KMI-Masthead new

Dershowitz's Denial Statement


BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF   January 4, 2015, 10:53 pm

Prominent US attorney Alan Dershowitz threatened legal action Sunday against a woman who accused him and Britain’s Prince Andrew of sex crimes, and said he would work to have her testify in court.

“In an interview with the BBC, the Harvard Law School professor said he wanted the plaintiff to speak on oath in court.

I unequivocally and without any reservations totally deny all the allegations about sexual contact,” he said.

My goal is to bring charges against the client and require her to speak in court. If she believes she has been hurt by me and by Prince Andrew, she should be suing us for damages.

“I welcome any opportunity which would put her under oath and require her to state under oath these false allegations.

“What they’ve done was so underhanded: simply asserting it in a legal proceeding, not asking for any opportunity to prove it, not alleging that they could prove it, not giving me an opportunity to disprove it. That’s Kafkaesque,” continued Dershowitz.

 ** My Analysis **

Let’s look at Mr. Dershowitz’s denial (the remaining portions of the statement are meaningless for this analysis):

“I unequivocally and without any reservations totally deny all the allegations about sexual contact,” he said.”

Again, we look for simplicity and precision in denials to determine if they are meaningful.  A denial statement which, essentially, says, “I deny the allegations,” is the equivalent of saying I am not guilty at a criminal proceeding. His denial statement is neither simple nor precise. Stating a denial is not a denial.  Saying “I deny ….” is not the same as saying “I did not ….”

A much better and meaningful/believable denial for Mr. Dershowitz would have been:  “I did not have sexual relations with the accuser.” That is simple and precise.  His denial statement is not a good denial. 

When an accused provides a poor denial, the accuser gains credibility. The truth about denial statements and much more is found in Joe Koenig's book, "Getting the Truth:"  It is available at Get the Truth.  

Cops vs. Officers

Joe w daughters

It’s enlightening to hear the media avoid the use of the descriptor “cops” today in their coverage of the NYPD officer funeral. “Officers” carries more respect.


Joe Koenig's Book Featured in Mlive

getting the truth

Kristin Austin of Mlive on 12/18/2014 featured Joe Koenig's book, "Getting the Truth."

GRANDVILLE – A retired Michigan State Police investigator who was once the lead investigator on the Jimmy Hoffa case has written a book on how to decipher the truth.

Joe Koenig, who now works as a private investigator in Grandville, has written the new book, "Getting the Truth," featuring analysis of written statements from high-profile crimes such as the ransom note from the Jon Benet Ramsey case, O.J. Simpson's statement to Los Angeles Police Department detectives, and Woody Allen's response to Dylan Farrow's sexual molestation allegations.

Grand Rapids-based Principia Media LLC published the 208-page book.

"It's harder to tell a lie than to tell the truth," Koenig said. "So, to make it easier we tell partial truths. Fortunately, partial truths leave tracks. This book shows you how to identify and follow those tracks to get the truth, the deception—the real message."

Koenig said his book is geared toward business owners and professionals but also can be useful for parents and others who are interested in distinguishing the truth from deception.

Koenig served in the Michigan State Police for 26 years and was the lead investigator on the disappearance of Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa in 1975. He has investigated crimes ranging from homicides to financial crimes to public corruption. He has served as president of the Michigan FBI National Academy Associates, is a certified fraud examiner, and has a bachelor's degree in accounting from Wayne State University and a master's degree in public administration from Eastern Michigan University.

He has 45 years of investigative experience and operates KMI Investigations LLC, Suite 122, 4370 Chicago Drive in Grandville.

"Getting the Truth" is available for purchase on Amazon.

Stephen Collins Admits Wrongdoing Amid Sexual Abuse Reports

images-1612/19/14 Michael Rothman via Good Morning America

“Forty years ago, I did something terribly wrong that I deeply regret,” Collins wrote. “I have been working to atone for it ever since. I’ve decided to address these issues publicly because two months ago, various news organizations published a recording made by my then-wife, Faye Grant, during a confidential marriage therapy session in January 2012. This session was recorded without the therapist’s or my knowledge or consent.”

In the recording released in October, Collins confessed to molesting three girls. After the news broke, Collins was dropped from various projects, including the film “Ted 2,” and he also resigned from SAG AFTRA.

“On the recording, I described events that took place 20, 32, and 40 years ago,” the actor said. “The publication of the recording has resulted in assumptions and innuendos about what I did that go far beyond what actually occurred. As difficult as this is, I want people to know the truth.

“I have not had an impulse to act out in any such way” in the last twenty years, Collins told People.

He added that he has vacillated over whether to contact the three women directly to apologize.

“I did have an opportunity to do so with one of the women, 15 years later. I apologized and she was extraordinarily gracious,” Collins said. “But after I learned in the course of my treatment that my being direct about such matters could actually make things worse for them by opening old wounds, I have not approached the other two women, one of whom is now in her 50s and the other in her 30s.”

                                                       ** My Analysis **

Let’s look at the single statement, “I have not had an impulse to act out in any such way” in the last twenty years. (There are variations given in the renditions of his statement, ie: “in the last two decades,” and “in the last twenty years” – both are equally imprecise).

We look for simplicity and precision in good denials. While this statement appears simplistic, it is not, nor is it precise. The “I have not had an impulse…” is different than “I have not acted….” He could have said, “I have not acted out in ….” but he chose not to.

One might say that “impulse” is even more complete than “acted,” since the impulse causes the act. You can have an impulse without an act. “Impulse” has a compulsive component to it, spontaneous, something unreflective and irresistible. “Act” occurs with more thought. You are not held responsible for “impulses.” You are for “Acts.” Thus, that word usage is very important. Further, and conveniently,” impulses” leave no evidence tracks. “Acts” do.

Let’s look further at the imprecision, “…in the last twenty years.” That is imprecise (as is “last two decades”). He talked about three women victims, so why not be precise and say, “I have not acted out in any such way since (the date of the last of the three victim acts)?

The reason this denial isn’t simplistic or precise is because there are probably other victims out there. They will surely surface in the coming weeks.

Get Mr. Koenig's Getting the Truth

".. unlocking the secrets of communication." - buy Mr. Koenig's autographed books at BOOKSTORE.

© 2010 – 2019 KMI Investigations, LLC.

  infragard fbi footer logosGJChamberLogoCMYK300FBINAA logoCFE logoMCPI Logo