Complete Statement Analysis of Barbara Bowman

I was asked to do a deeper analysis of Barbara Bowman; more than just "veracity indicated."

There is a short article about "humor" in Statement Analysis, as well as a video just released by the Associated Press in which Cosby is asked, there times, about the allegations.  His answers are interesting and note worthy, as is his response when he believed the interview was over.  

What do we look for in a false accusation? We have seen them repeatedly, including "Fake Hate", which is posted on this blog.  

What do we expect to see in a truthful account?  

The following is an interview with one of the women who had accused actor Bill Cosby of sexual assault, including drugging the alleged victims.  The interview is recent, with the allegations years old.

For commitment to the statement, we look for, among other things: 

Strong pronoun usage

Past Tense verbs

We also need to note how she relates to "Bill Cosby", as the perpetrator. We will take note to see if there is any change in his name, in context of what happened. 

A truthful victim will show consistency in language. 

Also:  We know that first person singular, "I", with past tense verbs, connects to the past in a reliable way, yet victims of sexual abuse can suffer PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms, which can lead to some use of present tense verbs.  In these cases, we look for the context of present tense verbs:  is it directly linked to suffering?  This is critical. 

Is she telling the truth?  Or, is there indication of deception within her answers?

Is she making this claim due to rejection by him?  Is she seeking fame?

We let her language guide us to the truth. 

Q.  How did you know Bill Cosby? 

The interviewer introduces the alleged perpetrator as "Bill Cosby", full name.  

I was a 17-year-old model and up-and-coming actress in Denver, Colorado. My agent knew Bill. I was told that he wanted to scout some new talent -- if we were lucky, we would be groomed to go to New York and get more solid training so we could move up the ladder, maybe eventually get to audition for the Cosby Show.

Bill came to town, and my agent set up a meeting for us. I was told that Bill wanted to get to know me and my acting abilities and skill level, and wanted to know what sort of marketing ability I had. He had me come meet him whenever he was in town to do meet-and-greets, and he’d give me acting lessons. Then, he started flying me around to major cities to events to get accustomed to being around celebrities, and, he said, to see if I was worthy of mentoring.

She is now an adult, and no longer 17.  It is interesting that she used the word "groomed" here; when it is so often associated with child abuse. 
The word "we" is regarding those who would be "groomed" and not a connection between herself and the actor.  

Follow the pronouns and names. 

Name:  The alleged perpetrator is "Bill", first name only . 

Context:  Meeting him, him coming to town, her being tested to see if she was "worthy of mentoring." This is casual and not formal.  
What would a victim have a casual attitude towards the rapist? Note the answer lies in the context. If we see the word "we" after the assault, there is a problem.  In this case, the word "we" is about the potential stars.  

"I was told" is passive which seeks to conceal identity.  The passivity is appropriate if the subject does not know the identity.  "I was told" is not ascribed to an agent or anyone specifically.  This may represent the 'layers' between a celebrity and someone trying to break in to the business. 

What did she believe that Bill Cosby wanted?  This is important for us to learn if she is a jilted lover out for revenge and is deceptive, or if this is about her career.  Her answer:

1.  get to know me:  what about her?  She then gives specifics: 

2.  acting abilities
3.  skill level
4.  marketing ability 

"me" is first, but 3/4 are career, of which "me" cannot exist without.  This is not an indication of a personal nature, but of a professional interest. She does not indicate that she went into this thinking romance with Bill Cosby, but about her career. She gives professional and financial descriptions and not personal descriptions about herself.  It is not about her being "nice" or "kind" or "good" or anything personal.  It is about career ability and marketability.  The language shows a serious and professional demeanor. 

"He had me come meet him" is showing Cosby as being in control and in authority.  It is important that we learn whether or not she is truthful about the exploitation of a younger woman by an older, established star.  We need to know if this is true, by the language.  Here we see him in this status and ability to organize or orchestrate. 

Q.  What was it like having Bill Cosby as your mentor?

Interviewer continues with full name. The response is now contextually negative and she uses "he" and avoids his name.  

Here, we want to see if she will 'gush' over him, or if she will go to the seriousness of her allegations. A deceptive subject might gush: 

It was overwhelming. It was surreal and exciting, but it was also scary. He worked me over emotionally and psychologically. He broke me down and really preyed on my insecurities…  I had no father figure in my life, so he zoomed right in on that and tried to make me feel as though he loved me like a father would. 

1.  surreal and exciting is then minimized by the word "but" and answered with:
2.  scary.

She then gives us the reason it was "scary":
"He worked me over emotionally and psychologically"
He broke "me down"
"preyed"
and "insecurities"

These are not self flattering terms.  

Not only is he holding over her the status of celebrity, but also the void in her life:  a father figure. 

I was young, wide-eyed and impressionable, and he would play games with my head, and manipulate me into believing that he cared about me, that I didn’t have anyone who cared as much as he cared, that I needed to trust him, that I had trust issues and that he would help me overcome those, because they would limit me as an actress. He told me I needed to give into him 100 percent, because he was investing in me, he believed in me.

"would" moves from the strong, past tense connection, but is sometimes used to describe actives that were ongoing. 

Note also "told" is strong, authoritative, and consistent with a much older man and a 17 year old.  Communicative language is important to notice. 

"That I didn't have anyone" is the isolation that abusers use.  He cared "the most"  or more than anyone. 
Note she had to "give in to him" because he believed in her. 

This is the language of control.  She is not flattering herself as one seeking fame or fortune. 

Next:  

Names and Pronouns are critical.  Let us note here:

"Bill Cosby" or "Bill", to the subject, is now only "he" in the context of abuse and seeking to get her to trust him.  This is distancing language. We note that she used "Bill" when hoping to meet him and be part of a select group "groomed" for something:  success in show business.  As she now describes him, she moves closer to him with:  "he worked me over", which is negative.  Thus, the distancing from him by refusing, here, to employ his first name, "Bill", which would suggest closeness, instead using only the pronoun "he."

Q.  When was the first time you felt uncomfortable around him? 

The interviewer now drops the full name and uses the pronoun "him"

None of the abuse or drugging happened until I was 18… But on our very first meeting together, which occurred in the conference room at a nightclub in Denver, he led me through an acting exercise. First, he told me to go to the bathroom and wet my hair down. Then, he told me to sit in a chair, close my eyes, and act out a monologue as if I was really intoxicated. And he was touching my neck and stroking my hair. 

Abuse comes before drugging, and since the question was "when?", the answer "until..." is appropriate. 

"First" indicates logic with "Then" continuing the logical thought.  The tension for the subject is seen in body posture.  

She does not say "he touched" but "was touching", which indicates that she may be reliving the event at this point.  

In the context of specific abuse, "Bill" is only "he" again. 

We see the disparity of sophistication:  the famous actor teaching the young, inexperienced, how to act.  This, again, portrays him in the position where he could exploit, and is not flattering to the victim. 

I felt absolutely terrified. I was so new to the business and this was my first experience with a celebrity of such power, so I thought, “Wow, maybe this is what you are supposed to do. This is about learning how to be vulnerable in a scene, and if anyone would know best, it would be Bill Cosby.” I didn’t want to disappoint him or for him to think I couldn’t follow directions. So I gave it my all.

Please note that the emotions are here, in the 'perfect' part of the statement.  This often indicates artificial placement; however:

This interview is years past the event, which means that the subject has had a long time to process her emotions and is not indicative of deception or 'editorializing.'

She gives her reasoning, which is common in sexual abuse victims. 

"Bill Cosby", full and proper name, returns.  The context:  is knowing a celebrity.   

Where does "absolutely terrified" come from?  Here she answers it quickly:  "I was so new to the business" goes to the career and the business of making television programs and movies.  This is about career, again, and not about a personal relationship  with him.  The mentoring, to the subject, is about career. 

We continue to seek if this is a jilted lover deceptively and falsely blaming the alleged perpetrator but it is not supported by the language. She did not want to disappoint him, professionally.  

Q.  What else can you remember? 

I was assaulted a number of times from age 18 to 19. Cosby would warn me before out-of-town trips, "You aren't going to fight me this time, are you?"

Here she uses the word "assaulted" (very strong:  "I was assaulted" ) and calls him the less respectful "Cosby" and not the friendly and familiar "Bill", nor the celebrity "Bill Cosby."

This is consistent with abuse. 

Once in Reno, Nevada, he flew me out for a celebrity ski classic. He got me in a hotel room and fed me a lot of alcohol. He pinned me down in his suite on the couch, and he had me masturbate him. He really intimidated me, and I panicked. 

In this very negative context, the pronoun "he" is used.  She avoids using his name. 

From them on, I would be praying and begging to God that it was in my imagination, it didn’t happen. I’d sit on the plane and say “Please God, please God, this is really about my career--I’m lucky.” And then I’d get there and he would just intimidate me and make me so scared... 

Note that sexual abuse victims are often in denial, and when they are not in denial, they wish they were.  They often blame themselves, but later, when finally accepting the truth, they say things similar in which they "wished" it did not happen, or actually wish they could blame themselves.  This is often associated with the guilt they feel.  Even children that are sexually abused find ways to both blame and punish themselves.  

"I'd sit on a plane" shows her body posture, which indicates an increase in tension/anxiety as she considers this topic. 

The first time I was drugged for sure was in New York, when he invited me to dinner at his apartment. There was a chef, a butler; we had dinner, it was all fine. I had one glass of wine and then I blacked out. I woke up throwing up in the toilet, and he was standing over me, pulling my hair out of my face. I was wearing a white t-shirt that wasn’t mine, and he was in a white robe.

The passivity of language is not only the language of sexual assault victims, but of PTSD or PTSD like symptoms continuing.  They attempt to deny, or even justify (career), or anything to 'protect the brain' from emotional pain. 

The subject is not certain if she was drugged on other occasions.  This may introduce alcohol into the equation, where as a youth, she was not handling it well.  This may also be related to the passage of years as she has likely suffered nightmares and night terrors, and spent a great deal of time thinking about what happened and wondering if there were other times she was drugged and could not remember. 

Alcohol memories may not be recoverable, while drug memories sometimes are.  The combination is not good.  
Note that "I woke up throwing up in the toilet" needs no additional words to persuade and no qualifiers.  It is a truthful sentence. 

I think the final time I was assaulted by him was in Atlantic City. He took me there for a show and got me very drunk. Later, [the hotel] lost my luggage, so I was on the phone with the concierge and he had an absolute fit that I was on the phone, and went ballistic. The next morning, he summoned me into his room and started berating me and calling me names and yelling at me, telling me I had embarrassed him, and he threw me on the bed and blocked me with his elbow and got on top of me and started taking his pants off and I was screaming and crying and begging him to leave me alone and I fought so hard and I was screaming so loud that he got mad and threw me aside and got away from me, and that was it. 

She continues the distancing language with the celebrity in context of sexual abuse.
"I was assaulted by him", again, needs no persuasive language and no qualifiers. On its own, it stands strong.  Deceptive people need to persuade us.  She does not. 

The words "I think" reduce commitment, which indicates that she is not certain this was the last time.  

Note that the perpetrator had an "absolute" fit that she was on the phone.  This is consistent with controlling nature of power/authoritative abusers. 

She connects herself to the past with strong pronoun use. 

"I was screaming" instead of "I screamed" suggests ongoing impact to the victim. 

Note "he summoned me" with "summoning" being a word of authority; one who "summons" is superior to the one being "summoned."  This is to say that he is the celebrity, and she is only there by his good graces.  

Note the use of "I was screaming" instead of "I screamed."  Note where these verbs are used instead of the stronger, past tense. 

This is indicative that the suffering went on in duration longer than her words are revealing.  PTSD and PTSD like symptoms come to those who have been sexually abused and they can, while talking of the abuse, slip into present tense language.  Here, we find some sentences very short, and powerful, while others will give a sense of continued or continuing suffering.  Next: 

I was ditched. I was dropped like a hot potato by my agent. I was thrown out of my housing. They pulled the plug on me and said I had embarrassed him.

Question:  "I was ditched":  is it personal, romantic, or professional?

Answer:  "...by my agent."

This is not a woman who is seeking revenge on her former lover with false rape claims.  This is about her career, and the forced silence and disbelief that increased her suffering. 

In specific abuse, she appears incapable of saying his name. 

Short sentences are often best.  "I was ditched."  This is short and credible.  This is the result of her fighting back (above) 

Cosby said “I better never ever hear your name or see your face ever again.”

Note the narcissism. 

In quoting him, he remains only "Cosby", particularly here as he is shown as self important, so much so that he warns her that he had not even "hear" her name, as if somehow, he controlled the universe.  Remember, this is her language; her perspective and it fits the perspective as one who is star struck, beneath a celebrity, and now discarded.  

Note that there is a change of pronoun use:  he said these things to her, but when it came to housing, it was "they", indicating others backing what the celebrity mandated.  The language remains consistent. 

Q.  How did you feel?

this is a good question to ask, particularly at this point.  Will the emotions, having long processed, indicate veracity?

I was afraid he could directly affect my career by blacklisting me in the casting world and labeling me a troublemaker. I had no idea what sort of repercussions I would be exposed to; I knew I could be shut up real quick, and it didn’t feel good. I was afraid he was going to hurt me. I was afraid that because of his power and influence I would never be believed. He was Dr. Huxtable at that time. Everyone revered Bill Cosby. He could do no wrong. He was America's dad...

Once again, as a celebrity, he is "Bill Cosby" and not "Cosby"
Now note her emotions.  Will they be 'personal'?  This is very important in determining if she is truthful, or if this is personal revenge.  
Note the order:

1.  affect my career by blacklisting me
2.  label me a trouble makder
3.  Repercussions
4.  Being shut up.  This is also the language of those sexually abused in childhood:  having no voice, not being believed. 

Note that she does not include any personal hurt over rejection by him.  This is not about revenge. 

Q.  Did you tell anyone?

I told a friend, who took me to a lawyer… He laughed me out of the office. He thought it was absolutely preposterous... He treated me as if I was delusional.

Straight forward language. Note "a" friend is unnamed, and "A" lawyer is as well.  She withholds the names of both.  With the lawyer, however, she adds that she was not only not believed, but to be mentally ill to make such an assertion. This is what she listed as being afraid of.  This is another example of  consistency in language. 

Q.  Why did you finally speak out?

I heard about [Constand’s] case on the news in 2004, when I was living in Phoenix. By then, I had been married for several years and had two young children at home

This is a very typical pattern for adult female victims.  Note how she marks time by her life's changes:
marriage, and having children. 

Having two "young" children is mentioned specifically.  This often triggers victims simply because they now consider what this treatment would be like if it happened to one of her own.  Women who have been victimized sometimes do very well, for years, but when they have children of their own, triggers are set off.  Here, we find that she doesn't simply say that she reached a certain age, instead marking time by the important events of marriage and childbearing. 


. It enraged me that they were painting such an ugly picture of her being a liar and a slut. 

Note the target of her anger:
It is not Cosby
It is not her career

It is because another victim is not being heard and is being disparaged. 

"liar" making up allegations

"slut" for having participated in the sexual activity. 

This was too close to home and it "enraged" her.  It would be like being re-victimized by Cosby.  She felt like a "liar and a slut" for her time spent with him, yet her language is void of personal connection to him; with heavy professional leanings. This indicates that if she is false in anything, it is in blaming herself.  

Victims of sexual abuse fear being labeled liars, promiscuous but also insane.  Childhood sexual victims feel silenced.  Many were threatened into silence, others were coerced into silence with, "you will destroy the family if you tell..." or "your father will go to prison.  You don't want that to happen"

This is done to children.  

It is something that adults could not bear up under, so one can only imagine the impact upon children. 

Children are stifled and need to be "heard."

Adult victims need to be "heard" and not silenced by being accused of lying, or sexual promiscuity, or mental health issues. These are all ways in which voices are squelched. 


I went on a crusade to be heard--I started to call everybody I could possibly think of who would listen to me. 

Note how consistent her language is:  she needs to be "heard", therefore, she seeks out someone who would "listen" to her. This is a consistent theme and speaks to veracity. 

I reached Andrea’s lawyer and I found out that 12 other women were involved in this. 
"This" indicates closeness; while "that" is distancing language. 

At first, she recommended that we all stay Jane Does, and some girls preferred that, but I said, “Hell no--I have been hiding this--it has been a secret--for too long. I am not going to sit in silence anymore.” 

The request to remain "Jane Does" is to protect and embolden victims. 

Note that she negates this with the powerful word, "but" in the middle of the sentence. 

Note "hiding" and "secret" are related = veracity. 

We now continue to listen for "voice" and being "heard"

We also listen for "attendant" crimes.  Rape is not a singular action, but it is an action of violence; specifically, sexual violence, which then revictimizes repeatedly, through accusation, horror, memory, and other forms of "abuse", including emotional abuse.  

We listen to her language to see if the theme continues, or we encounter the "unexpected" as we do in deception: 

I want to be the voice for women who are too afraid to speak up. 

Please compare the consistency of language with that of a false victim in "Fake Hate" (Charlie Rogers)  

If I show the courage, maybe that will encourage others to do the same thing. This man cannot get away with this. He cannot use his power and his money to abuse and rape young women and hide under this veil of wealth and celebrity status and intimidate us any longer. So I put my name out there. 

See the video of the 70+ year old Cosby and how he attempts to act intimidating and controlling. Now roll back the clock to a younger Crosby and a much younger woman, new to the celebrity world to get an idea just how intimidating he was and likely still is:
"abuse and rape young women" is not just "rape" but "abuse"

Note his use of "power and his money" to accomplish this and the opposite of disclosure and openness : "hide under this veil of wealth and celebrity status"

My only motivation was to support Andrea; my statute of limitations had long run out. There was nothing in it for me monetarily. It was strictly to have my voice heard and my story told.

It was also because I needed to heal. It is probably the biggest demon that I live with today. 

The words "my story" are not words we expect to hear from a victim of sexual assault close to the time of the assault; it is too painful to be a "story" yet as time passes, and the brain has had the ability to process it, and distance itself from it, the softer language enters.  Years have passed by the time this interview has taken place. 

These are past tense, but she is speaking now, and I believe, based upon her language, that she, herself, needs to speak out now (new motives), due to helping others, but also for her own sanity.  She "needed" to heal, yet she lives with the demon "today." 

This is consistently seen in her language. 

Q.  Were you disappointed that Andrea Constand took a settlement? 

I was disappointed because I knew that would shut everybody else up, including Andrea. And although I am grateful she was able to have closure for her own growth, it sends the message to other victims that they can be shut up.

For many victims of sexual abuse, not being heard is often listed as the greatest fear.  This is from childhood right on up to adulthood.  Not being "heard" is not simply silence, but not being believed, or being thought mentally ill.  

Note that the subject still finds reason to be positive:  one victim was able to get closure.  Yet, her concern is for other victims. 
Note the absence of any verbal indication of fame seeking. This is confirmed by the distancing language; the opposite of name dropping is the very avoidance of the name she is associated with.  This is a name she is reluctant to use and when she does, she speaks as a victim with appropriate distancing language.  

Q.  Why do you think people find it so hard to believe celebrities can be sexual assaulters?

The media creates this idealized image of celebrities: that they are untouchable, that they’re not one of us... I don’t think people want to believe it; to believe would shatter the illusion.

The language is not only void of deceptive indicators, but is consistent with sexual abuse. 

The subject is truthful.  She is 46 years old, and still feeling the impact of not only the sexual abuse, but the betrayal and black listing.  

This is a truthful account by a truthful victim, who:

did not have a romantic relationship with Cosby. 

Who was bullied into silence. 

Who has suffered for decades and continues to suffer. 
Who appears to finally be believed.  

She had her career destroyed and her life ruined more than she is willing to admit.  

Please see the short AP video of Cosby next, which is posted here. 

See if the aged Cosby is similar to what she described above. 

AP Bill Cosby Video Released

note within the video:

When asked about the allegations three times:

1.  Crosby:  "No no we don't answer that."

2.  Cosby:  "There's no response."

3rd time:

Cosby:  "There is no comment about that. And I tell you why, I think you were told, I don't want to compromise your integrity but we don't , I don't talk about it. "

We have:

Passive language which conceals responsibility

Avoidance

Confusion of Pronouns

Later, to the journalist:   "if you want to consider yourself serious, it won't appear anywhere."

Think of what this reveals about the subject.  

"We thought AP had the integrity to not ask."

The arrogance described by his victims is evident in the video, particularly his demand to "immediately" call "his boss."

Humor and Substance Abuse In Statements

Recently, a woman accused Bill Cosby of drugging her and sexually assaulting her.

I analyzed her statement and found her account to be reliable and truthful.

Barbara Bowman's statement with analysis can be found here.  This analysis is not exhaustive, but it is enough to know that the consistency in language indicates she worked from experiential memory. It is a good sample of truthful statements' consistency in language.  You may also see Woody Allen's daughter for another such.

Cosby's lack of denials, as well as his attorney's denial only confirm what many people have now come to believe.

There are two interesting topics that should be addressed:

1. Humor and Memory

2. The impact of substances upon memory, such as "alcohol blackouts" and "drugged" memory lapse.

In this article, I will address humor.

Perhaps medical doctors will address this in more scientific language than what I can provide, however I can speak from experience in more than a few cases, as well as what I have learned from other analysts.

When we say "one is speaking from memory", I sometimes will add the word "experiential" to the analysis. This is because:

One can speak from memory, but still be deceptive.

It can come from a memory of a television program.
It may come from a memory of what was previously stated.  This is called a "self reference" and is seen in such phrases as, "Like I said" or "As I told you before..." and "just as I told the other officer..." It may or may not be truthful, but it is coming from the memory of what was stated before hand.

It may come from memory of what was read in a book, heard, spoken by another, and so on.

This is why I sometimes will add, "experiential memory" to a sentence, for the sake of clarity.

Humor.

I have addressed this before, but recent postings suggest that I touch upon it again.

In 1969, Bill Cosby released an album of his comedic material and is heard joking about using a substance to, basically, drug a woman into having sex with him.

You must remember this when it comes to humor:

the words chosen are not from a vacuum.  All words come from somewhere.

In some training seminars, I have asked individuals to stand up and lie to the group.  I then ask someone to do the same, but tell a lie that "you have no knowledge of" and over the years:
not a single person can do it.

I follow up by going through the account and ask questions about the specific words chosen.  The results are always the same:

the person picked a story line from a movie, or a book, or what happened to a friend.  IN THE FREE EDITING PROCESS:

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL A LIE WITHOUT THE WORDS COMING FROM SOMEWHERE.

Try it and see.

As you go into details, your brain is looking for something it has experienced previously.  This is what the Free Editing Process is all about.  Sooner or later, you will recognize "where you are" in the statement you are making.  Anything from a story told to you in childhood, right up to reading the CNN true crime library about a little girl off to a sleep over who is murdered.

This is precisely why we let liars talk and talk and talk.  The will tell us everything we need to know if we let them talk.

Recall the HLN expert guest who stopped the flow of information during the Casey Anthony saga by dismissing her words saying, "I can tell she is lying; her lips are moving."  Everyone laughed, but I used it as a teaching opportunity.  Interviewing a liar is of great value.

When we dismiss a liar as such, we miss the valuable information held within her lies.

Humor, like everything else, comes from somewhere.

Solomon addressed the issue, in fact, noting that sometimes anger is attempted to be excused with, "it was jest!" when in reality, the vinegar was spilling out.

I listened to the Bill Cosby clip.  It made my stomach turn.

I have had some confess after making jokes of which I asked them follow up questions about their jokes.  Most of these were about drug use in the workplace as they joked about getting high on the job, not knowing that this was why they were called into for an interview.

In the Free Editing Process, even humor is telling.

In a large meeting, one presenter made a joke about children and medication.  Following Statement Analysis, I concluded:

This man took his son's Ritalin.  The audience loved his humor, but his language sounded like it came from experience.

I pointed this out to someone who knew him, and would know if:  a.  He had a son  and b.  his son takes Ritalin.

Yep.

I always listen for the language that one employs, sometimes giving special heed to humor or sarcasm.


Yet, we must use caution.  "I'm going to kill you if you don't make pizza!" may be said in jest.  I once heard this and asked about it.  At first, the subject dismissed it and said something like, "you've got to be kidding me with this stuff.  C'mon, not everything has meaning!"

As we continued to speak, I continued to press him with questions. Eventually, I made it to the topic of current events.

A pizza delivery boy had been murdered and it was in the news.

The subject didn't even realize, initially, how much that story bothered him when he read it, as he was, decades earlier, a delivery boy, himself.

Those of us with sarcastic leanings will likely be the first to admit that a genesis always exists when we are joking.

Law Enforcement often uses "black humor" as a way of releasing stress; stress that most people, thankfully, do not experience, outside of reading a headline.  It is a defensive tool that the brain uses to protect itself.  This is why many in L/E "keep to themselves" as they sometimes feel that others do not understand them.  This is also seen in the language of lawyers, as they deal with certain phrases unique to them.  In fact, it is in many professions.

Don't jump to conclusions about humor.  Know that it does come from somewhere, but we do not always know without follow up questions.

George Washington said he did not like to give out unsolicited advice.  He said that it is rarely taken and often resented.

I agree, but...

you now that word "but" will sometimes minimize that which preceded it, but sometimes it will negate it.

Here, I negate it.

Married couples:  watch the sarcasm.

We've all heard couples blister each other publicly, while not missing a tooth in the smile.  The "kidding" is often hurtful and used to convey disappointment, anger, resentment, and so on.  Better to not aim it at each other.

My .03 for the day.

Bill Cosby's humor came from somewhere, even in 1969, and it is my opinion that he was, in deed, joking about something he either wanted to do, or had done.

Don't jump, but do listen.  Even in sarcasm, strong messages are sent.  Listen to the words, as specifically chosen small points within a sentence, and do not interpret.  Don't necessarily think your spouse wants you to die a thousand deaths over a pizza, but do enjoy an interesting and revealing conversation.  Report back your findings.  Be cautious, always think the best, and presuppose goodness.

Up next:  Substance Abuse and Memory.

Bill Cosby was accused of drugging his victims and raping them.  How would drugs and/or alcohol impact memory, and how is this seen in Statement Analysis?

Janice Dickerson Accuses Bill Cosby of Rape

Statement Analysis of one of the other victims is HERE where a transcript of the interview exists.  In the article below, there is only broken quotes.  

This is from NY Post.com:

Supermodel Janice Dickinson has shockingly claimed she was drugged and sexually attacked by Bill Cosby in 1982.

The former “America’s Next Top Model” judge is the latest woman to come forward with allegations of being attacked by Cosby years ago.

Dickinson told “Entertainment Tonight” Tuesday she was summoned by Cosby to Lake Tahoe to discuss a role on “The Cosby Show” and so he could advise her on “a singing career.”

But the meeting took a disturbing turn, she claims, after the comic legend offered her a glass of wine and a pill.

 “The next morning I woke up, and I wasn’t wearing my pajamas,” she told “ET.” “I remember before I passed out thinking that I had been sexually assaulted . . . Before I woke up in the morning, the last thing I remember he was dropping his robe and getting on top of me.” 

She added: “I remember a lot of pain . . . I remember waking up with my pajamas off and there was semen in between my legs.”

Dickinson met Cosby for career advice after being in rehab for drugs and alcohol. She says that years later she wanted to write about the incident in a 2002 memoir, but Cosby and his lawyers pressured her to leave it out.

“I’m doing this because it’s the right thing to do . . . and this is the true story,” Dickinson, 59, said of going public. “I was afraid of the consequences.” And, “I believe all the other women.” 

She said angrily about Cosby, whom she never confronted, “How dare you take advantage of me? . . . Go f - - k yourself . . . And I hope you rot.”

Honey Boo Boo Mother Mama June on Dr. Phil

Dr. Phil claims that "Mama June" can't tell the truth...

Statement Analysis shows deception on her part, regarding the most recent scandal.

Mother Who Left Kids In Car Spends Money

We saw several of these cases in the past summer.  Here is one in which the mother received a great deal of sympathy from the public, and now it is reported that she plans on seeking more money from the public.

Arizona mom who left kids in hot car spent thousands of dollars of donation money 'to finish her baby daddy's rap album': ex-pal

APShanesha Taylor was charged with felony child abuse earlier this year.

The Arizona mother who left two of her kids in a hot car during a job interview spent thousands of dollars in donation money "to finish her baby daddy's rap album," a former supporter claims.

Shanesha Taylor was charged with felony abuse earlier this year, but prosecutors said she could avoid jail if she put $40,000 in donations into a trust fund for her children. A New Jersey woman had helped raise $114,000 for Taylor after her plight — and teary mugshot — went viral.

Taylor, however, failed to put the money in the trust fund by the deadline imposed by the judge, throwing away the "deal of a lifetime," said her attorney Benjamin Taylor.

Prosecutors charged that Taylor was spending more than $4,000 a month on non-essential items, and now a former supporter of hers says she even spent some dough on a rap album.

"We had someone call my office and alert her attorney to the fact that she spent $6,000 at a music studio in Tempe to finish her baby daddy's rap album," Reverend Jarrett Maupin told ABC. "That's not what people gave her that money for."

Maupin believes her money may have run out — and Taylor is once again trying to raise cash, according to Fox 10.

“I feel bamboozled and used a little bit, but I don't regret it because on its face she was what she was,” Maupin told the station. “Everyone had sympathy for her, but what she's become is something quite different.”

When contacted by ABC, Taylor said "I haven't spoken to [Reverent Maupin] since July 21st. He has not been part of my defense team. Anything he says is libel or slander."

Taylor is due back in court next month.

Note that she does not say it is not true.  

Prosecution of Hailey Dunn's Killers

I have been asked about my recent statement showing optimism in the call for justice for murdered teenager, Hailey Dunn.  I believe that both Shawn Adkins and Billie Dunn are going to be charged with not only her death, but a host of other attendant crimes associated with her death and subsequent disposal of her remains. 

I understand some of the complexities of the prosecutorial case and remain optimistic in spite of what the professionals face.  

Yet it is that officials have not released Hailey's remains to the unnamed suspect (Billie Dunn) is, itself,  a strong statement telling Dunn and Shawn Adkins as well as the public, in no uncertain sound:

                       We are not done with you yet. 

Both Shawn Adkins and Billie Dunn live their lives wondering if, at each morning's wake up, if this is the day they have been waiting for, in spite of the passage of time.  It is an ongoing anxiety that takes its toll upon the human body, no matter how hard the brain works in denial over the passage of time. It is with them all the time, and likely is going to impact their immune system and overall health and longevity in life.  It is a constant stress and anxiety that can lead to even more substance abuse and other forms of attempting to alleviate the pressure.  Yet we ask: 

Who killed Hailey Dunn?

Like others,  I hold them both responsible, ultimately.  Statement Analysis of this case has been extensive.  Dunn's appearances on The Nancy Grace Show are used in seminars, around the country and in Canada, as they are useful for not only discerning deception, but also for behavioral analysis. 

Analysis has given us an insight into the details and I believe we even have a description of Hailey's life that was not intended to be disclosed.  We saw the telegraphing of where her remains would be found.  We heard the language so commonly associated with sexual assault.  We saw the coming together of violence, sexual perversion and drug abuse, so very lethal in life, particularly to children.  

In failed polygraphs, there is a high percentage of confessions.  This leads to two questions:

1.  Why would the guilty party take a polygraph in the first place?
2.  Why is the percentage of confessions so high immediately after the failed polygraph?

Who killed her?

I think they had different elements of responsibility in her death (see above comment), and like others, I am not  certain who inflicted the final blow.

Dr. Lillian Glass aptly applied envy, a deadly sin, to the case, viewing the case as "the aging stripper versus the youthful rival" scenario, of which the language and behavior agree.  

Prosecution must have precision.  

It is the same with the child pornography:  several people had access to the various computers/memory sticks.  

That Dunn was deceptive about child pornography and bestiality is an important point:  She had the need to be deceptive, and was aware of its existence.  Who actually downloaded and from which computer and in which county?

It is complicated. 

Would you show up like this after your daughter was murdered by a mask-wearing 'monster'?  Do you find this comical?  Or, do you find it provocative?

That they have not released the remains sends a strong signal to the perpetrators that they are not done with this case, as there is no white flag raised by Texas officials. Remember, those responsible for justice for Hailey feel the same way that you and I feel about the boldness of the lies, the injustice of it all, and the lost life of opportunity that was Hailey's. 

In other words, that these two are free to walk the streets bothers them, just as Billie Dunn has worked hard at insulting law enforcement, showing both open contempt as well as flaunting their failure to prosecute in their faces. 

I've always wondered about those who tweak the nose of their enemy.  It makes little sense outside of psychology.  It certainly doesn't hold practical sense, as they fill their enemy with resolve.  Dunn did this repeatedly and angered many along the way, including those responsible for justice.  Not smart.  Yet, we can return to why the guilty often take, and fail, polygraphs.  

There is a rule in Statement Analysis that continues to amaze me, even as the years pass.  It is the "no man can lie twice" rule.

Deeply embedded within the liar is a desire not to be seen as a liar.  When properly understood by law enforcement, this is a powerful, razor sharp tool to use against the deceptive perpetrator. 

It was successfully used against Dunn, as they backed her into a corner about taking a polygraph. 

She thought she could outsmart them by showing up under the influence, as if using a sedative would work.  Yet is was the need to use artificial means, itself, that said:

"You're a liar!"

This she could not abide. 

She then was "forced", by her own ego (and her power of persuasion over her boyfriend, Adkins) to show up stone-cold sober and answer the simple questions of:

Did you kill Hailey?

Do you know where Hailey is?

Do you know what happened to Hailey?

She failed.  Adkins failed.  (Later, when pleading with his family that he was innocent, he took a private polygraph and failed that, as well). 

She then did what Lance Armstrong and so many others did:  she attacked. 

She attacked everyone and anyone, both ridiculing and threatening suit.  Her language, plain to the untrained eye, showed more concern about her reputation than at any point of finding Hailey.  She lost more 'fans' with this, as she did each time she spoke out.  She eventually posted a rhetorical question about bestiality on Facebook that lost her even more supporters:  "Who hasn't received some bestiality pictures?" as if it is a common experience to all.  

This led me to poll readers, friends and family. 

No one had been sent bestiality pictures.  There is nothing common, ordinary, nor even comical about the sexual abuse and torture of animals, for the sexual gratification of the viewer.  Most wrote to me asking what it is that must happen to a human to lead them to sexual arousal over the abuse of an animal.  

I had no scientific responses for them.  Her supporters became even less in number, and more rabid in their defense of the indefensible.  

That "no man can lie twice" is often used, in a sharp angle, by asking "Why should we believe you?" knowing that the liar, for whatever reason, will not look upon his or her own lie and say it is the truth. 

It isn't done. 

The ego seems to press upon the language avoiding lying about a lie.  

We are fearfully and wonderfully made, and this complexity is fascinating to study.  

That deception was needed on the part of both Dunn and Adkins, and that both failed their polygraphs let investigators to the right people. 

They are going to, one day, prove their case.  They have not surrendered and have held on to those remains for a long time.  They want a successful prosecution.  

They also know that suspects' stress levels decline with time, and, in creation, we communicate. The more these two communicate over time, the more likely it is that a missing piece of information will slip from one (or both) of their lips, and will be the trigger that sets in motion that dreaded day, with a knock upon the door, and handcuffs awaiting the guilty. 

Yes, I believe prosecution is coming, and those responsible for successful prosecution want it just as much as Hailey's father, or a nation who embraced this murdered teen as their own. 

Justice will come.