Rick Jones isn''t the only deceptive person in this story.


The report that someone had struck Rick Jones over the head, cut "die fag" into his arms, stole $1800, and then threw a molotov cocktail through his home window, was a very serious report, one requiring intense investigation, as a drain upon resources. 

Statement Analysis of the few statements Mr. Jones made showed that his words did not proceed from experiential memory. 

This is the value of formal training in Statement Analysis.  From the very beginning, not only would a good deal of money and resources be saved, but a criminal would be brought to justice.  

The value of formal training in analysis is without estimate.  It provides justice, clears the innocent, saves money and resources, and provides great traction for the careers of dedicated law enforcement professionals, just as it does in Human Resources, and other professions where communication is essential.  

Rick Jones used the politically explosive environment to steal money from the public, and he almost got away with it as his "Go Fund Me" account was on the rise.  

When someone uses a politically correct electric environment in order to steal money, what would you call it?

A "hate crime"?

Few crimes are of contrary emotion, but when an innocent man could, potentially, lose his freedom due to a false report, it is not a crime of 'civility.'  Even more so, when a false report is made of a crime and the public responds with animosity towards a specific group of people, assuming that a person of faith "must have" committed the crime, it takes upon itself a new level of civic animosity, as the divide of the nation continues.  

But what would you call a false report of a crime that causes not only animosity and upset in a community, but also costs a small locale much expense and time in investigating that which never took place?

Here we couple theft with a waste of law enforcement resources.  

What would you now call it?

Next, what would you call it if you were a defense attorney?

Rick Jones made several false police reports and raised more than $20,000 in donations before he was caught and returned the money.  The locale expended resources investigating the crime, and searching for the perpetrator or perpetrators.  People from around the country showed their support of him in their donations.

Should he be prosecuted for the various crimes he has committed, including fraud, and filing a false police report?

Is this the right thing to do for the sake of justice, as well as to discourage others who will do the same?

Or, is this, as his attorneys said, a "cry for help", for someone who is living in one standardized environment, while being different from that environment, and should be given help, instead?

How you answer this question can reveal to you your personal philosophy about human nature, itself.  


There are two basic viewpoints on human nature (as well as a myriad of off-shoots) that each of us comes to where we embrace one or the other.

One is that mankind, that is, human nature is basically good, and bad comes from negative environment, while the other says that human nature is basically bent towards wrong doing, and needs no lessons on wrong doing, but instead needs lessons on doing right.

You very likely, even if unbeknown to you, believe one or the other.

This is a Statement Analysis view of Creationism, that we might consider what people believe about human nature.

 These are the two basic beliefs:

One is that a child is born with a nature that is naturally bent to do wrong while the other says that the nature of the child has a natural bent to do right.

This is also called "unstable" in some older writings.  It is an inherent selfishness in human nature, that must be countered by instruction.

Often people may say "I hold to neither view", but when they describe the view they do hold to, they confirm one or the other basic view point.  This "neutral" viewpoint, falls to the wayside, generally, in the sentences following, "I don't think either..." as the initial objection.  The "neutral" argument is difficult to maintain.

This, however, is for another day.

Neither holds that the child is guilty of having done anything wrong at birth, nor as an infant,  yet one says his nature, human nature, that is, has a tendency to the wrong, while the other believes that the human nature the child carries into this life is naturally inclined to doing good.

This which is brought to the child, with either propensity embraced  is nurture.

Nurturing is the development and culturing of the child's nature, based upon what one believes the child is born with.

                          Your viewpoint on which a child is born with impacts:

Analysis, specifically in "The Expected Versus The Unexpected", as well as in profiling.

The decision you make also impacts:

How you raise your children.
Whether you embrace traditional religion or statism.
How you treat your spouse.
How you view yourself.
How you cast your vote.
How you conduct yourself at a restaurant, mall, school, library, or anywhere else life carries you.  In general, we all hold to one view or the other.

In other words, whether or not you have conscious awareness of your view or not, it impacts how you think, how you see the world, how you behave, and how you interpret the behavior of others.

At any given time, in any given location, there is an exception to all of us, but principle is not established on exception, no different than a culture is observed as to the majority.

Let us begin with the first:  That human nature is basically "unstable" or "naturally inclined to do wrong" and that restraint and instruction are, therefore, necessary.

Then, we will look at the second:  That human nature is basically "inclined to do good" and that people turn "bad" due to circumstances or poor choices, which is "nurturing."

The first, or "propensity to do wrong" nature is often associated with religious belief, the inherited sin of Adam, brining to humanity a nature that is inclined to do wrong.

The child is not "guilty" of having done anything wrong, but carries the nature of wrong doing.  This will also show itself in non-religious language, including that a child is naturally narcissistic, and must be, therefore, taught human empathy.

The other believes that children are born inherently good, and only become narcissistic through negative exposure, or nurturing (including the lack thereof).

As you work through statements, you will begin to strengthen in your opinion of human nature, one way or another; including changing your view point.

Here, I  begin with the view of the former, that a child is born prone to do wrong, and must be taught to tell the truth and have empathy for his fellow man.  This is the view most people of faith hold and I will show you its genesis, or beginning, and let you decide if this is something that you believe, or are interested in, or if you think it is incorrect.

Since this view point is often associated with religion, specifically "western thought", that is Judeo-Christian, we need to learn why this view developed in mankind.

I am "reading""Linguistic Archeology:  Unearthing the Secrets of Genesis Using SCAN" by Avinoam Sapir.  It is not something to read, per se, but to study.  It is an amazing work that will make no sense unless you understand Statement Analysis.  As a Jew, he writes by his faith.  It is not my faith, but I am learning from it each time I "tackle" it.  (it's the best word I can find to describe what it is like to learn from this 'manual').  I am enjoying the orthodox Jewish perspective in an entirely new manner, though I am not Jewish.

Let's look at the faith/creation account of human nature to see if this ancient story has relevancy upon life today, especially in analysis. This viewpoint, though no limited to religious view, has its root in ancient Scripture.

As a caution for readers unfamiliar with Statement Analysis, I encourage you to read through some of the "101" articles and look at some of the more famous cases for examples.  As I refer to principle, it would become too lengthy to stop and explain each principle.

Also, I frequently use generalizations in my writing, just as it is used in analysis.  This is because a generalization is established by majority, and not by exception.  Cultures are evidenced also by majority, and not by departures from the standard.

"Men are stronger than women" is a good example. Yet, there will always be, somewhere, a woman who has more physical strength than a man.

The two view points:

I.  Mankind is naturally inclined to do wrong.
II. Mankind is naturally inclined to do good.

I.  Mankind is naturally inclined to do wrong, and must be taught not to lie, and to have empathy for his fellow man, otherwise, this nature will bring much destruction upon the human race.

Where did this come from?

  This is what people of faith (Judaeo Christian) hold to and it is interesting to find out where this belief system came from.

They believe that the origin of mankind is explained in Genesis, and this is truth.
(Truth, by definition, cannot change.)

 Truth is unchanging.  This is both religious and non religious.

This means that if your dear grannie took 2 eggs and whisked them up, and put them on a frying pan, they are "scrambled eggs." This is truth.  If her mother did the same thing, 40 years earlier, they were still scrambled eggs.  If her great, great, great great great grammie did it 1,000 years ago, truth is not changed by the passage of time:  they were "scrambled eggs."

Should your own grandchildren take the 2 eggs and whisk them onto a pan, they will be "scrambled eggs."

Should you be in a distant culture, past or future, the 2 eggs whisked will be scrambled eggs, as truth is unchanged by the passage of time, nor by the culture around it. Even if the name, "scrambled eggs" is changed, the reality remains the same.

The Judeo-Christian has  two basic "presuppositions" that they hold to.

Genesis record tells them about how people (1) came into existence, and how  (2) they should  live.

Let's examine what they believe are the origins of human nature.

They refer to the Creation account of Adam and Eve.

Is this a silly child's story from thousands of years ago that is now called "truth"?

Or is it true?


"In the beginning...God created...." is how it begins.  This process was over the course of six days, and on the 7th day, the text says "God rested."

A.  How God made man according to Creation:

God took the earth (ground) and formed man from it, and breathed into the dirt a living soul and the dirt became man.  When man dies, he returns to the dirt.

God took man from the ground, and then he took man to "the garden" (the ground)  to work it.

For their belief:

Man has a sexual (or gender)  affinity with work.  His nature came from the earth, and it was to the earth that he was told to work.  Part of his "man-ness" or "being" is to work.  If he does not work, they teach, he does not fulfill his innate calling and lives empty.   Therefore, man must be taught to work as a child, and to find it rewarding, not as a punishment or chore to be avoided.

They say that man was created to work, to build, to do things, to accomplish and when he does, he feels a "sexual or gender satisfaction", that is, a satisfaction deliberately linked to being a male.  Later, this became known as "the Protestant work ethic in America", though it was not limited to Protestants but became known as a distinctly American theme, with "Yankee Ingenuity" and "American know how" and "American exceptionalism." It was shared by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and non-religious people in America.  (Its origin came in the Protestant Reformation which contrasted Roman Catholicism's "holy orders" with the notion that whatever ma did to provide for his family, if it was lawful, it was "holy", that is "consecrated" to God.  The English tinker, for example, did work as holy as a Bishop, in this view.


  Woman's turn

So, if God took man from the ground, and had him work the ground, what about woman?  Where did she come in to this according to the account?

It says that God made them "male and female" and that they were made in "the Image of God", that is, as "Image bearers." This is why they teach that sexual assault on a baby is particularly hideous:  it is an assault on the Divine Image within a child.  Even if the infant is not physically hurt, the suffering that may come later tells us that this child is not just a random blast of protoplasm but bears the scars of damage.

The text goes back and gives us a "parenthetical view", that is, out of sequence to move back and fill in specific details.  Once understood, it is no longer "out of sequence" for us.

In working the ground, the text tells us that God gave various duties to the first man, "Adam" and it does not inform us  how much time passed in this way but one duty in particular, is mentioned.  We know that he did lots of things, but remember in analysis:  no one can tell us everything that was done, so what is reported is always sensitive information, that is, important information.

Question:  What was this "work" assigned to Adam?

Remember, he was brought to the garden to "dress and keep it" but without any work given in specific detail.  The statement is alive to us, and it is the statement that guides us.

The account continues:

The creation in six days caused Author to pronounce, "it was good." The sun, stars, oceans, mountains, birds, animals, and so on, "and it was good." This is repeated for emphasis. The repetition has called our attention to things being "good" which naturally causes the reader/analyst to then ask, "Well, is there something that is not good?"

Statement Analysis:  Repetition indicates sensitivity.

Statement Analysis:  Order indicates priority.

After repetition of what is "good", we now ask, "What is not good, therefore?"

                                             We are not made to wait long.

God said, "It is not good for man to be alone."

Thus we have the entrance of "not good" in Creation.

God does not, however, create woman here.  This is critical in analysis. Time is going to pass over, and we must learn what the missing information from the text is.

Answer:  Naming and classifying animals.


The text tells us next that God brought animals to Adam of which Adam then gave them scientific names.  This was likely a most lengthy process even before cross breeding, and we are not told how much time passed but we do find some very interesting information in this temporal lacunae:

Adam saw that there was a horse, with a male organ, and then another horse, with a receptacle.  It fit perfectly and the two went together.
He saw this same thing with the dogs, cats, cattle, and all the other animals in this lengthy scientific process.

Let's look at the  order as it speaks to priority:

1.  Man is created from dirt and brought to dirt to work it.
2.  Man is told that it is not good to be alone.  No help mate given.
3.  Man is then given the scientific task of naming and classifying all the animals.  Adam specifically notes that male animals are different than female animals, and compares them to himself but finds no "match" for himself.

In noting the order, man created and told it was not good to be alone, but then he is given the lengthy task of animals, with him concluding that there was no mate for him.

This appears out of order to us.  Causing us to conclude in analysis:  "Out of sequence statements are only out of sequence for us.  Once understood, we can learn why it was placed there."

Why is this inserted in the statement?

By spending a great deal of time (months?) carefully noting the animals' characteristics in order to name and study them, (with the names having specific meanings) Judeo-Christian belief taught that:

God created a deep void within Adam that he saw that all of creation had the "right fit" mate, all, that is, except him.  "Not good" was because it was "incomplete."

Deep within the nature of the male was a deliberately created void that the earth and all the labor could not fill.

This provoked a deep loneliness within Adam which confirmed the first "not good" declaration.

Adam did not express discontent prior to his study of animals.  He was then given this awareness that he was incomplete.

This sets the stage for the creation of woman.

Would woman be also created from the ground, as was man?

The text tells us that God caused a sleep to come over Adam and took a rib and created Eve.

Adam named her, "woman", the scientific name showing how she came to be, that is, "taken from man."

Man was made from the ground.  Woman was not made from the ground, but  made from the man, who's nature was connected with the ground.  This distinction is a dramatic change of language that must represent a change in reality in order for it to be true.

Let's look at the change.

Woman did not come from the ground, but man did.  This gave man a "sexual or gender affinity", that is, his "masculinity" has a deep embedded connection with "the ground", which is, "work."

Woman did not come directly from the ground but from the man, who has "ground" within him. This is an "indirect connection" of her gender (femininity) to the earth, which represents work.  To see this even more fully, we then read:

God did not take her to the earth to work, but to Adam, to help him in work.

 Is this a psychological difference?  Judeo-Christian thought says it is.

 She not only received some of the affinity of work from him, but also an element of humanity from him.

Adam got humanity and dirt (work)
Eve got more humanity and indirect or lessened dirt (work)

 In other words, she got a "double dose" of "humanity" as coming from Adam.

This is why people of faith (especially long ago) said that man was physically stronger due to the necessity of working the ground, but the female, with the greater gender or 'sexual' affinity with another human (the man) has superior emotions to the man.  He may be physically stronger but she is emotionally stronger which is given because to give birth and nurture a child takes a greater affinity or bond with humanity.

Historically, this is why courts often awarded mothers custody over fathers unless she was unfit.  A man, no matter how good a parent he was, was not a mother and does not posses the greater capability of emotion and affection for the child, who is in need of this very thing.  This is why motherhood was considered "indispensable" to child raising and held in high esteem in such things as, "women and children first" philosophies.

If you were to generalize which parent would most likely abandon a child, most would conclude that a man would before a woman.

They of faith say that this is why men and women think and subsequently speak differently.

Remember the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus"?  I think most people did not read it but remember the title and laughed a bit.  The premise was that we do, in fact, think, speak and hear differently from one another and growth comes from accepting the difference and celebrating it, rather than struggling for uniformity.

The idea that men and women "hear" things differently and speak things differently comes from the Genesis account.

One was not superior, in total, to the other, but were "one" when as a union, complementing each other.  Where a man may lack in emotion, he gets from his wife, and where she lacks in strength, she gets from her husband. The creation account shows that "not good" is in incompletion.  Neither was declared superior, in total, to the other, but different.

In the United States, statistics  found that children that came from a home where both father and mother were present, were more likely to:

have better grades;
higher income;
less alcoholism;
less crime, etc.
less incarceration...and so on.

This is why, historically, western civilization (with its Judea Christian roots) gave special benefits for married couples; they knew it was good for society.  This was its basis for doing so.

This was the generalization in history.  Remember, principle is not established on exceptions.  Good citizens have arisen from single parent homes.  We look at the larger picture.

This view of Creation is how religious organizations often conducted themselves and even in choosing roles for man and woman, the arguments are based upon creation, and not upon changing cultures.  In ordination and assigning of roles in the New Testament, for example, the authority referred to is not culture, but creation.  There are some places where culture is cited, but not in the roles of men and women, nor even in the places where clothing, hair length, and military duty is addressed.

Masculinity became defined as "the sacrifice of strength for right purposes." A man who was "masculine", therefore, put women and children first, and learned to corral his strength, rather than use it to exploit.  This was, in this philosophy, something that needed to be taught, otherwise, nature would take over, and women would suffer because of it.  This was the basis for childhood lessons such as "a real man never hits a woman, son." The appeal to be a "real man" was distinctly gender specific.


                              Man, Woman and their Natural Inclination  

The account continues with "the fall", that is, the entrance of death.

The two were put to work, now as "one person", together, and were given everything in the garden to eat,  but one thing which was prohibited to them.  They were permitted all but one.

Guess which "one" they wanted more than anything else?

This reminds me of children choosing a toy, or two dogs choosing a bone.

Question:  "Which one is better?"

Answer:   "The other one."

                                                       Death at the doorstep?

In fact, Adam and Eve were warned that "in the day you eat of it (the only tree forbidden them) you will surely die."

We note that "die" is made sensitive by "surely", which is not necessary.

Since it is not necessary, it is to be deemed "doubly important." Let's remember that in the day they eat of the forbidden tree, they would not "die" but "surely die" to see why this is "doubly important" to analysis.

"Surely" is to "make certain."

What is it about death that one would have to make certain?  It seems on the surface that a dead body is not going to debate whether or not he is dead.  Why would "dead" be sensitive to the subject?

Evil, as personified by the serpent, who approached Eve.

Now remember, Eve as a "double dose" of humanity, or human emotions.  Adam has a percentage, but Eve was created not directly from the ground, but from him, which increased the capacity of emotions, that is, superior emotions.

We say that those who love much risk much hurt.  Some say, "better to love and lost than not to love at all" while others disagree.

The serpent approached Eve and sought to bring her into treason against her Creator.

Q.  What technique did he use?

A.  Deception via words.

This is the introduction of deception to people of faith, in history.  From this, we learn such things as "reduced stress through parroting" and the sensitivity of answering a question with a question.

The serpent approached Eve and asked her about the tree, which was really good to look at, which provoked desire for its fruit.

She answered evil and said, "God said not to eat it or touch it."

That is not what God said.  She has misquoted her Creator, changing words that, according to the definition of God, has altered perfection.

Evil then said, 'Did He really say this?

His reply was to question reality of what was said, that is, to create doubt upon, not the words, but the Character of He Who spoke the words.  This is to bring doubt into the mind of the listener, not healthy scientific skepticism.

'Did He really say this?', and evil went on:

'It isn't so, but when you take it, you'll no longer be subordinate to Him, but will be His equal', which was of his own invention.  This was to fabricate reality with a direct lie.  This is the form of deception that less than 10% of liars use.

In essence, evil not only questioned what God said, first, but then declared it to be a lie, which is a false accusation.

Eve thought things over...it would be good to be the king, said Mel Brooks, and besides, this fruit looks delicious...

The appeal was both in status in life (15 minutes of fame) , and in the simple base element of human appetite, from the eyes to the stomach.

                                                         She ate it.

This was not mere disobedience, but something far deeper than a single act. The judgment that fell came because of the motivation behind the crime:  it was more than a moment of weakness, it was to:

A.   Call God a liar
B.   Betray the King's commandment
C.   It was high-handed treason.

This was done because the lie told by the evil entity, "in that day you shall be like gods, knowing good and evil", that is, no longer subordinate but to grab the spotlight and overthrow the rule of God, Who had created them, and given them a marvelous life, with but one prohibition; everything else, including dominion over all of creation, was there's.

It is like having all the food in the world, free of charge, yet still wanting the single candy bar that you were told not to have.

This reminds me of a funny story.

I was out to dinner one night with a large, extended family.  The matriarch was talking about how, with the children all grown, she wanted to get rid of the old furniture.  The children were not only all grown with families of their own, but were, in their own right, quiet wealthy.  Sisters, Susie and Joanie were close in age.

One of the two sisters said, "Mom, what are you going do to with that old night table?"

This caused a chuckle from the family.  It was an old worthless item, made of particle board or something as cheap.

"Susie, why in the world would you want that?

Before she had a chance to answer her mother, Joanie's husband said,

"Oh, Susie just wants it so Joanie can't have it!"and everyone roared with laughter.

Human nature, once again, in its marvelous display.  This is why teaching to share is necessary:  without it, selfishness would reign, according to this philosophy.

Back to Adam and Eve.

Eve had:

a.  listened to the lie told her;
b.  incorrectly quoted the Creator
c.  reasoned within herself that she would like to be as in charge; all knowing, and powerful, and wanted to de-throne God;
d.  that the fruit looked really good to eat.

So, upon consideration of all these things, in whatever human nature she had (recall the 'double dose'), she was deceived and she ate it.

The day continued.

 She did not die.

Please recall, "In that day you shall surely die"was pronounced to them, with death being seen, in the language, as "sensitive."

She then went to Adam with her arguments about:

1.  We can be like God and no longer subject to Him;
2.  I ate it and I didn't die (God lied).  There's been no punishment.  That whole thing about dying just is not true.
3.  It is really good to eat, too.

Adam's resistance did not hold up.

He ate of it, and the text says "immediately his eyes were open" and he saw his nakedness and went and tied some fig leaves together for a pair of boxers.

They did not die.

Recall, "in that day you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

To "die" has been made sensitive with "surely" and death did not come.

Or, so it appeared.

God then rebuked them, banished them and told them that they would suffer many things:

1.  The earth (ground) was now cursed and fruit would come, but through toil and with lots of weeds. Adam's brow would now produce a great deal of sweat (hard work, anxiety) to produce food (presupposing how easily things used to be).

2.  Eve would give birth to children, but the process would be painful.

"Death" now entered their lives and although the description of the natural environment was described like a green house, they would eventually return to the ground from which they came.

Death came into their souls that die, and would eventually wear down their bodies, but this rebellion was now part of their nature, and would come to every offspring from there on in.

The people of faith teach that the "Adamic nature has been passed to all generations", that is, a propensity towards treason (transgression, sin, lying, etc) as their 'spiritual father' was now the serpent (evil) as they chose his words over God's words.

Thus the need to teach children "thou shalt not" and human empathy because it is no longer natural.  Although born without having committed any wrong doings, they teach, children are born with a propensity towards selfishness, naturally, and if not taught, will naturally lie, steal, and even kill his fellow man, all to obtain something that has come from the ground.  (all things in life come from the ground, from food, to my house, to my guitar).

Thus, human nature is bent towards doing wrong and unless well taught, when tested, will choose self over good.

This is theory number one, and it impacts everything you do, believe, and think and especially, what you feel about people you analyze who may be lying to you.

It is the theory behind the words of "Amazing Grace", where the author, a slave trader, called himself a vulgar name (for that time) when he wrote, "saved a wretch like me."

It is fascinating to look at your children, and consider the difference between your sons and your daughters and may explain why, for example, my sons always said, "Mom!  Dad!  Watch me hit this ball!" (doing something) while my daughters held a different view and would say, "Mom! Dad!  Watch me!", with the emphasis upon the attention to the person, rather than to what was accomplished.

It does not mean that they did not want to be seen accomplishing things; they did.  It does not mean the boys did not want to be noticed for themselves, as they did, too.  Yet, the priority was different.

This is very far from the philosophy that there is no difference in how men and women think, hear and speak.

This is why it is your belief on human nature will impact everything in life, from how you relate to your spouse, to who you vote for, and how you think, or expect someone to respond in analysis.

It is also why people of faith believe that since male and female are created differently, the role of the parent includes cultivating this "maleness" or "femaleness" in life, judging what child has been given to them, and raising them according to the assignment of organs, differing one from another.  We may seek to compliment the "maleness or femaleness", or we can ignore it, or we can choose to go "cross grain" and deliberately raise our children to the opposite should we wish to do.  We are free to do so, but this allows us to understand what a large group of people in history have done, for better or worse.

Anonymous Threatening Letters 

When we write, we reveal our:

Background
Experiences
Priorities
Personality

This means that when analyzing an anonymous threatening letter, we seek to learn the identity of the author, which is to say the gender, age, race, education, background and experiences of the writer, but also the priority.

Is this threat for real?

In a perfect world, all threats are taken with the upmost delegation of resources, but this is not the reality of limited budgets, and by reducing the exterior to a more measurable form, we can properly discern how to answer the threat.

Imagine having a very frightening threatening letter and saying, "we cannot know if this is written by a man, or by a woman, since there is no difference between the two!", but saying this due to fear of offending someone?

When we viewed the Baby Ayla case, we began with 300 million suspects.  We can do a nationwide search for the missing toddler.

Yet, when the father spoke and said that someone might not like the way he parented Ayla, the number went from the entire population of the United States, all the way down to a handful of people who knew him.  (His words and failed polygraph, along with the life insurance policy taken out by him, against her,  limited the number down as well).  This is why we heard his supporters wanting ads taken out across the country, broadening, rather than narrowing the scope of the search.

This philosophy of human nature believes that lying, for example, is natural to a child, and the child must be taught not to, and that he must resist, that is, build up a will against lying because lying  is easier than telling the truth.

The other philosophy, which is up next, teaches that a child will only lie because he has seen an example of lying (negative nurture) and must now be taught that it is wrong.

Therefore, how you see the criminal justice system comes from how you view human nature.

When a man made a false police report and raised money from it, he was seen as deceptive.

Some call for justice saying he made a false report as a thief and returned the money because he got caught.

Others, his attorneys in particular, said, he is not a criminal but did this as a cry for help.

The two philosophies about human nature are displayed here, in this one example.  The former says to prosecute so not only is justice realized, but others will be warned.

The other says not to prosecute, there is no need to dissuade others, but concentrate on helping him, instead.

It may seem like a small difference when we speak in philosophical terms, especially about babies,  yet when it comes to its outworking, the gulf between the two philosophies is not reconcilable.

You may choose to disregard the story in Genesis as fable, or you may embrace as eternal truth, but in either case, it is fascinating to read of an account that has been repeated for more than 4,000 years of history, and has endured for some.  People of faith hold to its Divine origin, making it immovable.  For them, "good" is not subjective, nor is "evil" subjective.  The subjectivity only comes when truth, itself, is attacked.

For example, to kill your neighbor for the motive of taking what is in his house, is considered "evil" or "wrong" and is addressed in the Ten Commandments.  This is, according to those of faith, an absolute that does not change.  Therefore, the elements of both greed and of violence must be addressed in early childhood, lest the refusal to share, for example, become a strengthened position, which then leads to theft, and possible violence, should the theft be opposed.

In objective truth, for another example, racism is condemned as "wrong" or "evil." For people of faith, this is "truth" that is not changed due to time or culture.  The same believe that it must be taught to children, at a very young age, lest racism take root, and trouble society.

Should a young boy be uncorrected in hitting his sister, might he become involved in Domestic Violence later in life?  If so, the parents must consider:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"in thinking, "by not correcting little Johnny, who is so very cute, am I setting up his future wife for heartbreak and assault?  If so, I am not "loving" my neighbor, my future daughter-in-law."


                                                      What do you believe?

Do you believe that human nature has this bent towards wrong doing and must be taught accordingly?

Or, do you believe that mankind is basically good, and that the natural bent is towards doing right, and only fails to do so when given improper example?

Or...

do you wish to wait until the next article to answer?


What you believe will impact your life, and specifically, how you discern truth from deception.

As I always seek to learn:

Are you open to changing your view point?

1 year old Leona Wright is missing, last seen on June 8th, 2015.  This adorable little girl was in the hands of her mother, and her mother's boyfriend, and the story is not likely to have a positive ending. Here is why:

video is HERE

No statements for analysis at this point, but given the friend's view, the drug abuse, and the lack of cooperation...


Mother,  Kiara Sullivan, was arrested on separate charges on assault and battery, regarding a Wendy's employee, and the child's father.


Her 3 year old tested positive for cocaine, meth, and marijuana.  She and her boyfriend both tested positive for the same.

The police report that the family is not cooperating with police.

You will hear a friend defending her with the following:

"In my gut I think  that everyone involved, as far as from what I can see, is innocent because you are innocent until proven guilty. "

The friend has a strong suspicion but even defended the drug use.

from the news:

Kiara Sullivan

Travis Jones

Is this video "real" in the sense that the videographer was able to find, amongst a very large crowd, a few samples of ignorance; which would make it 'deceptive' in that it removes the shock value.  Did he interview, for example, 200 people to come up with only 5 ignorant?  This would lessen the shock value.

Or, did he find 5 samples of ignorance, out of 25, which would be 20% of the audience, making it alarming regarding ignorance in our country?



I do not know the answer.
Would you try such a test in your home town?

I did, yesterday, while getting gas and the attendant said, "I'm a fourth year college student and it would be pretty sad if I didn't know who we gained our independence from, and just some basic facts about the date and things."

He named the country, the date, and the major players in the struggle for independence from a large, distant oppressive government.

What do you think?

I have an opinion but it is more based upon reading the writings of college grads, including those with master-level degrees, as to what has happened to education in America, than anything else.  Behind the writings, discussions, including having conducted more than 6,000 interviews since 2002, has helped formulate an opinion, but although that which is in writing is far less, it impacted me more.

I recognize nationalized or standardized test scores have dropped consistently the last few decades and the "casey anthony jury" mentality is popular.

In profiling, this can be a 'curve ball' to be aware of.

I find that adults with only high school educations, who graduated high school, for example, prior to 1980, often show better English than today's grads and post-grads.  When profiling, this can be difficult because I have to add:

* "intelligent, educated" with more emphasis upon age, because a 63 year old, for example, graduated high school in 1970, and will often write quite well, not only in spelling and usage, but even in punctuation, rivaling post-grad work today, in just using the semi-colon, itself.

"Relentlessly Gay" analysis showed Julie Baker to be intelligent and the age/education factor would not have been as easy as it was, if not for her other Face Book writing.  Her use of capitalization, which may be presented to a jury after the money is withdrawn, was intentional; not in error, as it spoke to poetic license, which itself, speaks to intelligence.  Recall "Tarantula" and some of Allen Ginsberg's writing and punctuational changes for impact.

Yet, is this video 'authentic', in that it did represent the populace?  Does it alarm you?

I did note that none answered with names sounding like "Mohammad" showing a lack of listening, or belief, in the president's statement regarding our founding fathers.

The Pavlovian response, right to the stomach,  to certain "politically incorrect" topics does show the effectiveness of propaganda, as well as highlighting that truth, or even accuracy, is more complex than simple, rote repetition.

It is difficult to depart from "Lizzie Borden took an ax..." or "The Scarlett Letter", or even the abbreviated Gettysburg Address, from the reality that takes more effort to understand.

Mother Kiara Sullivan  references missing 1 year old in the past tense HERE

Sadly, enough of these cases the public seems to be catching on.

Mother wants "closure", referencing the child in the past tense which is a verbal indication that mother knows or believes the child is dead.

Question:  Did police let the mother know that the child is likely dead?

If not, it brings mother's own knowledge of the child's death into focus.

Verb tenses, if only the simple past or present tense, are learned early in life, and become instinctive when someone speaks in the free editing process.

Here is the 911 call:  911 CALL

The caller, initially, made the call for Kiara Sullivan and repeated that "the baby can't walk", as to say, the child could not have wandered off by herself.

The flow of information is frustrating, as the 911 operator had to explain the simple need for information.  The neighbor has a reluctance to commit, without any indication of knowledge of the child, but of likely suspicion of the family.  "It don't make sense", she repeated.  Rightly, the 911 operator wanted to speak directly to Kiara Sullivan.

Caller said "I don't know if you need to send an ambulance because the mom is passing out, too, so I don't know what is going on."

The phrase, "I don't know what is going on" may suggest that the neighbor is only reluctantly involved, perhaps due only to the welfare of a child, but likely has many questions about the family.

Finally, the caller admits the negligence, which was likely the cause of the hesitancy when she said, "I'm going to be honest with you", revealing that before this, something, indeed, was on her mind, that she was withholding, and this information was her opinion of the family.  This is why she finally said, "they should have been up with the children";

and said, "it's not the baby's fault; it is the parent's."

The caller does the best she can, with both limited information and frustration, and the 911 operator thanked her appropriately.

Deception comes in many forms.

Today is the Greek vote on austerity mandates from creditors in Europe.

Greece stands as a monument to socialism and government efficiency, and what continual indebtedness looks like, and, perhaps even a warning to Europe and the United States as socialism has gone from a bad word to a good word for many.

Recently, in the Genesis of Human Nature, I addressed one of the two basic beliefs about human nature:

Instability.

This means that man is born with a nature prone to do wrong, that is, selfish, lazy, deceptive, and so on, and must be taught contrary.  Part Two will look at the opposing view, that mankind is born basically good, and only does things that are wrong due to environment, but his general inclination is towards doing good for others, over himself.

What you believe about human nature, itself, guides your opinion on what is happening in Greece, today and your viewpoint on what you "expect" your fellow human to do.

Will he pick up the dropped wallet and keep the cash?
Or will he pick up the wallet and head to the nearest police station; cash in tact.
Once there, will the receiving desk officer, himself, keep the money?
Does the finder think that the cop, himself, will pocket the money, influencing his own judgment?
Does one sing to one self, the child's ditty about "finders keepers, losers weepers"?

Left or right, right or left.

In many cases, making no decision is a decision, itself.

This is from the Daily Mail and is about deception in practice.  It is a deception that not only permeates all of society, but allows you to see what a man might choose, given the same conditions.

The view of "instability", or "self-first", says that given the exact same environment, I would be inclined to not report my father's death, and collect his monthly government check for 30 or more years after his death unless I can overcome my natural inclination to be selfish, deceptive, and so on.

Do you know what a "Greek Haircut" is?

It is a "recapitalization of Greek banks."

"Recapitalization."

This is a term that is technically truthful, but is deceptive.  It is similar to saying that the man who is robbing your house is "re-furnishing" his house with your furniture.

The basis of socialism comes from an opinion on mankind's nature.  Which view point?

By the way, we often identify self honesty as "emotional intelligence" because it includes a healthy dose of self awareness and personal frailities that, once owned, may produce humility.  Humility is prized by some; despised by others.

A whole island pretending to be blind to get benefits, 8,500 pensioners who faked being aged over 100 and lawyers who claim to earn just €12,000: New book reveals how Greeks cheated THEMSELVES into ruin

• James Angelos' book looks at widespread tax evasion and benefit fraud 
• Includes case of the island where 498 people pretended to be blind 
• Also reveals how super-rich bought camoflage for pools to avoid tax 
• Greece is on the brink of collapse as it decides whether to reject EU bailout

• James Angelos' The Full Catastrophe: Travels among the New Greek Ruins is available to buy on Amazon.

Mother of missing baby standing behind father named person of interest

"Say, you can't do that to a lady!"

If Greece were to be forgiven their debts, would they respond by choosing A or choosing B?  What sayest you?


A.   Being thankful, warned and immediately implement policy changes to stop the overspending; or

B.  Would they continue to spend that which they do not have; or possibly even increase the over spending?

How you predict their reaction tells us a lot about what you think of human nature.

In the Free Fish versus Fishing Pole, how you feel mankind (in general) will react to Free Fish, reveals what you believe about human nature.

There are two basic opposing theories upon the nature of man:

Theory One says that man was created unstable, that is, prone to transgression, selfishness, deception and law breaking.

Theory Two says that man is born 'good', therefore, his nature is prone to doing that which is right, seeking the betterment of others over self, law keeping, and so on.

The former teaches the necessity of discipline, as his natural inclination will otherwise be trouble.
The other teaches that the inherent goodness within man needs only a good environment to see it through to fruition.

Theory One says that given the choice between right and wrong, it is more likely wrong will be chosen, unless specific early training is given, while Theory Two says that mankind has a "free will", that is, a will neutral from all external influence, and makes "good choices" unless his environment tells him otherwise.

In a recent study on weight loss, researchers found that "conservatives" did better at losing weight than those who identified themselves as "liberals" and upon further examination, they found that the successful held to a philosophy of "personal responsibility", more than those who struggled to lose weight.

What does this have to do with Statement Analysis?

The better your understanding of human nature, the greater your ability to experience success in Statement Analysis will be evidenced.   

Human nature is quite complex; far more than anything I could cover in an article, or even in book, or ten volumes of books.

We all hold, generally, to one theory or the other, and I have covered "free will" in prior articles, but briefly hold that free will, that is, truly free will, is a myth.

For example, should you lay before me the choice between liver and lobster, my will is "free to choose" which I shall have for dinner.

I choose lobster.

Yet, I have never tasted liver.

The two lay before me, and although I may choose one or the other, my will not "free" but under influence.

Having never tasted liver, I have tasted and loved lobster.  This is one element. Next, as a young boy, I grew up seeing television movies in which children, particularly, the Little Rascals, being told to "eat your liver" in which they  made faces that distinctly communicated a vocabulary word best summed up by:

"yuk."

There are already two influences removing neutrality from my thinking, yet there is still more.  Pictures of liver significantly increase my prejudice against it.

Also, there is the all natural diet C.K. Dexter-Haven enjoys in which he is given an entire chicken, over the course of several days, uncooked, bones and all, including the internal organs.   Having learned this from police K-9 breeders, he and other dogs seem to live far longer and with far more health than their compatriots who have the chicken burned down to tiny little itty-bitty forms where one may wonder if there is any nutritional value left.  "Old Roy" from Walmart specializes in things like chicken beaks and feet, but even this is second to its number one ingredient:  corn.

Having cut up the whole chicken for daily meals, I have both seen and handled livers and I do not want to eat them.  Even if you were to slip it into a soup, having me eat it and love it, I would not be happy.

The point being is that the will is not "truly free and independent", but has a 'bent' towards one way or another, and  this is why neutrality or the 'clean slate' description is false.

One way or another, human nature has a 'bent' or 'leaning', and no matter how much we claim that "right and wrong" are indefinable, or 'fluid', as is popular today, parents teaching children have a general yet incomplete knowledge of right from wrong.

Theory One says the child's bent is to do wrong.
Theory Two says the child is bent to do right.

Neither claims the child has any judicial guilt, having done nothing wrong.

Various vocations highlights human nature, especially over many years.  Defense attorneys can, after decades of defending people, can get an interesting insight into nature.

Nurses, also after decades of experiences, especially those who work in maternity, can get insight that is not readily available in statistics.  Although this can be, like everything else in our country, insulting to some, delivery room nurses often predict whether or not a new born is likely to have child protective intervention based upon the name given the child.  They said "a novelty name sometimes shows the baby to be a novelty to the parents."

Had I given my children a novelty name, and this statistic proved solid, I would not feel offended.  The nurses gave examples but what I observed among them (over the discourse in years, not months) was that the older the nurse, the more likely she would side with the asserted belief.

There exists a myriad of complexities within these two but, for those of you who wish to know (I am one of them), it is fascinating to learn about human nature, even as we ask ourselves about what happens when we die.

In interviewing, the more one understand of human nature, the more consistent success will be realized. 

I will cover Theory Two when I have addressed some specifics within Theory One that are directly applicable to the work of analysis and deception detection.

Today, I cover "labor" within human nature.

We looked at Genesis, and although I only covered a sketch, I hope you found it interesting.  Whether or not you hold to it, it allows you to understand what much of the western world has held, particularly gaining popularity during the Protestant Reformation, and particularly losing popularity in the 20th Century, up to today.

Human nature does not change.

Our opinion of human nature changes, and my own has changed dramatically over the years.  I confess that I use the comment section for my research, and while having conducted more than 6,000 interviews in the last several decades, I continue to learn and gather information.  I took greatly detailed notes of many of these interviews and reviewed them carefully.  This, itself, taught me much.

I specifically seek out an opinion from the audience of each seminar I conduct to see where they stand.  I find that the responses change as geography changes.

I find it all interesting, but especially how it works itself out in practice.

*There are always those who do poorly in analysis due to cynicism regarding human nature.  There are just those so suspicious that they will fail due to the belief that everyone is lying, even though they hear me say how few people tell outright lies.

*There are those who see things through rose colored glasses and "look for the good" in everyone.  These "pollyanna" types actually do well in analysis because they can follow rules for deception, but are better equipped at "withdrawing content" from a statement or interview.  In training the "pollyanna", I find that, over time, they even out.  It seems, at least for me, easier to teach a gullible person than a cynical person.  This may have something to do with trauma history.

In interviewing, I have tremendous confidence that I will get to the truth.  It is extremely rare that I feel anything less than this powerful emotion.  The only time I feel that I will not succeed is when someone is not only refusing to talk, but refuses to talk, as expressed in very few words.  

The refusal to talk is very rare, and in many years, it has happened less than a handful.

If someone says, "I don't feel like talking..."

I got 'em.

He only "feels" like not talking, which means the right questions will get him talking.

"I don't have anything to say to you"is another one in which I will get information.  This person has things to say, but just not to "me", so I strategize accordingly, knowing, he has something to say.  I just need to change "me" into someone he will talk to.

The only closed door is "I will not talk."

If this is met with compliance, that is, if the person is "truthful" to his word, he will not say another word, including, "I already told you I will not talk."

With those who resist, I have sometimes said, "I will only have half a story and I think you should have your part told"and offer the presence of an attorney, including an 800 number and a card, with my phone, as no one's rights should be violated.

If he has the info, I will have the info.

The above usually works but if it doesn't, the knowledge of human nature, itself, serves me in ways you might struggle to imagine.

I hope that sharing just a few details (though I carefully guard my secrets) will assist you, especially if you are in investigations, investigative journalism (rumored to still exist), therapy, counseling, sales, communications, and wherever you may be that requires you to gain information, including...

human resources.

My Scenario Was as Follows:

I.  The Need for Information
II.  The Use of Human Nature
III.  The Result

Understanding human nature is critical to the most elementary and basic success in Statement Analysis, even if one does not recognize their own philosophy or name it as such.  They just "do" and they do well.  They can do better, should they apply themselves in this manner.

I.  The Need for Information

I had a case where a company had a young woman who applied to work for a company but had been terminated by another company with a reputation for excellence.  This did not bode well for her, however, yet the company considering hiring her felt that she would be an excellent candidate.

Her claim:  "I don't know why I was terminated."

HR had tested her and she scored high on the emotional intelligence test.  I reviewed it and agreed with the assessment.  This was someone who was intelligent and possessed a good sense of self.

Her personal statement also was analyzed for truth and she was truthful, in all of her assertions.  This means that someone may be incorrect about something, but is not attempting to deceive. (This is something that every company that wishes to reduce shrinkage, frivolous suits, fraudulent unemployment and so on, should put into practice.)

The initial interview was with an experienced HR professional who reported that she had done very well in the interview and struggled only with the "I don't know why I was terminated" portion. The young woman appeared to be telling the truth, even though it seemed odd.

My advice was to contact the company and "get" the details, knowing that this would mean, "We can only confirm that she worked from Jan 1 to March 1 and her employment ended there. "

In a country that has a high percentage of lawyers and one for whom theft has been decriminalized through the court system, I do not blame the company for not giving any details out.

II.  The Use of Human Nature

Back to our initial study in Genesis.

We learned that the Creator took man from the ground (element of which he returns upon death) and then "took" the man to the Garden to "dress and keep it", that is, to work and protect it.  This means that the man has a gender, or "sexual affinity" with work.  This is part of his nature:  to be productive, to do things, to accomplish things and when that is done, to protect and enjoy his labor.  Woman, that is, the one taken from man, also partakes in this gender identity, though not in the exact same manner.

I continue to enjoy Avinoam Sapir's "Linguistic Archeology" where I learn at each reading.  He does a marvelous analysis of the word "take", which is not only when the Creator "took" Adam to the Garden to work and protect it, but later when a man "takes" a wife.  It is a word of authority and confidence.  (more on this another day).

Mankind, that is, human nature, has a distinct connection with the earth.  The earth is where everything in your home has come from.  Everything you have, from your computer microchip, to your bar of soap has come from the ground.

I always find it interesting when someone in their 60's attends a training.  I hone in on them to see if they are open to answering questions, as it is a fascinating generation of "hippies" and "free love" and "we were going to save the world" resignation of failure, and so on.

Most all of them talk about how their view of human nature changed 180 degrees from "back in the day" when they were going to change the world.  Those in social work, in particular, speak (note the present tense; this is ongoing as I met one self identified hippie this weekend in social services who shared the same disillusion of life, while waiting on line for chocolate chip ice cream) in resigned terms of failure.

Inevitably, the conversation or interview goes to the subject of "work" or "labor" with them, and this is where they express the most disappointment.

They believed in Theory Two, and that if they were to change the environment of the person, life would be better, whereas Theory One says the change comes more from the person, rather than the environment.  This is the:

Give a hungry man a fish, or...

Give a hungry man a fishing pole, instead, clash of ideals.

Over the years, I think I only met one "hippie" (I use this term fondly) that held to "fishing pole" theory in the 60's or 70's.  All else where of the "free fish" view.

For younger audiences reading this, the scenario is on how to help someone in trouble.  Do you give him a free fish, or do you give him a fishing pole, so that he can help himself?

Your answer reveals your political and moral view of today.

In Genesis, the man was given access to the garden's delight, but his commandment was to work.

Later, in the ancient Hebrew welfare system, a field was to be harvested in straight lines, by workers who were to go through it, up and down, one time only.  What they did not harvest was then left for the poor to go, themselves, and harvest.

In the New Testament, the same theme continued with the prohibition against feeding those who refused to work with "if a man will not work, neither shall he eat", allowing for hunger pains to awaken his innate nature to be productive, according to the Genesis account.  Note that "will not" is effort, which excludes those who "cannot" work.

The clash of two belief systems comes to a head here with the Theory One saying that if you give a man a free fish, he will look for another free fish, as is human nature, but if you inspire him with a pole and hunger pains, he will not only feed himself, but will have a "sexual satisfaction of his affinity", or a "masculine satisfaction" within himself and inspire him to:

a.  catch enough fish to eat some, store some;
b.  catch enough fish to eat some, store some and then trade some for money for a boat to;
c.  catch even more, so as to employ others, who, themselves, will now need to purchase new poles;
d.  which will have the pole makers busy with inventory, hiring more and...

well, you get the idea.  Eventually, if he turns the fish into enough enterprise, envy will arise in someone else.  If this envy becomes institutionalized, the productive one will be taxed, demonized, and eventually told, "See that business all built up?  You didn't build that."

Envy and Jealousy are different.  Being provoked to jealousy may cause someone to see how productive fishing can be, and imitate it.  Envy is not satisfied to compete, but says, "if I can't have it, I will destroy his."

The opposite is where the man, deliberately created to work, by the design of the connection between his physiology and work, will feel a terrible dissatisfaction in life and will not "feel like a man."

Question:  What does a man do when he does not feel like a man?

Answer;   He goes out and tries to prove to himself that he is a man, outside of work.  This can take on two distinctly testosterone driven activities:

1. Violence
2. Reproduction

Neither are, themselves, bad, with both "Genesis" related.  Man was to "build" up the garden but he was also to "protect" it, and David, whom Mr. Sapir asserts wrote Genesis, described how a boy's play with bows, arrows, rocks, and things, that is, sports, was designed to teach him how to defend his home, his wife, his children, and so on.  Violence is sometimes necessary in self protection.

Reproduction was, especially in the ancient world, necessary not only for a survival of mankind, but individual survival in an agricultural society.

When a baby was born, the parents took care of the children, but when the parents became old, the children took care of them.  This was why the ancients had so many laws protecting the family and why reproduction was also important enough to safeguard the human heart with laws and even vows.

To reproduce a child meant to care for, and protect the child, two distinct outworking of testosterone. A man who thus produced a child fulfilled his manhood, and then provided for his child, which also fulfilled him, and went on to protect his child, including putting a warm roof above the child's head, all fulfilled that which he was created to do.  He felt like a man.

When he does not work, he is "sexually" or "in gender", "off kilter" or off balance and most unfulfilled.

Hence, babies born to men who are idle during the day, rather than being productive, is not only seen, but seen in such a large number that it becomes a cultural distinctive.  Cultural distinctive are not based upon exceptions.

The US statistics about children born into families where there is no father (indiscriminate reproduction, or abandonment) showed acute increases in crime, substance abuse, poverty and all that attends these things.

Do this for a generation or two and you will find that not only does no one get wealthy off of free fish, but become generationally enslaved to waiting upon the fish caught by others, with young sons growing up without fathers exampling what fishing looks like.  Thus is the assertion of the Theory One person; human nature is bent towards laziness and needs "thou shalt nots" early and often in life, while Theory Two says, "No, give him more fish and you'll see.  Its the environment, stupid, not the nature. "

This system has now messed with human nature and has reaped the results with multi-generational welfare.

What will Greece do?

Stay tuned, but do you really see them repealing their endless lists of bureaucratic regulations, resulting in far less government, on their own 'free will'?

How often do we elect law makers versus law repealers?

Each new election means new laws.  Some might be good, and necessary as environment changes (laws to govern vehicles weren't a pressing need in 1776), but what of the myriad of laws that just keep on coming, and keep on making life more complicated, and keep on restricting freedoms and...

keep on lining the pockets of lawyers?

When a man does not feel like a man because he is not producing he is not 'dressing', that is, working, the garden, but neither is he 'keeping' it; that is, protecting it.

Question:  Protecting it against what?

Answer:  Decay.  Erosion.  Rot.  Neglect.  Theft.

Do you see where this theory is going?

In short, the lack of habitual productivity leads to, well, the lack of productivity.  This is specifically seen in:

not taking care of one's home.
Not taking care of one's children.
Not protecting his family from others.
Not protecting his home from others.

and...in detail, not doing homework with the kids, to help them learn about what it takes to "dress and keep" the earth, which means poor grades, which means low paying jobs which means that it actually is better to stay home and get free fish than it is to work at just enough paycheck to lose the free fish.

Then if they have a child, they get a bit more fish, and if they have two, yet a bit more fish again...

The New Testament declaration:  "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat", prohibiting the church from giving out food to those who refuse to work, is condemned as "immoral", as the free fish program gets to hire:

Fish distributors;
Fish record keepers;
Fish inspectors;
Fish supervisors of record keepers;
Fish supervisors of fish distributors;
Fish supervisors of fish inspectors;
Fish managers of fish supervisors, and so on until you have one large but fiercely loyal:

voting block.

Did you ever stop to think that you are nothing more than a voting block?

It is not a pleasant feeling for any of us.

In conversation, I seek to find women who are "for Hilary!" in 2016.  I always ask "why?" with the shortest possible question.

I have yet to find anyone familiar with the political positions of Ms. Clinton.  This may be due to ignorance, or it may be to just how often she changes, but what it comes down to is that they are voting for her because she shares the same sex organs that they do.

This is our "Pavlovian" response and tell us (all) that we are conditioned to respond in a certain way, by media domination and propaganda.  There are certain words that, in public, make me uneasy.  I have asked myself, "why?" recently, and sometimes, I did not even know why.

Thus the success of the 'voting block' mentality, and I consider myself somewhat informed, at least, compared to others.  Ugh!

The Theory One, held by people of faith, says that if given a choice between productivity and laziness, unless specifically trained, we will choose the idle.  We would buy a lottery ticket and cross our fingers.

In fact, our nature is such (here I go again) that deception is within all of us, and must be trained out of us, however, the nature of deception is such that:

the deception within us seeks to deceive us into not recognizing it.
Later, much later in life, I studied the "deceptiveness of human nature" in deeper terms and found that the nature within us, seems to love to convince us that we are the moral superior of others and this is how politicians play their voting blocks.

Recently in a town hall meeting in Minnesota, residents were angry that the US federal government had brought in 110,000 immigrants to their city in "resettlement" and did so without asking the residents.  They worried about money and had not had a voice in this.  The federal government did it.

The argument?

"The chief point of contention was over the refugee resettlement program. When citizens asked for a moratorium on the program until after an economic impact statement had been done, Congressman Emmer asked why anyone would have a problem with people in the United States legally."

Their concerns about finance became a "moral low ground" position as having a "problem" with legal immigration.  They may have worried about the strain on school and health care budgets, but they knew if they kept going, eventually they would be called "racist" for worrying about money.  They also likely knew what is now becoming a 'norm' for us:  main stream media will only report things "one way", and in this case, only in the positive.  

Going back to the fishing pole, would immigration be the same if one could not apply for free fish until one has worked for a certain period of time, putting fish back into the pool?

How you feel about human nature will guide your answer. 

Mankind, according to Theory One, needs incentive, as his nature turns the wrong way, and hunger pains can help drive him.  Since he was created to work, when he is idle, he causes all sorts of problems.  It is like looking forward to coming vacation and working really hard so that you feel you deserved your time off, instead of calling out sick the day before.  As a boy, I enjoyed my dessert more if I ate my vegetables.  There is something to be said about accomplishment, even if it is your own mother saying, "eat healthy!" or competing homework and chores, and then enjoying free time. 

This is because, (if true), we have been created to work, or accomplish things, and in doing so, we fulfill something within us.  The opposite leaves us empty and troubled, and could lead us to trouble others. 

III.  The Result

The company reported that the reference was the dull, "we can only confirm that she worked here for 3 months...", and was frustrated. 

I said, "not a problem.  I will find out why she was terminated."

I was confident because of one thing:

Human nature does not change. 

Mankind was created to do things, therefore it is part of human nature to do stuff.  It is in all of our nature to "do" or accomplish something that has do with with "stuff" and all "stuff" came from the same place we came from:  the ground. 

This is a technique that I use successfully and I teach others in interviewing because no one other than the "I will not speak" person can resist this line of questioning. 

No one.  

I called the reference and got the speech.  

No surprise here. 

I then told the supervisor that I understood and commented on that she sounded very busy.  I was baiting my hook to ask her, "What do you do there?"

Everyone of us likes to talk. 

We have been created to communicate and no other created being on earth communicates like we do. Yes, we have a few who grunt, but mostly, we have amazingly detailed speech and communication through words that is rich in diversity.  

She sounded grateful for the empathetic comment and confirmed, yes, she really was busy.  

I told her that I was familiar with her company, but not her department.  That's all it took and she was off and talking about her busy day, but especially at the excellence of her department.  She had emotional satisfaction, at the end of the day, of the work she and her employees accomplished, every day, Monday through Friday. 

Now, once you have someone talking, the information is flowing and your trained skills from Statement Analysis are picking out the most important words to her (the subject) and you are asking very short questions, yet specific, based upon her words, which only inspires her even more so.

It took her only 15 minutes to establish this rapport and flow of information where it would now be "impolite" for her to withhold information from me even though, prior to her direct statement, she leaked out why the young woman was terminated. 

I listened. 

She finally said, "Do you want to know why I fired her?  I will tell you.  She was a lovely girl, and a great worker.  She was very friendly and outgoing but in this office, the workers are all quiet, keep to themselves, and resented her disrupting their silence with her friendliness and I had to let her go before her probation period ended but she was great..."and on and on she went. 

The company that thought to hire her especially liked her friendly outgoing personality.  For them, it was a perfect fit.  For the quiet, mathematics only like atmosphere of book keeping, she was a terrible match. 

This is just one small sample of how the knowledge of human nature serves me in my success rate and is a small secret of success that I share with you.  

You might want to consider if the account in Genesis, comically mirrored in "Men are From Mars; Women are From Venus" (or wherever they are from) is truth, and if it is, what are its implications for you?

Will it impact how you view your spouse?

Will it help you understand why your son and daughter are quite different?

Will you vote for Hilary?  I say this in jest, but I recognize that there are some who can articulate something along the lines of where Hilary stands, it is just that I have not, in my life time, seen someone so willing to change at any time, over any issue, and blur any possible distinction in opinion, while receiving standing ovations from the very people who should be silent:  the press.  

The kindly but remorseful "hippie" social workers have revealed a lot to me in my research.  There were a few "hanging on to the dream" but those actively in the field, working with new parents, especially, are the most profoundly sorrowful.  I was schooled by one of them, many years ago. 

I was advocating for a "heroin mama", that is, a mother with a heroin addiction who has given birth to her child and wants custody.  She had gotten clean, and saw the child go through withdrawals.  This was a time when nurses made certain that mothers knew how the infant suffered.  Of recent years, nurses are often told that they are not permitted to do so.  

In this case, I did admit that the mother distanced herself, emotionally, through words, from the child's suffering, but the minimization was expected.  

An "old salt", that is, a veteran and self described hippie from the 60's said, "Peter, she doesn't want the baby.  She just wants to get high."

This was in the face of clean random tests and appropriate responses in the nurses' notes. 

"How do you know?" I asked her. 

"She won't keep her nursing appointment with the nurses, Peter.  Watch."

Although I was put off by her harsh demeanor, I knew she had 30 + years in the field, at that time (long retired now), and wondered if I had been taken in by the emotions, rather than by the words, of the mother.  

When the hospital called to report mother did a "no show", I went to the mother's apartment.  

She had not worked a day in her life, but had an apartment paid for, along with cable TV (this was before the internet age), and plenty of extras.  She existed, week to week, without labor. 

When I arrived there, the apartment was a mess and she had her pet dog on her lap and said, "I want the baby but I could not find anyone to watch Snoopy."

I was filled with a profound disappointment.  

I did not mind being "wrong" or even appearing as "gullible" to the professionals that the mother had signed releases for me to talk with, but because I had mis-read her, and to the older professionals, they "knew" the patterns of life. 

You may successfully argue that this was just one case and does not represent the human race of which I will quickly agree with you. 

Yet it is what caused me to study, take notes, and use in my interviews, that taught me my opinion of human nature; the mother's, as well as my own, and it was not a flattering view. 

I recognize that many of you will disagree with some ancient story from antiquity about how we came into existence.  I do wonder, however, and rely upon the comments, just how many of you are open minded, to learn, and grow. 

It is no different than the early questions in seminars where I seek to learn who is overly cynical, overly gullible, and who possesses emotional intelligence, which includes the element of humility.  

I admire those who hurt over someone in need of fish, and only differ from them in how to best help those in need.  I do not know anyone, nor have I met anyone, who would not personally open their fridge and share their food with a fellow human being in need.  Whenever a crisis hits, Americans give.  This is why "fake hate" is so successful:  we are a generous people.  But should this generosity be enforced by government, which means the lengthy list of government employees?  

What you feel about human nature dictates how you feel about big government versus small government. 

The Apostle Paul, in writing to the churches, claimed to have the authority of Christ in his own declarations and said, "A man that does not provide for his own house hold, is worse than one who does not believe", for this one, claiming to be a follower of Christ, like a "hater", is "carrying the Name in vain", that is, declaring himself to be one thing by his words, but the opposite by his actions. 

Question:  This terrible condemnation of hypocrisy was based upon what?

Answer:  Labor.  Work.  Provision.  Protection.  

This is where some of our child support laws initially came from, even though many that believe it do not recognize that it was part of the arguments from the man who used the Genesis account as the foundation of his arguments.  

I also recognize that this view point, that is, "Creationism" is not only unpopular today, but may become, in some form or another, contrary to laws in the United States.  

I am of this opinion, now, due to court rulings that had to do with religious freedom in practice, especially that of orthodox Jews seeking to practice their faith in the United States, only to be successfully sued for practicing their faith.  

Creationism itself, is of faith, but it is also something, sans the portion of creation, itself, that many people today still hold to.  They may not recognize where it came from, but they raise their children to a code that is inherited generationally, even if they know not its origin.  They tell their children:

"do not hit your sister" but follow it with lessons on how hitting impacts the victim.  The use the negative, first, and then the positive.  This is the "thou shalt not" philosophy that is ancient. 

When Paul argued, "does not nature itself teach you...?" as a rhetorical question, he was referring to that order in Genesis that appeared "out of sequence", but was only "out of sequence" to us, until we understood:

1.  God made man
2.  God said it was "not good" for man to be alone
3.  God then brought to man all the animals in nature, rather than making woman 
4.  This caused man to become acutely and perhaps, painfully, aware of his status as "not good" because, unlike all the animals, he had no mate. 
5.  Then, woman was created. 

Lastly, as a caution to those who celebrate the crushing of freedom, please note that even as you hold to an opinion where opposition has been crushed, either legally, or through law suits, or even through public shaming, loss of job, reputation, etc, the freedom surrendered, will, some day if history has its say, come back to ensnare you, as well. 

We will get to Theory Two, the optimistic philosophy, eventually, as we work through various beliefs about human nature. 

I hope that you have "food for thought" for yourself, and consider yourself fortunate to still be able to hear a view, publicly, that one day soon, you may not be able to hear, at least, legally, or without consequence, since various attempts or ideologies that will suppress freedom over the internet, specifically, are now public knowledge.  If a "gun forum" can be shut down, even though I am not a gun owner, I know that other forums that do not discuss illegal activities can be shut down, too.  

In our freedom of speech, we held that it was the conspiratorial and treasonous speech, against the king of England, specifically, that they had in mind.  It was not necessary to guard the freedom of those who agreed with the colonialists, but those who opposed them.  This is where the famous "Voltairian" quote arose, which has been said in many ways, sometimes comically, but basically is this:

I don't agree with you in what you are saying.  Yet, I defend, even with my life, your right to say it.  


I hope that this impacts your choices when you examine "the expected" in analysis. 

 I recognize, however, that language is possibly about to undergo the biggest change ever in human history of speech.  It is something perhaps not even considered prior to our day.  

We know that language shifts.  I said to someone yesterday, "Say, when did you start rooting for the New York Mets?" deliberately using one of my favorite phrases from the 1930's.

Sadly, the person just answered the question without comment, "I've always rooted for them.  I hate the Yankees."

Social experiment failure.  

How marvelously odd it is that an ancient story, thousands of years old, has been carried down through so many generations, in so many countries, of so many different languages, and continues to influence us, whether we recognize it or not.  

You may not agree with the New Testament command not to feed someone who refuses to work, but at least you know its origin and why some people hold to it, and why they warn against the consequences to entire generations that are given free fish.  

It is the basis for tolerance:  understanding, even when disagreeing.  

                                                   

Language has always changed.  The analyst must change with it, as these changes have been in shifts, and mostly in expressions.  What we now face may be unprecedented, however, leaving us to wonder if Statement Analysis, based upon scientific principle, will still be considered useful as it is today. 

As to shifts in language:

One need to only repair their breeches in England, or remind himself to be gay during the Great Depression or just...

Take a telegram.

"Coming to England.  Stop.  Meet me in one month.  Stop"

Why the word "stop" since they charge by the word?  I don't know.  

"Say, since when did you start rooting for the Mets?

"Broads, dames, tomatas"were your grandparents' language somewhere in "tar nation" (a country I have yet to find on the map) where black-legged lawyers, flat foots and tommy rot intermingled without want.

Language changes have come in shifts and it is only seen as "dramatic" in the passage of many years in time.  From Shakespearean English to modern English is a large leap, and the analysis must keep pace.

We did see a change in the past 20+ years with the internet, and analysis has shifted to discern truth from deception, as well as gleaned content in emails, texts, and abbreviated electronic messages.  Even type writers, with "all caps" took on new meaning for the analyst.

Where dropped pronouns are the base reference point, we shift with text messages, learning that if abbreviations are the norm, then typing out a full word equals emphasis, or sensitivity, calling us to attention.  This is a shifting that we do, seeking to put ourselves into the shoes of the culture.

The analyst cannot sit still as language changes, but these changes, even in the internet, were not breath-taking changes that overhauled conclusions.

This is "the expected" in analysis, where we attempt, via imagination and understanding, to consider what we expect someone to say, and later, to do, based upon his words, and the culture he lives in.  For example, "they went out to the garden  to talk", in ancient Israel, may have been no so much that the garden was where the scenery was best to relax the eyes, but where privacy in close quarters was afforded.  In Maine, "wicked hot" has nothing to do with evil.  This may seem overly simplistic, but you will see how, as the shifting goes to novelty, that truth, itself, is said to be fluid and transient.

This all may now change for us in a way that may be unprecedented in our history.  It is not so much a language "shift", but something that could undermine the principles of analysis.  

Objectivity Versus Subjectivity 

Each one of us has an internal code of language.  There are three exemptions to this unchanging principle.

The principle, itself, is what gives us our 'marching orders' to decode it.  At a training seminar, I ask what come to mind when I say the word, "boy", and have attendees jot down the response.

The answers range from a newborn child to a 21 year old male in the military.  This is a spread of more than two decades. Each of us has this, and the analyst 'decodes' it, that is, seeks the meaning of the subjective word, in discerning deception.

The three exemptions are:

1.  Time, as measured on a clock.  "1:25PM" is to be 25 minutes past the afternoon (literally, after noon) hour of 1 o'clock.  This is not subjective but "objective time on the clock" in analysis, which tells you that there must be something else in mind.  True enough, we also measure time in terms of "pace" of a statement; that is, how many words a person uses, per hour of time, in describing an event over 8 to 12 hours, minimum, of time.

2.  Articles.

The articles, "the" and "a" (and "an") identify an element of 'time' in the sense that, "a man" once introduced, if cited later in time, will be "the man."

Whether to use "a man" or "the man" is instinctive and does not cause one to slow down the pace of processing words to employ.  Therefore, when an article is "wrong", it is a signal of possible deception.

3.  Thirdly, saving the 'best for last' is Pronouns.  

Pronouns are intuitive, and take no pre thought.  If a pronoun is "wrong", you are looking at deception.  They give us 100% reliability in a child over the age of 5.

If one must pause to consider, "Was I alone, or were others present", you are looking at likely deception.  When the pronoun is "wrong", you are looking at deception.

When someone claims to be alone, but uses "we", it is a verbal indication that he was not alone, and this is 100% reliable.  Dennis Dechaine killed young Sarah Cherry.  He claimed to have gotten lost in the woods and was alone, not with his victim.  In his open statement to the question, "What were you doing?" he said he was admiring the deciduous trees but got up as "we were losing daylight."

Analysis of his other statements only affirmed the finding.  It is a rule of science to not conclude something on a single indicator, which must be followed, yet, if there were to be one exception to this rule of science, it would be pronouns.

But what happens when language shifts?

Answer:  We must shift.

Objection:  But what happens when language shifts with no reference point?

Answer:   We become a people of deception.

Once this takes firm root, and grows, it will impact courts and how testimony is heard.

I was attempting to understand the UCLA's professors' guide to racism.

If I moved to Italy, and worked hard at learning the Italian language, and a co-worker said to me, "You're Italian is excellent!" I would consider this a compliment and encouragement.

Yet from UCLA:   You meet and become friends with someone who has immigrated to the United States, where you live.  He studied English and is so proud of how he is doing.  You recognize his progress and say to your friend, "You speak English really well."

This might appear to be complimentary and encouraging to your friend, as you recognize his effort.  This was your intent in communication but you now learn that what you said to him was something quite different.

You threatened him.

 It no longer compliments the person for learning English in an English speaking country, but says "I have aggressive tendencies towards you.  You are a foreigner and will always be such, and you are "exotic" in your own race."

Remember:  language is the currency we trade in.

This redefining words in America has taken on an entire new pace, and is the "directives" of UCLA.

When we can't say that anything is objectively right or wrong, better or worse, the only yardstick we have left for behavior is feelings.  This is the subjectivity that will make language change, over time.  

The United States of "feelings." 

A few minutes on Facebook and you'll see how this new 'god', or 'final arbitrator' has emerged and how the worship or submission to it, has become so popular. What one 'feels', even if the objectivity behind the feeling is denied, is now its reality.  This is also labeled an "identity", which, as time goes by, may supplant the rights of "citizens." Stay tuned as we attempt to analyze words.  

You've read of women saying "clapping" is aggressive and patriarchal, calling for "jazz hands", and likely chuckled.  I did, too, so don't be too hard on yourself.  Somewhere in the audience was a visually impaired person being discriminated because she cannot "hear" jazz hands.  

Yet, what happens when we can no longer define something for what it is?  What analysis can be done?

What if one simply lies but says this "feels" like it is truth?

The Bruce Jenner example stands before us.  Behind it, is both genetics and truth, as well as science, up for grabs in communication. 

A 65 year old grandfather has male organs but "feels", that is, perceives via emotion, that he is a woman, and has himself designed (dress, exogenous hormones, surgery, make up, etc) to look like a female college co-ed.  

Is he female?

Is he a co-ed?  (this speaks to age)

The media, almost completely, applauded him as having "courage." Now, not only must we do violence to the scientific identification of "male", but also of "female", as well as age, and we must now ask for clarity on what constitutes "courage" in our English language.

Since you told your friend from Spain that his English was coming along really well, but now learned that these words were not complimentary, but were "micro-aggressive", you're ability to communicate (and my ability to analyze your communication) is in doubt. 

The truth is that Bruce Jenner is a man, which can be scientifically verified by checking the engine under the hood.  Not only is it deceptive to call him a female, but the deception, itself, is praised in, perhaps, the highest positive wording possible:  "courage."

Next, what of those who did not agree with Jenner's perception of himself, since he had male organs?

They were labeled "hateful" and "violators of civil rights."

Now, we need a new definition for "hate" than what has been commonly accepted.  This is a major shift, though not as severe as what has happened to the words, "male" and "female."

If "truth" is "hate", what is a "lie", but love?  "Love" , one of the most widely defined terms, used to mean, "seeking the highest good of its object", and "affectionately bonded", and so forth.  

When truth, itself, is dethroned, something naturally must take its place.  This is why subjectivity leads to human tyranny.  

Lying is not simply satisfied with itself, but must accuse its denying one. 

You have read this many times at this blog.

We use it to uncover truth knowing that people will not look upon their lie, and lie about it; therefore, it is a major strategy in interviewing and written questioning.  It is why, for example, liars who are exposed, go through an take a polygraph and fail.  It's a tried and proven technique.

It is the same with standards that it is with individuals, because, quite simply, a standard that is a lie, is simply a single lie, repeated and accepted by enough people to become the acceptable.

Follow this:

One person, one lie.  One challenger to the lie,  one demonized for daring to challenge.

Many liars, challengers refuse to accept the new standard, they are then demonized.  This is where the response to theft was heard:

Person A claims to be a victim of a hate crime and starts a Go Fund Me with tremendous results, except there was not hate crime, as the person did it, himself or herself.

The one who proves that the money seeker is actually scamming is labeled:  hate monger.

Remember, "hate" in this sense, is emotional. It means to have hatred or ill feelings.  It is not speaking of action, but motive.

The United States of Feelings means objective truth must be sacrificed to the higher 'god', or final arbitrator:  one's feelings, urges, or perceptions.

This then works itself out in language.

When the standard of objective truth is torn down, what remains is a lie.  Lies, like liars, attack those who simply point out, "this is not true."

Remember the case of "missing" 13 year old Hailey Dunn?  Investigators thought they had a run-away on their hands, while we listened to the mother on The Nancy Grace Show reveal that her daughter was dead, mom needed an alibi, and drugs were part of the equation.  

When the mother, Billie Jean Dunn was accused of lying, she was 'forced' by her own ego to take, and fail the polygraph. 

Where did this "lead her" in her "quest to find missing Hailey"?

answer;  to attack the police.  

She attacked the polygraph first, then the polygrapher, and then on to the police, themselves, including personal insults.  

None of this, however, had anything to do with finding her daughter.  It was just what liars do when caught:  they attack. 

When many people accept a lie, they, as a group, attack anyone who says, "that is not true."

So those who said, "Bruce is a boy" were thus declared "right wing bigots" who probably had guns and would strap themselves with bombs, run into a mall, and yell, What would Jesus do?", while attempting to kill handicapped minorities.  

Yes, I do read the main stream media on occasion.  

Liars always vilify, and it is generally done in "feelings" rather than debate.  This is an individual trait that translates to mob mentality.  (sorry, "sheep" mentality.  I wish to offend no one). 

Without objective truth at the center of his or her world view, the politician who "lies" will say or do anything, moral or immoral, to accomplish an agenda sought for.  Instead of the core value being truth, it is results based upon feelings, not logic.  

An emotion-driven agenda supplants reason, and even the rule of law.


I recognize human nature can be hard for us to be consistent. Principle can face off against our own  desires, and this is when it is convenient to become quickly subjective and "situational" for us.  It is a powerful draw for us, especially when there is money on the line.   But there are things that can influence a person's likelihood to stand on principle. One is having a world view stating that consistency actually is better than inconsistency.  Another is that "thou shalt not steal" was drummed into his head at an early age. 

Think of how easy it appeared for Cindy Anthony to lie under oath. 

We could predict which time she was going to lie by her answers to the oath where sometimes she said, "so help me" and sometimes she said, "so help me, God."

Which one do you think she more boldly lied after uttering?  (put your answer in the comments section) 

The following is statement analysis of the words of Judge Lisa Gorcyca.  

Should this news article prove to be false, all the analysis should be discarded.  

I write this because of my years of experience in investigating child abuse claims and my subsequent time in court.  

It is challenging to believe that these quotes are accurate.  Even with "two sides to every story" it is still challenging.  

   

Judge compares Bloomfield Hills children to Charles Manson, sends them to Children's Village for refusing to speak with father

event from five years prior

Although the father's statement is immaterial to the abuse he allowed the judge to heap upon his children, he was asked about hitting his ex wife.

Had the mother emotionally abused the children into hating their father; or had the father physically abused his wife before the children, neither abuse would justify what the judge did.  I submit the statement for analysis and interest in the case.

He was accused of hitting the mother where one boy said he saw it.  In his statement, he said that his ex wife accused him of pushing her but the police confirmed that nothing happened.

We will let his words guide us.

Here is the statement he gave media about it:

“The one incident that happened was five years ago I had a five-hour unsupervised visit. We were in a park and Maya was circling around the park the whole time, trying to sabotage the visit. Two hours into the visit, the children ended up in her car and she was trying to leave. I tried to prevent her from leaving because it was my time with the children. I was very careful not to do anything but she claimed that I pushed her. She screamed at the children, ‘Call 911! Call 911!’ The police showed up and Maya was screaming and the police confirmed that nothing happened. But in the children’s mind, that’s what happened.”

Here it is again, with analysis

Expected Versus Unexpected 

In Statement Analysis, we hold to certain expectations of what we expect an innocent person to say.  In this case, especially given the contemptuous divorce, we expect to hear him either say "I did not hit her", or an explanation of an altercation, which may have elements of minimization.  This is expected and normal. 

a.  "I didn't hit her"
b.  "I hit her but we fought"
c.  "I was defending myself"
d.  "I hit her but it was wrong..."


“The one incident that happened was five years ago I had a five-hour unsupervised visit. 

He was asked what had happened that caused his kids to not speak to him for five years.  The one child said he saw his father hit his mother.  

Here, he calls it "the one" incident, which uses a numerical.  "The one" suggests that there were other incidents that he was considering, but he picked out a specific one to report.  "The" is an article, which is instinctive.  

He reports the length of the visit as "five hours", which is a long time.  

Please note that he calls this an "unsupervised" visit.  We would want to know if he had previously been given supervised visits, and if so, why would they be supervised.  

We were in a park and Maya was circling around the park the whole time, trying to sabotage the visit. 

Here, the word "we" is likely reference to himself and the kids.  This shows a closeness from his perspective. 

He reported that Maya was "circling around the park the whole time" which he attributes to "sabotaging" the visit.  He does not tell us how this sabotaged the visit, if the kids saw it, or what she did, other than circling, that would cause him to sabotage.  

Was she circling the park for five hours?  Was she in her car?  Was she making contact with the children, or attempting to?

We need to know what about this action caused sabotage?  If the kids saw her and became anxious, he would have to tell us so.  


Two hours into the visit, the children ended up in her car and she was trying to leave. 

Here we have another reference to time.  "Two hours into the visit", that is to say, two hours out of the five permitted or agreed to. 

Next note "the children ended up in her car" is passive language.  This does not tell us how they got into the car.  This is information that is withholding the responsibility for them getting into the car.  Did they go in themselves?  Did he put them in the car?  Did she?  We believe what one tells us, so we now see that he does not wish to give details on what caused the children to go into the car. 

"ended up..." also spans time, besides being in passive voice.  

"and she was trying to leave", has:

a.  "and" connecting the passivity of kids getting into the car, and the mother's attempt to leave.  What is missing is the precise information between the two events.  This should be considered withheld information.  

b.  "she was trying to leave" does not tell us how she was trying.  Was she behind the wheel?  Was she trying to get into the car?

I tried to prevent her from leaving because it was my time with the children.

Note:

a.  "I tried" means attempted and failed, as it is used in the past tense.  Since we do not know where she was, we also do not know how it is that he tried to prevent her. 

b.  "because" Without being asked, "Why did you try to prevent her?" he offers it in anticipation of being asked, therefore, it is very sensitive information to him.  He justifies what he did because it was "his time" with the children.  This was not because he was father, nor because they wanted to be with him, nor to say because he wanted to see them, but because it was his time.  This is possession over time, with "my time" followed by the word "with" between "me" and the children, which is distancing language. 

c.  "with" between people indicates distance.  He began with "we" but here changed to "my time with the children."

While she was circling, the pronoun "we" was used, but now, with the kids in the car by withheld information explaining how, there is distance between him and the children. 

This distance is connected to his need to justify ("because") his action, which is thus taken with the missing information of passivity. 

What he did to the children's mother in attempting to prevent her from leaving is something that caused emotional distance between him and his children. 

 I was very careful not to do anything but she claimed that I pushed her. 

Please note that it is impossible to be very careful not to do anything, as children learn in playing games about standing perfectly still.  This is a statement:
a.  in the negative 
b.  with sensitivity 
c  it comes after the distancing language between himself and the children.  

Next note that he says "she claimed I pushed her" is the perfect time for him to say "but I did not push her."

He does not deny pushing her.  

If he is unwilling or unable to say it, we are not permitted to say it for him.  


She screamed at the children, ‘Call 911! Call 911!’ 

Note the inclusion of "at the children" with "screamed"

The police showed up and Maya was screaming and the police confirmed that nothing happened. But in the children’s mind, that’s what happened.”

Note the police "showed up", and not "arrived" or "came." This is a less formal language. 
Note the police "confirmed that nothing happened" though he just told us that he tried to prevent her.  How was this done?  He stated that she claimed that he pushed her, but did not bring himself to say he did not push her. 

"That" is distancing language, and is expected. 

He brings up the accusation of pushing her, but does not deny it. 

                                         

Purple lions

                            Coal In the Mouth in America 

 by Peter Hyatt

"She's got coal in her mouth" whispered a young woman to another, referring to her elderly neighbor. "She doesn't know what's going to happen to her for it."

This was an expression of the German people under the tyranny of an extreme left wing socialism that was distinctly national in nature, yet had encroached upon every aspect of German society, from the cradle (have more Aryan babies) to the grave (Euthanasia) and everything in between, including the Hitler Youth.

The "coal in the mouth" was used as an expression to warn others to stay away from someone who might whisper against the Nazis which, if you are caught listening and not reporting, could endanger your own life.

The last thing the Nazi party needed was the last thing any messianic government needs:  freedom of speech.  The Nazi party would not abide freedom to oppose it and citizens soon learned, first from social consequence but eventually to mortal consequence, the cost of speaking against their government's opinions.

In Socialism, government is an opinion with a gun, that is, an opinion with the ability to coerce citizens into agreeing with it.  Thus those with "coal in their mouths" could be either avoided outright as the most passive response, or if identified, could lose their employment as a result of not joining the party, which, once war began, changed quickly, leading to imprisonment and death.

Where there is tyranny, death is, historically, not far behind. Every major world leader who promised to use government to enhance the social standing of his citizens brought extreme bloodshed.

Objective truth is very limiting to mankind, as the laws of nature show.  Studying the law of gravity led to flight, but even flight today must some time land.

When objective truth is torn down, tyranny comes for a simple reason:

Nature abhors a vacuum, and the knee-jerk replacement is human emotion.  Human emotions are tyrannical in nature and because they are so personal, when you disagree with the one asserting, you are often labeled as "hateful", or evil, in some way.  We no longer debate if a law is good for mankind, but if it feels good to someone, and the rancor turns against those who do not share the same feeling.

A law is one, now, that "feels good" rather than "does good." This is why so many people are shocked at such illogical agenda the extremists push in the name of "progression." Standing as a symbol of this is the "identity" created by the US Supreme Court, which is why few seem to fret over the destruction of the US Constitution.  They must wait to learn what an "identity" really is when "identity" trumps "citizen" based upon this new law.  Other than the immediate victor, America will begin to mourn the loss of freedom.

Illogical reflex.

Many of the "progressive" laws or assertions come in the form of shocking headlines and people often say, "I can't believe how stupid this is!" but as the main stream media support the elitist views in order to maintain access to the White House, for instance, the reporting causes the public to 'fall in line', especially as the emotion or urge behind the ideology employs the propaganda technique of vilifying opponents.

If racism is illogical discrimination based upon race, the government's reaction was not to use leadership to encourage people away from racism, but to employ it, itself.  Your mother (or now, grandmother) told you, "two wrongs don't make a right" but the New York Times celebrated "affirmative action", decades ago, as a victory for minorities.  Racism by you is evil, but racism by th government is good.  This is an example of calling good "evil, while calling evil "good."

The Bruce Jenner example stands symbolically before us as an assault on science.  Main Stream Media now addresses a man who is scientifically and factually a 65 year old man, as a college aged female.  He is addressed as a woman because he "feels" like a woman.  Feeling trumps science.  But because this is human emotion, the tyranny means that those who call him "Bruce" are labeled as "hateful, judgmental, religious right wing nuts with guns."

With Ramadan almost over, the Ramadan scorecard looks like this on Day 23:

Number of people killed in the name of Islam:  2227

Number of people injured in the name of Islam: 2718

Number of people killed in the name of Judaism and Christianity:  0

Number of Muslims killed by Islamophobia:      0

We can do something similar with rapes of women and murders of homosexuals.

Number of protests by same-sex advocates against same sex violence:  0

Yet the president said we were training "ISIL" (see tele-prompter) and "we will never be at war with Islam" as he continues to denigrate Christianity, and offering billions of dollars to make the nuclear deal with Israel's sworn enemy, Iran, though they continue to chant, "Down with America; Death to Israel."

Islam is the religion that teaches the Koran.  The Koran teaches its followers to conquer others by violence and extort a tax from them.  It specifically calls for death to homosexuals.  Obama promised that our country will never be at war with this ideology.

Yet, in falling in line with the extremists, there are no protests against Islam by the gay community; instead, targeting and destroying a bakery, and a Jewish organization that freely offered help to those who wanted it.

A 21 year old Muslim college student said "I don't feel safe because the movie, "American Sniper" was being played at her school.  The school canceled the showing.  "Feeling" tyranny exercised again and again.  Her religion teaches death, but a movie made her unsafe, though there had been no anti Muslim violence; that is, no evidence of a threat.  The college officials measured the scientific evidence of potential violence versus the feelings someone had.

The "feelings" won.

This is why, sometimes unfairly, leftists are called "stupid" because of illogical rule of emotions being backed by the ruling left.  The assertion, however, is that the leftist is "morally superior" as her feelings arise from her.  I saw this recently  in a rant on Facebook about the minimum wage.  The poster was tired of being insulted, so she insulted her critics and claimed moral superiority, yet this was done without a single business study of the historic impact of the minimum wage.  It characterized business owners as "evil" and workers as "good" and propagated her own business, in the red, as the shining example of righteousness, even though going out of the red into profit would allow her to hire more workers.  Yet, "feelings" trumped fact, or in the case, "feelings" ruled, and no facts, pro or con, were introduced.  Unwittingly, she praises Grecian practice as a moral example with the lesson:  losing money is right, while making money is wrong.

Thus, the "illogic" that people read today, so often, that shock wears off, much like the latest "scandal fatigue" with all things Clinton.  People are just 'too accustomed" to the shock and, like Hillary commenting on the dead in Bengazi, "What does it matter?"

"Identity" has urges which sometimes change, dissipate, or change back again.  It is a creation of a new entity in the United States, unprecedented in our history, but not so in human history.   This is the ultimate of inconsistent and will have inconsistent out workings and inconsistent application and...eventually, consequences that people will not like.

The same is here in America, today, with the government's new declaration that homosexuality is no longer a psychological disorder, having been taken out of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) a generation ago, by protests, violence and threats, as statistical data did not change,  but is now something to be considered by the ruling elite, in the highest moral understanding, that is, to be affirmed,  with parades, celebrations and symbols, above that which historic Judaism and Christianity declare.  This opinion is now an enforced opinion, where freedom to oppose it no longer exists without consequence. Hilary Clinton said religious people need to "change their beliefs." This is an honest statement from Mrs. Clinton in that she recognizes that the two ideologies are not compatible.

This may sound like music to the ears of the same sex rights movement, but those who prize freedom above identity, including same sex, say otherwise, even though they have been shut out from main stream media.

Several years ago, it was more common to see protests against same sex marriage, in defense of historical marriage than today.   Protesters  on both sides had the freedom to hold up signs seeking to have their opinion heard by the public.  Same sex proponents and people of faith both had equal rights to protest, one standing with signs, walking in circles, on one side of the street, while others, walking in circles, carrying in signs on the other side of the street without violence.   It was said to be "democracy in action" to the rest of the world.

No longer is this true.

In a protest several years ago, there was a man who was a licensed social worker, who, upon religious conviction, lobbied against same-sex marriage.  He received numerous threats, including the threat to get him fired, claiming his "prejudice" would keep him from serving "all" the community in which he labors.  He denied such, and said that he  willingly helped all people, regardless of sexuality, adding that he did not ask about their sexuality, nor did any of his colleagues.

This did not satisfy the social activists because of human nature.  They did not "feel", emotionally, that this was sufficient, and for good reason; the "feeling" is the source of tyranny.

Now, with the Supreme Court having usurped the Constitution, this same man, should a formal complaint be filed,  stands to lose his professional license under the claim  he could not appropriately serve the community he is licensed to serve, since it now includes same-sex married couples that his state must recognize, and would lose his ability to provide for his family.  Someone "feels" he might not treat one person the same as another, therefore, this "feeling" trumps facts, so the accused could suffer much distress, with fines, imprisonment, loss of health, loss of standing, and so on.  This is simply because he disagreed, in principle, about sex.  This is what tyrants do:  they pummel disagreement.

This is the same as Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 1940's.

It is the same, now, for not only licensed social workers, but for licensed nurses, doctors and other professionals who may face punitive action and mandatory "sensitivity training" by the fascist mandate that they are not permitted to "think" that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, or even that it is objectionable on religious grounds, as sin.

This is to legislate thought, something most of us believed would never happen on American soil.  This is the reason many veterans fought for this country, risking and even sacrificing their lives "in the defense of democracy", that is, rule by elected officials, and not judges who legislate from the bench.

Even in Major League Baseball, one religious athlete was publicly castigated because he did not want to attend a speech by a former ball player who is a homosexual.  He was employed to play baseball, and did not come to work to be lectured about sexuality. His extremist general manager thought otherwise and if not for a hot-streak hitting, the player would likely have found himself 'in the doghouse' rather than the dug out.

In the National Football League,  teams were bullied into drafting a marginal player solely because said player had sex with men.  The criteria for a million dollar contract was no longer restricted to football, but now, the ideology ruling via "feeling" or "urge", prevailed.  He received a big check and was drafted and fellow teammates were "warned" not to "feel" uncomfortable in the locker room with one who, in the words of some of the teammates, engaged in "unnatural" acts.  This was their opinion, that is, something invisible, and within their minds, yet some feared to articulate this thought, for not wanting to lose their job.

Publicly, teams said one thing, but privately quotes revealed the pressure they felt.

Said player, drafted and celebrated, not for talent, but for having sex with men, was called a "hero", yet now is no longer in the NFL.  The NFL

Although a social worker or medical professional can say that he or she treats all people the same, in practice, these claims against them are likely to increase, emboldened by such court actions as we saw against JONAH, the Jewish organization that offered assistance to those who identified as homosexual, but did not wish to live a homosexual life.  They voluntarily came to the faith-based organization for intervention.  The punitive court ruling against them  is just the tip of the ice berg.  While no court would mandate that a mosque perform a Jewish wedding ceremony, we can now expect militant homosexuality to apply for voting membership, specially in churches and religious organizations that hold that "man shall not lie with man, as with woman, for it is an abomination" to be eternal truth.  Should a practicing homosexual apply, for example, as a youth pastor, and be refused because his activity is against the Scriptural or Confessional standard of the organization, he can thus sue them for discrimination.  This may then next happen to private religious schools.

What would the courts do in such suits?  Likely what it did against JONAH, siding with the wealthy Southern Poverty Law Center in seeking the demise of religious organizations that "have coal in their mouths" against the encroaching tyrannical government.  Note the inclusion of emotional rhetoric that accompanies the arguments against people of faith with the principle word employed being "hate" in some form.

Will licensed social workers and medical professionals be able to hold on to their licenses while exercising their right to freedom of religion?

What of those professionals who express their personal opinions about sexuality, in private?  Will they be  seen as having "coal in the mouth" and reported as "anti-gay" with the hopes that their employers will terminate them?

What of gay people who call for tolerance for people of faith who disagree with them?  Will they be the "uncle toms" of gay rights?

Or, what happens to the licensed professional, including a public school teacher, who is known to attend a church or synagogue that holds to Biblical marriage?  Will this professional's license and subsequent employment be in jeopardy due to a private religious belief?

It reminds me of the loaded question from "The Mortal Storm" where a beloved Jewish professor suddenly lost his esteem,  standing in the university, and then his job, and finally his life, all because of his answer to the following question:  

"Do you really believe Aryan blood and non-Aryan blood are the same?"

The character responded that "science proves that all of our blood is the same" thus began the spiral where his fellow teachers feared talking to him, down to the end of his life in a concentration camp.

Without any scientific evidence quoted, the judge in the JONAH case likened the view of psychological trauma related to homosexuality to those who challenged Christopher Columbus claiming the world was flat. He refused to allow the bevy of psychologists, psychiatrists and other professionals who intended to testify in the positive change in the mental health of those who voluntarily sought help, conflicting the testimony of the two men whom the SLPC used to bring the major suit.  (A video emerged of one of the two young men volunteering to becomes a spokesman for JONAH).

This judge is up upon his science as strongly as he is with  history:  even the ancient Greeks had come close to measuring the circumference of the earth long before Columbus set sail.

We are now, in the present, a society where many professionals will not dare to give a contrary opinion on homosexuality for fear of being labeled "homophobic", losing one's employment through various means of pressure or protest, and perhaps, being seen as a 'criminal' who perpetrates a 'hate' crime, simply for holding to a belief about human sexuality. The financial cost, as JONAH exhibits, is destructive.  Homosexuals who support the religious freedom prior to the recent decision were a small and often despised minority who were called "self - loathing" for wanting to allow religious freedom.

Homosexuals who value freedom of speech  know that the Supreme Court's decision was not a celebratory day for them, but a blow to freedom, and with the Islamization under Barack Hussein Obama, may one day long for the "good old days" where their biggest gripe was of hurt feelings from  religious people, instead of living, perhaps,  under the militant views of the Koran,  which  calls for their deaths by stoning.

There is one other thing that should be understood by those of you who seek to understand human nature.

Resentment.

This is the sad reality that impacts society, but is fueled by baiting politicians who always benefit, buying, or selling short, American society.

When the government legislates "feelings", either through actual laws, court rulings, fines, suspensions, punishments, etc; in short, coercion of some form, there is a quiet, but powerful resentment that builds up within the one who has been demonized for the thoughts within his head.

Want to see a "white pride" movement in America, to further destroy the frail structure of race relations today?

Accomplish it by falsely blaming and demonizing white people, through Hollywood, political speeches, and main stream media.  Utilize the powerful "feeling" to trump laws and principles.

Tell innocent people, with light skin, that the government policies of the last 50 years in Baltimore, which was ruled mostly by black people in the Democrat party, that the financial poverty, moral poverty and criminal culture is all because of white Republicans, who should be "ashamed" of their skin color, no matter how illogical it sounds, and have the main stream media repeat it often enough, and we will see the inevitable "backlash" of human nature.  This is the sad reality of our nature.  Bully someone enough and eventually, he may fight back.

History is on the side of logic, consistency and the laws of nature.
Civil unrest, confusion and eventual death is on the side of illogic, inconsistency, and war with the laws of nature.

So when a school goes bankrupt because it had to build new bathrooms that were "gender neutral" because a social-engineering mother dressed up her little boy in girl's clothing to make him "unique" and "special", while other schools order new curriculum that removes all the words "boys" and "girls" from them, and mandates that a white teacher assaulted by a black male student should be disciplined for not understanding the "methodology" of male, black learning, and when a "feeling" that many cultures must be "better" than our culture, and imports a culture that vows to kill you, and begins to experience success, you will know the consistency in history.

As lawyers line their pockets in each illogical move, and the governing elite continue to build a voter base of those who reject logic, the "coal" in the mouth will change.  If today it is sex, it will be something else tomorrow, and judging by the factors, it may be that the same-sex movement's refusal to criticize Islam's murdering of homosexuals as well as its pedophilic-like hatred of women, as seen in Sweden's rape epidemic and fudging of statistics, so it is that today's "coal in the mouth" will be a different piece of coal, but the notion of lost freedom will remain the same.

People of faith (Jews and Christians) support basic human "rights" for all "citizens", regardless of who they have sex with.  They disagree with some, but tolerance was essential to both sides.  This is now gone, replaced with tyrannical ideologies that must be implemented now, without pausing to give consideration, and must have an enemy to blame.

In Germany, the Nazi party targeted Jews as the principle enemy, to the point where "feeling" trumped science, at its core, claiming "Aryan and non-Aryan genetic difference" because they "felt" it to be so.

Those who did not agree, even as German citizens, were persecuted by whom?  This is a critical question to answer.

You may quickly say, "the Nazis", but I must ask you to continue your thought process by asking, "Who were the Nazis?"

The "Nazis" were those who, far more than being only extreme socialists of nationalism, they were actually a created "identity", with the claim of usurping the law of science.

Those who did not agree with the "feeling" that Aryan blood was different than non-Aryan blood  were persecuted by this new creation, known as an  "identity", which trumped German citizenship.

Jews did not initially understand this.

Many said that they were "German citizens" and had even fought for Germany in the Great War.  They failed to grasp that the Nazi was not a political party, but a brand new "identity", replete with its own "feeling" that over-rode, or nullified, the simple scientific finds under a microscope.

The US Supreme Court has created an "identity" in which they have not only legislated, which is why a dissenter wrote that it is the death of democracy, since what awaits courts based upon this ruling is a  tidal wave of degradation of citizens, but it also came from non-elected officials, trumping the Constitution.

At the center of this is how we "feel" about two very nice women, living down the block, who, we were told, were not allowed to leave property to one another.  This did not "feel" right, even if it wasn't true from the start.

Rather than respect the differences, a small bakery was targeted as was a small Jewish counseling program.  Both were pummeled and unpaid fines can lead to imprisonment.  People quake before offering a personal opinion on this topic leaving them embittered at being silenced, or worse, angry at being slandered.

This is just the beginning.

This is the tip of the ice berg of a madness that history tells us will leave bloodshed in its wake.
It always has led to the loss of life.  Tyranny reaches its zenith in death of opposition.

We wanted to make the world safe for democracy and even tiny countries who dared disagree with us found our politicians likening them to Hitler first, followed by bombs next, until they promise to agree with us.

What awaits us is the one thing that can expose human nature more than anything else:

anarchy.

When little boys can yell at armed police officers with taunts of having sex with the officer's mother, while another top cop can issue "stand down" orders to let violence run its course, and while it becomes more and more difficult to teach one's own children the difference between right and wrong, under the name of "pseudo intellectualism", which quickly denigrates to name calling, and the incivility comes to the teenage years, where testosterone fulfills the violent impulses, we will know why objective truth was so valued by those who founded our country, with warning after warning, that government must restrict itself to stay out of regulating thought ignored, that those who celebrate today, will join the mourners tomorrow, except the mourners, long slandered, libeled, and hated, may not seek consoling unity.

Do you recall the many articles where a statement gave a sense of awkwardness to the reader, and the analysis put structure and science to statement, confirming the intuition?

What ruled the day?

That a statement "felt" deceptive?

Or, that a statement is shown to be deceptive by the careful, even-handed application of standards?

Thus, the series of articles in a blog that is mostly for actual analysis, since analysis is based upon principles, and its conclusion is in debt to an understanding of human nature.  The stricter adherence to principle, in context, and the deeper insight into human nature, the higher the success rate.

We are at war with nature and as we bow to ideologies that 'worship' human emotion, disagreement will continue to provoke the deepest resentment because the origin of the ideology was human emotion, highly personal, and the reaction, judging by history, for disagreement has ultimately led to death.  The "identity" is a new creation, with rights that trump those of "citizens", and I seek to learn what "identity" will come next, that is, within the next two years, specifically.

A citizen is stationary, but "identity" does, or can change, at any time.  Hence, the status legally is not fixed.  

As freedom has been lost in certain topics, I leave it up to readers to predict what is next to go.

What is for certain, within this trend is this:

Sex may be today's hot "coal in the mouth", but it will be something else, tomorrow.

The question for readers that I hope to glean information from via their answers is this:

What will be the next "coal in the mouth", in your opinion?

I have a few ideas, but wish to first hear from you.




PS:  

Pop(ular) Quiz


What are "purple" lions?

Some within readership have shown proficiency towards lie detection, which is the first, and most relevant portion of Statement Analysis:  is the person truthful or not.

Beyond this, there is content analysis, that is, once veracity or deception is indicated, material within the statement is gleaned, with great importance in later consequences.

Then there is the slow, difficult, but rewarding move to "discourse analysis" where one practices principle enough to analyze conversations, with immediate reward.

Following this comes a new realm of analysis, which is quite deep, but allows for profiling, which has a lengthy list of positive results including:

Human Resources not simply reducing theft and shrinkage, but protection against the myriad of "victim suits", that is, where someone seeks to extort, using courts, money not earned, through fraudulent claims.  The small investment of time and finance into solid training, pales in comparison to just one 'settlement' which companies do to save not only legal costs, but especially in 'the United States of feelings', negative publicity.  "Victim" status is not the legal status that "Identity" has now been given, trumping "citizen" rights, but it is close and may be, de facto, even worse for businesses.

Next for Human Resources in profiling is in the positive placement of the best individuals for the right positions, as fitting personality to duty, so popular in the 1950's productivity period (prior to the advent of 'advantage law suits') which gives employees personal satisfaction, which leads to better productivity and increase in morale.

Deeper still is the profiling work as a benefit to therapists, counselors, attorneys (both defense and prosecution) as well as sales, and even corporate attorneys who do any form of legal bargaining.

Profiling finds its ultimate expression in Anonymous Threatening Letters, which, unfortunately, recent ones were rare exceptions in that they were not very difficult to identity the authors.  This belies the intensity of work required for accuracy.

What do I recommend?

I think the 'micro-expression' craze has reached its exhaustion.  The researcher, Paul Ekman, cashed in on the popularity of the show, "Lie to Me", as its main character went from lie detector, to 'superman', dodging bullets, catching lies from the twinkle of an eye, and punching out the bad guys.  When, exactly, they jumped the shark, I leave to you to decide, but the system, fascinating as it is, jumped its own shark this past year when Ekman said he would not declare someone truthful or deceptive by transcripts, or even by video taped interview, unless he, himself, conducted the interview.

How practical is that?

Besides this, if you make a career of it, and concluded someone was deceptive by the twitching of the eye, or even one who covers his mouth with his hand, your career will be short lived.  It simply isn't consistent.  Although inconsistency is no barrier for "feelings", it is when a person's possible arrest is in the wings, or a police officer, with good ambition and a love of the job, wishes to assert that the suspect is deceptive, and must prove the assertion.  The fun of micro expression is over, and the "natural born""face readers" must qualify, and "double qualify" everything, should they wish to maintain their status, but will still compete with 'psychics.'

Businesses with no time to waste, and money to earn or lose, need tangible results, and immediate relief from the 40% Dept of Justice statistic of potential employees who wish to steal, in one form or another, from them.

The scientific system of Statement Analysis, under various 'brand names' is just that:  a scientific system, easy to initially grasp its basics, but marvelously complex in advanced training.

I, therefore, recommend, formal training.

There is no substitute for formal training, and this training must include follow up support, as it takes approximately two solid years of daily practice to become proficient in analysis, though a police officer, journalist, or someone else, may find immediate success in their first statement, especially as they are given support by an instructor, who not only knows analysis well, but has the ability to teach; that is, to effectively communicate in ways that facilitate learning.

This must include a particular element vital to ongoing application:  narrative understanding.

If you, your company, or your department is able to host a training, please contact us at our website,  www.hyattanalysis.com.

I.  Seminar

The trainings are specifically designed for:

Law Enforcement
Corporate America
Social and Medical Sciences, including child protective caseworkers, therapists, nurses, doctors, etc.

The principles are the same for all three, but the application uses specific examples relevant to each entity.

12 months of ongoing support is included in the cost of the seminar, as well as MP3 recordings of the lectures.  It is vital that the lectures be listened to repeatedly, over the course of months and years, to help facilitate the departure from 'dulled listening' which we have all been raised to do.   I have entire lectures almost memorized, verbatim, due to listening while mowing the lawn, or doing chores, via headphones, years after completing the courses.

The certification includes CEUs (Continuing Educational Units) by the University of Maine.

II.  Home Study

This is a course designed specifically for those who may not be able to attend a seminar, and in some ways, gives a greater advantage to the individual as it also includes 12 months of e support, and allows the individual to pace himself, according to not only his work schedule, but how he best listens.

There are good courses around, but I recommend mine for several reasons:

a.  Not every analyst is a teacher.  A teacher must be able to communicate well, and hold the interest of his students, be able to anticipate struggles, back track, review, push forward, and even 'entertain', the student.

b.  The material has all the same principles addressed, but with something different than the others:

"Narrative Understanding" is key.

Simply put, if I told you to memorize 5 words (and gave them to you) on day one, 8AM of the seminar, and then at 5PM on day two, just as everyone was ready to go home, I asked them to write down the 5 words given yesterday morning, more than a few heads will be scratched.

Yet, if I gave those same 5 words, but added 30 more, in a narrative form, it is very likely that most everyone will remember them.

Why?

Because they are in a "narrative" form, which will likely elicit emotion, which, by itself, gives the brain a 'connection' to the words.

The example I previously used was "The king died, and then the queen died."

This is not difficult.  It is only 8 words to remember.  Then, the seminar has an overload of material for 2 days, plus 2 hours of homework, plus, the usual banter of lunch hour where many simply continue to work through, while eating, due to excitement, yet those simple 8 words seem to disappear in the fog of the thousands and thousands of other words and study.

Yet, if I said, "A long time ago, in an ancient land, the people's beloved king died prematurely, and his wife, the queen, was to rule in his stead, yet it was that she, herself, despaired of life without her husband, and died shortly after."

Attendees remember the longer one with ease, even if the wording is not exact.

This is because it is in the "narrative" form, but that is not all:  I wrote, "narrative understanding."

This is unique in Statement Analysis, but critical for any hopes of obtaining both depth, and a very high success rate.

The student who memorizes principle will do well, but will struggle over time at not falling back into dulled listening.  Dulled listening is what we all do, in that, we do not recognize leakage when we hear it.  

Practice, practice and more practice helps reverse this process, but this is a secret ingredient that is a true shortcut in this specific area:

I mandate that every student, in order to certify in the home course, be able to explain a principle of Statement Analysis that is applied, to a 12 year old.

Well, perhaps not a 12 year old, but to the average untrained ear.

In other words, (here is the most common example used, but we go much deeper in the courses), the analyst has the statement,

"I woke up, brushed my teeth, got dressed, and went to work..." as its start.

The analyst takes the statement and:

"I woke up, brushed my teeth, got dressed, and went to work..."

Circles the pronouns and underlines "brushed my teeth."

Instinctively the analyst concludes:

a.  Statements that do not begin with a pronoun often have deception in them ("often" refers to statistically odds)

b.  "Brushed my teeth" is an event of "personal hygiene" which indicates that the subject may later in the statement, conceal information, that is of a private nature."

This analyst has done well, but then is asked:

Question:  Explain why "brushing teeth" is an indication of concealing personal information.

The analyst must grasp the psychology behind the principle to the point where he can explain it to a non-trained person, including his captain, or his supervisor.

He must be able to say, for example, why this may indicate 'domestic violence.'

Here is why "narrative understanding" gives students the greatest ability to learn:

1.  They know what they are doing
2.  They know why they are doing it
3.  They memorize it more readily because it is interesting.

This is what is unique in my course.  True, I cover the same principles but I cover them more in depth, and I cover the psychology behind "doors", and "lights" and "salutations" and so on.  This is why, among other books, I recommend each Statement analyst to own a copy of the DSM, in spite of shifts, or even changes within it; it is still of value in understanding various personality types, which is directly related to the interview process and in measuring the "expected" versus the "unexpected" in their work.

This makes my course different than the others; very different.

The first course is not expensive, but includes more than 6 hours of lectures, chapter tests and assignments, and is not a "101" course.  "101" courses serve their purposes and are good at introducing Statement Analysis. This includes the "101" principles, but in recognition that this is just not enough for the investment of time, it goes deeper.

The course is not for everyone, and is not easy.

In the years of teaching, there have been some who were not granted a certificate as it was evident that their company should not have nominated them for the training.  Their gifts and talents were elsewhere.  Many have the "Reid Technique", for example, in initial law enforcement academy training, but later have no idea how it works.  By taking interesting cases today (narrative) and teaching the reasons why the principles work so well (understanding) the training is fascinating and in depth.  I encourage captains, or business owners, to send their "best and brightest" for the training, otherwise, they waste both time and money.

In the home course, some have found that once they paid for their own training, their department reimbursed them.  Others have paid off their course, which is fine.  It is not likely, for me at least, that someone is going to take a course on 'lie detection' only to deceive by not fulfilling  a payment obligation.

Ongoing Training

We offer monthly, online training, for investigators around the country, as well as business and social service/medical professionals.

This is affordable, confidential "live" work where actual cases are used, where each attendee is not only learning, but assisting cases that are current, which is why the confidentiality agreement is critical.

This is not open to anyone without formal training.

This is due to the nature of the work:  with actual cases being worked on, it is not a format for those who are not familiar with the principles and applications of analysis.

This monthly training costs less than piano or guitar lessons, is held monthly, and is for 6 hours.  Attendees can join via lap top, iPhone, android, note book, iPad, and so on.  It is limited so that we also schedule alternative dates, but the key for all is regular, monthly formal sessions, which at the conclusion of two years, produces an expert in analysis.  

It is often exciting, yet allows the attendee to continue to answer phone calls, or other work, while attending via the online "Go To Meeting" format.



III.  Recommended Reading 

The blog allows for lots of practice as you see how readers continually submit current news stories for analysis.  Inevitably, the deception is a politician, which then leaves some readers with partisan bitterness, and there is also the rare times where a criminal case is analyzed and the criminal himself (or herself), or the criminal's relatives or friends post, and are most displeased.

Still, the blog's incessant flow of news stories allows for daily practice, even though the analysis is rarely ever complete.  (there are some principles that warrant too much explanation for a blog, and almost by definition, a 'blog' is usually a short, or more concise article...even this is longer than most 'blog' posts.

But what books do I specifically recommend to someone who has had formal training?

The caveat here is just this:  it is for those who have had formal training, as a basis for depth.  Many of these are to help you grasp the complexities of human nature.  The first is not a "narrative understanding" work, but is important:

1.  The DSM

This is a reference book and when you read it, you will find that you have most of the personality disorders described.  I'm not joking.

It is flawed, but it is useful.  As mentioned in previous articles, there are both "changes" and there are "shifts." The "shifts" in the DSM are due to further research, which is a good thing, and is often in the character of clarification, rather than a "change." A "change" is when the DSM removes something due to protests or political pressure, reducing its reliability, especially for those who expect scientific data.  Yet, it is still of value as basic personality disorders can be quickly looked up, and give you insight into a specific subject in that:

you may compare your work to the DSM's classification, based upon research.  This makes it, by itself, of value to you.  Amazon used books is the best bargain.

2.  Mark McClish's books are enjoyable, and are "101" books, which means that they are only basic presentation of principles.  If words do indeed reveal the author, McClish is of the highest character.  See Amazon.  If you enjoy his books, leave a review for them.

3.  My own, "Wise As a Serpent; Gentle as a Dove:  Dealing with Deception" is also a "101" book, with personal application, that you will find useful, and, I hope, interesting.  I hope to have a second book up, dedicated to missing children cases.   If you can, leave a review for me about the content and not the computer editing, of which I could not control.  I appreciate the effort.

4.  This next one was recommended to me by Avinoam Sapir, the 'grandfather' of all Statement Analysis:  "I Feel Guilty When I Say No" (Amazon) which, if not the most interesting book, it is one of which helps us understand the psychology behind language.

5.  "The Pilgrim's Progress"by John Bunyon.  This is a "narrative understanding" work of the highest order.

This may be a surprise to some, but here goes:

This book is your own personal biography that someone wrote about your life.   

It's true.  This is what people say about this strange little work.  It is available in modern English but if you have any connection to Shakespearean olde English, I urge you to read it in its original.

It was written in 1678 by an uneducated "tinker", that is, a poor man who made tin cups and things to provide for his family.  For centuries, it was the "number two best selling book of all time behind the Bible."

I have read it several times and Charles Spurgeon was said to have read it 100 times in his life.  Here is the catch:

Without fail, almost every person who I have talked to, having read this, said, "I felt like he was writing about my life!"

It is true.  This uneducated tinker from years ago writes as if he was a fly on the wall in your home, seeing you through your life, your failures, your victories, your heartbreaks, your joy, the pitfalls in life that awaited you, how you survived them,  and then finally, he takes you to your death.

There is nothing like "The Pilgrim's Progress" in literature.   Avoid the children's version (unless for your kids) as you will miss the insight into human nature that awaits you.

6.  "Linguistic Archeology" by Sapir.  This has no tangible chapter divisions, is extreme in its complexity, yet is a book that I study, love, study some more, and love some more.  There have been a few "crisis books" in my life, that is, books that caused a great emotional upheaval for me, personally, and this is one of them.  My deepest review can only say, "wow!" to the genius of research, from the perspective of an orthodox Jew.  It is not "number one" on my list only because I know the struggle some will have with it, as it is not 'night time reading.' It is an essential study guide that you do not have to be an Orthodox Jew or Christian to embrace:  it is Master Level material.  I have thought long about the book since I began studying it.  I do not see how someone without training in analysis can grasp it, yet for those, especially with formal training, he highlights principle in some of the most eye-opening ways, especially if you are familiar with Genesis.

His reverence for truth is inspiring.  He is fearless in his application of principle and raising questions.  He apologizes for nothing.

This book allows you to practice advanced techniques and the challenge is to learn how to use them in your own life and work, but the practice, itself, is deep.

7.  "Freedom of the Will"by Jonathan Edwards.

Edwards was one of the greatest minds America has ever known.  Fortunately, this work is available for free online.  I found it here and one does not need to be religious to glean from his superior intellect as he goes into what determines our will in life.

8. "Interrogations:  The Nazi Elite in Allied Hands, 1945"by Richard Overy   will allow you to practice the 'bigger picture' due to English-German.  A solid practice opportunity wrapped in an interesting book.

9.  "Verbal Behavior in Every Day Life" by Walter Weintraub

1o.  "The Secret Life of Pronouns"by James Pennebaker.  You may initially disagree with his conclusions, even while enjoying his research, but when you step back for a 2nd look...you may feel differently, especially about leadership and what Statement Analysis teaches about dropped pronouns rather than "missing pronouns" in emails.

11.  "The Mind of Adolf Hitler"The Secret Wartime Report by Walter Langer in which the US asked a team of psychologists to profile Hitler to help them strategize what he would do under various conditions.  It is a fascinating profile done without interviewing the subject!  They concluded that should the war turn against him, he would both betray his people ("scorched earth") and commit suicide.  The precision of the profile given the haste demanded and absence of the subject, is inspiring.

creepiest hands on a child

Take this list with other recommendations.  No analyst should be without "Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques"by Fleisher and Gordon includes Statement Analysis as well as marvelous studies, and specific questions for business as well as law enforcement.  Don't let the cost prohibit you; sell your coat to buy it.

I have been asked, over the years, about Andrew Hodge's works on Patsy Ramsey and recently, Amanda Knox.

The books are of little value, even though the conclusions are what you will agree with.  This is because he is seeking "leakage" in language, a real element, yet assigns meanings to words without any principle,which is to say that I can make any word mean anything I wish it to mean.  This is not scientific, rational, or logical.  In analysis, we do not say "opening the door" means sexual abuse.  We say "opening the door" means that the subject "opened the door"; then we ask, "Why did the subject include this?" from a psychological point, noting the statistical correlation between this phrase, when used in an open statement and being unnecessary, and childhood sexual abuse.

Some of Hodge's points on both cases are accurate but this is more in line with a broken clock being correct twice a day, than any even-handed application.  Like micro-expression, it can be right for one person who lies to cover his mouth, but not for another, who  has simple chronic halitosis, or for a child to have his leg twitch when his ADHD runs out.  It may be correct, but it does not make it applicable to others.

There are many more books regarding human nature that specifically deal with how people think, that are of value.  Books on trauma, specifically, childhood sexual trauma, will reveal certain phrases that initially sound deceptive, due to passivity, yet are not.  I cover this in the soon-to-be-released Advanced Analysis course which dedicates a full chapter to Statement Analysis of adult victims of sexual abuse.

12.  "Persuasions" by Douglas Wilson, specifically deals with various moral issues, and the argument for objective truth (you know, right being different from wrong), but actually is a great insight into how we process thoughts, especially on "hot potato" topic issues, though the temperature of some of them has 'gone down' a bit in recent years.  People of faith do well to get this small paperback.

13.  "A Woman in Berlin"by Anonymous is the account of Soviet rapes and highlights human nature, and the language, including morbid humor, of the victims. It is difficult to read, but more difficult to put down.

General History:
The Nazi's created an "Identity" as a legal status, even though it was a violation of nature (science), and as is the case, "Identity" rights trumped "Citizen" rights because of the power of emotion.  Remember, emotion is the number one impact on change of language.

The Nazi movement, therefore, is very useful for not only practicing Statement Analysis (the transcripts from the Nuremberg trials will keep you contently busy at practice) but also highlight human nature.  I did not read "Men are From Mars..." though I quoted from its title, and can't recommend it.

Exposing oneself to variety will allow you to see how application can be both principly applied, yet 'shifting' principle to such things as emails, text messages, and abbreviations.  Honest biographies are difficult to find, so autobiographies, with expected minimization, is useful and interesting.  I find any person's life story worthy of analysis, as each one of us is unique.  Some recent history that I have read that have been fascinating include:  "Negroland"which is the findings of early explores and slave traders, of what daily life in Africa was like in the villages where they were both enslaved, and sold into slavery.  Most of these accounts are from explorers and slave traders, rather than missionaries, which tells you their motive for being in Africa.  It is a fascinating compilation.

"Time on the Cross"may be dry for some, but continues to help me understand the history of slavery but from a most unique perspective: mathematicians, rather than historians!

"America B.C"I revisited recently in attempts to understand Native American heritage and what may have influenced it over a long period of time.  "Good Stuff"was fun to read from Cary Grant's daughter.  "Writing as a Way of Healing"by Louis DeSalvo indicates how trauma can be reduced through processing the brain through writing.  "Summers at Shea"is a nice summer read but likely memories that are quite regional.

I will post further recommendations soon, especially for those of you who love 'summer reading.' The focus, even in history, is language and human nature.

I am curious, however, to receive feedback on "The Pilgrim's Progress", specifically if you feel as if you just read your own biography as so many others have said.

Oh, and before I forget, any trial transcripts of interesting cases is useful for many reasons, chiefly, watching someone move from simply answering a question, to the point of the free editing process, and dividing the two.  Transcripts from famous trials, along with 911 calls, are great for analysis.

Come to think of it, I should put together a book on 911 calls only.  Readers rarely disagree with the "Expected" portion of the analysis of 911 calls, since it is so an urgent matter.  Once, in a seminar, a person took offense at my use of the phrase, "excited utterance" and tried to bring a tangent to the topic of analyzing 911 calls.  When I agreed to change the phrase to "excited call" or "excitement in her words" (of the 911 call), she still argued on and on, until the audience grew impatient and finally angry.

Yes, she had graduated from law school, but avoided taking the bar exam due to anxiety.

Not that we think anyone leaks out anything in their own words, right?

Happy Reading!

Crystal Rogers is a mother of five and has been missing since the Fourth of July.

Her boyfriend was on the Nancy Grace Show to deny involvement.

In context, he answers the question:  "I am 100% cooperative in everything that has been asked of me."

This is to avoid his pattern of "100% completely cooperative" or to say: 

His cooperation has been limited to what they have asked of him, yet he has things he knows they have not asked of him. 

This is still not to say he "did it" but that there are things he may be waiting to be asked about. 

5.  Note his goal is not to find her, but to "clean" his name:   

 I have exhausted my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again,”

Next: Statement Analysis of the transcripts of the show.  Will they explain why sensitivity is added to his "innocence", "honesty" and "cooperation"?

Or, will motive arise?

stay tuned for analysis to answer question...

The following is Statement Analysis of the Nancy Grace interview of boyfriend, Brooks Houke, who was given a polygraph regarding the disappearance of Crystal Rogers, 35.  

Mr. Houck is thought by some, according to his own words, as suspect in the disappearance of his fiancé, Crystal Rogers.  

Our words reveal us all.  Each one of us has a personal, internal subjective dictionary, with pronouns and article notwithstanding.  It is extremely rare to lie outright, as it is quite stressful, therefore, if someone wishes to deceive, they are mostly likely to do so by withholding, or even suppressing information.  Statement Analysis is the scientific process of which truth from deception is discerned, and content gleaned.  

Question for Analysis:  




In Statement Analysis, we believe what one tells us, unless they give us specific call not to, and we set up an expectation of innocence.  In this case, we therefore expect Brooks Houck (the subject) to tell Nancy Grace (the Interviewer) that he did not cause the disappearance of his fiancé.  This is called a "Reliable Denial" when all three components are present.   Should the subject make a reliable denial and then, look at his denial and say, "I told the truth", it is above 99.9% likely to be true.  

For the innocent (the de facto innocent, not judicial alone), subject, telling us he did not do it is something that flows easily and naturally.  It is so simple, in fact, that most people miss it in speech, until they have formal training to the contrary.  

A Reliable Denial has 3 components, and 3 only.  

1 The pronoun "I"
2.  The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"
3  The allegation specifically answered. 

If there are 2 components, it is not reliable.  If there are 4 components, it is not reliable. 

Some common "unreliable" denials include:

a.   the dropping of the pronoun "I", or 
b. using the future/conditional tense "would not" or "would never", 
c.  changing the allegation to something else such as, "I didn't do anything to her!"

"I would never harm Crystal."
"I didn't do nothing to anybody."
"I know I didn't cause Crystal's disappearance."
"I never  harmed that woman."
"I am innocent."
"I am 100% honest in everything I say."
"I am 100% not guilty in this."

These are all not reliable denials  and often found in deceptive "denials" including those that headline media reports with "Suspect Denies..." when, in fact, no reliable denial was issued.  

Statement Analysis is in bold type with emphasis added to the quotes for clarity, including highlighting a word in red for attention, and using the color blue to show the highest level of sensitivity in speech.  The transcript is edited to exclude quotes from others, past video tape, or narratives.  The subject is Brooks Houck, and no editing of his words, nor of the questions he responds to, has been done.  This is to allow Mr. Houck to speak for himself.  

Brooks Houck has not been charged with any crime, and is judicially innocent, having not been found otherwise in a court of law.  The following is an exercise of free speech in concluding an opinion on Mr. Houck's appearance on the Nancy Grace Show, a nationally known talk show in which criminal cases are often highlighted.  The principles applied allow the reader to determine the basis of the conclusion of the analysis.  

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Live, Bardstown, Kentucky, where a mother of five, Crystal Rogers, Maroon Chevy, found on the side of the road with a  flat tire. She has not been spotted alive since.   Joining us right now in addition to Crystal`s parents, her boyfriend, the father of her baby. She was at their three-bedroom home, there in a quiet subdivision, just before she went missing.  
Joining me right now, in addition to Crystal`s mom and dad, Tommy and Sherry, with me is her boyfriend, I guess I would say fiance. She is divorcing the last husband. She has a young child by Brooks Houck, who formerly ran for sheriff in that jurisdiction. He has taken a polygraph.  
He has not hired lawyers. He has allowed police to search his property and says that he is on call at any time police want to talk to him.  Mr. Houck, thank you for being with us.  

BROOKS HOUCK:   Thank you.  

GRACE: Mr. Houck, what happened the night Crystal goes missing exactly?  

Analytical Interviewing:  Keep your sentences short.  We all reveal ourselves in our words, and NG uses the formal, "Mr. Houck", which means we now look to note any changes; and she uses the additional, and unnecessary word, "exactly."

"Exactly" reveals to us that NG has her doubts and suspicions about the subject (Brooks Houke).

"What happened?" would be the best question since we know that he is on the show because the woman he is engaged to, and who is the mother of his child, is missing.  He knows what she is asking by asking "what happened?"

Open ended questions are best as "What happened?" allows the subject not only to choose his own words allowing for leakage, but it also allows the subject to begin the account wherever he chooses. 

Instead, she limited the time period to "the night" Crystal went missing.  As we learn, we do not know if she did even go missing "at night", or the next morning.  

Analytical Interviewing:  Be careful in the wording of your questions that you do not reveal information. 

Analytical Interviewing: Be careful in the wording of your questions that you do not teach the subject how to lie.  
HOUCK: Earlier that day, she showed rental property. She went to Wal- Mart.  

There is much to discuss in this answer. 

a.  The word "that" generally indicates distance, which could be geographical, psychological, criminal, emotional, etc, distance.   (versus the word "this").  Is this an appropriate designation of distancing language?

The subject would not say "Earlier this day", which is not appropriate or common use.  

So, is it distancing language?

Context is key. 

When someone goes missing, the loved ones are acutely aware of the passage of time.  This is their own private "D-Day" of hell, and time is now measured in terms of "the first 24 hours", the "first 48 hours", the 3rd day, the 4th day, and so on.  

Therefore, rather than say, "that day", the expected is to name the day, or even the day and date, that Crystal either went missing, or was last seen.  

Expected, "On Friday, July 3rd..."or anything similar.  


Conclusion:  The word "that" appears to be distancing language.  We now look for the subject's own words to allow us insight into affirming that he is distancing himself from the day, opposite of what loved ones do, or if the day is simply not referenced.  We begin with the notion of distancing language while allowing his words to guide us.  

b.  "day" is in the answer, and not "night" as NG said.  This is to introduce the day time period into his answer about what happened.  This means:

The events of the day, should this subject have guilty knowledge, is related to what happened "that night." 

b.  "She showed rental property"

c.  "She went to Walmart."

We note that he gives us two events, but the events are not linked by time.  "She showed rental property, and then she went to Walmart."

Therefore, these two events are not being given in sequence, or at least, with an indication of sequence, but are sentences punctuated with closure, that is, a period in writing.  This is to make them two separate but important sentences in relation to the disappearance.

We look for the subject's own words to let us know if, in deed, these events are important, or revenant, to Crystal's disappearance.  

GRACE: With who?  

Analytical Interviewing: DO not interrupt the subject.   He was giving information.  He has the information, not the interviewer.  Say as little as possible so that your words to not influence the subject's answers.  

HOUCK: We have established a timeline of all the facts and events.  

Pronouns are intuitive.  This is a very important statement.  He uses the pronoun "we" to join himself to the investigators.  We now look to see if the rest of his statement indicates a strong closeness with investigators or not. 

Note:  "facts" and "events" are two, separate entities, connected with "and", which is not the case with what he said earlier about showing rental property and going to Walmart.  Those two "events" were not connected one to another, and were not linked in time by the subject.  Something is amiss.  

Question:  What is the difference between "facts" and "events" in the subject's internal code?  This would have made for a good question or two, such as:

What facts are you referencing?

What events are you referencing?
GRACE: Who did she go to Wal-Mart with, Brooks?  

Note to Nancy, "With whom did she go to Walmart?"

HOUCK: I was not there at Wal-Mart with them. She had some of the children with her.  

Here, he offers a "negation", that is, an negative offered in an open statement.  He was not asked, "Were you with her at Walmart?"

Therefore, please consider that "Walmart" is sensitive due to repletion, and that 
something took place regarding Walmart that is quite sensitive to the subject.  Sensitivity is in the context of her going missing. 

Since he was not physically at Walmart, and Walmart is something important enough for him to disconnect himself from, investigators must learn:

a.  Did he call her, text her, receive a text, or receive a call while she was at Walmart?

b.  Did she meet someone, or call/text someone, while at Walmart, that has caused an emotional reaction by the subject (Houck), in which he wants us to know that he was not there?

This negation, rather than disconnecting him from Walmart, is connecting him.  It tells us that he has a need to distance himself from her while she was at Walmart within the context of what happened to cause her disappearance.  

Did you notice that he has gone from "Mr. Houck" to "Brooks"?  Using the first name is less formal, and more 'friendly', which may be to gain information.  Let's see if it stays this way because the expected is to go from long to short, full to abbreviated, in the 'law of economy.' Since he is now just "Brooks", any deviation should be considered important to Nancy Grace' thinking. 

Also note the word "with" regarding Crystal and the children.  He did not say "Crystal and two of the children went..." or "Crystal and some of the children went..."

This is to create distance between Crystal, (who's name he does not use) and the children. 

Question:  Since they were shopping at Walmart, what might cause distancing language to enter into the mind of Brooks Houck?

Answer:  Since he was not there:

a. The children are older children, and went "off" away from their mother, to another store, or another part of the store, shopping by themselves, which would have to be something Houck knows; or

b.  Houck knows that someone else was present with Crystal, either physically, or on the phone, putting 'closeness' between Crystal and the person (which, if he called him, would be him), which means she would be paying attention to this person, rather than the children.  

This is an important point to understand.  
GRACE: Mm-hmm. OK.  
HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  
GRACE: That`s important, Brooks, because as you know, with your interest in law enforcement, it establishes a timeline. So that was Friday around 4:00 p.m. then what happened after Wal-Mart?  

Analytical Interviewing:   avoid statements whenever possible, and avoid giving direct information, including "4:00 p.m."

HOUCK: When she leftWal-Mart on Friday, late afternoon, early evening, she showed a rental property that we have listed, in the Kentucky standard, in a large ad, multiple properties. She thenleftthat and preceded home.  

Note that when he initially reported what happened that day, he reported 
1. showed rental property
2. went to WalMart
The subject has now reversed the order of these events, which suggests that the subject may be attempting to stick to a script and is getting confused. 

1.  "Leaving" in Statement Analysis.

In Statement Analysis, the departing or "leaving" of a location means that there is missing information, since the time and pace is not moving forward, but has paused, or in the least, slowed down, with the focus on the location from where one was departing, rather than the location to where one was headed.  This is given the color coding of blue in the SCAN technique by LSI that indicates, along with "because, since, therefore, why"(in an open statement, without being asked), as the highest level of sensitivity in a statement. 
If it shows up two or more times, close together, it is called a cluster of blues indicating critically withheld information.  Here we have two "blues" close together, which indicates that there is important information that is missing from his statement. 

Principle:  "Left" is an indication of missing information; 70% likely due to traffic, rushing, time constraints, etc.  30% deliberately withheld.  It indicates the person's mind is "still there" at the location, because something caused it to stop or pause there.  If we see it in a cluster 
in a statement, we are likely looking at suppressed information related directly to the allegation. 
This is the single greatest indicator that an investigator can use to hone his questions in the interview. The two blues together will likely nullify the 70% theme of time constraints, or rushing, and move it to the realm of deliberately withheld information about something that happened either in Walmart, or while she was at Walmart.  

2.  Pronouns

Note here that there is a change in "events" as it represents a change in reality. 

His fiancé is missing.  He said she showed "rental property" but now he uses the pronoun "we" about the property: 

It was something "we" had listed.  This is not necessary information.  

3.  Unnecessary  Information 

In statement analysis, unnecessary information is only unnecessary to us in that it does not appear to be related.  Therefore in analysis, the unnecessary information is to be deemed doubly important to the analysis. 

Why would we care if she listed it, or he listed it, or if they listed it together, as the word "we" indicates?  The listing of the property is revenant to the subject much more than the reader, as it is likely that a property would be listed in order to show it. 

This is something we need answered, and the answer should come from the subject.  Let's see if he gives us more insight into why "we" had listed the property.  What does this do to the property being shown, which would bring in money?

a.  In the Kentucky standard
b.  In a large ad

Why would the public need to know where the rental property was listed?
Why would we need to know that the ad was large?

Please note the additional, 'unnecessary' detail he is adding on. 

Please note that this is in regard to his missing fiancé;

In the context of "What happened that night?"

He is giving precise details, not about the time ("late afternoon or early evening" and "after 5"), but is giving precise and specific details about rental properties which generate income while Crystal is missing. 

Could the subject be attempting to put the focus of Crystal's activities on the day in question to people she may have connected with through the real estate ads,  in an attempt to shift focus from himself?

Investigators need to ask:

Has he just introduced a possible motive, should they conclude that he is involved in her disappearance?

NG did not catch these extra and seemingly unnecessary details which, to a prosecutor, should sound like "alibi establishment", yet, it reveals what he is thinking: 

She is missing and he is giving more details about his own connection to the rental properties than about her. 

"Proceeded" is used when events are usually expanded; that is, other things happened.  It is also "shop talk" or "cop talk", therefore, if the subject has any connection to law enforcement, it could enter his language.  

GRACE: So that was Friday evening. What time did she get home, Brooks?  
HOUCK: After 5:00.  

Recall his answer of "later afternoon or early evening" and now "after 5:00" is lacking precision.  This is not unexpected, but is compared to the above specific details about where the ad was placed and what size the advertisement was, and how it is connected to him.  

GRACE: After 5:00. And what, if anything, did she do at that time?  

Even something this small, such as "if anything" could have signaled to him that he could say "oh, nothing..."
Better is:  "Then what happened?" He would not likely say, "What happened with whom?" since he knows that he is on national television because Crystal is missing. 

HOUCK: It was a normal -- normal evening. At that point, she showed the property and came home.  

Statement Analysis Principle:  When the word "normal" is used in an open statement, it is an indication of anything but "normal" to the outside world.  This is the same thing that first graders recognize in a story that says, "it was a day like every other..." signaling that something 'different' or special is about to be introduced.  It is the same thing in language.  Also, when one says, "I am a normal male", it is an indication that he has thought of himself, or has been thought of by others, as not normal. 

Statement Analysis Principle:  When a word is repeated in an open statement (not as a result of direct questioning), the repetition shows sensitivity or importance to the subject. 

"Normal" not only suggests that something not normal took place, but also that it was quite sensitive as well.  He is telling us that what took place between them, on the night of her disappearance, something out of the ordinary took place. 

It is unclear how many properties Crystal showed that day/evening, as the subject has now referenced the showing of a property after she got home for the "normal" evening.  The showing of property is extremely sensitive to the subject.
GRACE: Well, what day of the week was this?  
This is the very element which, although she did not catch it early on, may have sensed was missing since she interviews many loved ones of missing persons in her show.  It is not expected that the person would not identify the exact day and/or date since that particular day and date is the most critically important  day and date of their lives.  

HOUCK: This was on Friday, would have been July 3rd, 2015.  

GRACE: Did you have July 4th plans?  

HOUCK: Yes, we did.  

Note the question with "you" is answered with "we" which may be he and the kids, he and Crystal, or he, Crystal, and the kids.  

GRACE: What were they?  

What were your plans.  This is a good question.  

HOUCK: My uncle, Fabian Ballard, and Loreto, about 49, had a large gathering at his home. My mother has a very large family, there`s 13 brothers and sisters, and we -- we had planned on going there on Saturday, July 4th.  

Above, we saw that he went into specific details about what paper he put the ad in, and the actual size of the ad. 

We noted that this was found in the boundary of the question about what happened to Crystal.

What does this mean to Statement Analysis?

When someone is asked, "What happened?" we:

a.  analyze the words used
b.  Note what is not said
c.  We measure the form of the answer
d.  We measure the pace of the answer. 

Regarding the form, since it is interrupted by questions, we cannot measure it using our 25/5025 formula of percentages.  (See "measuring a statement" via the search engine). 

We can, however, continue to note that Statement Analysis will measure the "pace" set the subject.  

We look for an average pace, even with questions interrupting him, and note any deviation from the average responses.  Therefore, any extremely short answer should be considered wanting to 'skip over' and rush through something with giving as little information as possible. 

A good example of this is the 911 call by William McCollum, who shot his wife and sought to give as little information as possible to the operator, to the point where he avoided using his wife's name, or even the word "wife", in extreme psychological distancing language.  In his case, he did not shoot her intentionally, but it revealed that he had taken the gun to bed with him and likely had threatened her earlier, as the deception showed an attempt to conceal responsibility for the gun, as well as animosity towards his victim.  

He sped up the pace to 'move on' and get the call over with. 

Then, there is the opposite response where one slows down the pace of information by piling on additional and unnecessary details, such as the age of Loreto, who is not introduced by the subject, in order to avoid getting to the 'worst' part of the story. 

Two things are noted about this slowing down of the pace:
1.  It shows a desire to avoid getting to the critical point of the account;
2.  While using additional wording, he is leaking out valuable information for us.  

(see "measuring the pace" of a statement, with lines per hour specified in analysis) 
GRACE: Did you go?  
HOUCK: Yes, I did. I went withmy family.  

Note he could have said, "yes" but instead emphasized or asserted himself with "yes, I did"which shows a need for emphasis, similar to 'rising to a challenge.' If this is the wording of defiance, will Nancy Grace naturally pick up on it?

Next, note that the word "with" when found between people, reveals distancing language.  "Yes, my family and I went..."

Instead, it shows distance between himself and his "family", as shown with the word "with."

Also, please note that he takes ownership of his family and does not say "our" family, shared with Crystal. 

This is to show a distinction or breakage away from her, and her children.  In extended families, or with step children, the expected is "our" family.  
GRACE: And what time that was?  
HOUCK: That was about 5:00 or 5:30 on Saturday --  
GRACE: OK. Let me understand the timeline, Mr. Houck.  

Note that the earlier 'defiance', or assertion, was not lost on NG, as she now addresses him no longer by his first name, but by the formal, "Mr. Houck", which reveals something about her, along with:
"Ok" (agreement, or seeking to agree)
"let me understand" which indicates that Nancy Grace, herself, is thinking that he is not being "exact" or "clear" or "truthful" with "the timeline" and she is not understanding him.  

He "challenged" her question, which was not a challenge when she asked about going to the party.  He had slowed down the pace (which even without training, feels awkward to the Interviewer, and can provoke impatience) and she senses reluctance on clarity recalling the word, "exactly" that opened the questioning.  She now seeks for him to "let" her understand; which tells us that she feels he is not being clear, or "letting" her understand and that he is in 'control' in this sense.  
 So on Friday night, she shows a property in the evening, well, the evening, she gets home after 5:00.  

HOUCK: No. Incorrect. Incorrect.  
GRACE: No? OK. Explain.  
HOUCK: Friday evening.  
GRACE: Friday? Yes, that`s what I said.  
HOUCK: July 3rd.  
GRACE: Correct. That`s what I said.  

HOUCK: She showed the property. And then on -- you asked me if we had plans just on July 4th, which was in the following day on Saturday.  

GRACE: Right. Right. That`s what I just said.  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

GRACE: So Friday evening, she shows the property at a multi-property spot that had been advertised in the standard. She gets home after 5:00 and what children, if any, did she have with her at that time?  

NG was listening.  

HOUCK: Two children.  

She took two children (unnamed, and without any possessive pronouns) with her to show rental property, which "we" had listed, and to Walmart.  

I cannot tell if NG interrupted him or if he gave just this short response.  
GRACE: And --  

HOUCK: The other two children had already been dropped off at their dad`s house.  

This is also distancing language.  He does not say she had "her two children" or even "our" two children (shared) but "two children" and now "the other two children" are not "her other two children" or even "our other two children" indicating:

Distancing language moving away from the children of the household.  
GRACE: And what did you guys do for supper that night?  

This is an interesting and astute question.  Here is why:

She may be seeking to tie him to experiential memory since she is showing doubt over his words, and eating a meal is something that is not 'ordinary' if the subject caused, directly or indirectly, Crystal's disappearance. 
HOUCK: We just ate here -- we ate here at the house.  
"Just" is used to compare in a minimized way.
He gives the location of where they ate, but not what they did for supper. 

Nancy Grace continues to look for something specific:  I like this question:  

GRACE: Did she cook?  

HOUCK: For about an hour and a half and then we left here about 7:30.  

"Here" appears to be an unnecessary word in this sentence, and suggests the subject is thinking about leaving another place at another time.

Leaving the place is noted for missing information (70/30 above)

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Did she cook that night?  

HOUCK: You`re cutting out on me. I didn`t hear what you just said, ma`am.  

GRACE: Oh, I`m sorry. Did she cook that night, Brooks?  

Although "I'm sorry" is a respectful apology for cross talk, or not hearing someone, we also note it as it is often found in the language of the guilty.  Here it is simply in the language of the Interviewer, but should it be used by a possible suspect, it should be noted.  

This is because those who "did it", even though they are judicially "innocent", that is, having not been found guilty, it sometimes 'leaks' out as it is something they are thinking.  "I'm sorry " can be remorse, regret, or simply being upset for the stress of it all, or for being caught.  

We simply note it, and add it to the other points in the analysis, when we draw our conclusion.  

Leakage:  in Statement Analysis, we recognize that if a subject is thinking about something, and has guilty knowledge of it, even while talking about something else, and trying to avoid confession or admission, the brain, knowing what it knows, often uses words that reveal what the person is really thinking about.  

Example:  When Caylee Anthony was reported missing, Texas Equasearch's Tim Miller came, with helicopter and horse, to Florida, at great expense, to help the family locate Caylee.  Cindy Anthony refused to let Casey talk to Tim.  Tim said he had never been called in to help a family only to have the family hinder or sabotage the search.  

Cindy Anthony kicked Tim and his organization out of her house.  She walked up to the microphone and said, 
"George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods, or anything."

"In the woods" is precisely where she was found, down the block from Cindy's home.  This is "leakage", or leaking out words that reveal information.  

Listen for "leakage" in all interviews and even in conversations.  People tell you far more than you could ever have guessed. 
HOUCK: She did not. We just ate here at the house. It wasn`t anything special or new anything like that. We knew that we had plans, wasn`t going to killa lot of -- kill a lot of time and then we proceeded -- we proceeded out there to the family farm.  

The subject reports what they didn't have to eat, and specifies that it wasn't "special" or "new." Most people, if thinking about the last meal they had with their missing finance, would report what they had, rather than to describe what the meal was not.  Did he avoid saying what they had for dinner that night because something happened to prevent them from having dinner?  The subject wants the listener to think that meal was so ordinary that he did not identify it.  Did something displace his appetite that night?

The subject has introduced the word "kill" into the interview about his missing fiancé
and he has repeated it, making it very sensitive. 

This is a most unexpected word and one that should alarm the families searching for Crystal.  

"Proceeded" indicates ongoing activities or components broken down, to one activity.  It may be cop speak if he has law enforcement background, but, since it is repeated here, it is sensitive and it is a signal that:

more happened than just going out to the family farm.  He did something else in this period of time that he is thinking about, but not reporting. 

Crystal did not go with him.  He went with "his" family, not hers, nor "ours." He introduced a new word into the text. 

This is why it is so important to not introduce new words whenever possible.  It is why polygraphs often get "inconclusive"results when there is no reason to be unresolved.  

Let's say that Nancy Grace said, "What did you do to kill time?" If she had, the word "kill" would not be his own language and would not be important.  It would not be leakage but "parroting" language. 

Analytical Interviewing Training Stresses the avoidance of lengthy sentences, introducing new words, or anything that causes the subject to leave the free editing process.  

When used with the polygraph, there should be no reason for "inconclusive" or false results.  President Clinton would have passed the polygraph had they asked him, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky"without first allowing him to define "sexual relations" from his own personal, subjective internal dictionary.  

Once clarified by the President, the same lie would have failed.    
GRACE: OK. Now. On July 4th I thought was the family farm get-together, no?  

HOUCK: Well, the Fourth, that right there is another family member.  

GRACE: Oh, I get it.  

HOUCK: That we went to.  

GRACE: I get it. So that night, you get back and what was she doing when you went to bed?  

HOUCK: She was playing games on her phone.  

This is important information in context:

a.  larger context:  missing woman 
b.  smaller context:  distance between them 

Please note that he could have said, "she was playing games" or "she was playing video games" but he did not: 

He introduced the word "phone" in the specific context of distance between him and her, while she is now missing. 

"Phone" is a 'person' in Statement Analysis, generally, because it is used (generally or mostly) to communicate with people, either via texting or speaking. 

He has placed her using the device which is used to communicate with someone. 

Walmart was really important to him and it was vital that he let us know that he was not there, physically, at Walmart. 

Now, he places her with the phone, but limits the contact to "playing games."

This is strange and the strangeness of his response, of all the things he could have said, he chose to report she was just playing games, is not lost on NG: 

GRACE: Really? OK. Where was the baby?  

"Really?" is to show surprise, and ask "again", as if she doubts his word, but "agrees" by "OK" and then asks, "Where was the baby?"

He has a baby with Crystal.  

He has shown distancing language with the kids, but this child is his, therefore, we are faced with deciding what to expect:

a.  Do we expect him to parrot back with "the baby was..." or, 
b.  Do we expect him to "own" the baby, somehow, by name, nickname, possessive pronoun, etc?  (Examples, "Oh, Tommy was still up..." or "our baby was..." or "my son was..." or anything like this.  
HOUCK: The baby was still up.  
To the subject, he is "the baby";

We cannot conclude distancing language because he may have been parroting NG.  Nothing thus far has shown any connection to the children, including this, but this, alone, cannot be classified as distancing language. 
GRACE: OK. And who -- who had the baby while she was playing games?  

Ha!  A parent's natural question. 

HOUCK: He was just running loose in the house.  

Nancy Grace was rightfully 'taken back' (emotionally) by his answer that she was playing games on the phone, hence the sensitivity of asking  a question and answering it herself, and here, we see why:

The child was not playing, or walking around, or anything positive, or even neutral: 

He was "just" running "loose" in the house, with "house" not confined to one room, or even one floor.  This is to say:  She was on the phone and the baby was neglected. 

This is to show disapproval or anger; that is, something in the negative in the context of distance, from her, while she is missing. 
GRACE: OK.  

HOUCK: If a light`s still on in the living room, he is not going to go to bed until all the lights are out. So if there`s still activity going on in the home, he is going to stay it up with me.  
Here the subject is speaking in future tense, telling us what is or is not going to happen, however, he does not say that the baby didn't go to bed because there were lights and activity in the home.
Note also that the "house" is now a "home."

GRACE: Now what time did you go to bed and was she still up playing games on her phone?  

HOUCK: She was still up playing games on her phone. And it was really close to midnight.  

GRACE: OK. And was the baby still awake?  

HOUCK: Yes, ma`am.  

GRACE: So you go to bed. She is playing phone games and -- was she playing with another person or just by herself?  

NG is wondering about the "phone" (person) connection and uses a polite way to get to it to see if there is a 3rd party involved:

a.  a love interest for her
b.  a love interest for him
c.  a person siding with, or consoling Crystal that he may have resentment towards, including giving not only romance or relationship advice, but, perhaps, a tie to the real estate rental business which might impact him.  

HOUCK: I`m not aware if she was, you know, texting anybody else or talking to anybody else. I`m under the impression she was just playing one of the games on her phone.  

Please do not miss the simple word, "else"as it now adds a new dimension.  He does not say "I'm not aware of she was talking to anybody or texting anybody" but "anybody else" indicating that she was likely talking to or texting someone, which may have been him, or a 3rd party. 

If it was him, he was 'competing' for her attention with someone else, or even with a game.  This is also to suggest conflict.  

The word "you know" is a figure of speech that shows an acute awareness of the interviewer.  Like all habits of speech, we note what words or topics produce it, and what words or topics do not produce it.  

Here, regarding the possibility of somebody else in this case, Nancy Grace raised the question and he acknowledges in this unique manner, her presence at this specific question, where he does not elsewhere.  

GRACE: And when did you realize --  

(CROSSTALK)

HOUCK: Just standard and normal for her to do that.  

The subject wants us to believe that it was a normal night.  This theme is repeated and sensitive to him.   For him there is both "standard" and "normal", which beg us to ask him to tell us the difference.  
This is likely a heavy need to persuade, indicating it was neither standard nor normal for them.  He is telling us that he knows something out of the ordinary took place, which may be out of the ordinary for most, but, if it is fighting, he wants us to think this is the "norm", which is a subtle way of complaining about the victim. 

GRACE: Brooks, when did you realize, Brooks Houck, that she was gone?  

Did you notice that this question produced his full name?

HOUCK: The very next -- the very next morning.  

Broken sentences unless spoken by someone with a stutter, mean an attempt to censor oneself.  The "very next" is repeated, which is to attempt to show how "quickly" he moved, which shows that he is aware of how bad it looks that he did not "notice" she was gone the night before.  

This may be sensitive if he knew she was gone the night before.  

This is similar to someone saying, in an extreme emergency, "I called 911 immediately", which suggests a delay. 

GRACE: So you slept through the whole night and did not realize that she was gone?  
In the form of a question, it is an accusation.  This is why the transcripts have a sense of 'debate' about them.  He is aware of her doubts.  

HOUCK: That`s true.  

He does not say "Yes, I did" or "Yes" or even "Yes, I slept through the night and didn't realize she was gone until morning" (or the "very next" morning).  

Instead, he says "that's true", using the word "that" in reference to what NG specifically said.  The rule of "this and "that" is applicable, as every mother of a teenager knows:  where there is a "that", there is a "this"; and vice versa.  

If there is a "that" there is also a "this" in the subject's mind that he is comparing the  statement Nancy Grace made to.

He affirms what she says, not what is real, but what she said, her words.  He is thinking of "this", while allowing her to 'lie for him' which he then distances himself, personally, from, using the word 'that."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:47:21] GRACE: Joining me right now in addition to her parents, Tom and Sherry Ballard, her boyfriend that she lived with there in their three-bedroom suburban home, Brooks Houck is with us.  So, Brooks, you go to bed and she is still playing games on her phone. The next morning around 8:00, you noticed that she`s missing. Did you report her missing?  

"Did you report her missing?" is the direct "yes or no" question.  

HOUCK: No, ma`am.  

GRACE: Why?  

HOUCK: That is a great question and one that I definitely want the public and the media -- I was not in the least little bit alarmed in any way, shape or form. We have had a stressed relationship at times. And one of the ways that Crystal has always chose to cope or deal with that is by going to -- a young woman`s name, Sabrina, that is her cousin, her dad`s brother`s daughter, whom she is very close to, she spent the night there on several occasion.  


1.  "That is a great question" is to:

a. Avoid answering the question.  This means the question as to why not calling police in a timely manner is a sensitive question to him.  

b.  by using the words "that is a great question" is also to slow down the pace of the flow of information, indicating that psychologically, he does not want to get to something.  This is even why the age of a relative is given; the brain wants to avoid the stress and slows down things, adding extra information to aid in the avoidance of the 'confrontational' information. 

2.  "Public and media" is a broken sentence; self censoring.  This is an indication of missing info. 

3.  As to being alarmed:  watch the progression of sensitivity weaken the assertion:

a.  "I was not alarmed" is very strong and likely truthful.  
b.   "I was not in the least bit alarmed" is to add one layer of sensitivity to it.  
c.  "I was not in the least little bit alarmed"adds another layer of sensitivity to it. 
d.  "I was not in the least little bit allured in any way shape or form"adds another; making it weaker, rather than stronger, as it is too over the top with its need to persuade. 

He was likely extremely anxious.  Next, from this point of anxiety he says,

"We have had a stressed relationship at times"which is, for us at this point, an under-statement.  

Here he uses her name, Crystal, but when it comes to her leaving him to "cope" which is also important: 

He tells us not only to whom she runs, but the location where she spends the night.  This is to say that at night, she needs a place as a refugee, to sleep peacefully, which is not something she could get at the place where he is.  

GRACE: When you say several, do you mean one, three, 20?  

HOUCK: In the neighborhood of four to six.  

GRACE: OK.  

HOUCK: Something like that.  

GRACE: OK. To Tom and Sherry Ballard, were you aware of that? Do you know who Sabrina is?  

S. BALLARD: Yes, ma`am.  

T. BALLARD: That`s my niece.  

GRACE: OK. Did you know she goes and spends the night over there when she is having an issue at home?  

T. BALLARD: I`ve known probably one time.  

GRACE: Right. OK. I want to go back to Brooks Houck who was the last person to see her alive.  

Brooks, did you go on to the July 4th get-together that day?  

This is really more of a challenge than a question which is why she saved the follow up question.  

HOUCK: Yes, I did.  

Defiance is noted by NG in her follow up challenge to him:  

GRACE: Even though you didn`t know where she was?  

HOUCK: Well, I was expecting -- I had put in a phone call that morning and then around lunch and usually, the maximum period of time that she has stayed gone has only been like a day to a day and a half, at the most. And as a result of that, I thought that she would --  

"Well"is a pause that tells us the subject needed extra time to consider his answer.  
Note the incomplete sentence, "I was expecting."

Next note the language, "I had put a in phone call that morning" is not to say, "I called her"; this is the language of alibi building.  To "put in a phone call" is an obligation, and not a concern.  We "put in phone calls" to customers, supervisors, and other obligations that need fulfillment.  We call our loved ones.  We may even "put in a call" to someone we do not like, or that we do not know, or that we consider obligatory rather than something we want to do. 

This is to show not only reluctance or obligation, but sounds scripted.  

GRACE: Did you try to call her?  

HOUCK: -- join us. I`m sorry, I didn`t hear you, ma`am.  

Note the inclusion of these words for any cause. 
See above notes.  GRACE: Did you try to call her during that time?  

NG is establishing a line here to show that he had no reason to call other than scripting.  

HOUCK: Not while I was there -- there at the -- at the Fourth. I called her prior to leaving to head in that direction, yes, ma`am.  

Note the incomplete sentences.  This is to "break off" communication, or self censor.  It indicates missing information and he is concerned that something may be amiss:

phone records matching his words. 

He is not speaking from experiential memory here.  

Note how awkward it sounds; this is the signal that the conflict it produces:
'I did not call her from there; yes, I did call her from there while I was intending to go in that direction' is why I wrote that he was not working from experiential memory. 

He is likely struggling to remember his "time line" of "events and facts" and now may help us understand what "facts" he referred to, as "events" are items that took place, such as Walmart and showing the real estate that is so important the everyone know he is part of.  

GRACE: Some people have accused you of not being involved enough in the search efforts. What`s your response?  

Here is an opportunity to address being accused of not searching which is what guilty people sometimes do.  He could say "I have been searching" and "I did not cause Crystal's disappearance." 

HOUCK: That is a great question and one I certainly appreciate you asking me. And that is all of my effort in searching for her has been done behind the scene. With the Nelson County Sheriff`s Office.  


We have another "great question" posed to him.  The first was about reporting her missing.  This one is, in essence 'Did you cause Crystal to go missing?" which is seen in "you have not helped find her", format.

To which the only expected response is,

"I didn't cause Crystal's disappearance."even if it comes after "I did try to find her" and so on.  

This is the place to address public suspicion directly.  Those who do not help have a reason why they do not help.  This is to implicate guilt and not wanting to find her.  There is only one way to answer this.  "I didn't cause my fiance', Crystal, to go missing" or anything close. 

This is a Reliable Denial and must have 3 components and only 3 components:

1. Pronoun "I"
2.  Past tense verb, "did not" or "didn't"
3.  Allegation answered. 

If there are 4 elements, such as "I know I didn't cause her disappearance" it is not reliable. 

Other unreliable denials include:

"I would never cause Crystal's disappearance"

"didn't cause Crystal's disappearance"

"I didn't do anything" (which avoids the allegation)

"I'm innocent"is to deny the conclusion, legally, rather than the act itself.  

These are all things that are unreliable and often heard from guilty parties.  

 GRACE: What? What?  

HOUCK: Detective Snow who is leading the investigation and Jason Allison who is a deputy there assisting him along with the Kentucky State Police Agency Post Number 12.  

This is to specifically name detectives, as if to show closeness to the investigation.  This was something regularly done by Billie Jean Dunn, in the murder of her daughter, as she attempted to convince the public that she was working with the police, while the truth was they were investigating her and her boyfriend, Shawn Adkins.  Once this came out, she grew hostile towards police. 

GRACE: My question was what you had been doing with them. Let me ask you this. I know that you agreed to take a polygraph. Did you pass?  

This is also to accuse him of causing her disappearance and it is, again, the place where it is expected the subject will give a reliable denial.  

"Did you pass?" is about causing her disappearance.  
HOUCK: Because of the way that the lines or whatever were they, they determined it to be inconclusive. I`m not exactly sure what that means. 
But they did tell me it does mean that I wasn`t lying or I didn`t pass it or I didn`t fail it. They just ruled it inconclusive and that is exactly the way it stands.  
I have been 100 percent completely honest with everyone. I have been 100 percent cooperative in everything that has been asked of me. I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature. I`m 100 percent completely innocent in this. And I have exhausted 
my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again.  That`s very important to me. I have not responded to a lot of the negativity and all of this animosity because I want the emphasis to remain on Crystal`s safe return home. And that`s where I want it to stay focused in that area rather than dealing with any of the animosity between the families.  

He says everything but "I did not cause Crystal's disappearance." He also uses her name, rather than the more common avoidance.  We note the context of using her name:  
It is within the realm of suspicion and her safe return.  

It is a lengthy answer and yields much information.  If he knows where Crystal may be found, it is very likely within the words of the formal police interview, via leakage.  Let's look at his answer, point by point in analysis. 

HOUCK: Because of the way that the lines or whatever were they, they determined it to be inconclusive. I`m not exactly sure what that means. 

When a polygraph is conducted via Statement Analysis and the subsequent interview, there is little reason for "inconclusive" results.  It is imperative in the pre-screen interview that the subject define his own words, and the questions must be constructed solely upon his words, which he has specifically given meaning.  Every one of us has a personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  Once de-coded through simple questions, he will either pass or fail.

I once had a child molester write out a statement indicating guilt and the exact time and location of the molestation, according to the analysis. 

The analysis matched the statement and time line of the child, including the exact time of the molestation and the location in the house where it took place.  

He was asked if he had "molested her" and passed.  

In his language, as well as the child's he "tickled" her genital areas, not "molested."

He went on to repeat offend since he "passed" his polygraph, much like the presidential example above where technically, Clinton was not lying.  He and Monica Lewinsky had talked about his definition of "sexual relations" as limited to "intercourse. "

In the interview, he should be asked, "What happened?" and not be interrupted.  Each time a specific word is used, it is written down, and then he can be asked, "What do you mean when you say ____?" to make sure that he and the polygrapher are on the exact same page.  

Then, once words like, "disappearance" are defined and the polygrapher is using his language, short simple questions will be clear to the subject and psyiological responses discernible. 

To be not exactly sure to is have a good idea of the meaning.  

This is also where we look for him to say "I told the truth" using 3 components:

1.  "I"

2.  "told" in past tense, referring to the test

3.  The word "truth" in any form, but not the word "lie" in any form.  

But they did tell me it does mean that I wasn`t lying or I didn`t pass it or I didn`t fail it. They just ruled it inconclusive and that is exactly the way it stands.  

He quotes their language with "I wasn't lying' but does not affirm this for himself.  He does not say that although it was inconclusive, that "I told the truth."

Statement Analysis recognizes that outright lying is quite rare, and happens in less than 10% of deception.  Most deception is from missing information.  

A direct lie causes internal stress as it not only disrupts the speed of transmission in the brain, but it sets up a future confrontation where one is accused of lying.  Most people avoid it instead employing language that does not commit to the truth.  This is why a truthful person will say, "I didn't cause Crystal's disappearance" and will look at his statement of affirmation and say, " I told the truth"
making it more than 99.9% likely to be true.   This is the analysis rule of being incapable of "lying twice", that is, to look upon one's lie, and lie about it.  

It does not happen. 


I have been 100 percent completely honest with everyone. 
a.  Statistically, those who employ percentages are closer to deception than truth tellers.  
b.  Note here the distance between the word "I" and the word "everyone." This is to avoid saying that he told the truth to police, but gives the all-encompassing "everyone", which is non-specific.  He needs distance between himself and "everyone" under the context of being "honest."
c.  Next note that his "honesty" is made sensitive with "completely" honest.
d.  Next note that his honesty is not only sensitive with "completely" but it is further qualified with "100 percent."

This is not to say, "I have been honest" but to make his "honesty"sensitive, twice.  
Statistically, he has moved to "deception" and further away from "truthful."

I have been 100 percent cooperative in everything that has been asked of me. 

Here he uses the same phrase, "100 percent"cooperative, but he does not use the word "completely."
This is a change of language and he gives the reason:
"that has been asked of me."
This shows that he is aware of questions that have not been asked of him that he has not cooperated with:  specific topics uncovered by police in his mind. 

I have not asked for any kind of legal advice or assistance or an attorney of any nature.

What one says in the negative is very important.  This is what he has not asked:
1.  "kind of legal advice"
2   "assistance"
3.  "an attorney"

This is also to avoid saying, "I did not cause Crystal to disappear" as well as to avoid saying "I told the truth."

 I`m 100 percent completely innocent in this. 

He returns to his former sensitivity but this time about innocence.  Not being convicted in a court by a jury of his peers makes this statement truthful but...

with his three assertions:
He is 100% completely honest and innocent, but not 100% completely cooperative, only "100% cooperative."

"attorney of any nature" is different "natures" of attorneys, which may be in reference to an attorney who:
a.  practices criminal defense
b.  practices property or business disputes 

And I have exhausted my efforts with the law enforcement agencies to gather all the facts necessary to allow me to have a clean name again. 

People often feel that such a speech sounds impressive but once they look at the words chosen, they see it differently.  Recall Marion Jones' powerful press conference in which she talked about all the drug tests she passed and all the assertions that USADA was crooked and hiding things.  She spoke in powerful terms but was incapable of saying, "I did not use steroids." The press and public was impressed.  Statement Analysis showed her as deceptive.  
She spent time in prison for lying.  

Here we reference the "speed of transmission" of speech. 

The average person has 25,000 words in his vocabulary.  When answering the question "what happened?" he has to:
a.  choose what events to tell and what events to leave out, because no one can tell everything that happened;
b. choose which words to use
c.  choose which order to put these words
d.  choose the verb tenses and pronouns according to memory
e.  place the words next to each other properly to make sense in communication.

This entire process takes place in less than a micro-second of time.  This incredibly fast process is why Statement Analysis is so effective and so successful, far above the polygraph. 
Lying is stressful because it disrupts this very speedy process and is seen through such things as sensitivity indicators and other principles within analysis.  

1.  He exhausted his efforts with law enforcement tells us:
a.  The distance between him and law enforcement exists
b.  The distance has exhausted his efforts; he has nothing more he can try with them
c.  His purpose is not to find Crystal, but in working with law enforcement is for his name
d.  His name needs "cleaning" and not "clearing" with "clean" a word more closely related to sexual homicide or sexual abuse than not. 
e.  He believes his name was "clean" before, and must be restored.  

Order speaks to priority; his name is more of a concern than finding Crystal, which comes later. 

 That`s very important to me. 
Note the context:
She is missing;
He has distanced himself from her and from her children;
Yet we have a topic that is now important to him:  getting the information that will him ("me") to have a clean name again.  
He does not have confidence in law enforcement in cleaning his name.  

I have not responded to a lot of the negativity 

He has not said, "I didn't cause Crystal to disappear" but only to "a lot" (not all) of the negativity.  

and all of this animosity 

"animosity" is accompanied with the "negativity', which is the emotion behind the accusation that he caused Crystal's disappearance.  This is to:

a.  Refuse to deny the crime
b.  Denigrate those who accuse him by ascribing their suspicion of him to emotional hatred (animosity), that is, personal.  

because I want the emphasis to remain on Crystal`s safe return home. And that`s where I want it to stay focused in that area rather than dealing with any of the animosity between the 
families. 

He is aware of where the emphasis is, upon him, which is "negative" and he "wants it" to be on Crystal's safe return, (which produced her name), and "that is where I want it to stay focused", with the word "that" also distancing language.  
He repeats "animosity", showing how sensitive it is to him, and how a simple denial could stop it, but he is incapable or unwilling to do so.  

We have a rule in Statement Analysis:

If the subject is unwilling or unable to say he did not do it, we are not going to say it for him.  


GRACE: To Tommy and Sherry Ballard, Crystal`s mom and dad, to Miss Ballard, I want to talk about her car and her getting out of that car, and leaving the car in the ignition with her cell phone and pocketbook and a diaper bag still in the car and getting out on the side of the road. What 
do you make of that? Because there is no way I would do that.  

S. BALLARD: I don`t think Crystal would, either. I can`t see her getting out the car. I can`t see remember once her leaving her baby at home. I can`t see her getting out of the car in the dark, not with a cell phone in her hand or something anyway. She had AAA. She had no reason to get out 
of the car. I just -- it don`t make sense.  

I left in this one answer just to show how easy it is for someone to use Crystal's name, making it extreme distancing language by its avoidance in the language of Brooks Houck.  

GRACE: It doesn`t make sense to me, either, Mr. and Miss Ballard. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Brooks Houck is deceptively withholding information regarding the disappearance of Crystal Houck. 

He consistently used distancing language to Crystal, and was incapable or unwilling to issue a Reliable Denial (RD).  He has indicated no connection to Crystal, nor to the children, but makes sure that we know he has a connection to the rental property.  Brooks Houck is not telling everything he knows about what happened to Crystal.  

This could be not as one might expect from one engaged to the other of his child, while she is missing.  

His language reveals that he is concealing information, that is, as an act of his will.  He could have guilt in that his fighting with her led to her leave the home which led to her demise; or

He could have guilt because he caused her disappearance, which includes using the word "kill" regarding time, twice.  That these words came into his vocabulary, while she is missing, is alarming and if he did cause her disappearance, are rightfully viewed as "leakage", as the deceptive person 'slips up' words that he was thinking of while attempting to deceive.  
Most all deception is from withholding information, rather than the direct lying that causes internal stress; a stress not necessarily tied to a conscience, as even "sociopaths" feel the stress of processing interruption.  

It is important to note that Brooks Houck does not deny causing her disappearance, in all of his statements here, and he  used distancing language between himself and her, and himself and the children, and himself and police, while giving specific details to bring him close to the  rental properties, as well as a psychological closeness associated with "cleaning" his own name, as a priority, more than her "safe return."

His need to get the audience to think this was a "normal night" signals to us that he needs this persuasion because it was not normal, and he is withholding critical information about the night that has to do with the interpersonal stress of that night.  

He is incapable of saying that he did not cause Crystal's disappearance, while using many words, in fact, to avoid making this simple, but reliable denial.  Even in face of the allegations, he attaches negative emotion to the motive of suspicion, but refuses to defuse the motive.  Instead, he uses many words to persuade that he did not do it, yet cannot state that he did not do it.  This is consistent with guilt.  The slowing down of the pace, giving needless extra details, is psychologically connected with the avoidance of stress; not wanting to get to "what really happened" the night she went missing.  

He is withholding information about what happened to Crystal, and in doing so, spoke publicly outside of experiential memory which was picked up by Nancy Grace intuitively, and showed that he needs to build an alibi for himself, in "facts", "events" and "time lines" that, once memorized, sound scripted to our hearing.  When the memorization of the script fails, the chronology falls out of order, such as the case with showing real estate and the trip to Walmart. 
Investigators should seek to learn the presence of a 3rd party.  This may be:
a.  Someone he is involved with;
b.  Someone he suspects she is involved with;
c.  Someone she is involved with;
d.  Someone who may be giving her emotional support;
e.  Someone who may be giving her financial support. 

There may be some issues with his phone records and her phone records must be checked, specifically during the time at Walmart.  

His words reveal a very extraordinary night, including stress and tension, of which her phone and the child not being watched, were part of the stress.  

Brooks Houck is withholding information.  This information could be nefarious, as he included the words "kill time" twice, or it could be that he is aware of her leaving the home was due directly to the infighting he feels responsible for, in driving her out of the house.  The latter would be the more difficult to accept, given the nature of withholding information while she has been missing for this long.  One case that comes to mind is a father who was deceptive while his daughter went missing.  He did not kill her, but a sex offender did.  He was deceptive due to negligence associated with intoxication and was deceptive in trying to protect himself.  Another case a man was deceptive to the press about his wife's mental state, as she was suicidal and the press saw his deception.  This kept the "searching" going more than necessary, and questions arose whether or not he was going to start a "go fund me" type campaign for money, when his wife's body was found, hung in suicide.  

 Yet, most all deception that takes place when a person is missing is a signal of guilty knowledge of the crime.