Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Unnecessary Information in Analysis: The "Sermon"

Politicians are always generous to students of deception detection.  

"I am against elder abuse!"

To be "against" something in a public debate, there is the presupposed position of one being "for" elder abuse. 

This is different than raising public awareness of what elders may experience in nursing homes and VA hospitals. 

In Statement Analysis, we recognize that information that is "unnecessary" becomes elevated in importance and can reach a point of "highest sensitivity cited" by an analyst. 

Unnecessary Information Lesson 

"I went to the library."

This sentence, on its form, is reliable.  If the subject is lying, the subject is now moving into a category that investigators and analysts need to explore for habitual or pathological lying.  

"I left my house and went to the library."

The additional words, "I left my house and" are not only additional (the law of economy is the short cut of language) but they are "unnecessary" to add. 

One cannot get to the library unless one first leaves the location. 

It indicates that the subject's brain is pausing or halting at the location of departure.  

It indicates to us that the subject is withholding information.  To withhold information, the subject must be thinking about it but not stating it.  

This is often due to rushing, time constraints, traffic, and so on.  On average (context dependent) it can be as much as 70% due to this train of thought, which would include being late for something, gathering personal belongings together rushing, and so on. 

The context often dictates to us if it is time related or if it is critically withheld information that the subject just cannot get his mind away from. 

When something critical to the account (greater context) took place, we often find it right at this point in the statement.  


1. Is it unnecessary?
2. Does it reverse the law of economy of language?  This means that it took more effort, raising its importance to the subject. 
3.  Does the context indicate rushing, traffic, time constraint, etc? If not, it is going to prove to be important for exploration. 

When we find this point of high sensitivity close in the statement with another high sensitivity issue, we are often seeing the solving of a case. 

A murdered child was found in the home.  The single best question to ask is the open ended, non interpretive:  

Q.  What happened? 

A.  "I left the house because I had to go to work that day."

We will always point our question at unnecessary wording.  Here, we have the point of departure ("left) and the preempting of a question of "why did you leave the house?" answered.  When one works full time, it is not likely that an investigator would think to ask, "Why did you leave?" as it is unnecessary. 

Yet, we find that when asked "what happened?" the subject's immediate answer turns him into a suspect.  We know he is withholding information of the time period prior to leaving the house.  He thinks to himself, "this investigator is going to ask me why I left the house, so I better tell him first, otherwise I will look guilty..."

Guilty subjects teach us how to ask questions.  

Elder Abuse and Virtue Signaling 

During the #metoo phase of Hollywood, it became evident to the untrained that those who were rushing to make unnecessary moral declarations were projecting guilt.  If you followed it, you saw some that made public declarations against sexual abuse of women. 

This is unnecessary information.  

No one is carrying signs outside of studios calling for more sexual abuse, or more elder abuse.  

Unnecessary information is only unnecessary to us; not to the subject. 

The subject has as reason to protest "against" that which warrants no protest.  

This is the essence of "virtue signaling" which is a modern phrase that is what is called "the Sermon" in analysis. 

In human nature, we posses a desire to be "right" morally.  This is universal with rare exception (sociopathic, etc). It is when this need becomes acute that we often find projected guilt. Even those with an ideology that is committed to ending life for some (Nazism, Islam) will frame it is "moral" language, such as "for the good of mankind." 

If I continued, week after week, writing, speaking, texting, tweeting against elderly abuse, at some point, someone is going to look into my background to learn, "Did he work at a facility that housed the elderly?" and on to, "Did he abuse an elderly person?" and/or "Did he ignore the abuse by those under him?" and so on.  

Sermonizing or Virtue Signaling is "unnecessary" (our reference point for it) and when it appears, it should be explored. 

In Statement Analysis, we recognize this as "sermonizing" which is similar to the "Good Guy" principle:  it often reveals the polar opposite.  

It is common, for example, to find on the intake of substance abuse treatment for mothers who put their babies through withdrawal to find them writing, "I am a great mother" in an open statement.  Billie Jean Dunn, accused of not only murdering her 13 year old daughter, Hailey, but of child pornography, neglect, and burning a home-made tattoo in the shoulder of her son, with acid stolen from a hospital,  made this declaration. 

In employment analysis, we find that those with a history of theft will, in deed, "lecture" or "sermonize" that stealing is wrong as if there is a contrary position to take. This is unnecessary information that we explore.  It is routinely confirmed in background checks or exploration that the subject stole. 

"I think those who steal from their employers are biting the hand that feeds them and should be fired, charged, imprisoned and..." in an open statement should alert us to the sensitive connection with theft. 

What caused the sensitivity?

Has this person been a victim of theft? 
Has this person stolen? 

Unnecessary and Projective 

"Islam is the religion of peace" is only needed to be labeled as such when the presence of violence is indicated.  There are many passages in the Koran, defenders point out, that address peace and mercy.  Although an individual can do anything, Hinduism is not called "the religion of peace" as there is no need to; it does not prescribe violence in its ideology.  If Islam did not prescribe violence and coercion, nor did it have a history of such, there would exist no need for the label, "the religion of peace." It is only necessary due to violence. The devaluation of women, especially given "divine status" as "one half the testimonial value of the male" leads naturally to sexual violence and child abuse.  This strikes at the heart of woman.  The "grooming gang" exploitation of thousands of victims is a natural outworking of ideology. 

Faux Morality 

The analysis of the Andrew McCabe statement suggests that the subject is not a habitual liar. It is likely, according to the language, that he sees himself as a victim of pressure he could not withstand.   His language should be compared to former Director James Comey's language, including from his tweets.  

They are very different. 

Comey shows a distinct need to show "virtue" or higher morals (sermonizing) regularly which is "unnecessary" unless it is necessary for him.  The lack of self awareness continued in his tweeting even though the obvious was highlighted by the public's reaction.  Comey's "weasels and liars" insult was powerful, yet it gave insight into one who lied publicly and who may have projected his opinion of having to navigate gingerly around the Clintons' scandals in both the illegal server and in the "Clinton Cash" which generated millions of dollars and gave advantage to donators. The allegations made within this book and documentary have yet to be fully investigated and have not, to date, been repudiated. I urge its viewing, looking specifically for "need to persuade" versus reporting allegations, to help discernment. 

Unnecessary Virtue

Those who lie call for truth, when the call for truth should not be necessary.  

Those who exploit, call for condemnation of exploitation when no such condemnation is necessary. 

McCabe's language suggests his discomfort with deception rather than a personality trait of deception. He was deceptive and the FBI recommended his termination.  Although more sample is needed, I believe he developed, slowly, into this position where each step took him further and further from his personal upbringing.  For example, his wife received more than $600,000 from a Clinton ally while he was investigating Clinton. 

The 'What to do?' Complexity 

If he recuses himself, he could incur the wrath of the Director, the President and his future boss, Hillary Clinton, expected to win the presidency.  

If he insists his wife, running for office, give back the donation (conflict of interest, excessive amount), would she?

Would she oppose him?  If so, what would that do to his marriage?

Would she be able to pay for commercials on TV and campaign without this, perhaps the largest donation ever? 

If he and/or she felt that losing the election would harm the nation, is this the "greater good" ethical dilemma? 

What might refunding or refusing the donation due to his own career after the election which media reported was all but done?

Did McCabe, indeed, change the notes of Peter Strzok when he reported that a "computer glitch" deleted them, but then they reappeared shortly after?  What will this do to his credibility in claiming to take notes during the times he met with Trump?  This, too, will then go back to the "non memorialized" interview with Clinton. 

It goes round and round. 

President Trump and Rep. Adam Schiff 

Two good examples for analysts to study come from President Trump and Rep. Adam Schiff. 

Deception is routinely seen in the language of confidentiality.  This can be medical (HIPPA), military, social (therapists) and other fields.  Neil Armstrong's interview showed he refused to commit to the lunar landing.  The passivity, however, may have been due to military mandate of confidentiality, especially given the arms race with the then Soviet Union.  It is not enough to say "this is deception" without the greater context.  

Negotiation Language is deceptive.  

"Dutch Boys"

On the back of expensive furniture tags was a series of letters which quickly told the sales person how low he could go in negotiations.  One such used "Dutch Boys" as its code, assigning the number to each letter.  "D" is 1, "U" is 2 and so on. A blank is zero.  B SS would be 6099.  

Therefore, if an item was priced at $2800 and the customer wanted to negotiate a better price, and the tag said, "DYHH", the sales person knew he could not go beneath $1955", so he would begin the negotiation well above it. He may say, "I don't think I can go below $2550 for you, but I will check..." which is technically deceptive.  It is inherent in the language of negotiation. If you listened to his words, no matter what "fuss" he appeared to be raising, checking with supervisors and records, you heard the weak commitment of "think" which should tell you:  he knows he can go lower.  In the above sample, if the sales person sold at Dutch Boys price, there was no commission. If he sold below Dutch Boys, it was subtracted from his salary.  He needs to know what he is doing in negotiations. Now picture this many times more complicated with myriads of laws, regulations and so much more in New York real estate.  

Trump's language should be immediately categorized.  The analyst/reader should ask, "Is he negotiating?"  If so, presuppose that what he says is not what he wants but posturing.  This means almost uninterrupted deception when he seeks something.


  We may consider this in light of the insults he poured upon the North Korean dictator. Trump's enemies called him "unstable" and demanded impeachment. This was not likely lost on N Korea's Kim Un's advisors.  "Is he unstable enough to actually attack our nuclear facilities?"  This was a tactic successfully used by President Reagan decades ago in which the media, calling him a "crazy old man" actually assisted in obtaining his goal.  As critics call him "unpredictable", it  may be that some do not see the element of negotiation deception in his language.  In these contexts (which are many) he is predictable. When a politician says he wants "C", he is thus boxed into this position and will be seen as a failure if he obtains "B."  Not so in business negotiations.  It remains to be seen if Trump's language will become more politicized over time.  I think not, however, due to personalty traits in which negotiation appears to be something he does incessantly. 

"My button is bigger than yours, and it works" as a sexual reference  however, is not lost on analysis, as his "New York playboy lifestyle" has long been known. 

Yet as allegations of a sexual affair prior to taking office arise, we should not import "negotiation deception" into allegation denials. This is now specific, and it is not posturing for a negotiated end. Here, the strength of the denial, itself, is analyzed. 

What about multiple allegations?  

With Judge Roy Moore, was he using age and sophistication disparity to exploit young girls?

In his case, we were dealing with allegation denial; but  multiple allegations clouding the denial. Yet,  it was still discernible. 

How could we tell the difference when some allegations were true and some were not when he issued a blanket denial of them all?

The answer was found moving "not reliable" to "unreliable" by two elements:

1.  Normalcy
2.  Sermonizing 

His need to present situations as "normal" told us that they were anything but normal.  It is in this "need" that we flag for sensitivity. 

But more importantly, the subject guided us to the truth by his sermonizing or "unnecessary moral stances" which told us to the contrary. The cloud of multiple allegations quickly cleared for the analysis as Moore kept up the "virtue signaling" of how "righteous" he was.  He projected guilt as virtue such as, "Asking the parents permission..." It covered for his exploitation of young girls. 

Unique Opportunity for Analysts 

Representative Adam Schiff was rebuffed by President Obama even as he publicly supported Obama.  Schiff's language indicates a rare element that actually does indicate "instability" with "stability" in context meaning predictability. 

Schiff's language should be studied by analysts and student analysts.  He is not restrained by fact, as others are, and although the self motivation becomes evident, his language indicates a lowered concern for accusations of he himself being caught as a liar.  Even those with sociopathic like traits feel the stress of direct lying because they can stand accused of lying and wish to avoid it.  

Schiff is very low in this regard.  This is likely what caused President Obama to attempt to silence and distance himself from Schiff's vocal support.  It is not that he is above being publicly humiliated, it is that he appears to be less impacted while speaking with direct lying within deception.  It can still cause halts and sensitivity indictors, but with less frequency and intensity than we normally see.  

Schiff's language puts him in the 10% category of direct lying.  For a small example of this form of lying, see Richard Blumenthal's defense of his fabrication of being in Viet Nam.  This includes his attack on any and everyone who 'dare' question him.  Then, put this personality type in a prosecutor's role and the question of justice becomes intensified. 

Schiff is a fascinating character which helps analysts go beyond the "rules" and into the exceptions.  Principles are not established on exceptions, but exceptions exist and need to be understood.  Schiff provides for this in abundance. Humiliation is a powerful trigger, and it was years later that Schiff retaliated against Obama publicly. 

This is not to say that Schiff will always use outright lying as his form of deception.  He will, as humans do, rely upon withholding information in deception.  It is the occasional use that must be studied.  

When information is unnecessary, it is very important. 
When unnecessary information is in the form of a sermon, lecture or "virtue signaling", it is often an indicator of guilt. 

Mothers investigated for child abuse and found to have been abusive, will often "lecture" or "virtue signal" to other mothers in a manner that demeans or insults them.  

The impact upon the audience is to compete and not be "left behind" as less than moral. It is provocative. 

In our analysis, it is useful in all forms.  

The unnecessary sermonizing, in an open statement, is often an indicator of guilt that is projected outward.  

It is essential for investigating theft as well as screening for theft in Employment Analysis.

In 2001, the Dept. of Justice stated that 40% of those who stole from their company, planned to do so during the hiring process.

17 years later, we look back at this statistic and realize:

It does not include fraudulent complaints of injury, harassment, or discrimination, which are not only widely popular today, but in terms of exploitation, very successful. 

Celebrity statements are invaluable to those who seek to learn Employment Analysis as well as insight into human nature.  


LuciaD said...

So interesting! Again you made me laugh while learning,with the "Politicians are always generous to students of deception detection". Indeed.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

KIDNAP riddle model Chloe Ayling used illegal drug ketamine up to two months before her abduction, a court heard.

Mum-of-one Chloe, 20, says she was drugged, bundled into a hold-all and stuffed in the boot of a car before being released five days later after being held in a remote farmhouse

Polish born Lukasz Herba is said to have abducted her along with his brother Michal but eyebrows have been raised with many suspecting a publicity stunt.

At the hearing in Milan, Italy, defence medical witness Domenico Di Candia said he carried out drug tests on Chloe’s urine and hair last July.

In a report filed to the court he said the urine sample was negative but the 2cm hair strand showed traces of ketamine.

Dr Di Candia explained:”Given that hair grows at about 1cm a month the 2cm sample showed that ketamine had been periodically assumed two months before the event.”

Chloe has claimed she was drugged with ketamine by Herba and his brother when she was snatched last summer in Milan after turning up for a bogus photoshoot.

At a hearing last month Herba dramatically told the court Chloe had helped write ransom notes sent to her agent.

Herba also denied injecting Chloe with Ketamine and added rather than being “put in a hold-all” she had got in herself to leave her DNA.

He added:”I’m telling the truth. It was a plan to help Chloe get publicity. The idea was to make up the kidnap to make her famous.”

CCTV footage of the couple holding hands has also been played in court during the trial and Chloe, from Coulson, south London, told cops she had slept in the same bed as Herba while being held hostage.

Herba, who lived in Sandwell, west Midlands denies kidnapping.

The trial was adjourned until May when a verdict is expected.


I wonder what her excuse will be to explain the ketamine traces in her her 2 months before the alleged kidnap?

I also wonder why she as the alleged victim, did not testify in court regarding what happened?

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

A DEVASTATED mum has said she will live with her guilt "for the rest of my life" after her two-year-old daughter died when the car the tot was in rolled into a river.

Little Kiara Moore died just days before her third birthday after being discovered in the silver Mini in Cardigan, West Wales yesterday afternoon.

Her heartbroken mum Kimberley Rowlands had put out an urgent plea claiming the car had been swiped by thieves outside dad Jet Moore's work while the tot was strapped in the back.

She wrote on Facebook: “Can everyone look out for the car, it’s been stolen with my daughter in it. Please share!”

But she posted an emotional tribute on Facebook today blaming herself for the tragic accident as police revealed they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the incident.

She said: "Sadly yesterday my beautiful baby girl passed away! Due to my own stupidity, I will have to live with the guilt for the rest of my life!

"Mummy loves you baby girl and I'm so sorry!"

Her partner and Keira's dad Jet Moore owns an outdoor activity company, Cardigan Bay Active, near to the old Scout Hall, where the vehicle was reported missing from.

It is believed Kim parked the car on the slipway alongside it and ran inside to grab some cash after breaking her bank card.

Jet confirmed the story on Facebook, writing: "They got in the car to go home. Sat on bank card which snapped and needed money to get home etc.

"Went back to the office to get money from the desk and came back to no car. looked in the river No signs. So we thought she and the car had been taken."

Paying tribute to his daughter, he added: "She was an incredible happy young girl who lived I hope a great adventurous fun life. And may have done more than most people.

"Been skiing twice and skied her self! Paddled the great glen Scotland. Paddles the wye. Played on every beach we could. Had a Loving family and made us all happy

"She always wanted to be called RAR RAR which was our Knick Name for her [sic]. Love her so much."

A major search of the river was launched before police found the car and heroically jumped in to free the stricken youngster from the wreckage.

Kiara was airlifted to University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff but her dad last confirmed she had died.

He said: "Thank you all for your help this evening. A mega thank you the officers who jumped in the river and the rest of the emergency services for all they did.

"Unfortunately Kiara had an amazing but short life."

No arrests have been made but police are appealing for anyone who saw the car between 3.30pm and 4.50pm yesterday to contact them.

A major search of the river was launched before police found the car and heroically jumped in to free the stricken youngster from the wreckage.

Kiara was airlifted to University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff but her dad last confirmed she had died.

He said: Jet Moore
March 19 · Edited ·

Thank you all for your help this evening.
A mega thank you the officers who jumped in the river and the rest of the emergency services for all they did❤️.
Unfortunately Kiara had an amazing but short life

No arrests have been made but police are appealing for anyone who saw the car between 3.30pm and 4.50pm yesterday to contact them.

Dyfed-Powys Police said: "Sadly, we confirm that Kiara Moore, aged 2 (27/3/2015) was pronounced dead at the UHW, Cardiff, having been recovered from a car in the River Teifi.

Tania Cadogan said...


"We are investigating the circumstances surrounding this tragic incident and are appealing for witnesses who may have seen the silver Mini enter the river between 3:30pm and 4:50pm on Monday.

"Kiara's family is being supported by specialist officers."

Tributes have been flooding in for Kiara on social media following the tragedy.

Among those is Ceredigion Assembly Member Elin Jones, who wrote on Twitter: "Awful news in Cardigan. A young, innocent life taken so tragically.

"Thank you to those who tried to save her, and our thoughts are with all who loved her.

"Colled ifanc sy’n tristáu cymuned. R.I.P Kiara Moore."


Something is off,on his FB is posted this
Jet Moore
March 19 at 6:13pm ·

Car found

Also he deleted this post which someone thoughtfully did a screen grab


More than a few aren't buying their story, also in his deleted post there are hardly any pronouns and looking at earlier posts he knows how to use them.
It is also quite difficult to snap a bank card especially by sitting on it, they tend to bend and it takes a lot of back and forth bending to snap a card in half.

Hopefully the police will examine the car for defects to see if the handbrake was on or off or if something else happened.
Cars don't sink immediately as the air keeps them bouyant for several minutes (susan smith case car took 6 minutes to sink http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-25/news/mn-5905_1_car-seats )

Cuddle Cat said...

The police said "tragic INCIDENT"..... despite the portrayal of an "accident".

Anonymous said...

She wrote on Facebook: “Can everyone look out for the car, it’s been stolen with my daughter in it. Please share!”

Psychological distancing.

Anonymous said...

A mega thank you the officers who jumped in the river and the rest of the emergency services for all they did❤️.

This seems overly innapropriate given the circumstances. Is this much eulogising needed given failed efforts.

Hey Jude said...

OT: Here is the full Facebook post which Jet Moore made and subsequently deleted - transcribed from a screen capture found via Google images. That is a smiley emoticon after the three exclamation marks.


Jet Moore
2 hrs (public setting)

Just to let every one who keeps asking how know.
It was the lemons stacked up too far!

They got in the car to go home.
Sat on bank card which snapped and needed money to get home etc.
Went back to the office to get money from the desk and came back to no car.
looked in the river No signs. So we thought she and the car had been taken.
The police found the car a while later and went way beyond the call of duty
jumping in and pulling her out.
They tried to revive her for hours but unfortunately could not.
Everyone done their best.

Thank you all so much for the support it means the world!!! :-)

She was an incredible happy young girl who lived I hope a great adventurous
fun life. And may have done more than most people
Been skiing twice and skied herself!
Paddled the great glen Scotland
Paddles the wye
Played on every beach we could.
Had a loving family and made us all happy

She always wanted to be called RAR RAR which was our Knick Name for her
Love her so much

Hey Jude said...

The screen capture is here:



Strange. What is this?

Just to let every one who keeps asking how know.
It was the lemons stacked up too far!

LuciaD said...

Who the hell puts a smiley face in a post about their little girl being killed??

Unknown said...

"Went back to the office to get money from the desk and came back to no car. looked in the river No signs. So we thought she and the car had been taken."

a) missing pronoun? Who went back tot he office? This is linguistically distancing.

b) "went back .." implies they were in the office previously. Then states why they went back, this indicates sensitivity."to get money from the desk.." similar to hina clause presupposing the question Why did you go back? The law of economy would also not state "from the desk" why would the writer think we needed to know this? was there another place he was getting money from? is what we ask ourselves.

c) credit card / money mentioned in a tribute to a recently deceased daughter, WHY?

d) "..and came back to no car." this is strange wording and is in the negative heightening sensitivity of the writer. Is there no car because he/they/we pushed it into the river?

e) expected wording would be the car was gone. not "..and came back to no car."

f) "looked in the river No signs." why look in the river? unless you were expecting it to be in the river. "No signs." No is capitalized, WHY? "NO signs." WHY plural? was that the goal? "No signs." so they could claim as a missing child?

g) "So we thought she and the car had been taken." Pronoun "we" to share responsibility. This is unexpected wording. WHY? is it because it is the goal for "her" to go missing as she is mentioned before the car. if the car had been stolen with her in it I would expect the wording to indicate that. By mentioning "her" first but not calling it a kidnapping I suspect the author is with holding information and personal intent.

h) " .. she and the car had been taken." not calling it a kidnapping or a stolen car (with child inside) but the passive "taken", passivity is used to hide identity or responsibility.

Buckley said...

Yes, you're onto some solid stuff!

"looked in the river No signs." why look in the river? unless you were expecting it to be in the river.

Yes, but remember, no pronoun, no commitment. He wants us to believe they looked in river, but hasn't told us they did.

Unknown said...

Blogger Buckley said...

he does not use the pronoun "I" and "we" once in the statement.

it is a facebook page post and many people are dropping pronouns on social media so one would need to look at how this person normally writes on social media.

yes it lacks commitment but it is his language to mention looking in the river. it is distancing, possibly because the car was pushed or allowed to go into the river.

why would he want us to think he looked in the river?