******************************************************Jussie Smollett was an actor on a television program of which few knew his name or the program he was on.
My body is strong but my soul is stronger.
Analysis is posted of the above statement, but its conclusion is that
this is not the language of experiential memory from a trauma
producing assault. It was "deception indicated" and is worth
After posting the analysis, two suspects were arrested in the assault
Best is to ask, "what happened" but the interviewer limited the scope of time to "that night." In criminal interviewing as well as journalism, this is an error.
Principle: Where the subject begins the statement of "what happened" is where and when the event began in the subject's verbalized perception of reality. It is always important to the account.
In various cases, the seemingly non-sensible beginning ended up proving to be true.
Example: a man comes home from work to find his wife murdered. When asked to write out "what happened" he began with his early morning trip to the gym. He did not begin by saying he came home from from work and found his wife murdered.
Later the investigators learned why the murder "began" at the gym, where he met with and paid someone to kill her.
Note "And then" skips over critical time and it is in the unity of the pronoun.
The need to explain is very sensitive.
a. "so I went out..."
b. He further explains "why" without being asked why with "thinking that they were 24 hours" which is also unnecessary.
c. It is so extreme in sensitivity that he gives a third reason for going out.
When an unnecessary reason "why" is offered, without being asked, it is very sensitive to the subject. It often indicates that the subject is very concerned that he is going to be asked "why", so he preempts it.
When he doubles up on the reason why, the analyst will now look for an alternate or competing reason why.
When it is tripled?
The subject has an alternate motive for going out. He is being deceptive.
He could have said, "I went out to Subway when 2 guys..." instead of slowing down the pace (avoidance) with unnecessary and lengthy details.
This is possible insight, at this point, into a manipulative personality type who uses excessive detail to persuade while being deceptive. See Casey Anthony for sample.
General principle: In premeditation, the element of time is often dominant.
"When you're waiting for the sheriff to call about your granddaughter and someone is casing your house..." Phoebe DiPietro deception regarding the alleged kidnapping of her granddaughter.
Kidnapping is not universal nor a normal occurrence. The granddaughter is not the granddaughter of "yours" or mine, it is her own.
Her son had caused the child's death and she was covering for him. See "Baby Ayla" case for analysis.
When we speak, we all reveal much about ourselves especially four elements:
1. Our background
2. Our experiences
3. Our priorities
4. Our dominant personality traits
The subject has a need to portray himself as one of "love" and one of being physically "tough" as well as "superior" to others. As analysis indicated previously, the "love" is a projection of guilt, particularly as he holds gays, minorities and others in contempt as beneath him. This is why he is "love" who is to help "save" the world. It was a priority for him in his previous statement to let his audience know that he "fought back" (while holding on to his subway sandwich)
Context: Even in the context of a lynching, he maintains his “superiority” – he is above answering to “Empire” even at 2am on a Chicago street.
Attempted murder is "personal" and asphyxiation is both instinct reactive and trauma producing.
Truthful people tell us what happened, what was said and so on. We always note the importance of reporting what did not happen, what was not said, etc.
Note the need to tell his interviewer-audience why he punched the attackers--this is not a question anyone would ask. It is "unnecessary" which increases its sensitivity under the category of "why."
Note "see" change to the present tense, where his baseline is past tense.
Note "This MAGA country" and not "this is..." as he uses "urban slang" which is a form of ingratiation from a skilled manipulator. He wants us to believe that the attackers are white, while using "urban speak."
We note the inclusion of the word "ass" in his language.
He "confesses" his cooperation and unity with the attackers with this two-letter word.
It is used in frauds, fake hate and in false claims of rape. It is 100% reliable.
He is concealing the identity of the attacker by concealing the gender.
Next we see an example of rather awkward language that non trained and trained alike recognize. It does not proceed from experiential memory which is why it is readily discerned:
"The drugs were sitting on the coffee table." is an example. Drugs don't sit, walk, lay down, etc. It is a human description generally because the human connection by the subject.
He now gives the reason why he picked up his phone. This is unnecessary (a) and it is to explain "why" (b) making it very sensitive. When coupled with the human body posture, we may conclude deception.
“placed” it “on” his neck.
Note incongruence of communicative language "said" is not "told" or even "yelled" coming right after a near murderous event.
Did you notice the change, again, to the present tense? It is a "rope" that he "see" and he only can "see" it when he "looks down."
"notice" it before.
"You know what I'm saying?" is to reach to his friend for support, unity (ingratiation factor) and a signal that he is in need.
Note the use of "honestly" indicates that he really wants to be believed here (the language of dishonesty). We note that this is something he repeats, increasing the sensitivity of need to be believed rather than the psychological wall of truth that victims experience and exhibit in their language.
"noticed" is often used when one is looking in expectation, though here it could be the easy parroting back of Robin Roberts' language.
LD Positive, “persons” who even have a valid reason for wearing masks. He is unified with them (“we”) and he likes them. (favorable LD) Conceals gender. Consider possible sexual attraction/activity to one or both.
Note it is his presence, not his experience, for the basis of his assertion. "I was there"
He avoids giving any description of the men even though he "punched" the "ass" of one.
This should produce a short answer such as, "I was ashamed." This answer allows insight into his personality. The expectation of impact of trauma should include fear that the perpetrators are on the loose, found him once and can find him again, as well as the danger that these two racist homophobic killers pose to black gay men. He is, in his own words, a man of "love" so we expect the language of trauma, fear and concern to be a priority.
He is exploiting genuine rape and sexual assault victims for his purpose.
He did not want the cops' body cameras on at a time when he should have been scared out of his mind, hiring armed guards and doing everything possible to help police make him safe by capturing the two criminals.
It is human reflex to "fight back" against anything that
a. cuts off our ability to breath
b. hinders us from being able to call for help
It is reflexive to immediately tear off the instrument of asphyxiation (in fear, disgust, panic, etc)
He had the need to explain his actions.
This is where commentators have accused Robin Roberts of "softball questions" (something she did not do with the Chicago Police Superintendent)
He now tells us what it "wasn't" (negative)
Interesting that he calls them "mongrels"; that is, dogs without pedigree. This may be similar to those who should be "deplored."
He knows what he is doing. He went from laughter to tears readily.
We may consider the CPD's stated motive to get more money from his job, but also consider his own words, including twitter messages as you consider his next statement:
"There's no excuse for elder abuse!" is presented as the moral high ground, as if there is a "resistance" movement to the present phenomena of abusing elders. It makes the owner of the bumper sticker feel superior, but it is "unnecessary" language. This is always deemed important in the statement.
It is like proposing "anti lynching" legislation. CPD stated that the noose was a symbol of terror which he was unafraid to use to obtain his ends.
He delayed for weeks that which any victim would give immediately.
He had a reason to delay.
We now seeks its level of importance- sensitivity.
Linguistically, he is "with the phone" at this point. Note what happens to the language:
b. He blames police: "they didn't originally ask for..."
c. He qualifies what they did not do specifically with the phone "records."
d. This is then repeated (extra emphasis, against the 'law of economy' increasing its sensitivity)
We note the inclusion of "I'm sorry" from polite people as well as from guilty people. It is not expected in this context of hormonal crisis event (attack). It is highlighted in red as a signal of guilt. The phone is producing a change of language ("records") and an indicator of guilt. The phone is very important to him.
He has lower LD for police than for attackers – this is insight into his contempt for authority as well as for gay males, blacks, Muslims etc.
What produced this?
The illegal activity could be the planning of the "event" yet in context, the original analysis cited two areas of which the police would need to check:
a. child pornography, pedophilia
b. substance abuse
The latter has been reported since.
Consider that the interviewer is familiar with the subject as the rest of his response is examined, as well as the questions from Roberts.
The priority began with "photos" first and then "video" and now on to things that could readily be obtained and that no one, in such a dire emergency (the attempted murderers are on the loose) would hesitate or object.
Note "to hand over"
Note uncertainty "I don't know what that's gonna be to hand over..."
She ignores the change of language and the obvious lack of cooperation.
She ignores the context of an attempted murder and the status of the homophobic racist MAGAs on the loose.
In this sense, it may be considered "soft ball" questioning, but consider whether or not this is to facilitate the concealment of information as we continue to progress through his words.
He offers the tangent to attack police and she goes with it.
He returns to where he is most comfortable: emotional manipulation.
He likely has played the victim his entire life:
If this was his practice, why is it resented and offensive now? This speaks to his own perception of entitlement. It may strengthen the view of CPD that he intended to levy this into a raise from his TV program.
He then moves to his perception of moral high ground:
This is vital information for the interview strategy; to allow him to play the role of morally superior savior who loves and respects, which would allow him to talk a great deal, which yields us the information we need to discern the truth.
After years, cops become very good at recognizing this and will allow themselves to be in a subordinated quiet role, as they gather in the critical information.
Next note the emotional strength of his words, which is the "linguistic distortion" towards this notion.
his venom is not towards the racist homophobic MAGAs that attacked him. He showed more venom towards "MAGA" "cherry" in general (the deplorable white males in red hats) in the nation:
Note the plain question is deflected. Note passive voice (subtle psychological removal or distancing)
This is to allow the narrative to come to the forefront:
Consider the narrative between friends who share race and sex with the editing bringing the video where President Trump calls the attack "horrible."
We have the pronoun distancing language of "your" neck.
We have the additional information of tying it around his neck.
The rope is now a "noose" (change of reality) of which it is not "placed" but "tied"
We note the subject's familiarity with racist slurs in his own language.
She called it a "story" while the alleged white male perpetrators are at large. This is to reveal what she believed or knew.
Here the word "just" (dependent word) indicates that he is comparing the truth to something else:
a. There was no threat. A genuine threat is a "linguistic commitment" by the author. "I will kill you" is a strong threat. "I will kill you if you don't..." allows for the recipient to alter the threat. "You will die" is truthful; we all will die. There is no linguistic threat.
b. The childish drawing was "comforting" (non threatening) and self revelatory.
c. No one held the gun in the picture.
He is likely to face federal charges if he mailed it (USPS).
If his attorneys continue to attack police, expect resolve of law enforcement and its fraternity to increase. He held them in contempt, abused the good will they have worked diligently in race relations in Chicago to obtain and this had local and federal response.
"I make that up" in his words. He added "too" which now combines other things that were said.
It is confessional.
It is something we hear from teenagers who have gone to critical thinking while being deceptive.
What follows next is disturbing:
These are his words.
Robin Roberts knows him personally.
What does she say?
The analyst should carefully consider how that the interviewer is deliberately providing cover for Smollett.
The intensity of language used by the subject in a vicious racist homophobic attack is saved for his personal sexual activity.
He refused to hand over his phone with the first reason being "photos", followed by "video"
He introduced "young" and then moved to "children", to which she ignored.
Yet when he said "I want a little gay boy" she changed his language.
This is alarming language from Smollett who repeatedly emphasizes his "love" and centers himself before all, has expended not only CPD's budget but held the entire nation captive for as long as his narrative would stand. (behavioral).
When one is driven to please self without regard to the cost of others, should this pleasure built up tolerance (the hormonal response), it is unknown where it will end.
Child abusers do not care to consider the life long impact upon their victims.
Victimized themselves, most become highly empathetic towards the suffering of others.
Those who do not become indifferent to the suffering of others and may victimize, even the most innocent, children.
Smollett's statement is known to be deceptive, yet it is valuable to training deception detection.
It is also something that should be carefully examined by therapists, psychologists, child protective service professionals, sex crimes units, and others trained in statement analysis.
Smollett is remarkable in two things:
a. His need to portray himself as "love"
b. His lack of basic human empathy or consequence upon others.
There are likely those close to him that know the "two Jussies"; the presentation Jussie of "love, respect" who is a champion of social "justice"; and the Jussie of whom depraved indifference and narcissism drives him to harm others.
I believe Roberts is one close enough to him that she knew it was a hoax, skillfully avoided questioning that would reveal this, but also protected her friend from himself; in particular, the language that ties children and sexual activity together.
Thus far, we have learned that substance abuse is indicated.
His phone should be subpoenaed and examined. His language indicates risk.
note the unnecessary declarations of higher morality:
Chicago PD may have good reason to tie the motive to money. They were skillful and masterly in their statements. They held the brothers without charge to give them insight into what they would be facing. They, I believe, emboldened Jussie Smollett to go on GMA with this interview, by affirming his victim status.
They handled the "politically correct" theater of danger with finesse.
It must have been challenging for them to keep a straight face while interviewing the diminutive Smollett while listening to him boast of his physical prowess and his great "love" and "respect" for others.
Jussie Smollett targeted Donald Trump with vile, racist language and he expected and received applause and acclaim for it.
It is likely he expected the same, even if caught, as if this "could have happened"; particularly from the extreme narrative media, of which the personal animosity towards Trump is incessant.
He continues to preach:
This is consistent with what Chicago PD said about him being upset that the anonymous threatening letter did not cause him to receive the attention he thought it would.
He is "left" -- that is, abandoned, alone, insignificant, unnoticed, etc. This affirms the assertion made by CPD.
Next he tells us through a weak assertion that his attackers are not likely going to repeat this performance:
He wants the attention. He wants desperately to be relevant. This in spite of his status (or what was his status at the time) of high paying TV actor.
With two crazed killers on the loose, the only comfort is in catching them so they do not "find" Smollett again. Yet, he allows for them to be not caught.
His "linguistic disposition" towards the attacker (singular) is consistently positive. This is how we identify the author of an anonymous threatening letter:
We set the context and follow the linguistic disposition.
It is how frauds are caught.
If you wish to receive training for yourself, your department or company, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.