“Hina Clause and the Double Left”
by Peter Hyatt

Universally shared, the color blue is employed by various schools of statement analysis, having originated with LSI’s “SCAN” system. This color is seen in application, as “very high” or “the highest” level of sensitivity within an open statement.

In Advanced Analysis, this high level of sensitivity indicates possible statement contamination.

In a murder case, a skeptical detective handed a statement to an analyst investigator asking to have it analyzed through Hyatt Analysis Services.

The statement was sent back with the conclusion: “Contaminated.”

The original investigator asked that a second opinion be granted, urging that there was no contamination within the statement; that is, the subject was not interviewed before writing out his statement.

I did not hear the denial, but upon re-analyzing it, more carefully, I sent it back stating it was, indeed, contaminated, whether or not the investigator knows or admits it.

The investigator admitted he wanted to ‘test’ the analysis.

The contamination was seen in its extreme sensitivity to the location of the bodies, as if the subject (writer) of the statement was both repeatedly questioned about where the bodies were found, and the subject experienced acute trauma from discovering the bodies of his loved ones. Rather than indicate guilt, it showed that the subject was literally writing answers to questions he had been repeatedly asked.

Please note that in general, a contaminated statement should be set aside and not analyzed. However, in working with advanced techniques and only with highly trained experienced analysts, some content analysis can be successfully done. This should never be done alone, however, and only in team analysis.

When we meet with a skeptic, particularly in law enforcement, there is a better way to ‘test’ the science; a powerful and personal way.

If the skeptic is willing, he is asked to write out a one to one and one half page statement about his last day off, with the caveat that his statement will reveal information of a private, sensitive nature and may even be a touch embarrassing to him.

To date, those who have submitted statements have gone on to formal training. One female investigator graciously donated her ‘skeptic statement’ for us to use in training. It is invaluable to students.

In the original murder statement, there was an excess of “blue” within the statement, to the point that suggested repeated questions prior to the writing of the statement.

The Hina Clause and Experienced Analysts

We sometimes find well trained analyst/investigators saying, “I think this entire sentence should be in blue!”, rather than a single word.

Their analytical instincts are serving them well.

We note that sentences beginning with the word, “And” give an indication of being ‘tied’ to the previous sentence, hence, some missing information. It is not suppressed information, but simply a mild jump as the sentence preceding “And” is somehow related. We explore, not so much for withheld information (deliberate) but simply ‘more detail.’

However, in some cases, the following sentence tells us “why” the previous sentence was made is akin to the Greek word “hina”, or ‘why’ (“because”), without using the typical, “so, since, therefore, because, to” and so on.

When the analyst feels that the entire sentence should be highlighted as an explanation of “why” in an open statement (a statement in which no explanation of ‘why’ has been called for), it is akin to the “hina clause” where the sentence is used to explain the reason why the previous sentence was made.

For the sake of clarity within a statement, we sometimes choose a single word from the sentence to trigger the knowledge of sensitivity in the analysis, though in some cases, the only appropriate choice is the sentence itself.

“I went to the convenience store. I had to go there, I had run out of Advil.”

Here in the first sentence, in a ‘stop and rob’ theft, the subject reliably told us where he went. The structure tells us that it is very likely that the subject did go to the convenience store (though in advanced work, we will have to learn when he went there, quite possibly).

He also felt the need to tell us why he went to the convenience store, though no one had asked him ‘why.’

If the analyst is only looking for the key wording, “so, since, therefore, because, to…”, he or she may have missed something critical:

The subject feels the need to explain why he was at the convenience store even though he was not asked. This indicates:

The subject (writer) anticipates being asked, “Why did you go there?” and wants to answer the question before it is asked, part of an overall “need to explain” or “need to persuade” that is very sensitive. This need to “beat him to the punch”, so to speak, suggests to the analyst the need to explore:

Did the subject have a very different reason for going to the convenience store?

“I went to the convenience store. I had to go there, I ran out of Advil.”

We note “I ran” in blue, as the reason why. This reduces having too much blue (we must never dull the effect upon us). Not only this, but we also note the element of choice with “I had to…” for possible coercion elements.

The Hina Clause can be, for effect, highlighted in blue, or the analyst may choose one or two words lest the paper appear ‘overloaded’ with blue highlighting. Blue is rare and is only used in the two highest levels of sensitivity: the reason why (in an open statement) and the departure.

In departure, it is the unnecessary verbal connection that we highlight showing that the brain is not ‘moving forward’ but is ‘stuck’ at the point of departure.

A very important principle that shows up in murder cases: “The Double Left” (both used unnecessarily as departure: psychologically, the subject ‘can’t get away’ from the crime scene).

The Hina Clause is often caught by experienced analysts, and missed by beginners. In the case of the “Double Left” it is important, visibly, to highlight only a single word (or two) so that the visual impact of a “Double Left” grabs the analyst’s attention, as he must now:

Look specifically in between the two lefts for critical information;

Draw a line between the Double Left and the Hina Clause and carefully examine the information in between.

There, within these parameters, will be the information the investigator seeks, and precisely where the Interviewer is going to aim his questions.

The Hina Clause and Double Left are frequently found in murder cases in the open statement, allowing the investigator to go into the interviewer already ‘knowing’ not only that the subject did it, but when he did it, perhaps how he did it, and even why he did it. (Advanced Content Analysis)

For those who wish training in Statement Analysis, besides hosting seminars, we offer a thorough, at home course in analysis, and upon successful completion, a large course on Advanced Analysis.

Enrollment in both include 12 months of ongoing e-support and permission to join several live trainings offered monthly at reasonable tuition costs and payments. The live training is also accredited with the University of Maine’s Continuing Educational Units for professional licenses.

Accreditation levels include successful completion and minimum live hours training (60 hours and 120 hours) as well as professional recommendations.

For advanced accreditation, a thesis paper must gain approval status by three professionals, including federal and state law enforcement.

To enroll today, see Hyatt Analysis Services and join a growing team of professionals from around our nation, the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries. Please note that the course is in English only, as advanced analysis, in particular, should be done in original language.

In an upcoming article, I will highlight the “Double Left” in analysis urging analysts and readers to pay particular attention to this unique level of sensitivity.

Psychologically, the subject ‘struggles’ to ‘leave’ this area, but there is something so acutely sensitive at that point that it is as if he knows he must leave, lest he be ‘caught’, yet the concern is so great, that it is not just “withheld” information.

It is not just “withheld” information.

It is not just “concealed” information.

It is suppressed information, taking the greatest effort to withhold it from his statement.

The Hina Clause should not be missed (which is why analysis ‘software’ cannot always be trusted) due to the absence of our typical words used.

When the Hina Clause is identified, and it is in a murder statement, and there is the “Double Left”, the content analysis increase will allow the investigators to “see” what the subject saw, and even experience the emotions the subject felt as he worked his statement from experiential memory, including the pressure of self suppression, which goes against human nature’s natural inclination of communication, and many years of ’cause and effect’ in processing.