Stephen Paddock killed 59 people and injured hundreds in a planned terrorist attack at a Country Music Concert in Vegas.
With unexpected rapidity, local FBI Special Agent in Charge Aaron Rouse in Vegas announced it was not a "terror" attack.
The concert, itself, is considered representative of conservative Americans; those who wish to "conserve" that which established America. This was not lost on a CBS executive who publicly posted her lack of empathy for the victims because they were different from her political ideology.
If Paddock targeted conservatives, it would be Leftist Terrorism.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2017, the local Sheriff announced that he may have been "radicalized unbeknownst to us."
The term "radicalization" is a politically correct form of deception that avoids identifying obedience to Islam's precepts and precedent in the killing of those who do not adhere to Islam's ideology.
If Paddock targeted Americans out of obedience to the Koran/Haddiths, it would be Islamic Terrorism.
Corporate or "Main Stream Media" (MSM) has used headlines such as "gambling debts" and "prescribed anti-anxiety meds" to suggest motive.
Politicians and the elite blamed the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The crisis of confidence the western world has over its media is why we prefer to hear the words of people, for ourselves, rather than the narrative driven deception so common. This is why lay people enroll in Statement Analysis training, including writers, bloggers and others interested in truth.
Here we have the brother of Paddock answering a few questions from media.
What do his answers indicate?
I. Knowledge or Suspicion of Planning
Here, he was asked if he saw signs that indicated something was going to happen:
"I'm not even going to answer that stupid question. There's, I've already told. There's absolutely no. It's like an asteroid fell out of the sky.If an asteroid fell right here, you would feel the exact same way as I feel right now. There's exactly no logic, no reach even for me, where my brother would have done this."
What can we know about his answer?
1. He initially refuses to answer the question. This means the question about seeing signs or indications of something bad to come, however worded, is sensitive to him. We would expect someone without any suspicion of a deadly attack to say,
"I did not see any signs that he would become violent."
Remember that the subject had a large cache of weapons; far more than self protection or hunting. This, alone, if he was close to his brother, would naturally lead to a question as to why the volume of weapons was kept.
This could have been addressed as well. "My brother was a collector" or "my brother was an avid hunter..." and so on. There are 59 dead victims and hundreds hospitalized, so the context must not be minimized.
2. After initially denying the question with "I'm not even going to answer..." we see the need to ridicule the question with "that stupid question."
The need to ridicule the question as "stupid" when it is a commonly asked question regarding startling events of all kinds, shows yet another increase in sensitivity. It is not a "stupid" question in context of both the action, the toll and his cache of weapons. There is, however, another aspect of the greater context involved: money.
3. The question may have been in the form of "yes or no" as media generally asks leading questions or yes or no questions. He does get to the word "no" here:
There's, I've already told. There's absolutely no.
This broken communication tells us that he is self-censoring his information. He began by saying he would not answer the question and then answered it with ridicule, and now we have indication of missing information.
Passivity, or in lengthier views, "passive voice" is used to distance oneself from responsibility. A basic example is "the gun went off..." which avoids telling us who caused the gun to go off. We note passivity and then assign it a classification of appropriate or inappropriate. If someone said in a riot, "rocks were thrown", the passivity may be appropriate if the subject does not know who threw the rocks. It would be inappropriate if the subject knew, but sought to conceal the identity of the rock thrower (s).
"There's absolutely no" is not only to use passivity but do do so
a. in the present tense
b. in self censoring
This will only increase concern that his brother either knew or was suspicious of Stephen Paddock's attack.
As you will see when he answers the question about money, Eric Paddock's concern is Eric Paddock; not the victims, the victims' families, the country, nor even his own family.
He now offers his reason why he had no suspicion of his brother's intent. This is, in this sense, a "hina clause" where the need to explain why is given when no such question has been posed. It is a signal of very high sensitivity:
It's like an asteroid fell out of the sky.
If an asteroid fell right here, you would feel the exact same way as I feel right now.
He has used a hypothetical comparison regarding his own emotions, telling the interviewer that the interview would feel exactly as he does in this moment in time. He does not say he was surprised but gives a specific imagery to declare what "you", the journalist would experience.
This is to avoid plainly stating, "I was shocked."
Leakage In Statement Analysis
"Leakage" is an advanced form of statement analysis in which we ask why certain words are used and what they may possibly indicate. With detection deception normally running at or near 100% accuracy, and content analysis at 80%, leakage is speculative. It asks questions that sometimes means answers come later.
Baby Ayla was reported kidnapped by her father, Justin DiPietro, from his own mother's home in Waterville, Maine, several years back. The case is covered here in the blog of which using the search feature will give you analysis.
Baby Ayla was not kidnapped as Justin DiPietro, his sister and his mother were all deceptive. Yet, even in their deception, information was inadvertently "leaked" out.
When confronted with the allegation that he was not cooperating with police, he said,
"Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have been cooperating with Waterville police..."
Police were thus advised: search water for her remains as this was likely on his mind when issuing his denial: "Contrary to rumors floating around out there, I have..."
Later, he was asked about his polygraph and he refused to answer if he passed or failed it, finally stating, "I smoked it."
It is no surprise that DiPietro was a drug user, as to why he would choose a dismissive, juvenile taunting phrase while his own daughter was allegedly in the hands of strangers.
Another example commonly cited is when Cindy Anthony threw out Texas Equasearch from her home and told media why:
"George and I don't believe that Caylee's in the woods or anything."
As she explained why she demanded Tim Miller and Equasearch to leave, she inadvertently revealed her knowledge of Caylee's remains as they were found "in the woods" a few blocks from her home.
Leakage warrants exploration and further questioning. Here, we not only examine Eric Paddock's answer, but his choice of words in formulating his answer.
It is interesting to note what imagery he invokes to explain why he has no knowledge:
a large object falling from the sky.
An astroid falling to earth not only invokes surprise, but damage from above.
Advanced Analysis would consider this as possible leakage; the inadvertent dissemination of information.
As we consider the rain of bullets poured from the sky into victims, this is the imagery that Eric Paddock has chosen to employ.
It is now vital that we learn his linguistic disposition towards victims.
There's exactly no logic, no reach even for me, where my brother would have done this."
The defensive posture for Eric Paddock is very high. The answer reveals self protection without any mention of the victims.
Stephen Paddock transferred $100,000 to an account in the Philippines a week before his attack. His girlfriend was identified with the announcement that she was not a person of interest. The transfer of money just prior to the terrorist attack means investigators must learn if Marilou Danley had guilty knowledge of what was planned. It also means that investigators should seek to learn if his bother had knowledge, or in the very least, suspicion of what was to come, specifically through financial transactions.
She left the country and then it was announced that she was a person of interest and has flown back to the United States.
"Steve is the reason that she has substantial funds right now and is comfortable. That's the Steve I know. Now, the other thing someone said that Steve transferred $100,000.
Woo, a hundred thousand dollars. We're wealthy people, $100,000 isn't that much money, A., and I'm sorry if that hurts people or something, but a hundred thousand dollars isn't that huge amount of money."
1. "That's the Steve I know" is now "separating" or compartmentalizing his brother. This would suggest a positive view on giving away $100,000 yet it is found in the incomplete social introduction. His brother has shot hundreds of innocent victims and he indicates a need to portray him in a positive light.
The answer may be found in the choice of words.
Note it is "the Steve" he, himself knows. This is to deny knowledge of the "other" Steve. The denial is about self, not about money and not about Danley.
The focus shows self-concern. This is important to recognize and consider, again, with the reminder that the dead have yet to be buried by the time of this interview.
Again, consider the context: the transfer was a week prior to the killing of so many. This is suggestive that Paddock knew he would not survive the attack, whether by police or his own hand.
2. He affirms the wire transfer with the explanation of "why" Marilou Danley's, alleged to be Stephen Paddock's girlfriend, has "substantial funds."
3. He avoids using Marilou Danley's name. This "incomplete social introduction" suggests a less than good relationship with Danley within the context of money.
It could be not good because he does not know her. Statement Analysis allows for a wide variety of causes, yet if he does not know Danley, he affirms knowledge of her financial status and does so within the element of time: "...she has substantial funds right now." which suggest that she did not have substantial funds prior.
Therefore, it is not likely that lack of knowledge has caused the incomplete social introduction.
Question: Maybe he is just protecting her name from this mess?
Answer: This is not likely either, since it has bee well published.
The incomplete social introduction is in the context of money. One might consider if the relationship was poor, either with her or even with Stephen, due to disagreement over her and money.
Woo, a hundred thousand dollars.
While there are 50 dead and hundreds injured, he ridicules regarding money.
We're wealthy people, $100,000 isn't that much money,
There is still no mention of the victims, but note what now comes into his language:
A., and I'm sorry if that hurts people or something, but a hundred thousand dollars isn't that huge amount of money."
Hence, further insight into the calloused and defensive personality of Eric Paddock.
The words, "I'm sorry" often enter the language of the guilty.
Question: Who is the recipient of the ridicule?
Answer: Those who consider $100,000 a "huge" sum of money.
Media reported that Stephen Paddock went to an anti Trump rally.
If this was Leftist Terrorism, targeting "country music fans" due to their connection to working class status, consider the following:
Here we have no empathy for victims, only a condescending insult regarding economic status. This may be considered in light of the recent presidential campaign where "deplorables" (sic) were classified as lower income, lower educated people lacking the intelligence to vote for the "right" candidate.
Further investigation is warranted but in the least, Eric Paddock shows a need to avoid issuing a reliable denial.
It is very likely that he had, in the very least, suspicion of his brother's activity. Investigators will need to learn if he had more than suspicion.
For training in your home, department or business, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services to learn how to enroll.