Thursday, February 17, 2011

Sen. Scott Brown Recalls Childhood Abuse, Preview of This Sunday's 60 Minutes

If for some reason the video's code is not right, try this URL:

If you watch this video without having a baseline you could risk drawing the wrong conclusions.  You would notice the subtle smile/happiness as he describes these horrific events from his past.  Play the first part of the video again and you will see him smile as he is describing the physical and psychological abuse at the hands of his stepfather(s). When he is describing the sexual abuse he is often looking downward and to the left (as we see him) which can be an indicator (for some people) that they are remembering kinetically and/or emotionally.

 Does this mean he is lying about the abuse?  You would think that someone wouldn't have any positive emotions when describing these things.  Could it be that enough time has passed so it is not as emotional about it, or that he feels it will benefit him to be perceived as a victim.   He is in politics, and won a major political office, so by default  he is likable and personable- are we naturally wanting to believe him in spite of all the other signs?  Do we need to look for a baseline again?

First, check out this micro expression!

He is talking about himself as a youngster, and is showing both disgust and contempt.  It starts as disgust and then he also moves his cheek upward and his mouth moves upward (showing more teeth on one side of his mouth). This expression is shown very fast, even for a micro expression.

Let's get back to the baseline:

Check out the video at this it is the first video I found.  Notice how he answers the question about how he got into politics- you see the same micro expression (this time when thinking about the person he was talking to) and as  he describes the confrontational conversation with this person, we once again see the subtle smile/happiness appear.  It appears he mixes negative messages with the positive smile; this can backfire and leaves people feeling a bit confused... as a politician he should work on this.  There was a man in the town my dad lived that we were talking with him at a diner, and the man described in horrific detail a farm accident that his son had just suffered, and as he described it the entire event and for the entire time he had a large smile plastered on his face. So much so, after we walked out I asked my dad if he liked his son, was he happy that his son got hurt, or what was the deal with the smile.  My dad said he always smiles like that.  It was as if he mom told him to put a smile on his face, as a youngster, and he never took it off.

I think it is clear he is telling the truth about the abuse.

If further evidence is needed, take a look at the many news articles where the press quotes from the book about these incidents, and the word choices he used in the 60 minutes interview is different than the written word from the book- had they  been remotely similar it would have been a hotspot for me  (and a possible sign of a rehearsed made-up story).◦


Christopher London said...

You will have to excuse me if there is something so American Gigolo about the Julian Kay like hustle of the Massachusetts Senator. Given my experience at Camp Good News and that of many close to me during a similar time period, Scott Brown’s tale does not resonate with the facts on the ground, especially the caricature he has painted of his assailant who seems to resemble the caricature of a Hippie circa the first Nixon Administration. Given that more mainstream media sources are accepting his allegations at face value despite his unwillingness to name his alleged abuser is troubling. The natural question is from where do political creatures like the Cosmopolitan Scott Brown derive their ethics and morality? Let me see, it is acceptable to defame a family run Christian institution that has improved countless lives while you conveniently choose to forgo any pursuit of the alleged/imaginary abuser? Senator Brown, need I remind you that you are hardly in a position of weakness at this time. You are a powerful and popular U.S. Senator, presumably with Presidential ambitions. Surely I can see how a protracted investigation and perhaps your own credibility being called into question might tarnish your political image, undermine sales of your book, reduce your chances of re-election and hamper your chance to secure the White House. Oh yeah and then there is that other thing about lying under oath that may be sort of problematic. Sir, I am left only to wonder when you actually began ‘turning tricks’, politically speaking of course.