Steve Wentz: How Many Deception Indicators?

How many signals of deception can you catch in a short, several minute, video clip?

Please keep in mind the questions asked, and the techniques employed.  This is a useful video for training purposes.

Europe: Lions Under Attack

Zoologists, studying the patterns of lions and zebras for many generations, have begun a plan of integration between the two species and it is creating a stir among zoo keepers, visitors, and the scientists who instituted the plan.  Zoologists claim that it is largely a cost-savings plan and that lions have been maligned in the public mindset for far too long and captive breeding has eliminated the hunting instincts within them.

They claim absolute scientific data backing their finding that says that lions raised in captivity, particularly 2nd and 3rd generation, having no experience in hunting, that are well fed, will not attack zebras in the enclosures, saving valuable land and showing a strong responsible ethic towards saving the planet, reducing waste, and fulfilling a mandate of integration.

banned photos in Germany and France 

Zookeepers, however, report that once the lions are placed in the zebra enclosures, they inevitably are left dealing with the aftermath:  dead zebras, traumatized workers and visitors, and an ever increasing cry from the public.

In some European locales,  organized demonstrations and boycotts have arisen, claiming that it is not "safe" to bring their children, who are eye witnessing the devastation of the zebra within the enclosures,  by the lions.

Zoologists, certain of their scientific data, claim that zookeepers are not adequately feeding the lions, which only leaves them hungry and desperate for food, forced, in this sense, to prey upon the zebra.

In situations where the lions have been fed under the supervision of zoologists, including the measurement of food, but have still attacked zebras, the zoologists claim that the "negative energy emitting from the fear and phobia of the zoo employees" is creating an atmosphere of "violence and attack" from the lions. They claim that the protestors are actually increasing the risk to the zebra, with their "negative energy" and "refusal to protect the environment."

The zoologists point to their research, the conservation of land, and have issued a statement reinforcing their commitment to integration claiming, "we can manage this."

Behavioral experts have been brought in, who support the integration data,  to assist the lions in their new environment.  One such expert was recently hospitalized with an unconfirmed report of a lion attack but the surveillance video has been destroyed and the expert has declined to comment.

Zoologists have urged the public to "not add to the problem" by videotaping the integration program.

"Lions are not inherently violent", one zoologist stated, "it is the environment that causes the violence.  We must stop seeing lions as predators.  It is antiquated and it is morally repugnant. Behavioralists repeatedly show that lions are peaceful and tranquil creatures and should be treated as such. "  

The BBC reported that "an extremely prejudicial environment" is contributing to the zebra attacks by these 3rd generation captivity lions, citing the behavioralist claim that the "nervousness, bordering on phobia" of the employees, is causing the lions to attack the zebras.  In one recent headline, the editor wrote, "Zebra Hurt At Zoo; Mishandling Suspected" while another claimed "Lions At Risk of Public Demonization."

Update:  French and German media have reported that they will no longer be carrying pictures of lions attacking.  "Glorifying violence is not what we do" said Der Speigel in a release late last night.  

Interview Transcription Value for Analyst

Available from Amazon.com 

At Hyatt Analysis Services, there is never a shortage for the need for transcription, even with some trusted volunteers. 

It must be precise, and a single hour audio translates into several hours of typing, alone, but the checking for accuracy, including the sometimes troublesome auto-correct programs can harm accuracy. 

Yet it is that I wish to share something of a somewhat personal nature with readers regarding this.  

When I worked in child protective services, the case load and pace were unsustainable.  If a single allegation of, for example, sexual abuse was made, on average it meant that:

The child must be interviewed; perhaps even without prior notification to the parent, should this increase the risk to the child. Interview 1.  

The school had to be notified, and the professionals who were in contact with the child had to be interviewed.  Teacher, assistant, guidance counselor...  3 interviews on average. 

Then, the child's doctor, nurse, therapist... 3

Then the child's siblings (on average, 2)      2 

The child's parents (generally, this is 2 to 4, as step parenting and unmarried partners)   4

Grandparents      4

Any adults living in the house (this could range from 0 (not likely) to usually several, including both relations and non relations.  To err on the low side, I will choose 2. 

Any other children in the household, which was common, but again, the low side:  2. 

Lastly, the accused and the host parent's therapists, drug counselors, etc, had to be interviewed.  Low side:  2.  

In just this case, 24 interviews needed to be conducted and transcribed.  The doctor interview would be very short, generally less than 10 minutes, while the alleged perpetrator and the hosting parent of the per, would be the longest, generally 90 minutes to the hosting parent, and often 2-3 hours of the alleged perpetrator. 

All of this does not include record review including medical, psychiatric and psychological reports. 

Many of these interviews were conducted (of the parents) with a psych eval in hand, and at my desk while I typed. 

This, alone, proved in valuable, years later, as a 'data base' of sorts emerged for me.  I learned, for example, the language of:

a.  Sex Abuse Victims, from both the interviews, and the subsequent massive research

b.  Borderlines, where the interviews were often chaotic, scattered, unfocused and volatile;

c.  bi polar

d.  oppositional 

e.  narcissistic 

These were the basic and dominant personality types, traits, or diagnosis found within the interview and it was in the lengthy hours, 2 to 3 times per week, of transcription, that forced me to learn by the volume alone.  

Although it is long work, and often considered boring, trained analysts, even when strained for time, can learn a great deal when transcribing an audio or video, as they are permitted to see reactions, personality traits emerge and even correct the interviewer's strategy as he or she types 'along' going in chronological order. 

It is invaluable work and the moniker of 'boring' lifts as the analyst 'sees' into the language and the brain halts, presses and remains at a deliberate pace, by necessity, due to typing, correcting and the incessant pause that takes place. 

For the trained analyst, transcription services are great short cuts, but accuracy is not the only doubt in play:

The missed value of the experience of entering into the interview, via slow, methodical typing, is of great value.

If you are like me, the value is something you may not realize until later, as you grow stronger in "the expected."

For training opportunities, including a full and challenging course in Statement Analysis, go to Hyatt Analysis Service's new website at www.hyattanalysis.com. 

More on the new site coming, along with updated analysis and the conclusion to:

Amanda Blackburn murder;
Disappearance of Deorr shortly. 

"Passing the Smell Test"

A common expression in law enforcement is "this doesn't pass the smell test" or
"this does not pass the straight face test."

What it means is that the story is not really adding up.  

In the disappearance of Baby Ayla, Justin DiPietro's story about his mother's home being broken into, tiny house that it was, in the middle of the night, with the kidnapper finding just the right room, avoiding all the other children and adults, and getting in and out without a single piece of trace evidence (tiny DNA) led the spokesman for the investigation to say,

"This doesn't pass the straight face test."

This statement should never be part of a professional analyst's vocabulary or report.  

Here is why:

When something is 'too good to be true', it likely is.  Yet, every so often, odds are defied and even though the "straight face test" may be 90% accurate, 

an analyst who includes this is not exercising statement analysis, but is doing what I call "guess analysis" which could, in just one case, destroy his or her reputation.  

"It is not statement analysis." 

This is the best response in correcting and guiding analysts:  Stay as a 'slave' to the text, and even if you feel certain that 'this is a lie', if the language does not support it, do not assert it.

Every so often, a case arises in which the odds are defied and this is a good reminder for the analyst to keep to the disciplines of the science and avoid making a judgement call. 

Recently, Lenny Dykstra, former major league ballplayer, has been doing public relations work to sell his new book.  In his book, he makes some outrageous claims about other athletes, his own behavior, and what other celebrities have done.  

In response to these claims, some have said that the claims seem too fantastical, and 'don't pass the smell test' for truth. 

Yet, the language tells us otherwise.  Even events that appear shocking, or 'just could not have happened', have been alleged in strong language, and have been denied in weak language. 

Such claims as Mets manager Davey Johnson being drunk all the time were addressed by former players of whom no reliable denial was given.  Dykstra said that he and Robert DeNiro went on a cocaine binge of which DeNiro said, "bull$%!" as his denial.

Other "fantastic" claim was that former Mets' player Kevin Mitchell decapitated his girlfriend's cat in front of two players and his girlfriend.  

In viewing all the statements, the analysis shows that it might not pass the smell or straight face test, but it does pass the scrutiny of scientific analysis:  the former Mets player and former gang member, did, in fact, take a kitchen knife, pick up the cat by the scruff, and slit its throat.  That he was a gang member and was raised in ways of which a person will become desensitized to violence, notwithstanding, the language is the best indicator for truth and deception's discernment. 

Even though the 'straight face' or 'smell' test appeals to common sense, the analyst's reputation is on the line, and the most experienced; that is, those who have survived early struggles, sometimes for years, with the complexity of human nature and human language, know all too well:

instincts can be wrong but the scientific repeated process is the safest and most accurate way to discern truth from deception. 

In the murder of Amanda Blackburn, I wrote that investigators repeatedly asked, "who is this lucky?" when it came to all the coincidental elements of the case.  This is interesting but it is not statement analysis and it cannot be used in an analytical report's finding.  As an article, in the upcoming Part IV conclusion of the case, I address the coincidentals of the case, but within the language that caused investigators to ask this rhetorical question.  

While everything may have pointed to Kevin Fox in the death of his daughter, the investigators ignored the language, and went with statistics and their 'gut instincts' to falsely accuse the innocent father, causing untold damage to him and his family, and millions of dollars to tax payers, along with the damage to the reputation of law enforcement. 

This is why I urge professionals to avoid 'check list' mentality of disengaging the intellect and rushing to a conclusion. 

Bumper sticker slogans may work for lawyers appealing to the lazy minded jury, but the professional analyst has justice to consider first, then his science and then his reputation.  

Some may survive an error here and there, early on, but as they learn, they also learn that fads, short cuts and stupendous claims of "lie detection" can do more damage than they do good, and are best for hollywood and book selling, but not for justice.

It is not enough to know someone is lying, we must be able to report accurately why we know he is lying. 

For professional training opportunities see Hyatt Analysis Services

Michael Walsh: Guilt in 911 Call

EAST POINT, Ga. --East Point police have released 911 calls from a father charged with hiding the death of his daughter.

The child’s body had been found in Lake Allatoona 12 hours before she was reported missing. Authorities later identified her body. Her cause of death has not been released.

On July 1, East Point Police charged Michael Wash with aggravated assault, two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, cruelty to children in the third degree, giving false statements and concealing the death of another.

His live-in girlfriend, Lasharae Davis, is charged with being party to the crime of aggravated assault, party to the crime of two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, party to the crime of cruelty to children in the third degree, giving false statements and concealing the death of another. 

911 Call:

Operator: (OP)

Caller: (C)

OP:  Inaudible

C:  Hi i'm calling to, to report my daughter missing.

Here we have a missing child with a caller using the casual polite greeting of "hi" unexpectedly. 

Note the repetition (stutter/halt) upon the word "to" giving the reason for his call.  

This is a most sensitive point.  He is not asked "why are you calling?" but the emergency itself stands as the expected response.  To give the reason for his call is to distance himself from the issue at hand, slow down the pace of the call, and is the third point to be noted within his very first sentence that something is wrong with this call.  

He states the reason for his call, rather than the report itself.  It is subtle, but in an emergency, there should be no linguistic display.  

OP:  Ok, where was she last seen sir?

C:  She was last seen here in my house this morning (something is said in the background, it is not the OP  and think it is his girlfriend, he goes on to correct himself and says) well last night i'm sorry.

He begins with parroting language which, although not most unexpected, it follows his slow pace.  Scripting language can show that the focus of the caller is upon the 911 operator (the 'police') rather than blurting out what he knows.  Here, with the background chatter, we are given an indication of scripting the call. 

Next, we take note that his brain told his tongue to use the words "I'm sorry" in the call. This is both ingratiating ("hi") and it is an indication that he has something he is sorry for, that is, regrets, and the target of his sorrow is not the child, but the police, as seen through the operator who represents authority.  

OP:  What's the address hun.

C:  1725 McCleland  Avenue apartment number 2 (overtalk)

OP:  How old is your daughter?

C:  Seven years old.

OP:  Seven

C:  Yes.

Op:  Ok she was last seen last night.

C:  Yes, last night she was - She was  asleep early. I got off of work at 8 o'clock this morning. We woke up, I was looking around for her, and the door was unlocked.

To the untrained ear, this will sound 'awkward' or strange.  It sounds this way because it is:  scripting sounds 'forced' or unnatural.  The change from "I" (psychologically strong or 'safe' while at work) to "we" (now that the child is missing, I do not want to be alone, so I will intuitively put myself with another person) is critical.  Guilt hates to be alone and guilt seeks to mitigate or 'spread it around' by being with others.  Even if the punishment of the crime will not change, criminals 'like' not being alone with the consequences.  It is why parents will correct children when they advance, "but everyone was doing it", as if the multitude of offenders alleviates the responsibility for the infraction.  

Parents are easily manipulated with this one: "Everyone was talking!" which is to suggest:

"Only  my child was punished!  The teacher doesn't like my child and favors the others" effectively losing the opportunity for not only correction, but to teach responsibility.  

For advanced analysis, we have "door" to explore for early childhood sexual abuse, or sexual abuse in the case, as well as the linguistic signal of beginning an activity without conclusion.  

OP: Your front door?

C:  Yes my front door  

(OP buts in)

Ok has she ever run away before?

C:  No she has never run away before.

The parroting back of answers tells us, again, how carefully (guardedly) the caller is listening to the operator.  

OP:  Ok.  Give me a description of her,  Is she Black, White or Latino?

C:  She's black.

OP:  Ok an...is there anything like messed up in the house.?  Does the door look like it's been forced open?  

C: no-no.  

OP:  Is there anything that..no struggle no nothing?

C:  No struggle no nothing.

Here, the operator knows that the caller is not yielding information willingly, but sticking close to the operator's own words.  

OP:  Have you tried to call any of her friends, do you, anything?

OP:  Do you need me to call anybody (overtalk, inaudible) so she doesn't have any friends?

C:  I tried to call my mother cos but she doesn't live here.  I just tried to call my mother to calm me down.

Key:  concern for self, not for child.  This tells us, not so much 'selfishness' but that the caller is in need for intervention and the child may be beyond need of help.  

This is not to dismiss selfishness, and the subsequent child neglect produced, but to show that the need for assistance is with the caller and not the child, raising the possibility that the child is dead. 

OP:  I know baby i can only imagine.. i know i know.  When you saw her last night what was she wearing?

This is interesting because it exposes the understanding of the operator:  The 911 operator knows that the caller is not working to get the flow of information to police, but hindering it.  The skill is evident:  using empathy in an attempt to get information.  

C:  She was wearing like a polca do..erm, omg (what sounds like) i can't remember.

Disaffected father; not on 'high alert' hormonally, for the child.  

OP:  Just think baby, just calm down we'll get you baby back.  Help me help you.  Just think, what was she wearing last night?

The caller asks his girlfriend ( Lasharae Davis) in the back ground.  "Lasharae, do you know what she was wearing last night before she went to bed"?  (Mumbling in the back ground)  The (C) comes back to the phone and says

 "I got off of working late last night.

Here the caller feels the need to explain why he does not know the clothing the child had on (pajamas may not have been used) which affirms neglect.  If a father is at work and does not know what the child went to bed in (even guessing, "her pjs!"), he would not have the need to explain why he does not know.  

OP:  When you got home last night you went in and checked on her and she was there?

C: She  was asleep last night she was there. (OP overtalk saying "ok ok"

This unnecessary emphasis of "she was there" (if she was asleep, she would have to be 'there') is reminiscent of Billie Jean Dunn's statement to the same effect:  the living child was not there.  

OP:  Ok.  And When you got up this morning you went to look for her and she wasn't there but the front door was unlocked 

C:  Yes.  I got up this morning i'm always the first one up in the morning, everybody else is asleep.  She shares a room with her little sister but was sleeping in the room with me and her mom.  

Here we see the deception of "we woke up" using the plural. 

We also have the 'normal' effect:  the attempt to make a situation that is not normal appear normal.  This tells us a story within itself. 

OP:  Did you guys get into a fight or anything like that?  Was she disciplined yesterday   

Great questions, but not in compound form.  

C:  No..not yesterday, no. Sometimes she do get in trouble but yesterday..

The child is here, subtly blamed, for what befell her.  

OP:  Of course.

C: Yeahh...

A missing child is the highest priority to the scared parent and to this parent, the child can do no wrong.  This is why we look for any slight type of 'indictment' of the child because the guilt of human nature is such that it seeks to justify itself, to lessen the guilt, and show, in some way, that the victim 'deserved' what he and/or her mother did to her.  

OP:  Anything unusual though?

C:  She is known to sneek around the house at night like, but she normaly just sneeking for like food in the kitchen and stuff like that....

'The child is a "sneak" and even steals food.   She had to be punished.'  This is how the guilty mind seeks to lessen the concern for guilt for self:  blame the child's behaviors, to the point here, where "she is known" for this.  

OP:  Just not out the door.

C:  She never left out the door.

Long pause, OP typing.

OP:  Ok,  Dad, what is her name?

C:   Kamaire,  K-a-m-a-i-r-e.  I just ran outside into the playground looking for her.  I just got in my car looking around .

Rather than eliminate specific places where she will not be found, he:

a.  gives a false sense of urgency; not for finding the child, but in his own behavior.  See word "just" repeated;

b.  "looking around" eliminates nothing specific in the search for her.  

OP:  And what's her last name honey,  Kamaire what?

C:  Wash  W-a-s-h

OP:  Ok.  And your last names Wash aswell?

C:  Yes

OP:  First name

C:  Michael

OP:  Ok Michael and the call back number fro you, what your phone number?

C:  (redacted)

OP:  they're aon thier way ok.

C:  thank you.

Polite "ingratiating" himself to police authorities.  'Maybe they will understand and go easy on me.  Maybe they will see how she was known for being a sneak and causing trouble, stealing food and such and how she had to be disciplined and...' 

OP:  You're welcome

Call Ends.

For The Professional Analyst: A Consideration

Chess is a game of the mind that takes talent, many years of practice, training and more practice and something else...  

For one to reach the level of nationally ranked "Expert" status, talent and dedication fuel the rise.  But what does the talented chess Expert do to reach a new level of success?  He has already been studying and practicing and appears to have reached a plateau.  How can he break through this very successful level?

The professional analyst is one who has had solid training, lots of practice and he has had professional application; that is, he has seen the success of his work and it has received affirmation by adjudication, confession, polygraph, and so on.  This analyst knows what he is doing.  

By this point, he has likely taken more than a few courses, and he has moved from well discerning deception from truth, on to content analysis.  He may have repeated some of these courses, knowing that absorption requires much repetition.  

This is the professional, successful analyst.  

He has dismissed his earlier training in which he was taught common error, such as,

"Truthful people give an abundance of detail" and "didn't is stronger than did not", and so on.  The latter, a 'Reid Technique' is statistically false, but the former continues to get press.  

As to "truthful people give an abidance of detail", please note:

A.  When a deceptive person is giving an abundance of detail, it is a signal of memory in play, but not  necessarily experiential memory of the event.  We have many examples of fraud in which the subject gives an abundance of detail of the non existing perpetrator; using a description of self, or someone close to him, to accomplish this. 

B.  See Casey Anthony's description of "Zanny the Nanny."

These techniques often sell books, but the trained analyst knows these, and other early academy mandatory trainings do not work but serve, at best, to embarrass the new investigator.  

A chess Expert is ranked above 2000 ELO and, for practical purposes, beats everyone he plays in casual games, wherever he goes.  It is only in tournament play where he meets his equal.

But what of the Expert who desires improvement to Master and Grandmaster status?

He may study all he wants but he will not improve until he plays against those better than himself.

In bicycle racing, one of the most common questions new riders ask is,

"How do I gain speed?"

The answer never changes:  "Go faster."

The cyclist learns that there is no short cut and if he wishes to reach 25 mph, but can only ride at 20 mph, he must force himself to go 22 mph, even if he can only do this for a 10 minute period of time.  If he continues to exhaust himself in this way, followed by rest and nutrition, the 10 minutes at 22 mph will turn into 20 minutes, and so on.  He now must go with riders that sustain 22 mph and push himself towards 25mph. 

To go faster, he must go faster.

The professional analyst does well to repeat courses until they are committed to memory, but in diagnosing the professional analyst's strengths and challenges, if he is committed to going to the next level, he must analyze with professionals better than himself.  

This is accomplished through monthly, guided training, in which he is set up against other professionals who possess similar training but varied experiences in analysis.  

Consider several points:

1.  The other analysts are just as nervous and insecure as you are.

2.  The other analyst (singular) has been exposed to something you have not.

3.  The other analysts benefit from one another, which leads to team work, cooperation and...

4.  Support

For example, in analyzing the phrase "I don't remember" given in an open statement, one analyst may say, "I encountered this several times over the years, with each time the subject passing the polygraph, as he was not being deceptive.  He was thinking about this other event when..."

Human language is almost as vast as human nature, and it is a dual exposure:

A.  To professionals who have different backgrounds and applications with the same trainings as you have;

B.  To professionals who have different professional experiences and encounters with the same trainings as you have.

This is to say that the other analyst has encountered what you have not, as you have encountered what the other analyst has not. 

If you use this formula, there will be increase, but better still is if you use this formula and have various experts from various fields present the breadth of understanding is deepened. 

There is no substitute for "iron sharpening iron" and we offer an affordable, once per month live trainings that will greatly improve your skills.  

When someone signs up for one of our two courses, Statement Analyst I and Statement Analyst II certifications, the requirement for minimum hours for certification is stated, but it is that it generally takes a single session to convince the analyst of the value of analyzing with other professionals.  

They quickly learn how supportive each is, and how various backgrounds benefit, greatly, their own understanding of analysis.  

The nationally ranked Expert must now plan his course of study to include tournaments where he regularly plays against higher ranked professionals.  He will lose many games, but as he reviews and learns, the 2000 ELO player finds that he is now 'holding his own' with the 2200 field.  At this level, when he loses, the victor often magnanimously conducts the 'post mortum' review of the game, and offers constructive advice for the Expert to improve, as the camaraderie and bonding of higher levels of success reveal. 

For more information on how you can have your analysis diagnosed, so that you may move to a deeper understanding of the text, visit Hyatt Analysis Services training to move well past "truth versus deception" into deeper content, psychological profiling, anonymous author identification and motive.  

At the end of a single training, there is both exhaustion and exhilaration for the analyst.  

He or she may need a month to recover.  

My own work has grown through this interaction.  Most often, I enter the training 'cold', not even reading the statement before us.  This pushes me.  

The trainings have exposed my weaknesses, allowing me to address them for improvement, as well as introducing me to new elements. The presence of business experts, security experts, psychological experts and professionals of strong IQs, has, each new session, given me deeper and more accurate understanding of the various elements and personalities of those who deceive, commit crimes and bring harm to society.  

They experienced things that I have not and these 'things' were verbalized.  

I have experienced things others have not and recognize this word, used here, whereas someone else experienced that word, over there, and psychology experts deal with their world every day and they know, for example, a "borderline before she walks in the door" due to the incessant experiences. 

We benefit from one another, gladly sharing knowledge, and supporting each other to raise our science and bring justice. 

The Psychology Behind The 'Sermon' in Denials

"Thief?  Are you accusing me of stealing?  Are you kidding me?  Thief?  A thief is worse than anyone.  He is worse than a drug dealer.  Let me tell you something, ok?  Let me tell you something.
My father and my uncle are both in prison today because they are thieves.  I hate them.  There is nothing worse than a thief.  A drug dealer to children isn't as bad as a thief!"

Yes, he stole.  

In statement analysis, we flag not only the lack of reliable denial (in the free editing process) but the need to 'preach' a sermon; that is, to moralize that which needs no moral backing is a very strong signal of projected guilt.  I have yet to flag a sermon where the subject did not 'do it.'

There is a reason for the sermonizing and as another principle of analysis is added, the analyst would do well to consider that the ramifications of this principle ("The Sermon") go beyond analyzing a simple statement where an allegation exists.  

The need to avoid issuing a denial is a central theme in this, and it is that the sermon is generally given after the unreliable denial is uttered:

"I would never harm a child.  Let me tell you this, I have always loved children and I have helped them wherever I have gone.  People who do such things to children need help and are sick and..."

Sound familiar?

Michael Jackson did not simply molest the several known boys at his millionaire's ranch:  he had victims around the world.  The lack of denial is followed by sermonizing of sorts and in his own statement, he took his denial 'around the world' linguistically, revealing the likelihood of having victims in the Middle East, Europe and Central/South America.  

The principle that I hope investigators will consider, particularly as it applies to the radical "change" of society is this:

When something is unnecessary, we shall deem it of double importance within a statement. 

The thief who avoids issuing the reliable denial in his freely chosen wording may also feel the need to issue a 'sermon' of sorts.  This sermon generally appears in one of two ways; often showing both elements:

1.  The condemnation of that which needs no condemnation;
2.  The vaunting of self 

"You think I molested him?  I am a normal man.  I am happily married!"

He did molest a 30 year old male who had the intellectual capacity of a 5 year old boy, of who's life has been destroyed.  

In his 'denial', there is no denial, but there are other elements:
a.  Not only do we flag 'normal' as to something 'not normal', within analysis, but we also find his condemnation of the sexual molestation as "not normal."

b.  Next we find him wanting to tell us 'why' he would not sexually molest the 30 year old victim:  his marital status would preclude this (as if marriage eliminates any sexual contact outside of it) and, the greater 'give away':  

his 'happiness' within marriage is the reason he would not sexually molest a 30 year old male, suggesting:

'Perhaps if I was single, or if I was not happy in my marriage, I would molest someone like that...'

This is something the innocent feel no need to present.  

Consider when a topic is presented as if in the moral high ground, where claiming moral high ground is not necessary, that the need to make such a claim is the revelation of something immoral beneath it.  

Listen for a sermon where no sermon should be necessary and give due diligence to thought.  

It is not just the sermon that we flag for analysis, it is that which causes the subject to possess the need to 'preach' at us that we examine for weakness, and, perhaps, for its lack of moral high ground...

even when the subject is a politician as the need for discernment within propaganda may never be more acute.  

If you wish to enroll in training, we offer a variety of trainings to suit your needs from law enforcement to security to psychology to journalism to...

www.hyattanalysis.com 

hopefully an improved site is coming.  

Shakespeare Human Nature and Analysis: Romeo and Juliet

What can you learn from "Romeo and Juliet"?

In the world of statement analysts where study is a passion, there is a depth few mine though at the top of the profession, the understanding is good.  There, with the solid understanding of human nature they not only understand the words ('what' before 'why' during analysis ) but appropriately predict the behavior and words in which the behavior is illuminated.  This is a meeting between the analysis of the statement, the behavior, and the psychology behind both.  

When human nature is not seen clearly, the "expected" falters and quality suffers in all the proceeds from this.  It is challenging enough to void the influence of our own projection, yet if human nature, the intellect and emotions, is even slightly misaligned the analyst wearing the cloak of philosopher misses even if ever so slightly.  

At this level he or she (as the value of gender is heightened within the field) is most dissatisfied. 

The post mortem work is an unhappy and uneasy event, rather than an exciting opportunity for growth. The miss was not in principle but application 

Not in great conclusion but a tiny point therefore in general a review peer review will come back positive perhaps not even identifying the error.  

Shakespeare's brilliance is such that one line may warrant one or even two paragraphs of ours, to grasp his meaning and beauty.  

Consider "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou, Romeo?"

The question was rhetorical as Juliet articulated the longing of her heart. What came next is right out of the pages of Statemebt Analysus 101. 

She sought an answer to the question of her heart:  'Do you love me, Romeo?'

The rebuke she gives of his answer is to reveal just how deeply William Shakespeare knew of the human heart.  Note the analysis that follows.   

Juliet sought the most reliable affirmation of words of marriage:  those freely chosen with reduced need to persuade.  

The moon will change over a month as the emotion of passion may so do.  

Do you desire instruction on human nature?  Are you willing to work?

Are you willing to be challenged, personally?

Or might such study be a challenge to narrative?

For those who love truth, time only increases the disinterest I narrative lest the narrative be improved upon by truth. 

JULIET

Thou know'st the mask of night is on my face,
Else would a maiden blush bepaint my cheek
For that which thou hast heard me speak to-night
Fain would I dwell on form, fain, fain deny
What I have spoke: but farewell compliment!
Dost thou love me?

Here is the question she asks and needs to know:  "Do you love me?"

She does not want a "yes or no" answer.  This is the easiest of questions to lie to:  

I know thou wilt say 'Ay,'

She knows that this answer is to come, and is easy.  She will believe it, "yet", which is similar to "but", as she compares this acceptance of the answer "yes" in olde English, with something much stronger.  

And I will take thy word: yet if thou swear'st,
Thou mayst prove false; at lovers' perjuries

She (or Shakespeare!) is aware that a vow offered by the subject may also be unreliable as its need to persuade, given the context, will weaken the assertion and not give the comfort to her cry of "wherefore art thou?", within the her heart.  

What does she want? 

1.  A yes or no answer is too easily to deceive;

2.  A vow here, in an unofficial setting, may be weak as it shows too much of a need to persuade;  Yet if it must be a vow, he, himself, must be the center of the vow.   This is the psychology behind, "Because I told the truth!" 

3.  The free editing process where he, himself, chooses his own words.  

Then say, Jove laughs. O gentle Romeo,
If thou dost love, pronounce it faithfully:
Or if thou think'st I am too quickly won,
I'll frown and be perverse and say thee nay,
So thou wilt woo; but else, not for the world.
In truth, fair Montague, I am too fond,
And therefore thou mayst think my 'havior light:
But trust me, gentleman, I'll prove more true
Than those that have more cunning to be strange.
I should have been more strange, I must confess,
But that thou overheard'st, ere I was ware,
My true love's passion: therefore pardon me,
And not impute this yielding to light love,
Which the dark night hath so discovered.

Is he listening?


ROMEO

Lady, by yonder blessed moon I swear
That tips with silver all these fruit-tree tops--

Romeo offers to swear, not by himself, as she sought, but by the moon.  Yet it is that Juliet is aware of the science of the moon, moving from the romantic to the practical:  



JULIET

O, swear not by the moon, the inconstant moon,
That monthly changes in her circled orb,
Lest that thy love prove likewise variable.

It is said that the heart is so fickle that it is at its best when protected...



ROMEO

What shall I swear by?

Recall her words:  she didn't want a 'yes or no'; she did not want an oath, but would accept the oath if it was based upon himself, but it was not her preference:  she wanted his own wording; the 'free editing process' that is the most reliable in analysis.  This is where the person is, in less than a millisecond of time, choosing his words, increasing the reliability.  


JULIET

Do not swear at all;
Or, if thou wilt, swear by thy gracious self,
Which is the god of my idolatry,
And I'll believe thee.

She admits that her love is so acute that it is idolatrous and that she is open to deception because of it.  Every human is 'religious' in nature.  Simply ask the person,

"is it wrong for a person to slap the face of a stranger in public?" followed by,

"Tell me why this is wrong." 

As the subject speaks, he or she will bring you to the final place of arbitration of right from wrong, moral from immoral, ethical from unethical.  Shakespeare brilliantly highlights human nature, in its weakness, strength, desire, hope, fear and suspicion.  




ROMEO

If my heart's dear love--

JULIET

Well, do not swear: although I joy in thee,
I have no joy of this contract to-night:
It is too rash, too unadvised, too sudden;
Too like the lightning, which doth cease to be
Ere one can say 'It lightens.' Sweet, good night!
This bud of love, by summer's ripening breath,
May prove a beauteous flower when next we meet.
Good night, good night! as sweet repose and rest
Come to thy heart as that within my breast!

Here she reasons within herself that not hearing him choose his own words, and his struggle, the reality of just how quickly all this has come to pass, void of wisdom.   The great flame is before them, yet the coals are not white with heat, for that takes time, which is something she addresses repeatedly:

too rash
too unadvised
too sudden 
too much like lightning, which appears powerful and bright, yet in a moment, it is gone and forgotten.  At a moment, it appeared to light up everything, as if it were day, but it is just a moment.  

This frustrates Romeo who wants an exchange before he leaves; 


ROMEO

O, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied?

JULIET

What satisfaction canst thou have to-night?

ROMEO

The exchange of thy love's faithful vow for mine.

JULIET

I gave thee mine before thou didst request it:
And yet I would it were to give again.

Note the element of timing:  she gave it freely, before he requested it.  This is the ultimate point of the free editing process in the reliable denial:  

It is strong and the psychology behind it is like a wall.  The innocent does not wait, does not toy with unreliable denials; but states it without waiting for the accusation, quite often, as soon as discerned.  The weight of proof otherwise is almost of no consequence. 

The guilty?

Why would I need to steal?
Why would I want to hurt that person?
Why would I do that?

The questions are often the probing of the guilty, to learn if the investigator knows the motive!


ROMEO

Wouldst thou withdraw it? for what purpose, love?

The fear of losing that which was freely offered is not sensible (reliable):  Believe and trust the free editing process.  Let the words guide you.   In kindness, for the purpose of clarity ("frank") she gives it to him again:  

JULIET

But to be frank, and give it thee again.
And yet I wish but for the thing I have:
My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
My love as deep; the more I give to thee,
The more I have, for both are infinite.Nurse calls within
I hear some noise within; dear love, adieu!
Anon, good nurse! Sweet Montague, be true.
Stay but a little, I will come again.Exit, above

ROMEO

O blessed, blessed night! I am afeard.
Being in night, all this is but a dream,
Too flattering-sweet to be substantial.