"The Staircase": Michael Peterson's 911 Call

Netflix did  a series "The Staircase" in which they are viewing the evidence in the murder case where Michael Peterson was found guilty in the death of his wife, Katherine. This is a short analysis of the 911 call and of later statement made by Peterson, denying the murder. 

Peterson credits Netflix in getting his conviction over turned. The editor of the series, Sophie Bruenet, had a 15 year affair with Michael Peterson. As to its heavy editing, he said, "I wouldn't say that my relationship with Sophie, or its end, influenced any decisions as to what was included or excluded in any way positively or negatively." 

Did he kill his wife? 

Statement Analysis gets to the truth. 

Michael Peterson called 911,  2:40 am on 9 December, 2001

911: Durham 9-1-1. Where is your emergency?

Peterson:… Uuuuh, eighteen ten Cedar Street. Please!

It is interesting to note that the subject began with a pause, making the question of his address "sensitive" to him. 

Since he would require no pre-thought for his address, what might have caused the pause in needing to choose his words?

Consider that 911 calls are, in a sense, "excited utterance."  Being emotionally upset is presupposed. 

Was it that the subject was considering that he was going to answer "What is your emergency?" rather than the address?

Scripting

This might have caught him unprepared for "going off script" as it becomes slightly unexpected for a subject. 

911: What’s wrong?

This is similar to "What happened?, What is your emergency?" and so on. We expect him to report what happened, to whom it happened and to ask for help for the victim. We sometimes find within "guilty caller status" the subject asking for help for himself. This is appropriate if he is asking for specific guidance for CPR or first aid. Otherwise, it is often noted as a form of leakage where the caller recognizes that he, himself, needs help. 

Peterson: My wife had an accident, she is still breathing!

The subject begins with a classification of what happened: she had an accident. This is his priority: not that the authorities/police/medical assistance knows what is wrong, or what happened, but that what happened to her was not intention. 

Hence, he begins with the suggestion of self protection or protection of someone who is not the victim. 

a. We do not know what happened to her

b. We do not know what injuries she has

c. We do not know how directives for first aid or CPR may be given because we do not what know is wrong. 

Next we note that he calls her "my wife." This is interesting. 

We do not always expect a complete social introduction in the opening response to "what happened?" or "what is wrong?" due to urgency. Therefore, we cannot conclude here that the absence of her name (ISI) is indicative of a poor relationship. It very well may be, but due to the urgency of an emergency call, we note it yet without putting too much emphasis upon it.

Please also note that if his wife is not to survive (dead or close to dead), the relationship can "improve" for the subject. This is not reality.  This is his verbalized perception of reality. If the relationship was very bad, it could, in his mind (as seen in his words) have a new status (positive) since he would thus be free from her. 

Lastly we note something most unusual in his priority. 

This is where he chose to begin the information: 

a. Alibi (what happened to her was not intentional)

b. Without telling us what happened or what need is present

c. "still"

The word "still" is a word from the element of time. It is found in a sentence where time is elapsing. 

He does not wait to be asked, "Is she breathing?" after saying, "my wife fell down the stairs" but wants police to know she is "still breathing,"

This indicates a monitoring of her breathing during the passage of time. Remember he began with intention ("accident" to make a conclusion) and here, the law of economy is reversed in order to give a single, small additional and unnecessary word:  "still" to tell us:

He had expectation that she would no longer be breathing. 

In an attempt to portray himself as in earnest for her care, he did not wait until he was asked but anticipated the question. Now consider this unnecessary piece of information and compare it to the pause of sensitivity needed to give his address. 

She is "still" breathing indicates that he has allowed time to elapse before calling 911 and he did not expect her to be breathing by the time he made this call .

When taken with the "conclusion of the matter"; that she died as a result of no one person's guilty, it is to affirm the guilty murder verdict found in court. In the status of guilty knowledge of a crime in an emergency call, he indicates guilt. 

He has, via Statement Analysis, admitted to delaying the seeking of help for his wife and that he personally expected her to be no longer breathing by now. 

His priority?

That police know it was not his intention. This is to show that he does not have a priority of getting her help. 

Let's see if he asks for help for her, or help for him to administer emergency first aid. 

911: What kind of accident?

Peterson: She fell down the stairs, she is still breathing! Please come!

This is where scripted language becomes evident. 

He now tells police that she fell down the stairs. This is more detail and it is significant. He does not, however, ask for help for her, nor does he report her status.  Her status would be about blood or how to help her via first aid. "Please come" using politeness (Ingratiation seeking to be "the good guy" such as on the side of police) and to "come" but not to assist the victim. 

911: Is she conscious?

Peterson: What?

911: Is she conscious?

Peterson: No, she is not conscious,  please!

Ingratiation factor repeated increases importance. 

"please" in repetition shows an acute need to be "on the side of good", that is, police. This is the "Ingratiation Factor" we find in various settings, including in guilty statements, missing children, as well as a technique used in interviewing.  

911: How many stairs did she fall down?

The subject has not given any indication of her condition for which the operator can direct first aid. Since nothing is offered, the operator is searching for information. This is to indicate:

Every 911 call, like every interview, will give the Interviewer (operator) one of two impressions:

Either the subject is working with me to facilitate the flow of information, or he is not. 

Peterson: What? What?

911: How many stairs did...

Peterson: Stairs?

911: How many stairs?

Peterson:… Um, um, uh, (etc)

911: Calm down, sir, calm down.

Peterson: No, damned, sixteen, twenty. I don’t know. Please! Get somebody here, right away. Please!

This was not a question he expected and he would need just a second or two to quickly count the number of steps. This would also focus him upon the victim which would then give information to the police on how to advise first aid. 

Did he not hear her? 

This is not likely as he is able to repeat her words. He is on hormonal "high alert"?

Or, is the repetition (sensitivity) due to stalling because he was not in close proximity to the victim?

This is something very concerning because it is expected that he would be right with his wife (describing the breathing) and able to follow directions. 

He shows scripted urgency. He does not ask for help for his wife, nor does he ask for help for himself to administer emergency aid to her. This is to make a "show" of concern, but linguistically: he is not concerned for the victim. 

911: Okay somebody’s dispatching the ambulance while I’m asking you questions.

Peterson: It’s, um… It’s Forest Hills! Okay? Please! Please!

It continues the same way. 

911: Okay, sir? Somebody else is dispatching the ambulance. Is she awake now?

Peterson:… Uummh… uuh…

911: Hello? Hello?

Peterson:… Um, uh, uh, (etc). 

It may have been that he went to the stairs to give an answer to the question. Seeing his wife may have startled him, but in any case, this question, easy for someone with the victim, caused him great difficulty. This suggests that he was not with the victim. 

2:46 am Second call:

911: Durham 9-1-1: Where is your emergency?

Peterson: Where are they?! It’s eighteen ten Cedar. She’s not breathing! Please! Please, would you hurry up!

Here is an important change: she is not "still breathing" but now "not breathing." 

We note that he did not use her name in the call, nor did he address her. We now look back to the initial incomplete social introduction. 

He does not ask for help for the victim, nor for himself in administering CPR. 

911: Sir?

Peterson: Can you hear me?

911: Sir?

Peterson: Yes!

911: Sir, calm down. They’re on their way. Can you tell me for sure she’s not breathing? Sir? Hello? Hello?

911 Call Analysis Conclusion:

The subject has guilty knowledge of what happened to his wife, uses scripted language, and reveals that he delayed calling 911 so that his expectation of her breathing stopping, would be fulfilled. This speaks to premeditated murder. 

Here is from 2003 where Peterson spoke before the trial.  We look for him to guide us to the truth. Was he nervous about the trial?

"No. Absolutely not. I'm not worried about what's going to happen because I know what happened and what did not happen, and I know it'll all work out."

This news interview continued. 

"I don't know if it was murder. I don't know. When I called 911, I thought she had fallen down the stairs and as far as I know, that's what happened."

Here he refuses to commit in spite of "knowing" what happened and knowing what "did not" happen. The Rule of the Negative makes it the most important part of the sentence. 

He is deceptive. He maintains his deception by being technically truthful but concealing information. This is how more than 90% of deception is used. 

Michael Peterson's original conviction was correct.  

For training in deception detection, contact us at hyattanalysis@gmail.com after reviewing:

www.hyattanalysis.com training opportunities 

and some videos at youtube regarding training opportunities and some sample analysis. 

Exercise: Amazon Deceptive Reviews

Analysts and hobbyists are always looking for examples from which to improve their skills. Although most people who enroll in training do so with some future considerations of professional use, others do so to further their own personal growth and...

everyone hates being lied to.

We've examined Amazon reviews previously as an exercise in lie detection and we have noted:

1. Shill Reviewing
2. Paid Reviewing

The Paid Reviewing is where Amazon sellers gave away free products in exchange for positive reviews.  When a less than positive review was posted, the seller wrote to the reviewer.  Several of these were posted including one consistent:

"I am a single mother of two children and I will lose my job if you post a negative review.  What can I do to make you change your mind?" as a general theme. Most of these are in "google-translate" English. 

The Shill Reviewer is the company reviewing its own product, posting as customers. 

Here is a very inexpensive home blood pressure monitor.  At the time of this posting, it has 100 reviews:

all 5 Star.

What do you find when you review the reviewers?

Post your findings in the comments section. 

Link:  100 Five Star Reviews! 

You are seeking to answer a general and necessary question:

Is this a good product for purchase? 

With this particular product, your finding may be critical to a customer's health. 

Deception presupposes contempt. The liar believes you and I to be incapable of discernment. 

What can you tell the public about your findings?

Missing One Year Old: Updated Analysis

Sometimes investigators and analysts will ask for a sample of a truthful statement or of an innocent mother's statement to compare to others, including Kate McCann. 

There are not many found online because they do not create news.  Here is a very short statement by the parents of a missing child in which the father did not give us enough to go on, but the mother showed indication of concern for her child, which suggests belief that the child is alive. Regrettably, the child was raped and murdered and the killer found. News: 

Kyle Parker, 23, who was charged with murder, rape and a slew of other felonies in the girl's death. Of the three people questioned with polygraph machines, two failed.

That left one option: Offer a plea deal.

Owen Circuit Court Judge Lori Thatcher Quillan accepted the agreement after a hearing during which she expressed disgust for Parker, but said the risk that he could walk free was too great if she rejected the deal.

Quillan sentenced him to 60 years in prison, per the agreement. Parker pleaded guilty earlier this month to murder and kidnapping, and will serve 60 years for the murder and 16 for the kidnapping. He will serve the sentences simultaneously. The plea agreement also stipulates that Parker will register as a violent offender, but not as a sex offender.

  Consider mother's statement compared to DeOrr mother and father.  These are limited statements.  Even in a single statement, the mother expressed concern, not for herself, but for what her child might be experiencing.  This was not heard from in other cases, including, Madeleine McCann,  Baby Ayla, Lisa and above mentioned DeOrr, in spite of his parents speaking extensively in an interview.  Neither expressed any concern over DeOrr's condition or care.  

Investigators have been searching for 14-month-old Shaylyn Ammerman since Wednesday morning. Shaylyn is described as 20 inches tall, 20 pounds, blonde hair and blue eyes. She was last seen wearing white zip-up pajamas with an owl design and carrying a “Winnie the Pooh” blanket.

• 
  

She was in the care of her grandmother and father Tuesday in their Spencer home, according to Indiana State Police. The mother and father are not together but share custody of Shyly.

Police say the child has now been missing for more than 24 hours and they are worried.

Tamera Sue Morgan, the girl’s grandmother, told police she put Shaylyn to bed and last checked on her around midnight Tuesday in a home in the 400 block of West Jefferson. When Morgan checked the crib in the morning, she told police the child was gone.

“The first feeling was panic,” Morgan said. “‘Where is the baby, she can’t get out of her baby bed so somebody had to take her.'”

Note the contemplation of what occurred to the baby instead of "I have no idea" which is often heard when a subject does not want to give information. We all have lots of ideas about most of everything in life. Here, the grandmother identified panic and then immediate reasoning taking into account the baby's age. This is to show alert hormonal response, even from grandparent.  

Morgan said she won’t stop at anything to find her granddaughter. She was putting up signs Thursday morning. Next we see "impotence" from the parent or grandparent. This is where the parent (in this case, grandparent) has a broken pattern. 

The parent feeds the child when hungry.
The parent changes the child when messy.
The parent soothes the child when the child falls. 
Suddenly:  the parent is left bereft of the fulfillment of natural instinct: 

“I’m going stir crazy at home. I’m not getting any information whatsoever from anybody so I’m just going out and trying to spread the word as far and as wide as possible,” Morgan said. “I am very concerned. It’s been so long since we’ve seen her. I’m just so scared to death of where she’s at, if she’s safe, if she’s being taken care of.”

Police said several people were at the home the night Shaylyn disappeared. Officials said they have interviewed several witnesses including family of little Shyly. This is important when looking at the short statement of the father. 

We like to hear parents express concern for what the child is experiencing at the moment the statement is made.  This is the father's quote and then the mother.  

“Just shocked that somebody would do this to me. I have no idea why or what’s going through somebody’s mind that would do this,” said Shaylyn’s father Justin Ammerman. “I’m going crazy. I don’t know what to think.”

a. "just shocked" is without commitment. Without the pronoun "I", we cannot say he is "shocked" since he does not say it. 

This raises the concern regarding who he associates with. 

He considers this done to him.  He does not know what to think after telling us what he thought. He puts the brakes on thinking (unlike grandmother) by having "no idea why" someone would do this.  When taken with the sentence beginning without the pronoun "I", we wonder if: 

He does, indeed, have some ideas regarding those he associates with. 

"To me" may indicate feeling of failure of father to protect. 

  No remark about care for child, but the quote is very short.  From this alone, I would question his associates closely as well as explore with him why he thinks this was done as a grudge. In other words:

In his perception of reality, those near him are capable of kidnapping for a grudge. 

Few of us might think this in our lives. 

Ammerman said he didn’t have people over Wednesday night, and he thinks someone took his daughter from her crib in the middle of the night. He now engages the idea process.  

“I don’t know who in their right mind would do this,” he said. “Somebody’s got a big grudge over us. I don’t know who it is, but they better confess and give my baby back.”

It would be someone not in their "right mind" that would do this. 

Also notice that 'confess' comes before 'give' in his language.  

He does not here express concern for what the child is experiencing at the moment.  It was done to "him" and "better confess and give my baby back" suggests, in order, that he sees this done to him and he is responsible. He does not issue a threat, but it may be implied. 

Here is the mother:  

Jessica Stewart, the girl’s mother, spoke to 24-Hour News 8 Wednesday evening.

She said her daughter’s blanket and diaper bag are also missing.

Next, this mother is concerned about the baby's comfort, at this moment in time, while missing:  

“I’m hoping that whoever has her is taking care of her and will bring her back home safe,” Stewart said. “I’ve got a bad feeling since talking to the cops today and I am hoping I am wrong.”

Stewart also said she knows of no one who would want to take the child. We don't have a quote, but my guess is this:  her friends are different than the baby's father's friends. 

“I just want her home,” she said.

Here the mother is concerned for the very thing a mother should be concerned about; in the moment. Recall in the early McCann interviews that this was missing. The same concern was missing from other parents indicated for guilty knowledge. 

Next, note the dent in denial/confidence, is explicitly caused by what was said in conversation with police. 

The word "just" is a comparative word of reduction, as to say "only"; her sole 'want' or desire is to have her home.  

Then note the unnatural pessimism is assigned as caused by the knowledge police gave her.  Yet even here, there is hope against it. 

The word "just" is a dependent word in which we know the subject is thinking of something else.  In context, it is related to what police told her. 

This did not end well. 

A sex offender was charged with the child's  murder. 

What did we learn from the statements?

1. Mom showed no signal of guilty knowledge that the child was dead. Instead she showed concern for the present circumstance of the child.

2. Mom assigned "blame" of pessimism upon why police told her. 

3.  Dad indicates some guilt over not protecting the child ("to me") and some sensitivity about those of whom he was associated with. 

4. Grandmother, who was caretaker at the time, showed immediate processing of information, like a machine, to facilitate information to lead to the child's recovery. 

Although these are very limited quotes, we do see, especially in the mother, a natural and expected reaction:

"I hope someone is taking care of her" which is to show concern for the child while the child is missing. 

This is something that may be absent from those who know their child is beyond helping or human care. 

Happy Father's Day: Those Wintry Sundays

"Those Wintry Sundays" is still one of my favorite poems after all these years from Robert Hayden. 

To all dads,

from Peter and Heather: 

Happy Father's Day! 

                             Those Wintery Sundays

                                   By Robert Hayden


“Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold,
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house,

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?”

Dependent Words: Statement Analysis Lesson from Inspector General's Report

Here is a short lesson from Fall of 2016 on "Dependent" words in Statement Analysis. 

In the IG report, it stated that President Obama used a pseudo name to communicate to Hillary Clinton at her illegal server. 

A private server is used to bypass government oversight.  It was followed by:

1. Refusal to surrender physical evidence
2. Destruction of physical evidence, including smashing hard drives and phones

3. Deletion of more than 30,000 emails. 
4. Hostile actors accessing U.S. government classified information leading to ask if this was deliberately porous, particularly while her husband was being paid  by foreign actors. 

James Comey stated that Hillary did, in fact, use the server to conduct government business and it was accessed by hostile actors, but that Hillary did not "have intent" and "no reasonable prosector" would charge her. We learned that while James Comey was investigating Hillary Clinton's use of a private email to conduct government business, he himself was using a private email account while conducting government business.  It brings sense to the false claim of statute of "intent" and the unnecessary word, "reasonable." It also helps analysts understand what guilt projection indicates.  Being "extremely careless" rather than a violation is self protective for the subject. 

State employees at even entry level, social workers, therapists, doctors, nurses, and so on,  recognize that they would be terminated for sharing a client's name on a private email, and face possible legal consequence.  

The IG report is useful for deception detection training as we highlight a simple principle in use:  "Dependent Words in Analysis." 

In statement analysis, a "dependent word" is one that communicates appropriately when another word or topic is associated with it.  

We flag the dependent word for analysis. It sometimes reveals a great deal of information. 

For example, the word "just" is a dependent word.  It will not appropriately communicate a thought unless there is an attendant thought within the speaker's mind.  

We sometimes see "statement analysis confessions" by this word alone. 

"The car costs $15,000."  This is a straight forward, reliable sentence.  Now note a single word change that introduces a new, and missing topic:

"The car costs just $15,000" 

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It only communicates effectively when the dependent word is associated with at least one other word.  Here, "just" is used to compare the cost with at least one other cost, within the subject's mind. 

Patrol knows this dependent word:  "only"

"I only had two drinks, officer" with the unnecessary dependent word "only" signaling that the subject is thinking of a number greater than two.  

Patrol:  "How many drinks have you had tonight, sir?"

Subject:  "Just two, officer."

The word "just" is a dependent word.  It must rely upon something else in order to be appropriately used in a sentence.  The subject is thinking, via comparison, of another number, greater than two.  It could be because he had more than two, or it could be that he is thinking of how he usually has more than two, but in every case:  it is the subject, himself, comparing "two" with a higher number. 

Officers, including those in rural areas, never know what will transpire during a traffic stop.  The elevation of hormonal response is indicated, even when the officer does not sense it. This takes long term toll on the immune system.  In some rural areas, the expectation of peaceful interaction, can actually increase the stress due to the unexpected escalation. 

Deceptive people often use a dependent word, inappropriately and reveal truth inadvertently. 

Negotiators and sales use dependent words routinely.  Some will use it incessantly.  We look to learn if, in context, it is appropriate (such as in sales) or inappropriately used in deception. 

Here is a question for you.  How many people are involved in this sentence"

"I have a brother."

Answer:  Two.  

We have the subject ("I") and we have a "brother", which is two.  The subject may have more, but that information would be outside this statement.  

Next, how many people are indicated in this sentence?  Note this sentence independently of the one above.  An example of this came up in a criminal investigation in which the subject was deceptive about the number of people involved:  

"I have another brother" 

Q. How many people are found within this statement?
A.   3 or more. 

We have "I", the subject, as one.

We have the brother as two. 

Then, using the dependent word, "another" we know that this word only works in a sentence when it is associated with at least one other brother, giving us three, or more.  Here, we say "more" because the number found, within this sentence, is not limited to three.  

Dependent words can even give confessions. 

" I parked my car at the gas station.  A car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..."

This sentence tells us that there are two cars in the sentence.  The car belonging to the subject, and the car belonging to the man who pulled up next to her car, and got out. 

The problem?

This is not what she wrote. The analysts had already picked up linguistic indicators of not only substance abuse dependence but had considered that there was a 3rd party who entered the statement; a drug dealer.  

"I parked my car at the gas station.  Another car pulled up next to mine, and a man got out..." 

In the statement, the analysts explored the word "another" in context. 

Through analysis (examination by questioning) they knew that there was yet a third car within the statement, and going deeply into the statement, discerned that this third car was that likely of a drug dealer.  This changed the dynamics of the "event" that was reported.  The word "another" is a dependent word, meaning it does not work unless there is a noun missing that must be applied.  

It took a few minutes concentration and the open questioning of its use in the lesser context (immediate words and sentences around it) but it helped solve the case. 

Dependent words reveal withheld information, especially in advanced techniques and can not only reveal specifically withheld or surpassed information, but can show attendant crimes; those not alleged, but committed alongside the original allegation.  



The Illegal Private Server: Dependent Word 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday, September 23, 2016,  that  Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012. 

Barak Obama told the nation on March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.

Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

A:  Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

The question is answered and it appears, on the surface, to be a straight forward response. Yet, did you flag the dependent word?

Let's look more deeply at the response with a change of language without the dependent word to see what happens.

Remember the "law of economy" in language. The need for additional words takes effort. The shortest sentence is best. 

Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

A:  Obama: The same time everyone learned it through news reports.

Here the wording is changed, and the dependent word, "else" is removed.  

A.  "The same time the public learned of it"  was also not said. Here is an even clearer way of answering the question.  

Remember:  the simplest answers are often the most reliable.  

A.  "I learned about it through media."  

This one would, psychologically, put the subject, himself, into the sentence with the pronoun "I", increasing the strength or commitment to the sentence. 

It is not what he said.

"The same time everybody else learned it through the news reports."

Although some may say that the President of the United States only learning this through the media without media first telling him strains credibility of which I reply:  this is statement analysis and we look for a reason for the opinion of deception.  For our reports, and for prosecution, we must be able to clearly articulate why we have concluded deception.  

The word "else" is a dependent word. It is unnecessarily added, meaning it violated the law of economy, took extra effort, leading us to know that it is very important to the subject.  Effort equals sensitivity.  The brain told the tongue to add this word to the sentence, and where to put it in the sentence, in less than a micro second in time.  

This rapid processing means:

The subject did not stop, pause and ask himself, "Should I answer with the word "else", or should I just say it without the word "else"?

Here the disruption of the editing process would have been severe, instead, we have a signal of proficiency within the answer.  This is a strong signal that the subject is well accomplished and life long in deception. 

Not only did the subject not use the pronoun "I", which would have placed himself within the answer, but we know his baseline is to use an overabundance of the pronoun "I" in his personal subjective dictionary. 

  
Note:  "else" is a dependent word that is not necessary to use here.  It is why we consider this 'coming close to an admission' of knowledge.  "Else" only works when it shows dependence upon a person who is being separated from "everybody" (that is, all) in his sentence. 

The question was, "When did you learn...?" in March of 2015.  

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Most people are uncomfortable with a direct lie, and here we see that he removed 'self' from the sentence by avoiding using the pronoun "I", yet he still, unwittingly, identified himself, as one separate and distinct, unnecessarily, from "everyone else."

"Else" refers  first to himself, and although those who felt that it was not credible were correct, we seek to, within language, find the source of the deception.  

The stage is important.  This was a national (and international) audience. 

People often fear consequence of lying to the police and know that lying to federal police will carry even more consequence. This is why authority is vital for law enforcement to be respected:  it protects civilization. 

Think of the confidence in one's own ability to deceive to be willing to lie, with the consequences well known, to a federal agent.  

Now think of one who has the confidence in his own abilities to lie to Congress, under oath to God. We have a large list of examples from which to choose. 

Lastly, think of one who has the  confidence to attempt to deceive an audience of 300 million Americans.  

This is where we look for the trait of contempt. It should be used in the investigative interview.

For training in Deception Detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.

We offer seminars and the "Complete Statement Analysis Course" completed in your home or office, at your own pace. It comes with 12 months of e support. 

We also have a limited number of placements for advanced training, including live online monthly training. This is by approval only but allows the professional to immediately apply their training and work along with some of our best analysts and investigators from the United States, Canada and Western Europe.