Monday, September 25, 2017

September Team Analysis Training Schedule

Congratulations to those who completed the HIDTA (high intensity drug trafficking area) training in Tuscon, Arizona  this week.

This is a talented class of professionals who quickly embraced the basic principles of Statement Analysis and showed both a hunger to learn and keen intellects.  They moved quickly from case to case, combined instinct with principle, and were an exciting group to teach. They asked all the right questions. 

 Many have jobs that are "gold mines" of opportunity to use Statement Analysis daily in their work.  With a director who is committed, experienced, intelligent and with a good sense of humor, they furthered their own professional foundation with HIDTA's training opportunities.  

Congratulations. 

***************************************************

For those enrolled in our monthly live trainings, the training invitation goes out the night before.  The norm is to include statements, but not always.  It is beneficial for some trainings to go into a statement without preparation.

For those who wish to enroll in our training, Complete Statement Analysis is available to be completed in your home and it comes with 12 months of e support, but also one free invitation to the live 6 hour training that is done monthly with analysts from the U.S., Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Russia, Australia, and so on.  

New enrollees are often pleasantly surprised how supportive professional analysts and instructors are.  

This week:

Tuesday 9am to 3pm EST

Wednesday 10am to 4pm EST

Thursday   12noon to 6pm  EST

Any questions about your yearly subscription or about training should be sent to:  hyattanalysis@gmail.com and visit our website at Hyatt Analysis Services for more information. 

Saturday, September 23, 2017

James Clapper on FISA Wiretap

President Trump claimed that Barak Obama wire tapped him.  It was met with ridicule and scorn, but details have emerged that Trump was an "inadvertent" target ("unmasking") by the Obama administration.  

It is now reported what had been revealed in March, that secret FISA court orders had been implemented during the Obama Administration to wire tap Paul Manafort.  
The spread continues, with unmasking  before and after the election and the one person in common with all of it:  Donald Trump.   

The story is only beginning.  Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power tried to reveal the identity of more than 260 Americans in 2016, according to a Fox News report published Wednesday.
The ex-public official allegedly averaged more than one unmasking request for each formal working day, even continuing her spree towards the final days of the Obama administration.
Question:  Does James Clapper deny this on Meet the Press?
CHUCK TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say, if the F.B.I., for instance, had a FISA court order of some sort for a surveillance, would that be information you would know or not know?
JAMES CLAPPER:  Yes.
TODD:  You would be told this?
CLAPPER:  I would know that.
TODD:  If there was a FISA court order–
CLAPPER:  Yes.
TODD:  –on something like this.
CLAPPER:  Something like this, absolutely.
TODD:  And at this point, you can’t confirm or deny whether that exists?
CLAPPER:  I can deny it.

Clapper does not issue a reliable denial but tells us what he "can" do instead.  

This is a subtle form of avoidance.  

Note how the interviewer both led and interrupted the subject.  This is not how to get information, but to attempt to gain attention for self, rather than obtain information.  

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Guest Analysis: Is Swedish Politician Patrik Liljeglöd Truthful?



by Lars Bak 

The Swedish politician, Patrik Liljeglöd, has on his facebook page published a statement, claiming that he has been raped because of his political activities. 

Question for Analysis: Is his account of the event truthfull? 

This is his recollection of the event:

"Democracy is a right but soon not a truism?
I have an important matter to present. At first glance it can seem to only affect me personally, but in the long run it affects us all.
At the end of July this year, when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening with a party comrade. There the pleasantness stops. On the way home I was attacked by a, to me unknown, man with knife. I was brusquely treated and at knife point also raped on the pretext that I was a female Left-genitalia, that the likes of us like it this way and finally, that I was a traitor.
The few words and opinions the man uttered had a clear connection to me as politically active and therefore it affects us all."


I. Statement Form 

We start with measuring a statement on its form.

A statistically reliable statement will generally dedicate the most number of lines (or words) to what happened. This is because what happened, or "the event" is the most important thing to the subject. Here the politician claimed to be raped. In reporting rape, the priority will be the traumatic event. 

When we measure his statement on "what happened", we find that  most reliable statements' percentage breaks down naturally as such:
25% of the words or lines used will describe what happened leading up to the assault
50% of the words will be dedicated to the actual assault. It is the most important part of the account and anything close to 50% should be considered reliable. This speaks to priority. In such an acutely personal assault, most of the words will be dedicated to it.
25% of the words will be about what happened afterwards, such as calling the police, or getting help.

Anything reasonably close to this is acceptable.

In Liljeglöd’s statement the percentage is:
13% is about what happened leading up to the assault
11% is about the actual assault
0% about what happened afterwards. Instead, the remaining 76% of the statement is dedicated to an extensive speech about the conditions for political activities in today’s Sweden.
Based on this, we deem the statement unreliable in its form. This now puts us on alert for deception.

II. Analysis


Democracy is a right but soon not a truism?
I have an important matter to present. At first glance it can seem to only affect me personally, but in the long run it affects us all.
Where someone begins a statement is always important. It can indicate the priority and often the reason for the statement itself. 

Here Liljeglöd tells us himself that he will present us with an important matter, having to do with “Democracy as a right”. This is where he chose to begin his statement and we should question if this is his priority. It is an "important matter" that is to all of us "in the long run."

Consider in the context of rape, it is unnecessary to state something is an "important matter."

However, he expresses doubt about this by putting an effort into assuring us that we eventually will grasp the importance. We call this a need to persuade (NTP) which indicates that Liljeglöd himself is in doubt regarding the general importance, making the claim weak. The alleged purpose is sensitive to him, also indicated by the headline ending with a question mark.
At the end of July this year,
Considering that we are about to hear about a rape, it is unexpected, that we are not given a specific point in time; being raped is a highly traumatic and often a life changing event, so we would expect the point in time to be mentioned.  The hormonal response in such events ("fight or flight") leaves a lasting impression.

July this year” might suggest that Liljeglöd does not ascribe any importance to the time of the event. 

It just happened “sometime”. We must now look for, whether Liljeglöd finds the importance in the event itself or in his use of it – what “the important matter” actually is.
when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening together with a fellow party member.
When someone in an open statement is supposed to tell us what happened and then explains why it happened, we always notice it as having the highest sensitivity. It is as if the subject expects us to ask, "why?" when often such a question would not enter our minds. 

The reason why Liljeglöd chose to “wander” home is very sensitive to him; it is unnecessary information as is his mentioning of being alone. 

In analysis, unnecessary information is of double importance, because we must consider, why there is a need to mention it. 

He may withhold information about both his reasons for to walk home and whether he in fact was alone. It would also be interesting to know, what “wandering” means in his personal vocabulary – does it mean to walk straight home or is there some “strolling around” for some reason to it.

We would also want to explore for entry of substances: was he sober?
The language is “passive” in the way, that there is no one acting; he “was invited”. By the lack of pronouns, Liljeglöd removes himself, psychologically, from the statement indicating lack of commitment to it at this point. Liljeström does not commit himself to what he says. With something as horrific as rape, this is most unexpected.
The whole sentence does stylistically resemble “narrative building” or storytelling, which is often found in deceptive statements, rather than a truthful account of “what happened”. It indicates that the statement doesn’t come from experiential memory, but is likely made up.
We make a note of, that Liljeglöd does not tell us, that he walked home alone; he was only “invited” to do it
There the pleasantness stops.
Here Liljeglöd “jump out” of his narrative in order to comment on it. This also belongs to storytelling. Not only does it attribute “drama” to the story: we can be sure, that the idyllic evening will soon turn into something bad. At the same time, it slows down the tempo in the statement, which is also often found in deceptive statements, when it nears the actual happenings, because the recollection of them might be sensitive to the speaker.
On the way home I was attacked by a, to me unknown, man with knife.
There is a jump in time here. We can’t say how big it is, but jumps in time suggests withholding or skipping over of information. Yet, it is on his mind enough to show a need to "jump" over it.  

It is very concerning that he gives the completely unnecessary piece of information, that the man was unknown; that the man was unknown “to me” is superfluous and makes it double sensitive. 

Is the man in fact known to Liljeglöd? Or is he known to somebody Liljeglöd knows? Why the need to emphasize that the man is not only unknown, but unknown “to me”. Had he consented to some sort of interaction but got second thoughts, angering “the man”? Is it somebody he went along with from the bus stop? At no point does Liljeström claim, that he was alone, and if he can’t bring himself to say that, we are not allowed to say it for him.
I was brusquely treated and at knife point also raped
This is not an expected account of a rape. 

Would any rape victim ever speak of a rape as an add-on? 

“By the way, I was also raped”? 

The “brusquely” treatment is mentioned first, showing that it has higher priority for Liljeglöd

We don’t know what lies in “brusquely treated” – was he spoken impolitely to, was he commanded down on all fours, was he yelled at or what? 

“Brusquely”  speaks to intonation and appearance, whereas a rape at knife point is a horrific, violent act. 

The subject’s priorities here are so unexpected, that it is hard to believe him. On the other hand “I was brusquely treated” is a strong statement, starting with I and no unnecessary information; it is likely true, but immediately after it, he removes himself from the add-on “and at knife point also raped”, which weakens his commitment to the stated.

on the pretext that I was a female Left-genitalia that the likes of us like it this way and finally, that I was a traitor.
Note: his party is named The Left-party

Now the subject introduces “pretext”. It is hardly possible to imagine any scenario, where a rapist reveals his “pretext” – “I rape you on the pretext that…”, so “pretext” must be the subject's’s own assumption. But what makes him make it? If the three alleged utterings are a pretext, then they are per definition not the reasons for raping him; then Liljeström was simply raped because he was raped. It makes no sense. Is he leaking out here, that the story is his own pretext for stating his “important matter”.
The few words and opinions the man uttered
A rape victim is not expected to give in to the rapist in any way or form. The subject however allows for the rapist to have his opinions – “I do not consider myself a traitor, but he has the right to his own opinion”. This might be appropriate in a political panel discussion, but it is not something a victim of rape is expected to make room for.
That “the man” only uttered few words seems not trustworthy. 

Did the ““brusque treatment” not include any “utterances”? The entire story lacks detail that would indicate an experienced event. Liljeström does not appear to speak from experiential memory.
had a clear connection to me as politically active
They had not.
“I was a female Left-genitalia” could be aimed at any stereotyped, active or passive, supporter of The Left-party
“the likes of us like it this way” has no political implications whatsoever. Besides it sounds as a trivial cliché from a bad Hollywood prison movie – it resembles storytelling
I was a traitor” could be connected to the subject’s political activities. But he doesn’t tell us how. Has he been accused of being a traitor? Has he betrayed someone during his political activities? Does he intend to?
There is no linguistic connection to his political activities; we have two sexually loaded insults and one undefined accusation of being a traitor, which seems incongruent with the rapist’s former utterances. Is this his "brusque" treatment?
and therefore it affects us all.
Again it is nessecary for the subject to explain why it is affecting us all, making it sensitive to him. It could be, that he is aware of that the story is only a pretext.

Analysis Conclusion:


Deception indicated

The subject reports being "attacked", then "brusquely" treated, and used "rape" as an add in or after thought.  

He is withholding information about his decision to “wander” home.
He is deceptive about whether he was alone at any point in time.
He is withholding information about his encounter with the alleged rapist, including the identity.
Being raped is very personal, and victims have strong linguistic connection to it.  

The subject does not.

The subject has no sensory detail given.

Motive: The priority is political publicity.

It is questionable whether the incident is made up in order to propagate a political agenda or if this was a random consensual sexual encounter in which he did not like the way he was treated. Either way, his priority is political.

It is not known if he knows the man of whom he reports, or if the man is a "friend of a friend." The unnecessary information "unknown to me" suggests knowledge and connection.

If you would like to enroll in training in Statement Analysis, we offer seminars for Law Enforcement and business, as well as private, at home study.

Our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done in the privacy of your own home, and comes with 12 months of e support.

Visit: Hyatt Analysis Services for information, including examples of our work.



Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Great Mom in Statement Analysis

We recognize two realities; one is within life, and one is within analysis, with the latter a verbalized perception.  

What we say in analysis is not what we say in life.  

"Never hire a _______" is both tongue-in-cheek and it is understood by analysts for what it is.  

In this sense, "I love you" is understood sometimes, not as an expression of an emotion, but in analysis, sometimes it is a signal of the time of death in a murder, and at other times, a verbal signal of a poor bonding or relationship.  

Fair Shew in the Flesh

We find in open statements, that when one writes, "I am a great mother", there is a correlation to child abuse, including both accusations and even formal investigations.  It is seen in the need to assert such, as presented.  

We find this, in various forms, in applications at Methadone Clinics particularly when a baby was born addicted to drugs and suffered acutely through withdrawal.  

We look into this need to persuade, that is, a need to make a portrayal as a good parent.  

There is an olde expression that says, "one is making a fair shew in the flesh" meaning, the "show" is done to satisfy self.  

An exaggerated version of this is when one blows a trumpet to announce how much money one is donated to a cause.  It is done to cause a presentation where self is highlighted.  "Look at me!"

At a supermarket parking lot, a woman viciously tore into her husband about a buckle on the car seat.  She caused a stir from the crowd as she gave an extreme reaction to a minor issue with the message:

"Look at me!  What a great and concerned mother I am! Only I have this high level of concern for my child! You don't love him as much as I do!" 

School teachers often bear the brunt of this.  The more negligent the parent, the more the teacher is blamed and even attacked.  When it is a negligent father, his bitterness can be frightening.  

This often leads to criticizing and tearing down of others.  

The "flesh" refers to self gratification and is often seen in narcissistic statements. The guilt of the negligent or abusive parent is countered by an over reaction to a minor issue.  

The child, as a novelty, becomes the tool for the parent. 

When we encounter, "I am a great mother" in any form, we investigate for a connection to child abuse. 

When we encounter "I love you", we investigate for a troubled relationship, whether it be in a domestic homicide or in child abuse.  

It is the need to use these words that we explore. 

To whom is the subject writing?

When we encounter "...and then I said 'I love you' to my kids and left..." in a police statement, we explore for:

a.  child abuse
b.  neglect
c.  missing information 

In the above, the subject has the need to tell police that she loves her kids.  This is unnecessary information meaning that it is very important to the analysis.  

But did you also notice her "leaving"?

The point of highlighting "left" in an open statement is this:

The person is not thinking of the destination but of the location of the departure. 

The person is not thinking forwardly, but is stalled. 

This is a statement in which the subject tells us that she is deliberately withholding information around the time of departure, likely associated with the children.  

"The Great Mom" in Statement Analysis has its examples.  

Recall in the murder of Hailey Dunn in which her mother, Billie Jean Dunn and mother's boyfriend, Shawn Adkins, failed polygraphs, she made this statement. 

Hailey's mother and mother's boyfriend had amassed a huge collection of:

child pornography
bestiality (sexual arousal in abuse of animals) 
blood lust videos (sex/violence)
and substance abuse. 

The "great mom" had burned a tattoo into one child while moving a violent pedophile into her home, after calling police on him, frightening her now murdered child.  

The mother projected her own "norm" on Facebook when she rhetorically asked,

"Who doesn't have some bestiality on their computer?"  

She carries her norm in her language and sees perversion everywhere.  

The Great Mom is not simply seen in the words "I'm a great mother" alone.  Recall the same mother, reporting to the world that her 13 year old had disappeared boasting of just how great a mother she was:  "...she wasn't just allowed to go out without asking permission...she wasn't allowed to..." 

Rather than focus on the plight of her "missing" child at this critical point, the mother focused upon her own self, and what a great mother she is.  She did not realize how she had slipped into past tense language of her missing daughter.  The need to focus on self in the very moment when all focus should be upon the child is telling. 

Recall the McCanns' early interviews.  They did not claim Madeleine was kidnapped (only their supporters did) and did not talk about what Madeleine would have been going through, hour by hour, with a kidnapper. 

This is because it did not exist in their memory bank.  It did not exist because it was not reality.  They did not spend hours stressing over what life must be like for Madeleine; if she had her special blanket, toy or bottle.  This was not a concern, therefore, it did not process in the brain, and was not in the memory bank when questioned.  

They were, however, great parents who worked diligently in dedicating words to show the exact number of meters away they were when they left their little children home alone, unattended.  They devote many more words to self than to Madeleine.  

The innocent parents of missing and murdered children speak one language while those of guilty knowledge speak another.  

The former blame themselves for any and everything, while the latter not only excuse themselves in portrayal as "good" and even "normal" parents, but the deception eventually causes them to go on the offensive and attack. 

The attack can include doubters, and then police and then even to law suits. 

The innocent are left bereft of their children and care for nothing else. 

The deceptive try to conceal their contempt for the world, but it is inevitable.  When one believes oneself smarter than all others in putting over a lie, contempt must come.

In the same sense, they often cling to their supporters but if you listen closely enough, you'll witness the contempt, often passive-aggressive, even as they praise the close circle of those they have successfully deceived.  

Parents who have a need to portray themselves in a positive light would not need to do so unless circumstances gave rise.  This is why we view it in open statements; they choose their own words and what they feel most important to state. 

For training in lie detection for your law enforcement department, business as well as for individual training in home, enroll in our Complete Statement Analysis Course at www.hyattanalysis.com











Sunday, September 17, 2017

St. Louis Police Shooting: Statement


Question for Analysis:  Did Jason Stockley murder Anthony LaMar because LaMar is black?

We have the first statement from the shooter, after the verdict ended the formal gag order from the court.  

Statement Analysis gets to  the truth. 

In context, a reliable denial must contain:

1.  The pronoun "I"
2.   The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"  (only Reid differentiates, claiming that "didn't" is more casual.  Statement Analysis shows both to be equally reliable). 
3.  The specific allegation addressed.  In this case, if he says "I did not kill Anthony LaMar", it would be unreliable.  He did "kill" LaMar, but the allegation is "murder."  


 Jason Stockley,  was found not guilty in the fatal shooting of a fleeing suspect, Anthony LaMar.  


The former police officer broke his silence and said, 

"I did not murder Anthony Lamar Smith. I did not plant a gun.  I can feel for and I understand what the family is going through, and I know everyone wants someone to blame, but I'm just not the guy."

This is a very strong denial.  Note that he does not blame the criminal, which would, in context, further increase the danger to his own life.  

"Black Lives Matter" claims that the former police officer intentionally  murder the suspect because of racism. 

Consider the fleeing suspect, dangerous chase, and refusal to follow orders by a drug dealer, as context, while considering the claim of murder by race.  Stockley continued:  

"It feels like a burden has been lifted, but the burden of having to kill someone never really lifts. The taking of a life is the most significant thing that one can do, and it's not something that is done lightly and it's not something that should ever be celebrated. And it's just a horrible experience altogether. But, sometimes, it's necessary."

Note now, with the word "kill" in an admission, why the denial of "I did not murder" is appropriate.  This is a reliable denial.  

Note next the distancing language from the trauma (being accused and actually tried for murder) with the pronoun "one", along with his own rebuttal ("but") regarding necessity of police.  Note also that the distancing language, in context, is one coming out of the trial, having just been accused of deliberate murder.  It is appropriate to distance oneself, especially in a job where lethal force, in cases like this, is necessary.  

This is to blame the victim without doing so outwardly.  He puts the responsibility of the shooting upon the criminal action of the suspect.  
Some did not agree with  the judge's verdict and thus far, 10 police officers have been injured in the violent protests in St. Louis. 

Protestors did not agree with the judge's "not guilty" verdict took to attacking police and damaging property, claiming that, along with "Black Lives Matter", believe Stockley deliberately killed LaMar because of the color of LaMar's skin, and planted a gun on LaMar.  



The judge who acquitted a Stockley in the killing  is described as objective and well-respected by both prosecutors and defense lawyers alike.
St. Louis Circuit Judge Timothy Wilson, who must retire when he turns 70 in December, has ruled both for and against police during his 28 years on the bench.
"He's very methodical and a very objective judge," Jack Garvey, a lawyer and former St. Louis circuit judge told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "He really will review everything before he makes a decision. I don't think he's ideological in any way."
Jason Stockley was charged with first-degree murder in the 2011 death of Anthony Lamar Smith following a high-speed chase in which LaMar fled a scene, and was found with both heroin and a gun.  

 Prosecutors claimed Stockley planted a gun in Smith's car.

The judge said he pored over the evidence "again and again," including reviewing three sources of video: 

 from a restaurant surveillance camera, 
the squad car and a bystander's cellphone.  
The gun recovered from the car was a full-size revolver that would have been visible on video if Stockley had tried to plant it, Wilson said, because it couldn't be concealed in his palm or pockets, and Stockley was not wearing a jacket.
What's more, Smith's DNA was on a bag that contained heroin found in his car, and the judge said based on his nearly 30 years on the bench, "an urban heroin dealer not in possession of a firearm would be an anomaly."


He said Stockley also did not begin shooting Smith when he approached the car, but 15 seconds later, after he ordered Smith to show his hands and open the door.
Stockley talked about the optics, which gives insight into why he puts responsibility upon the criminal, but only indirectly:

"Every resisting looks bad. They never look good. So what you have to separate are the optics from the facts, and if a person is unwilling to do that, then they've already made up their mind and the facts just don't matter. To those people, there's nothing that I can do to change their minds."
The violent protests will continue to make police less likely to stop black criminals, further increasing the risk to black communities.  

The "War on Police" which began in earnest from the earliest days of Barak Obama's tenure, continues to put police in harm's way, as politicians have fueled racism and anger to the point of the absurdity of defending dangerous drug dealers over police. 

update:  Black Lives Matter trashed St. Louis library.