Friday, January 25, 2019

Alex Salmond Charged With Sexual Assault

hat tip John: 
Former Scottish first minister Alex Salmond has been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and two of attempted rape. 
The Crown Office listed nine counts of sexual assault, two of indecent assault and one breach of the peace.  The statements are mingled with the article, therefore they are highlighted in italics followed by some analysis in bold type.
After appearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Salmond said he is “innocent of any criminality” and that he will “defend himself to the utmost."
Note that it is unknown whether a single word plea is entered normally, or if this was said in response to specific words.  
Note: "innocent of any criminality" is to specify criminal action, which may speak to a defense of "consensual sexual activity." 
It can be difficult to obtain a Reliable Denial ("I did not sexually assault ___") if there is:
a. multiple victims
b. multiple allegations 
c. vague allegations 
Next, he spoke outside the court which allows us more insight: 
In a statement outside court, Salmond said: 
Let me say from the outset, I am innocent of any criminality whatsoever. Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court.And therefore, the only thing that I can say is I refute absolutely these allegations of criminality and I will defend myself to the utmost in court.I’ve got great faith in the court system in Scotland.”
This is a larger statement and allows us to analyze with more precision
Let's look at this statement:
Let me say from the outset, I am innocent of any criminality whatsoever. Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court. And therefore, the only thing that I can say is I refute absolutely these allegations of criminality and I will defend myself to the utmost in court.I’ve got great faith in the court system in Scotland.”
a. Let me say from the outset, I am innocent of any criminality whatsoever.
Here we may now affirm that the subject is likely intending that the sexual activity was neither assault nor rape, but consensual. He revisits the word "criminality."
"Let me say from the outset" is a subtle form of psychological distancing.  It may be that the subject doubts his own words, but it also could be a "need to be heard." This latter point is not well taken as he is the accused, not a victim. Yet, if he is falsely accused he could perceive himself as the victim
How might we know?
He will tell us us. 
We therefore expect him to say
a. "I"
b. "did not"
c. address the allegation (s)
With multiple victims, he could use "anyone, anybody" (etc), or even the "accusers."
Although not technically a fulfillment of a Reliable Denial, it would be strong. 
"I did not rape or sexually assault the accused" would be strong. If references both allegations and the victim, using the pronoun "I" and the past tense "did not" ("didn't" is treated the same). 
If this is followed by, "I told the truth" (referencing the denial), it is 99% reliable. 
"I didn't rape or sexually assault ____. I am telling the truth" is very likely to be true. 
What does he say?
"let me say from the onset" is similar to "first of all" as the subject, at the time of this statement, is very likely thinking of a follow up answer and/or a lengthy ordeal. This is a suggestion that the subject may not have the strength that comes from actual innocence.  He may be indicating a lack of confidence. 
Let me say from the outset, I am innocent of any criminality whatsoever.
"whatsoever" is unnecessary emphasis and may be as a result of the overwhelming ("let me say") nature of multiple accusations and possibly multiple assaults. 
Time, as an element, is in play:
Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court.
Would he still feel the need to "respect the court" the day before, or even the hour before the proceedings, these "criminal proceedings" were "live"?
This is to be viewed in this form:
Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court.
Hina clause explains to his audience why respecting the court is indicated. 
This is an unnecessary explanation. 
This is an unnecessary explanation linked specifically to the element of time. 
b. Time 
This is a very sensitive point to him. 
What is its purpose?
He anticipates and preempts the question, "Did you do it?" that is plainly asked and, for those who are in actual innocence, plainly answered. 
Please note that there is no consequence for an innocent (de facto rather than judicial) person so say, "I did not do it..." in spite of many claims. This is the point of the psychological "wall of truth" where the subject falls back to his reference point of not having done what he is accused of. There is no psychological connection with sexual assault/rape to one who has no psychological connection. It is, for the subject, someone else's (including police, prosecutors' and even a false accuser's) but not his own. 
"proceedings" is also very sensitive to him (repeated) and the word itself speaks to the passing of time. 
"Respecting the court" is his reason to not talk about the allegation. 
Next, he talks about the allegation. 
What does it mean to "respect the court"?
The analyst should be on alert for possible ingratiation. 
This is where a guilty person may have the need to align himself, or "ingratiate" himself into authority (authorities) such as the court, prosecutor and/or the investigators.  It is a need to "make friends" with the opposition. It may also indicate an acutely manipulative personality type. 
Guilty parties will defend the police, for example, where an innocent person, wrongfully accused, considers the police investigators to be wrong, foolish and in some cases, hostile. 
"What if I said to you that I think you're lying and you did it?"
"I'd say you need a new job." 

Let's see if the ingratiation is affirmed or not in the rest of the statement. 
He said the court must be respected yet:
Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court. And therefore, the only thing that I can say is I refute absolutely these allegations of criminality and I will defend myself to the utmost in court.
"the only thing" uses the dependent word "only" which indicates to the exclusion of what is on his mind. 
The expectation is, "the only thing I can say is I did not rape..." or something similar to the direction of a Reliable Denial. 
He does not. 
He does not state that he did not sexually assault anyone.
He does not state that he did not attempt to rape anyone. 
He does state that he "refutes" (which is to declare debate, or refutation) the allegations.
The allegations are "these" (psychologically close to him). 
He repeats "criminality" in his response. 
He then offers that his refutation will be "to the upmost in court." This can sometimes indicate...
a possible plea bargain. 
When we consider the word "only" to indicate the comparison of what followed with at least one other thought, prosecutors may see that our subject:
*does not want lengthy proceedings
*is unable or unwilling to say he did not do it
*he may be open to a time savings plea bargain. 
If Alex Salmond is unwilling to tell us he did not do it, we shall not declare it for him. 

If you wish to be trained in Statement Analysis, or host a training for your department or company, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services and the video examples at You Tube. 


Anonymous said...

Would an ordinary accused oerson say this? 'Ive got great faith in the court system in Scotland.”
Is it ingratiation or is the ststem rigged?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:57...

Definitely ingratiation. And an outright plea for help. Something other than the truth has to come to his rescue. The person who expresses their faith in the court system is the one who can't say "I didn't do it". They have faith in the courts, in people's 'common sense', in the truth 'eventually' coming out, etc. and anything else they can try to latch on to. They wouldn't need to put their faith in anything but the truth if they could truthfully say they didn't do it.

Unknown said...

I agree with the notion of ingratiation. I also think that he is positioning himself in his home territory of Scotland and implying the judicial system in England is somehow to blame and is hostile to him. I guess the accusers are in England, where he spent much time, having a seat in Westminster.

Mike Dammann said...

He mentions "court" 3 times. He knows the court of public opinion will eat him alive. He therefore shifts all attention towards the court system and, as he hopes to, away from the court of public opinions.

Unknown said...

Now that these proceedings, criminal proceedings are live, it is even more important to respect the court.

I find the word “respect” to be an interesting word he chose. He isn’t saying it’s important to follow the rules of the court and we can’t say it for him. He is saying “to respect” - which is a state of mind. He is sermonizing AND attempting to demonstrate he is a good guy. The subject himself is leaking his own lack of respect for the court or maybe the rule of law further bolstered by the “even more” preceding the word important which are extra words and unnecessary as the word important can stand solidly on its own. He is telling us he has a gradation of levels of importance with his “respect” for the court.

Also, with the element of time introduced firstly with the word “now” he is saying that there are times when it’s important “to respect “ the court and times when it’s not important “to respect” the court. This is dependent upon certain conditions, not that the court should be respected all the time. Based on the conditions a decision can be made as to when it is important and not important to respect the court.
The subject may have a high opinion of himself and may judge others as below him and or have contempt for others and or systems. Additionally respect is what a person has for themselves and for others when they don’t use their physicality to get their sexual needs met without consent. Generally speaking it is a state of mind and a decision of respect that is the barrier to the “criminality” that is alleged.

Nadine Lumley said...

This was a good delishious one, thx.

MsGvious said...

I wonder what his definition of 'criminality' is where sexual behaviour is concerned.

MsGvious said...

Scottish legal system regarding this case:

Tania Cadogan said...

If he didn't do it, what is to stop him shouting it to the world?
His lawyer would have questioned him hopefully closely as to what happened in order to advise him and also to defend him. If he didn't do then an easier job, if he did do it then the lawyer would tell him shut up, say nothing, let me do the talking.

Tania Cadogan said...

He was the former First Minister of Scotland, he would be hoping his previous status would work in his favor and i will also say i wonder which witnesses he will bring up to support him and say what a good guy he is, perhaps even Nicola Sturgeon, the current first minister.
I wonder if he has called in any political favors?

Willow said...

The former First Minister of Scotland's preliminary faith in the court system being on his side brings to mind Michael Avenatti.

In the first statement for the media (or interview?) Michael Avenatti put his faith in the investigative process. It was to be understood that he was confident, at that very early stage, that the police investigation will free him from all the charges.

And that's what happened when the dust had fallen.

Willow said...

Avenatti in the first statement to media:

"I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated."

According to newsmedia, he avoided a felony charge, "in the domestic violence case against him — but it remains to be seen if he will face a misdemeanor charge".

John Mc Gowan said...


"Universal You"

'Seriously, look how big it is': Stunned witnesses claim to have captured Bigfoot on camera after spotting a large hairy creature lurking on a Utah mountainside - but experts have their doubts

53-years after Roger Patterson and Bob Gilmlin first claimed to have caught footage of Bigfoot on camera, the mysterious Sasquatch has once again been captured on film - or so one man believes.

In the foothills of Northeast Provo on January 2, a local resident and a group of friends spotted a large and unfamiliar looking figure lurking a-top a rock on a hill-side.

Noting its apparent towering stature, the man remarks 'Seriously, look how big it is,' before hastily concluding 'I think it's a Sasquatch'.

The camera then zooms closer the the alleged creature, showing the large dark figure moving slowly on the mountain.

One of the witnesses, Austin Craig, was so convinced by the sighting he took the day off work to find more evidence of the legendary monster's presence in the area.

You can't just see something that's maybe a once-in-a-century discovery and go do your nine-to-five job,' Craig said in an interview with WGN-9.

'You go to look for fur, or footprints, or some kind of evidence.'

Accompanied by a friend , Craig went back up the mountainside in search of Bigfoot but came back empty handed.

When Craig and his friend reached the location the figure was originally spotted in, a voice comes over the radio and tells them:'That is exactly where I saw the 'Sasquatch', and you guys put together aren't even as close to as wide or tall as what I saw.'

'Was it a bear? Maybe. That's plausible. Was it a person? Also plausible,' Craig said.

'Was it something else? I think that's also possible. Who knows?'

Utah has been subject to several claims of Bigfoot sightings over the years, so much so, the state has its own division dedicated to hunting down the beast, The Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization.

Much like Craig's investigation, The Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization's search was inconclusive.

There years ago, one mother claimed to have captured footage of Bigfoot lurking in a patch of tall grass on her way to Provo airport.

Though a long-term figure of Native American folklore, the Sasquatch was first thrust into the media spotlight in 1958, when Jerry Crew said he found giant footprints - belonging to Bigfoot - near Bluff Creek in Northern California.

In 2002, the grandchildren of Ray Wallace revealed their grandpa had staged the whole thing for 'a joke', but alleged sightings of the giant figure in America's mountain ranges have continued to persist ever since.

New England Water Blog said...

I look forward to seeing his actual statement but admit to finding this story hard to accept already.

Anonymous said...



I thought the same about this story and looked for a statement. The fact that anyone would even know who he is, much less target him, seems off. I have never heard of this man. Also the weather was evidently bitterly cold, snowy, windy, to be attacked at 2AM, the MAGA hats were so convenient, he is out of the hospital. LE has yet to confirm, so, we shall see.

Lilstr said...

I would appreciate input and thoughts about the following two sms.

A 12 year-old in my town lost his phone and the next day another kid from his Jr high received the following text message (2:50am) that would translate into the following:

"Hey, upon checking, I've had proof of your friendship with your friend Marc. It so happens that this young Marc has lost his phone(red iPhone 8). And it so happens that it is I who stole it. don't tell anyone. i've sent this message to others whom I will threaten as well :). It's simple. You buy me the telephone for 400 and you sell it back to your dear friend Marc for 500. It's very simple thanks."

[2nd message]
"don't tell anyone or I will punch you till you bleed!"

VLW said...

Off topic: Billie Dunn is talking again!

GeekRad said...

I apologize for the off topic comment. For those following Hailey Dunn, tonight and tomorrow night a local news channel is running coverage. An interview with Clint tonight, still seeking justice, one of the original investigators tomorrow. I will try to post if there is anything to report.

Anonymous said...


Re: Sidney and Tammy Moorer

I didn't know Tammy Moorer was convicted in October; a jury found her guilty of kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping in connection with Elvis’ December 2013 disappearance.

The appeal process has apparently begun in Tammy Moorer’s case.

In this article, it also says in 2016, a mistrial was declared in her husband Sidney Moorer’s kidnapping trial that also stemmed from Elvis’ disappearance. A second trial is set to take place in Georgetown County.

Sidney Moorer is also currently in jail after being sentenced to 10 years after a jury found him guilty of obstruction of justice for impeding the investigation into Elvis’ disappearance.


Anonymous said...

Re: Sidney and Tammy Moorer

Here is another link from October 23, 2018, after Tammy Moorer's trial.

An Horry County jury has found Tammy Moorer guilty of kidnapping Heather Elvis. The verdict, reached Tuesday, comes after an 11-day trial in Conway and years of investigation in the case. Judge Benjamin Culbertson sentenced Moorer to 30 years in prison. The jury deliberated for a little more than three hours before reaching the verdict.


New England Water Blog said...

"Why would I take a thousand dollars?"

Statement Analysis Blog said...

New England Water Blog said...
"Why would I take a thousand dollars?"
January 30, 2019 at 11:23 PM

Good catch.


GeekRad said...

You can view the broadcast on Hailey Dunn at