Friday, August 17, 2012
Analysis of a Defense of Amanda Knox
by Peter Hyatt
I was asked by a commentator to do an analysis of the handwritten statement of Amanda Knox. At the time of the request, I had heard of the case, but wasn't familiar with the details.
Statement Analysis is best done cold.
When investigators ask other investigators to analyze a statement, the request is made insomuch as the statement is sent, along with the accusation, but without evidence, opinion, analysis, background checks, etc. Only the allegation is given, and the analysis is done. This is so that the analyst is not influenced by anything but the statement.
Statement Analysis is also useful, even when much information is known, especially for teaching purposes.
For example, read Mark McClish's analysis of Casey Anthony in which he concludes that the mother knows what happened to the child and is withholding the information from investigators. Today, this sounds benign because we know that the alleged kidnapper never existed. But back then, Mark went on only the statement.
Of course, doing the same statement knowing all that we know is useful in showing where sensitivity indicators popped up, which we know in retrospect, were lies. For the purpose of instruction, revisiting analysis of adjudicated cases, for instance, is useful.
Casey Anthony will be studied for a long time. Her lying is rare, but the principles we employ remain the same and pick up the deception in her statement.
When I began analysis of Amanda Knox's written statement, I stopped partially through due to the references (and details) to water (sexual connotation) and googled the case to familiarize myself with it. I returned and finished the analysis, but was surprised by the responses.
Since then, I have seen passionate debates online regarding guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox.
One commentator asked that I look at Steve Moore's defense of Amanda Knox. Given his credentials, I was initially excited about what he would say in her defense. Since then, I have learned that
he has made numerous appearances on the major networks on the Amanda Knox case, claiming that he once he thought her guilty, but now believes that she is innocent, and is actively engaged in seeking to help Knox.
In fact, it appears that Mr. Moore may have suffered personally due to his passionate stance on this case, as news reports say that he may have been terminated from his employment due to his involvement in defending Knox.
My own analysis of the case is strictly the wording of Amanda Knox.
It can be found here:
In the analysis, Amanda Knox tests deceptive, repeatedly and consistently.
Mr. Moore's plea follows in italics, with Statement Analysis in bold type. Any additional bold type is mine, added for instructional emphasis. His resume is impressive and he writes with passion. We employ the same principles of analysis in an article as we do in a statement, with the exception of measurement of form (content percentage and subjective time; lines per hour) since it is not incident based. We may view the number of lines dedicated to a particular topic, but this is not the same as the measurement of form used to uncover deception. (see analysis on Time and Form). It is helpful to read "Statement Analysis 101" if you are not familiar with the principles, as well as the analysis of Amanda Knox' s handwritten statement.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigation of Violent Crimes is My Life; Not a Hobby
by, Steve Moore
My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.
His first 10 lines are used to introduce himself, by his first and last name, with repeated mention of the FBI, indicating that this is a sensitive topic for him.
He also introduces "supervisor" in this introduction. In Statement Analysis, we look at the amount of words (or lines) assigned to various topics which can help us determine not only deception (see article on "Form") but for priority. Note that his "entire" experience was in investigations of violent crimes, excluding all other work.
I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families. In my 25 years in the FBI, I had come to believe that if you were arrested, you were probably guilty. I never had a person I took to trial who wasn’t convicted.
I was especially tired of guilty persons claiming their innocence.
"I do not know Amanda Knox" is a strong statement. Our measurement for reliability and commitment is First Person singular, past tense and we note not only any deviation from this formula of commitment, but we note any additions. Here, by itself, it is strong. But then he adds to it the additional information: "I have never met or (sic) spoke with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families". We would then ask, "have you emailed them? Have you had contact with them through another party?" since we note that he felt the need to add distance to the statement. This is the first mention of Amanda Knox. In analysis, it is important to note all names mentioned, and in the order they are mentioned, and how they are addressed.Also note that he mentions "FBI" again, which repetition shows sensitivity. He then states that after 25 years experience, he holds to a prejudice that if someone is arrested, he is guilty. This presupposed guilt is noted, as he reveals how his own mind worked, even after 25 years experience and should be noted.
I had heard snippets about the Knox case from the news, and believed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were certainly guilty.
Note the confirmation of his closed mindedness in the word "certainly". He concluded this because they had been arrested and it was a "certainty" for him. This leads to the question on how 25 years experience failed to make him open minded. We note this along with the repetition of experience as sensitive to the subject. Note that, within the prejudiced mind of guilt he heard "snippets" about the Knox case from the news. This would not be a study of a case file; but reduces the information he listened to to "snippets".
But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts.
Note that when someone "began" something, they should conclude it and may indicate a withholding of information; otherwise what was began was not completed and continues.
Note also that he began to "hear statements" that came from the press that "contradicted known facts". We note the change in language, from "snippets" from the "news" to "statements" from the "press".
When a change of language appears, it represents a change in reality. "I pulled out my gun, and fired my weapon, and then re holstered my gun." Here, the gun became a "weapon" when fired; but returned to being a "gun" when holstered. A change in language represents a change in reality. "My car started to sputter so I pulled over. I left the vehcile on the side of the road and walked."
Insurance investigators are often well trained (and in some regions, paid more than law enforcement) and recognize that the car was a "car" while being driven, but became a "vehicle" when it would no longer go. Therefore, the change of language is justified by the change in reality.
Statement Analysis principle: When there is a change in language, but not apparent change in reality, we may be looking at deception.
Note also that the "statements" from the "press" are no longer "snippets" from the "news" and, he reports, are contradicting "known facts".We have another change in language. This leads us to conclude:either there is a new source of information justifying the change of language, or there is possible deception here, and the information is coming from the same source; media.
In an interview, we would want to ask about "snippets", "news", "statements" and we would want to ask what "known" facts, are, versus, "unknown" facts. We would also need to know the source of the "known" facts. Without justification in reality, a change in language is flagged for possible deception.
Is the information coming from media outlets, which indicates deception, or does the subject have access to the case files in Italy, of which he can then compare the "known facts" to "statements and snippets" that came from media? Where did the "known facts" come from? Were they from the press? Note that he does not disclose where the "known" facts came from and he now causes us to ask about the difference between "facts" and "known facts"; ie, what this means to the subject himself.
Wanting to resolve the conflicts, I looked into the case out of curiosity.
Note the inclusion of the word "conflicts". Are these the "statements" from the press that "contradicted" the "known facts"? Note also that none are identified here. We would seek, in an interview, clarification on what is "known facts" versus unknown facts; and how they came into knowledge (ie, from the media?) This may indicate personal knowledge of the case, that is, reading the case files from Italy.
The more I looked, the more I was troubled by what I found. So I looked deeper, and I ended up examining every bit of information I could find (and there’s a lot of it).
Note that he "looked" and was "troubled" by what he found. He does not say where he "found" these things that troubled him.Note now we have new language introduced:He does not tell us where he looked (news, press) but he was able to examine "every bit of information" he was able to find.
An exaggeration is not necessarily deceptive within itself, as it is used to make a point. If we have, however, repeated (sensitive) exaggeration, we will then wish to revisit it for deception. It also raises the question of need. Why would repeated exaggeration be needed?
The subject does not tell us where he found "every bit" of information, leading us to more questions. This is why Statement Analysis is helpful in getting beyond attempts to persuade, and to seek truth. It is difficult for anyone to say that they examined "every" bit of information and not be questioned as to where it came from, but in this case, the files reside in another country, and not in the United States. Perhaps he had access to the case file if shared through his federal agency, but he does not say so.
The more I investigated, the more I realized that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not have had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Moreover, one reason that they were falsely convicted was that every rule of good investigation was violated.
We have a change in language, from "looked" and "examined" to "investigated". This is no longer someone viewing snippets from the news. We have a change in language and it must be justified by a change in reality. What has changed that he has gone from "looking" even deeper, to "examine" and now to "investigate"?
He does not identify the source of information that he now investigated, but tells us that this investigation of unknown information caused him to "realize" that the two accused had "nothing to do" with it. In order for this not to be viewed as deceptive, the information that he went from looking at, then to examining, and on to investigating would have to be made known.
If it is from the press, is it "snippets" or "statements" or information that "every bit" he could locate contradicted "known" facts; leading us to ask:"known" by whom? If the subject is unable to identify what it is that the source of information that he called "known facts" we are likely looking at deception: only that he read the news and changed his mind; not that he was privy to case files in Italy.
In Statement analysis, repetition indicates sensitivity. One repeated theme has been "FBI" in this statement.
Another is the word "every", which is all inclusive. Each time "every" is used, it should be noted. The word "every" is repeated, indicating sensitivity. Since "every" excludes none, it is something that may only rarely be used in association with an investigation, since "everything" cannot ever be known. Note here that "every rule of good investigation" is mentioned.
What are these rules?
Was "every" rule violated?
This is the language of persuasion, not of report. Note also the additional word "good". This means that to the subject, there are investigations and there are "good" investigations, within his personal internal dictionary. What rules are referenced?This sensitivity again suggests deception regarding the case files, perhaps (or source of information) via exaggeration.
I spent years of my life working on cases in the federal courts, from simple murder to mass shootings to weapons of mass destruction.
Note the repetition of his life experience again. Note also "federal" is repeated. The amount of repetition associated here with his work is highly sensitive to the subject. His work record, therefore, would likely need examination. He stated that he worked on cases, but did not say if he did so successfully. Since the subject has not said so, neither can we. We can say that his work is a highly sensitive topic to him, and that he has not overcome presuppositional judgementalism even though he worked at it for 25 years. Thus, he is failing to build the reader's confidence but is weakening it.
His view point of his work and career and that of his superiors is a highly sensitive and personal issue for him and should be examined.
In the U.S., the totality of the evidence and the hunches of the investigators in this matter would not have been sufficient to get a search warrant, much less take somebody to trial. The case is completely flawed in every way.
In Statement Analysis, the shortest sentence is best. Every additional word which can be removed from the sentence is called an "unnecessary" word, making it, in Statement Analysis, doubly important as it shows sensitivity.
For example, if I said, "I am happily married" it would be a straight forward statement. If I said I was "very happily" married the additional word "very" would indicate sensitivity. We do not know what causes the sensitivity; perhaps the subject didn't expect to be happy, or was previously unhappy. But if the subject said, "I am very, very happily married" and even on to "I am very, very very happily married" we might, along with Shakespeare, ask, "who are you trying to convince; you or me?" as the sensitivity is magnified by repetition.
Here, the subject uses additional words which cause us to flag the sensitivity:
1. The "totality" can only be known if the subject has access to all the case file information.
2. "hunches" of the investigators is to know what is in their minds; meaning he is either being deceptive, or has interviewed every Italian investigator and has known their thoughts or "hunches".
The case is not only flawed but with the sensitive addition of "in every way" and in its entirety. The repeated exaggeration is used to persuade; not report, and indicates deception. He cannot conclude that it is in "totality" anything, flawed or otherwise.
Note that this is the language commonly found in deceptive statements. "Every" rule has been broken, and the case is flawed in "every" way. He also claims access to the "totality" of the evidence; something which causes the reader to question the truthfulness of such a bold claim.
The argument he presents needs exaggeration and deception to be made. Note that the deception that is judged by common sense (not having access to "every" thing about the case, is evidenced by the high level of sensitivity in the language). The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, Note that evidence is neither wrong nor right; it is what it is and is neutral.
What one concludes from evidence may be wrong or right, but in Statement analysis we do not interpret his meaning for us; rather we look at the words he uses. This type of exaggerated and fabricated arguments may be why his career is something of high sensitivity; along with being unable to overcome presuppositional thinking that all arrested are guilty. It does not show an open-mindedness. This is something that may have become problematic within his career.
contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate.
The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.
Thus far, Mr. Moore has used a great deal of his statement about his background and his work, and then upon debasing the evidence, but has not informed us what evidence he refers to, nor how he was able to obtain the evidence, nor what manner of examination he employed.
Note that in order to draw such opinions, he would have had access to all the above, including DNA evidence. He states to have studied the information, but does not identify the information investigated.
Note also the use of exaggerated language is used consistently throughout his statement, including coming to a contrary opinion "defying belief" which may also be related to the sensitivity in his career. If this is his method of presenting an argument, it is likely that co workers may have held a very different opinion of the subject than he appears to in this article.
“FACTS DETERMINE CONCLUSIONS”—The universal truism of investigation. The instant that one’s conclusions determine or change the facts, you have corrupted the judicial system. I have been a young investigator, and I have supervised eager but inexperienced young investigators.
Note that he was a "young investigator" but that he has supervised "eager but inexperienced young investigators", excluding himself from being "eager" and "inexperienced" when he was young.
Note also the repetition sensitivity attached to "supervisor". Young or inexperienced investigators have a tendency to believe their own hunches. This is dangerous, because uneducated hunches are usually wrong. Hunches are not bad, they just need to be allowed to die a natural death when evidence proves them wrong. Note that the subject had 25 years experience but did not overcome presuppositional prejudice.
This appears to be a statement of his own projection. How he thinks, he projects upon Italian investigators.
Our words reveal us; they reveal our personalities and what we think of ourselves and others.
The sign of an investigation run amok is when an initial hunch is nurtured and kept on life support long after evidence should have killed it. Likely the belief that any arrested person is guilty should have died during his rookie year in law enforcement, as most mature away from such concrete thinking and move on to a mature abstract thinking. This likely reveals how he conducted his own investigations.
This case is just such a situation. In the Knox case, the investigator openly states:“We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.” -- Edgardo Giobbi, Investigator.
We do not know the full text of the statement, but it appears to match his own belief about those arrested being guilty. Perhaps it is that the investigators, before test results came in, concluded that they had the killers based upon their own words.
At some point, the subject was either trained or offered training in Statement Analysis, meaning that he would have an understanding of the words chosen by Amanda Knox in her original interview, or even in her subsequent media interviews.
He would also know that a prisoner who gives a false confession due to coercion will test out "deceptive" because their statement of confession is, de facto, deceptive, as it was false and it was coerced by the interrogators.
Then, when physical evidence came in that did not support their story, they simply changed their story. And their suspects. And their murder weapons. And the motives. (If there was ever a ‘smoking gun’ in this case; that statement was it.)
The subject tells us that the physical evidence "came in" but does not tell us where it came into, nor how he was able to obtain it. If he did not obtain the evidence as he attempts to persuade above, he is being deceptive to his readers, thus the need for hyperbole and exaggeration.
I will only say of the interrogation,
Note: future tense verbnote also "only" meaning exclusion of other things to say. Future tense violates the principle of First Person Singular Past Tense as establishing commitment. He does not establish commitment so neither can we.
that if any FBI Agents I supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S., I would have had them indicted.
Note again the repetition of "FBI" and "supervision" (supervise)as the sensitivity continues. This calls attention back to his work record and would cause us to want to interview those he supervised.
I am not surprised that Amanda made incriminating and conflicting statements in such a horrible situation. I am more surprised that under that duress, she didn’t make more incriminating (but ultimately false) statements.
Note that he is not surprised that she incriminated herself, but he is surprised that she did not do so more so.
Note that Statement Analysis done of false confessions shows deception.
Note that he acknowledges that she made incriminating statements; would her statements, which showed deception, be considered unreliable when they were made to a journalist last summer?
Those statements also incriminated her and showed guilt (see analysis)
Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything. If this was the medical profession, one might deem such activities “intentional malpractice”.
Note that this is reduced to "hypothetically" and it is not something he asserts with commitment. The lack of commitment shows attempt at persuasion, rather than report. Report is the honest recall of past tense facts, such as gaining all the evidence and case files from Italy, reading it, examing it, and reporting back upon it. This type of work does not need persuasion nor exaggeration. It would not show such high and repeated sensitivity.
Note that the subject does not tell us that he obtained evidence.
Note that the subject does not tell us that he obtained the case files. Note that the subject does not tell us that he spoke to the investigators and uncovered all their hunches (every one of them). His statement is reported as if he did, but since he does not tell us he did, we cannot say that he did. This is where the sensitivity of deception comes in: allowing his readers to believe that he obtained every bit of evidence from the case, including interviews, files, DNA, physical evidence, etc, as well as being able to interview and access the thoughts and hunches of all the investigators involved, and now is able to accurately report these things to his readers. The language employed shows deception, but the possibility of the subject having obtained all of this information regarding the case itself suggests deception. It is deceptively written.
The investigators in this matter appeared to have decided upon a conclusion, and repeatedly changed their story so that the evidence would suit their conclusions.
Note the inclusion of the word "appeared", which makes this statement honest. He claims that it "appears" to be a certain way to him, which is different than claiming to have examined all the evidence and to have known all the thoughts of those involved.
After the evidence came back that Rudy Guede sexually assaulted Meredith, did it not occur to the investigators that they had a simple rape/murder? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Crimes are only this complicated in James Bond movies.
The complexity of crimes is why hard work, education, and lots of training is needed. Note the reduction and minimization of hard work and training found within his theory.
Note "the evidence" came back, but he does not identify where it came back from, nor if he examined the evidence.
Amanda would not even have been a suspect in any US investigation.
Note again the use of exaggeration with "any" US investigation; a point that can not be proven nor disproven. When a subject needs to rely upon exaggeration, it is the subject that is causing the reader to question veractity.
also note: the use of the name, Amanda. Recall the sensitivity in the opening part of his statement that was noted. Since he "never" met anyone in the family, it is unusual for him to simply use her first name. I would question the family to learn if anyone has communicated with him via letters or exchanged emails but in person.
A sex murder occurs and your prime suspect is the female roommate?
He poses this as a question.
Note "your" is 2nd person, distancing language.
Experienced, or simply competent investigators would have known that statistically, 90% of murders are committed by men.
Note that he classifies investigators as "experienced" or "simply competent". We have another word that has repeated sensitivity: experience.
When women commit murder, only 16% use a knife, and close examination might show that the vast majority of those are gang-related. Any conclusion that involves a woman stabbing another woman is statistically so rare, that it should be looked at with great suspicion.
Note that in his statistics "only" 16% use a knife. This indicates that 84% use something else. Note that he writes that it should be looked at with "great suspicion" but does not claim that investigators did not look at it with "great suspicion".
There is also a thing called “leakage”. Leakage is the tendency of homicidal or mentally ill people to ‘leak’ behavior that would indicate their true nature.
If one is to believe that Amanda Knox was the drug-crazed, homicidal Svengali that she was made out to be, there is absolutely NO way that such sociopathic behavior would not be leaked in some significant way prior to this crime.
In her interview analyzed, note what is leaked out by Amanda Knox. The association of her wording is found with sexual activity; generally sexual crime (LSI).
Note that not only does she reference water but note how often it is repeated as well as the details given (see analysis). Even if she is only 16% likely according to Mr. Moore's statistic, it is not proof of innocence.
No, instead we see a girl on the Dean’s list working several jobs to attend a university program in Italy. A girl who had not even had a scrape with law enforcement.
Note that Amanda Knox is described as a "girl" and not a "woman".
A good auto mechanic who lacks scruples, can take a car out of a junk yard, bolt on a couple of new fenders, drop in new carpets and slap on tires and a $100 coat of paint. Once he cleans up the interior and rolls back the odometer, he could sell it as a near new car to 99% of the population. It appears new, the mileage says it’s new, and only a trained mechanic would know the difference.
He dedicates 6 lines to auto mechanics. Note the inclusion of "99% of the population". This leaves only 1 % population remaining to know better. This, coupled with the high level of sensitivity about his background and experience may show leakage of his thought process here: how he views his opinion and how he views the opinions of those he disagrees with.
But bring in a trained mechanic, and he might notice that the brake pedal, for instance, is worn almost to the metal. That’s a sure sign of 100,000 miles of use or more. The hint of blue smoke out of the exhaust would be a dead give-away of a worn-out motor. He would warn you that all is not as pretty and new as it seems.
Another 5 lines dedicated to auto and not to specific evidence. He has not presented:evidence, nor where he obtained the evidence, nor how he spoke to the investigators, but claims to know their thoughts; hunches. We have the repeated employment of exaggerations, meaning that repeated exaggerations themselves indicate sensitivity. The sensitivity suggests that the subject is deceptively representing himself as an investigator who accessed the evidence, the files, and knows the thoughts of the investigators, and was able to get information outside of media, because he found media to be contradictory to "known" facts.
The sensitivity of his statement, however, is mostly associted with his career and work.
He appears deceptive about his relationship with the case files and investigators in Italy, and that his reason for declaring Amanda Knox as innocent is associated with his own work and career performance, which would need careful examination including interviews with his superiors and the people he claimed to have supervised.
Note his thinking as presented in his writing: he is 25 years FBI; therefore, Amanda Knox is wrongfully convicted.
For an article written about Amanda Knox, he dedicates much time to his career, repeating that he was FBI, supervisor, and that he, himself, is the basis for his audience to believe his claim about Amanda Knox.
Note carefully his own words: Take my word for this.
This is something that is likely problematic.
When someone tells others to take their word for something, in particular, if the subject is in a position of authority, it would likely be problematic in career and personal life, leaking an insecurity shown in a desire to control what others think.
It is likely difficult to be supervised by someone that holds to this mentality, and the subtle ridicule is something more used in bullying rather than the factual presentation of ideas or the free exchange in debate.
Rather than being able to think for oneself, the "take my word for it" mentality can cause interpersonal problems in marriage, work place, friendships, and in business.
In investigations, complexity demands an input of conflicting ideas.
Investigation of violent crimes is my life; not a hobby.
He refers back to himself again as his reference point of his premise: that Amanda Knox is innocent. It also presupposes that for others, investigations of violent crimes is reduced to status of "hobby". This is a subtle insult upon readers who may not share his view.
Note that "hobby" may be seen as an insult to those who do not make "violent crimes" their "life" or profession.
This type of subtle insult is found throughout, including at Italian investigators:
The case the Italian prosecutors are trying to sell you is not the beautiful thing it appears to some to be. It’s a junker all cleaned-up and waiting to be purchased by naïve people. And the jury in Perugia bought it.
Note the unusual word "beautiful" in describing the case presented by Italian prosecutors. This would prompt more questioning of how he views the case, and why "beauty" is attached to a murder investigation.
He then insults them by calling their work "junk" and insults the public (hobbyists?) as "naive". Well thought out arguments do not need deception, exaggeration, nor insult and ridicule. He refers to their investigation work as "junk". It would be interesting to hear what Italian investigators think of his presented argument in defense of Amanda Knox.
Thursday, August 02, 2012
|Truth or Deception?|
As requested: Below is the full transcript of the interview given by Charlie Rogers.
Please note that in the news stories that carried this case, media left out some critical sentences from their text.
Charlie Rogers reported to police that she was the victim of a "hate crime" in which three masked men entered her home, assaulted her, tied her up, and carved slurs into her flesh. She reported that then they spray painted slurs in her basement, poured gasoline around the house, and lit it in fire, making this crime attempted murder. She reportedly escaped, ran naked to a neighbor's house, where she told the neighbor about the attack. The neighbor said that Rogers had recently lost her job and had attempted to volunteer to work with children but was turned down due to lesbianism.
Police are investigated and reported that Rogers agreed to talk to the FBI. Because it was reported as a "hate crime", her name was kept confidential to protect her.
Statement Analysis is in bold type. Italics and underlining are added for emphasis in the analysis.
Rogers reportedly came forward, using her name, to combat accusations that she had lied. To date, I have not been able to find any media reports that questioned the veracity of the account.
In Statement Analysis, we look for linguistic indicators of veracity, ranging from the most elementary (she tells us, herself, "I told the truth") to the more complex (use of sensory detail) in order to discern truth from deception.
Many people feel intuitively that someone is either truthful or deceptive. Each person, upon hearing (and watching) this video, makes a decision to believe the account, or to question it. With Statement Analysis, we are able to not only give an opinion, but are able to express the specific reasons why we believe the statement to be truthful or deceptive.
The horrific nature of the reported crime is one that has caught the nation's attention. This means that many will be viewing Statement Analysis for the first time. Statement Analysis dates back to the time of King Solomon and is based upon the very language that one uses, presupposing that someone is truthful.
With this presupposition, we are then to move from word to word, with an expectation of truth. If we are 'surprised' by what is not expected, we note this carefully, allowing the subject (speaker) to guide us along the way.
Eventually, the analyst will draw a conclusion: Truthful, Deceptive, or Inconclusive. Given the length of the sample here, an analyst should be able to rule out "Inconclusive" in his conclusion.
First we have the statement in its entirety, as aired by media, followed by its repetition with emphasis and analysis in bold type. In the color coding schematic of Scientific Content Analysis, blue is the highest on the sensitivity scale.
"Being a victim in a situation like this, or a survivor, um, and then having your, uh, integrity questioned I guess, it feels very victimizing again. It feels very, uh, saddening, uh, it makes an already difficult situation more difficult. Um. Because you know my world, has been changed forever by these events and and uh, so that the idea that that people think its a lie so, uh, it's hurtful.
It's understandable, I mean, intellectually, I understand that people sort of have a hard time wrapping their heads around the events that have happened as do I.
Um, but I'm a person, you know. With feelings, with concerns and just so uh, it feels like I don't know, like a punch in the stomach, kinda. Like a betrayal.
Instead of the focus being on safety and healing and the investigation the whole things turned into a defense and it starts to feel like, oh, you know like, you know it doesn't even become about the situation. It becomes something about all together different and then I started to feel like a pawn in a game. That isn't my game, you know. This isn't, you know, I didn't ask for this, I don't want this, and so you know the, I , whatever peoples intentions are or are not, um, it is important to me that they understand, for myself and future victims, hopefully there will be none but.
People are people. Agendas are agendas and I think that this is so important that we distinguish between those two things. Um. I was hurt. And, like what matters is the story. You know? That's awful. It feels awful to me. This is an investigation. This is a crime. This is not, it deserves a level of respect. I know when these sorts of things happen, it, it ignites fires and that's a good thing, in some ways, um, it can also be a very bad thing. Um.
I'm not a pawn in a game, you know. I'm a person and it very much feels like I'm being used as a pawn. I want people to know I'm not afraid. I want other victims to know that it is important to come forward. I also wanted some control over what was happening in the media. Um. And I though that the best way to do that was to do it myself. I want people to understand. Maybe you don't know me.
But you probably know somebody that something like this has happened to. So, for people to think that this doesn't happen here; it does. It did.
Everyone is worthy of safety, of justice and of fairness and I'm not hiding from this anymore. There is fear, but there is resilience, you know, there is, forward." (end of statement)
In expectation of truth, what is it that we look for?
The subject reported a horrific attack. We expect her to assert that she was attacked.
Since the attack was very violent, we have an expectation of sensory description. Victims of violent attacks often talk about things they sensed, through sight, smell, or touch. This is a signal that someone is entering into experiential memory and being truthful. Some examples include:
"the smell of motor oil on his hands", "his breath smelled like beer", "his hands were cold..." or the feel of the knife used to cut, the sound of the gunshot, and so on. We all have a connection with the past through our senses which firms the events in our memory.
We expect rage at anyone who questions the account. When someone is the victim of an attack, there is no possible acceptance that it did not happen: it is too real, too painful, too close. Anyone who says otherwise will be met with a harsh reaction.
We expect to hear fear. The three attackers are on the loose, and even when someone wishes to conceal fear, it is evident.
Because she reportedly came forward and gave her name due to her veracity being challenged, we have an easy expectation that she will connect herself to the attack. This is done simply, without qualification, by the single most used word in the English language: "I." We expect to hear, "I was attacked" and "I told the truth." We would not expect her to not say these things, nor to qualify with "I think I told the truth..." or, "I think it happened," Both the absence and the qualification would be flagged for deception on such a plainly horrific violent attack. The statement here is in italics, as we break it down for signals of truth or deception. We seek to learn; Is memory playing? Does she speak from experiential memory?
We let the subject guide us.
People do not like to lie; therefore, they simply leave out information rather than directly lie and cause internal stress.
The following is 464 Words.
Because this is not an account of the attack, we are unable to measure the statement on its form.
Of the 464 words, we now count commonly expected words in a violent crime situation
1. The word "attack" is used: 0 Times
2. The word "crime" is used: 1 Time
3. The word "truth" is used: 0 Times
4. The word "assault" is used: 0 Times
5. The word "danger" is used: 0 Times
6. The word "pain" is used: 0 Times
7. The word "cut" is used 0 Times
8. The word "violated" is used 0 Times
9. The word "blood", (in any form) 0 Times
10. The word "arrest" is used 0 Times
11. The word "violent" is used: 0 Times
12. The word "pain" 0 Times
13. The word "cruel" 0 Times
14. The word "hurt" is used 2 Times (emotional, not physical)
15. The word "pawn" is used 3 times.
16. The word "agenda" is used 2 times.
17. The word "people" is used 8 times.
18. The word "person" is used 2 times.
These are all terms expected in reporting such a violent, sadistic crime. Their absence is noted.
"Being a victim in a situation like this, or a survivor, um,
It should be noted that deception is often indicated in statements that begin without a pronoun.
Where a subject begins a statement is always important. Here, the statement does not begin with what happened, or an assertion that the subject has told the truth, but rather a classification:
"Being a victim" is then changed to "survivor."
There is no pronoun connecting her to being either.
She does not tell us that she is a victim, nor does she say she is a survivor. We need a pronoun to connect her and it is absent. This is an example of passivity in language. Passivity is often used when concealing identity or responsibility. She does not tell us who is a victim nor who is a survivor.
We should also note that "survivor" is a status that is desirable. Since she is speaking for herself, this may be an attempt to portray herself as a "survivor" in a complimentary form, without making a direct statement. This should lead the analyst to question if the subject is making a truthful report, or is attempting to persuade. Since she does not connect herself to the crime, we cannot connect her to the crime. Because of this, the analyst should be on the outlook for language that distances the subject from the crime, but instead ties the subject to a motive for making a false report.
Question for analyst: Since the absence of words describing the crime is noted, and an attempt to portray the subject as a "survivor", is there other language that supports or refutes the notion of having another motive?
and then having your, uh, integrity questioned I guess, it feels very victimizing again.
Note that the subject distances herself from having her integrity questioned by using the pronoun "your" instead of "my integrity"; and weakens it even further by reducing this to a "guess."
The subject has not told us that her integrity was questioned.
In reading the online accounts of the attack, this analyst did not find a single article questioning the subject's integrity.
That she uses the second person "your" and reduces it (or its impact) to only a "guess", the reader should wonder if the subject, herself, has fabricated the notion of having her integrity questioned in public, especially since television is a public medium for her refutation.
Please note that the subject does not tell us who feels "victimized again", noting that the word "again" may indicate that if it is not her, than she was not "victimized" the first time.
When someone is deceptive, they wish to avoid the internal stress of lying so they withhold information instead, allowing the reader/listener to simply believe the subject is talking of herself. Later she can say she did not lie: she did not say she was a victim, nor was she victimized again. This is how deception is discerned.
Since she does not tell us she is being victimized "again", we cannot say it for her, but we can also conclude that if the "again" is deceptive, the original is also not about her, but is deceptive. She cannot be victimized "again" if she wasn't victimized. The distancing language of the use of the second person affirms this.
It feels very, uh, saddening,
Note the passivity. Previously I stated that passivity in language is used to conceal identity or responsibility. "The gun went off" is an example of passivity. It is truthful, the gun was fired, but it conceals the identity (and responsibility of the shooter).
Note that she speaks of emotions, not of physical pain from a horrific assault. Physical pain, especially from the up close and personal carving of flesh, is something we would expect to hear about, not emotions of sadness. We expect anger at such a terrible intrusion and invasion into her personal body.
We continue to note that she does not say that she is feeling sad, only "it" feels "saddening" (rather than "sad"). This distances her from "sad" twice; once by the absence of a pronoun linking her, and the other from being "sad" directly, as it is only "saddening", or that which causes sadness. This distancing language is noted for deception.
uh, it makes an already difficult situation more difficult.
Note that she reported a horrific attack, but here it is reduced to a "situation."
We do not expect someone to call a vicious and violent attack a "situation." this is called soft language. Soft language is an indication that there is no linguistic connection to the assault.
Note that she does not say for whom an already difficult situation exists. If she cannot use a simple pronoun to connect herself, we cannot do it for her. Now, we find that she uses a first person pronoun:
Um. Because you know my world, has been changed forever by these events and and uh, so that the idea that that people think its a lie so, uh, it's hurtful.
Here she uses "my world", in the present, has been changed. By what? She says "these events", with "events" being plural. What events? The attack? The TV appearance?
1. Note that "event" is not a word linking to the "attack" as it is softening language.
2. Note that "events" is plural indicating other "events" have "changed" her world.
Now note what is so "hurtful": it is not the vicious attack with knives and gasoline, it is only the "idea" that "people" think. It is not even the questioning of her account which is hurtful, it is only the "idea" of it. This distancing language indicates that the questioning of her account may not be real, but only an "idea"; which is buttressed by the fact that I have not found any news agency questioning her account.
Please note "it's a lie" may be an embedded admission. This is especially note worthy because we have not heard any interviewer say to her, "people say it's a lie", or, to match her language, "people have an idea that it may be a lie"; both of which would have been excused as entering into the language of another. Therefore, this appears to be an embedded admission of lying.
It's understandable, I mean, intellectually, I understand that people sort of have a hard time wrapping their heads around the events that have happened as do I.
Truthful people do not accept the possibility that they are lying, but when it comes to experiencing trauma, personal and violent, but when it comes to physical assault, there is no allowance for someone to question the veracity. Any questioning brings anger and biting words. This is similar to the report of violent crime: "the SOB stole my life!" and not "the gentleman caused me discomfort." Language must match reality. Here, the subject allows for others to not believe her. Her allowance is wise. Psychologically, liars sometimes do not want to be in the position of defending their lies; they do not wish to be linguistic adversaries, therefore, they "understand" or allow for doubt. When someone allows for doubt, it is wise to believe them.
The most important word in the English language is "I." It is used more than any other word, and it is a word that humans are perfect at using. They do not say "we" when they mean "I", as they know if they were alone, or were with others. Here, she finally ties herself, via the important pronoun, "I" to something, making it a very important sentence.
"I understand..." Since this is the first entrance of the word "I" into her statement, it is an important sentence and it is something she links herself to: understanding that she will not be believed.
She does not use the word "I" to tie herself to "attack"
She does not use the word "I" to tie herself to "truth."
She does use the word "I" to tie herself to disbelieving her story.
This is called allowing the subject to guide us.
Even she, herself ("") has trouble believing it. If it happened, why the trouble?
If the subject allows for even herself not to believe or "wrap her head around", while bearing the physical scars of a violent, sadistic attack, we should allow ourselves room not to believe it, either.
Um, but I'm a person, you know.
She declares herself to be a "person", which is gender neutral, instead of a "woman." We now have "person" introduced and will note its further use in the singular or plural form. We seek to learn how she identifies herself. She did not call herself a "victim" nor a "survivor" as the pronouns were absent. Here, the pronoun "I" is used.
With feelings, with concerns and just so uh, it feels like I don't know, like a punch in the stomach, kinda. Like a betrayal.
"She is a "person" with feelings. This indicates that she may believe there are others without "feelings" and is a focus upon the emotional. She then describes her feelings like "a punch in the stomach". This is unusual since we learned that her stomach was reportedly carved with a knife, a terribly painful and humiliating experience. Yet, there is no mention of it, only a "punch" related to emotions and not a physical attack.
Instead of the focus being on safety and healing and the investigation the whole things turned into a defense and it starts to feel like, oh, you know like, you know it doesn't even become about the situation.
The subject introduces the word "focus" here and then tells us what the focus is not on:
1. Safety. There are 3 violent, sadistic, hateful men on the loose who "found" her (as reportedly written in her basement) of whom we would expect her to be in terror of.
2. Healing. By the time of this interview, the wounds are fresh.
3. The investigation is mentioned last.
Note "starts to feel" is emotions and not physical.
Note the word "situation." Why is it that she cannot bring herself to call it an "attack"? Why is it reduced to a "situation."? This is a linguistic disconnect and another signal that she is not linking herself to a violent crime.
In order for us to link her to the violent crime reported, she must tell us so.
If she cannot bring herself to link herself to a violent assault, we cannot do it for her.
If she cannot bring herself to say "I told the truth" while interviewing over her veracity, we are not allowed to do it for her.
It becomes something about all together different
"It becomes" is also passive language. Who made it become something? This is an indication of deception as she does not want to say who it is that is making it become something. When a deceptive person employs passive language to avoid being recognized or responsible, it is often the subject, herself, who is responsible but does not wish to be revealed. Without a pronoun, there is no strong statement made. Next, the pronoun reemerges:
and then I started to feel like a pawn in a game.
We always note when someone reports something as having begun, but not completed. She "started" to feel, which uses "feel", another emotion, instead of physical or sensory descriptions of the attack.
She introduces two important words to the reader:
"pawn" and "game."
A "pawn" is a small piece used in a larger scheme.
A "game" is not a word we would expect to hear over a vicious attack. She has introduced to the audience the notion that a "game" is being played out before them, and she is a part of the game. This is a strong disconnect from a violent crime.
That isn't my game, you know.
Statement Analysis takes note of anything reported in the negative as highly important. Here, she tells us "this" isn't "my game." This affirms that it is a "game" but only that she does not want ownership of it. This is evidenced not only by the negative denial, but also by the word "that".
The word "this" indicates closeness; while the word "that" shows distance. "Please pass my that book. No, not that one, but this one..." showing closeness and distance. She denies that the game, of which she feels like a pawn, is hers, and uses the distancing word "that".
Since it was she who was physically attacked and it is she who is talking so that people will believe her, why is she employing distancing language? Why is it "that"? Can she distance herself from it linguistically?
This isn't, you know, I didn't ask for this, I don't want this, and so you know the, I , whatever peoples' intentions are or are not, um, it is important to me that they understand, for myself and future victims, hopefully there will be none but.
Here we have broken sentences, which indicate incomplete thoughts, or self censoring. She began with telling us what "this" is not, but then stops and tells us that she didn't "ask" for "this" and that she does not want "this."
She then began her sentence with the strong pronoun, "I", but quickly changed to "whatever peoples'..."
She introduces "pawn", "game" and "intentions" into the statement. This is very important in understanding what it is she is doing.
By now, it is evident that she is not asserting that her police report was truthful.
She does not link herself, linguistically, with a violent crime.
She introduced "game" and "intentions" to the statement, telling us that something else is going on, and it is not about a physical, violent, sadistic and cruel assault.
We also take notice of "people" being used; the plural of "person" which was something that she called herself. The link is not lost upon us: intentions, game, pawn, are all related, just as "person" is related to "people."
Investigators should see to learn if she acted alone.
She then tells us what is important to her: it is not that the three assailants are caught before they return to finish what they started, but that people "understand."
In a truthful account, we expect to hear terror, physical descriptions, and harsh language of a harsh attack. We expect of upmost importance that the three attackers be caught so that she, and others, can be safe from such horror.
People are people. Agendas are agendas
She introduced the word "agenda", and repeated it, making "people" and "agenda" sensitive, or important to her.
She does not speak of the attack, nor does she affirm truth, but speaks of agendas, games, pawns, understanding and feelings.
and I think that this is so important that we distinguish between those two things.
It is important that "we" distinguish between "those" (distance) two things: "people" (of which the single is "person") and "agendas", that is, a reason that someone has for another purpose, like a pawn being sacrificed tactically, in an overall strategy to fulfill an agenda (checkmate) in a chess "game."
Um. I was hurt.
The "um's" are added as spoken, as they show pauses, which indicate sensitivity or time to think. Here we have a strong statement:
"I was hurt."
The problem for the analyst is that in a horrific attack as described, including attempted murder and mutilation, the words "I was hurt" are needless. In Statement Analysis, whenever we have unnecessary words, or "unimportant" information, we deem it "doubly important" to the analysis being done. That she was hurt in such a brutal attack does not need to be said; in fact, simply saying "I was hurt" is an understatement. What caused her "hurt"? We follow the context for answers. Just prior to this sentence she spoke of being a pawn in a game that is not hers. This is emotional and not physical. We rely, then, upon the next sentences to help us understand what "hurt" she experienced:
And, like what matters is the story. You know? That's awful. It feels awful to me.
She does not make us wait long to find out: emotional. She now introduces another new word to her account. It is a word that truthful people who have experienced violence against them do not like to use; "story."
She introduced her audience to the themes of "games" and "agendas" and now tells us what matters.
What matters is not the three dangerous men on the loose, or who they may harm next. What matters is the "story."
This is a very strong indiction that Charlie Rogers is telling a "story" as part of a "pawn" in a "game" because she has an "agenda."
The subject, Charlie Rogers, is leading us to understanding.
Note the emotional description of the hurt: "it feels."
This is an investigation.
Yes it is. It is now not only a local investigation, but a federal one, as well. If it is a hoax, it has just gone from misdemeanor status, to felony status in which she could face prison time like her university's professor who reported a fake hate crime as well.
This is a crime.
This is also a truthful statement, as seen in its plain language. "This" is close and may refer to the false reporting.
This is not, it deserves a level of respect.
Note the call for "respect" and not for "fear" or for catching the three violent perpetrators who can get to her again. Instead, she begins with what this is "not", stops herself, (missing information) only to introduce a new word, "respect."
Why would the respect enter this? She has spoken of her feelings and now speaks of not only respect but a "level" of respect.
The broken sentence shows an incomplete thought. Here she tells us what "this" is "not", which shows the closeness of the word "this" and the importance of the "negative"; which she then self-censors. What she was about to say is important and would be learned in a follow up interview.
"This is not a hoax" If this is a direct lie, it would be difficult for her to complete the sentence. It is very difficult to make a direct statement against reality. Recently, a subject yelled at me, "I didn't do..." and stopped. I did not respond but just listened and took notes. In the entire lengthy interview, the subject was unable to put together a complete simple sentence of "I didn't do it" in spite of many opportunities.
A brutal and horrific attack does not need to be said to need "respect" as it either happened or it did not happen, as reported, regardless of sexuality. It needs to be investigated and prosecuted. The level of brutality described, including the attempt to burn down the house, is attempted murder. Yet, she wants "a level of respect." This is an indication that she is not speaking of the crime, but of her story.
For the subject, the vicious attack deserves only a "level" of respect: why the need to qualify "respect" by level? That "this" only deserves a "level" of respect brings doubt upon her story. She allows for understanding of doubters and instead of being scarred from the assault "demanding" justice, she speaks of a "level of respect".
This is a strong indication that she feels in life, that she is not being given a "level of respect" and it is likely attached to her advocacy. These are indications of motive.
Should her story prove to be a story and a hoax, people will speak of her mental health and excuse her behavior, yet here she may be signaling her intentions, which she understands and is purposeful. If it is a hoax, she is not "insane"; in that she does not understand what she is attempting to do with regard to her advocacy.
I know when these sorts of things happen, it, it ignites fires and that's a good thing, in some ways, um, it can also be a very bad thing. Um.
What are "these" short of things? Breaking into a home and carving someone's flesh?
Please note that "these sorts of things" are rare. Carving into flesh? When was the last time we heard of assailants carving slurs into someone's flesh? To reduce it to commonality is a red flag for deceptive hoax.
It is reminscient of the Tawana Brawley hoax. "These" vicious attacks are not common.
Note the reference to igniting fire. Did she ignite her own fire, which, in spite of three men with gasoline, did minimal damage to the home?
If she started the fire, it makes sense that it would enter her language.
This shows an attempt to portray this horrific crime as common. It is not. This is very unusual because it downgrades the special status of such a unique victimization and seeks to "share" common ground with others. When did we last hear of someone being brutally attacked and have slurs carved into the skin?
Note that igniting a fire, in "some" ways is a "good thing" but it also can be a "bad" thing, with "good" qualified by "some ways" but "bad" having no qualification. The "bad" here, in her statement, is stronger than "good."
I'm not a pawn in a game, you know. I'm a person and it very much feels like I'm being used as a pawn.
What we hear in the negative is always important. Many times someone says "this is not personal" and you learn: it was personal.
"It's not about the money" is often exactly about money.
Here, she may be signaling that she is playing a "game."
I want people to know I'm not afraid.
With three violent men, who hunted her down and attempted to kill her, on the loose, she wants people to know she is not afraid. This appears to be an attempt to portray herself in the role of "survivor", that is, favorably, rather than report truth. This is status, including "heroine" status she attempts to bestow upon herself, and must be weighed in correlation to people, or a person, having an agenda.
I want other victims to know that it is important to come forward.
She assumes that others who have been attacked, tied down, carved into their flesh and house burned would not come forward. This shows no connection to the reality of what she reported.
I also wanted some control over what was happening in the media.
"Control" and "media" are linked together. This should be understood with the introduction of the word "agenda."
Um. And I thought that the best way to do that was to do it myself.
This is another linguistic indication that the subject may not have acted alone. She "thought" it best may be because someone else thought otherwise and indicates that even in coming to do the televised interview, there may have been some debate.
I want people to understand. Maybe you don't know me.
Here is a perfect place to say that she told the truth. Instead she wants people to "understand" and she recognizes that people do not "know" her. This links "understanding" to "knowing" her. This is very personal. She wants understanding and it is likely that she has felt very misunderstood in her agenda and this may explain what she is doing.
But you probably know somebody that something like this has happened to. So, for people to think that this doesn't happen here; it does. It did.
This sentence may be embarrassing to her as she tells the audience that they may know someone of whom "something like this has happened."
Do you know someone who had his or her flesh carved with slurs?
Do you know someone who had 3 men break in and attempt to burn someone to death in their house?
This shows a disconnect of reality. She did not report a common hate crime of any sorts, but went very far into sadistic details along with reportedly slurs spray painted in her basement. "We found you *****" as if she was being hunted down.
This is terrorizing and could paralyze someone with fear. No one would be safe until the three monsters are found, yet...she speaks of her feelings, respect, games, and agendas. She does not, even once, reference the horrible nature of the attack.
Everyone is worthy of safety, of justice and of fairness and I'm not hiding from this anymore. There is fear, but there is resilience, you know, there is, forward."
"Everyone" is related to "person" bringing focus, not upon the attack, nor even upon attackers at large, but upon Charlie Rogers, herself. We look at all references to persons within a statement, in all analysis, even in a short interview like this.
"Victim" or "survivor" appears to be attempt to portray herself in media terms that is favorable to subject.
"There is fear" is passive. This is not expected in such a personal vicious attack. Passivity suggests concealment. What is the fear? Who is afraid? What is she afraid of? Being caught and found out as a liar?
She was interviewed because she has been accused of lying. This makes the question, "Are you lying?" the non spoken question. It is simple to answer:
"I did not lie. I was attacked by three masked men." She did not say so.
If she cannot bring herself to assert herself as having told the truth, we cannot be expected to do it for her.
Based upon this interview, void of any and all evidence:
There is nothing within this short interview that shows that Charlie Rogers is telling the truth about the assault. Not even Charlie Rogers, herself, affirms it to be true.
We expect her to say she told the truth but she did not. If this really happened to her, why doesn't she make a simple assertion to say so?
This is indicative of a hoax that she, along with her agenda, has perpetrated upon the public. The public has responded with overwhelming support, rallies, politicians and raising of money. The subject has a lawyer now, and will likely need one.
Charlie Rogers is deceptive about being the victim and survivor of a horrific attack, perpetrated against her due to her homosexuality and her advocacy.
She will likely face charges of lying to law enforcement, locally and federally.