The following is my forensic statement analysis from portions of James Comey ‘s nearly 3-hour testimony during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on 8 June 2017.

Comey, the former F.B.I. director, was fired by President Trump in May 2017. At the end of the content analysis you will also find a body language analysis. You can see the entire video testimony here.

It is important to note that I did watch the entire testimony and have the entire transcript. Therefore, my analysis below is taken in context.  Standing alone some deception markers annotated in red, may not seem noteworthy to the reader; although looked at in its entirety with baseline responses, the change of baseline is what is key.  For example, if Mr. Comey answered in the affirmative “Yes” to most all questions, then on some he responded “Sure.” that is noteworthy.

Further, 91 times during the testimony he responded with “I don’t recall”, “I don’t remember”, “I don’t know” or some derivative of “It’s not for me to say” or “I cannot discuss.”

Due to the fact that the FBI and an on-going investigation are involved, it is reasonable to expect that certain information could not be discussed during the Senate hearing in an open setting. Without ground truth, or classified security clearance, it’s impossible to determine what the responses would have been, which could have a direct result on this analysis. It is also impossible to determine if any of his refusal to answer responses were an opportunity to omit relevant information. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

My forensic statement analysis

BURR: Director Comey, you have been criticized publicly for the decision to present your findings on the e-mail investigation directly to the American people. Have you learned anything since that time that would’ve changed what you said, or how you chose to inform the American people?

COMEY: Honestly, no. I mean, it caused a whole lot of personal pain for me, but, as I look back, given what I knew at the time and even what I’ve learned since, I think it was the best way to try and protect the justice institution, including the FBI.

(***1. Extra words, known as qualifying words, are sometimes used to show us the person is being deceptive. They’re often used in an attempt to bolster credibility. “Honestly” is a qualifying word, similar to the phrases, I swear to God, to tell you the truth, in fact, etc. 2. The word “think” means there is the possibility he may be wrong. 3. “Try” means attempted by failed; did not complete or did not do what the statement indicated if he only tried.

Likewise, with the word “try” – in 1998, President Bill Clinton testified before a federal grand jury. After taking an oath to tell the truth the independent counsel questioned him about this oath. It was believed that in January of that same year the President lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during his Paula Jones deposition. He was asked if the oath he took in January meant the same thing as it does today. President Clinton responded, “Well, no one read me a definition then and we didn’t go through this exercise then. I swore an oath to tell the truth and I believed I was bound to be truthful and I tried to be.”

The word “tried” means a person attempted but failed to do it. The President is telling us that he tried but failed to be truthful in his Paula Jones deposition. He did not say, “I was bound to be truthful and I was truthful.” He couldn’t say that because people do not want to lie. After giving his grand jury testimony, the President admitted on national television that he did have an inappropriate relationship with Miss Lewinsky. Most people including Monica Lewinsky believe President Clinton lied under oath.)

BURR: At the time of your departure from the FBI, was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document? [Read more…]

Many of you remember the sniper-style attacks committed around the Washington DC Beltway area in 2002. Ten people were killed and three others were shot during a three-week period.

Lee Boyd Malvo was 17 at the time he committed the crimes and sentenced to life in prison without parole. John Allen Muhammad, also found guilty, was executed in 2009.

News headlines this week read: Judge overturns life without parole sentence for DC sniper Lee Boyd Malvo. His sentence was thrown out because of his age at the time of the shootings.  

Both Muhammad and Malvo’s testimony provide good examples to highlight forensic statement analysis as it relates to deception.

I had nothing to do with it

[Read more…]