Friday, March 30, 2018

Discerning Narcissism in Language


In Statement Analysis advanced work, we move from detecting deception to content analysis.  Once we know if the subject is deceptive and have obtained a great deal of content (what happened), we then are able to move to the psycho-linguistic profile:

The subject or author's background, experiences and his motive or priorities in the statement.  What emerges from it all?  The dominant personality traits of the subject. 

First, the subject does not exist to us.  We are only looking at his statement and even exclude external information, such as his record or file may indicate. This is done to keep us from being influenced.  Then when we have completed our analysis, we add in this external information to get to know him well. 

Narcissism is a word that is thrown around far too much and can lose its meaning.  Like "misogamy" and "homophobia", politicians have all but destroyed this meaning in the public sphere. 

I give two examples in explanation. 

1.  Misogyny 

Misogyny is not disagreeing with Hillary Clinton. 

 Misogyny is frightening.  

I exchanged a series of letters with a rapist who, when he could not physically rape his victim, he mercilessly beat her, attempting to disfigure her.  Even more chilling is that when he saw the inflected physical damage, he became sexually aroused.  

Female police officers have consistently reported a "glee" in the eyes of some violent male suspects when they see they are about to become physically engaged with the female police officer.  They noted "delight" and deep hatred.  

Misogyny produces violence. 

It is sometimes seen in the language where the perpetrator assigns blame for his own actions to women in general,  as if the rape victim is not his sole target, but his mother, and all women, are targeted.  Some will overtly, not even covertly,  blame women for society ills.  This sounds like a caricature but only to those who have not seen in interviews or arrests. 

2.  Homophobia

Homophobia is not disagreement of sexual behavior based upon religious or natural views.  I have seen some disagree with another, who assigned "homophobia" to the motive of disagreement, rather than the actual political issue.  That's not a deep seated fear of homosexuality.  It is a disagreement of a topic.

Homophobia is frightening. 

I knew a man who had been sexually abused in childhood by men, which led him into a series of predatory vicious attacks on homosexual males as he lured them by "posing" as one seeking sex from strangers.  The  hatred is both personal (from self) and acute.  It is a deep seated fear that can be discerned in the language. Like misogyny, it is chilling and  it is dangerous. Yet, like misogyny, the meaning has been altered for the purpose of exploitation. 

Self serving politicians and those who follow them, have damaged the meaning of these words.  

Narcissism 

This is another word thrown about carelessly and anyone who shows self confidence or even self interest can be labeled as such.  It too, is used by politicians (or political narrative) to tear each other apart. 

In our psycho- linguist profile we do not diagnose in our final reports.  

Diagnosing is a sure way of having your reputation damaged on the witness stand by a defense attorney, and, rightfully so. We can note the traits, particularly as the author below has done, and write (and use) our observations in the investigation process without diagnosing. 

In our reports, when narcissism is discerned, we use it in a descriptive manner that will aid the investigation and the interview process.  In this manner, it is invaluable. We might include, "note the narcissistic like traits here..." or use phrases that will not cause a defense attorney to challenge our qualifications such as,

"here we note the element of an apparent high mindedness.  This subject has a very high opinion of his opinion..." or use words such as "selfish" or even "extreme focus upon self..."

It can bring the interviewer/investigator into clear focus of not only what questions to ask, but how and when to pose them. Narcissists in interviews are fascinating and can be provoked into admissions simply because they must justify their action. Why?

Because they did it; and since they did it, it "must" be right, or justified. 

Ethical licensed psychologists trained in analysis do not have a need for a diagnosis within the analysis. A solid diagnosis requires further interviewing (collateral) and is separate from the analysis of a statement.  Narcissistic like traits is enough to strategize. 

Useful Practical Information   

Some narcissists recognize themselves but generally only on the surface.  Even being diagnosed and the self-disclosure will not alter the personality.  This is why we always bring subjects into the free editing process of speaking without interruption. 

Some narcissists dedicate their lives to exposing narcissists.  They do not consider that their own words (and sometimes photos, camera angles, focus, etc) only heighten this projection.  

Children are naturally narcissistic which is why they must be taught human empathy.  This is why in both Employment Analysis (screening) and in theft investigations, we seek to discern basic human empathy from the subject, as a protective element against theft in hiring. 

The following is an article from Psychology Today by Joe Navarro.  

It is practical and a useful guide for the outworking of actual  narcissism and coping.  The author does not write to impress peers, but to inform.  This is an example of talent in instruction. 

We offer seminars and in home training.  For those trained in Statement Analysis, the logical next step is the profile which is used in identifying anonymous authors and threat level assessments.  

For training in deception detection or the general  Statement Analysis, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.    

This course is a prerequisite for further training.  We offer specialized training for Employment and other areas where unique needs are met. With this in mind, Sex Crimes Units should carefully consider advanced training. It is challenging work, but it serves the needs of justice, particularly for those who understand victimology and the behavioral analysis of adult victims of childhood sexual assault, and how their language too often is declared deceptive when it is not.  

Joint Advanced Seminars are also offered with Handwriting Analysis by Steve Johnson, a talented expert in both Statement Analysis and profiling in Handwriting analysis. 






How Narcissists Really Think

Knowing how the narcissist thinks can help you understand 

toxic individuals.

by Joe Navarro 

Posted Sep 01, 2017

We often hear the term “narcissist,” but in reality, what does that mean? Does it merely describe someone who likes to be the center of attention, or likes the way he or she looks? Or is there more to it? The psychiatric literature defines narcissists as possessing specific traits, such as having a sense of entitlement or requiring excessive admiration. But what are narcissistic individuals really like on a day-to-day basis?

Anyone who has lived with or worked for a narcissist will tell you: Narcissists view themselves entirely differently — i.e., preferentially — compared to others, making those around them less valued. And there’s the rub: Everything must be about the narcissist. We don’t mind that a 2-year-old needs constant attention. That’s appropriate for the developmental stage of a 2-year-old. But we do mind when a 40-year–old needs that level of appreciation — and when achieving it comes at our expense.

Narcissists victimize those around them just by just being who they are, and they won’t change. That statement may seem extreme, until you listen to the stories of those who have been victimized by a narcissist. Then you realize just how toxic relationships with these individuals can be.

Work for a narcissistic boss, and he or she can make you physically or psychologically ill. Live with one, and it could be worse. In researching my book, Dangerous Personalities (link is external), I talked to scores of individuals who have been victimized by the narcissistic personality. Listening to story after story of stolen childhoods, destructive marriages, and burdensome relationships, I heard the same refrain: Narcissists see themselves as being so special that no one else matters. No one. Over time, the behavior resulting from their defining pathological traits will cast a wide debris field of suffering.

I have learned from the victims lessons that no medical book can teach, and they are lessons for all of us.

How Narcissists See Themselves

1. I love myself, and I know you do, too. In fact, everyone does. I can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t.

2. I have no need to apologize. You, however, must understand, accept, and tolerate me no matter what I do or say.

3. I have few equals in this world, and so far, I have yet to meet one. I am the best _______ (manager, businessman, lover, student, etc.).

4. Most people don’t measure up. Without me to lead, others would flounder.

5. I appreciate that there are rules and obligations, but those apply mostly to you, because I don’t have the time or the inclination to abide by them. Besides, rules are for the average person, and I am far above average.

6. I hope you appreciate all that I am and everything that I have achieved for you — because I am wonderful and faultless.

7. I do wish we could be equals, but we are not and never will be. I will remind you with unapologetic frequency that I am the smartest person in the room and how well I did in school, in business, as a parent, etc. — and you must be grateful.

8. I may seem arrogant and haughty, and that’s OK with me; I just don’t want to be seen as being like you.

9. I expect you to be loyal to me at all times, no matter what I do. However, don’t expect me to be loyal to you in any way.

10. I will criticize you, and expect you to accept it, but if you criticize me, especially in public, I will come at you with rage. One more thing: I will never forget or forgive, and I will pay you back one way or another — I am a “wound collector.”

11. I expect you to be interested in what I have achieved and what I have to say. I, on the other hand, am not at all interested in you or what you have achieved, so don’t expect much curiosity or interest from me about your life. I just don’t care.

12. I am not manipulative; I just like to have things done my way, no matter how much it inconveniences others, or how it makes them feel. I don’t care how others feel — feelings are for the weak.
13. I expect gratitude at all times, for even the smallest things I do. As for you, I expect you to do as I ask.

14. I only associate with the best people, and frankly, most of your friends don’t measure up.

15. If you would just do what I say, things would be better.
As you can imagine, it is not easy living with or working with someone who thinks or behaves this way. The experience of those who have done so teaches us the following (and if you remember nothing else from this post, remember this): Narcissists overvalue themselves and devalue others, and that means you. You will never be treated as an equal, you will never be respected, and you will in time be devalued out of necessity, so that they can overvalue themselves.

Tolerating the Narcissistic Personality

Knowing the traits of the narcissistic personality and how narcissists view themselves is useful, but so is knowing what can happen when you associate with them. Some, like children, close relatives, or the elderly, may not have a choice. In those cases, it is up to friends, relatives, teachers, coaches, associates, and co-workers to support them as best we can.
And there are those who choose to stick it out, because of finances, circumstances, or because they are in a complicated relationship or marriage. To them I say, beware: You will pay a price. I say this from experience and from talking to many victims. Those who choose to live with or work with a narcissistic personality must be prepared to accept the following:

1. Accept that you are not equals, because narcissists feel that they have no equals.

2. Those feelings of insecurity, dismay, disbelief, or incongruity you are experiencing are real and will continue.

3. Because narcissists overvalue themselves, you will be devalued. Gird yourself to be repeatedly degraded.

4. You will be talked to and treated in ways you never imagined, and be expected to tolerate it.

5. The narcissist’s needs, wants, and desires come first — no matter how inconvenient to you.

6. Be prepared for them to turn on you with indifference at a moment’s notice, as if any past positive interactions did not matter. You may question your own sanity as they turn on you, but that has become your reality.

7. When narcissists are nice, they can be very nice; but if you still feel insecure, that is because it is a performance, not a true sentiment. Niceness is a tool for social survival — a means to get what they want, like needing a hammer to hang a picture.

8. You will lap up the narcissist’s kindnesses, because they don’t come often. But niceness for the narcissist is perfunctory — merely utilitarian.
9. Be prepared for when the narcissist lashes out not just with anger, but with rage. You will feel attacked, and your sense of dignity violated.
10. Morality, ethics, and kindness are just words — narcissists master these for practicality's sake, not for propriety.
11. Narcissists lie without concern for the truth, because lies are useful for controlling and manipulating others. When you catch them in a lie, they will say that it is you who is lying or wrong, or that you misunderstood. Prepare to be attacked and to receive counter-allegations.
12. If it seems that they can only talk about themselves, even at the oddest of times, it is not your imagination. Narcissists can only talk about what they value most — themselves. That is their nature.

13. Narcissists will associate with individuals you would not trust to park your car, because they attract those who see narcissism as something to value (e.g., the power-hungry, the unscrupulous, profiteers, opportunists, and social predators).

14. Never expect the narcissist to admit to a mistake or apologize. Blame is always directed outward, never inward. Narcissists have no concept of self-awareness or introspection. But they are quick to see faults in others.

15. They expect you to forgive and forget and, above all, never to challenge them in public. You must remember that they always want to be perfect in public. Don’t embarrass them or contradict them, or you will pay a price.

16. Get used to losing sleep, feeling anxious, restless, less in control, becoming increasingly worried, perhaps even developing psychosomatic ailments. Those insecurities are your subconscious talking to you, telling you to escape.

17. Lacking both interest and true empathy in and for you, narcissists absolve themselves of that pesky social burden to care, leaving you deprived, empty, frustrated, or in pain.

18. They will be unwilling to acknowledge the smallest thing that matters to you. In doing so, they devalue you, leaving you feeling unfulfilled and empty.

19. You will learn to deal with their indifference, in one of two ways. You will work harder to get their attention — with little reward to you, because it won’t matter to the narcissist — or you will become resigned and empty psychologically, because narcissists drain you, one indignity at a time.

20. You will be expected to be their cheerleader at all times, even when it is you who needs encouragement the most.
This is the unvarnished truth about how narcissists see themselves, how they will behave, and how they can make you feel. I wish it were a better picture, but survivors of these personalities will tell you that it is that bad, and that toxic. 

As Stuart C. Yudofsky explains in his book Fatal Flaws, the truly narcissistic personality is “severely flawed of character.”

You might be asking, “What can I do?” Conventional wisdom advises seeing a trained professional for guidance. That is wise, but not always available. In my experience, the only one solution that works is to distance yourself from the individual as soon as you recognize them for what they are, and as soon as it is practical. As your psychic wounds heal, you will see your life improve and feel your dignity restored. As painful as distancing yourself may be, it is often the only way to make the hurting stop and to restore your well-being.


To see the full checklist of the traits of the narcissistic personality, or of the social predator, please consult Dangerous Personalities (link is external) by Joe Navarro with Toni Sciarra Poynter (Rodale, 2014).

Monday, March 26, 2018

Fraudulent Email

This email came to Hyattanalysis@gmail.com


Dear Beloved one,

I am Mrs Nicole Marois, and i have been suffering from ovarian cancer disease
and the doctor says that i have just few days to leave.I am from (Paris) France
but based in West Africa Benin Republic since eight years ago as a business
woman dealing with gold exportation.

Now that i am about to end the race like this,without any family members and no
child, I have $3 Million US DOLLARS in Africa Development Bank(ADB)Benin
Republic which i instructed the bank to give (St Andrews Missionary Home) here
in Benin Republic, But my mind is not at rest because i am writing this letter
now through the help of my computer beside my sick bed.

I also have $4.5 Million US Dollars at (ECOBANK GROUPE BENIN REPUBLIC) here in
Benin Republic and i instructed the bank to transfer the money to the first
foreigner that will apply to the bank after i have gone that they should
release the fund to him/her,but you will assure me that you will take 50% of
the money and give 50% to the orphanages home in your country for my heart to
rest with GOD.

Return back to me immediately if you can handle this transfer project on my
behalf before death cross my way so that i will send to you a copy my
international passport which you will show to the bank to make the bank know
that i instructed you to contact them for the transfer of my fund with them to
you, and also give to you the bank contact information so that you will apply
for the transfer of the fund and fulfill my dream of building orphanage home in
your country,

Yours fairly friend,

Mrs Nicole B. Marois.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Drowning Death of Kiara Moore

For some, social media is a way to reach family and friends. Still for others, it is a way to network in business. 

Here, it has brought scrutiny to the parents of toddler, Kiara Moore, when her parents took to Facebook to talk about her death. 

An interview with Kimberley Rowlands by police is forthcoming   after her  two-year-old daughter died when she left her strapped in a car that plunged into a river.

Kiara Moore was killed after her mother Kimberley Rowlands left her alone while she dashed into her partner's office to get money. 

Kimberly Rowlands wrote on Facebook: 

Sadly yesterday my beautiful baby girl passed away! Due to my own stupidity, I will have to live with the guilt for the rest of my life! Mummy loves you baby girl and I’m so sorry!”

This is not an unexpected statement, though some may argue its posting for the public.  

 She uses the words "I'm sorry"  preceded by "my own stupidity."  These show strong pronoun commitment to both "stupidity" (with singular emphasis) and "sorrow" regarding the leaving alone of the child which led to her death. 

The local law  incriminates leaving a child alone if it can lead to danger, similar to Neglect laws elsewhere. 

Jet Moore 


The child's father, Jet Moore, set up a fundraiser within hours of his daughter's death, for those who attempted rescue his daughter from the icy waters. This is something that has drawn attention. 
Police have issued a public warning to those who wrote on social media that they do not believe the mother's statement. Police said investigations into such posters could take place. This is very different than in the United States.  

Jet Moore posted the following on Facebook, which is since deleted, describing what happened.  This, too is likely to gain attention.  

Your thoughts on the statement?



Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Full Transcript Emily Glass: Missing 5 Year Old Lucas Hernandezy


Here is a corrected transcript of the interview with the step mother of missing 5 year old. The changes are important as they establish context, rather than the broken article from media.  Please note one word, in particular, that changes the analysis below. Thanks to Lars for the transcript and interesting observation. 

5 year old Lucas Hernandez was reported missing by his step mother, Emily Glass. 

Emily Glass has been arrested on child endangerment charges unrelated to Lucas.  This is a telephone interview with a journalist. 





Q. There’s obviously a lot of rumors going on, a lot of things that people are saying about your stepson Lucas, just curious if there’s anything that you wanna say about that situation?
A. Ehm, yes, ehm, in the past, you know, there’s been times he's being a boy and playing with older brothers and his cousins, ehm he gets bruises. He has had some falls… ehm… falls, you know, it could be there or at the porch ehm……. (pause), I’m sorry, ?...

We first note that she avoids giving a description of a single event, injury or incident, but speaks only in general terms. This is not simply indicative of avoidance, but suggests ongoing child abuse issues by the subject. This is a typical pattern heard from parents accused of child abuse and/or neglect. Introducing the word "porch" would immediately cause a child protective investigator to focus on that area of the house.

"Tell me about your house" beginning with a general question, moving on to note any repetition and/or avoidance of "porch" in te language.

A legally sound interview is one that holds up best in court.

The avoidance of a specific fall is important. It is likely at this point where she says, "you know", that she is considering a specific fall; likely one of significance.


That he has fallen and has been bruising roughhousing is likely true, but note that it avoids conclusive language and any denial of causing bruises.  This is technically truthful in the sense that kids fall and bruise.  Yet note that she enters into a hina clause of the need to explain not how, but why, he got bruises, with "he's being a boy"; rather than "he got bruised playing with his other brothers."

The need to explain "why" (not "how") he bruised should be considered with the incomplete information about bruising.  It is likely that at this point, the subject is concealing another source of his bruising. 



Note also "with older brothers" drops a common pronoun of possession.  


Q. No, you’re fine, take your time
A. He’s my son too, you know. I may not have given birth to him, but he's my baby boy… (pause)… I take care of him every day, you know, ehm, I ? ah… (long pause), this is very painful that this is happening at a time like this, right now

In missing child case, we view the Linguistic Disposition towards the victim.

A parent, caretaker, relative or close friend will care for the safety and wellbeing of what the missing child is currently experiencing. The unknown can drive them to the point of trauma. Someone who cares for a child cannot bear the unknown; it goes against instinct and it goes against habitual care.

When the baby cries, the mother soothes the baby. When the child falls, the "boo boo" is kissed and comfort given.

When a child is in the hands of a stranger, in an alleged kidnapping, the focus of the subject is always going to be what the child is experiencing, which pales out everything else. The focus or "Linguistic Disposition", which is measured, is to be positive (measure) and the priority.

Here we find the subject expressing empathy for herself.


Analytical Question:  What is her linguistic disposition towards the victim's plight?

As a missing 5 year old, we expect her, his "mother" with her "baby" to indicate concern for his present circumstances.  

We continue to wait to hear empathy for the victim.  As "missing", we expect to hear human empathy over what he is going through at the time of this interview:  who is caring for him, is he getting fed, his favorite toy, etc.  

Similar to the McCanns'  interviews:  they showed no linguistic concern for what Madeleine was experiencing, as biological parents, because they knew Madeleine was beyond their help, intervention or concern. Concerned parents show no concern for a child for a reason:  the child is beyond their realm of parental concern.  

Video of McCann interview analyzed.  


Q. Do you have any idea where Lucas might be at this point?

The pauses have been added by the transcriber. A pause means the subject needs time to think, which indicates sensitivity.
A,… (long pause)…. ah… but if anyone does know, please say something because me and dad are worried sick… you know…. I keep thinking and keep thinking what could have happened, you know… And I keep thinking back to these two people… ehm… that were outside of my house a few days prior… ehm, ‘twas a black man and white woman

The word "but" refutes and/or minimizes by comparison, that which preceded it.

"please say something" is deemed "appropriate" but it is weak as analysts have noted. It may be due to the now common expression about "see something; say something" in the United States. We do, however, expect more, such as "call police right away", etc.

"say something" is appropriate (acceptable) but then she adds on why someone should "say something"

"because" she and the dad's comfort is disrupted. "...say something because me and dad are worried sick."

This is a positive linguistic disposition towards self. It is not an expression of concern for the victim.

One should consider that:
a. Step mother is sociopathic and has no concern for the child or
b. Step mother knows or believes that the child is beyond her concern.

This latter (b) was evident in the McCanns. I did not see sociopathic indications or elements in Kate McCann's language.

In step mother's other statements, she does not indicate, even in the small sample, sociopathic indicators. We would need more sample to work from. She is concerned about herself, and shows no concern for the victim.

She then introduces two people.


She is thinking a lot, and is, at this question, very aware of the interviewer.  

She introduces "these" two people.  The word "these" indicates closeness.  With such closeness, we might wonder what the relationship and quality of contact was.  If she suspects them, we expect "those people" along with suspicion and linguistic concern for Lucas. 

We should consider the possibility of "narrative building" (story telling) with the language of, "a black man and white woman."

We should also be concerned about a drug purchase. There may be elements of fabrication stitched together with reality. 

This next question and answer impacts the previous analysis. 

Did she say "standing" outside?  If so, we can compare how "standing" is analyzed with how "staying" is analyzed below. The editing of the article is worthy of criticism. 




Q. Do you know them?
A. No, they were staying outside ? approx…. approximately 3 early morning, so I went out there and be like, hey, is everything okay, do you need to come inside or you stand here or you … stay here just like… no, I felt like I offended them or something… eh. And I said okay, I'm sorry, it's cold outside and I didn't know if you needed to come in, you know. I was just being nice. They stuck around for maybe 10, 15 more minutes. I actually did snap a picture of them walking away because I wanted to send it to their dad to say hey this is what's going on. Because I'm at home alone.

a. "standing outside" analysis
b. "staying outside" analysis

a. "standing outside":


They were not "outside", but they were "standing."  This is a body posture that indicates lack of movement.  Therefore, in her mind, time is stopping with this increase of tension.  This suggests that the presence of "these" two people is now very important to her.  In her mind, time is now stopped.  What follows is critical; even if there is falsehood within the account (such as race/sex):

"standing outside" slows down the pace and now introduces language:

"talking

This is an indication of her involvement in the communication.  As we progress through the statement, pause here and enter into her verbalized perception of reality. 

"standing outside"
"talking" and
"smoking a cigarette"  



All of these observations are unnecessary. Yet for the subject, they are critical. 
She compares the time ("actually") with another time.  This is to affirm the "stopping" of time in her statement.  This suggests that there was more communication between her and them than she wishes to let on.  We are now given more insight:

a.  "so I went out there" tells us that she has a need to explain why she went out there, because she anticipates the interviewer asking her. She is pre tempting the question.  The interviewer may not have even thought of the question had she said, "I heard two people talking outside my house..."

b.  ""so I went out there to be like hey is everything okay?"

She goes on to explain, again, why she went out there. 

We now can safely know:  She went outside with them for another reason. The reason is so sensitive to her that she employs deception (two blues here). 

What was the reason?

c.  "to be hey like is everything okay?" indicates the need to be seen as a good person.

This helps answer the question, "Why did she go out there?"

We may know that she went out there for something that makes her "the bad guy"; that is, for an illegal illicit reason. 

This could be a drug purchase.  This could be worse. 

Either way, it is related to the disappearance of the child. 

The use of "like" is to avoid telling us the genuine, but to characterize instead. 

She continued:  

Do you need to come inside? Are you stranded? 

She did not say that she said these things.  This lack of verbal commitment is narrative building. 

They were just like, no and just like looked at me like I offended them or something.


The communication was intense, with "looked at me":  

 "And I said okay, I'm sorry. It's cold outside and I didn't know if you needed to come in. I was just being nice. They stuck around for maybe another 15 or 20 minutes. I actually did snap a picture of them walking away because I wanted to send it to their dad to say hey this is what's going on. Because I'm at home alone."

We now know why she keeps "thinking" about them.  As narrative "strangers" she "actually" (dependent, comparison) "did snap" a picture of them walking away.  

She anticipates being asked, "Why did you take their picture?"

She anticipated this so intensely, that she revisited the explanation even further.  The tension ("I'm sorry") is high and she was "just" (dependent, comparative) being "nice."  This tells us she is comparing her behavior with something else.  

Staying Outside 

There is a significant difference between the words.  We are not certain which she said.  

b.  "staying outside" indicate that the subject attempted to get them to come indoors (as stated) but their refusal is something that was very important to her.  Remember, she was asked a "yes or no" question only. 

Every word after the word "no" becomes critical. 

We note that in this recall, she portrays herself as the "good guy", which in analysis indicates the opposite. 

We note that she has given them a good deal of volume of words, which must be compared with:

What we know about the victim. 

What do we know about the victim from the step mother's words only?

This answer is important. 

She relates him, repeatedly to herself, via possessive pronoun. 
She changes him, linguistically, which must then be viewed in each specific context. 
She avoids using his name. 
She talks about him being bruised, avoiding all specifics, tagging "normal" (factor) which indicates to the contrary, removes herself from the equation (care for self; not victim, by sending him elsewhere) and introduces some words that likely indicate specific child abuse/neglect events, including the porch and cooking. 

Note that Neglectful parents often boast on how accomplished their children are in terms of self care that is not age appropriate. 

"I'm sorry" often finds its way into those with guilt, no matter what context it is found in. 

By them "staying outside", they did not yield to her will.  This is very important:

Her will, whatever it was, in context of Lucas being missing, was not followed.  

I am very concerned about this difference.  She anticipated being asked, "Did you take a picture of them?" which is not something an investigator or an interviewer would have thought to ask without some prompt from her.  This is how we see the high level of sensitivity in the word "because" in her statement. 


Q, Did you end up sending that picture to Jonathan?
A, Yes, I did, I did : he’s my baby boy…. he has sisters and he has brothers. He's so loved

She wanted proof of someone's presence regarding the disappearance of Lucas.

She claims ownership repeatedly in the context of this picture. Was she under some form of threat, prior to this event, where others said they were going to remove him from her custodial care? Was money involved?


Q. Now, Emily, I hope you understand I do have to ask you because of, you know, the arrest and because a lot of rumors; did you hurt Lucas?
Q. I did not. I would never hurt my son.

The follow up should have been something about the two people hurting him; this would have given her opportunity, according to her profile, to shift the blame to others. It was a missed opportunity, but it is easy to criticize the interviewer here, but he was up against "the clock"; that is, anything he says could cause her to hang up.


Q. Do you have any idea what could have happened?

poorly worded. Better, "What happened to him?" By using "any idea", he allows her to drift from what she knows; away from experiential memory and on to hypotheticals or former news stories or simply imagination. Although these can produce information from analysis, best is to use the Assumptive method: she knows what happens and has a psychological need to release it verbally.

A. Pause.. I mean, I have ideas but that ideas, I mean… ehm… I really should have spoken to you, ehm… through my attorney, but eh… I have (one thing?)

Here is the entrance of the need for an attorney. It was worth taking the chance by the interviewer, but it did produce defensive posture.

To have kept her on the phone, (I don't know if there was a time limit but there may have been), best to ask her things according to her own language. He did see her focus on self. Therefore,

"Tell me what you did for him"
"What was a typical day of caring for him like for you?" (note focus on her)
"Did anyone ever help you caring for him?" *(note avoidance of his name; we avoid using his name if she avoids using his name. We allow her to gain comfort by distancing herself from him).

"Were you his primary care taker?"
"Why didn't others help you?
"What could others have done to make things better for you?"

This slow progression of questions allows her to be exactly who she believes she is: the victim.

There may have been a 15 min time limit.
OK, yeah, is there anything else you wanna say?
I do want peop… I mean, I do want people to know my side, I’m just not there yet, you know… ehm…  ‘cause there is a huge history between Lucas’ family from New Mexico and I and all of the accusations… A majority of the time when he had gotten hurt and ended up with bruises, he wasn't under my care because I would send him off with my cousins and there's older boys over there and he's a very little, small boy and he can get hurt easily and when he's playing with older boys who are like 10 years old, even though we'd say hey Lucas be careful. We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful

Note that she did not call him "Lucas" in her Linguistic Disposition. Here we have Lucas' family and what "we" "would" say. This is not her linguistic disposition towards him, but further distancing language and blame shifting.


Here she uses a form of subtle distancing regarding the bruising. First, she shifts the bruising away from her responsibility with the needed explanation of why this is so.  Rather than saying, "he bruised at his cousins'" she gives a more lengthy explanation.  This takes extra effort which, for a 5 year old, may be unnecessary. 



Next, she switches from "I" to "we", which indicates:  she does not want to be psychologically "alone" in context of bruising.

Who is the victim?

We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful
The flow of the interview is better discerned than the edited news story. Here we find the flow, or context, to be more natural and clear.

Who is the victim in this event?

The linguistic disposition towards the victim indicates a subject in need of persuasion of her audience of being a good mother. Yet, she does not tell us anything about him of significance until this point:

We had to tell him all the time you know, be careful

We now know.

What happened to Lucas was Lucas' fault. His behavior brought this on. "We" did not tell him to be careful; we "had to tell him all the time", not just sometimes. He would not listen. This was his fault.

She is the victim and even as such, she wishes to be the victim with someone else ("we") which further tells us of her own personal responsibility in what happened to Lucas.

If Lucas had only listened to "them" ("we") then they would not have had to tell him this "all the time." This is taxing and it is to show concern for herself and the other person, and not for the victim.

Verbalized Perception of Reality

Statement Analysis recognizes that the words one uses is not reality, but the subject's own verbalized perception.

Lucas' behavior "made" her and someone else "have to" caution him. It was so often and so taxing that it was "all the time." Plus, he had to wear a pull up because he always had accidents.

The Linguistic Disposition towards the victim is Negative.

He "deserved" what befell him in the step mother's verbalized perception of reality.

We hear this in the language of child abusers...routinely.

Q. So you’re saying that all of those bruises and those things from the pictures and the accusations are all from him being a little boy and playing with other boys?

leading questions should be avoided; they allow for conclusion and to use his language. It is to directly reduce her stress.

A. Absolutely. Him and my older boys would be rough around the house and they would even get rug burn, you know, just normal boy things

"Absolutely" is persuasive and unnecessary. She continued to avoid any specific event (timing) but introduced:

"normal" which indicates anything to the contrary and

"burn" which means child protective investigators needed to check the victim's feet for cigarette burns in prior reports as well as current investigators seeking to learn if fire was used to cover a crime.


Q. Is there anything that you would want to say to Lucas if you could right now?
That I love him very much and I want him home

She loves him. She wants him home.  

How is he doing?

Q. Is there anything you want to say to the people who are saying you had something to do with this?

This is a good question and it allows for her to deny the obvious; particularly as she is in jail.
A. No, ‘cause that's on them it's not my concern

She avoids issuing a denial. She puts the burden upon "them" (this is very insightful for how to conduct the interview) and we now see that she is not concerned about them.

She is not concerned about Lucas.

She is, however, thinking a lot about "these" 2 people.

She may be banking on creating doubt by using them as a tangent.

Q. Can you tell me more about what happened that Saturday when he disappeared?

He asks for "more", instead of, "What happened when he disappeared?" It is a subtle mistake. It produces "just" below:
A. Just the fact that I took a shower and he took a nap like we always do. I put him down for a movie in his pull up because, you know, he has accidents when he sleeps so that's why he had a pull up on. Ehm… he had fallen asleep after my shower which is why I went down… I gotta go

Sexual Abuse is indicated in the language.
Possible drugging of child
She "put him down" as a 5 year old child. I believe her. This may have been a habit. It could be anything from cough syrup to illegal drugs so she could get her "shower" and "nap."

Reporter: I understand

Analysis Conclusion:


Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated in the disappearance of her step child, Lucas Hernandez.  She is not only deceptive, but she withholds critical information while seeking to shift blame to another.  

The language indicates both substance abuse and child abuse.  She may have drugged the victim. 

Victim Blaming

The human brain seeks to justify wrongdoing.  Child abusers (and child killers) are often skilled in the subtle blaming of the victim.  In shaken baby cases, the subject says things such as, "the baby would not finish her bottle" or "he would not stop crying" which puts the blame upon the victim's behavior. 

Emily Glass blames Lucas Hernandez.  He would not listen and he made her (and someone else) always have to tell him to be careful.  This is a very subtle justification for what befell him. 

It was his fault.  

The context is vital:  the child is "missing" and the expectation is that the parent or caretaker will show a majority of the language (priority) with what the child is going through currently.  This is something that can drive a parent crazy with worry.  Yet, the parent's focus is so acutely honed in upon the child, that the parent will neglect his or her own health, which is reflected in the language.  It is all about the child. 

Kyron Horman. 

There are some examples of this in the blog, such as the missing boy, Kyron, of which his mother's language (Desiree Young) should be compared to his step mother's, Terri Horman's language.  One indicates nothing but concern for Kyron, while the other shows guilty knowledge of his death.  

Setting:  Note the need to explain why the 5 year old wore pull ups is stated in a jail house, while the child is alleged to be missing. 

She denied "harming" him but did not deny killing him or selling him for drugs. If he was taken in a drug transaction, for example, she is not the one who "harmed" him, but the recipients did.  This is compartementalizing of guilt. This minimization is consistent with her subtle blaming of the victim. 

Sexual Abuse

 Although I need more for a definitive analysis, I believe he was likely sexually abused as was his step mother in her childhood. The explanation for this is beyond the scope of a blog entry.  Advanced Analysis Training for social workers, therapists and Sex Crimes Units goes into linguistic indicators of such, and explores it from the psycho-linguistic profile. 

The two people are very important to her and may be something she is concentrating upon for the purpose of shifting blame from herself by creating a doubt.  Even with elements of fabrication, this may be her hope as she is, indeed, giving it much thought. 

Also, the need to pull in the "father" is to be noted.  She may shift blame to him in some manner, down the road, and he is likely a source of child abuse, including exposure to domestic violence, in the child's short life. 

Psycho-linguisitc profile:


Emily Glass is a strong candidate for obtaining a confession (or admission) in an Analytical Interview. Given the correct interview and a well chosen interviewer, she could give up the information on what happened to him.  The interviewer should use her words as much as possible, and an empathetic male interviewer may prove most effective.  He should be very willing to "clear" her in any manner possible.  She wants to speak.  

Tangent



In the interview, let Emily Glass  be the "victim" in the interview and pity her for all her "endless struggle" to keep him "safe."  Let the scenario of "...if only others had supported her in getting him (Lucas) to be careful..." 

Let her be the "good mom" who is misunderstood.  

Bluff 

The interviewer should be willing to "expose" information about a "suspicious male seen in the area" and allow her to alleviate her guilt of neglect.  She should be taken through her own childhood and the failure to protect she, herself, experienced growing up.  She should be permitted to focus on herself, and how much she sacrificed for Lucas and how she did the very best she could, with so little support from others...and so on.  

She does not present as challenging in this short phone interview. If the interviewer will allow her to separate areas of guilt in the interview, and then allow her to accept only a small area of guilt ("self medicating" instead of drug abuse) and permit her "freedom" from child abuse, she is likely to reveal what happened. 

Like the McCanns, she shows no concern over what he is going through in the present, while "missing."

She knows he is not "missing" and she knows he is beyond her care. 


Deception Detection Training.

We offer seminars for law enforcement, business, private sector, social workers, medical professionals, lawyers and all those interested in lie detection, content analysis and profiling.

Our profiling is used to identify the authors of anonymous threatening letters and emails.

Advanced Seminars available for Sex Crimes Units.

Complete Statement Analysis Course is done in your home, at your own pace, with 12 months of e support. Joint Seminars with Steve Johnson, retired detective and analyst, with hand writing analysis.