Monday, March 12, 2018

Elizabeth Warren on DNA Test

Elizabeth Warren is accused of falsifying records to obtain advantage in college and career, by claiming Native American status. 

A mistake is not a lie.  

In order for deception to be present, the will must be engaged.  To wrongly report something is not to tell a lie.  To tell a lie means to "know" that one intends to deceive.  Intention in the language is key. 

As she has run for office and become more vocal in televised appearances, the claim has been challenged more publicly and can answered with a DNA test. A DNA test that shows Native American blood clears her. Some Native American Tribes have asked for proof of bloodlines.  This is generally a requirement that tribes have.  In some locales,  it means tuition free college or tuition  discounts. 

We have, instead of a DNA test, her own words to be guided from. 

This is her response:

“I know who I am. And never used it for anything. Never got any benefit from it anywhere.” 

Statement Analysis listens carefully to the words one chooses. 

We recognize that a direct lie is to cause the subject internal stress; therefore, 90% of more of deception comes in the place of missing or withheld information. 

In the above, she does not tell a technical lie.  

This is something that is often easily recognized by mothers of teenagers doing something they ought not. 

They drop the pronoun "I" from their statement. 

"Went to the movies, Mom!"

This leads Mother to ask, "Who went to the movies?"

We use the pronoun "I" millions of times.  We are so good at its usage that it is 100% accurate. 

“I know who I am. And never used it for anything. Never got any benefit from it anywhere,” 

"I know who I am" is a very strong statement, structurally.    We believe her.  The challenge is in using what she "knows" to gain advantage in college and career. 

"And never used it for anything."

We know that there is missing information between knowing who she is and what follows, with the word, "And."  It is like watching a TV program, with the screen immediately blinking black and then back to the program.  Something is missing.

"And ____ never used it for anything."

The first thing we note is that this sentence requires a question:

"Who never used it for anything?"

Having used the pronoun "I" for decades, it is fair to conclude that the subject knows how to use the pronoun "I" in her sentences. We do not know "who" it is that never used it for anything.

Next, we don't know what "anything" is.  This is to specifically avoid the allegation of college entrance. 

"Never" is to avoid the specific time period where it is alleged that she falsified records. 

It is interesting to note that she is aware of this weakness of her denial because she continues: 

“I know who I am. And never used it for anything. ____ Never got any benefit from it anywhere,” 

Who never got any benefit from it, used anywhere?

The linguistic formula for commitment is the First person singular, the past tense "did not" (or "didn't") and the allegation answered. 

"I did not use Native American status to gain admission in college" would be very strong:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb is specific because the application was made on a specific date and time
3.  The allegation of college admission is concluded. 

If she were to say this and be asked, "Why should you be believed?" and answer,

"Because I told the truth" or "Because I am telling the truth", it would be 99.9% + reliable. 

She specifically omits the pronoun "I" not once, but twice. 

Analysis Conclusion:

The subject obtained benefit from using her claim as Native American over an extended period of time and from 2 or more specific sources or elements.  

Like the teenager who drops his pronoun, the psychological need to avoid the internal stress of a direct lie is evident. 

She uses technical truth and we can believe:

She knows who she is.  She has knowledge. This is an important part of her statement and is very close, in context, to an admission that she knows she is not Native American.  She knows a DNA test will affirm this.  One should consider that she may have done this, privately, long ago. 

We need only to listen to her words to understand her verbalized perception of reality. 

She does not tell us who never used it and who never benefited from it.  

Hyatt Analysis Services offers training for Law Enforcement, business and the private sector.  

We team up with Steve Johnson
 for seminars in Deception Detection, Advanced Statement Analysis, Profiling and Hand Writing Analysis.  

We offer home study, at your own pace, that comes with 12 months of support to make sure that you discern deception at a rate of 100% accuracy.  

Advanced Analysis includes identifying the author of anonymous threatening letters. 

Hyatt Analysis Services 


Anonymous said...


O.J. Simpson described 'blood and stuff' in 2006 hypothetical murder TV confession

Carnival Barker said...

*****𝐏𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐎𝐉'𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧? 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞.******

Statement Analysis Blog said...


is there a transcript online?

thank you, Peter

LuciaD said...

I read somewhere that OJ only did the book and interview in a "what if", hypothetical manner so that he could maintain deniability with his children. Sickening.