Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Vegas: Jesus Campos Statement on "Shots Fired"


Jesus Campos disappeared from media and canceled his appearances, including on the Sean Hannity Show,  but then went on main stream media's the Ellen Degeneres show. 

We note that several months ago, Ellen Degeneres signed a contract with the hotel to use her likeness.   We have only one statement to work with.  The analysis is only of this statement. 





"As I was walking down, I heard rapid fire and at first I took cover. I felt a burning sensation. I went to go lift my pant leg up and I saw the blood. That's when I called it in on my radio that shots had been fired."



Let's break it down to learn if he is truthful or not.  

"As I was walking down" addresses the element of time.  The article did not tell us what question was asked, but if it was, "when did you...?" in any form, this would be an appropriate response. 

"I heard rapid fire and at first I took cover."

This uses the pronoun "I" and past tense language.  

Numeric:  "...and at first I took cover" tells us that as he considers what he did, in recall, he is currently thinking about what he did next.

I felt a burning sensation. 

This is also stated with the pronoun "I" and past tense language affirming commitment.  It uses sensory description, consistent with not knowing the conclusion of a matter. 

He reports not that he was shot, but what he felt.  This is significant in discerning  deception from truth.  It is to give an incomplete answer.  He will need to tell us why he is not telling us plainly.  


I went to go lift my pant leg up and I saw the blood. 

He tells us the reason for his action:  he felt burning and then his intention to uncover the source.  This makes the action sensitive to him.  

He plainly reports the sequence of activity in recall.  He did not know he was shot.  

This is an indication of experiential memory in play. 

"I saw the blood" is a strong statement.  The article "the" is in reference to the source of what he was "feeling" and why he went to lift up his pant leg.  This incomplete action is very likely due to the volume of blood.  It is not "blood" nor "my blood" but "the" blood; which, in his language, was already identified, by "feeling" (sensory) but not knowing the source. 

This is not the language of story telling, but of recall.  It is processed information for him.  He is working in sequence of his experience.  

An example of story telling would be to not identify ownership of blood, which would require creative thought on the recipient.  This is not his intention.  

The immediate intention of story telling is to create reciprocal thought in the hearer.  Instead, he is  using experiential recall. 


He then returns to the element of time, of which began his answer.  This further affirms that the question was very likely "...When did you...?"  The specific question could have been, "When did you call in that shots had been fired?" based upon the answer. 

That's when I called it in on my radio that shots had been fired."

Analysis Conclusion:  Veracity Indicated. 

The subject is not intending to deceive in this answer and is reliably stating when he called in "shots fired."  

He did not know he was shot, but knew he felt a burning and when (time) he went to lift up his pants' leg, he saw "the" (specified earlier in his thought of what he felt) blood.  This is consistent with chronological order, which is how experiential memory works. 

It was likely due to a direct question.  

This conclusion of this analysis is of the above statement only.  Every so often, I am asked for an example of what honest recall looks like.  This statement is an example of such. 

For training in deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 



Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Las Vegas Terror Motive


When a child goes missing, a mother goes out dancing for 31 days rather than searching, a pyschological expert tells us: she wasn't out partying like it appeared.  She was actually  "grieving."

What if she had cried instead of gone out partying?

That would be grieving too. 

What if she had called police?

That would be grieving too.  

No matter what Casey Anthony did after taking her child's life,  a paid expert would testify to it being appropriate grieving because that is what she was paid to say, under oath.  

This is symbolic of the mental health industry today.  

We can get an expert to testify to anything we pay for.  This is the moral relativism that is our mental health industry today. Media routinely brings on "experts" who affirm the narrative.  This is why we have not heard the motive of the terrorist killing in Vegas. 

Recently, main stream media interviewed another psychologist who  used her moment to politicize her anti Trump stance, in  the Vegas terror shooting.  When she finished with the political narrative, she  said, "Stephen Paddock was not sick." Instead, she blamed the means he employed:    "It was the guns. " This is the norm for MSM in each Islamic terrorist attack:  shift blame.   "Mental illness, Islamophobia (victim blaming), cultural misunderstanding (MSM-speak for "rape" and also victim blaming), PTSD, and so on.  It is now fashionable to claim racism to any and every political and personal failure.  The word "nazi" no longer means a "national socialist from 1930's-40's Germany" but is code for anyone who disagrees with elitist narrative. 


MSM has blamed Valium, gambling debts, real estate,  guns, President Trump, law abiding Americans, the NRA,  and conservatives, overall for the Vegas terror attack killing.    Illogical emotional ramblings from coarse and crude comedians only affirmed the narrative of emotion over reason. 

ISIS claimed that Paddock converted 6 months prior to the attack and bestowed upon him the honor of "martyr" for Allah.  Before that, they publicly acknowledged Vegas was a target.

MSM has also reported that  "no motive will likely ever be known", which is absurd.  

The local sheriff has been put in a most uncomfortable position; giving out basic details and view points of his investigators, only to be censured.  He appropriately concluded that Stephen Paddock did not likely act alone due to the complexity of the attack.

We then learned that a security guard was lauded as a "hero", even taking a bullet from the killer, promptly followed by a change in  time line and the sudden cancellation and disappearance by him. 

It was also reported that Stephen Paddock's home was "burglarized."  Most people assumed that this was also absurd.  

An eyewitness who claimed multiple shooters died in her sleep a week later. Readers here know that if she did, in fact, make the post on Facebook, her account is understandably confused, unreliable and unusable as a witness testimony.  The mayhem and confusion, including the neuroaoucistics indicate the appropriate use of her passivity in speech, no matter the motive for posting.

What can we know about the Vegas terrorist attack in which Stephen Paddock killed almost 60 and wounded approximately 500?

We can know:

1.  That Stephen Paddock did not kill because of prescription medicine, gambling debts, business failures, or insanity. 

2.  We can know that MSM continues to refuse journalism instead opting for narrative.  We can trust that MSM is not going to report the truth based upon its history, particularly in reporting terorism. 

Recall how diligently MSM went to cover up the murder in the Orlando nightclub Islamic terror.  The President of the United States heard  the killer confess his motive in targeting and killing homosexuals, but lied to the American people, with the assistance of the press.  They attempted to exploit the homosexual community's sympathies with one media interviewing the shooter's "boyfriend."  

The killer said that he was killing homosexuals as Islam teaches and does in Islamic nations.  The American public was  given a newly translated 911 call in which "Allah" became "God."  At one point, Christians were blamed in media for the killing. 

The Orlando Islamist was obedient to Islam and chose his intended victims accordingly. Main Stream Media was deceptive; not wrong, in its reporting.  

The Orlando terrorist chose his intended victims according to ideology:  

So did Stephen Paddock. 

We can know that MSM is unreliable.  

3.  We can know that Stephen Paddock's girlfriend was unreliable in her statements, highlighting a need to withhold information.  

We have the analysis of her statement indicating this.  When someone deliberately conceals information, she has a specific need to.  

3.  We can know the identity of Stephen Paddocks' victims.  

  The Target of Stephen Paddock 

Stephen Paddock committed an act of terror.  We know this in spite of the media's refusal because what he did took months of deliberation.  

a.  planning
b.  financing 
c.  training 

It is not true that the weapons committed this crime, nor that he did this insanely.  One who plans, finances and trains for a specific goal is not legally "insane."  Although paid psychologists will testify for both the prosecution and the defense, it will be seen not as a random act of violence, but of a well planned, financed and executed act of deliberation. Anger at gambling, or a reaction to medication will both indicate short term results and impulsivity.  

This act took months of daily mental processing and active engagement.  

The target of Stephen Paddock is critical to understanding motive. 

Reportedly wealthy, had he lost money gambling, he might have targeted the casino in a moment of revenge following some trigger of humiliation. 

 Valium?  Prescription medication?  He might have fallen asleep only to awaken to an uncontrollable urge to kill the first person in front of him.  This would have been impulsive; not something that took months of planning and deliberation. 

What do we know about the audience?

There are two distinct things we know about the intended victims in regard to terrorism: 

1.  Conservatives

They were country music fans, which even MSM admits would be considered "conservatives."

The campaign rhetoric of 2016 came on the heels of the most divisive "identity politics" leader America has ever had.  The consequences were evident before Vegas in the murder rate of police, the rise of ANTIFA fascist violence, the attempts to stop free speech and the overall divide of a nation.   

This would give us the possibility that Stephen Paddock took seriously that these people were all "racists", "white supremacists" (including blacks), "homophobic", members of a former German political party, (nazi) and his victims who were "killing the world" by using cars and air conditioners, as Hollywood celebrities often state. 

Illogic and Emotion increase the risk of violence.  The suspension of reason (called "racist" by BLM terrorists) is always dangerous.  When it is coupled with emotion within the moral narcissist, it leads to violent conflict. 

Did Stephen Paddock target his victims because they were conservatives?

2.  Non-Muslims.

Those targeted for death and destruction were not only generally conservatives  but to the Islamic mind, they were "infidels."  

Islam divides the world into two peoples and two lands.  They see people as "peacefully submitted" to Allah, or those to be conquered.  They see land as "Allah's" and land to be conquered for Allah.  

This is the second identification of the intended victims.  

Since 9/11, there have been almost  32,000 Islamic  terrorist attacks in strict obedience to Islamic teaching in the Koran and haddiths.  Barak Obama increased Islamic violence in his words and actions.  He declared the "future must not belong to those who slander the prophet Mohammad" at the UN, and he regularly imported those designated "refugees" by religion:  Muslims over Christians, at 98% to 99% to 1% to 2% ratio.

Of the actual Islamic attacks, he claimed that they had alternative motives, including those who confessed and  quoted the Koran.  He claimed that those who deliberately chose non-Muslims, yelled "Allahu Akbar" and quoted the Koran had other motives for killing and that each murderous rampage was a "lone wolf" and "random" attack, with nothing in common other than what we saw:

Motive, planning, execution and confession, all being exactly the same. The impact of concealing Islamic crimes is not lost on the Islamists.  

Thus far, ISIS has not shown a willingness to make false claims, with, perhaps, only one claim in dispute.  

That they bestowed on Paddock honor as a "soldier of Allah" is significant.  

Would they do this as part of "taccquia", the Islamic deception?

What reports do we have supporting this?

We have learned that the shooting may have been video taped, or even live streamed but still do not have clear reporting.  

We have learned that Stephen Paddock left a note.  

We were told it was "a note to himself" and that it isn't particularly "helpful."

If Stephen Paddock wrote a note prior to the attack or his death, it is revelatory.  

Statement Analysis of the note may clear up the "mystery" of the Vegas shooting.

It was an act of terror. 

It was planned, financed, trained for, and executed.  

It was purposeful.  

It caused a great deal of death and destruction.  

It was not a random act of an insane person, 

It was not a reaction to medication.  

It was as purposeful in motive as it was in planning, financing, training and execution. 

Conclusion

This was an act of terror.  

The Motive of the terror was likely one of two things:

It was likely an act of Islamic political/religious terror, or leftist political terror according to the chosen victims. 

That was it was terror is seen in Behavioral Analysis:

It took intention; 

planning, training, financing and execution, with this deliberation taking place over months. This means a great deal of time, daily, to withdraw from impulse.  

It precludes specific humiliation as a trigger.  This, too, is something that is seen, not as a motive, but a trigger.  One who is intending or considering terror, may need a specific act of humiliation to trigger, or set in final motion, that which was deliberated before.  

The months of planning coincide with both the testimony of ISIS, as well as the increase in violence and specific violent rhetoric from the elitists.  This includes words such as "resistance movement, blood in the streets, impeachment," as well as the destruction of monuments of history. 

We see signals of deception within the killer's girlfriend, who knew of the potential for bloodshed, and left the country, cash in hand.

To study Statement Analysis, contact Hyatt Analysis Services.  Even for those who do not seek Certification for professional use, can better themselves through the home study "Complete Statement Analysis Course."  

From negotiations with home improvement companies, to scammers to survival in a corrupt narrative driven media environment, the benefits of personal growth in discernment are limitless.  

Our training for law enforcement is a center piece, but for Human Resources, therapists, journalists, and so many other professions, learning to detect deception is invaluable. 










Monday, October 16, 2017

Hillary Clinton's Statement on Falling

she powered through it...

Hillary Clinton canceled a series of speaking engagements without giving a reason.  She finally did,  she made a statement about it.  

During the 2016 Presidential election, questions were raised about her health, with speculation that she suffered from Parkinson's and often needed assistance to stand or get in and out of vehicles.  This speculation was fueled when Wikileaks emails came out as well as statements about Parkinson related medicines, spells, and so on.  

Question:  Does she reliably report that she fell?

“I was running down the stairs in heels with a cup of coffee in hand, I was talking over my shoulder and my heel caught and I fell backwards.”

Here is is again:


“I was running down the stairs in heels with a cup of coffee in hand, I was talking over my shoulder and my heel caught and I fell backwards.”


What is expected is, "I fell on the stairs."  It may be that one feels the need to explain how (or why) one fell, given her history and the video tapes that showed her falling or needing assistance.  Given this sensitive background, the need to explain why should be considered.  This wold allow for one explanation as to why she fell, even though a fall would not likely warrant any.  


What do we have with this statement?


"I fell backwards."


By itself, this would suffice and would be reliable on its sentence structure. 

She first, however, introduces the reason (s) she fell backwards.  This is very sensitive information to her.  No one would feel the need for more explanation when one says, "I fell on the stairs" or something common.  It is the expectation of being challenged in where we see sensitivity.  Here, however, she does not give a reason why she fell:


she gives five

1.  Running--not walking, nor descending, but "running" and this down the stairs.  This is difficult to picture


2.  in heels

3.  with cup of coffee

4.  talking over shoulder

5.  Heel caught



“I was running down the stairs in heels with a cup of coffee in hand, I was talking over my shoulder and my heel caught and I fell backwards.”


This is to give 5 reasons that she fell, rather than one, or instead of, 


"I fell on the stairs."


The need to explain anticipates being challenged.  What she did not consider is that simply stating that she fell or tripped on stairs would not likely trigger questions as to why she fell.


Once makes it sensitive to her, showing a need to explain why. 


But to need to blame 5 separate elements?


Analysis Conclusion:  

Hillary Clinton is not truthful about what happened.  

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Multiple Shooters Reported: Kymberley Suchomel Facebook Post


Kymberley Suchomel was at the Vegas shooting and reported multiple gunmen.  She died shortly after in her sleep.  Her grandmother reported that she suffered medical issues, including seizure. 

It was reported that Kymberley posted her account of what happened on Facebook which this is allegedly a copy.  

There is a withholding of information in the terrorist attack in Vegas.  Some of what corporate or "main stream media" is reporting is tangential. The confusing statements from the Sheriff indicate an increase of pressure upon him.  

The security guard's cancelation of media appearances is concerning. 

The report that Stephen Paddock's home being "burglarized" is very difficult to accept. To know more, we need actual statements to discern truth from deception.  

Kymberley Facebook 

It is not known if this is a genuine copy of her post.  This is one issue. 
Next, this may be a follow up and commentary to her initial posting on Facebook. 


In respect for her family, the Analytical Question is only about the assertion of multiple shooters.  

Does she reliably report multiple shooters?

This is not to claim deception, but in analyzing witness statements, we look first at deception versus veracity, and then we look to content and then we analyze the quality of the assertion.  

This is where we can discern someone being accurate or not, even when there is no intent to deceive.  



I have been receiving phone calls, messages & texts galore since Sunday night, and I have been providing the same copy & pasted message to each of those who have contacted me. A really quick, vague, account of what happened at the Route 91 Festival in Las Vegas. It has been nearly 72 hours since the nightmare took place, and I am finally able to sit here & put into words my own personal account. I have attached some photos of the fun we did have.
I would first like to give a huge giant thank you to both Casie Barnard & Ricky Ardito, without them I can guarantee you I wouldn’t have gotten out like I did- I would have dropped to the floor, stunned, and I would not have been able to get up. I owe them both my life.
Sunday morning we woke up sore & hungover from the nights before. Friday & Saturday nights were a blast- we drank too much, and fought the crowd to get as close to the stage as possible. We acted like we were in our early 20s and hitting Vegas for the first time; however, when we woke up Sunday we all were in complete agreeance that we would not be doing that again. We decided, instead, to bring in a king sized sheet & sit on the astro-turf in the way, way back & just peacefully watch the concert from our spacious sheet. We also decided to drink the morning and afternoon of, but not the evening, as Ricky, Cassie & Mendy had an early day ahead of them, having to leave at 4am to get Ricky to work Monday morning. When we had full bellies & got our retail fix in-shopping the vendors, we headed to the main stage where we immediately sought out that back sitting area. Unfortunately, we procrastinated getting to our seats for too long, and every spot was taken. We ultimately ended up on the next fake-grass area much closer to the stage- but we still had a decent amount of space & great viewing area, so we spread out our sheet and claimed it our territory. We remember exactly where we were, because most of us (excluding myself) left to go to the bathroom & get water during the concert, so we used landmarks to be able to find each other again. I remember distinctly that one of the bars was to my left and I had to look behind me to see it- thinking maybe I should get one more beer, but I already had a full bladder & I have an irrational fear of porta-potties, so I decided against it. 
We are all hanging out on this sheet, dancing our booties off, enjoying ourselves so much that we took off our boots to get even more comfortable. Casie & I were on opposite sides of our little 5-person group. I was on the far right side, and I had so much room to dance that this guy who walked by, who we called “camo man”, actually said to me “taking up a lot of real estate there, eh?” jokingly. After about 20 minutes of Jason Aldean’s set, I got this overwhelming feeling to go stand over by Casie. I can’t tell you why, but I did. The entire time I was dancing next to her I kept thinking to myself, “why? Why don’t I go back to my spacious area?? There is no room to dance over here.. I am not having a good time over here… okay, on the next song I will”. But, there wasn’t a next song.
From about 50 feet in front of us, and a little to the right, fire crackers were set off. Let me repeat that… FIRE CRACKERS WERE SET OFF. I verbally stated “some asshole just shot of fire crackers in close proximity to so many people”. I was literally pissed off. You could see Jason Aldean look to his left kind of startled by it, but he was also clearly irritated. I would say about 15 seconds later, the first volley of gunfire was released. It was a shorter volley than any of the others, and the gunfire was not as close together either. EVERYONE looked up, down, around. We thought it was more fire crackers at first, but then Ricky reached over, told us all to put our boots on, quickly. And the volley ended. Then people started to panic. The gentlemen behind me looked at me as I was putting on my boots, half laying down, and said “calm down crazy, its just fireworks, jeez”. That is when the 2nd volley went off, Ricky yelled at us all to get down, flat, & we immediately knew there was someone shooting at us. I remember getting down, but I didn’t lay flat for some reason, thinking- oh my gosh, I need to get flatter than I am now, but my body just wouldn’t let me. That was the 2nd volley. At the end of that volley ( I am still struggling to get my boots on), we turned and tried to run, but the people behind us still weren’t moving. I yelled at the lady “RUN! ITS GUNFIRE! RUUUUUUUUUNNNNN!!!” The look on her face was pure terror, but she finally dropped her stuff and turned to begin running…. But then the 3rd volley hit… and it was close. Very, very close to us. I could physically see the impact of the bullets on the astro-turf, I could feel the warmth & the passing of bullets. Once that 3rd volley was over, Casie linked her arm into mine, and we decided at that moment we weren’t stopping- we were getting the Hell out of there. And I do mean Hell. We were in literal Hell. The gentlemen that mocked me stating it was just fireworks fell to the ground, and he never got back up. The lady behind me (who was now in front of me) who was terrified as I told her to run, never got back up. I actually had to physically step over her body to run (something I am still struggling with, so please don’t attack me. I was absolutely in flight-or-fight mode). There was another person to my right who also wasn’t moving. We ran. I don’t know what direction we ran, I don’t know towards which landmark we ran. 

This is reported in the negative; increasing its importance.  The passivity is noted as appropriate.  
This acknowledgment, in the negative, of what she did not know is reliable in context. 

It is important to understand the level of confusion, as well as the brain's ability to discern sound direction (neuroacoustics), especially at both high volume and low frequency.  This is increasingly difficult given echo. 


We just ran. It was at this time our group got split up. Casie & I were together. Ricky, Cassie & Mendy were together. 
We were rounding some sort of corner maybe- and I looked to the right and I saw this large cowboy sitting down with his legs spread, holding a blood-soaked woman. I thought to myself “we NEED to hide”, but as I looked quickly for somewhere to go, the gunfire once again got closer and closer. We couldn’t hide because they (and I do mean THEY) were chasing us. That exact moment is when I started to really panic. That is the exact moment in which I thought this was it, I was going to die, I was never going to see my family again. So, as we are running, we approach this fence where men are throwing women over, and we ran up to it as they had knocked It down, so we were able to get out. As we crossed the threshold of the venue, my mind went straight to other mass shootings and hearing the victim’s families in my head talk about how they never got to say goodbye. I did not want this for my husband (who was at work) & my grandma (who had my daughter, Scarlett). So, at 10:07pm I called my husband franticly leaving him a voicemail- telling him that I loved him and was in the middle of a shooting & I wasn’t sure if I would make it out alive. Next, while still running, I called my grandma to tell her the exact same thing. But the gunfire wasn’t stopping this whole time. It wasn’t ceasing. It wasn’t slowing down. And It was directly behind us, following us. Bullets were coming from every direction. Behind us, in front of us, to the side of us. But I know, I just know, that there was someone chasing us. The entire time I felt this way. The farther we got from the venue, the closer the gunfire got. I kept looking back expecting to see the gunmen- and I say MEN because there was more than one person. There was more than one gun firing. 100% more than one. 
As we were running, we kept changing direction, because it felt like no matter what direction we took, we were being followed. So we ended up running in a weird triangular path. The first place I remember getting to was a parking lot, and I told Casie (who was slightly in front of me) we needed to get under one of the trucks. She turned to me and started her way back to me, and that is when the gunfire got even CLOSER than ever before. It was RIGHT THERE. It was within the parking lot. Everyone around us was panicking once again. So we ditched the idea of getting underneath a vehicle, and we continued the run for our lives. If you know me, you know I am a big girl, who is out of shape, and who definitely does not run for any reason. But I can tell you I ran like I have never run before.
The 2nd place I remember going by was Hooters- which is where we met back up with the rest of our small group. We ran towards the entrance thinking we could take cover there, but as we got closer, a stampede of people ran out, terrified. We could only conclude that there was another gunman inside of that hotel. This made us even more scared- we had nowhere to go- no one to trust. At some point, we ended up at the airport & even entered the building for safety. Everyone as we entered were screaming at the staff “IS IT SAFE IN HERE?” but we weren’t getting anyone to answer us, so after running about 30 feet into the building, not getting the answers we so desperately needed, we decided it, too, wasn’t a safe spot, so we got out of there quickly and continued running.
After all this running, we were tired, sore & having to stop to cough, gag and even vomit. We ran across an intersection & us & another group of people pleaded with a limo driver to let us in and get us out of there. He was clearly confused & didn’t understand what was going on, so he didn’t let us in. Next, we ran to a taxi van & she was willing to let us in, but she told us her van only held 4 people & she wasn’t going to let the 5 of us in, so we said screw it and continued running. At one point, we ran passed a small liquor store where they so graciously gave us water bottles. We passed UNLV as well.
Some things I can’t remember exactly where we were or at what time of the night they happened. But we were running along what I am guessing was Tropicana Avenue, and this dark colored sedan drives by, slows a little, and a smaller Hispanic, dark-haired woman leans out the window, and she yells something we couldn’t understand in a clearly taunting manner. It really freaked us out, because again, we didn’t know who we could and could not trust.
I don’t remember at which time, but at some point, Ricky was reminded by Cassie that his Uncle Manny lived in Vegas. He called him, and we made a plan to meet him at a grocery store a couple miles away to get picked up. We finally made it to him, he shoved us all in his car, drove us to our hotel (we stayed off the strip), waited for us to pack (this literally took us all of 10 minutes max to do), and escorted us to the freeway to get us home. A HUGE thank you to Uncle Manny for his love, generosity & kindness.
The what-ifs still kill me. What if we hadn’t decided to be chill that night? What if we went to the same sardine-like spot we were in the two previous nights? What if we had been drinking as much as we had been Saturday night? Would we have had the reaction time to escape? What if I hadn’t had the desire to move next to Casie? Would we have been separated? There are still so many what-ifs from that night.
I have bene watching the news non-stop since I arrived back home to my family. And it just doesn’t make sense. The story that are feeding everyone doesn’t add up to our eyewitness accounts.

The soft language shows a resistance to calling it "false" or "fake news", etc. 

There is something wrong with what they are saying & the evidence seems fake if you ask me. There are multiple people stating that there was a lady towards the beginning of the evening who had made her way up to the stage warning people that we were all gunna die- her and her boyfriend were escorted off the premises. Why has she not been mentioned by authorities? Every single survivor I have talked to also remembers multiple shooters, and at least one from the ground- why aren’t we being taken more seriously? Tons of things don’t add up. 
I know I am forgetting a bunch of what happened, and I will edit this post to include it as I remember.
I praise our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ, for surviving a horrific incident. People were dropping like flies all around me, and there is absolutely ZERO reason why I wasn’t at least struck with a bullet. I left the Route 91 Festival completely unharmed physically, besides some scrapes and super sore bones & muscles. Mentally, however, is a different story. I do okay during the day, but as soon as nightfall hits, I get super scared & anxious. I am even typing this up with butterflies in my stomach and a racing heart. I don’t want to be alone. I don’t want to go anywhere, ever. I can no longer be in any place with large crowds- concerts, festivals, theme parks, zoos, etc. I can no longer trust anyone around me. I can no longer close my eyes without seeing those bodies & hearing the sound of gunfire. I am ruined, as are thousands upon thousands of people.
We were given wristbands to wear for the 3-day event. I can’t seem to take mine off.
We went to Las Vegas for a super fun, down to Earth country concert featuring our favorite artists. We left scared, scarred, traumatized and broken. And for that, we demand answers.


Analysis 
Conclusion 

I do not know if this is a genuine post, but if it is, it is not a reliable witness statement about  were multiple shooters. 

This is not to say that there was not, nor is it to conclude willful deception.  She does not attempt to deceive readers. 

The subject's own confusion is evident.  She may believe there were multiple shooters but as a witness statement:  this is not reliable. 

The processing of information indicates other issues in the statement, including having repeated this account more than a few times.  

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Reviewing Denials: Stephen Michael Cook Analysis Revisited

Stephen Michael Cooke Jr. Analyzed 



This analysis was original published in October 2015.
This was a news program which labeled the story "Indiscretion."

The subject has been convicted of the murder. 

"Indiscretion"

The story of Heidi Bernadzikowski, a 24-year old insurance company receptionist who was found murdered in her living room. Her boyfriend, whom police suspected all along, was finally brought to justice over a decade later. Stephen Michael Cooke, Jr., is currently serving time in prison for her death. The hit men that he hired, Alexander C. Bennett and Grant A. Lewis, were also convicted.

Law enforcement officials now know that Stephen Michael Cooke, Jr, hired two hit men to kill his girlfriend. Investigators say the motive was a $700,000 insurance payout in death benefits. Heidi was found dead in the front room of her home with her throat cut. The number “1” was scrawled in lipstick just above her body. Heidi’s boyfriend, Stephen Cooke, found her after arriving home at about 9 p.m., that night.
Cooke is the one who made the frantic call to 911, where he told dispatchers that he found his girlfriend murdered. The Baltimore Sun reported back in 2000 that an elderly neighbor saw Heidi Bernadzikowski when she arrived home from work hours earlier. According to the neighbor, identified as Reggie Evelyn, about 30 minutes after Heidi entered her home, he heard the sound of several people running around inside her house, which was located in the 2200 block of Codd Avenue in Dundalk, an unincorporated part of Baltimore, Maryland.
“I definitely heard some kind of noise. I assumed it was [neighborhood] children. I heard a noise like children running around inside, but I knew she didn’t have any children.”

An autopsy report later concluded that the young woman had been strangled to death. The community was in shock as they learned the details of her murder. People who knew Heidi say that she had a bubbly personality who was focused on making her life better. Despite her past problems, at 24, she had found a career that she loved, and a boyfriend whom she loved and trusted. Sadly, she had no way of knowing that he man that she planned to marry would be the same man who would orchestrate her killing — and all for money.

The police tried desperately to find something that would connect Stephen Cooke, Jr., to the case. But the investigation eventually went cold, until 2012, when DNA connected Alexander Charles Bennett to the case. At the time, the public didn’t know that Bennett was connected to Stephen Cooke. After tying up all the loose ends of the crime investigation, police moved in and arrested Stephen Cooke in 2012, along with Grant Lewis. Heidi’s mother, who was still living in 2014, stated that she was glad that they finally got justice in the case, and in their hearts they always knew that Stephen Cooke was behind it. Her parents took Cooke to court over the insurance money, just a few years after her death. Prosecutors say that Alexander Bennett was the one who killed Heidi in her home that day.


........................

In part 6 of the episode "indiscretion" Heidi Bernadzikowski's boyfriend Stephen Michael Cooke, Jr takes the stand about his possible involvement in her death.



Defense Atty. LeCompte:

"Now, Steve, you've heard through testimony that you arranged for Hiedi's murder via the internet. Did you do that?.

This is a "yes or no" question, which is a low stress question.  The expectation is that he will say "no" and nothing more needing to be said. 
Why is this?
Because we presuppose that the subject will both tell us the truth and that he did not do it. 

Cooke: Not at all. Not at all. I didn't--I didn't have anything to do at all to do with Hieidi's murder.

In his answer, we view the question: "did you do that?" follows "...that you arranged for Hiedi's murder."
The best answer for him to give is "no" by itself. 
"Yes or No" questions are less stressful for deceptive people as one may concentrate on anything while saying "no"; and, in their own minds, they could be saying "no" to just about anything they wish to deny.  The reduced stress is specifically related to the core of information:  he does not have to use words from experiential memory to say the word "no."

Therefore, we note every syllable of every word that follows the answer, "no" in the response. 
Here, however, we note that he does not use the word "no" as a response.
"Not at all" is to encompass more information, using the word "all."  This is initially noted, yet we find that "not at all" is repeated.  Anything that is repeated is to be considered 'sensitive' to the subject, elevating its importance.  
He then continues to speak:

"I didn't--I didn't have anything to do at all to do with Hieidi's murder."

We find a 'self-censor' or a 'halt' in language with, "I didn't..." which is then repeated. Is he normally one who stutters? We continue by noted that he did not say, "I didn't have anything to do with Heidi's murder" but adds in the words "at all", which are not necessary.
What should an analyst think of "I didn't have anything to do with Heidi's murder" on its own?
1. We must note that this is not what he said. He first stopped this statement.
2. He added in the unnecessary words "at all"
3. This is not an "open statement" in the sense that context is key: it is in response to a direct question.
Let's say that he did not halt on the pronoun "I" and he made this statement in the initial interview, freely, and early in the interview. This context would strengthen it.
The process by which we freely choose our own words is where lie detection is successful: when one is choosing his own words, his own syntax, his own order, and so on. Even coming close to parroting from a question reduces reliability.

Reduced reliability does not mean "deception indicated" but that the reliability of the statement is in question, and more analysis is needed.
One may not give a reliable denial initially, but when getting the subject to go off in volume of words of his own choosing, he may.

Then we have this.

Defense Atty. LeCompte:

Why are you testifying?.

This is a very good question. The only word that is parroted is "testifying", which is appropriately so. This is the perfect opportunity for th"

We began our analysis with an unreliable denial, therefore, It is the time to declare the truth:
Cooke: Why are you testifying?

This is a great time for him to say "Because I didn't do it." and "I told the truth." 

I'm testifying because I want my family and friends, and I want Hiedi's family and friends too--to know the truth. And for 15 years, they haven't heard the truth. For 15 years, I''ve been blamed for some I didn't do. I didn't kill Heidi.


I believe him.


The subject gave a reliable denial when he freely said, "I didn't kill Heidi."
This is very likely (statistically) to be true. If he were to add to this and state, "I am telling the truth" it would be above 99% reliable.
So, what is the problem?

He was not accused of killing Heidi; he was accused of arranging for her murder.
Had I been falsely accused of hiring someone to kill her, I would have simply said,
"I'm testifying because I did not hire Bennet to kill Heidi."

The subject is unreliable with signals of deception. The psychological wall of truth is not present, so he calls upon additional words and explanations to buttress that which should need no assistance.

Training: Hyatt Analysis Services