“Thief?  Are you accusing me of stealing?  Are you kidding me?  Thief?  A thief is worse than anyone.  He is worse than a drug dealer.  Let me tell you something, ok?  Let me tell you something.My father and my uncle are both in prison today because they are thieves.  I hate them.  There is nothing worse than a thief.  A drug dealer to children isn’t as bad as a thief!

Y es, he stole.

In statement analysis, we flag not only the lack of reliable denial (in the free editing process) but the need to ‘preach’ a sermon; that is, to moralize that which needs no moral backing is a very strong signal of projected guilt.  I have yet to flag a sermon where the subject did not ‘do it.’

There is a reason for the sermonizing and as another principle of analysis is added, the analyst would do well to consider that the ramifications of this principle (“The Sermon”) go beyond analyzing a simple statement where an allegation exists.

The need to avoid issuing a denial is a central theme in this, and it is that the sermon is generally given after the unreliable denial is uttered:

“I would never harm a child.  Let me tell you this, I have always loved children and I have helped them wherever I have gone.  People who do such things to children need help and are sick and…”

Sound familiar?

Michael Jackson did not simply molest the several known boys at his millionaire’s ranch:  he had victims around the world.  The lack of denial is followed by sermonizing of sorts and in his own statement, he took his denial ‘around the world’ linguistically, revealing the likelihood of having victims in the Middle East, Europe and Central/South America.

The principle that I hope investigators will consider, particularly as it applies to the radical “change” of society is this:

When something is unnecessary, we shall deem it of double importance within a statement.

The thief who avoids issuing the reliable denial in his freely chosen wording may also feel the need to issue a ‘sermon’ of sorts.  This sermon generally appears in one of two ways; often showing both elements:

1.  The condemnation of that which needs no condemnation;
2.  The vaunting of self

“You think I molested him?  I am a normal man.  I am happily married!”

He did molest a 30 year old male who had the intellectual capacity of a 5 year old boy, of who’s life has been destroyed.

In his ‘denial’, there is no denial, but there are other elements:
a.  Not only do we flag ‘normal’ as to something ‘not normal’, within analysis, but we also find his condemnation of the sexual molestation as “not normal.”

b.  Next we find him wanting to tell us ‘why’ he would not sexually molest the 30 year old victim:  his marital status would preclude this (as if marriage eliminates any sexual contact outside of it) and, the greater ‘give away’:

his ‘happiness’ within marriage is the reason he would not sexually molest a 30 year old male, suggesting:

‘Perhaps if I was single, or if I was not happy in my marriage, I would molest someone like that…’

This is something the innocent feel no need to present.

Consider when a topic is presented as if in the moral high ground, where claiming moral high ground is not necessary, that the need to make such a claim is the revelation of something immoral beneath it.

Listen for a sermon where no sermon should be necessary and give due diligence to thought.

It is not just the sermon that we flag for analysis, it is that which causes the subject to possess the need to ‘preach’ at us that we examine for weakness, and, perhaps, for its lack of moral high ground…

even when the subject is a politician as the need for discernment within propaganda may never be more acute.

If you wish to enroll in training, we offer a variety of trainings to suit your needs from law enforcement to security to psychology to journalism to…anyone else who needs to be able to discern truth from deception.