Monday, August 3, 2015
An improbable account from his parents, the missing toddler has captivated us.
In Statement Analysis, we have a scientific process by which we apply techniques that, evenly applied, are based upon:
decades of research using the polygraph, particularly in the "SCAN" (Scientific Content Analysis, from Laboratory of Scientific Interrogation), the brain-child of Israeli immigrant, Avinoam Sapir, but also of:
lengthy research that went into the "Reid Technique" and others, including Nathan J. Gordon and William L. Fleisher's work, "Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques" that, in its third edition, gives interviewers from law enforcement, civil investigations, counselors, therapists, human resource professionals, journalists, social workers, and so on, a great advantage in obtaining not only truth, but content.
With "backwards speech" and "psychics", we have carnival like attraction that even Paul McCartney had some fun with, in the early 90's, with "Free As A Bird" single, the "Beatles reunion" song in which he, George Harrison, and Richard Starkey, (Ringo) used an old demo recording from the late John Lennon and added their voices and instrumentation to construct a song as a "reunion" of sorts, of their pop band.
I love the song as I thought it was a lot of fun to hear them together, with the best compliment coming when people said, "It sounds like the Beatles!" in reviews.
At the end of the song, Paul added a backwards recording, as a way to poke fun of the "Paul is dead" rumor of 1970 (or so) where people claimed that messages were sent backwards in speech. Therefore, when you play "Free As a Bird" ending backwards, you hear him saying something to the affect of "that came out alright, didn't it?" as a joke.
I have covered much about psychics, honing upon several elements, in particular, including deception in their "visions", that is, to show that their words do not come from experiential memory. In other words, the words of a psychic do not come from memory of having first hand experience talking, or seeing, anything.
They are deceptive.
Our words reveal our background, experience, priorities and personalities. Psychics claim to obtain knowledge beyond the limitations of human nature, that is, our senses. Their claims are many centuries old, and their words often reveal personality disorders of those who have desperation for recognition in this world.
They are deceptive.
Like most liars, psychics become enraged when seen as such. They are often unbalanced, and, have, for many years, used carnivals, or carnival like atmospheres, to "fleece" people. When a child goes missing, there is no more vulnerability than what the innocent parents feel, and to prey upon such vulnerabilities with fraudulent claims, is beyond adequate description of how low a human being will go for recognition (which leads to money) or attention.
In short, no "psychic" in spite of the thousands 'out there' via social media has ever located a single missing person.
You have better odds of winning the lottery, several days in a row, than a psychic does finding a missing person. At best, the broken clock being correct twice, the more vague the psychic is, the better the odds of appearing, at least, accurate, is.
Backwards language joining with psychic claims is not surprising; they are similar in that they have no basis in reality, science, or even common sense.
At worst, the "backwards language" person risks brining emotional and potential financial harm to the family of a missing person but there is also that element of Statement Analysis which concerns me:
This is also true of "leakage" with authors (Jonbenet, Amanda Knox) picking up words that may, perhaps, be signals of leakage in language, thus "proving" guilt.
To be sure, the notion of "leakage" is real in Statement Analysis, but it is never elevated to a "strong indicator" of proof of anything. Rather, it is something we use effectively once deception has been proven in the analysis, for content purposes.
For example, when Caylee Anthony went "missing", the mother, Casey, was indicated for deception.
In her statement, we learned:
1. Caylee was dead
2. Casey needed an alibi.
These two assertions were in the analysis conclusion, and were not difficult to ascertain.
where was Caylee?
When George Anthony and Cindy Anthony, Casey's parents, spoke, they, too, were indicated for deception.
They knew Caylee was dead, and all their claims to the contrary, showed deception, and they knew Casey was involved, and all claims to the contrary showed deception.
That George and Cindy knew Caylee was dead, and Casey was involved, was not difficult to ascertain.
where was Caylee?
Cindy Anthony, in particular, was the dominant parent and her language even showed a bullying of George, as well as aggression, defiance and one who had a strong comfort level with deception (as did her husband) yet who possessed an ability to justify or quiet her guilty conscience. The best way to get her to talk and reveal her aggressive personality was to challenge her veracity.
Tim Miller, at no small expensive, moved his helicopter and horses from Texas to Florida to help find Caylee. When he arrived in Orlando at the home of George and Cindy, Cindy refused to assist him in finding Caylee by running interference; he was not permitted to even speak to the one who saw Caylee last: Casey, her mother.
Tim tried various means of getting, in the very least, a starting point, for the search but Cindy blocked all attempts at locating Caylee. Cindy wanted the public appearance of finding Caylee, while protecting, at all costs, the burial location of Caylee's remains.
She did not "sabotage" the search, she caused it to be canceled, instead. She even took to, as is the habit of liars when challenged, attacking, personally, the one she deemed her enemy: the man who came to find her "missing" granddaughter, Tim Miller, telling the press he was a "drunk" among other things.
After she uncerminoniusouly kicked Miller out of her home, she went to the press (of which even Casey's own jailhouse words revealed Cindy's personality and love of attention, calling it a "cameo") and announced,
"George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods, or anything."
When I heard this statement live, I said, "Caylee's in the woods."
This is an example of leakage; that is, even while being deceptive, people may just 'leak out' information they did not intend to share, simply because it weighs so heavily on the mind.
It is most inexact, at best, and is only used in the realm of "perhaps" and "maybe", but not "definitively so" in our conclusions. It is valuable and is something we use to view content, but it does not, for example, follow the accuracy of pronouns, or articles.
It is a small tool, howbeit valuable, but it is not concessionary, within itself.
I do not wish the nonsense of "backwards language" to be confused or even associated with Statement Analysis or leakage, in the minds of readers.
Law Enforcement has, at times, spoken with psychics. There are several reasons for this:
I once analyzed a statement from a psychic that showed guilty knowledge of the crime.
Because he did it.
There is a psychological need on the part of those who claim to have psychic powers to be recognized as special, unique, and so on. They are often narcissistic and this is something that is sometimes shared with criminal elements.
Therefore, any and everyone that calls in about a case is looked at as a possible suspect.
Next, law enforcement sometimes fear bad publicity, especially when "reality" shows include "psychics" and our ill informed and undereducated public, who is more prone to repeat a bumper sticker of deception, than think critically, will embrace and 'demand' law enforcement "uncover every possible tip"; that is, until they are overwhelmed and announce that they are not taking any more calls from psychics.
This was the case with Baby Ayla. So many "psychics" called in with "tips", some even claiming to have spoken to Ayla (who, statement analysis revealed, was dead before she left that home that night, something seen in the father's language long before we learned of the blood found cleaned up at the house). No one "talked" to Ayla, just as no one "conversed with Hailey Dunn" as they claimed.
Those who make claim to have "intuitive gifts" (just a name change from "psychic") are liars and will become very angry, filled with venom, for having their mask pulled off, and their deception known. Remember the one who just happened to have the same first name as a suicide victim? She made it her life work to torment the teenager's mother to the point where she actually got herself on television.
She is a liar.
She is a fraud.
But she is also so acutely desperate for recognition that she will bring irreparable harm and a life time of pain to others, just to feel important for a short period of time.
They hold others in contempt, often with deep resentment for their own families, as people are seen as those who can be readily fooled with lies.
They claim to obtain information beyond human senses; that is, you must accept them by debasing science which leads me to "backwards language."
Our brain learns through repetition and has an emotional capacity which shows positive reaction to logic.
We "like" that 2 apples added to 2 apples gives us 4 apples.
It makes sense, and gives us a sense of security, as we, the higher creatures, possess detailed linguistic abilities that no other created beings have.
We learn chronologically, as well.
We see, with our eyes, and store in memory, over time, making recall flow with a certain speed of transmission that is very very fast.
When we are asked, "What did you do this morning?", we reach into a dictionary of words, in our heads, that numbers 25,000 or more words, and decide:
a. which words to use
b. which events to report
c. which words not to use
d. which events not to report
e. what verb tenses to use
f. what pronouns to use
g. where to place these words to make sense
All this takes place in less than a millisecond of time.
When we lie, we go into this 25,000 plus dictionary, and we think of how to avoid telling the truth, which interrupts this speed of transmission, causing a form of 'stress' in the person speaking.
This "interruption" or "pause" is seen in, quite often, extra words, or self-censoring, or due to the fact that the words are not proceeding from experiential memory, confused pronouns.
These few elements mentioned (additional words, self-censoring, confused pronouns) have been studied for many years and fall into patterns where the liar can be caught, or seen as such.
We do not study backwards spelling giving the brain no reference point for backwards words.
I once met a man with adult autism who had a knack for speaking words backwards. It was interesting for a bit of time, but when weeks turned into months, it was annoying when communication was intended.
The average person with 25,000 words does not spend time learning, and then concentrating on spelling and saying words backwards, leaving no brain recognition patterns.
Therefore, when "backwards language" is used, we can either:
a. force our belief of guilt into the words and find something that fits;
b. just amuse ourselves and can force any meaning we wish, into any statements we want to have, eventually in this "hit or miss" game, we will find something to match what we want.
The same is with Andrew Hodge's books. He finds "leakage" wherever he wants to find leakage and just because
Yes, a therapist who is talented in listening will eventually grasp that "boy, it is cold out" has something to do with loneliness rather than weather, but will not 'force' meanings into anything, but will explore possibilities. Perhaps it means weather, but perhaps, especially through the lens of statement analysis (repetition means sensitivity) will search for loneliness.
When I hear "water" in a statement, I do not rush to conclude, "sexual abuse!" but know that I should explore for it as a possible element in a case.
Taking "backwards language" or "leakage" or "psychics", and we can say
Apple means Orange at any time, for any reason, if, of course, we wish to find oranges.
Imagine a cursory reading of Statement Analysis, believing a case, and then forcing this belief into the language?
Recall the self proclaimed "criminal profiler-journalist" who insisted something was innocent because "he never referenced her in the past tense!"
I wish she had read the analysis a bit closer. In her case, a powerful political agenda overruled reason and logic, which coupled with a desperate need for attention, to bring her to the place of folly overruling sense.
Science teaches us that we gain knowledge through our senses.
Psychics claim to gain knowledge outside the laws of science.
Emotions run very high and emotions, themselves, become little 'tyrants' who do not like to be questioned, which is why when one does not agree with this "emotional view they often go into attack mode, and you and I must be "morally inferior" because:
science is something we can apply over and over and get the same results.
We are not enslaved to inconsistency, or arbitrary application.
Statement Analysis is taught, learned, practiced and has well above 90% results (this is an accepted level for polygraphs, which we supersede greatly), while psychics have 0% success.
Principles are memorized and implemented, but there is something else that we do:
We study and learn the psychological basis for our principles.
For example, I received a call to assist in a theft case.
Local PD had not found the thief and concluded that too many employees had access to the missing money.
I told the owners, "If one of your employees stole it, and you have each one write out what they did from the time they got to work, until the time they left, I should be able to tell you who did it, how they did it, when they did it, and perhaps even why they did it."
One employee wrote, "I woke up, brushed my teeth, got dressed and went to work."
She wrote out her entire day, but this sentence, alone told me:
1. She had been asleep.
2. She brushed her teeth
3. She got dressed.
4. She went to work.
These are, statistically speaking, very likely to be true. I know this by the sentence structure.
I believe she had been asleep, and I believe she brushed her teeth and got dressed and she went to work. All these things are accepted by me, as fact, due to the sentence structure.
Next, she "told" me some things that are helpful to know.
I "know" she brushed her teeth but what I do not know is why she felt the need to tell me, the investigator, that she brushed her teeth.
Statistically I know that the inclusion of personal hygiene is associated with the concealment of information, later on in the statement, most likely related to personal information.
Statistically, this personal information is often found to be that the writer (the "subject") is a victim of Domestic Violence.
Psychologically, it makes sense.
Having worked with victims (and perpetrators) of D/V for many years, I know that most victims are controlled, on a day to day basis, not by violence, but by the threat of violence leaving them with a life that is stressed continually, as if "walking on eggshells", worrying that she just might say the wrong thing and trigger his rage.
Her world feels "out of her control" due to this lack of certainty that he will blow up, or awaken in anger, or she will say something to trigger his rage.
When she brushes her teeth, what does she do?
a. She has control over something in her life, even if but for a few minutes.
b. She may even lock the door, increasing her sense of control and safety.
Therefore, you and I might not ever include the "needless" detail of "brushing teeth" but to a victim of Domestic Violence, it is something so important, that she felt the need to write it in a statement to an investigator.
I do not "interpret" bushing teeth as anything. She brushed her teeth and I believe her.
I do, in addition to believing her, ask myself, "Why did she feel the need to tell me this?" and I explore, that is, I look for concealed information later in her statement, that is of a personal nature.
In this case, she was living with a violent boyfriend who had bullied her for information on the company's security system. When I asked the owner, "Is she is a D/V relationship?", yes, the owner did look at me as if I was a genius or had some unknown ability to "see" what others could not see.
It is not so.
It is from the work of others, long memorized and practiced with hard work, more hard work, and when finally exhausted, a bit more hard work.
It is something that is taught to all.
It is not reinterpretation, nor is it "inside" knowledge that was obtained outside the realm of human senses.
It is not something that is made from backwards language.
In fact, it is likely you could prove anything from any statement, by either twisting and declaring it to be "leakage", like the Hodge books, or push the words together, with no spaces, look at them backwards, and play "Scrabble" by formulating words that fits your agenda or conclusion.
Therefore, you have to take a case where you have read actual analysis, or have a very strong opinion on a case, and then force your theory (already accepted by others) into this same article to "prove" your assertion.
It is unscientific, illogical, and as equally fraudulent as the claims of psychics.
It may make people "feel good", especially about an opinion that agrees with them, but it is not something that can be taken and scientifically applied to produce the same results, time and time again.
You've landed at this blog because you enjoy not only discerning deception from truth, but because you respect how principles are applied, each and every case, in the same, even-handed matter.
You only "know" what others do not know because you take the time and effort to listen and to learn, but it is not "magic" and it engages the senses, rather than suspend the laws of nature.
I am acutely aware of the fallen standardized grades of Americans and how feelings have trumped reason and how those who do not "feel" the same are demonized and their freedoms shouted down. I am aware of the "Casey Anthony Jury" and just how critical thinking has been discarded. I see how effective propaganda has been on the masses and how "if it don't fit, you must acquit!" holds more meaning to many than following an argument. I read the comments that follow news paper articles and shudder as illogic is embraced and how politicians, in ways I did not conceive possible just a few short years ago, manipulate a population with a complicit media, into building a voter base who are blindly loyal, no matter how destructive the ends. I do grasp this.
Yet in the quest for truth, we follow reasonable arguments, logical principle, and we seek to apply it fairly.
You may lift our principles and apply them anywhere, with no special "extra sensory perception" needed.
Eventually, some 'psychic' is going to say "I see the child in the woods, scared and crying for mama" and a child is going to be found in the woods and someone will ask him, "were you crying for mama?" and for a short season, the 'psychic' have Facebook popularity and may even reign for a few months, until another child disappears and their fanbase demands an answer.
Backwards language is not analysis and just because the forced conclusion agrees with your opinion, it remains a game of Scrabble beginning with a premise to prove, and the words, running backwards, are sought to fit into the theme.
It is a game, if not an interesting game.
It is not justice.
It is not science.
It reminds me of "Fischer Random Chess" where Bobby Fischer, convinced that chess would be "solved", invented a version of chess in which the pieces are 'juggled' before the game, by a computer, nullifying the opening theory that has been memorized deeply by grandmasters.
It never took off as people still love traditional chess.
If you have an hour free, try it yourself on any statement and input your theory and see if you can make it fit. Chances are, if the article or statement is long enough, you can make it fit your theme or presupposition, especially if you remove spaces from words when setting them up backwards.
This can also be done in "crossword puzzle" style; horizontal and vertical, and the same statement can be "puzzled" or set up to first prove one's guilt, and then to prove one's innocence.
Both from the same statement.
Psychics and "backwards speech" are equally useless in investigations but at least backwards speech can be entertaining, as a game, perhaps even provoking thinking as Scrabble requires, for those learning language.
As to obtaining truth, we remain committed to old fashioned hard work in analysis.
The psychic's language shows passivity, vagueness and words that do not come from experiential memory. They are deceptive.
One is outright deceptive, while the other is more a game, similar to a crossword puzzle, but when both claim to 'prove' anything, guilt or innocence, it is an ode to folly, illogic and gamesmanship.
Law enforcement wastes time due to fear of an ignorant public being churned by a malicious media, demanding to know why they are not following "all" the tips.
Even paying someone to answer the extra phone calls from these narcissistic opportunists is a waste of resource.
Backward speech is similar to the spam comments that say, "I lose my husband, Raefelo until I contact the great Doctor Manzieher who cast spell and I lost weight, find my love now and have 2 new babies" and give you a web site to click on to with the promise of "weight loss", "love" and "instant success" in business.
I think one may have more success, as George Anthony discovered, with falling upon each job, filing for disability, and subsidizing an Nigerian princess, who will deposit 3.2 million dollars in your account if you give her your account number.
These, as well as my favorite fortune cookies all have the same level of success. They are "entertainment purposes only" and should not be presented as anything else.
If you apply Statement Analysis principles to the backward speech claims, you will note deception, including the use of passivity in speech.
If you apply Statement Analysis principles to the claims of psychics, you will find passivity, vagueness (the avoidance of detail) or indicators that experiential memory is not in play.
Scams have always existed, yet when a loved one goes missing, the ability to resist suggestibility in any form, is greatly diminished. This is why the Facebook psychics are called 'vultures' who prey upon the vulnerable.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
We have reached a point in the disappearance of 35 year old, Crystal Rogers, mother of 5, where we will likely begin to see changes in the language of her loved ones.
DeOrre Kunz has been missing for more than 3 weeks now. His father's rambling, self-censoring, pronoun shifting, and hyper sensitivity about his truck, weigh upon the public heavily, with the expected exasperation due to DeOrre's young age.
When a person goes missing, there is an instant shock and denial, as the brain refuses to accept something so traumatic. When a parent, however, does not show shock and denial, a closer look is warranted.
The depth of the denial, that is, the refusal to accept facts, is seen in the language of those closest to the missing person, making journalist interviews of great value to society.
This denial is contingent on several factors:
a. How close relations is the subject to the victim?
b. What is the age of the victim?
c. How much time has passed?
a. The relationship to the victim, itself, is key to language. When a child goes missing:
1. The mother is the most resistant to acceptance and can remain in denial for many months, and in some cases, will accept nothing other than the child's remains to "move" her language. This is why a mother's use of past tense, early on, is such a strong indicator of knowledge of the missing child's death. Maternal instincts are powerful, as referenced in antiquity, nature, and in the news stories where a mother will risk her own life to protect her children.
When Susan Smith referenced her missing children in the past tense, "My children needed me", it was a strong signal that they were dead and she had knowledge of their death.
Other mother's include Casey Anthony, "Caylee loved the park. Loves the park."
On Billie Jean Dunn's very first appearance on the Nancy Grace Show, she said, "Hailey wasn't allowed to just..." as she not only referenced her in the past tense, one indicator of guilt, but also portrayed herself as a responsible parent, another linguistic signal that told us that Dunn had a need to portray herself in a positive light. She went on to mention her toothache, something most mothers would not bother about, signaling that drugs were involved in the death of 13 year old Hailey. This is an example of "leakage" as something like a toothache would likely not find itself in the interview on national television while searching for a daughter of biological mother. Therefore, I concluded that it was "leakage" and likely related to narcotics.
Narcotics, we learned, were a major factor in the death, but especially in the stressful cover up of the crime.
2. The father is next up, with samples from Baby Sabrina, the McCanns, and Justin DiPietro, father of Baby Ayla, who gave us linguistic signals that Ayla, too, was dead, along with possible leakage that she was disposed of in water.
|"Emotionally incapable" of calling out to Baby Ayla|
"Contrary to rumors floating around out there..."
Siblings struggle but take their cues from their parents. In the case of Crystal Rogers, we now learn that Brooks Houck is no longer allowing his child to visit his siblings; something that the suffering children (yearning for their mother) will only have compound issues as the youngster's presence could have brought some relief with 'normalcy' even for a few hours, restored.
Grandparents who are young and heavily involved in a missing child's life prior to the disappearance, will have strong denial. Baby Ayla's paternal grandmother, Phoebe DiPietro, almost immediately lied about her son's "normal" home, life and night Ayla went missing, signaling that at that time, she either knew (with her son claiming accident), or suspected (based upon her son's history) that Ayla was not coming home. She also used distancing language, immediately, not as a 'defense', but because there was no commitment to her language, particularly about attempting to sound "worried" that her house was being "cased" (faux kidnapping) or hope, that the Sheriff would be calling her.
The older the grandparents, the less resistance they possess which is likely due to having seen much tragedy in life, they have less 'resolve' or "fight" in them, due to declining hormones.
b. The age of the victim also relates to the equation especially when one goes missing who is incapable of self care, such as a baby. This means a quick panic, not only in those close to the child, but even found within public comments. The child who goes missing quickly has an emotional impact upon the public, who feel strong empathy with the missing child, and can become very impatient with parents who are less than forthcoming.
c. The length of time will wear down all resistance, with the order above reversed, as 'reality' and despair sets in. This is where we will hear past tense references in innocent loved ones.
I read recently that "speaking of a missing person in the present tense is a sign of innocence."
It is not.
This mistake came from a criminal profiler/journalist who likely had skimmed some analysis and 'landed' a big story.
A guilty subject will do his or her best to never drift from present tense language, which is why the Free Editing Process is so valuable: a well trained journalist will bring the subject, using a specific skill set, into the FEP by not accepting short answers.
The best way to not accept short answers is to ask vague and encompassing questions, such as the open ended "What happened?", followed by:
"Tell me more!" when the answer is deliberately short.
"Okay, but what happened next?"
If the subject remains unwilling, the journalist must allow silence to make the subject uncomfortable, and with the limited time involved, can, and should reach the 'challenge' point should the subject be consistently brief with:
"Is this all you can tell us?" followed by:
"You seem to be unwilling to give us detail; why is this?" knowing that the subject is close to shutting down and the camera is running.
Yes, it may kill any opportunity for a follow up interview, but journalists will be pleasantly surprised to learn: the guilty subject would rather talk to you, to learn what you know, than to a 'softball' questioner who asks questions loaded with lengthy empathetic statements such as, "You must be going through a lot. You've done everything a parent can do. You have cooperated with police, and have searched tirelessly. Are you sleeping at night?"
It is frustrating for those who seek information to listen to a journalist seek "front and center" in an interview, but it is common.
Brooks Houck has not been truthful about the disappearance of Crystal Rogers and by not allowing visitation, he is, in effect, silencing himself from potential leakage to Crystal's family. It is a defensive posture that he maintains while they become more and more emboldened to challenge him publicly, as their frustration grows.
A polygraph constructed solely upon his own words would be failed, not "inconclusive."
Expect Crstyal's family to become more and more 'accepting' in language, as a month has gone by, and this is compounded by Houck's defensive posturing and sensitive language from his Nancy Grace interview weigh, night after night, upon their minds, robbing them of sleep, haunting them throughout the night, and causing them to awaken with anger that masquerades their darkest fears.
It has been a month for Crystal's family to process this information.
For DeOrre, it has been well beyond any survival deadline, as he is incapable of self care and self protection. The investigators have recently downplayed "kidnapping" as a possibility, and will likely move back towards the father with more serious questioning.
The polygraph must be conducted using the father's personal, subjective, internal dictionary and nothing else.
The polygraph, when conducted in this way, is fool-proof. Deception interrupts the speed of transmission in language, and it is the recall of this deception that is measured by the polygraph's instruments; the internal stress, even of sociopaths, who do not like being caught, nor seen as a liar.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
4 of 10 applicants intend to steal from the company before even being hired.
A lot has changed since then.
This theft does not include various and popular fraud techniques that have become a trend in recent years, such as "phobic" abuse.
This means that the new "victim status" has empowered liars to file fraudulent claims against companies such as various forms of discrimination that have one thing in common:
obtaining money that their own hands have not earned.
This new "victim status" is now met with a new "entitlement" mentality, particularly strong among young applicants.
Take these two elements in addition to the 40% finding of the DOJ from 2001 and still add in another element:
Lying has become more accepted due to the increase in outright deception by our political leaders, coupled with yet another factor: a lessening element of civility in public.
I'm not finished.
There is also another element to add to this mix: a growing disrespect for authority, in general, by our population. This is seen in everything from the disparagement of police, to the outright blaming of teachers for student violence.
In other words, personal responsibility is one of the most unpopular theories of American society today, with judges and courts bending over backwards to rule for the "little guy" against...
Ok, here is my last additional factor.
It began in Europe in the early 2000, and then in 2008, became "the" stance of American politics:
disparagement of the successful.
This was both in word, "you didn't built that!", but also in practice, as legalized and institutionalized envy: debt means nothing, the rich aren't doing their share, we need to punish the successful and lower their grades.
In France, the "90% tax on the rich" led to violence, and successful people frightened for their lives and their children's lives as they were, more and more, demonized and targeted. When one of their own left the country, he was "unpatriotic" for not wanting to hand over the extortion payments to the French government.
The risk taking, hard working successful among us are falsely portrayed as "preying" on the common person, calloused, uncaring, and ruthless.
What is left?
The person who risks his or her own finance and family name in order to make money, if successful, is an easy mark for everyone who wishes to steal from them, with the cooperation of the government.
Human nature, however, does not change and when you find certain elements present, you are looking at a society of thieves, including:
Calling theft "moral" and "ethical"; that is, including words like, "justice" or even "restorative justice" and even the marxist "redistribution of wealth" that has led to third world nations becoming third world nations instead of progressing.
Demonizing that which was once praised, including hard work, personal ambition, and responsibility. Now it is "us versus them", with one side being portrayed in the negative, not just financially, but socially, and ethically. False claims of racism enter the statements, with truth sacrificed as any means, including illicit or even illegal means, praise worthy if they produce the "ends" identified.
Those who believe in "ideals" are ridiculed, since "everyone lies" and "only the smartest" get away with it. This is seen in policies where we, the public, are considered incapable of making our own decisions in life, for ourself and our families. When enough scandal is published, an "immunization" of sorts hits, where "everyone is doing it", so why not just join in?
I once caught a couple forging their time sheets, running up extreme overtime. In the interview process, Statement Analysis revealed that their claim of duties was a lie (passive language), which, once confronted, led to a confession.
"Everyone else gets away with it, why shouldn't we?"
Although the couple was in their late 50's, they showed no internal remorse for stealing, only anger at me for catching them, and anger at those who (they thought) had gotten away with it. They showed no moral internal distress over corruption.
This is seen even within victim-groups. When Julie Baker pulled off her "Relentlessly Gay" scam, she plotted how to do this, and considered members of the LGBT as her "easy mark", and knew that by using religion in her fake hate note, she would raise more money than, for example:
*A family seeking money to buy a tombstone for their deceased child
*A family who suffered loss of everything due to fire
*A myriad of requests for money due to catastrophic health events
She knew which buttons to push and which population to exploit.
She knew that hatred would scam better than love. If it wasn't for concerned citizens, the scam might have worked. These few discerning citizens were labeled as..."hateful." See point "b" in deceptive scamming.
Understand: this scam, like so many others, were planned. They hold others in contempt and when applying for a job, go into it believing that they will get their hands on money, one way or another, that their hands have not lawfully earned. They believe those around them "too stupid" to catch them.
The Lindenhurst family knew they were caught and did not bother with Go Fund Me.
The pizza owner wanted money so badly that he was willing to not only file a false report, but even whack himself over the head to make money. It wasn't a "cry for help"; he left more than $20,000 in donations on the table, forced to return the money. That was just defense lawyer jargon.
Baker has $43,000 on one hand, waiting to be cashed in, with a prison sentence on the other. When the Daily Mail got whiff of it, she knew that to do so was not only to risk prosecution, but with the nation watching, Baltimore investigators would not take kindly to be humiliated by her. Simply put, even without the analysis, her other public rants had the same writing quirks. Even while still playing the victim role with false claims of "death threats", she continues to deceive her shrinking fan base.
Those involved in these scams are not "hot blooded" panic thieves, grabbing a loaf of bread for starving children, or making "cries for help" (see above) but are cold, calculating, opportunists. They are no different than the lazy employee who walks all over his supervisor, knowing that his supervisor fears disciplining him because he belongs to a minority. He may have long term negative effects on hiring, but he cares nothing but for himself.
A family owned company has two major hooks on the line:
The family's wealth is invested into the company. The risk is all their own. Should they lose, they lose it all, and while workers can simply apply elsewhere, the family is left bereft of their life's work.
The family's name is now on the hook, too, which is something that the pre-meditating scammer knows well:
He is not suing no-name face-less corporate headquarters for discrimination:
He is punishing the family's finance, and reputation in the community, so that their family name and xyz accusation, are forever linked.
What does the family do?
They pay their deductible and their insurance rates go up. This, of course, can lead to more scams.
What can a company do?
The company can, and must seek to hire the best and brightest, who have become "the best and brightest" through honest, hard work, while the liar, the entitled, the scammer, the professional victim, always wants the short cut, the easy way, the instant gratification.
This is who they are, and we are known to be who we are by our words.
Statement Analysis used in the interview process will dramatically and quickly yield the result of taking the 40% who premeditate damage to the company, and weed them out.
This is accomplished through training of Human Resource professionals, who are often intuitive and sharp, anyway.
Companies are profit driven, in spite of the vilianization of capitalism today. Companies that exist to pay their employees so much money that no profit is realized, may be praised today, but it will be gone tomorrow. Only governments can operate at a loss year after year, and push off their failure by either printing money, or saddle the next generation, but ultimately, it comes to an end. Since a company cannot print money or run debt forever, it closes down. It receives the praise of social warriors, right up the path of bankruptcy. Those marvelous companies who provide good, honest service, pay a good wage, and run a profit, have been, traditionally, praised as their "American spirit", or "American exceptionalism" was recognized.
This is why profit driven companies do not care about gender, sex, pigmentation, or anything else but talent, ambition, ability to learn, emotional intelligence, and so on.
Herein lies the key:
Train your company in Statement Analysis and each applicant who is deceptive is withdrawn from consideration, and watch as Statement Analysis identifies the strengths and challenges of the applicant, allowing for the company to place the employee in the right position.
Statement Analysis identifies, specifically:
c. emotional intelligence
d. whether to work with others, or individually
e. drive and initiative
h. specific talents
But it also identifies:
b. inappropriate motives
c. acute deficiency in work ethic
d. troublesome personalities; especially relevant for sales, or positions where close cooperation among employees is important
e. those who lack self awareness, humility, or the ability to get along well with others
The training is comprehensive and the interview training is legally sound interviewing, accredited by the University of Maine's Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) for resumes and professional licensing.
It is then supported with 12 months of assistance in which we help formulate strategy, assist in interviewing, and check all work. Those who successfully complete the course are eligible for our monthly training program.
Companies enrolled in the training should expect immediate results.
For information on setting up a training program, please see HYATT ANALYSIS SERVICES
Should your company enroll in our training, the first claim or suit threatened or filed, is handled by us, including a written report for the company's attorneys, as assistance given until HR is ready to handle such cases on their own.
Our record of closed cases, victory in unemployment claims, and dismissed rights violations is 100% because:
1. We tell the truth
2. We document everything.
Your company should also expect an immediate improvement in the hiring process, leading to a drop in theft, drop in fraudulent claims, employee complaints, and so on.
As our nation's climate has become more and more hostile towards success, and more lenient towards theft, the truth is your best defense.
Desperate search continues for toddler who went missing while his mother's boyfriend was looking after him
- William Ruben Ebron Jr, 32, has been arrested in connection to 21-month-old Lonzie Barton's disappearance
- Investigators believe Ebron is lying about the child's whereabouts
- Details of his violent past have emerged alleging he is a stalker and rapist
- An amber alert was issued for Lonzie last Friday after he was reported missing
- He was last seen at apartments in Jacksonville
- Ebron told police the boy was abducted from outside the apartment while inside his car when it was stolen
- An orange 1995 Honda Civic was driven away with the little boy inside
Friday, July 31, 2015
This was submitted by a new student of analysis as part of the requirements of the course. Going from blog reader to actual study is a greater leap than what one might expect.
What do you make of the conclusions?
By including the links, the student allows for the context which assists in the conclusion. Statement Analysis is a scientific process, rather than guess work without a reference point. Therefore, if any answer is incorrect, we should be able to identify the error, trace its origin, and correct ourselves.
This is why it is reliable.
Look for accuracy, and look, especially, if a conclusion is premature; that is, do we need more sample for certainty? I have not added emphasis.
It takes time to learn, but much more time to practice, and many corrections to bring forth consistent quality. The understanding of human nature is something that takes many years to learn, and by studying statements, you are, in effect, studying human nature.
Copy/paste and explain that which warrants detail.
"I was upset because it was kind of an 'over and over' thing," Jackson said . "It's at night -- it's time to go home. Leave us alone. So the words got heated. But as far as anybody touching someone, that did not come from me."
“My mate put salt on a chip and a seagull ate it while I filmed.“It's called a joke. I have my mother on Twitter do you think I would publicly post something like that if it was what it's made out to be?
“It's called sarcasm! Making a joke out of it because of people like you overreacting to something that wasn’t even what it was made out to be.”
I am not and never will be a “ghostwriter” for drake.. Im proud to say that we’ve collaborated .. but i could never take credit for anything other than the few songs we worked on together ..
"I think there's so much confusion around this that I understand why reporters and the public are asking questions, but the facts are pretty clear. I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time," she said.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
What does group analysis look like? This may provide insight into a powerful practice within statement analysis where experts come together seeking answers.
The following is summary expert analysis from a group of professionals (detectives, security investigators, therapists, business experts, etc with backgrounds in both law enforcement and psychology) of the transcripts from HLN.com Nancy Grace interview of Brooks Houck, fiancé of missing 35 year old Crystal Rogers, mother of five.
This blog does not publish any private statements unless expressed written permission is given. This analysis is from the nationally televised show and the transcripts are published by HLN.
No one has been arrested and this is only the opinion of the contributors. All are judicially innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The group analysis sought to answer questions including but not limited to:
1. Does Brooks Houck possess guilty knowledge of the disappearance of Crystal Rogers?
2. Is he truthful in his answers?
3. If in possession of guilty knowledge, does he reveal the status of Crystal Rogers? Is she alive?
4. Does he reveal any inadvertent information within his answers?
5. How does he relate to Crystal Rogers, linguistically, which allows us insight into his relationship with her?
6. Is he cooperative with law enforcement?
7. Does he deny causing the disappearance of Crystal Rogers?
Please note that lengthy explanations of the principles of Statement Analysis are often not included. There is also some discussion about interviewing techniques based upon "Analytical Interviewing" principles violated.
This group of experts was asked to work through the interview in order to glean out as much information as possible, with the "40% rule" in mind.
The "40% rule" says that due to the emotional "trail" that is followed during analysis, should the same analyst or other analysts re-analyze the same statement, with a 'broken emotional connection", that is, having moved on to other statements, the same statement will
a. affirm the original analysis
b. yield up to 40% more information
Hence, the value of not only re-analyzing one's own work, but group analysis provides the deepest level, as "emotional connections" are different for each analyst. Too many analysts can be too time consuming, but best is using male and female analysts, with investigatory and psychology backgrounds. All must be proficient in Statement Analysis with formal training, as well as much interview experience. For detectives, the interview experience includes the under-rated "street" or traffic interviews, which are not formal interviews, but are marvelous training opportunities that develop intuition. If formal training is not coupled with this 'street experience' (domestics, in particular), the officer can develop a cynical attitude that will de-rail success in analysis since 90% of deception does not come from direct lying ("everyone lies! is not true), but from missing info. Presupposition of truth is a basic tenant of analysis.
This analysis is useful for study and instruction in Statement Analysis.
Expected: We expect minimization or denial of a troubledrelationship --here, the admission is alarming and the reality is likely much worse than his words, just as "glorious" was an extreme from Scott Peterson. Given that she has left previously, he has a need to give some specific details about where she went, previously, though he will give only a few details about "that" night.
This means that:
1. He is not truthful about being honest
2. He is not truthful about being innocent
3. He is somewhat truthful about cooperation; that is to say, he has given some specific, but limited cooperation.
Let's look at his claim about an attorney:
He knows there are things that they have not asked about. He is signaling that the interview was not complete.