Tuesday, November 21, 2017

John Conyers Issues Statement


The AP asked Michigan Rep. John Conyers  if he paid settlements due to sexual harassment.  A woman claimed she was paid a settlement after being terminated from her job because she refused to have sex with him.  

Conyers told The Associated Press that "knew nothing" about ay settlements 
 and that he's “been looking at these things with amazement.”

That he initially claimed to "know nothing" coupled with his inclusion of emotion indicates that this is not a reliable denial.  

"I didn't fire ____  for not having sex with me" would be a strong denial.  

This publication of the "no knowledge" 
led to him making a statement:

“My office resolved the allegations  with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative. The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

Let's look at it again, with analysis:

“My office resolved the allegations  with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation. That should not be lost in the narrative. The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

1.  Denial 

We first note that he does not deny the allegation.  The allegation is that he fired someone for refusing to have sex with him.  This is an allegation of "sexual harassment."  It is not flirting, it is not simply inappropriate, but it is an illegal activity. 

2.  He denies "liability"; not the action: the quality or state of being liable or responsible with its consequences.  It avoids denying the action.



3.  The need to explain why:  My office resolved the allegations  with an express denial of liability in order to save all involved from the rigors of protracted litigation.

This anticipates being asked, "Why, if you didn't do it, did you make a payout?" even though no such question is posed. 

This is similar to the settlements of Bill O'Reilly, Michael Jackson, and many others. 

4.  Minimization:  

Here we see "the rule of the negative" in telling us, in the negative, the following: 

The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

He refers to the the dollar amount, in what it wasn't, rather than issue a denial.  This indicates a need to minimize the accusation against him, as if it is "less" of an accusation warranting less money.

5.  The problem with minimization is that he comes very close to embedding a confession, by answering the unasked question of "why" less money was spent:

The resolution was not for millions of dollars, but rather for an amount that equated to a reasonable severance payment.”

Considering the claim, this comes close to an admission of guilt:  "severance" is related to the victim's termination. 

Analysis Conclusion:

A woman alleged that John Conyers demanded sex from her and when she refused, he fired her.  

He first said he did not have knowledge of any settlements.  Then, he said he was dealing with "amazement" regarding the allegation.  When this was published, he then issued a statement in which he does not deny the attempt to coerce sex from the alleged victim. 

He goes from "not reliable" to "unreliable" to then giving us more information, including the defense of money:  reporting that it was not "millions."

Deception Indicated.

John Conyers did not pay out money without cause.  He was deceptive when he claimed to have no knowledge of such, and sought to persuade his audience of this fact:  he was in "amazement" because he had no association with it.  

He then contradicted this with distancing language:  his "office" paid out.  This is an unnecessary removal of self. 

Given his "lack of knowledge", and his need to minimize the money issue, the public should not be surprised if more information comes out that he paid off other victims of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault and that it goes back years.  

The passage of time and/or how the press found these files may be the cause of his "amazement." 









MSM: John Conyers Denies Settlement


The AP asked Michigan Rep. John Conyers  if he paid settlements due to sexual harassment.  A woman claimed she was paid a settlement after being terminated from her job because she refused to have sex with him.  

Conyers told The Associated Press that he hasn’t settled any sexual harassment complaints with any staff members.  They do not give us his quote.  This is now reported throughout media:  "John Conyers denies..."

Conyers, who answered the door at his Detroit home Tuesday morning, says he knows nothing about any claims of inappropriate touching and learned of the story just hours earlier.  It would be interesting to learn if he said he "knows nothing."  

Referring to allegations of sexual harassment and assault being made against politicians and others, the veteran lawmaker says he’s “been looking at these things with amazement.”

This is, for now, all we have to go on.  The word "these" indicates closeness, which could be chronological closeness since this was just announced.  It could be closeness for other reasons, but this would only be guess work. 

We do not have a quote to analyze but we do have a short quote about his emotional reaction.

One might consider why the AP did not report the direct quote of denial to its outlets.  

BuzzFeed reports that Conyers’ office paid the woman over $27,000 to settle the complaint under a confidentiality agreement. BuzzFeed also published affidavits from former staff members who said they had witnessed Conyers touching female staffers inappropriately or requesting sexual favors.

Congress’s Office of Compliance has paid out $17 million of our money over the past 2 decades in settlements that include sex harassment cases. However, that’s not where the cash came from to hush this Conyers employee. She was paid off with around $27,000 of taxpayer money, but it came out of Conyers’ office budget. Deceptive accounting practices were employed to cover up the scandal.

The inclusion of his emotion is part of a "need to persuade."  It does not make a conclusion, but it weakens his stance.

Why?

First, the emotional response from one with no connection is expected.

Secondly, the context is important:  there is an avalanche of allegations in politics and Hollywood today.  Some accusations may be true, and others false.

There is no congruence in "amazement" given our context. There is also the question of "This is necessary to state...why?"

We will need a complete statement from John Conyers to analyze.






Monday, November 20, 2017

Roy Moore Yearbook Signature Analysis by Steve Johnson, Veritas


Steve Johnson is a certified Statement Analysis and Hand Writing Analysis.
His work is so precise that in cases we have worked together, he has matched the psychological profile with the psycho-linguistic profile which matched the diagnosis.
Steve's work is principle driven and is subordinated to the wording, yet so strong, that it never experiences incongruence.
After many years of seeing poor, predominantly guess work, Steve's work has brought me new confidence in hand writing analysis; something I've not had.

Steve is now a full time instructor having recently retired from almost 3 decades of law enforcement.

Roy Moore Yearbook
by Steve Johnson, Veritas

There has been a lot of talk and speculation lately regarding the validity of Roy Moore’s year book signature.  This is a great example of Handwriting Analysis and Statement Analysis working hand in hand.  One science should confirm the other and in this case, they do.  

The exemplar we have in the year book raises three questions:
  1. Is the signature that of Roy Moore himself?
  2. Is the writing after the signature also that of Roy Moore?
  3. If the writing after the signature is not Moore’s, does it mean the signature was forged?

Those that say the signature is a fake, have cited the differences in handwriting that appears after the signature, compared to the writing before it.  I agree with them, there are two styles of handwriting.  The author of the inscription and signature, is different than the author of 12-22-77, Olde Hickory House.  The yearbook has obviously been tampered with.  However, that does not mean Roy Moore didn’t sign the year book in 1977.   
Let’s examine the year book signature in comparison to Roy Moore’s signature when he was Chief Justice.  
                      
When examining the signatures, keep in mind that signatures typically have minor changes depending on what is occurring in our lives at the time.  In this case, there are a couple minor inconsistencies, but they pale in comparison to the major consistent traits in both signatures.   
  1. We first note the slant and letter size are consistent.
  2. The entrance stroke of the capital R begins with an upstroke, followed by a down and up stroke.  This appears as a muddy or pasty area in the known signature on the right.
  3. The R loop is consistent, followed by the exit stroke that ends slightly higher than the afore mentioned down/ up stroke to it’s left.  
  4. Also note the slight exit to the right in both signatures.
  5. The R in both signatgures is disconnected from the “oy” in both signatures.
  6. The y cup is at the top end of the o to it’s left.
  7. The capital M begins with a “clubbed” or pasty entrance stroke, creating a third hump in the M.
  8. The Humps and strokes within the M are identical to each other, with a point in the final hump.
  9. The M is disconnected from the rest of the letters in Moore.
  10. The o’s in Moore are different size, with the right o higher than the left.
  11. The r in both signatures is consitent.
  12. The e exit stroke is identical in both.   
  13. We do not see hesitation points in the yearbook signature.  It was written in one flowing motion, greatly increasing the validity of the signature.  

The many consistent traits in both signatures leave no doubt they were written by the same person.  Roy Moore has not denied signing the year book. He has however, spent much time highlighting the differences in the writing after the signature, which he can truthfully do.  During my 28 years in Law Enforcement, I often witnessed criminals do this same thing.  They spoke with confidence and at length about that which was truthful and led focus away from their crimninal actions.  However, they spent very little time or avoided all together the incident in question.  It is a common tactic among liars.  

Regarding the year book signature, Roy Moore came very close to an embedded admission when he said, the signature has been “tampered” with.   We have to believe him.  If it wasn’t his signature, how would he know it had been tampered with?  Furthermore, what would it matter?  If he did not sign the year book, he could stand with confidence in front of the wall of truth and reliably deny signing the book.  He knows the signature is his, and he cannot deny it.  I believe him.   

Friday, November 17, 2017

Cameron Cook, 17, Intervenes for Young Girl

Cameron Cook helped protect a little girl from a pervert at the South Bay Target. (WBZ-TV)

 

Cameron Cook, a teenager,  and his mom were doing some shopping at the South Bay Plaza Target when something odd caught his eye–a man with what he describes as a demonic look on his face.

“I seen the guy grabbing himself, and my mom goes, ‘Cam let’s go, keep walking,’ I was like, no, something’s going on.”

It is interesting to see two distinctly different protective capacities clash:

They saw a man grabbing himself in public.  Recognizing the inappropriate behavior, the mother's instinct to to protect her offspring.  This is her feminine instinct:  Cameron is her baby. 

But Cameron is 17 and his masculinity is to intervene.  Sociologists call this the "three P's" of masculinity:  Procreate, Provide and Protect and that men are fulfilled when they exercise all three.  

Cameron is both her baby, but he is also older than the victim, which may thus incite his desire to protect. 

Yet, we learn from the article:  he is both younger and smaller than the perpetrator.  

The 17-year-old noticed that man fixated on a young girl pushing a shopping cart.

I was close enough that I could smell the liquor coming from his mouth,” said Cameron’s mother, Heather Cook. “It was horrible.”

This is sensory language that suggests not so much that she smelled it on his "breath" but his "mouth"; a possible indication that she not only heard what he said, but was troubled by it.  

But it got worse when the man thrust himself up against the somewhat startled youngster, prompting Cameron to step in. Here we see:

"The Rule of the Negative" intuitively understood by the brave young man.  What someone tells us in the negative is elevated in importance.  When it comes freely, without being questioned:  it is very important information. 

So I went up to him, I was like, ‘Excuse me sir, do you know her?’ And then the first thing he said was, ‘I’m not a pervert, I’m not a pervert.’ 

I was like, I didn’t ask you that sir,” said Cameron.

Cameron paraphrased his own language, consistent with a teenager, though reduced in reliability for exact language.  This is particularly interesting because:

a.  Cameron does not editorialize his statement by claiming to be polite.  If he said, "I was like, excuse me sir', as politely as I could..." we would consider possible deception of categorization. Instead, he uses it twice, about his own language but not for the language of the alleged perpetrator. 

Why not?

b.  Cameron was in logic with the numeric of what was said "first", but does not tell us what came after that.  

This may be due to editing but it also may be due to the same reason as the above, "Why not?" question:

the elevated importance of hearing the Rule of the Negative, instinctively may have arrested his attention.  

Cameron recognized that the alleged perpetrator offered to him, in the negative, an open statement and it was strong enough to drop the word "like" and repeat it.  

"I'm not a pervert" is to offer, without being asked, what he is not. 

He then repeats it, increasing the sensitivity with "I'm not a pervert."

This is where people often feel to ask within themselves, "who is this person trying to convince; me or himself?" 

The mother's protective capacities over her baby remain.  She sized up the two, instinctively: 


He was big, and Cameron had no fear at all,” said his mother. “He just stood firm on the fact that he knew what this man was doing was wrong.”

The mother knew why Cameron was not intimidated into staying away from the situation, by the size disparity:  right from wrong, or "righteousness."

An old definition of masculinity is as follows:  "masculinity is the sacrifice of strength for righteousness."

This is why Western civilization embraced the slogan of the Titanic of "women and children first", something eyewitness accounts gave that was so powerful, millions joined the "Titanic Society" pledging to sacrifice themselves for those weaker than themselves and to put "women and children first."

This is not a philosophy shared by the world, even at the beginning of the 20th Century. 

Cameron put himself in harm's way with an older and bigger man.  This is what sacrifice looks like.  He risked harm to self for a greater purpose:  a child. 

Cameron suggested the man leave the store, and he did–denying and cursing all the way.  The article did not give us quotes, which would have been interesting.  
The Target at South Bay Plaza. (WBZ-TV)

Surveillance video had been turned over to police.  His mother is rightfully proud of the young man: 

“I’m very proud of him, but it’s totally within his character. He’s not afraid to do what’s right.”

There were also heartfelt thanks from the young victim’s mom, who apparently was in the bathroom at the time. Does the "hero" or "celebrity status" weigh upon the 17 year old as a priority?  We need to only listen to him to know:  

“I’m just happy I was there to protect her,” said Cameron. “Because you never know what could have went on.”

the word "just" is a dependent and comparative word.  He is comparing something (or some things) to protecting the victim.  In context of being interviewed, it would appear that Cameron's interest in protecting the little girl was more than interest in being a "hero" or interviewed.  

This was what mattered most to him. 

In a time where civility is breaking down and everyone claims to be a victim of some kind, this young man's example is refreshing to read. 

Had the alleged perpetrator molested the young girl, she might have suffered for the rest of her life; she and all those who love her, or will love her.  

Perhaps Cameron will consider a career to "protect and serve", and go into law enforcement.  



Thursday, November 16, 2017

Roy Moore Open Letter to Sean Hannity Analyzed





In child sexual abuse cases, one of many signals of guilt popularity employed is to avoid denying the accusation and referring to marital status. 

Married men and unmarried men commit sexual assault. It is immaterial by itself, but when presented instead of a reliable denial, it is a signal of deception via tangent. When an accused says, "but I am a happily married man", in a child sexual abuse investigation, he is telling us that he believes sexual arousal towards a child is natural and normal, as he equates it to marriage. Sexual attraction towards a child and sexual attraction in marriage are unrelated, but in the abuser's verbalized perception of reality, it is one and the same; hence, it is in his language. 

Internal Stress of Lying 

Why won't Moore simply say, "I didn't touch her" and be done with it?

When words do not come from experiential memory, there is an automatic stress level that rises.  Even sociopaths feel this stress, though they may not have human empathy because they do not want to be caught; confronted and seen as a liar. 

Kevin Fox was accused of  killing his own daughter.  He issued a reliable denial and there was little he could offer after this.  Why?  Because he had no linguistic connection to killing his daughter.  Had the investigators been trained, they would not have persecuted him.  

Direct lies are often (90%) avoided.  Instead, most deception comes from deliberately withheld information. 

Analysis thus far has showed:

1.  The woman who claimed she was 14 when molested gave us an insufficient sample.  Yet, in the sample, there was no indicator of deception.  

2.  Judge Moore responded with an "Unreliable Denial."  In subsequent statements, he was indicated for deception via missing information.  He was not truthful and did not say, "I did not touch..." in any form.  

3.  Another woman came forward, this time with Gloria Allred, and accused Judge Moore of sexual assault.  She showed signals of deception, but only in her classification of the event:  not the event itself.  Her language was that of a consensual romantic encounter, where she refused to engage in oral sex with him. Her assertion of assault, at that point, is not strong.  

4.  The yearbook:  I wrote that there may have been a second author adding the date and name of the restaurant but that I am not an expert.  Therefore, if so, we could hear Judge Moore say, "I did not write in her yearbook" as a strong denial.  

Here is his "open letter" to Sean Hannity.  

What do we look for?

The answer is simple:  "I did not..." using the basic truthful formula for a Reliable Denial. 

"I did not touch..."
"I did not write in Beverly's yearbook" and so on.  

The analysis is in plain text. 

Sean Hannity was accused of "defending a pedophile" by the Soros organization.  The specific allegation was deceptive.  Sean Hannity lectured Moore and gave him continual opportunities to deny the specifics, which Moore refused to do.  Sean's own suspicion was evident in his words.  

Dear Sean:
I am suffering the same treatment other Republicans have had to endure.

Priority for the subject:  his status as victim.  

This should not be taken as indifference to suffering victims.  Remember:  Statement Analysis works on the presupposition that the subject is truthful, has de facto innocence, and will guide us to the truth. 

This is not a moral exercise. 

We set up a "linguistic confrontation" in analysis. 

We presuppose that he did not do it and we then expect to read the statement seamlessly affirming this.  

If not, we are now "confronted" with information that is unnecessary. 

We are "confronted" by the missing information of "I did not..."

In short, we begin with believing the subject unless and until he talks us out of it. 

In the analysis of Madeleine McCann, every sentence is viewed from this perspective:

Maddie was kidnapped by a stranger. 

What happened to this starting premise?

The McCanns tore it down, to the uttermost.  They "confronted" me with their language telling me that my presupposition of them not being involved was wrong.  They "talked me out of it" completely.  

I have written about two dramatic professional challenges for me where my analysis and the polygraph differed.  In both cases, the subject so completely talked me out of the position of innocence that I had no choice but to say, "guilt."

In one, the mother's boyfriend was permitted back into the house to reoffend; and in the other, the subject is now serving life for the murders.  There was nothing "iffy" about either. 

With Judge Moore, I have followed his statements waiting fo him to say, "I did not molest" or "I did not touch" or "I did not write in her yearbook."

It is not complicated. 

Complexity is introduced by Anthony Wiener, Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, as well as attackers like Lance Armstrong. 

Yet, search the cases in the Statement Analysis blog and see how the Reliable Denial holds up. 

If Judge Moore said, "I did not touch her and I don't know who she is.  I am telling the truth" it would have been 99.9% likely and the story would have died.  

Let's say that during a seminar, I left my wallet on the table and went out into the hall to take a phone call and came back to learn my wallet had been stolen. 

If I looked at you and said, "You took my wallet!" and you did not.  

Would you say,

"On advise of counsel..."
"People have long accused my people of stealing due to racism and..."
"I have plenty of my own money"
"I work for a living."
"I would never steal anything."?

Or, would you say, "I didn't take your wallet", resting on the truth?

"Why should I believe you?"

"Because I am telling the truth.  I didn't take your wallet."

If I kept up at it, you, the de facto (not judicial) innocent person would immediately lose faith in my ability to teach lie detection, as I stared into the face of truth and not recognize it. 

The Judge is truthful:  he didn't do it and he is a victim.  He is going to tell us that he did not do it and we are going to believe him.  

We continue to listen for him to tell us so:  


A month prior to the general election for U.S. Senate in Alabama, I have been attacked by The Washington Post and other liberal media in a desperate attempt to smear my character and defeat my campaign.

Here he tells us motive.  The Washington Post is infamous for not only partisan reporting, but actual "fake news" stories.  They are, corporately, corrupt. 

Was it a false story?

if so, he will deny it for us.  


Over the last 40 years I have held several public offices, including Deputy District Attorney, Circuit Judge, and Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. 


Chronologically, he goes back 40 years, which is appropriate given the age of the accusations.  

Now that he is there, appropriately in the past, we now expect to hear the Three Elements of the "Reliable Denial"

1.  the pronoun "I" putting himself psychologically (emotionally and intellectually) into the denial.

2.  the past tense verb "didn't" or "did not."  Reid is solid training for police but the differentiation of the two is unnecessary.  Both are reliable. 

"wouldn't"
"would not"
are not acceptable substitutes, as they speak to future and/or conditional. 

"never" is not acceptable especially here as he is, chronologically back in time.  "Never" is deliberately vague.  Lance Armstrong could not, in years, say, "I did not use PEDS" but he was able to say, "NEVER!  NEVER!"

3.  The allegation answered.  Even with multiple allegations, the 14 year old girl allegation is the most serious to date.  Answer it directly. 

"Did not touch the girl" is an example of how guilty people sometimes make a denial. This is unreliable.  Why?

What's wrong with this?

Did you notice that the pronoun "I" is missing?  The pronoun "I" is used by humans millions of times. We are really good at it. 

He did what guilty teens do; they psychologically remove themselves. 

"Went to the movies."  The teen does not say "I went..." or even "we went." 

Therefore, we do not know if he went, but if he did, what did he do there, and where else did he go?

Caring parents recognize the dropped pronoun.  



In addition to running five statewide and three county campaigns for public office, 


Roy Moore now tells us:

"I am the  good guy."

This is a form of ingratiating himself into his audience.  If he is the "good guy", it means he can't be "the bad guy."

We use this to uncover child abuse and other crimes.  Mothers who put their children, for example, through vicious drug withdrawal often write on their application to methadone clinics that they are "great mothers."  It is a signal of the need to persuade something that does not exist. I often say that "great mothers are too tired to boast."  Yet, when we read "great mother", we often find child protective services history. 

Moore is now boasting of his service.  

People with good service records can molest, just as people with poor records can molest.  This is a signal that he does not want to be remembered for molestation, but for his career highlights.  It is very sad, but indicative of guilt. 

It is more than just a tangent away from a denial.  It is now to portray him, not a victim of dirty Washington Post politics, but of personal suffering for a cause:


I have been involved in two major controversies that attracted national attention, one about the Ten Commandments and the other the sanctity of marriage.
The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, Court of the Judiciary, and Attorney General have investigated, scrutinized, examined, and vetted me, not to mention every opposing candidate against whom I have run.

He now seeks to ingratiate himself further to people of faith by appealing to the sanctity of marriage and the Ten Commandments. 

Although this is not strictly part of the "Divinity principle" in analysis (this is where "I swear to God" indicates habitual deception) where one feels the need for Divine witness to words (revealing weakness) but it comes close. 

We still wait for him to say, "I didn't...


I have been married for almost 33 years to my wife Kayla. 


By itself, this inclusion in an allegation of molesting a child (14 year old) would cause most investigators to believe he is guilty.  

That he is married to the same woman is offered as proof that he did not do it, rather than say, "I did not do it..." 



We have four children and five granddaughters.

Charles Manson could claim having children and grandchildren.  This is immaterial or "unnecessary" information.  

In analysis, unnecessary information is very important to the analyst.  

This is a statement of concern:  Roy Moore is embarrassed by the allegations, cannot deny them, but knows they are now for his wife and children and grandchildren to know about.  

It is humiliating.  

We continue to wait for him to deny what is alleged.  Thus far, he works through tangents, seeks to persuade us that he is too good of a person to molest a child. 


We are in the process of investigating these false allegations to determine their origin and motivation. 

He is no longer "alone" in the statement, but employs others. 

What he says next should be read with analysis of Beverly Nelson's claim

Nelson is deceptive in her categorization of what happened. She described a consensual flirtatious relationship and likely planned "necking" in his car, but when she refused oral sex, he "left" her.  What he says here is likely not only truthful, but affirms the analysis.  Please take the time to read it.  It may prove that Moore is truthful at this point.  

For instance, we have documented that the most recent accuser, Beverly Nelson, was a party in a divorce action before me in Etowah County Circuit Court in 1999. No motion was made for me to recuse. In her accusations, Nelson did not mention that I was the judge assigned to her divorce case in 1999, a matter that apparently caused her no distress at a time that was 18 years closer to the alleged assault. Yet 18 years later, while talking before the cameras about the supposed assault, she seemingly could not contain her emotions.

She dramatized the event and may have been promised financial reward by Gloria Allred (see analysis about her husband the truck driver). 

Had it been the actual assault that Allred wished to convey, it is true that she would not have wanted the judge to be Moore.  This is a good argument but not against the allegation of an inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old girl. 

We continue to wait for him to deny it. 

In the analysis, I wrote that the date and restaurant may have been added by another person (perhaps at Allred's directive).  

Let's yield this point.  

Therefore, we now expect him to say "I did not write in her yearbook."

This would tell us, in very strong language, that it is fraudulent.  

All he needs to say is:  I did not write in her yearbook."



My signature on the order of dismissal in the divorce case was annotated with the letters “D.A.,” representing the initials of my court assistant. Curiously the supposed yearbook inscription is also followed by the same initials — “D.A.” But at that time I was Deputy District Attorney, not district attorney. Those initials as well as the date under the signature block and the printed name of the restaurant are written in a style inconsistent with the rest of the yearbook inscription. The “7’s” in “Christmas 1977” are in a noticeably different script than the “7’s” in the date “12-22-77.” I believe tampering has occurred.

He did not say, "I did not write in her yearbook."  He is now "splitting hairs" and this is a deceptive point.  Remember, most deception is via missing information. 

If he had not written in her yearbook, he would have told us so.  

It is likely that we are going to learn that he did write in her yearbook, even if the addition is from Allred. 

He now moves into a lecture.  This is called, in analysis training, "The Sermon."

We find this in drug cases. 

We need to learn:  did this employee use cocaine on break and then drive patients. 

The subject was told of the allegation and said,

"Drugs?  Are you kidding me?  Let me tell you that drugs are destroying this nation.  I would never use drugs..."

He used and operated a bus of developmentally disabled clients under its influence. 

In a theft case, the subject did not deny the theft instead said,

"I gotta tell you.  My father went to prison for theft.  My uncle went to prison for theft.  Thieves are lower than drug dealers!"

He had stolen a valuable item from a client.  

The need to "Sermonize" is a shifting of guilt (projection) and continues to build himself up as the victim.  

Note the questions in an open statement do not wait for answers by Sean:  

Are we at a stage in American politics in which false allegations can overcome a public record of 40 years, stampede the media and politicians to condemn an innocent man, and potentially impact the outcome of an election of national importance? When allegations of events occurring 40 years ago — and never before mentioned during a 40-year career of public service — are brought out and taken seriously only 30 days before a critical election, we may be in trouble as a country.

He now, finally, gets to the allegations.  

Will he simply say "I didn't..." and end the controversy?  If not, he keeps it going: 



I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation

First, he "denies" what?

He does not deny touching them.  He does not deny doing anything:  he denies "allegations."

Next, did you notice the dropped pronoun?

"...did not date underage girls" does not use the pronoun "I" in it. 

What does this tell me?

First, let's say he really did not date underaged girls, with this being a "technical" point of legal age.  Even if it is legal to date a 16 year old by a 32 year old, it will be viewed by Western civilization as inappropriately exploitative.  This is because of the disparity of sophistication between them.  

Secondly, and more importantly, the dropped pronoun may reveal that there will be others to come forward who may have been under the legal age, and/or that the then 14 year old Leigh Corfman was something Moore considered consensual in nature. 


Because of that, at the direction of counsel, I cannot comment further.

— Roy S. Moore.

There is no legal consequence, in spite of what all guilty persons like to say, when one truthfully says,

"I didn't do it."

Going on the attack while not relying the allegations is consistent with deception. Lance Armstrong went after anyone and everyone who did not believe his lies. 

Roy Moore is incapable of saying he did not do it.  We cannot say it for him. 

We waited for him to say it, believing he would, but he "talked us out" of our premise that he did not do it. After all, if he cannot say it himself, we are not going to say it for him.

He has had many opportunities, including in the interviews where he was freely answering questions and choosing his own words and was incapable of doing so.  

We know the truth.  

Reliable Denials are easy to issue, and are very low stress.  They are comforting and they provide a psychological "wall of truth" that shows that truth stands on its own. 

The three components are:

1.  Pronoun "I"
2. Past tense verb "did not"
3.  Allegation specifically addressed.

Add to this, or subtract from this and it is not reliable.  

When a child killer says, "I did not harm the child" the minimization of the allegation is a violation of component number three above.  He did not "harm", he "killed."

The brain's attempt to deceive is powerful and intuitive.  The speed of transmission of thought to word gives us our advantage.  

In sexual abuse cases, number 3 is often altered to fit the guilty party's definition.  This is to alter the formula and is not to be deemed reliable. 

For training in deception detection, we offer the Complete Statement Analysis Course, in which you will learn how to discern deception from truth and run at or near 100% accuracy. 

It is done in your home and it comes with 12 months of e support. 

Tuition increases 1 January, 2018, so consider enrollment now.