Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Media: Anderson Cooper's Account Was Hacked

just woke up to find out someone gained access to my twitter account. i have not sent a tweet in days or replied to any tweets. We are looking into how this happened.

Analysis Question: Does Anderson Cooper tell the truth about being "hacked" on Twitter?

Media reported that journalist Anderson Cooper's twitter account was hacked as they found an inappropriate tweet about President Trump which would bring question to the journalist's partiality.

Let's consider what he wrote and consider if you were in his place, what would you say?

I would say, "my account was hacked."

This happened to my twitter account once and lots of people got a message from me telling them to buy sunglasses of a particular brand.

I wrote, My account was hacked. This was not from me."

I wanted them to know that not only was my account hacked but that I was not shilling for the company that makes these sunglasses. I also thought it good for others to change their password, hence, the priority of being hacked.

Let's look at the subject's tweet:

just woke up to find out someone gained access to my twitter account. i have not sent a tweet in days or replied to any tweets. We are looking into how this happened.

1.  We note that he does not begin with the pronoun "I" to start his statement. Since he uses the pronoun "I" later (lower case), we cannot conclude that he is not using it because of the low character number, or via habit. By beginning without the pronoun "I", he psychologically is not "committing" to what follows.  This is to put us on alert that the information that follows may contain unreliable portions. 

2.  Where one begins is always important and speaks to priority.  What is the first thing the subject wants his audience to know?  Was it that his account was hacked?

The priority for him is this:  He wants his audience to know that he just woke up.  Therefore, whatever tweet was sent out, it could not have been from him because he was sleeping. 

This is his priority.  It is alibi establishment and it is his priority. 

3.  Next, he said his account was "accessed."  It was not hacked and it is inaccurate for media to report his account was hacked. It was not hacked, but someone did access it. 

Minimization Language 

Accessing it is a much softer word than "hacked."

This tells us about the Linguistic Disposition towards the person who posted the twitter message:  the person who did this is not a "hacker."

"gain access" is not a negative assertion nor is it an accusation.  Accusatory language expected in any form of identity theft, misrepresenting his opinion, or misusing his account.  

The person who did this is not given a decidedly negative linguistic disposition towards someone who has done something that should be decidedly negative.  If a hacker got into his account, could the hacker reach other accounts, including credit cards?

This soft language is not only unexpected, but it gives insight into how Anderson Cooper feels about the person who did not "hack" but "gained access" into his personal account.  


We may consider that from the subject's point of view, the person who did this did not do it by breaking into his account. That would be a "bad person" doing something very "bad" and even dangerous. 

 The person who did this only accessed it, which means that either they had the password or even that they did not even need to enter a password.  Consider this in light of the positive (in context) linguistic disposition towards the person who did this.  

In the subject's verbalized perception of reality:   it could not be Anderson Cooper because he was asleep.  It was not a hacker, either, though. This is to establish an alibi.  If you are hacked, you do not need an alibi. 

4.  i have not sent a tweet in days or replied to any tweets.

This is further alibi building. It shows a need to alibi, further weakening his defense. Not only was he sleeping but he has not sent a tweet in "days" or replied to any tweets.

It is interesting to note that this follows no pronoun with a lower case (downgraded) pronoun. We would need to know if this use of the lower case "I" is routine.

Yet, the alibi building, itself, is unnecessary if he was hacked.

The tweet sent out, if hacked, is utterly unrelated to any activity by Anderson Cooper, before or after this tweet. It is not only unnecessary but it is a tangent.

This shows a need to persuade of that which he does not state: he was hacked.

If he was hacked, it is immaterial if he has not sent a tweet or he has sent 1,000 tweets.

It is, however, necessary for him to state it.

5. "We are looking into how this happened"

Here he changes to the plural "we" to not allow himself to be either "alone" in this assertion, or to make the assertion without any pronoun.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Anderson Cooper was not "hacked."

Anderson Cooper knows the identity of the person who used his twitter account to insult President Trump. Whether the person is him, himself, or someone close to him, Anderson Cooper is not able to say "I was hacked." I cannot say it for him.

Anderson Cooper has a need to alibi himself, repeatedly, and uses unnecessary and persuasive language.

He is deceptive.

He knows who tweeted.

He simply needed to write, "My twitter account was hacked; I did not write this tweet." Instead, he needs his audience to know his status of sleeping. This is both unnecessary and often found in deceptive people in many cases.

Readers should not hold to high expectations that CNN would report anything but "hacking."

That the insult was consistent with his own statements since the presidential primary is not part of Statement Analysis. We must decide upon truth or deception based upon his own words. That the consistency of insult exists is something to be viewed separately.

For training in detecting deception, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.

We offer training for law enforcement, business professionals and others of whom learning to discern truth from deception is important.

We also teach advanced analysis including identifying authors of anonymous threatening letters, psycho-linguistic profiling, and employment analysis.





Monday, December 11, 2017

911 Call: Shots Fired


In this case, a man fought to  to "prove" how "racist" police are. From his own cell phone, he called 911 to report shots fired.  
He gave a description of the shooter and made "gun noises."
He said the shooter was a black male wearing a white hooded sweatshirt.  
Note his photo. 
Before police dispatch asked him his name and address, he hung up to keep his call "anonymous." 
He then sat on his front steps, in his white hooded sweatshirt and cell phone in hand, live streaming the "racist police" to the public. 
“All right people, so check this out. I’m chilling’ on my front porch. I ain’t bothering nobody. And see these police, they just just keep riding by. Now I bet you a million dollars that these police is going to come back and say something to me,” 

We note that he began with "chillin'" which is to state:  all was "normal."

In statement analysis, this is the first indication that something "not normal" was about to take place (or had taken place).

This is no different than reading a book to 5 year old kids and starting with, "It was a day just like every other..." (normal) which is to cause them to sit up, pay attention and take notice that something is about to happen.  


“Now I ain’t doing nothing as y’all see. 

Here is the need to portray himself as innocent (alibi establishment), verbally.  His words give him away: 


I’m just sitting here on my front porch, minding my own business. 

His body posture is unnecessarily given to us, which indicates  just what the 5 year old kids feel:  an increase in tension as something is about to happen.

"minding my own business" is also unnecessary information.  This means that we should be on high alert for "someone else's business" is about to be "minded."  It is to also reinforce the "normal" principle. 

How many times can someone say it is "normal" before we recognize it is anything but normal?

He now goes distinctly racial: 


And these white folks done rolled by, 

He has our attention: 

two times already,

the suspense builds with the numeric 

 staring and sh**. 


They are identified by menacing:  "staring" and "sh**" (whatever the latter word is to mean, in context it is with "staring"). 


I bet you anything that they come back,” he told the live audience.

His prediction turned out to be true. 

Police asked neighbors about hearing gun shots, of which all declined so they interviewed the "black male" wearing a "white hoodie" with the cell phone in his hand; the same phone used to make a 911 call.

Had he been the victim of a shooting, he would have been glad to see police respond to risk their lives to protect him.  

28-year-old Michael Duran Havis is under arrest for his  "anonymous" 911 call. 

His statement to his Facebook followers showed deception. 

To enroll in Statement Analysis Training, please visit www.hyattanalysis.com and hit "get trained."




Friday, December 8, 2017

Did John Conyers III Commit Assault against Girlfriend?

John Conyers III, the son of  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), had been accused of stabbing his ex-girlfriend in a domestic dispute in February, reports say. 

His father  Rep. John Conyers is reported to have paid out many payments to women he sexually assaulted or harassed, with some reports claiming that he used tax payer money, over decades. 

Upon retirement, he stated that he was endorsing his son, John Conyers III, for his elected position. Officially, his 27 year old son is said to be a "portfolio fund manager" and a rap artist. 

Recently, a rap video emerged in which the son raps about his father being a "player" (sexual). 

Media then reported about this assault.  I found two different quotes attributed to him. We will look at them together for comparison. 

In a reliable denial, if one uses the pronoun "I", the past tense verb, and the allegation answered, it is 90% reliable.  If the subject looks upon his reliable denial and says, "I have told the truth", the reliability moves to 99.9% and above.  I have never seen a denial reach this level that was later shown to be false. I know of no other analysts, instructors or investigators who have, either. 

Sophisticated Liars

Those of strong intellect and habitual lying (since childhood) know how to parse words carefully.  The most cited example is how a deceptive person with both intellect and practice, will give a "technically" truthful denial, deliberately parsing.  Among very intellectual liars, this  is often found in an alteration of the accusation.  

The most famous example is former President Bill Clinton would likely have passed a polygraph had he been specifically asked, "Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?" in the test. 

Having assigned a specific subjective and personal definition to "sexual relations", Clinton showed his employment of intellect in deception at a high level.  He influenced the witness, Monica Lewinsky, to also deceive in this manner.  

Is John Conyers III a sophisticated liar? Or, is he telling the truth?

We let his words guide us. 


Conyers and his son:  No prosecution? 

There have been long standing accusations of nepotism regarding Conyers in the House of Represenatives. These include relatives benefiting by his office, such as job placement, contracts awarded to companies that hire his family and one involving Conyers III in which he had to reimburse the government for illicit use the government issued Cadillac that Conyers Sr. had. 



 Conyers III was arrested but not charged for allegedly stabbing and bodyslamming his then-girlfriend during an argument they had in Los Angeles. 
Conyers III told the NY Times in an interview Wednesday about the encounter as a way to prevent scandal after his father announced his retirement following allegations of sexual harassment. This context should be noted.  
 Conyers III said he and his girlfriend got into an argument at 3 a.m. February 15 that turned into a physical fight. Police later arrested him for domestic violence, but the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office dropped the charges.
Was this due to a lack of evidence?  
Did his girlfriend refuse to cooperate? 
Was it due to political connections?
We may not know the answer, but we can obtain information from what the subject, himself, about the assault. 
His girlfriend successfully secured a restraining order against Conyers III that remains in effect through March 2018.
Conyers III maintained his innocence in the interview with the Times.  We have two statements; one from the Times and one from CNN. Let's analyze the first, seeking insight, to see if it helps with analysis of the second statement he made. 
Allegation:  He stabbed and body slammed his girlfriend. 



“She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense. I didn’t do this. She and I had a verbal altercation, and that escalated. She pulled the knife on me. She was chasing me. I tried to take it from her. There was a struggle. I pinned her to the wall. She kept swinging, and she cut herself.
She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense.
"She"
He began with what "she" says.  We should consider that he is likely not going to use her name publicly, as it is not part of the report, but even with this, we note that he does not use a possessive pronoun, nor a title. She is not "my girlfriend says..."
The lack of social introduction, in spite of confidentiality, should lead us to consider that this is not a positive relationship at the time of the statement.  We then see if the statement will support this or not. 
She says I stabbed her, which makes no sense.
Here he only reports what she "says" and not what happened. 
He tells us that she she said "makes no sense" but in admitting that there was an argument that became a physical "fight" between a male and a female, we do not know why her "saying" this would "make no sense."
This is to avoid issuing a reliable denial and is a tangent moving us away from a denial to the point of indicting her as one without "sense."
What she did "say" is very important:  "stabbing."  Keep this in mind. 
The need to persuade his audience that the victim does not make sense is also noted.  It is to put blame upon the victim.  This is a decidedly weak point, noted for both the need to move the topic away from a denial and to go after the victim's mental status.  
 Embedded confession?  
Question:  Is it an embedded confession for him to say "I stabbed her"?
Answer:  No.  He ascribes this to what she is "saying"
Please consider that "says" is unreliable in the present tense.  She made the claim to police in the past, and she even obtained a protection order.  The latter was in writing.  He did not say "she said", or "she claimed" or "she reported" but "she says." This present tense accusation is possibly something that would be "ongoing" for our subject.  We look to see if it is a habit of speech, as is the wont for some.  We quickly learn:  
I didn’t do this.
Unreliable denial. 
Although he used the pronoun "I" (1) and the past tense verb ("didn't") he violates component number 3:  the accusation. 
It is interesting that he uses the word "this" instead of describing the "stabbing" (not assault, nor something else), which just preceded the statement. 
"stab" is his language that he ascribes to her, but not in the past tense.  
Although some claim that the 27 year old has never held an actual job, the Times reports him as a "fund manager."  He likely knows the difference between present tense and past tense verb usage.  She "says" is present tense but "I didn't" uses the stronger past tense. 
There is an inconsistency here. 
Next, note that he not only avoids using his own wording for the accusation, but chooses to use the word "this", rather than "that."
The word "this" often shows a psychological closeness (it can be geographical, but the context does not support it) to the accusation. 
Readers may find this surprising but at this point, I believe him. 
I believe he didn't stab her.  
Let's see if this assertion of mine is sustainable. 
First, he used the tangent (-), and then maligned the victim as not making sense (-) and then he used the present tense (-) and issued an unreliable denial (-).  He has now given me four indications that should lead me to conclude that he did, in deed, stab her.  
Let's continue to listen to him to guide us.  Remember:  we begin with the presupposition that he did not do it, and in order to believe that he is deceptive, he must talk us out of our position. 
 She and I had a verbal altercation, and that escalated. 
Note "she and I" is not "we", which affirms the negative status of relationship noted from the lack of social introduction. 
Then, note that he admits "verbal altercation", which is then addressed:  escalation. 
When "verbal" escalates, it escalates to physical. 
Note how this escalation is now something he wishes to distance himself from:
"and this escalated" is not what he said. 
"...and that escalated."  
He psychologically brings himself "close" to "stab" but distances himself, immediately afterwards, regarding escalation beyond verbal "altercation."
This does not seem to make sense.  
She pulled the knife on me. 
This is, in its form, reliable.  It does not mean he did not pull a knife on her, but we have no reason to believe that this is not reliable. Note the strong past tense language. 
She pulled the knife on me. 
Did you notice that he used the reliable past tense verb, "pulled" here? 
Yet, the article "the" is used.  It should be "she pulled a knife on me" unless...
it shouldn't be. 
The word "the" tells us that the knife has already been identified by the subject.  
This is why I added that I believe him, even though there may be missing information such as whether he pulled a knife out. 
"The" could indicate that earlier in the interview he mentioned it or it could be because he handled it earlier in the altercation. 
Articles, like pronouns, are instinctive.  They do not warrant pause and pre thought.  
She was chasing me. 
He said "she pulled the knife" but he did not say "she chased me."  He changed the verb tense...
again. 
Regardless of whether one believes he has a shill nepotistic job as a fund manager, the point is that he is intelligent and likely has a formal education. 
I tried to take it from her. 
This means "attempted but failed."
The verb tense change "chasing" me elongates time in the sentence.  Consider that time is passing in the statement. Remember, time must pass (we cannot alter it), therefore it is when the subject feels the need to express the time passing that we consider just how important this is. 
What else happened during this stretching of time?
There was a struggle. 
He immediately moves to passivity in his statement. This means he is now removing both identity and responsibility from the "struggle": who did what to whom.  
This is a need to conceal information.  
Remember the accusation:  attacking her with a knife and body slamming her. 
I pinned her to the wall. 
This is very strong and likely reliable.  Yet it is followed with: 
She kept swinging, 
The change of verb tense and of the element of time. He reports that which began, but he reports it without completion of the activity. "I pinned her to the wall" is an example of reliability in a statement.  There is an action that is both assigned responsibility and completion.  This is what he did.  
Now go back and consider, "there was a struggle" deliberately conceals who did what to whom.  
This is how we know: 
Content Analysis:  at some point, he pinned her to the wall. As we piece this together by our work:  taking the words apart and putting them back together again, we seek a portrait. 
Deception Detection:  we know that this is not all that happened and that he is deceiving us by leaving out information.  

and she cut herself.
Among other things that are left out, this is something that did happen. 
Note that the accusation from her, according to his words, is that she "says I stabbed her."
Now he introduces the word "cut" instead of "stab."
Here is the CNN statement: 
“The DA dismissed the charges, but it’s something that causes me a lot of anguish and now it’s associated with me. I know what happened, and I know I’m innocent.”
"I know what happened" is a red flag statement of knowledge.  
"I know I am innocent " is not "I am innocent."  In both, he asserts what "he" knows; allowing for others to "know" contrary.  This is different than a denial. 
When one tells us what one knows, it is unnecessary information and indicates sensitivity. 
"I know I didn't kill him" will immediately lead to, "So, you know who did kill him?" 
It is an indication of something else that is known.  Listen to him and let his language guide you: 
“I did not stab her. That’s absolutely false. I’m not a violent person; that is not me. There was a verbal altercation and it escalated. I didn’t try to go grab a knife or do anything with a knife.”
"I did not stab her" is very strong. 
He then moves to weaken it by introducing it with "that's absolutely false."
"That", the stabbing, is absolutely false.  "That" is.  But...mothers of small boys are intuitively engaged at this point.  Here is why: 
This is very similar to the comical story where little Johnny comes home from school confronted by mother:
"The teacher said you ran up behind Sally and pulled her hair" to which Johnny says, "I didn't do that!" truthfully.
He was standing right behind her when he pulled her hair.  He didn't run up to her. 
This is why I wrote earlier that I believe he did not "stab" her.  
Yet, the weakening is in the overall context:
I’m not a violent person; that is not me.
Now I know the missing info:  "violence." This is the language of guilt. He has a need to portray himself as different than what happened.  This need is what we note. 
"that is not me" is the ancient gnostic "splitting" that liars have done since time out of mind. 
It is to separate the action from the persona.  It is the language of deception. It is very common in serious allegations including assault, sexual assault, and theft.  It is as if there is a little person living inside the subject who is peaceful, gentle, and giving.  It is the big bad outside person that is giving him all the trouble. 
There was a verbal altercation and it escalated.
Passivity concealing how "it" escalated.  Combined with his need to change verb tenses and elongate time, we are getting insight into him. 
He has a need to tell us the "type" of person he is.  
This is similar to one knowing "in my heart" something that is not able to be denied by the "brain" or by reality. It is human nature. 
So if he didn't "stab" her, what did he do?
 I didn’t try to go grab a knife or do anything with a knife.”
We now know.
Like pronouns, "articles do not lie." 
Yet, I believe him. I believe he did not stab her and she, somehow, "cut herself."  
Why the need to use such deceptive language?
What one tells us in the negative is elevated in importance.  He wants us to know what he did not "try" to do.  Therefore, what he did, "just happened" to him as it was not his intention,  
  He did not "stab" her, but "cut" her. In his verbalized perception of reality: 
The knife presented itself in opportunity, very likely as she waved it around. 
It was her fault that he could turn the knife around while in her hand. This is how he can technically make a truthful statement while wrapping it in deceptive language. Technically, it was her hand that held "a" (not "the" knife here) knife.  
This is how technical truth is used for deception. It is why he had to employ passive voice to this statement.  It is why he changed verb tenses so often. 
In the escalation to violence, the missing information is what he did.  Remember, he is the one who employed passivity in speech.  It is similar to "the gun went off", removing all responsibility for the shooting.  
He did not stab her, but grabbed her arm and guided the knife to cut her.  He did not go out to get a knife, it presented itself.  
This is why there is deception surrounded the physical altercation with a knife.  He was physically stronger than her. 
But what about "body slamming"? 
We can know that he body slammed her too, as he did not deny it but gave us signals of deception of the altercation. 
He is a sophisticated and intelligent liar. We now see why she was granted the protection order.  
He does not take personal responsibility, either, for the "altercation" as he:  
he blames her. 
he blames the knife. 
Without knowing the victim, it is very likely that he was bigger and considerably stronger than her.  It is he who has the need to deceive. 
The subject, John Conyers III has a need to present himself as good person.  This need to present and persuade tells us the opposite.  He goes into detail about what makes him a good person.  This gives us detail into who is actually is.  
Based upon his language, he is likely facing a successful career in politics. 
For training in deception detection, sign up for our course,
It is done in your home, or your department can host a seminar.  The course comes with 12 months of e support, which is necessary as you learn to apply the principles in a disciplined manner. 
Tuition payment plans available for law enforcement. Tuition increase January 1, 2018.