Friday, August 28, 2015

Statement Analysis Course Offered

For those unable to attend a seminar, Hyatt Analysis offers a comprehensive Statement Analysis Course that is taken at your home or office.

It includes more than 6 hours of lectures, 100+ pages of material, homework, tests and a final.

What makes it different from every other Statement Analysis course is not simply its depth, but its psychology of the principles.

This is a critical difference for not only learning, but application.

When a formula is given for memorization, the brain must train itself in recall.  The processing is simple, and it often called "rote", or straight memorization.  There is little emotional connection.

"The dog was lost on Saturday, August 12th, at 4PM, in Westbridge Park, Satsuma, Florida."

This is a very simple sentence and has elements to commit to memory including:
a.  what got lost
b.  what date he got lost
c.  what time he got lost
d.  what park he got lost in
e.  what city this park is in
f.  what state this city is in.

If we add in an element of emotion to the memorization, the processing of the brain will have an additional factor, further strengthening it.

"The dog was lost on Saturday, August 12th, at 4PM, in Westbridge Park, Satsuma, Florida.  The little boy was heartbroken."

Even though more words have been added to the task of memorization, the second statement is more likely to be remembered because of the "narrative form" of the statement:  there is a story associated with it.

Here is an oft-repeated story:  a United States chess grandmaster put on a remarkable display of memory in a chess simultaneous exhibition.

This is where one grandmaster plays 12 different chess professionals at the same time.  This means he will move from board one on to board twelve, and calculate each one as he goes along.

To make this remarkable event even more stunning, the chess grandmaster does this blindfolded.

"You are on board seven, and this is move forty-eight" would be a common reminder for him.

It is amazing.  I have attempted to play a single game of chess, blindfolded, and usually get lost by the end of the game.

As the story goes (I apologize for forgetting the name of the GM), the opponents conspired against him, all making the exact same moves for the first dozen or so moves, but upon agreement, their next moves were all different and all had one thing in common:  each move was utterly illogical.  

The Grandmaster who could likely play 50 such blindfolded games, was lost.

Once logic was disconnected, his memory fell to pieces.

Whole language for children, by itself, has made companies wealthy, but has decimated reading scores as there is much less emotional connection to a picture of a word, versus that in the simple "phonics" method.

Application to Statement Analysis:

You may, correctly, identify a statement as "concealing information of a private nature" when you see personal hygiene in a statement, unnecessarily.  Yet, if you understand why the subject may have included personal hygiene, and even explore for Domestic Violence in her relationship, you are more likely to not only remember the principle, but to better apply it, and improve your skill at seeking information.

You may, correctly, identify that the subject has referenced herself as a "child" in an open statement and how this correlates to childhood abuse, but when you understand the dynamics that produced this word, and you are seeking to learn if this person will be a good employee, or should she work alone, or with others, or is detail orientated or is strictly task driven, or is...and on and on you go, as a Human Resource professional, using the information as a powerful tool.  You may learn, for example, that this particular male may have unresolved issues related to this, and in correlation with using language imagery that is aggressive, you now have reason to screen for potential violence, while with another, you have a subject who thrives on heavily regulated work (inspectors) and thrives...

As a therapist or counselor, there is no way of putting a value label on such knowledge.

As an investigator, be it criminal, or internal, or journalistic, the application of such knowledge is boundless.

In business, learning to simply analyze emails can save until damage and loss from deceptive people. For HR today, knowing that one is prone to false claims, as evident in the specific pre-screening questions we set up for HR professionals who enroll in the course.

With the course comes 12 months of ongoing e-support, which is invaluable, but there is something else to add in.

On different days each month, professionals gather in groups no larger than 12, at Go To Metting.com to practice their skills in ongoing training.  This is less than the cost of music lessons and is heavily discounted for those who enroll for a year.  When one completes two years of this training, one is proficient in ways that were not previously thought possible.  It is exciting to watch such growth.

This ongoing, live training, is done in confidentiality agreement, as some of the statements are from live law enforcement cases, or civil investigations.  The learning, itself, is invaluable, but the contribution to society, especially in justice, is paramount.  It takes the "40% rule" and turns it on its head with "aha!" and "Wow!" moments.

This training is also applicable for CEUs from the University of Maine college system.  "Continuing Educational Units" can be applied for which is useful for professional licenses, as well as resume building.

Because this training is live and with mostly ongoing cases, only those who have formal training in Statement Analysis are permitted.

The course for your home or office is done at your pace and I emphasize repetition, especially in the audio lectures.  Solid note taking and repetition will assist memory.  I have some lectures almost completely committed to memory, as I have listened to them over many years, including via headphones while mowing the lawn, or doing chores.  I implore investigators and students not to rush.  You may complete the course in under a month, but it is much better to practice while in the course and slow the pace down.

We do offer for those in need the ability to make payments on the course, and encourage those who wish to improve their understanding to enroll.  Those trained see a marked difference between formal and informal training, and those who are formally trained often feel as if the monthly training is "the real beginning of learning" as the statement is not simply an academic exercise, and there are no "anonymous" contributions.

Knowing that an analyzed statement is not only going to be used in an actual interview, but may be testified to in court, has a sobering impact upon speculative responses, something we must, by necessity, do, but it is in a 'safe' place; that is, while taking counsel with other analysts.

To sign up for the course go to HYATT ANALYSIS and request shipment and get started on your quest.  It will provide traction for your career, as well as resume support, and when you reach the point of 'no return', the discernment will be there.

When a person goes missing, it is a tragedy that impacts loved ones more than we may ever know.

When a statement is given, it is thrilling to know what happened to the victim, and how best to proceed with proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The removal of the unknown is a powerful and psychologically addictive element in success that is further buttressed by the landing of justice.

You may not ever see the fruits of your labor published in the news paper other than "investigators produced new analysis..." types of statements, but knowing that you helped bring justice to a family destitute of their loved one, itself, is of great reward.

I once had a manager who inspired me to put in as much effort in investigating a small theft as any other investigation.  This discipline always stayed with me, even as I knew that a person who steals $10 from her employer successfully, will graduate

Lastly, our words reveal our personality type, background, experience and priorities in life.  This is the basic profile that emerges.

Even without studying profiling via analysis, the course will bring you to the point where you will begin to see the correlation between words and personality types, which is a powerful insight and can allow you to know precisely how to word questions to best elicit truthful responses.

Your understanding of human nature will change.  It will, in the very least, deepen.  You ability to predict future violence, not simply from past violence, for example, but upon language and past violence, will show greater accuracy.

Your ability to "read" someone, even in a car sales transaction, will improve.

For those of you of good instincts or intuition, you will only be made much stronger than you already are, as we place the "rules" all round you, guiding and strengthening you.

We welcome you aboard this marvelous journey in understanding!

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Peter Bisciglia: Statement Versus Video Example


I work with some of the finest law enforcement officials in the country.  They love their work, they believe in service, and they believe in using their intellect to diffuse difficult situations, and their training to get to the truth.

When a police officer is seen abusing his officer, they all feel the sting.

When a video of an event emerges, it allows us to see our analysis confirmed.  Sometimes, we do not have a news story until both the statement and the video are released; at the same time.

Here we have a statement regarding a physical altercation between a police officer and a citizen released to media alongside of the video release.
 First, the Statement, then the Analysis, and then the video. Following this is the local news story of the case.

A statement can differ from a video without being deceptive.  Errors are made and should you or I be "incorrect", it will not show up as deception because the intent to deceive is absent.

Also, a video can be a different angle than one's own eyesight, and, as we have repeatedly seen, our own experiences can color our "verbalized perception of reality."

This, too, is not necessarily deception, but perception.

This now leads us to an entirely different level which is unique and a great opportunity for analysis:


If you knew that a video tape of what you just did existed, and it will be compared to your statement, and are told this before you write your statement, would you lie?

If, under the microscope of definitive proof:  an actual video tape of what happened, which is stronger than eye witness testimonies,  the subject is deceptive, the subject is announcing that he is one of the rare outright liars, who fabricates reality, and is utterly confident in his own abilities to deceive.  If he lies, knowing a video exists of which his statement will be compared to, his testimony on every case he has ever been involved in, is now suspect.

Also, if true, he besmirches the reputations of every honorable law enforcement official in the country, at a time when it is particularly sensitive and much of the 'bad apple' reporting has been dramatically disproportionate to truthful reporting of all the good that is done by police.

The biggest question is:  Would you lie if you were told a video existed of your actions?


It is only when one signals intent to deceive that we pick up the sensitivity in language.e

I.  The statement

"I told Ainsley he was under arrest he again pushed himself back towards me. At this time, I feared that Ainsley would become physically combative towards me. I assume a defensive stance and pushed Ainsley away from me to put distance between myself and he. At that time, Ainsley stumbled as he was trying to push towards me. Ainsley fell to the ground."

The subject is police officer Peter Bisciglia and Ainsley is the man arrested.  


II.  The analysis


When the officer first filed his report, he left out any information of a physical altercation.  His superior was testing the dash cam to make certain it worked, and saw the altercation and asked the officer to write out what happened, as well as "Why did you leave it out?"  He did not give a satisfactory answer.  


"I told Ainsley he was under arrest he again pushed himself back towards me. At this time, I feared that Ainsley would become physically combative towards me. I assume a defensive stance and pushed Ainsley away from me to put distance between myself and he. At that time, Ainsley stumbled as he was trying to push towards me. Ainsley fell to the ground."

Note that "told" is appropriate, since he is in the position of authority.  
Note "again" indicates missing information that has not been reported since he has not reported the "first" pushing. 

"At this time, I feared" is to include a specific emotion at the perfect or logical point of the account; a signal that it is placed there artificially.  Yet, we do not conclude deception on this alone.  

It is, however, something much more sensitive:

"I assume" is to use his fear to explain why he took a particular posture. 
He has not been asked, "Why did you...?", instead, pre-empts the question.

Also, note the change from past tense verb to present tense

This is not "I was assuming", as in an incomplete activity, but the straight present tense, "I assume", which is not only unreliable, but when taken in the hyper sensitive "because" mode, is deceptive.  The emotion here is, in fact, an artificial placement and is another indicator of deception.  

Did you note "at this time" became "that" time, with distancing language?  He did not mind psychologically associating with "this" time, where he informed the suspect he was under arrest, but when it came to the altercation, he distances himself with the word "that" in his language.  Even when trying to deceive, knowing that video exists, he is unable to tell the truth.  

"Ashley fell to the ground" is straight forward language and is true, just as "I told Ainsely he was under arrest" is true.  But it ends there.  The change in the statement indicates deception.  

Deception Indicated

There are enough indicators to conclude that the portion of "what happened" is deceptive. 

Police should be very concerned that the subject may have sociopathic like tendencies, as his confidence in his own ability to deceive is extreme, which indicates a life long 'practice' or habitual manner, in which he has experienced many successes in deceiving others.  

This "success" means that he holds the world in contempt, as beneath him, able to be deceived by him.  

He is a blight to their department.  



III  The video








IV>   The News Story


FOX6 News has obtained new video that shows an incident that led to a Kenosha police officer receiving a 60-day suspension. Authorities say it was an unjustified use of force — and on top of that, the officer’s report did not match the video.
Kenosha police say at first, they did not get a citizen complaint about this incident. Instead, they say the investigation started when a supervisor was doing a routine check of dashcam video. He saw something that led him to pull up the incident report.
It does look bad. The video looks terrible,” said Lt. Brad Hetlet of the Kenosha Police Department.
The sight of Officer Peter Bisciglia shoving a man to the ground, his head hitting the pavement, got the attention of Kenosha police supervisors. They were looking for something very different.
“To make sure the microphones are on, the squad videos are working properly. And in doing so, the captain on second shift came across a video he thought needed to be looked into,” said Hetlet.
Police went to Westown Foods in Kenosha on January 27th for a shoplifting call. According to the initial report, Bisciglia described the scene as “chaotic” and he “didn’t know who was friend or foe.”

On the indoor surveillance video, a man with a red hat seems to touch Bisciglia’s shoulder to get his attention. The officer responds by knocking his hand away — and then shoving the man back. Bisciglia does not mention this in his incident report.

“Credibility is everything when you’re a police officer. You have to be a credible witness for the state for prosecution purposes and we expect certain things of our officers,” said Hetlet.

Bisciglia then shoves another man outside the front door — knocking him to the sidewalk.
According to the internal investigation documents, Kenosha police brought in an outside use-of-force expert. He described Bisciglia’s actions as “unreasonable” and “probably based on emotion rather than sound tactics.”

“Most officers do the right things for the right reasons. In this case, we found there were policy violations. He didn’t do the right things for the right reasons and he was disciplined for it,” said Hetlet.
Bisciglia was suspended in May, but will continue to serve the suspension into next year. That’s because his punishment is broken down to six days a month for ten months. Police say that’s also to limit the financial hardship on the officer — and to keep him ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Employment Screening for Agenda Training Offered

The man who killed the television news reporter and the cameraman could have, and should have, been screened out in the application process via Statement Analysis.  In our employment process, we would have identified him before he was even interviewed. 

We are able to set up the job application and screening process to show an Employer, in confidentiality, the single issue that is most important:

Does the applicant have an agenda other than emotional and financial satisfaction from a job well done.

In upcoming articles, I will show how, even in law enforcement, where employees will carry lethal force, and an authority to take away someone's freedom, it is critical to chose an applicant who will use his intelligence to deescalate a situation, while not being intimidated, which only emboldens the criminal element.

The Department of Justice told us, years ago, that 4 out of 10 applicants have an intention towards a business that is nefarious.  When this statistic came out, our country did not have its powerful "victim status" that it does today; and in the 15 years since, judges have shown a propensity to punish success and award "victims" who are scamming the system.  Every day headlines reveal this "victim status" to an extreme.  In NJ, a school teacher was fired because he was late to school 111 times in just 2 years.  A judge has given him his job back saying the school did not give him gradual disciplinary assistance.  The teacher was a 'victim' of a school's failure to assist him in getting to work on time.

Over and over, courts side against employers, as the trend in America is to demonize success, and award failure.  Your company must hire those who's purpose is gainful employment and the satisfaction of success.

Unemployment cases have become a joke in America.  One woman stole over $1,000 from the safe of a fast food restaurant and did not disclose this on her application at another fast food restaurant.  When the employer found out, he fired her knowing she will steal again.  The unemployment hearings officer said, "but she did not steal from you!" and awarded her unemployment, with no sanctions for withholding this information.  Statement Analysis would have seen the withholding of information in her application.

In the violent shooting of the newscaster and cameraman:

Embittered racism can and must be screened out, while maintaining legally sound interviews.

Those who seek employment from you who consider themselves a "victim" before working for you will seek to satisfy this intense entitlement at the cost of your business.

The material interest of your company is subordinated to the narcissistic demands of the "victim.

We do three things which will save your company money, stress, and its reputation:

I.  We first train your company, particularly your Human Resources professionals in Statement Analysis and the subsequent Analytical Interviewing.  This includes video taping our mock interviews and seeking legally sound, non intrusive methods that get to the truth.  We use a scoring system to protect the company from fraudulent claims of discrimination so that no such claim can be held against you. Everything is documented, including the report writing technique that is clear and powerful.

II.  We help design the application pre screening application to screen out deceptive and dangerous applicants from even being interviewed.  This is where powerful information is accessed, and the company's greatest wall of protection is erected:  before the employment interview.

III.  We now support you for 12 months.  This means reviewing all analysis of all applications and should a claim be made against you by an employee, we will guide you, step by step, including interviewing the claimant if needed and help you win your case by the two elements that consistently bring victory:

Truth and sound documentation.

You will

1.  Protect yourself from fraudulent Claims
2.  Save on insurance
3.  Save on unemployment
4.  Save on shrinkage
5.  Spare yourselves the stress of hiring one who troubles your company, damages your hard earned reputation, and destroys morale of good, honest, hard working and loyal employees.

You will save time in no longer interviewing candidates who come to you with an agenda.

Our initial training seminar is at your location.  We will train where you are.

If you are a small company, you may take our home course, and we will still help design your application and pre-screening questions and also give you 12 months of support of your analysis and screening.

This stops trouble from entering your company.

Statement Analysis and Analytical Interviewing gets to the truth and will not only protect you, but will help you identify the best and brightest and place them in the right position for their personality and talents.

See HYATT ANALYSIS to set up an initial consultation.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Elements of Violence in Language

Kristi Miller 
When a person is involved in violence, on various sides, it often reveals itself in the language.

1.  The victim
2.  The perpetrator
3.  The spectator

Let's look at two elements:  the victim and the spectator.  In Human Resources, we train professionals to ask specific questions and analyze specific responses to screen out those who pose the risk of violence in the workplace.  This will be for another article.

I.  Victims of Violence
II.  Spectators of Violence

I.  Victim of Violence.

Was Kristi Miller,  photographer assaulted by Mel Gibson?

Much analysis has been done on the linguistic evidence of violence upon victims.  We have seen this in abundance, including elements of post-traumatic stress in language, as well as how the victim relates to the perpetrator.  Bill Cosby's accuser, Barbara Bowman,  is a good example of how analysis showed how certain words are used when experiential memory is in play.  Analysis of her statement is HERE.   The comedian,  Hari , who claimed to be mugged by "3 white dudes" is an example of when there is no linguistic connection to an event.  That is found HERE as there are a number of "fake hate" cases covered.  Because the subject is deceptive, any emotion is artificial and there is often a lack of sensory connection in language.

Specifically in the language of violence, we must set our context correctly for the victim, in order to 'enter into' not only the personal, subjective internal dictionary of the victim, but to understand her perception of the impact.







Mel Gibson's accuser is a good example for us to follow.


This is where we sometimes see a change in verb tense:


“I took a photo of Mel and his girlfriend and when I turned around he shoved my back really hard. It shocked me because I wasn’t expecting it. I don’t know if it was his hands or elbow.
He was spitting in my face as he was yelling at me, calling me a dog, saying I’m not even a human being and I will go to hell. He swore and called me a c**t. It was non-stop, he didn’t even breathe.”

I posted this because it is an interesting statement, people enjoy quizzes, but it also highlights the difference between formal training and informal practicing of analysis.

1.  "I took a photo of Mel" is very likely to be true.  This has the statement beginning with the pronoun "I" which is often reliable because we do not like to connect ourselves to deception.  It does not preclude deception, however, which is why I chose the word "reliable" rather than "truthful."  In fact, that which begins as reliable can turn towards deception as it unfolds.

"I took a photo of Mel" on its form, is very likely to be truthful.

2.  "...and when I turned around he shoved my back really hard" is also, on its form, very likely to be truthful.

Now, with these two very strong statements, should she be lying, it would be not only extremely rare, but it would put her into a classification of a dangerous person of whom nothing she says can be trusted.

This is not what I find, however, to be the case.

Question:  What is the difference between:

a.  "He spat in my face" and
b.  "He was spitting in my face"?

"He spat in my face" is a highly reliable, past tense statement (as long as "he" and "my" are clearly defined in context).

What is the difference between "yelled" and "was yelling"?

Answer:  incomplete action.

"Was yelling" and "was spitting" has an action that is not complete and it must be judged within context.

This may suggest that for the victim, this is worse than the initial shoving of the back.  "Spitting" is very "up close and personal" and the change in pronoun may indicate that to the victim, the spitting and yelling did not end.

Why did she separate "cursing" from being called a "c***"?

This, too, suggests reliability.   The "C-word" is considered one of the most vulgar insults that a woman can receive, especially one who is a professional and may not be 'culturally' desensitized to this word.  (This would apply if, for example, this particular word was not used in her household, whereas someone else who heard this word from her own father, for another example, would not find it as insulting as our subject did.)

It is very unlikely that Ms. Miller was raised in an environment where this word was acceptable.  This is something her own language reveals.

 This insult is given a separate identification due to the intensity of the impact.  For her, the "C word" is a whole other level of insult, beyond "cursing."

"Was yelling" and "was spitting" went on, but the C-word was a final, very difficult insult.

This is the "continuation" that we see in PTSD-like statements, especially in childhood sexual abuse.

Kristin Miller told the truth.  Even when "less reliable" form of speech is used, we must not only weigh it against the other statements, but we must look at in context.  In sexual abuse cases, especially childhood, it is more of a 'norm', to the point where it is 'expected' in these statements.  (We cover an entire chapter of study dedicated to the language of sexual assault victims in our advanced course).

The analyst must be flexible.

Spectators to Violence

What about spectators to violence?  How does this impact their language?

These are those who hear or see violence in various degrees.

In our modern age, there is a difference between those who are at the location and those who are able to eye witness the violence through electronic means such as audio or video recordings.

There can even be a subtle change in language for those who experience violence through the written word, since it engages the imagination in a way that the audio and/or video does not.  For now, the spectator here is via audio and video and even this distance impacted her language.

Those who are spectators to violence must be judged in various ways, including:

a.  Were they fearful that they, too, could become a victim of violence?
b.  What was their belief system?  Did they believe the violence to be justified?
c.  What was their expectation?  Did they, for example, attend an Islamic stoning of a homosexual to report on it to the West?  Or, did they attend because they agreed with it?

These various elements will affect the "perception of reality" and will impact the language.

Secondary and even tertiary trauma is real and needs to be addressed.

Here, in this video from today's news, the newscaster did not have any expectation of violence.  


Here is a video of a reporter being shot live on the air. Note the television anchor's initial words: She drops her pronoun. Since there is no time to 'pre-think' this, what caused the witness to violence to drop her pronoun?

What caused her to drop her pronoun?  This may not be as simple as "distancing language" in our response.  It is distancing language, but why?

******************************************************************************
Because of the broad scope of analysis, there is no substitute for formal training.  One must learn, memorize and apply principles.

Once this is done, much practice is needed.

Along with practice, our monthly sessions with trained professionals is a must.  It is invaluable as "iron sharpens iron", and the best sharpening a professional can receive is as the hands of another professional.

I experience this regularly.  I look for two year commitments, in the very least, from dedicated professionals.  Once this point is passed, they often continue, almost like an addiction, and even after many years, still have "wow!" moments, like the several I experienced yesterday on a statement I had already analyzed!

Once this is in full swing, one must then move on to speculate soundly, as to what causes sensitivity indicators.  This is where we find the greatest number of errors and where putting one's signature matters most.

After this, one may then move on to a greater understanding of human nature and how it reveals itself in language, and finally on to profiling personalty types through language.

We are known by our words.

It is a long journey, but once well embraced, it will not be lost and will serve you for the rest of your life and career.

If your department or company wishes to host a training seminar, you will receive discount. If you would like to take our home course, including more than 6 hours of MP3 lectures and 12 months of ongoing support, successful completion will allow you into the affordable monthly live training with investigators from around the country.  See www.hyattanalysis.com for details.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Did Mel Gibson Assault Photographer?

A photographer, Kristin Miller,  has claimed that Australian actor, Mel Gibson, 59, assaulted her.  Her statement is reported as:

“I took a photo of Mel and his girlfriend and when I turned around he shoved my back really hard. It shocked me because I wasn’t expecting it. I don’t know if it was his hands or elbow.
He was spitting in my face as he was yelling at me, calling me a dog, saying I’m not even a human being and I will go to hell. He swore and called me a c**t. It was non-stop, he didn’t even breathe.”

Here is the statement again, with emphasis added for your consideration. 

Vote:  Did it happen as she has stated?

Did Mel Gibson assault photographer?


pollcode.com free polls



Put your opinion on this in the comments section, with the reason why you have drawn a conclusion.  

“I took a photo of Mel and his girlfriend and when I turned around he shoved my back really hard. It shocked me because I wasn’t expecting it. I don’t know if it was his hands or elbow.
He was spitting in my face as he was yelling at me, calling me a dog, saying I’m not even a human being and I will go to hell. He swore and called me a c**t. It was non-stop, he didn’t even breathe.”

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Crystal Rogers: Parents Fight for Grandparent Visitation


Crystal Rogers, mother of 5, went missing  on July 3rd of this year, and her fiancĂ©, Brooks Houck, went on the Nancy Grace Show.

On the show, he did not issue a reliable denial in her disappearance and gave signals of deception, via withholding information directly related to Crystal's disappearance.

You may read the analysis of the interview HERE.

Crystal's parents, The Ballards now have custody of the four other children, but the child Crystal had with Houcks, has been denied visitation by his father, as the family suspects Houck in her disappearance.  They report that this has been difficult on the other children who have lost their mother, and are denied the ability to see their little brother, Eli.

Sherry Ballard has taken Houck to court with the next hearing scheduled for September 10th.

There have been no news reports into the investigation of Crystal's disappearance.


Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Analysis Exercise: Hilary Clinton Video

Here is a video of Hilary Clinton being asked about wiping the server clean.

There are indicators of deception in her responses.  How many can you identify?  Include your conclusion.


Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Fake Hate: Julie Baker Refunds Go Fund Me Donations

Relentlessly Deceitful 
Julie Baker posted on Facebook that she found a hateful threatening note on her door, telling her to take down her "relentlessly gay" lights or the police would be called, for after all, this was a "Christian area" and there were "children."

She then went to Go Fund Me to raise money for even more "relentlessly gay" lights, which cost about $10.

The donations poured in and when it reached over $40,000, questions arose as to who wrote the note, as some in the public noted the similarities between the note's writing style and Julie Baker's own writing.

Statement Analysis is done of anonymous threatening letters to reveal a profile of the author.

The profile revealed that the author was not a Christian concerned for the neighborhood, but instead the analysis revealed the author was gay female with strong anti-Christian prejudice,
poetic, and, in fact, did match the writing style of Baker, herself.

Statement Analysis agreed with the public perception:  Julie Baker authored the note, herself.

Rather than deny this, she avoided police, initially refused to show them the note, and put the brakes on the donations.   She blamed "hate" as the reason to stop taking more donations, as her own fear of being caught grew, and said the money was "enough."

Baltimore Internet Fraud investigators were able to obtain samples of her writing, including anti-Christian  articles she had written which matched the writing style of capitalizing random letters.  Media picked up on it too, and Baker faced a choice:

Refund the donations or face prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence.  It would not be challenging to convince a jury of her peers that she was the author of the note.  She fraudulently claimed "death threats" with the same credibility as her initial claim of having "received" the note.

Baker is now asking that donators claim refunds as she has chosen to avoid prison.  She is still being deceptive in her posting, blaming "taxes" as the reason.  The website and all the potential sale of t shirts and trinkets comes to naught, as it was based upon a false report.

In her refund message, she does not ask for forgiveness from the community she scammed, but continues, instead, to deceive.

The deception continues.


Monday, August 17, 2015

Statement Analysis of William Ruben Ebron

Statement Analysis is in bold type. 
Photo by: Duval County jail booking photo
William 'Ruben" Ebron, Jr.
The following report is republished with permission from The Florida Star.
William “Ruben” Ebron agreed to sit and talk with The Florida Star Newspaper. At this time, he is the only suspect in the disappearance of 21 month old Lonzie Barton. Chief Tom Hackney says his focus is on Ebron because he was the last person with Lonzie and he does not believe the story told about his car being stolen.
Ebron is in isolation and is not allowed to see or talk with anyone other than family, including his girlfriend. Since his arrest he has talked with his father and now The Florida Star.
The first question we asked was “why do you think you are the only suspect? “
Ebron: Because they say I am the last person to be with Lonzie.

The question was "why", so "because is the expected response.  "They say" is to quote another, and not an embedded confession. 
Florida Star: Chief Hackney is saying you are refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Are you withholding information?
Ebron: No, I told them everything I know. They want to talk about drugs and other things other than finding Lonzie. I did some things in the past that does not look good and I did not want to talk about them. I answered all of their questions about Lonzie. I want Lonzie to be found, he needs to be with his mother.
The subject qualified his cooperation in the yes or no question with "no"; keep in mind that "yes or no" questions are reduced stress for deception and are not reliable.  It is is words after "no" that are important. 
He stated that they wanted to talk about "drugs and other things" but does not tell us what "other things" consist of.  He refused to talk about "them"; that is, things in his past that does not "look good."
This is to say that police believe that drugs and "other things" are related to the child's disappearance and this is where his cooperation ended.  Note that there is no talk of immunity.  He does not say that not related to Lonzie's disappearance, only that they are "other things than finding Lonzie.
This is to indicate that he is willing to talk about finding Lonzie, but not willing to talk about what caused Lonzie's disappearance.  
This suggests possible knowledge of what "things" caused Lonzie to disappear.  
Florida Star: Why did you leave the car running with the children inside?
Ebron: We were getting ready to go pick up my girlfriend from work and I remembered an item and decided to go back into the house to get it.  The five year old followed me into the house.  I took the keys but left the car running to allow me to open the front doorWe often leave the car running because you have to raise the hood to start it the first time. After that, there is a switch inside. Once you turn the car off you have to go back under the hood to start it.   Lonzie was asleep and the five year old was playing games on my phone. She wanted to stay there so I left her watching TV with my roommate.  I had to re-charge the phone before being able to make the 911 call after I discovered the car was missing.
We often say to investigators, "your answer is found in the blues"; that is, the blue highlighting used to indicate the highest level of sensitivity in language. 
When a person is asked "what happened" but explains why they did something without being asked, it indicates that this portion of the statement is extremely sensitive to them.  When there is more than just one word in blue, it is said to be a 'cluster of blues' and the answer to the crime is found there.  The need the subject has to explain why he did what he did is often where our deception is found. Here, we have 3 "blues" close together as he explains why he did what he did while not being asked making it the most sensitive part of his statement and where guilt lies, via missing information. 
Note he even gives the reason why he took the keys, though he was not asked. 
Note the entrance of "doors" in his statement is often associated with sexual abuse.  Since drugs were part of his equation and "things" besides drugs, it may be that both drugs and possible sexual abuse are part of this crime. 
Note the need to explain what he usually does

Note that this need is not what "he" usually does, but "we" usually do.  This is distancing language since he was not with any other adult. This is to 'share' guilt or responsibility.  
Note "the five year old" has no name.  Note the need to explain why he left her, although he was not asked.  
This is where information is deliberately withheld by the subject. 
Note the passive language of "I discovered the car missing";
Note also what is missing from his "discovery":  the child.  
He discovered the "car missing" but not the child missing.  This is a signal that he knows where the child is.  
Note the need to explain the delay in calling 911.  
The need to explain is all without being asked, making it extreme sensitivity in language.  

Deception indicated.  
Had this same person interviewed DeOrr's parents, we would have known far more than we do.  
Florida Star: Is there anything you have not told the investigators that would help find Lonzie?
Ebron: No, they wanted to search the car so I let them. They were able to check my phone on the spot. I told them there were no passwords, no locks. The picture for the Amber Alert was off my phone. They talked with me about four or five hours that morning. This may sound selfish but they are trying to make me look like a monster and I got to start looking at my defense.
1.  Note the need to explain why he "let" the police search his vehicle.  
2.  Note that he does not say he "let" them check his phone.  
3.  Note "they talked with me" uses "with" between himself and the police, indicating distance.  There is no "we", that is, unity, cooperation, in the four to five hour interview.  It was during this interview that the distance existed. 
In every investigative interview, the Interviewer will have one or two impressions:  That the subject is either working with the Interviewer to gain information, or the subject is working against or at distance, with the interviewer, to hinder or slow the flow of information. 
His own wording tells us that he did not work for the flow of information.  
Note that "monster" is not using their language, but his own description.  This is likely very closely associated with both drugs and "other things" he did not want to talk about, that he sees as a "monster"; police should seek to learn, even if not charged or prosecuted, any links to child pornography or molestation.  "Monster" is not the language of police, but his own.  "The last to see him alive" is him quoting police, but "monster" is his own description.  This is to say that he considers that what happened to the child will make him look like a "monster" and the defense is "my defense", that is, possessive pronoun taking ownership of what is his. 
Here he tells us that he needs a defense, without issuing a reliable denial about causing the child's disappearance.  
Florida Star: Who else should they be looking for?
Note the question is "who?"
Ebron: We had been warned to watch out for Lonzie's father as he may try to follow us to find out where we lived. I don't know .I just want Lonzie home with his mother.
He did not give a direct answer for himself, but began with "we had been warned...." but then says, "I don't know."
Note he does not want Lonzie back for himself, but only "with" (distancing language) his "mother" which avoids the child's mother's name, indicative of a bad relationship at this point in the statement.  
There is an overwhelming sensitivity in the statement regarding the child's disappearance that shows the subject to be deceptive, specifically, about the event where the child went missing, in the vehicle.  
He does not say that he did not cause the child's disappearance, therefore, we cannot say it for him.  He adds "drugs" and "other things" to the disappearance of the child which police will likely uncover a link between these things and what caused the child to go missing.  

Tiffany Hartley: Experiential Memory V Memory of...A Movie




The Disappearance of David Hartley

by Peter Hyatt


Five years ago, Tiffany Hartley emerged from the water of Falcon Lake in Texas and called 911 to report that her husband, David had been shot and killed. 

Analysis Question:  Has the subject truthfully reported what happened to her husband, David Hartley?

This would mean that she told the truth, and the complete truth in reported what happened, and did not withhold information.  It means that her language would come from experiential memory; that is, it would connect with what happened and be accurate.  

Background: On September 30, 2010, Tiffany Hartley made a 911 call. She began the call with, “hello” and told the 911 operator that her husband had been shot while on the Mexican side of Falcon Lake, in Texas.

That such a tragedy would begin with "hello" is not expected, and the initial wording reveals priority:  the shooting was in the jurisdiction of Mexican authorities, not US authorities.  This was her priority. US authorities were being reported to, but would not have jurisdiction.

Shortly after, she contacted the Denver Post and gave her story to them. She reported that she and her husband, David Hartley, were moving from Texas back to Colorado, and went out for a last visit to Falcon Lake, where David wanted to take pictures of a church which, on the Mexican side, was under water.
It was on the lake, she said, that Mexican pirates opened fire on her and her husband, while they were on jet skis, knocking him into the air. While they continued to fire upon her, she drove her jet ski to her injured husband, who lay floating face down, hit by gun fire to the head, and was forced, she said, to leave him to die, in order to save her own life. The story she told of his last moments was the same as the story told by James Cameron in the remake, "Titanic", where Leo DiCaprio's character, "Jack" dies.  This is an example of memory at play, but not experiential memory; it was memory of a movie.  

After contacting the Denver Post, she began to show up on various news programs, including Good Morning America, The Today Show, On the Record with Greta Van Sustren, and upon each network news program, where, each morning and evening, the hosts declared her to be a hero, who courageously drove directly into oncoming bullets in an attempt to save her dying husband.

The story should have stayed the same, that is, had it come from experiential memory.  

Gov. Perry from Texas declared her a hero and renewed his call for the border to be secured. Hartley’s family called upon President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to make our border with Mexico a priority.

Gov. Perry stated that anyone who questioned Tiffany Hartley’s account needed to be “ashamed” of himself. Sheriff Ziggy Gonzalez, the chief law enforcement official from Falcon Lake Texas declared that Tiffany Hartley was 100% truthful, and that he saw “no need” for her to be polygraphed after Mexican officials challenged her veracity.

 As more challenges arose in media, the sheriff refused to polygraph her.  This raised the question of whether or not he would polygraph a man who came ashore claiming his wife had been shot by Mexican pirates.

On the Nancy Grace Show, Ms. Grace said that she could tell "by looking at this woman" that Tiffany Hartley was telling the truth.

Her accounts now make for excellent training examples.

Then, one of the investigators into David Hartley’s disappearance was found be-headed in Mexico. This came just after the investigator told media that two brothers were wanted in Hartley’s disappearance, as well as other drug related murders.

The news programs announced that this was evidence that Tiffany Hartley’s story was credible and that she was a young, courageous victim. ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN all declared her story to be credible and that the unfortunate death of the investigator was “proof” that Tiffany told the truth.  Even though she made a large gaffe in her account, CNN missed it.

Mexican prosecutors told us that the man be-headed was not part of the Hartley investigation and had been killed by drug cartel for other involvement.  They maintained that they wanted Mrs. Hartley to take a polygraph.  

The following are interviews Tiffany Hartley gave shortly after reporting her husband had been shot and killed by Mexican pirates. 


GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tiffany, what happened?

This is the best open ended question.  It allows the subject to answer any way she wants, in particular, it allows the subject to start the event at her own starting point.  In this type of open ended question, the first sentence is always important as it can show priority.  Expected is the immediate, "My husband, David, was shot and killed..."

1.  Where a subject begins an account is always important and can reveal priority.  


TIFFANY HARTLEY: David and I were on the Mexico side taking pictures. And we were heading back. Just had some boats come after us and started chasing us and started shooting at us. I had several bullets going over me and hitting behind me. And I looked back and David was hit.

Instead of starting with her husband being shot, her first sentence is concerned with her location:  geography. 

1.  This sets priority.  

It is critical to the subject that she establishes that she was on the "Mexico side" (not the "Mexican side") which means that it is up to Mexican officials to investigate, not US officials.  She would later go on to say that she did not want to return to Mexico because she feared arrest.   The priority is her location:  she was not on the U.S. side, where they would have jurisdiction to investigate.  

2.  The word, "And" indicates that there is a continual thought connecting her first sentence to her second, but the information is missing.  Between the word "pictures" and "And", there is missing information. 

3.  Note "we were heading back" sounds like story telling, rather than reporting. 

4.  "Just" is a word which reduces or minimizes an event via the means of comparison.  "The car costs just..." means that the price of the car is attractive when compared to something else.  Why would the 'murder' of her husband cause her to use the word "just" as if to minimize it?

5.  "Just had some boats" has no pronoun.  She did not say "we had some boats...." or even "we just had some boats...", but without the pronoun, she distances herself from the event.  In only these few words, we have two issues associated with "just" that cause us to seek to learn if this is deceptive. Dropped pronouns are psychological distancing language that mothers of teenagers become experts at detecting.  

6.  "some boats":  Note that her story had already been reported and that pirates in boats chased them and shot him was already announced.  "Some" boats sound like just any boats out there, rather than something up close and very personal.  

7.  "Just had some boats come" uses the present tense verb, "come", reducing reliability.  Already in her answer, we can indicate deception.   It was a past event and it should have been reported as such.  

8.  Chronological order:  When someone recalls from memory, Mark Mcclish describes it this way:  It should be like a parade of events passing before their eyes, moving in chronological order.   Here she says:

"Just had some boats come after us" which puts the boats in motion in the present tense, but then she says, 

"started chasing us..." which she reported already;

9.  Activities Begun:  Take careful note when someone reports activities that are begun, but without completion:

"started chasing us" instead of "chased us" and
"started shooting at us" instead of "shot at us"

The past tense verbs show commitment to memory and the lack indicates that she is not committed to her account, which resembles story telling rather than a truthful account, in the past tense, from experiential memory. 

                                   

10.  "several bullets"

Instead of saying she was fired on and missed "I had several bullets going over me and hitting behind me" uses additional language, which is unnecessary and sounds dramatic.  This is supposed to be a report of her husband being murdered and she has not gotten to it yet.  Someone on a jet ski, being chased by boats, would not likely think of the number of bullets ("several") and their locations.  


11. And I looked back and David was hit

She has yet to say her husband was murdered.  
"And" indicates missing information.
"I looked back" shows concern over her positioning. 

12.  Passivity  "David was hit" is unexpected.  Her husband was reported murdered.  Passivity in language indicates, often, a concealing of responsibility.  Since her husband was murdered, we should now wonder if the passive "David was hit" indicates that she knows who shot him, yet, he was only "hit" still; and not shot.  

She was asked about the "Mexican pirates" as they were in a known drug area.  She later said that David knew it was a known drug area, but took her anyway.  She said that David even talked to her about the possibility of being kidnapped!  This part of her story did not likely sit well with David's family as she portrayed him as someone so incredibly selfish that he was willing to put his wife in harm's way just to get pictures. 

Well, after we had taken the pictures at the church, we were on our way out when we saw boat outside of this little brush area that was underwater.

Her husband was murdered, but it was just "a" boat.  In spite of being prepared for possible kidnapping and violence, he got his pictures.  

Always take note when one claims to have seen, or thought, or heard, for another.  It is usually an indication that there is a 'need to share' in affirming an activity:  it is weak.  The subject does not want to say "I saw", so she reaches for the weaker, "we saw", as if to make it sound like there is another eye witness, not just her own testimony.  This is indicated as weak. 

When we were coming out, we saw them. They just waved at us, like we were -- you know, friendly, very friendly wave. We were on our way -- so we just continued, took a few more pictures, continued out. And we were, I don`t know, maybe halfway to the U.S. I can`t really give you a great idea of where exactly.

Here the subject feels the need to share everything; every thought, opinion, vision, etc.  She even stayed with the plural regarding taking pictures.  
"Friendly" is sensitive, as seen through repetition.  Note the broken sentence:

"They just waved at us like we were..."  and stops herself.  What was she going to say?  Was she going to say "like we were friends?"  This would support Pat Brown's assertion that David and Tiffany went deliberately to purchase drugs and it went bad.  

"So we just continued" tells us "why" they did something, yet it does not have anything within the text that would indicate a need to explain why.  This is a point of sensitivity as she has a need to explain, rather than report what happened. 

Note "you know" increases sensitivity as she considers the interviewer's presence at this point. 

Note her last sentence in terms of how many sensitivity indicators are there regarding location:

I can't "really" give you a "great" idea of where "exactly":  Deception indicated.  She knows the exact location and could not bring herself to say "I don't know where we were."  Three qualifiers in one sentence.  

VAN SUSTEREN: Were you riding side by side at the time you were flag or was he behind you? What happened?

Since the subject was committed to talking about the locations of each of them, the Interviewer goes with her.  She had to "look back" to see that he was hit.  Pat Brown had said that if this was really on land, and not on water, the story works where she ran and looked back. 

TIFFANY HARTLEY: He was between me and the boats. So he was keeping himself between me and the three boats that were shooting.

Another sensitivity indicator:  "so" explains why she did something.  

Please note that it was not someone who shot her husband, but three boats were shooting.  If we take the passive reference above, "David was hit" which passivity is used to conceal responsibility; along with the sensitive "friendly, very friendly", and now that "three boats" are shooting, it is likely that she knows who shot her husband and is deceptively attempting to portray the shooter as someone unknown, even assigning responsibility to boats shooting. 

VAN SUSTEREN: Did they say anything to you these people? Did they ever get close enough to say anything to you?

Compound question:   did they say anything?  did they get close enough?  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No, they didn't.

We cannot be certain which one she is answering.  


VAN SUSTEREN: Had you seen them before the encounter?

This is a "yes or no" question for the subject herself.  It is the easiest of which to lie.  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: No. We haven't seen any boats from the time that we had launched to the time that we were at the church.

Deception indicated.  She answered the question, "no" but then betrayed her answer by not answering the question:

"we haven't seen any boats":
1. "we" and not "I".  The question is directed to her.  She can only conclusively answer for herself.  She cannot say that she knows all that David did not see.  David is dead.  
2.  "haven't" is present tense 
3.  "any boats" not any of the shooters or people involved.  This tripped her up later as well. 

Instead of saying "I did not see any of them" she is deceptive. 


VAN SUSTEREN: So, as you are fleeing, bullets are flying, you look at your husband, is that right?


TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes, I saw two shots hit next to meAnd I looked back at my husband, that's when I saw, that he was flying over the jet ski.

Note that while on a jet ski, at a high speed, being chased with bullets flying behind her, she "saw" "two" shots; even able to know the number. 
"And" indicates missing information here. 
Note that he is not David, but "my husband" here.  What caused the change?
Note that he "was flying" and not "he flew".
She was able to see all of this, looking backwards, while operating a jet ski at high speed.  She does not use plain language, and cannot use past tense language, establishing commitment because she is not speaking from memory. 

VAN SUSTEREN: What did you do next?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I turned around to go help him, see if I could get him back on my jet ski and get out of there.

Here, instead of telling what she did, she has the need to tell not only what she did, but the reason why she did it.  The question is plain and open:  What did you do next?  When someone tells us why they did something, they are telling us more than what we asked for.  This is sensitive information.  

Why would a wife of a shot man need to tell us why she turned around?  Why would she feel the need to tell us she went to help him after he was hit?

This did not proceed from memory. 


VAN SUSTEREN: When you were doing that, when you were attempting to help your husband, where were those other boats?

Since they were "chasing" her and "shooting" at her, and they were going at high speed.  Now when she stops, it would be that the "three" speeding boats would catch her.  But this would not work for her heroine of the story, so their positioning changes in mid story:  

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Two were in front of me quite a ways away. One actually came up to my boat, my jet ski, and they pointed the gun at me. They were talking amongst each other and pointed it back at me. Then they decided to leave. ...

Deception indicated.  Here she cannot keep her story straight and is caught. 
Note the change of language: 

One came up to my boat.  The "boat" is changed to "jet ski".  This should cause the investigators to learn if she and David had approached drug dealers in a boat or were taken to dealers via a boat and something went wrong. 

Note that pronouns are never wrong.  When pronouns are "wrong" it is deception indicated:

"They" (more than one; not singular) pointed "the gun", (singular) at "me."

Were more than one pirate all holding the same gun?  Note that "the" gun rather than "a" gun. Oops. First comes the introduction with the word "a" gun; and then comes the article, "the" after recognition. 

The two types of speech exempt from Personal Internal Subjective Dictionary are:

Pronouns and Articles. 

They never lie. 

They are never wrong.  

Deception is indicated. 

"They were talking amongst each other" indicates that they were close enough for her to hear them, even though above she was not close enough to talk to them.  This is simply the error that liars make in being unable to keep track of their lies. Talking amongst each other is casual listening of casual conversations, yet she heard them.  This is another indication that she is withholding the identity of the shooter. 

"and pointed it back at me"  Who?  They pointed it?  Did they still have a single gun and now pointed it back "again"?  She has utterly lost track of her story because it did not happen.

"Then they decided to leave" indicates that she knows that while they were "talking among themselves" she knew what they were thinking:  she could tell they made a decision.  How could she know?

Instead of reporting what happened, such as "they left", the extra words give us additional information: she was privy to their conversations.


VAN SUSTEREN: Did you say anything to them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: And meet up with the other two boats.

She even knew their plans. 

Is it possible that David Hartley's family could listen to this and not know she was lying?  It may be that they now know the truth and let the story go due to the drug purchasing. 

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you say anything to them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes, I told them please don't shoot, don't shoot.

And the ruthless, decapitating killers, who fired many shots, scoring a direct head shot on David, while in motion on a boat, in choppy waters, also just missed all of the shots on her, but then found it in their hearts to not shoot her.  Could Greta Van Sustren buy this?


VAN SUSTEREN: At that point your husband was there. Was he within reach of you?


TIFFANY HARTLEY: I had a hold of him and I had a hold of my ski. We were both in the water, at that time

It was a "jet ski" and then it was a "boat" and now it is a "ski":  a change of language should reflect a change in reality.  If it doesn't, deception is indicated.  


VAN SUSTEREN: So how did you get away? If you got in other boat, and you are hanging on to your husband, hanging on to the jet ski, what happened?


TIFFANY HARTLEY: After I told them please don't shoot, they left and went with the other two boats. I got on my boat and I was trying to pull him up on my ski. And I couldn't get him up. I felt like God was telling me I had to go otherwise I wasn't going to make it out. I had to go past them. So I got on my ski and I had to leave David behind.

There are many signals of deception in this answer:

1.  They "left"; with "left" being highly sensitive with missing information
2.  They not only left, but they "went with the other boats" would indicate knowledge.  Did she watch the one boat pull away, and go to meet the other boats, and then on to another location?  All this while holding her 200lb+ husband with one hand, while on her "boat", "ski" "jet ski" with the other hand, after being composed enough to "tell" them not to shoot, please not to shoot?

3.  Note she got on her "boat"; change of language.
4.  Note next she tried to pull him on her "ski"; change of language. 
5.  "And" has missing information (lots of it)
6.  Note inclusion of what she felt:  that is, her emotions are in the "logical" or "perfect" place in the story; something that does not happen in reality (in reality, it takes time to process emotions, which is why, in truthful statements, emotions are found after the event, but in story telling, the emotions are in the "high point" of the story, grabbing the listener's interest)
7. Note inclusion of divinity in her story:  this shows the need for Divine witness, a weakness
8.  "Otherwise" is the same as "so, since, therefore, because" as it is "because" if she did not leave, she would die:  the center hero of the story. 

9.  Not only did she have to survive, and she had God talking to her...all after she survived the hail of gunfire that got her husband in the head; now she had to drive right back into the killing boats:  "I had to go past them"

10. "So" indicates need to explain her actions, indicating sensitivity.  Now that she is leaving him, he is "David"making "leaving" highly sensitive to the subject.  

Overwhelmingly deceptive story. 

Later, she gave the description that sounded exactly like the movie, "Titanic" where Rose leaves Leo. 

"I felt like God was telling me..."

Always note Divinity used to justify actions.  


VAN SUSTEREN: You actually drove towards those boats?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Yes. I had to drive towards boats, go past them to get to safety.

VAN SUSTEREN: How close did you get to them when you drove past them?

TIFFANY HARTLEY: I honestly have no idea. I didn't look at them. I just drove and went as fast as my jet ski could go.

"honestly" have "no idea" is not credible. 
note that she reports what she didn't do. 
Note "just" as comparison and reduction. 


VAN SUSTEREN: What did you think the motive was?


TIFFANY HARTLEY: Who knowsWe have no idea. Most likely they just wanted money, which we don't carry on our -- with us. And it could have turned to both of us dying or me getting kidnapped, I don't know. We have no idea what the motive was.


1.  Note when someone asks a question in a response, it is very sensitive.  She asks "who knows?" when she is supposed to be in "past tense mode" which would cause me to ask:

To whom is this question directed?

I cannot help but wonder if she was asking this question to herself?  Who knows the truth?  What do they know?  What can they figure out?  

But then notice "we" have no idea.  David is dead.  Who is "we"?  Since the pronouns never lie, we can safely assume that she knows exactly why he was shot.  Why would she even say "we" since she was, allegedly, the only survivor of the Americans who can tell why?

2.  "We" (whoever that is) has no idea.  Next, she gives us her idea:  they just wanted money. This means she was not truthful when she said "we have no idea."

3.  Note about money:  "which we don;t carry on our, with us." is a broken sentence = missing information and it is in the present tense. 

It is likely that when they went to buy drugs, they were robbed.  She did not say "we did not carry money on us" committing herself to the statement, but went to the present tense to avoid lying. 

4.  She could have been kidnapped, she said, she does not know.  After giving us ideas on motive (money) she reaffirms that "we" have "no idea" indicating that she is lying, again. 


VAN SUSTEREN: Nikki, there has been a suggestion by the investigator in Mexico and the D.A. that they don't buy this story is your thought about this?


NIKKI HARTLEY, SISTER OF MISSING JET SKIER: We don't believe it for a minute. We believe everything that we have heard from Tiffany. We've never doubted that and we stand behind her 120 percent more than we can say there was never a question or thought that ever crossed our mind and it never will.

Note the sensitivity of "120 %", and "never doubted", "never a question" and "never a thought" which is in the plural:  speaking for the family, she knows they have never even had a thought of doubt:

This shows that there are those in the family who saw through this easily discernible lie. 

TIFFANY HARTLEY: Today I have met with the Mexican consulate.

VAN SUSTEREN: What did they ask you, Tiffany?


TIFFANY HARTLEY: Same thing everyone else is asking me, just the story, what happened. And they are sending my story (and) document to Mexico City and also to whoever it needs to go to so they can do what needs to be done.

Note that it goes from "just" "the story", separate from "what happened" but then there is a change:  it is now "my story" being sent.  Rather than what happened, or even the truth, it is her "story" with possessive pronoun.  
note that "so" indicates sensitivity about what they are going to do with her story. 

Tiffany Hartley refused to take a polygraph.  Tiffany Hartley has steadfastly refused to take a polygraph. 


VAN SUSTEREN: Tiffany, have they indicated that they have fully exhausted the search of the area? Are they actively looking for your husband?


TIFFANY HARTLEY: I don't know if they are actively looking right now. But with that documentation they can at least start doing what they need to do and connecting with the federal police and whoever they need to. I believe that they are going do what it takes as of right now.


This next section affirms the deception and is difficult for most to understand how an interviewer can miss the lie:  

When Hartley appeared on the Anderson Cooper show, she was asked, “what happened?”


HARTLEY: There were three boats that were chasing us and then one boat came up to me and saw two people in that boat. But there was a third or a fourth person in that boat. I just didn't see them.

Anderson Cooper did not ask how she was able to identify those she did not see.  Here she has knowledge of how many were on the boat, while offering that she did not see one or two of them.  This shows that she has more knowledge of what happened than she is willing to let on.  

On another show, Tiffany Hartley was asked: What happened?  It was difficult, especially in the first few appearances, to keep the story straight.  As someone repeats a lie often enough, they will eventually use self-references such as "like I said" and "as I said before" indicating that they are not working from memory of what happened, but memory of what they said previously. 


TIFFANY HARTLEY, WIDOWED:

But we saw three boats coming towards us, and as soon as they started coming towards us, we just kind of started leaving. We passed them, and then they started chasing us. And once they started chasing us, they started shooting, and I had seen two shots next to me on my left. And that`s when I looked back to check on David, and that`s when I saw that he had been thrown off and into the water facedown.

Here, they "kind of" "started" leaving.  The "leaving" is sensitive. 
Here, they "passed" them and then they started chasing.  After the chasing came the shooting.  
Please note that even again, she does not say "they chased us" and "they shot at us" but uses the description of activities begun, but not completed.  

Note "I had seen" rather than "I saw"

Next, note that she has 4 qualifiers to the sentence:  "I went back to him"  It is rare to see more than one, but here she has 4 qualifiers attempting to persuade: 

And I, of courseno questions askednot even thinking, just went right back to him to make sure and check and see, check on him to make sure he was OK. When I flipped him over, he was shot in the head.

1.  "of course
2.  "no questions asked"
3.  "not even thinking"
4.  "right" back to him

This is like the person who says "I am very very very very happy" causing one to ask, in that non-Shakespearean, Shakespearan way "me thinks thou does protest too much" and ask:

Who are you trying to convince, you or me, that you are happy?

It is childish, cartoon like lying. 

"to make sure" tells us why:  attempt to persuade us that she cares for him. 
Note that he was shot "when" she turned him over. 

She cannot keep track of her lies. 


And a boat came up to me and tried -- you know, I don’t know.

She stopped herself from telling us what the boat came up to her to do.  Not a person, but a "boat"

They didn’t say anything to me,

Here she reports what was not said. 

so I don’t know what they were trying to think

"So" indicates sensitivity but notice that she does not know, not what they were thinking, but what they were "trying" to think.  This indicates that she was a part of a conversation, particularly, with the shooter. 

or what they were doing, but they left. They just left me there.

There are two lefts here, making this highly sensitive. When there are too many lefts, we see a murder (see analysis on OJ Simpson in light of too many lefts).  This means missing stories and they are sensitive.  I cannot help but wonder if the murder was pre arranged. 

Thankfully, they didn’t shoot at me. They had a gun pointed at me.

Not "shoot me" but "shoot at me"  
Note "they" pointed "a" gun:  are we to believe that two or more pirates held a single gun?  This is the language that Tiffany Hartley chose. 


And I tried getting David up on that -- on my Jet Ski, and then the three boats started heading back to me, and I just had to go. I just didn`t have enough time to get him up. And I just couldn`t do it, because he`s so much bigger than I am. That`s when I -- once I started...


"just didn't have enough time".


HARTLEY: Once I started heading back -- once I started heading back towards the U.S. side, they had shot a few more times at me.

Did she lose track of when they did not shoot at her and when they did?  Did she stop counting the bullets flying by her?  

Here is another comical lie, similar to Casey Anthony having "dead squirrels" climbing into her car:

I was on the side of my Jet Ski, between them and my Jet Ski. I was on the other side, so once I started to get going, I just went as fast as I could and didn`t look back until I couldn`t see them anymore.

Care to even attempt to explain this one?  
She reports what she did not do:  she did not look back
but only "until"

Until when?

Until she could not see them "anymore"

Tiffany Hartley lied about what happened to her husband and rightfully feared prosecution in Mexico.  She refused, repeatedly, to take a polygraph, and eventually, with increasing questions from media, abruptly stopped her public appearances and her 15 minutes of fame dried up. 

David Hartley's family is left with accounts like these, knowing that she lied. 


Does not David Hartley's family have a right to know what really happened?