Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Statement Analysis of Garnet Coleman

A Texas politician claimed racism on the part of a sheriff's deputy when pulled over.  We have the politician, Garnet Coleman's statement to analyze first.  Then, we have the Dash Cam.

We rarely have such an example, as analysis is to stand upon its own, yet here, we may analyze his statement, using the same principles applied to all statements, but not only are we enabled to see the conclusion of the analysis, but why a deceptive subject chose the words he did. This is a strong lesson for analysis.

We study "content", and are not satisfied with "deception indicated" but look well beyond for answers as to what really happened.  This is often useful in missing person's cases where the subject inadvertently reveals the location of the remains, in spite of intention of deception.

Garnet Coleman held a hearing to talk about racism when he made a statement about being also a "victim" of racism at the hands of a law enforcement official in Texas.

I.  His Statement

II.  Statement Analysis

III.  The Dash Cam

I.   Here is his statement.  What does Statement Analysis conclude from such?

“He talked to me a like a child. He was so rude and nasty. When he found out I was a legislator he became more rude and nasty. What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it.”

II.  Here is the Statement With specific analysis added.  

1. "Talked"

He talked to me a like a child. He was so rude and nasty. When he found out I was a legislator he became more rude and nasty. What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it.”

Communicative language is important.  How one perceives communication is very important.  Since this is an allegation, what is the expected?
"He spoke to me" is the expected.  The word "talked" is used more when there is a two way communication, and when one is lectured, or spoken down to, the word "spoke" is more likely to be used.  It is stronger and does not contain a friendly element. 

We first note this because of the context:  this is not to be a friendly exchange of communication, but of an officer being a racist.  

By using the word "talked", is the subject signaling to us, via leakage, that this was a more friendly "talking" rather than a racist officer lecturing or belittling him?

This may be an indication of deception, but we continue by not making any conclusion on a single indicator of sensitivity.  We note that this word, "talked" does not fit the context.  

2  "Child"

He talked to me a like a child. He was so rude and nasty. When he found out I was a legislator he became more rude and nasty. What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it.”

We note that he began with "he talked to me like a child", using the word "child" in his statement.  Research has shown that when one refers to oneself using the word "child", it is likely that the child experienced abuse in childhood, and if so, it is 80% likely to have been sexual abuse.  
Since this is his assertion, we note his use of "child" as his own choice of wording.  

2.  "So"

He talked to me a like a child. He was so rude and nasty. When he found out I was a legislator he became more rude and nasty. What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it.”

We note that this word is used to amplify the behavior of "rude and nasty" making "rude and nasty" sensitive to him.  This may have to do with expectation.  He did not say "He was rude and nasty", which would have been strong, but "so rude and nasty."   That "rude and nasty" is sensitive is noted.  No conclusion is made from any single indication of sensitivity, but it may prove to be a small piece of a larger puzzle.

3.  "What I'm saying"

He talked to me a like a child. He was so rude and nasty. When he found out I was a legislator he became more rude and nasty. What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it.”

"What I'm saying" is unnecessary language.  He could have said, "he was rude and nasty" but introduced his conclusion, "like a child", and then the emotional increase with "so", which may have indicated that he was comparing this encounter with something else, including, possibly, something from childhood, but here he adds, "What I'm saying" which is like a self-reference, except is it not for the purpose of recall, but to strengthen his point with a conclusion. 

Please note that the "need to strengthen" itself, indicates weakness.  If he simply said, "he was rude and nasty" alone, it would have been strong, yet, who connects "rude and nasty" to childhood?

Answer:  Garnet Coleman, himself. 

He here tells us that being "so rude and nasty" is the way to speak to children, in his personal, subjective internal dictionary.  Was he treated in this manner?  "Rude and Nasty" is not how children are to be spoken to, yet it is the subject, himself, who makes the association.  Was he treated in this manner? What would his own children say? (if he has children)  Does he talk this way to children?

"What I'm saying" is to draw a conclusion that he has already drawn.  Why the need to repeat it? He has associated "rude and nasty" with how children are spoken to, revealing information about his own self, while feeling a need to amplify "rude and nasty" with the word "so", in a context that is not appropriately fitting for his accusation.  

4.   "Boy"

He talked to me a like a child. He was so rude and nasty. When he found out I was a legislator he became more rude and nasty. What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it.”

We have a change of language from "child" to gender specific "boy" in his statement.  As regular readers of Statement Analysis know: 

A change in language must indicate a change in reality.  If not, we may be looking at deception. 

"I drove my car to work.  It sputtered and died.  I left my vehicle on the side of the road."
The car became a "vehicle" when it stopped working.  People change language without thinking, when it is live.  When he picks it up from the repair shop and it is running again, in his personal, subjective internal dictionary, the "vehicle" will turn into a "car" again.

"The officer pulled his gun and fired his weapon.  He re-holstered his gun and gave first aid to the victim..."

The "gun" turned into a "weapon" while in use, but returned back to being a "gun" when it was put back into its holster.  

A change of language should represent a change in reality if the subject is being truthful.  Otherwise, we may have another signal of deception. 

Here, I cannot find any justification for the change other than, he, himself, is a male (gender specific, subject to scientific scrutiny) and likely is thinking about how he was spoken to as a child, himself.  It is very likely that the subject was a victim of child abuse growing up.  

We also know that "boy" is a racially charged insult regarding adult black males. 

5. "I want to be..."

He talked to me a like a child. He was so rude and nasty. When he found out I was a legislator he became more rude and nasty. What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it.”

Here, he recognizes that there is something within his description that calls for clarity.  Since his words are so brief, why would they need clarity?  This is emphasis, and similar to repetition, indicates sensitivity. 

He began with a conclusion:  "he talked to me like a child" and now he "wants" to be "clear", and not that he is clear, only that he "wants" to be clear. 

He has given his conclusion of being talked to like a child, early on, and has repeated it, making it sensitive.  The sensitivity is increased in the additional words.

Is the sensitivity due to deception?

We continue:

"I want to be very clear" is not that he is clear, but only that he "wants" to be clear.  His simple assertion makes the need for clarification null.  Therefore, this is "unnecessary" language, making it "doubly important" to the analysis.  Not only that, but "I want to..." is distancing language, as he states what he wants, rather than what is. He is not done, however:

6.  "I want to be very clear..."

He talked to me a like a child. He was so rude and nasty. When he found out I was a legislator he became more rude and nasty. What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it.”

Not only do we have the unnecessary conclusion and the sensitivity indicators of distancing language, but not clarity, itself, is made sensitive by the emphatic, "very clear."

At this point, he is someone who is "very very very very happy in his marriage", which is to say,

"Do you want the number of a good divorce attorney?"

His need to emphasize and conclude, is over the top.  If you have concluded "deception indicated" here, you are correct. 
Remember, deceptive people have a "need to persuade" that causes them to multiply their words, in their hope to be believed because the truth, being strong by itself, is absent. 

Deception Indicated

I have concluded deception due to his need to persuade, his change of language, and his inappropriate use of communicative language.  He has given us at least 6 signals of deception.  Our rule is to not make a conclusion on a single indicator nor do we conclude deception based upon the use of a 'microscope', that is, something that is so small that we, ourselves, need amplification to conclude deception.  In those cases, we likely do not have deception.   
Deception speaks out to us and in this case, not only is he deceptive, but he signals that the interaction between him and the law enforcement official was something he recognized as 'friendly' which we soon find out just how "friendly" this "talking" was. 

 When we analyze a statement, we employ the same principles, evenly, on one as we do another.  There is no change, no guess work, and no 'outside' information needed.  In this case, however, the dash cam was on and it revealed interesting information.  

Garnet Coleman drove past the police officer at 94 miles per hour.  
He was driving his personal car, but with official state license plates.  
He was pulled over and the Dash Cam recorded the interaction.  This is edited from the American Thinker.com 

 Officer:  “What’s the rush?"

Coleman:  “I’m just trying to get home,” Coleman said, alternately saying he was unaware he was doing 94 mph, or that he did not know 94 mph was illegal.

The trooper said he was going to let him off with a warning, which was the same thing another cop in another county did the year before. The trooper reminded the legislator that if he had received tickets instead of warnings, he would have lost his license.

“Stop speeding in a state car, OK?

Coleman denied it was a state car.

“You got state plates on it.”

“I understand what you are saying, speed got away from me, but I am not a child.”

The article continues:  
Then Coleman was on his way. Ticketless.
After the video came out, constituents by the hundreds took to Coleman’s Facebook page and other internet outlets to blast him for lying about the cop, his sense of entitlement, and how he should have received a ticket for driving dangerously fast.
All caught on camera.
(end of article clip)

The subject lied and has given us a solid example on lie detection:  the need to persuade.  He shows why repetition, noted for sensitivity, may be due to the fact of deception being present.  Not all repetition means deception, but all repetition means sensitivity.  We need to learn why something is sensitive.  

That the officer did not give him a ticket at such a high rate of speed is likely why the friendly "talked"entered into his language.  We do not specifically plan what to say in live statements.  The speed of transmission is a good reminder:

The average person has a personal dictionary of about 25,000 words.  When he answers, "what happened?" he must:
a.  Choose what words to use
b.  Choose what to report, and what to leave out
c.  Choose which verb tenses
d.  Choose where to place each word next to one another

This process in the brain takes less than a micro-second of time.   It is what gives us our advantage in Statement analysis and why I urge journalists to join in with other professionals and be trained in statement analysis and analytical interviewing.  

The rest of the article is found from the American Thinker is found:  

It contains another example of lying about police. It came from an activist and reminds me of the "coincidence" of the Maine activist and a journalist  just happening upon a racial event this past Spring. 
The journalist was indicated for deception. 

Police have become a target today and those who are profiting off of it do not appear to have much concern over the long term damage they are doing not only to officers, but to our young people who will be emboldened in rebellion against the rule of law.  

Coleman has refused to apologize for lying.  

We all reveal ourselves by our words.  In this speed of transmission, our own words reveal:

a.  our background, experiences
b.  our education level
c.  our gender
d.  our priorities
e.  our personality

The greater the sample, the more information is gleaned.  This past few months, we have had several "fake hate" anonymous letters where Statement Analysis revealed the author, but not only the identity of the author was seen, but motive and priority came clear.  In this case, that the subject claims to have Bi-polar disorder is not a surprise as he has revealed a very likely history of child abuse in his short statement.  

If you are interested in hosting a seminar at your department, or wish to take the course to learn to detect deception, see www.hyattanalysis.com for details.  

Also, "Wise As a Serpent; Gentle As a Dove" is available at Amazon.com and is helpful as an introduction to Statement Analysis.  

Also, keep an eye out for the new book on missing children and the deceptive parents who were to care for them...


Sus said...

I stopped after your analysis of his comment, before looking at the cam, to point out something.

"When he found out.." I always pay attention to "when." It speaks to time, and possible missing information. In this case, how did the officer find out? Did he tell the officer?

Should I be paying attention to "when"?

Bethany said...

What will be the name of the book, Peter??
Very interested!!

Sus said...

Ok, I finished the post and I see it was the state plates. But the officer knew that when he walked up to the car. He mentioned it later in the conversation.

foodnerd said...

"What I’m saying is that he treated me like a boy. I want to be very clear about it."
"What I don't have the shriveled balls to say myself because I'm only capable of lying,cowardly sneak attacks, but desperately hope you infer from my nonsensical drivel, is that the meanie poo poo head cop is a card-carrying, cross-burning, sheet-wearing racist!
"That's why I was let off scot-free twice for 94 mph reckless endangerment, when my own stupid choices would give an actual racist full legal justification to cuff me and stuff me, and let me chill out in the Graybar Hotel for the weekend until a judge can agree what an epic moron I am."

Great example to learn from! Talk about seeing it coming a mile away. Let's hope those constituents stay angry long enough to sustain a recall petition. Lying scum like this have zero business writing our society's laws, and he obviously just proved to the world what he will do with professional courtesy. Hopefully everyone in the future in any position of authority with him takes note.

foodnerd said...

Peter, it's time you start a trophy wall on the main page in here! Just in the short time I've been around, your blog and/or readers exposed Julie Faker; that racist, lying moron professor; shed light on DeOrr's sad fate and probably others I haven't yet come across.

Nothing fancy or showy; that's not your speed – just a nice little wall of hanging tiny orange jumpsuits clickable to that Graybar Hotel's latest extended stay resident's statement analysis.

foodnerd said...

Sus, "When he found out" is usually someone's weak attempt to avoid saying, "When I told him in order to manipulate him," or in the case of unpaid personal loans, "When I dropped wild, awkwardly blatant, transparent hints and d@mn near rented a billboard across from his house until he finally offered me the money before he had to chew off his leg to free himself from my clutches."

Statement Analysis Blog said...


did you notice you called the interaction a "conversation"?



Anonymous said...


what do you guys thing of Tali Lennox's statement about her drowned boyfriend? personally I think it takes her a long time to say his name.

Sus said...

Yes, I did. It seemed like a friendly conversation to me. I could only hope if I drive at 94 mph the policeman/woman speaks this nicely to me.

Unknown said...

''When he found out i was a legislator''

it seems the legislator didn't want to be ''found out'' as a law breaking legislator.

......why the past tense usage ''i was'' instead of ''i am''???

Once ''found out'', 'I was' a law breaking legislator...but i am no more.

foodnerd said...

He had the state plates specifically to cash in on his job and not be held accountable for his a-hole driving. The officer was supposed to notice them and start kissing his azz and let him go without question, and without him having to commit himself to using his status to dodge possible jail time and impound of his vehicle.

"I never once mentioned my job or asked for special treatment; he just let me go on his own discretion!"

He was embarrassed because the LEO read him perfectly and called him out for it, telling him to not drive like a jerk while representing his state legislature.

As to the past tense language, that's probably more sloppy speech than anything. Most people will say, "I told him I was sorry for what I did!"
So you aren't sorry anymore?

Or even better:
"The man who helped us was Japanese."
So what is he now, Australian?

foodnerd said...

To clarify, I believe the past tense language is a huge indicator when someone is discussing a missing loved one, and am already much sharper at picking up tense changes and odd contexts in peoples' conversations!

By sloppy speech I only mean that people often say "was" to all aspects when recounting a past incident, even when they clearly don't intend to give the impression that an element no longer applies, like when Rep. Windbag said he "was" a legislator.

John Mc Gowan said...

Before i read your analysis, Peter. It was the change in language, i thought, uh ohh.

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Boy missing near Grand Canyon wandered for four miles in wrong direction before dying of exposure

Jerold Joseph Williams, five, is thought to have become lost in the wilderness before he lay down to rest and never woke up.

A five-year-old boy who was found dead five days after he went missing near the Grand Canyon died of environmental exposure, police said.

The body of Jerold Joseph Williams was discovered five days after he vanished while chasing grasshoppers on holiday with family and friends in Arizona.

Preliminary post mortem results showed the little boy succumbed to exposure and most likely did not survive the first night he was missing, AZ Central reported.

The youngster had been staying at a campsite in Kaibab National Forest, around 60 miles from where he was found dead on Monday.

Coconino County Sheriff's Office said Jerold's body was found about 3.7 miles point-to-point from his family's campsite.

Sheriff's office spokesman Gerry Blair said the thick forest would have been difficult for the small boy to navigate and it is likely Jerold found his way to Forest Road 240 and followed it to Forest Road 241 in the direction away from his camp site.

He said it appeared the child lay down to rest in the forest and never woke up. His body was found fully clothed with no obvious injuries and no evidence of foul play.

Jerold was last seen around 2.30pm on Thursday around 12 miles south of Jacob Lake where he was with his mother.

Mrs Williams, of Colorado City, Arizona, told police she lost sight of her son as he was chasing grasshoppers.

Air Force helicopters were dispatched to search the rugged terrain and a number of agencies joined the hunt over the weekend, including search dogs.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


I am continually surprised by the comments here, as well as the volume.

i did a more detailed analysis on the DeOrre case and it was heavily viewed, but on this case, we have a very short statement that gave us a great deal of information, as well as insight into how people lie, and the volume of both comments and traffic is light.

I remain perplexed!


I recognize the interest this case holds and should the parents speak publicly and have even an average interview, it is likely that we will have "the conclusion of the matter."

I am also surprised that there have not been many complaints about not drawing a conclusion in this case. This is actually a good sign that readers learn not to jump to conclusions. I have also seen that in the mother's 911 call, those that feel she is guilty have not read into the call, but understand that:

a short 911 call that does not show deception is just that: it did not show deception. It does not mean that she is truthful, it means only that on THIS statement (transcript of the call), there was not enough to conclude deception.

It is encouraging to see growth in understanding.


John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...


I think it is a fine example as you say. Possibly to use in your training seminars and on line course's too, for which i will be taking soon :) I say this because in is such a "short statement" it yields so much.

New England Water Blog said...

New topic, old song...

"It can't be real"


Trigger said...

Garnet Coleman was caught speeding twice and was excused twice. He then attacks the second officer who excused him, with accusations of racism, knowing that the officer had a camera recording the conversation.

Carnet Coleman, what are you thinking? Only a crazy fool would do that.