by Peter Hyatt
First, regarding transcripts for analysis:
Readers should feel free to post transcripts, especially of videos, for analysis. I do not have the time to tackle them all, but readers with experience love to chime in and get involved.
Please be aware that posting a video link is not likely to bring much in terms of analysis: a 4 minute video clip may translate to 2 hours of transcription. If you are serious in wanting an opinion, you must take the time to transcribe, and accept the responsibility of error remembering that an entire analysis can turn on a single mistakenly typed word.
Secondly, regarding requests for analysis...
Article or Topic Submissions
Simply begin your comment with "OT" which alerts the reader to "Off Topic" news story. John McGowen is generous with his time and often points out interesting articles that readers may wish to view its statements.
Please keep in mind: The purpose of these have to do with Statement Analysis, which is why John posts them, and this relation may be either that the articles have statements which the analysis will be interesting or the article has follow up information to a story we have already covered.
Simply make a note of this in the comment section to begin the comment.
Do not be offended that most all readers will be analyzing your comments: it is what we do. When agenda driven comments arise, people see it for what it is. If an issue is bothering you, state it plainly, and ask questions.
Thirdly, commenting policy, errors, and timeliness.
We have up to 4 volunteers at any given time who delete comments. It is not easy work and it is especially something that has to be rotated, not due to volume, but content.
I apologize to readers who had to read taunting or insulting replies prior to deletion. It is most unpleasant to read something like this, which I understand, and we do get to them, eventually. The comments run in the hundreds per day, and whenever there is a delay, there is something unpleasant and insulting there.
Google spam does eventually catch up to the influx of ads, propaganda, and general scams (though I am not as concerned about readers getting scammed here, as other blogs may).
Here are some things to consider:
Hyatt Analysis is now full time, with the hopes of moving from a volunteer staff to full time staff, including analysts. There is a great need for this work, well beyond law enforcement.
The blog helps the business as it causes intelligent law enforcement to contact me for training or seminars.
Analysis here causes Human Resources to contact us, as well as attorneys, business professionals, counselor, journalists, and, overall, smart people who know lie detection is not easy, and that few are good at it. We have done not only criminal analysis but:
Hiring Analysis with screening for violence, agenda, deception and personality
Investment Analysis including fraudulent claims
Psychological Profiling (interview preparation)
From here, investigators, criminal and civil, as well as business and social service professionals, get formal training, deep and challenging, and make strong impacts in their careers, for both the public, and for their businesses. The need, perhaps, for discernment, has never been higher.
It is troubling to read someone take principle and falsely apply it to fit their agenda. This blog bears the business name and we would not want someone to read it and say, "this must be foolish!" and compare it to something like 'backwards' reading, or greatly exaggerated claims of instantaneous face reading. Lie Detection is hard work and 101 books and articles are interesting, but will end up in error the first time the analyst is faced with a complexity, such as in the case of sexual abuse, which I will touch upon below. The "Lie to Me" TV show did not help the cause either, and reminds me of the Lassie TV show (I own the DVD) where Timmy says,
"What's that Lassie, boy? Mom is at the house and the barn is on fire and Dad is busy eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich unawares that his wife is about to be burnt to death?" all from just a bark.
Lie To Me: "See that raised eye brow, Senator? That tells me that you cheated on your wife, took a bribe from the company, and are willing to sell your country's military security for campaign contributions!"
How 'psychic' must one be to predict that a senator would have a girl friend, take bribes, and solicit campaign contributions in exchange for military secrets?
Analysis is hard work.
I work with departments and companies around the country and stand on the analysis.
When one asserts, but does not prove, I ask the volunteers to delete it. There are plenty of places to go to openly assert an Elvis sighting, but not here.
When one deliberately misuses principle to further agenda, I ask that it be deleted.
When a comment begins with anything like, "You will probably delete this...", it gets deleted. It's a time saver.
When one insults another, it gets deleted, as does profanity, racism (the hatred of a race), or those who make hate personal; it is one thing to detest an ideology and another to have personal hatred without a cause. If someone posts hatred of a person and it is justified (a murderer's victim), it is not deleted.
Of the past year, hatred towards police has increased and these get deleted too. The usual protocol of respect is standard.
Disagreements = Growth
|I've not liked all of my conclusions|
In the recent posting of a letter about migrants in Germany (English being 2nd language): Should someone say, "I actually think this letter is a fraud and here is why..." it opens for discussion and is good. These comments stay and allow for back and forth.
A good example of disagreements = growth is the volume of criticism I received about the DeOrr case.
This criticism was not in the form of direct attacks, but in the relentless posting of the statements and the 'de facto' demand for in depth analysis; rather than 'phoning it in' due to busy scheduling.
I responded to this criticism, though it took hours, because it is a case readers demanded be done, and I respect that. I was dissatisfied with my own work, not that it was incorrect, but that it was superficial and my conclusion was lacking conviction. Disagreement spurred me on.
I understand that a supporter of a particular politician may not be pleased, for example, when I analyze a statement. Best to challenge the analysis rather than attempt to assign motive.
Whoever is in the news more often will have more transcripts, thus more analysis.
Here is a topic that brings out rage and where comment moderation falls behind due to volume. When the truth is discovered, most readers enjoy this, the agenda driven do not. Please be patient.
Regular readers are familiar with my work with rape victims and victims of Domestic Violence, which are, overwhelmingly, female. The imbalance in number means more sample of which to quantify for analysis later. I teach an entire separate chapter on the language of women who were sexually assaulted in childhood, and I do this for one purposeful reason:
I do it simply because an adult female victim of childhood sexual abuse will use phrases that appear deceptive and investigators must not only be aware of this, but ask specific questions in order to uncover if the alleged victim is using these phrases due to a form of disassociation in her language. This includes PTSD like symptoms as well as the inability to describe what happened.
This training is crucial to get to the truth. True enough, male victims are in much lesser numbers, and speak differently than female victims, and much more research is necessary. Which brings me to my next point on Data Building coming up.
Each week we learn of, on average, 500 people, world wide, murdered due to the specific ideology of supremacy taught from the Koran and the life of Mohammad. The slaughter has increased dramatically since the "Arab Spring" took place.
What is different about these reports, current, than past reports is that, almost daily, actual video of these murders is posted online. It is all but impossible for it to not emotionally impact the viewer.
"Islamophobia" is the term used to dismiss this slaughter, which is on the increase and all here will not tolerate denial.
Islam is an ideology of supremacy which must, psychologically, result in violence. It is not that we have a few psychopaths around the world killing for no cause. We have that.
We have an ideology that is far worse than anything the Nazis dreamed of, and specifically calls for the deaths of:
Muslims who have left Islam
and it prescribes draconian punishments against criminals and it unequivocally opposes the civil rights of women.
Supremacy itself, leads to violence as it strengthens a corporate victim status. If someone has ore than me, the supreme one, it must be due to fraud, therefore, the one who feels slighted must respond.
The Koran teaches that women are worth only 50% of the man, and that a husband should use physical violence to bring her to obedience. The devaluation of woman in an entire ideology has led to violent suppression consistently. We do that which we believe.
How many people die, each month, due to obedience to the koran?
On average, about 2,000.
This excludes actual combat casualties. This is why it is said that Islam is the only religion in the world that increases violence when its followers become devout. It is a religion of "coercion", whereas the other world religions are religions of "persuasion" that use reason, charity, and mercy to gain followers.
It is criminal action, in the name of religion, on a scale the world has never seen, including Nazi Germany, which only lasted 15 years. This has been an insulated criminal holocaust for 1400 years.
Before the 2008 election, there were few deniers of the Islamic atrocities but it has become "in vogue" to deny this, with shout downs of "Islamophobia" and Europe is suffering in what is becoming a new anti-semeticism that far exceeds the scope of Nazis.
The Rape Epidemic in Sweden, even when viewed through the deliberate deceptive techniques used on the statistics, makes Sweden the most dangerous place in the world for women, outside of a small country in Africa. If you "straighten" out the statistics, it may be the single most dangerous place for a woman. See: Sweden: Rape Capital At Gatestone for more information.
The supremacist ideology, criminally, is not something Americans understand, even in the slightest.
As I read, each day, of the deaths all around the world, including the secular Muslims, I am appalled.
In America, we had holocaust deniers in the late 1930's, in much larger number than we do today. Today, the holocaust denier is looked at as foolish, agenda driven anti-semites. Yet, today, the murders committed by Islamic supremacists is being denied. These comments will be deleted. It is just too horrific to read of these accounts, see the actual videos, and hear the cries of the oppressed only to read someone denying the bloodshed.
About once a week, a homosexual is murdered and thrown from a roof with a video given as proof. It is unbearable to watch and must not be denied.
Every day, a woman is murdered in an "honor killing", marrying a "kaffir", or leaving the Islam religion, just as every day violent protests include, "carbecues" in Sweden, and women who are raped not only do not receive justice, but are blamed for the rape. Statements of judges, prosecutors and even the public, are posted for analysis, and at times, shocking, in their blaming of the victim.
A new psychological term is being heard, called the Rotherdam Effect, where police, so fearful of being called "racist", are turning their backs to those who are raping children, pedophilia, grooming, and so on, which only empowers those who believe themselves superior.
This is where police are fearful of making inquiry or arrest due to being labeled an unpopular term.
It impacts the UK just as it impacts the innocent mother in an apartment in Baltimore, who can no longer leave her home at night for fear of violence, while police fear accusation of "racism" if they attempt to effect an arrest.
Europeans are so fearful of this that they are forced to make their own reports, with Germany, for instance, having its corporate media deliberately withhold brutal facts of which citizens needed in order to keep their women and children safe. Interviews with displaced citizens show, even in second language, the "coal in the mouth" that was popular in the 30's and 40's, fearful to speak the truth.
The techniques of European corporate (main stream) media are deceptive, and will continue to be exposed through analysis.
This is a new wave of crime of which deception exists and is so powerful that I have begun a series of articles on it, in a separate blog so that it can be discussed in depth, for interested readers.
The last point is the most exciting of them all, and allows me, and those who work with Hyatt Analysis, to express gratitude to readers:
First, is the challenge of analysis.
Analysis of a public case is published. No cases with law enforcement are published, and where we work on a case that is in the news, the news story is not published here. The integrity of the case is paramount.
When a case is in the news and analysis is published, consider that the actual investigators are reading the analysis.
Also reading are experts within their fields, some with decades of experience.
This puts the analysis under a crucible of testing.
On several cases, actual case investigators disagreed with the analysis. Since they were the ones who knew the case details and the analysis dealt only with words, the analysis conclusion is put to the extreme test.
This is to produce excellence.
The analysis, which stayed strictly within principle, and avoided speculation, including the emotional temptation ("straight face test" issues) to rush to judgement, proved to be accurate, in the end, either by confession or polygraph. Since investigators had the analysis on one hand, but detailed case elements, including forensics on the other, you may well imagine how the investigators consider analysis today, including some who have gone on to training. In only one case did an investigator "dig in his heels" and refused to budge, though the warning of re-offense was in the conclusion of the analysis and the statement of the child tested true. The cleared offender went on to re-offend.
Having analysis publicly open to scrutiny by professionals and intelligencia nationwide (and even world wide) is to produce excellence. Some of you have recognized that "anonymous comments" were head and shoulders above the status of amateur and openly opined.
I have seen the principles collected and articulated from LSI become the basis for all schools of "Statement Analysis", which is like "math", while the application of the principles can vary widely.
Last week, I was interviewed by an NBC affiliate KWES TV, from Texas, along with Clint Dunn, the father of murdered 13 year old, Hailey Dunn, journalist Erica Morse, and interviewer, anchor Victor Lopez. Lopez graciously allowed me to comment on "batting 1.000 due to conservative and diligent conclusions" rather than rushing to conclusion. This ahead of a book I hope investigators will find useful, as it highlights just how much information is released, even when a suspect appears on television.
The greater the scrutiny, the greater the potential for excellence.
Next, this blog represents a marvelous opportunity to gather data.
We are grateful for the contributions of readership here in ways that the public may not recognize.
With the two IP addresses, we have had more than 12 million page views, and thousand and thousands of useful comments, including challenges, and input from experts. Besides "iron sharpening iron, it has done something else for us:
It is building data that is invaluable, including "expected" versus "unexpected", which, alone, increases the breadth of a reference point for the English language, post 2000 living. (Language shifts in case ye hath not recognized its wont).
We are ("we", includes readership) forever learning from commentators, not simply things I have missed (this is always a blessing) but we are able to study language and compile our own statistics for eventual publication, on how people respond, in everything from counting words, to pronouns, to which topics elicit which responses.
It is invaluable for me to be able to say, "in this scenario, 20% will respond with..." which can only be accurate when it is large scale (whatever that means) and I am privileged, due to the internet's ease of this work, to not only gather statements from around the world, but reactions as we build a data base of statements of our own.
Although I am grateful for the compilation of statistics from other analysis websites, and have found, for example, LSI's statistics to be accurate, it is exciting to continue this work into the next decades.
My hope is to continue to contribute to the education of those who's work is to discern deception from truth, while assisting the general public in their own dealings with deception and appreciate the criticism, feedback and the opportunity for learning that so many of your comments afford.