Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Guest Analysis: Is Swedish Politician Patrik Liljeglöd Truthful?

by Lars Bak 

The Swedish politician, Patrik Liljeglöd, has on his facebook page published a statement, claiming that he has been raped because of his political activities. 

Question for Analysis: Is his account of the event truthfull? 

This is his recollection of the event:

"Democracy is a right but soon not a truism?
I have an important matter to present. At first glance it can seem to only affect me personally, but in the long run it affects us all.
At the end of July this year, when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening with a party comrade. There the pleasantness stops. On the way home I was attacked by a, to me unknown, man with knife. I was brusquely treated and at knife point also raped on the pretext that I was a female Left-genitalia, that the likes of us like it this way and finally, that I was a traitor.
The few words and opinions the man uttered had a clear connection to me as politically active and therefore it affects us all."

I. Statement Form 

We start with measuring a statement on its form.

A statistically reliable statement will generally dedicate the most number of lines (or words) to what happened. This is because what happened, or "the event" is the most important thing to the subject. Here the politician claimed to be raped. In reporting rape, the priority will be the traumatic event. 

When we measure his statement on "what happened", we find that  most reliable statements' percentage breaks down naturally as such:
25% of the words or lines used will describe what happened leading up to the assault
50% of the words will be dedicated to the actual assault. It is the most important part of the account and anything close to 50% should be considered reliable. This speaks to priority. In such an acutely personal assault, most of the words will be dedicated to it.
25% of the words will be about what happened afterwards, such as calling the police, or getting help.

Anything reasonably close to this is acceptable.

In Liljeglöd’s statement the percentage is:
13% is about what happened leading up to the assault
11% is about the actual assault
0% about what happened afterwards. Instead, the remaining 76% of the statement is dedicated to an extensive speech about the conditions for political activities in today’s Sweden.
Based on this, we deem the statement unreliable in its form. This now puts us on alert for deception.

II. Analysis

Democracy is a right but soon not a truism?
I have an important matter to present. At first glance it can seem to only affect me personally, but in the long run it affects us all.
Where someone begins a statement is always important. It can indicate the priority and often the reason for the statement itself. 

Here Liljeglöd tells us himself that he will present us with an important matter, having to do with “Democracy as a right”. This is where he chose to begin his statement and we should question if this is his priority. It is an "important matter" that is to all of us "in the long run."

Consider in the context of rape, it is unnecessary to state something is an "important matter."

However, he expresses doubt about this by putting an effort into assuring us that we eventually will grasp the importance. We call this a need to persuade (NTP) which indicates that Liljeglöd himself is in doubt regarding the general importance, making the claim weak. The alleged purpose is sensitive to him, also indicated by the headline ending with a question mark.
At the end of July this year,
Considering that we are about to hear about a rape, it is unexpected, that we are not given a specific point in time; being raped is a highly traumatic and often a life changing event, so we would expect the point in time to be mentioned.  The hormonal response in such events ("fight or flight") leaves a lasting impression.

July this year” might suggest that Liljeglöd does not ascribe any importance to the time of the event. 

It just happened “sometime”. We must now look for, whether Liljeglöd finds the importance in the event itself or in his use of it – what “the important matter” actually is.
when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening together with a fellow party member.
When someone in an open statement is supposed to tell us what happened and then explains why it happened, we always notice it as having the highest sensitivity. It is as if the subject expects us to ask, "why?" when often such a question would not enter our minds. 

The reason why Liljeglöd chose to “wander” home is very sensitive to him; it is unnecessary information as is his mentioning of being alone. 

In analysis, unnecessary information is of double importance, because we must consider, why there is a need to mention it. 

He may withhold information about both his reasons for to walk home and whether he in fact was alone. It would also be interesting to know, what “wandering” means in his personal vocabulary – does it mean to walk straight home or is there some “strolling around” for some reason to it.

We would also want to explore for entry of substances: was he sober?
The language is “passive” in the way, that there is no one acting; he “was invited”. By the lack of pronouns, Liljeglöd removes himself, psychologically, from the statement indicating lack of commitment to it at this point. Liljeström does not commit himself to what he says. With something as horrific as rape, this is most unexpected.
The whole sentence does stylistically resemble “narrative building” or storytelling, which is often found in deceptive statements, rather than a truthful account of “what happened”. It indicates that the statement doesn’t come from experiential memory, but is likely made up.
We make a note of, that Liljeglöd does not tell us, that he walked home alone; he was only “invited” to do it
There the pleasantness stops.
Here Liljeglöd “jump out” of his narrative in order to comment on it. This also belongs to storytelling. Not only does it attribute “drama” to the story: we can be sure, that the idyllic evening will soon turn into something bad. At the same time, it slows down the tempo in the statement, which is also often found in deceptive statements, when it nears the actual happenings, because the recollection of them might be sensitive to the speaker.
On the way home I was attacked by a, to me unknown, man with knife.
There is a jump in time here. We can’t say how big it is, but jumps in time suggests withholding or skipping over of information. Yet, it is on his mind enough to show a need to "jump" over it.  

It is very concerning that he gives the completely unnecessary piece of information, that the man was unknown; that the man was unknown “to me” is superfluous and makes it double sensitive. 

Is the man in fact known to Liljeglöd? Or is he known to somebody Liljeglöd knows? Why the need to emphasize that the man is not only unknown, but unknown “to me”. Had he consented to some sort of interaction but got second thoughts, angering “the man”? Is it somebody he went along with from the bus stop? At no point does Liljeström claim, that he was alone, and if he can’t bring himself to say that, we are not allowed to say it for him.
I was brusquely treated and at knife point also raped
This is not an expected account of a rape. 

Would any rape victim ever speak of a rape as an add-on? 

“By the way, I was also raped”? 

The “brusquely” treatment is mentioned first, showing that it has higher priority for Liljeglöd

We don’t know what lies in “brusquely treated” – was he spoken impolitely to, was he commanded down on all fours, was he yelled at or what? 

“Brusquely”  speaks to intonation and appearance, whereas a rape at knife point is a horrific, violent act. 

The subject’s priorities here are so unexpected, that it is hard to believe him. On the other hand “I was brusquely treated” is a strong statement, starting with I and no unnecessary information; it is likely true, but immediately after it, he removes himself from the add-on “and at knife point also raped”, which weakens his commitment to the stated.

on the pretext that I was a female Left-genitalia that the likes of us like it this way and finally, that I was a traitor.
Note: his party is named The Left-party

Now the subject introduces “pretext”. It is hardly possible to imagine any scenario, where a rapist reveals his “pretext” – “I rape you on the pretext that…”, so “pretext” must be the subject's’s own assumption. But what makes him make it? If the three alleged utterings are a pretext, then they are per definition not the reasons for raping him; then Liljeström was simply raped because he was raped. It makes no sense. Is he leaking out here, that the story is his own pretext for stating his “important matter”.
The few words and opinions the man uttered
A rape victim is not expected to give in to the rapist in any way or form. The subject however allows for the rapist to have his opinions – “I do not consider myself a traitor, but he has the right to his own opinion”. This might be appropriate in a political panel discussion, but it is not something a victim of rape is expected to make room for.
That “the man” only uttered few words seems not trustworthy. 

Did the ““brusque treatment” not include any “utterances”? The entire story lacks detail that would indicate an experienced event. Liljeström does not appear to speak from experiential memory.
had a clear connection to me as politically active
They had not.
“I was a female Left-genitalia” could be aimed at any stereotyped, active or passive, supporter of The Left-party
“the likes of us like it this way” has no political implications whatsoever. Besides it sounds as a trivial cliché from a bad Hollywood prison movie – it resembles storytelling
I was a traitor” could be connected to the subject’s political activities. But he doesn’t tell us how. Has he been accused of being a traitor? Has he betrayed someone during his political activities? Does he intend to?
There is no linguistic connection to his political activities; we have two sexually loaded insults and one undefined accusation of being a traitor, which seems incongruent with the rapist’s former utterances. Is this his "brusque" treatment?
and therefore it affects us all.
Again it is nessecary for the subject to explain why it is affecting us all, making it sensitive to him. It could be, that he is aware of that the story is only a pretext.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception indicated

The subject reports being "attacked", then "brusquely" treated, and used "rape" as an add in or after thought.  

He is withholding information about his decision to “wander” home.
He is deceptive about whether he was alone at any point in time.
He is withholding information about his encounter with the alleged rapist, including the identity.
Being raped is very personal, and victims have strong linguistic connection to it.  

The subject does not.

The subject has no sensory detail given.

Motive: The priority is political publicity.

It is questionable whether the incident is made up in order to propagate a political agenda or if this was a random consensual sexual encounter in which he did not like the way he was treated. Either way, his priority is political.

It is not known if he knows the man of whom he reports, or if the man is a "friend of a friend." The unnecessary information "unknown to me" suggests knowledge and connection.

If you would like to enroll in training in Statement Analysis, we offer seminars for Law Enforcement and business, as well as private, at home study.

Our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done in the privacy of your own home, and comes with 12 months of e support.

Visit: Hyatt Analysis Services for information, including examples of our work.


Habundia said...

He's lying,he said"to me".

John Mc Gowan said...

"when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening"

When i read this i thought uh ohh.

Anonymous said...

Peter Stein "wandered" around after parting from Suzanne Jovin.

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi John.
Don't you love when you read a statement and in your mind you are saying "once upon a time..." at the first sentence

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Tania

That's exactly what went through my mind

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic and no surprise.

KIDNAPPED model Chloe Ayling has revealed she is to tell all about her Black Death sex slave ordeal in a new book.

The Brit mum was drugged and abducted after being lured to Milan, Italy, for a fake photoshoot in July.

She was eventually released by her captors and revealed some of the shocking details about her time in captivity.

But Chloe has now vowed to expose "every little detail" as she seeks to set the record straight about her sex trafficking nightmare.

She said: “I am ready to face everything and expose every little detail for the first time.

“Do I seem tough? I am not.

“I have spent days crying and crying over what happened, being in fear for my life, made to believe I would be sold as a sex slave.

“I have been manipulated, drugged, targeted and now, character-assassinated as a liar and attention-seeker.

“I am only human. I want to put this behind me, to move on with my life, to forge a new path for myself that is free from the horrors I have experienced.

“I am not a warrior, or a charity-campaigner but I am a person who is willing to help others who have been in my situation.

“I refuse to be labelled as Chloe Ayling, the kidnapped model any more. I refuse to be labelled a victim forever.”

Publisher John Blake said: "Chloe’s story is as inspiring and compelling as it is abhorrent.

"She has been through an unimaginable ordeal, but fortunately one with an outcome which allows her to be with us to set the record straight, on this frankly unique story.

"We are extremely pleased that John Blake Books is the publisher to provide the platform."

The book - entitled "Six Days" - is set to be published in spring 2018.

Mum-of-one Chloe says she was taken captive by the "Black Death" group in Italy before being freed six days later.

She told police she was then drugged and stuffed inside a bag before being auctioned on the dark web for £270,000.

She was bizarrely released, with a note from the gang stating it was because"you are a young mother that should have in no circumstances be lured into kidnapping".

John Mc Gowan said...


Would that come under the "Hina Clause"

John Mc Gowan said...

Sorry, i failed to mention i was talking about my post above. (Narative building)

Lars Bak said...

Hi John

Yes, in my analysis I consider it a hina clause. He's explaining "why".

New England Water Blog said...

The outcome of a case analyzed here earlier this year.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Lars

Thank you

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

The meth addict accused of killing Holly Bobo in 2011 has been found guilty of her murder.

Zachary Adams, 33, was convicted of first degree murder, rape and kidnapping at a courthouse in Savannah, Tennessee, on Friday.

Lawyers previously told the court the man was in a 'dark world' of methamphetamine when he abducted, raped and murdered Bobo in April 2011 along with his brother John, who is awaiting a trial date.

The pair were arrested along with their friend Jason Autry after Bobo's decomposed remains were found near Adams' property in 2014, three years after she vanished.

On Friday, a jury convicted him of eight counts which included felony rape, felony murder and especially aggravated kidnapping.

He now faces the death penalty. Jurors will return to court to begin deliberations for his sentencing on Saturday.

As the verdict was read out on Friday, Bobo's parents Karen and Dana hugged other relatives who had gathered in the courtroom.

During the two-week trial, Bobo's mother Karen collapsed as she identified items which belonged to her daughter.

The nursing student's brother Clint, who was the last person to see her alive apart from her accused killers, also gave evidence as did her grandfather and father. All were convinced of Adams' guilt.

In their closing arguments, prosecutors told in graphic detail how Bobo was gang-raped and shot dead in April 2011.

'They ripped Holly's clothes off -- her blue jeans and her panties -- and one by one they lined up. They took turns,' prosecutor Jennifer Nichols said on Thursday.

Autry, who said he served as 'lookout' for the Adams brothers who as they disposed of Bobo's body, took the stand last week to tell how they rolled her body up in a rug.

He said he watched as Adams shot her in the head after she moved unexpectedly from inside the carpet.

Adams' attorneys argued there was no physical evidence Bobo had been inside his home and said the prosecution's case was weak because it depended on Autry's testimony which hinged on him receiving immunity.

They pointed the finger at a known sex offender called Chester the Molester (real name Terry Britt) and even called on witnesses who claimed to have listened to him confess to Bobo's killing.

The former lead detective on the case from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said he was convinced that neither of the Adams brothers were involved before he was removed from it in 2013.

There was also a sensational claim from the former lead investigator from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation who said Adams was not Bobo's killer.

Tania Cadogan said...

He said he had ruled out Adams and his brother after examining cell phone data.

'I was wasting my time investigating these idiots,' Dicus said, referring to the trio of men.

He also focused his attention on Britt whose lengthy criminal record includes multiple convictions for sex crimes.

Britt was ruled out after blonde hair found inside his home was tested and was found not to belong to Bobo.

Several of Adams' acquaintances testified against him. They described his erratic, drug-fueled behavior and told how he behaved strangely whenever Bobo's name was brought up.

Anthony Phoenix, who was friends with Adams and often took drugs with him, said he once told him: 'I couldn't have picked a prettier b***h, could I?'

The jury also heard from Shawn Cooper, who was being held at the Chester County Jail in March 2014 in an unrelated case when Zachary Adams was brought there after being charged in Bobo's killing.

Cooper was awaiting transfer to Obion County Jail when he says Adams told him he was involved in the 'Holly Bobo murder case.'

Cooper said Adams told him his brother was being held in Obion County Jail, and asked him to relay to John that he should stay quiet or he would 'put him in a hole beside her.'

Cooper said those statements upset him.

Others told how he asked them if God would forgive him for 'the Holly killing' and that he also made reference to a knife which they believe he used to hurt her.

The young woman was in her home on April 13, 2011, when she was last seen alive.

Her brother Clint told the court how he watched as she walked into the woods behind their home with a man dressed in camouflage.

He believed it was her boyfriend at the time and saw no reason to be alarmed but a neighbor who heard screams coming from the home suspected foul play.

She called Bobo's mother, who was at work at the time, to tell her her daughter had been abducted.

Bobo was never seen alive again despite a huge, state-wide hunt.

Anonymous said...

Off topic: What does it mean in SA if someone is very uncharacteristically overly polite such as thanking you for asking how they are doing, when this person simply is not normally overly polite? If its a complete aberration?

Anonymous said...

Also, what about if someone offers an unsolicited explanation to an unasked question, their explanation being "no big reason".

Anonymous said...

Peter, Im curious what you thought if the bizarre language used by Kim Jongun to insult Donald Trump? Why was he using almost Shajespearean language combined with medieval words such as "dotard"? Do you think he was reading very old translations of something said long ago in their language that had been translated into English? Its very curious--I wonder where he was getting these very old words from?

Anonymous said...

What makes it worse is that I finally put 2 and 2 together that he came to my town after I had said I was sick of guys when he asked me to meet him in the city like 80 mikes away where I did try to meet him the 2 nd time he came but I got lost. But now I know he came right to this town bc the guys in the center said "Hey you are ----'s friend right?" And I was like "yeah". And the guys like he was in here and it was weird he kept talking about some marriage thing. Do you know anything about that?" And I lied and said "no" bc I didnt think we were on good terms & didnt want to gossip and I was befuddled as to why or how he was here in town & like he hadnt calked me when he came. And like I remember his tone in enaiks to me gad gotten obnoxious towards the end & I remember that he had said that he didnt think he was "allowed" to talk to a friend of his that lives near here & then later said that he didnt think that that friend was "allowed to go anywhere" and I waa thinking what the hell is he talking about? Why wouldnt that friend not be allowed to go anywhere?! And then he wrote "Thats OK I never go there :) I like it here." But now I remember way back then when my evil mother lived here, she was in the kitchen and I had just started to walk down the stairs (this was before I had cell phone) the home phone rang and she answered and said "no she's not here she doesnt live here anymore", and I was like "Who was that on the phone?" And she was like "It wasnt for you (my name)". And I said "Who was it for?" and she said "It wasnt for you (my name)!" and then she said "Why are you giving me such a hard time?" And I said "Well who was it for!" and she said "It was someone trying to sell something!" But it wasnt bc she has never said that to someone trying to sell something. And she wouldnt tell me who the person had asked for. It was him calling me when he came here, and she knew I was in love with him too." And then after he got married she yelled at me "I dont want to hear you pining for (----)!"

LisaB said...

OT (Peter)

Includes video.

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Patrik Liljeglöd is a soft, pampered autocrat with a taste for rough trade.

Charlotte Isabella said...

I am Norwegian, and very few here, or in Sweden, believe him. He his big as a house, how could any man overpower him enough to rape him? That takes a lot of commitment. For obvious, physical reasons, raping a man is not as easy (in want of a better word) as raping a woman.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


good point.

Personally, I think it was one of his normal casual sexual encounters that he did not want to reveal his shallowness, but tried to use for political gain.

The world is upside down.