questions and answered no and it later turns out that at age 17 he had committed theft, i would be dun bious taking him on even though it was long in the past.


He withheld information, it is deception by omission.
Why would he not be truthful?
It may be embarrassing, it may be shameful, however knowing he was being honest would work better for him allowing the employer to decide whether to give him a chance.
By withholding the information, no matter how trivial, it causes the employer to wonder what else he isn't mentioning.
If he can't be trusted to tell the truth now, to be honest with me , how can i trust him to be truthful and honest with me if i employ him?

Deceptive people have a reason to be deceptive.
The trick is learning what the deception is.

Elle Emm said...


Amanda Knox just can't shut up, can she? It disgusts me that she is now associated with the Innocence Project, because there are actually people in jail who are INNOCENT. Not like AK who is guilty of something, we just can't pin down what actually.

I don't think she killed MK but she sure knows something about who does and has consistently lied about her involvement. Ok, she got away with something, now she should creep back into the shadows and lay dormant.

Unknown said...

I consider this analysis one of your 'greatest hits', Peter...along with your analysis of Billie Dunn, and Mark Redwine!

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to question her. Get her in a positive mood asking simple questions "They spray painted hate messages in your house" and "they used a knife on your body". "So they wanted to spread this hateful message?" Then ask her why would they burn the house with her in it destroying the message they want to spread? Watch her body language change and blink rate go through the roof.