|in the shadow of brilliant minds|
The man made some very serious allegations against a case manager in which the burden of proof is civil: a
preponderance of evidence" rather than the criminal, "beyond a reasonable doubt." Should the investigator find for the "preponderance of evidence" it is very likely the case manager will lose his job and face possible criminal charges.
The investigator laid out her reasoning:
She said she knows the subject is telling the truth and she knows this from her training.
She knew it and was going to go after the alleged perpetrator.
When asked, "How do you know?"
she said there were two reasons, from her training, that caused her, with the authority of the state, to conclude against the case manager.
1. The subject used "lots of detail"
2. The subject repeated his account perfectly to a witness.
Let's look at her assertions.
An abundance of detail is something of concern. We look at the necessity of such.
a. The color of an object, within a statement, is often an indicator of personal connection. Someone who "never stole the jewels" says, "I didn't see the red bag" (without verbal prompt) is now telling us that she personally handled it (she was the thief). When the color is "unnecessary", it is very important. An example of an exception is cars. People routinely label the color of a car (especially when they have seen it).
b. human body posture of an inanimate object.
"I saw the oxy's sitting on the desk..."
Narcotics do not sit, stand, walk or move around. When an inanimate object is given a distinctly "human attribute", it means that the subject (speaker) may have given the inanimate object a human connection by handling it. By using this language freely, we are not on alert for the subject physically handling the narcotics.
c. sensory language
Sensory language, "his hands smelled like motor oil..." is a signal of experiential knowledge. By recalling the smell, it is likely that the subject is going back to a memory in which elevated emotion existed and recall from a sensory interaction existed. It is very likely an experience.
By itself, we cannot say that it was experienced now, at the time of this statement, or perhaps, 20 years ago. We need the rest of the statement to make the determination.
Those who suffer various mental health and developmental delay often perseverate on events, and it can be very challenging to learn which happened yesterday and which happened years ago. Even being on alert for perseveration allows the investigator to explore the event in detail.
I was able to prove that a man had sexually assaulted a mentally retarded female, even though she had made false claims against others due to perseverating upon an assault from many years ago. I "divided" the statement accordingly, and asked the alleged perpetrator questions based upon the descriptions from the current section of the statement. (audio transcript).
Feeling trapped by the words, he confessed.
Abundance of Detail
When an overabundance of detail is given (unnecessarily and freely), it is actually a signal of deception.
It shows a "need to persuade" the audience, rather than report truthfully what one knows.
Remember Casey Anthony "must be truthful" because "Zanny the Nanny had perfect teeth."
It was details like this that not only indicate deception (need to persuade) but give us insight into a pathological liar.
Statement Analysis' lie detection is not guess work.
The investigator interviewed a neighbor and said, "he gave the exact same account!" which convinced her of the truth. Rote repetition is not an indicator of truth but this investigator "knew" otherwise.
In this case, by telling us her reason for "knowing", perhaps she can be dissuaded by logic. At least she had some basis, even if wrong, for her thinking.
What is far worse is when one "just knows."
Years ago I was on a radio program about the Casey Anthony trial in which I pointed out that Cindy Anthony knew where Casey had dumped the child she murdered.
Cindy said, "George and I don't believe, you know, that Caylee's in the woods or anything."
Here, without challenge from the media, she offered to tell su where Caylee was not. This is the "rule of the negative" in analysis.
A popular and frequent guest on the program said, "well, I don't believe that."
I said, "why not?"
He said "I just don't. No. No. That isn't right..." and dismissed any possible discussion as to exploring why he did not believe it.
The show was not a debate where I could say,
"Well, what is your opinion based upon?" to explore why guess work, feelings and intuition all pale in comparison to science.
Caylee was found less in the woods, down the block from where Cindy was standing. She was telling investigators, just as Casey had done earlier ("I know she is close") what statistics had already known.
The dismissal of "I just know" is the ignorantly silencing of information. It is akin to "you hate the McCanns!", rather than discuss the analysis. Recently, one wrote that I needed to "stop defending United." I had analyzed the words of a groom's lies without defending nor attacking United.
"You can't tell people are lying from their words" she wrote, though she agreed with telling that the McCanns and Casey Anthony were lying.
What basis did she have to conclude that pointing out a liar was somehow defending United?
It was from she, herself and her history of illness and abuse.
Projection: It was her license to attack others.
Her statement is very useful in Employment Analysis.
Trauma in life effects us all. People generally react in one of two ways:
1. They become empathetic with others
2. They attack others.
Few people are left untouched by trauma.
The former has been victimized and has deep empathy for other victims. This person may see a company as "people" rather than a faceless corporate entity with endless money for write offs, so stealing is justified. Those with empathy who see a company as "people" are statistically less likely to steal.
The latter is toxic. This person believes they hold a monopoly on suffering and anyone who does not see her suffering as supreme is to be attacked. When she is done bloodying her loved ones, she manipulates and forces them to take her back based upon pity. Eventually, the toxicity will drive away family first, then friends, and then co workers and acquaintances. Where is the last frontier of human interaction for someone like this?
There, the projected professional victim will attack others, receive some empathetic responses, be dissatisfied and attack some more. When she finally is told off, she is back to her comfort zone, safe and alone. She will eventually post how "humans suck" and only pets understand her. Although those who have friends must show themselves friendly, for this one, everyone else is wrong. She is right. Her words are biting, but useful for teaching Employment Analysis.
Employers who hire will find an abundance of complaints from co workers, and, depending upon her level of thievery, a formal complaint that seeks money her hands have not earned. She "deserves" this due to her suffering.
In theft, it is the same: one stolen from will either become empathetic with other victims, or turn and "get paid back" by stealing from others.
Those trained in analysis can help companies avoid hiring such.
"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."
When someone speaks, we have an opinion on whether they are telling the truth or not. Our opinion is based upon scientific data so we do not engage in guess work, feelings nor intuition. Invoking feelings is about the best way to pervert justice (see above).
Those who excel in lie detection in training do so because they believe the subject's words. They allow the statement to guide them. They yield to the statement. They tether themselves strongly to principle, and end up with a track record at or near 100% success rate in deception detection.
A judge in child protective arbitrations said that children were incapable of lying.
She was a judge who made decisions of permanent custody of children.
I have been in cases where the child was truthful and in cases where the child entered the parent's language to harm the other parent due to coaching.
This judge's personal experience (not being believed as a child) colored her opinion to the danger and ruination of lives as she perverted the justice she was sworn to uphold.
The civil investigator must learn if the allegations are true. They may be, but the discernment will not come from "much detail" nor from intuition. This is dangerous and can lead to false allegations and much trouble.
I have intervened on behalf of innocent parents falsely accused of child abuse, and the team of analysts with Hyatt Analysis will continue to.
In one year, a new child protective caseworker removed 500% more children by herself than on average. In other words, if one child protective caseworker removed 10 children, less than one per month, over the course of a year in a specific district, this case worker removed 50 children from their homes. This went from less than one child per month, to one child every week. She was so proud of her work that she gave herself a knick name to describe what she did to children pulling them out of homes.
She could not do this without complicity from her supervisor and from the supervisor's manager.
Did they not question how, after years of a common pattern, a sudden 500% increase occurred?
Was this new caseworker now showing how negligent all others have been, for years?
Or, was there some new trend in severe abuse where "immediate risk of serious harm" was likely without 24 hours without intervention?
She falsified interviews, conveniently "ran out of battery" on audio recordings, and signed sworn affidavits of that which she invented abuse scenarios.
Why would she do so outright deceptive things and drag children away from their parents?
What moral justification did she use?
She, herself, explained why, on average, she removed more children than 5 other caseworkers combined.
It was because she "knew" the children were being abused and felt "morally justified" to "stretch things a bit" to "save the child."
This is what happens when "feelings" overrule science.
She had been left in a home where she was abused and now would not let this happen to others. She would not let truth stand in the way of her feelings.
Today, she is a "counselor" advising people in vulnerable positions.
Facts do not care about our feelings. Politicians use this to exploit those who have a strong need to feel good about themselves, framing arguments in such a way as to say:
"if you agree with me, you are highly moral, too" and people fall in line. They yield sacred religious beliefs, personal experience, and eventually, scientific proof, just to follow their leader. This was the case of national socialism in Germany where, science be damned, "Jewish blood was not the same as ours."
Politicians are doing the same thing today and those who resist are being not only silenced, but coerced into it via violence and the threats of violence, as America imitates nations it once described as corrupt. We ridicule the Nazis for stating that Jews were less than fully human, while we once held blacks as "3/5 human" (and personal property) and children in the womb as not "human" and also personal "property." Lives were destroyed as inconveniences to the elite, even while reaching great financial profit.
Islamic terror does not care if you are an atheist or if you know nice peaceful Muslims.
Rape doesn't care how you are dressed.
Theft does not care for your pigmentation.
Deception, no matter how wrapped, has consequences that are far reaching.
Truth seeking is just that; putting aside narrative and letting the words guide you.
Those who commit to a year of study will be expert deception detectors. By the time this year is up, where they have not only completed the course, but have logged a minimum of 60 hours of live continuing educational credits, they are running at 100% with the only exception being a contaminated statement.