Friday, December 8, 2017

Did John Conyers III Commit Assault against Girlfriend?

John Conyers III, the son of  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), had been accused of stabbing his ex-girlfriend in a domestic dispute in February, reports say. 

His father  Rep. John Conyers is reported to have paid out many payments to women he sexually assaulted or harassed, with some reports claiming that he used tax payer money, over decades. 

Upon retirement, he stated that he was endorsing his son, John Conyers III, for his elected position. Officially, his 27 year old son is said to be a "portfolio fund manager" and a rap artist. 

Recently, a rap video emerged in which the son raps about his father being a "player" (sexual). 

Media then reported about this assault.  I found two different quotes attributed to him. We will look at them together for comparison. 

In a reliable denial, if one uses the pronoun "I", the past tense verb, and the allegation answered, it is 90% reliable.  If the subject looks upon his reliable denial and says, "I have told the truth", the reliability moves to 99.9% and above.  I have never seen a denial reach this level that was later shown to be false. I know of no other analysts, instructors or investigators who have, either. 

Sophisticated Liars

Those of strong intellect and habitual lying (since childhood) know how to parse words carefully.  The most cited example is how a deceptive person with both intellect and practice, will give a "technically" truthful denial, deliberately parsing.  Among very intellectual liars, this  is often found in an alteration of the accusation.  

The most famous example is former President Bill Clinton would likely have passed a polygraph had he been specifically asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" in the test. 

Having assigned a specific subjective and personal definition to "sexual relations", Clinton showed his employment of intellect in deception at a high level.  He influenced the witness, Monica Lewinsky, to also deceive in this manner.  

Is John Conyers III a sophisticated liar? Or, is he telling the truth?

We let his words guide us. 

Conyers and his son:  No prosecution? 

There have been long standing accusations of nepotism regarding Conyers in the House of Represenatives. These include relatives benefiting by his office, such as job placement, contracts awarded to companies that hire his family and one involving Conyers III in which he had to reimburse the government for illicit use the government issued Cadillac that Conyers Sr. had. 

 Conyers III was arrested but not charged for allegedly stabbing and bodyslamming his then-girlfriend during an argument they had in Los Angeles. 
Conyers III told the NY Times in an interview Wednesday about the encounter as a way to prevent scandal after his father announced his retirement following allegations of sexual harassment. This context should be noted.  
 Conyers III said he and his girlfriend got into an argument at 3 a.m. February 15 that turned into a physical fight. Police later arrested him for domestic violence, but the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office dropped the charges.
Was this due to a lack of evidence?  
Did his girlfriend refuse to cooperate? 
Was it due to political connections?
We may not know the answer, but we can obtain information from what the subject, himself, about the assault. 
His girlfriend successfully secured a restraining order against Conyers III that remains in effect through March 2018.
Conyers III maintained his innocence in the interview with the Times.  We have two statements; one from the Times and one from CNN. Let's analyze the first, seeking insight, to see if it helps with analysis of the second statement he made. 
Allegation:  He stabbed and body slammed his girlfriend. 

“She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense. I didn’t do this. She and I had a verbal altercation, and that escalated. She pulled the knife on me. She was chasing me. I tried to take it from her. There was a struggle. I pinned her to the wall. She kept swinging, and she cut herself.
She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense.
He began with what "she" says.  We should consider that he is likely not going to use her name publicly, as it is not part of the report, but even with this, we note that he does not use a possessive pronoun, nor a title. She is not "my girlfriend says..."
The lack of social introduction, in spite of confidentiality, should lead us to consider that this is not a positive relationship at the time of the statement.  We then see if the statement will support this or not. 
She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense.
Here he only reports what she "says" and not what happened. 
He tells us that she she said "makes no sense" but in admitting that there was an argument that became a physical "fight" between a male and a female, we do not know why her "saying" this would "make no sense."
This is to avoid issuing a reliable denial and is a tangent moving us away from a denial to the point of indicting her as one without "sense."
What she did "say" is very important:  "stabbing."  Keep this in mind. 
The need to persuade his audience that the victim does not make sense is also noted.  It is to put blame upon the victim.  This is a decidedly weak point, noted for both the need to move the topic away from a denial and to go after the victim's mental status.  
 Embedded confession?  
Question:  Is it an embedded confession for him to say "I stabbed her"?
Answer:  No.  He ascribes this to what she is "saying"
Please consider that "says" is unreliable in the present tense.  She made the claim to police in the past, and she even obtained a protection order.  The latter was in writing.  He did not say "she said", or "she claimed" or "she reported" but "she says." This present tense accusation is possibly something that would be "ongoing" for our subject.  We look to see if it is a habit of speech, as is the wont for some.  We quickly learn:  
I didn’t do this.
Unreliable denial. 
Although he used the pronoun "I" (1) and the past tense verb ("didn't") he violates component number 3:  the accusation. 
It is interesting that he uses the word "this" instead of describing the "stabbing" (not assault, nor something else), which just preceded the statement. 
"stab" is his language that he ascribes to her, but not in the past tense.  
Although some claim that the 27 year old has never held an actual job, the Times reports him as a "fund manager."  He likely knows the difference between present tense and past tense verb usage.  She "says" is present tense but "I didn't" uses the stronger past tense. 
There is an inconsistency here. 
Next, note that he not only avoids using his own wording for the accusation, but chooses to use the word "this", rather than "that."
The word "this" often shows a psychological closeness (it can be geographical, but the context does not support it) to the accusation. 
Readers may find this surprising but at this point, I believe him. 
I believe he didn't stab her.  
Let's see if this assertion of mine is sustainable. 
First, he used the tangent (-), and then maligned the victim as not making sense (-) and then he used the present tense (-) and issued an unreliable denial (-).  He has now given me four indications that should lead me to conclude that he did, in deed, stab her.  
Let's continue to listen to him to guide us.  Remember:  we begin with the presupposition that he did not do it, and in order to believe that he is deceptive, he must talk us out of our position. 
 She and I had a verbal altercation, and that escalated. 
Note "she and I" is not "we", which affirms the negative status of relationship noted from the lack of social introduction. 
Then, note that he admits "verbal altercation", which is then addressed:  escalation. 
When "verbal" escalates, it escalates to physical. 
Note how this escalation is now something he wishes to distance himself from:
"and this escalated" is not what he said. 
"...and that escalated."  
He psychologically brings himself "close" to "stab" but distances himself, immediately afterwards, regarding escalation beyond verbal "altercation."
This does not seem to make sense.  
She pulled the knife on me. 
This is, in its form, reliable.  It does not mean he did not pull a knife on her, but we have no reason to believe that this is not reliable. Note the strong past tense language. 
She pulled the knife on me. 
Did you notice that he used the reliable past tense verb, "pulled" here? 
Yet, the article "the" is used.  It should be "she pulled a knife on me" unless...
it shouldn't be. 
The word "the" tells us that the knife has already been identified by the subject.  
This is why I added that I believe him, even though there may be missing information such as whether he pulled a knife out. 
"The" could indicate that earlier in the interview he mentioned it or it could be because he handled it earlier in the altercation. 
Articles, like pronouns, are instinctive.  They do not warrant pause and pre thought.  
She was chasing me. 
He said "she pulled the knife" but he did not say "she chased me."  He changed the verb tense...
Regardless of whether one believes he has a shill nepotistic job as a fund manager, the point is that he is intelligent and likely has a formal education. 
I tried to take it from her. 
This means "attempted but failed."
The verb tense change "chasing" me elongates time in the sentence.  Consider that time is passing in the statement. Remember, time must pass (we cannot alter it), therefore it is when the subject feels the need to express the time passing that we consider just how important this is. 
What else happened during this stretching of time?
There was a struggle. 
He immediately moves to passivity in his statement. This means he is now removing both identity and responsibility from the "struggle": who did what to whom.  
This is a need to conceal information.  
Remember the accusation:  attacking her with a knife and body slamming her. 
I pinned her to the wall. 
This is very strong and likely reliable.  Yet it is followed with: 
She kept swinging, 
The change of verb tense and of the element of time. He reports that which began, but he reports it without completion of the activity. "I pinned her to the wall" is an example of reliability in a statement.  There is an action that is both assigned responsibility and completion.  This is what he did.  
Now go back and consider, "there was a struggle" deliberately conceals who did what to whom.  
This is how we know: 
Content Analysis:  at some point, he pinned her to the wall. As we piece this together by our work:  taking the words apart and putting them back together again, we seek a portrait. 
Deception Detection:  we know that this is not all that happened and that he is deceiving us by leaving out information.  

and she cut herself.
Among other things that are left out, this is something that did happen. 
Note that the accusation from her, according to his words, is that she "says I stabbed her."
Now he introduces the word "cut" instead of "stab."
Here is the CNN statement: 
“The DA dismissed the charges, but it’s something that causes me a lot of anguish and now it’s associated with me. I know what happened, and I know I’m innocent.”
"I know what happened" is a red flag statement of knowledge.  
"I know I am innocent " is not "I am innocent."  In both, he asserts what "he" knows; allowing for others to "know" contrary.  This is different than a denial. 
When one tells us what one knows, it is unnecessary information and indicates sensitivity. 
"I know I didn't kill him" will immediately lead to, "So, you know who did kill him?" 
It is an indication of something else that is known.  Listen to him and let his language guide you: 
“I did not stab her. That’s absolutely false. I’m not a violent person; that is not me. There was a verbal altercation and it escalated. I didn’t try to go grab a knife or do anything with a knife.”
"I did not stab her" is very strong. 
He then moves to weaken it by introducing it with "that's absolutely false."
"That", the stabbing, is absolutely false.  "That" is.  But...mothers of small boys are intuitively engaged at this point.  Here is why: 
This is very similar to the comical story where little Johnny comes home from school confronted by mother:
"The teacher said you ran up behind Sally and pulled her hair" to which Johnny says, "I didn't do that!" truthfully.
He was standing right behind her when he pulled her hair.  He didn't run up to her. 
This is why I wrote earlier that I believe he did not "stab" her.  
Yet, the weakening is in the overall context:
I’m not a violent person; that is not me.
Now I know the missing info:  "violence." This is the language of guilt. He has a need to portray himself as different than what happened.  This need is what we note. 
"that is not me" is the ancient gnostic "splitting" that liars have done since time out of mind. 
It is to separate the action from the persona.  It is the language of deception. It is very common in serious allegations including assault, sexual assault, and theft.  It is as if there is a little person living inside the subject who is peaceful, gentle, and giving.  It is the big bad outside person that is giving him all the trouble. 
There was a verbal altercation and it escalated.
Passivity concealing how "it" escalated.  Combined with his need to change verb tenses and elongate time, we are getting insight into him. 
He has a need to tell us the "type" of person he is.  
This is similar to one knowing "in my heart" something that is not able to be denied by the "brain" or by reality. It is human nature. 
So if he didn't "stab" her, what did he do?
 I didn’t try to go grab a knife or do anything with a knife.”
We now know.
Like pronouns, "articles do not lie." 
Yet, I believe him. I believe he did not stab her and she, somehow, "cut herself."  
Why the need to use such deceptive language?
What one tells us in the negative is elevated in importance.  He wants us to know what he did not "try" to do.  Therefore, what he did, "just happened" to him as it was not his intention,  
  He did not "stab" her, but "cut" her. In his verbalized perception of reality: 
The knife presented itself in opportunity, very likely as she waved it around. 
It was her fault that he could turn the knife around while in her hand. This is how he can technically make a truthful statement while wrapping it in deceptive language. Technically, it was her hand that held "a" (not "the" knife here) knife.  
This is how technical truth is used for deception. It is why he had to employ passive voice to this statement.  It is why he changed verb tenses so often. 
In the escalation to violence, the missing information is what he did.  Remember, he is the one who employed passivity in speech.  It is similar to "the gun went off", removing all responsibility for the shooting.  
He did not stab her, but grabbed her arm and guided the knife to cut her.  He did not go out to get a knife, it presented itself.  
This is why there is deception surrounded the physical altercation with a knife.  He was physically stronger than her. 
But what about "body slamming"? 
We can know that he body slammed her too, as he did not deny it but gave us signals of deception of the altercation. 
He is a sophisticated and intelligent liar. We now see why she was granted the protection order.  
He does not take personal responsibility, either, for the "altercation" as he:  
he blames her. 
he blames the knife. 
Without knowing the victim, it is very likely that he was bigger and considerably stronger than her.  It is he who has the need to deceive. 
The subject, John Conyers III has a need to present himself as good person.  This need to present and persuade tells us the opposite.  He goes into detail about what makes him a good person.  This gives us detail into who is actually is.  
Based upon his language, he is likely facing a successful career in politics. 
For training in deception detection, sign up for our course,
It is done in your home, or your department can host a seminar.  The course comes with 12 months of e support, which is necessary as you learn to apply the principles in a disciplined manner. 
Tuition payment plans available for law enforcement. Tuition increase January 1, 2018.  


Anonymous said...

In and of itself, are we concerned about the fight occurring at "3"am and his account starting at this particularly identified time?

Anonymous said...

Maybe during the struggle, as he overpowered her, she was cut. Not stabbed, but cut. They both were attempting control of the knife and she really was cut. Intentional or not? Who knows. They both caused it?

BallBounces said...

"The need to persuade his audience that the victim does not make sense is also noted. It is to put blame upon the victim. This is a decidedly weak point, noted for both the need to move the topic away from a denial and to go after the victim's mental status."

Wouldn't it be better to use the word accuser at this point in the analysis, rather than victim?

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

A US man whose murder conviction was the focus of the popular Netflix series Making A Murderer has been denied a new trial by a Wisconsin judge.

She ruled that Steven Avery had failed "to establish any grounds that would trigger the right to a new trial".

Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were convicted of murdering a young woman, Teresa Halbach, in 2005.

But Mr Dassey's conviction was overturned because his confession, made as a 16 year old, was coerced.

Judge Angela Sutkiewicz ruled in the case of Avery on Tuesday that "the defendant has failed to establish any grounds that would trigger the right to a new trial in the interests of justice".

"As such, no further consideration will be given to this issue," she said, pointing out that there was no "reasonable probability that a different result would be reached at a new trial".

Avery's attorney Kathleen Zellner argued that he has been framed in the case and that she will now seek to overturn the judge's order.

Avery and Mr Dassey were each sentenced to life in jail - in separate trials - for killing Ms Halbach, a freelance photographer, whose charred remains were found at Avery's car salvage yard a week after she went there to photograph a minivan for sale in 2005.

Making a Murderer investigated Ms Halbach's death - casting doubt on the legal process used in the investigation and subsequent court cases.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
Maybe during the struggle, as he overpowered her, she was cut. Not stabbed, but cut. They both were attempting control of the knife and she really was cut. Intentional or not? Who knows. They both caused it?
December 8, 2017 at 11:36 PM

If such was the case, the subject would not have the need to deceive, nor present himself as something he is not, nor distance himself from it as he did.

The point of analysis is to bring clarity; not to create a muddled view. We get to the truth and we accept the subject's deception.

By clouding the issue, the deceptive prevail.

Anonymous said...

I am so hoping you will analyze Davey Blackburn’s engagement statement.

Anonymous said...

Sailor staged racist vandalism, Navy says

Alex said...

I just now read some of Davey Blackburn's proposal page.

He is definitely enamored of himself.

What I find very odd is the way he refers to the one year "anniversary" of Amanda's death and at other times he says "one year" after Amanda's death.


Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

THE murder conviction of Brendan Dassey, the focus of hit Netflix series Making a Murderer, has been upheld by an appeals court – after being dramatically overturned last year.

Dassey and his uncle Steven Avery were convicted of murdering photographer Teresa Halbach in 2005, whose charred remains were found at Avery’s house.

Last year, Dassey’s conviction was overturned on the basis that his confession had been coerced, with a judge ruling that investigators took advantage of the then 16-year-old’s learning difficulties.

But now the decision of US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold his conviction after the state asked for a review of the case means Dassey, now aged 27, will remain in prison serving out his life sentence for first-degree murder, second-degree sexual assault and mutilation of a corpse.

The court ruled 4-3 that his confession should stand, and that his admission of guilt was given voluntarily.

The three dissenting judges described the decision as “a profound miscarriage of justice,” arguing that without the confession, the case against the teen would have been “non-existent.”

Judge Ilana Rovner wrote: “What occurred here was was the interrogation of an intellectually impaired juvenile.

“His confession was not voluntary and his conviction should not stand, and yet an impaired teenager has been sentenced to life in prison.”

Dassey’s case came to public attention when scenes showing him confessing to the murder were shown on Making a Murderer, where he admitted to helping his uncle rape, kill and mutilate Teresa.

The confession was a key part of Dassey’s trial, due to a lack of physical evidence linking him to the murder, but the teen recanted the confession in June 2006- telling a judge he had taken most of the ideas from a book.

Dassey never testified against his uncle at trial.

Avery, 54, is still serving his life sentence at a Wisconsin prison, and is also seeking a new hearing of his case.

Avery’s former lawyer, Jerry Buting, who was also featured in the series, took to Twitter to describe Dassey’s conviction as “a horrific decision.”

Both maintain their innocence, and claim that Manitowc County have framed them because of a lawsuit Avery brought against the state after he was wrongly convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder in 1985.

The second season of Making a Murderer is set to air before the end of 2017.

Anonymous said...

Ann Coulter tweet 12-10-17

AG Sessions should bring a federal civil rights case against this police dept. State courts obviously can't be trusted to protect the civil rts of white men.

No wonder why BLM formed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

They shouldn't be allowed to change party's while in office.

Habundia said...

Alex said...


Anti-Trump bias hits a new and ridiculous low.


Anonymous said...

What business is it of Congress to investigate an office holders misconduct that occurred before one was elected to office? If misbehavior while in office, then ok. But not before. It's all about personal destruction. If they have done nothing illegal or improper in office, then leave them alone. Whether its franken, clinton or trump. Tying people up in terminology and then perjury knowing most will deny accusations that have been broadcast to the whole world.

habundia said...

Is this the page you meant?

habundia said...

What i also find odd about Davey Blackburns writing about his engagement and about Amanda.....he not once mentioning the fact Amanda was pregnant and he not once is telling about the lost of his unborn child...he not once mentioning the lost of his unborn child...what does this tell?

Anonymous said...

Has any analysis been done on statements from morning Joe about his young female intern who was found deceased in his office? I never heard the story until his tweet war with Trump.