Thursday, November 15, 2018
Michael Avenatti Denies Domestic Violence
Michael Avenatti was arrested, charged with felony domestic assault.
He issued the following statement:
"First of all, I want to thank the hard working men and women of the LAPD for their professionalism and their work today. They had no option given the allegations.
Secondly, I have Neve struck a women, never will strike I woman. I have been an advocate for women's rights my entire career and I will continue to be an advocate. I am not going to be intimidated stopping what I am doing. I am a father to two beautiful smart daughters. I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman,. I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated."
Lawyers advise their clients to be silent; yet few follow their own counsel.
Here we are given a great deal of information about the subject.
Analysis Question: Did he assault the victim?
"First of all,
He begins with a numeric, not the pronoun "I", which tells us that logic is in play. This means he has put considerable thought into this statement. With "first", we seek a "second" to affirm this pre thought and care.
I want to thank the hard working men and women of the LAPD for their professionalism and their work today. They had no option given the allegations.
Note the "Ingratiation Factor" of statement analysis plain example. He literally thanks those who arrested him.
He not only thanks them, but specifies gender.
He ingratiates himself to police;
He ingratiates himself to women.
This is an indication of manipulation as well as a sensitivity indicator for possible guilt.
Secondly, I have never struck a women, never will I strike a woman.
The accusation is singular and it is limited to a specific victim at a specific time.
"Never" is to avoid saying, "I did not" or "I didn't." This is "not reliable."
Yet, with "never" in context of a specific allegation, specific victim and specific time, it is "Unreliable" as it uses the time spanning vagueness of "never" in avoidance of the specific details of the allegation.
This continues with the address of the victim also avoided:
"...a woman" and not "the" woman, or "the alleged victim."
This is why it is "Unreliable" rather than "not reliable." Had the allegations been of several women over a period of indeterminate time, it would be "not reliable" at this point.
Yet, he reveals much more about himself and the event as he continued to talk:
I have been an advocate for women's rights my entire career and I will continue to be an advocate.
"The Good Guy" portrayal, like "the good mother" is a need to portray oneself as "good", often revealing the opposite.
Instead of being in the right, he has a need to persuade his audience rather than stand upon the strength of "being" a good guy because he did not do this.
He is "The Good Guy" here, increasing sensitivity of the Unreliable Denial, but he is not finished yet:
I am not going to be intimidated stopping what I am doing.
He is a victim.
He is being "intimidated" by someone into "stopping what he is doing."
Who stopped him?
Was it the victim?
Was it the police?
He is speaking with intellect engaged (logic from the numerics) and revealing himself as a very highly manipulative personality type.
In other words, the subject is comfortable manipulating his audience.
His specific audience is addressed within his statement: women.
This is a signal of contempt for women.
I am a father to two beautiful smart daughters.
He does not "have" two daughters, but is a "father to" them. He affirms his contempt as a father with "smart" added. This is an unnecessary part of his statement and only increases the sensitivity of his Unreliable Denial. It indicates distance between himself and his daughters.
It is here that we learn, perhaps, something unknown about the subject:
I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman.
The subject has a likely history of "inappropriate" touching, which may prove to be sexual.
Note he gives his reason why he "would never" do this. Not that it is wrong and not that it harms victims (human empathy) but it would "disrespect" his daughters.
This notion of sexual assault may be why the word "full" is now repeated:
I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated."
The subject issues an Unreliable Denial of the domestic violence.
He reveals a highly manipulative personalty type with low human empathy.
He reveals contempt for his audience, specifically women, as those he can most readily manipulate.
Misogyny is sometimes linguistically evident in "virtue signaling" of guilt.
It is evident here.
A "full" investigation may bring forth more victims. Not only does his denial fail, but he reveals more about himself than he likely intended.
It is why attorneys advise their clients to be silent.
That he is ego driven is not only from his intellect, but his dominant personality traits. His contempt for women includes the exploitation of his daughters for his personal protection.
His guilt is acute and goes beyond this one allegation.