The following is the letter that an accuser sent to Sen. Diane Feinstein. Analysis follows.
Analytical Question: Is she telling the truth? Was she sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh?
July 30 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.
Analysis
July 30 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
Appropriate introduction. Sense of writing etiquette associated with education.
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
Priority:
We always note where an author begins after the greeting. This is often the priority and the actual reason for the author's writing.
Priority
We let the priority unfold, word by word, for us.
Note the purpose: the author writes "with", not "about" and calls the information "relevant."
We generally see "with" between people as a signal of distance. "I went shopping with Heather" instead of "Heather and I went shopping."
The former may indicate distance due to disinterest or disagreement, while the latter shows unity.
It is interesting to note that the author appears to be distancing herself from the "information" ("with") which is coupled with the unnecessary emphasis on the information being "relevant."
Q. Would a victim of sexual assault distance herself from the information of the assault, itself?
"Relevant" information
This is unnecessary information. If the author is writing about a sexual assault, she should have no need to call her own information "relevant" unless...she has a need to.
Note that she also explains why the information is "relevant", as it is in "evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
"current nominee" is the first person to enter the statement after the recipient (Feinstein) and the author.
"Current nominee" is not "the nominee"; but "current." Here the word "current" is dependent; that is, it requires, like a "numeric", the element of time.
This tells us as her priority, distancing herself from information, there is an expectation of a future nominee.
Consider that the author's priority is having the "nominee" replaced with another.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
After the initial priority of being both "with" information and claiming the information is "relevant", the author goes back to herself with "as a constituent."
This use of identifying herself is consistent with her priority of having a successive nominee.
Did you notice how she did not write, "until you and I have further opportunity"? She wrote "we."
The author has just told us that she is united with Diane Feinstein in her priority: getting a nominee who is not "current."
The author is united with the recipient in this context.
She now gets to the accusation. We seek a linguistic commitment, even with the passage of time, that includes processing.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's.
a. "current nominee" is now "Brett Kavanaugh." This is without his title of judge, and it is an incomplete social introduction.
b. Linguistic Disposition: the incomplete social introduction is, in context, a negative linguistic disposition. Given the context of "nominee to the Supreme Court", the lack of title is noted.
Next, note the assault: "physically" comes before "sexually", which in the context of a sexual assault is unusual.
Note the element of time is present: "during" and "in the early 80's."
Expectation: Sexual assault is trauma producing and it is strongly in the memory of the victim (age appropriate) and we do not expect to see "physical" written before "sexual", and we not expect a life changing event to be generalized by a decade.
Thus far we have:
a. motive
b. weak commitment ("relevant")
c. Distance ("with")
We now add unexpected order of event and the lack of commitment to a specific date.
Being a victim of sexual assault and of many years to process, the date is expected to be "memorialized" as a life changing event. It is not an estimate within a decade.
He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
a. "conducted" is not the language of assault. It is the language of an ongoing, methodical process. This leads us to ask, "did the subject have consensual sexual contact with the accused?"
b. "these acts" Incongruent with a sexual assault.
c. "with" between people indicates distance. Why would the author not wish to put the two assailants together?
Consider the question:
Why would the author minimize sexual assault?
Was there some form of contact and possible humiliation perceived on the part of the author?
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
In the author's account, we do not have one assaulted but an author perceiving herself as exploited; being that they "both" were "one to two years older than me."
A sexual assault of peers (teen or adult) rather than of a child, is not likely to include the ages. This inclusion should cause further consideration of the author being personally insulted or even humiliated.
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Note the unnecessary emphasis upon self. If she was assaulted, she would have to have been at the locale. That it included "four others" would provide corroboration of her account.
It is interesting that she did not give the location of the sexual assault but the location as "suburban Maryland area" which is not only an estimate, but unnecessary information.
The author is not making a "linguistic commitment" to a sexual assault.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom
The word "physical" is unnecessary; therefore, very important. We should ask,
"Did the author feel "pushed" in a way other than physical?" This would support the language of "older than me."
Note additional emphasis upon self.
When someone offers that the account can be corroborated, we note the "need" for it, which reduces linguistic commitment. Sexual assault is unique, personal, up close and trauma producing.
It is not in the language. The wording "physically pushed" causes us to ask, "Is there another type of pushing other than physical to the author?" Did the author experience emotional "pushing" to something she did not want to do?
as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room.
Although the author refuses to date beyond a decade, and refuses to identify a location, yet here she tells us where she was "headed" while he "physically pushed" her.
This is narrative building language; what cops often call "story telling." Subjects who engage in this often believe they will be seen as credible for giving such detail. Casey Anthony invented a "nanny" to conceal her murder of her daughter and told police, "she has perfect teeth."
Narrative building, or "story telling" includes commentary:
They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
We have the language that avoids saying, "I screamed "no" but they played loud music" in her sentence.
Q. Could this be from the years of processing?
A. It could.
Note, however, the need to use the word "attempt" and "successful" as a possible hina clause; or an explanation as to "why" she did not scream or yell.
In this scenario, the sentence would look like this:
They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
It is as if to preempt, "why didn't you yell?" Yet, in such a claim, we would not have asked this, but listened to her. Anticipation of a question or objection is the highest level of sensitivity in a statement.
We now see both passive voice and the potential humiliation:
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.
Note that she places him "on top" of "me" (over emphasis upon self; minimization on the assault is incongruent with sexual assault victims)
Passive voice is a psychological term of weak commitment.
a. He physically pushed me
b. He was on top of me
She did not say how he got on top of her (passivity conceals responsibility ).
Why would the author conceal the responsibility of why he was on top of her.
Note the inclusion of "while laughing" which is not "laughed", but an ongoing issue for the author.
This "while laughing" came "with" the redacted accused. (consider the LD of the author towards the redacted accused; the distancing language within the accusation of sexual assault).
"While laughing" is a linguistic signal of humiliation. This is, in context, while not making a reliable accusation of sexual assault.
We find this humiliation in many false accusations.
They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.
"laugh" is repeated. The analyst should carefully consider that the author is driven by humiliation, while not giving a reliable statement. This may be part of the motivation or the "trigger" for sending the letter.
"tried" means attempted but failed. Ex: "I tried to tell the truth" (President Clinton)
"disrobe" is minimalist language; not the language of a sexual assault. To "disrobe" is a slowing down of a pace and of will. Sexual assault includes much stronger language; even after decades of processing, because it was an assault. Sexual assailants do not "disrobe" their victims.
"Their highly inebriated state" is not to say "they were drunk." They were in a "state" in the author's verbalized perception of reality. One should consider why the author employs this language when reporting of a personal sexual assault.
With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
She does not say how he got his hand over her mouth. She skips over time and she wants us to interpret this as something he did. Truthful victims of sexual assault tell us what happened.
Note the additional unnecessary word, "inadvertently" tells us that the author is not only commenting, but is refusing to commit to her charge. She speaks to Kavanagh's intention, and if the assailant of a sexual assault was "trying to disrobe" her, he would not mean to kill her.
This is an example of a weak commitment to an inflated statement. The author knows otherwise.
Next, we have communicative language. She has not told us that she told him "no" or screamed. She preempted this question from being asked.
We now allow the communicative language to guide us.
"My boss said to be here at 8am" uses the two way and softer communicative word, "said."
"My boss told me to be here..." uses the stronger, "told"
In sexual assault, we do not expect soft communicative language to be associated with the word, "no."
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."
She uses the word "said" associated with "stop"; which is incongruent.
This may explain why she distanced herself from the 2nd accused.
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.
After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.
The author does not commit to trying to get away. The passivity of such means she wishes to be interpreted as trying to get away, without committing to it. This is a tool used commonly in deception as direct fabrication or lying causes internal stress.
Note "I was able to take" is not, "I ran..."
Note: "...and run across" using the verb "run" reducing commitment.
"opportune moment" is consistent with both long term processing and narrative building.
Which is it?
The analyst must consider it in context, thereby combining the lack of commitment with this point.
I locked the bathroom door behind me.
This sentence would be reliable if she had not added "behind me" which points back to the accused unnecessarily. This is something done when being chased or when one is involved in the scene.
Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.
Note the revisiting of potential eye witnesses is given the gender neutral pronoun "persons" here. This also is given the distancing language of "with" separating the two accused with the non-gender "persons."
They are not "people" but "persons" in the author's language.
I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
She didn't run out, but she "exited" and then "ran." This change of language should be considered in context with "laugh" and "laughing" as humiliation.
The Rule of the Negative:
We expect the author to tell us what happened, what she said and what she saw. We do not expect her to tell us what she did not do:
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault.
a,. Why the need to elevate not seeing him?
b. Did she see him but not "knowingly"?
c. "the assault" is not "since he attacked me" or "since he assaulted me."
Sexual assault is deeply personal and invasive. This is lacking from the statement.
I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
She interprets redacted's body language and reports no communication.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault.
Note the imperfect commitment to the medical treatment. She does not tell us what was injured nor what treatment (medical) was needed.
On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information.
It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.
That "discussing" sexual assault as "upsetting" is unnecessary information. This unnecessary information should be considered as artificial placement and ingratiation to genuine victims. It is interesting to note this language given her profession.
"I feel guilty" is to be seen in context of:
a. weak commitment
b. avoidance
c. minimization
d. distancing language.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.
She is "available" and given the unnecessary emphasis upon "self", we should believe her.
Analysis Conclusion
Deception Indicated
If the subject is describing an event between her and two teenagers, it is not a sexual assault but of something deeply embarrassing to her.
Her motive is political.
Her trigger is that they laughed at her.
She was not sexually assaulted and is manipulative. This is why she avoids giving a date, time and witnesses. Her attorney has now said it is not her responsibility to corroborate her account.
Her secondary motive is recognition.
For training in deception detection: Hyatt Analysis Services