Charlie Kirk’s Security Story Doesn’t Add Up! Behavioral Analyst Reacts to Brian Harpole Interview

There were no drones, but then somebody earlier that day flew a drone up. We didn't know where it came from, and we're like, "What's the deal with this?" I'd have flown that drone up his ass if we could have had. >> What's going on everyone? Welcome to the behavioral arts. My name is Spidey, and I use my degree in sociology and psychology, my certifications in criminal interrogation and body language analysis, and my experience as an award-winning mentalist to teach people behavioral analysis and practical psychology on stages and television shows all over the world. Earlier this week on the Shawn Ryan show, Charlie Kirk's head of security, Brian Harpell, made an appearance that instantly went viral and generated a record-breaking number of requests for an analysis. The interview divided viewers straight down the middle. Some people saw a man struggling through a difficult story, while others saw red flags all over his delivery. In this video, we're breaking down his noticeable shifts in confidence depending on the topic, along with a few things he said that really stand out once they're put in context. What do his body language, facial expressions, and word choice actually reveal? Let's dive right in. >> And afterwards, we went to dinner and um we were he was just eating sushi and and uh we were laughing and it was just these goofy things like you were sitting around a table in high school with a a bunch of guys that you were cutting it up with. And I just remember he was like um he really loved the sushi and he was like, "Brian, you going to eat that?" And I was like, "No." and he just starts eating it off my plate and and and I'm like [laughter] this is Yeah. Yeah. And it's just like man this is it was cool you know. >> Okay. So I wanted to start with that clip of him telling a story of him and Charlie to really stress the importance especially in this analysis between baseline and idiosyncratic gestures because very often in behavioral analysis we use the word baseline to talk about both those things. But there's an important distinction. Baseline means the behaviors that we're seeing with a person in this specific conversation. Idiosyncratic gestures means behaviors that a person does regardless of conversation. For example, when I speak, I use a lot of illustrators. I use my hands a lot and this is because of my background as an entertainer. This is idiosyncratic for me. In other words, in any interaction at any time, I use my hands to speak. The reason it's important to distinguish between those two things in this interview is because it's likely that Brian Harpull's baseline here is different from other conversations. He knows that he has a lot of difficult questions to answer here. He knows that the world is watching. So, it's likely that his baseline is going to be a little more stressed than usual, but we're getting some very good baseline information right here as he's telling this story. So, he sits in his chair and speaks with a pretty low tone, pretty calm. His hands are often by his side and they come up to illustrate something like when he talks how he grabbed something off of his plate, but generally they're not up here all the time and he's not doing big gestures very often. You'll also notice that verbal leaks are quite common for him and we're going to see this throughout the entire interview. Verbal leaks are when somebody says um mid-sentence. Some people can go hours of conversation without ever saying um or uh some people say it a lot as they speak naturally, and he's one of those people. Um um and uh um another thing you'll notice is that in this clip and in a lot of the clips that we're going to see quite often his head goes down like this as he's talking. Now typically when somebody doesn't do this and all of a sudden we see this start to happen. It's a guarding gesture. Somebody's getting defensive. The chin comes down, the shoulders might come up into a position that we call turtling because we're protecting the vital parts of the body. But in Brian Harple's case, it's happening a lot consistently throughout the interview regardless of topic. Another thing that we're starting to see here that's very much part of his personality baseline rather than his behavioral baseline is the importance that he places on brotherhood and friendship. So even in the way that he's talking about this story with Charlie saying that it was like a bunch of guys in high school and he often speaks in this kind of group or belonging to a group way. And you're going to see a lot of examples of that coming up. This is something that we pay a lot of attention to not just in criminal profiling but even as a mentalist on stage when I'm reading someone for entertainment. Brian is certainly someone who likes to fit in to that group that he considers his brotherhood. And if we look at him, you can tell there's nothing about the way he dresses that stands out. There isn't this big piece that's a statement or anything like that. He has a little cross. This is of course a proud display of the religious group that he belongs to. So even that is a demonstration of belonging. And a lot of what he says, and we're going to see this again and again, is about how he's got this brotherhood, this group that is important to him. And by the way, this type of mentality of wanting to belong to a group is very common in fraternities, sororities, but also military and law enforcement. And he was in law enforcement for 14 years. And that type of profession appeals a lot to people who just want to be part of something, part of a brotherhood. And so we have some correspondence with the chief of the school uh on that day on Monday before Charlie was killed. And why this hadn't come out and why he won't stand up like a man and admit this, I don't know, but he's watching a bunch of men lose their careers and he's okay with it. On Monday before this correspondence went to Chief Long. Hello, Chief Long. Uh, I was told students have access above us. If this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well if possible. He comes back and his last correspondence was, I got you covered. What else am I to do when a command level uh person from an accredited police department says I've got this area. There were a lot of clips to choose from, but I think this is a really important one. So, to clarify, he's talking here about the chief of police of the department on campus because the campus has a separate dedicated police department and he's talking about the correspondence with the chief of that department. behaviorally as he's talking about this, we do see quite a bit of anger coming through as he's talking about this chief of police. The first thing you'll notice is his hand gestures. Whereas usually the hands are just resting by the side and they come up like this to illustrate certain things, now we're getting this more of a downwards thump, which is very consistent with him and anger. Almost any time he talks about something that makes him angry in this interview, we start seeing these downward thumps on the arm of the chair. This is no exception. Another thing that we're seeing that's very consistent with anger and even with pre-conlict is these chin thrusts as he's talking about why the chief won't come out and admit this. Whereas this is someone who normally talks in a neutral position, sometimes even with the chin down like this. Here we're in this place where he's higher up here and the chin is coming out like this, which is something we often see in conflict or pre-conlict. Another thing that we see is when he says, "I don't know why this hasn't come out yet." We see tension in the lips and it's coming from the tension of the chin here because we see that bottom lip go up like that. And this is usually typical of sadness. When we're sad, universally the chin bosses like this, creating tension in that bottom lip and making that face of sadness. But with anger, the lips thin out. And for some people, we get that bit of a rise like this as well with anger. It's hard to tell exactly what's going on with the mouth and the chin, but it's not a positive emotion. But immediately as he says that he's watching men lose their careers and he's okay with it, we see a slow blink with his eyes as he says that. And at the very same time, we see a quick eyebrow flash. So, we see the eyebrows go up and he slows as he says and he's okay with it with this little bit of a no gesture as he's saying that. So, we talk about the no gesture a lot on the channel because a lot of people out there think that the moment you see someone doing this, it's instantly deception. the person's being deceptive. And there aren't any gestures that could allow you to know immediately that someone's being deceptive. Least of all this. This happens in a lot of different contexts. It can happen if I'm amazed by something and I can't believe how good it is. But it can also happen in disapproval or disappointment. And here it's something along those lines, especially because it's combined with that slow blink, which is often something that we do with irritation, that kind of slow blink because we don't want to face an idea. We're irritated by it. So, we're trying to shield away from it by blocking the eyes. And we also have the eyebrow flash at the same time, which most commonly either means emphasis, some kind of social acknowledgement or surprise. And I think in this case, it's a quick surprise, like he can't believe how this guy is just okay with that. And he disapproves of that cuz he would never do something like that. Which goes right back to that brotherhood mentality that he has. He's having a hard time understand how this man could just sit there and allow these other men, you know, who are part of the brotherhood of men to lose their careers over this. Then he shares the text exchange with the chief and completely objectively from an interrogation standpoint, from a critical thinking standpoint, I don't think this is a very good look for Brian. And let me tell you exactly why. If we look at the exchange, he's first mentioning that they have intel that suggests that the rooftops are not safe. If we look at the chief's response, his initial response is not to say, "No problem. I'll put someone up there." He asks Brian, "You want access to the roof? like is that what you're asking me? To which Brian responds, I was told students have access above us. If this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well if possible. So, he presented two options. He said, "Either this or that." And the chief responded back saying, "I got you covered." Now, Brian assumed what this means is that the chief is saying, "I got you covered in the sense I'll take care of it. I I've got it covered. I'll lock it up. I'll send someone up there. But if we drop all assumptions and think very critically, that's not necessarily what the chief is saying. It's possible that I got you covered means I will allow your guys to go up there. It's not very clear. At the very least, it's not a clear answer. In interrogation or an interview, when we ask a question that has two options and the person gives a yes or a no, we immediately have the reflex to go, can you clarify what do you mean by that? Which of those two options are you responding to? So, in this case, to be very thorough, when security depends on it, the correct response would have been, "I'm sorry. Can you elaborate on what you mean by I got you covered? Will you be blocking these doors? Will you be sending people up there? Or are you giving me permission to send people up there? I just want to make sure that we're on the same page." To be fair and clear, if you showed me this text exchange and told me, "What do you think the chief means by I got you covered?" I would say, "I'm pretty sure he's saying he'll take care of it himself. Don't worry about it." But Brian's job is to asssure 100% safety. Probably isn't good enough when people's security depends on it. And I believe that someone who's very thorough and doesn't want to assume things should have asked for very specific clarity in response to this text. And there should have been a follow-up leading up to the event. Hey, by the way, we had this conversation. What ended up happening there? Did you block it off? Do you have men up there? Like there some kind of follow-up. When you got to the event, throw a quick glance like you knew it was an issue. just check on it, make sure that it was taken care of. Of course, the chief of police could have done a much better job and much more thorough job than this and made sure that this was very properly addressed. But it doesn't mean that Brian could completely wash his hands of it and say, "Nope, he said, "I got you covered." It's completely on him. We're now going to move on and look at one of the topics that has the most inconsistencies, things that flat out don't make sense in what he's saying, and that has caused a massive backfire online. But before we do, do me a huge favor. Hit that subscribe button, turn those notifications on, and take a quick second to like this video because it really does help with the success of the channel. >> We we have I spent thousands of dollars on drones last year and 10 and got the guy's license. But if the area lies in the Provo, Utah airspace, I can't fly it. That's a 107B. The guy, we can't break the rules. Now, the school could have flown drones, the PD, but they didn't have them, right? And then and then so but ORM PD has a an a drone unit active and professional and that police department I will tell you right now is awesome. They are they get it. They they were there. They helped both on the soft side and the hard side. And so I started asking questions like you guys have a drone unit. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Good. Do you have anou or a mutual aid agreement with the school? And they're like yeah. I said did they call you and ask for assistance? No. I'm like, why? Why wouldn't you call? >> Be great if that chief of police would have put that drone up. >> We' have had it or I'd have flown that drone up his ass if we could have had one. We knew there were no drones, but then somebody earlier that day flew a drone up. >> Correct. Yeah. So, actually, you probably wouldn't have confirmed because there are drones up. >> We didn't know where it came from and we're like, "What's the deal with this now?" Um it's not uncommon for the a video team to throw a drone up and then take a quick shot and we've had that before. Now their drones are different because they use those little bitty ones and so they're not covered under the requirements. >> Mhm. >> And so it's like again um >> Yeah, you're right. We we do I need to call a grown ass man and and and say, "Hey, are you doing your job?" >> Okay, so this whole drone thing, it's been driving me wild because if you really think critically about what he's saying, it does not make sense. But before we look at that really quickly, behaviorally, when Shawn Ryan says that it would be really nice if that drone was up there and immediately Brian responds, we would have had it. We see that exact same cluster from earlier where we get that chin up like this with that little thrust and that thinning mouth like this that goes upwards. And I think for him this is a very serious angry thing that happens with him because we're seeing it more consistently with anger than sadness with that stare that chin up and that like this. It's an important thing that's getting some anger out of him. So, my first question that sparked all this that for me was a red flag was him saying that when they got there, they saw a drone in the air, but it was one of those bitty ones that the same rules don't apply. And my first question was, you started this by saying that you've spent thousands of dollars on drones. Why not get a little bitty one? If those are allowed, if different rules apply to those ones, why not get a little bitty one? That way, when you go to campuses where your big ones aren't allowed, but the little bitty ones are, just use that one instead. The second thing that didn't add up to me was him saying that they are in the Provo, Utah airspace and therefore they couldn't use their drones, but there was someone and they don't know whose it was using the Bitty drone cuz sometimes AV, you know, someone was trying to film it uses the Bitty drones. And what sparked my curiosity there is, is there a space rules that say certain sizes are totally fine, but others aren't? So, I wasn't sure, but to me, I wanted to look into this a little bit more. Does it make sense that airspace rules say these drones are fine, the bitty ones, but these ones are not? Now, looking into this online got very confusing because there are contradicting statements out there. Some people are saying that the campus is not part of the Provo, Utah airspace. And other sources are saying that it is part of the Provo Municipal Airport's Class D airspace and certain rules apply. So, let's put a question mark on that. You guys can go do some more research to see if what he's saying makes sense. But leaving that aside, without even considering that, there is a very clear rule in the school's policies. Utah Valley University policy 705 clearly states that anybody who wants to fly a drone on campus, first of all, has to comply with FAA rules. That's one. That's part of their rule. But second, they have to submit a request with the Office of Risk Management. So the school has its own policy for all drones. It doesn't discriminate. Bitty drones, big drones, all drones have to respect these rules. And what's mind-blowing to me is that Brian has no clue that that policy exists. He never mentions it. He never brings it up. And furthermore, and this is huge, if the campus has this policy in place, it means that it's not a completely forbidden airspace. There are ways in which you could submit those requests and get those drones up in the air. And again, the policy does not discriminate big drones or bitty drones. So what he's saying there doesn't make sense. So he's right about the fact that he couldn't fly his drones on campus without the proper permissions. But it's more like he stumbled on that being true by luck. Where he's wrong is that there are forms you could fill out and requests that would allow you to put drones in the air, whether it's yours or the bitty one. Unless there's a caveat somewhere that I didn't see that specifies you can't use certain types of drones under any circumstance, which again would be fine. Get yourself one of those biddy drones. put in the proper request and then you can do exactly what you said in this interview because he said that if we had a drone I would have been right up his ass. Well, you should have had a drone then. We're going to do these two next clips in an interesting interactive way. So, in the first clip that you're about to see, the loyalty of his team is being questioned. In the second clip after that, the competence of his team is being questioned. So, I'm going to play both for you and I want you to look at the behaviors and spot some differences. Whether you write this down or make a mental note, notice some differences in the way that he's answering these questions. Take a look. >> Do any of your guys have any ties to any foreign intelligence agencies, more specifically MSAD? >> No. And and I I've seen that and heard that and um you know, I've been in 39 countries in this world and I've never been to Israel. Um I'm a firm Christian. Um, I ask our guys, are you believers? Um, we have no ties to to Israel or MSAD or any other one. We're Americans, period. We we believe in what we're appointed to do here. We're we believe in our our system. And to say that we're MSAD or attached to any type of um foreign entity, it's it's one of those it's crap when it's best day. Do you have anybody on your team that you think could be tied to an extreme political party who is planning assassinations? >> No. One, um uh we're in each other's business. where they have the time for it. I wouldn't know. >> But um >> yeah, you had mentioned some of these guys are on the road 250 days a year. Yeah. >> With Charlie. >> Yeah. Just working. And and it's not just that. It's I mean um a lot we do a team trip every year down to an an undisclosed location and um uh some of the guys are there now. Um uh some of the guys left yesterday after that job ended. I'll be going down the night before. I mean, uh, tomorrow. Um, so we we know what each other does. We we know their kids' names and and their spouses. >> Mhm. >> And so they wouldn't do that to the client, but they really wouldn't do it to me or to their coworker. [clears throat] >> And so that's one of those things. It's like, no, that if you know us, those allegations become even more idiotic. Yeah. And and you you you say this with 100% certainty >> to my death. >> So that one was about loyalty. This next one is about competence. So try to see if you see any differences. >> Let's move into the threat assessment and the pre-planning for the event. >> Absolutely. >> How many days prior were you guys there? >> We generally uh the permitting process and all that goes on behind the scenes. Uh and then there's a questionnaires that are filled out that we used to there was a lot of busy work and then so you know kind of like in the military what you did we create forms that hey let's get this information upfront >> and so that we uh have a duplication process so that we can confirm it and so we started our first uh before that one um the 24th of the month prior and so um and that was with the the hard conversations uh meetings. You started that on the 24th. >> Mhm. >> The hard conversations, the sharing of information, the conference calls, uh the the data sheets. Okay. So, the reason that I wanted to compare these two segments is because without baseline, it becomes really difficult because if you just showed me these two clips, I would see a behavioral difference between the two, but I wouldn't know which one has more stress. Because here's the ironic thing. Some people become more animated with stress because they're really trying to sell a story to you. Some people slow down and calm down with stress because they don't want to draw attention to themselves. But with him, we've seen it before and we're going to see it again. He's quite calm normally. And it's when he's trying to oversell something that we see those illustrators come to life and a few more things change as well. But let's start with the first question where Sean is asking him if him or anyone on his team are affiliated to Msad. and then goes on to ask if any of them are affiliated to any extremist political groups. So the first thing we get in his answer is a firm denial. No. No ambiguity to that, no hesitation, no non-answer statements, just a no. And we do notice that his gaze is downwards and his chin is down like this, which is quite defensive. And we've seen this very regularly throughout this interview. So maybe there's a moment of defensiveness here, but it isn't this big massive cluster. And that defensiveness could be because there's more to this. Obviously, that's a possibility. Or it could be because as he says, he continues in saying that he's heard that and he's seen that and that makes him feel self-conscious and defensive that accusation in itself. So then he goes on with the answer to kind of quantify that no. And he says that he's been to 39 countries and he's never been to Israel. And you'll notice as he says that we get a onesided shoulder shrug. And this is someone who often shrugs but it's very often symmetrical. It's both those shoulders very commonly. And here it really stands out that it's just that one shoulder that pops. In his best-selling book, What Everybody Is Saying, former Special Agent Joon Navaro, who is a friend and who's been on the channel before, and who's also a world-renowned body language expert and author, talks about the difference between symmetrical shoulder shrugs and one-sided shoulder shrugs. When we actually don't know something or actually disengaging as a subconscious gesture, it's often just those two shoulders popping. It's not a conscious gesture. But when there's a lack of confidence, we often see just that one shoulder popping like this. So it definitely suggests here that his confidence is crumbling. We are seeing now a little bit more than that little bit of defensiveness here. He's going on to how he's never been to Israel of the 39 countries he's been to and we're getting this one-sided shoulder shrug. Then he goes on to say that, you know, they're him and his guys, they're Christian and they're Americans, how none of them are affiliated to Israel or MSAD. And he talks about how they're very close, like they're all in each other's business. And you'll notice behaviorally while all this is happening, it's very close to his normal behavior. He's in this lower tone. He's talking calmly. His hands are moving every now and then. They come together when he talks about to illustrate how close he is with his co-workers, but besides that, he's in that place where he very normally is. When he says that we're in each other's business, we again see that very quick tension of the lips like that in the same way that he does when he's confrontational or angry. But it doesn't have that same chin thrust like this with that little bit of a glare. It's more of a just that mouth. And I think again this relates more to serious points when he drives serious points. So I mean he's saying like we're in each other's business. I'm serious about this. So he's emphasizing there's even a pause there that like no we're Americans. We're in each other's business. Not happening. So behaviorally there are these little moments that suggest discomfort but not overwhelmingly a lot more than his baseline. We also have this one-sided shoulder shrug that suggests a lack of confidence around that idea. But if we look at the content of what he's saying, again, we go back very much to that brotherhood mentality, you know, we have a undisclosed location that we go to. Some of them are already there. He spends a lot of time explaining that some of them are already there. He's going soon, too, to this undisclosed location where they get to hang out and be bros. And a lot of what he's saying is about the loyalty. He even says they wouldn't do that to the client, but more so they wouldn't do that to me because our loyalty is very important. But if we critically really think about how he's denying this logically, they're not strong counterarguments. Right? For example, Sean is saying, "Are you or anyone that is in your team affiliated to MSAD?" And he goes, "I've been to 39 countries. Israel is not one of them. I've never been to Israel." Well, that's a complete different answer. It doesn't matter. It's not like cell phones don't exist. It's not like anyone who's affiliated to MSAD has necessarily gone to Israel. People have affiliations without traveling. And then finally, he says that he doesn't know when they would have the time to be affiliated with an extremist political group. And again, he's kind of missing the point of the question. Sean isn't asking like, are they part of some political book club where they go every Thursday? He's saying they wouldn't have the time as if they're constantly together and that this person wouldn't have any time at any point to have some kind of nefarious affiliation somewhere. And I kind of get what he's saying. He's trying to imply that they're so close, they know each other so well that nobody would ever betray that group. And that goes back to his brotherhood thinking because he would never betray his close friends. He can't conceive that any one of his friends would do the same thing. And therefore, he thinks that these are good counterarguments. But purely logically, there could be a world in which an American Christian who is very close to this group could still have affiliations that are nefarious. And I think a small part of him knows that. I think a small part of him knows that him never having gone to Israel doesn't prove that he doesn't have any ties to Msad. And that's maybe why we're seeing that one-sided shoulder shrug that denotes a lack of confidence. Because how do you deny something? How do you prove that something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist? This is why he has to go to all these, no, no, we're too close. We're Christian. He has to go to these things that aren't really evidence because he can't prove something that doesn't exist. But overall, behaviorally, there are little things that we could pick at, but it's very similar to his baseline, and it's lacking these massive deviations from baseline when stress spikes, which we do see in the second response about competence. The moment Sean asks about planning and threat assessment, which obviously wasn't thorough enough because the worst case scenario happened, we see a gesture that has a lot of names in the research. adapters, manipulators, pacifiers, self soothing gestures. And these are any types of gestures that have this massage-like quality and they serve to reduce stress. And we see it a lot when stress spikes across so much research. And if you look at his hands in the previous question, they almost never came together like this in this massaglike gesture when it was about loyalty. They came together when he talked about the group coming together, but besides that, they were here by his sides. Here immediately with the question we see that adapter and as he's answering we continue to see his hands coming together like this and rubbing. You'll also notice that two things increase. One is his gestures to explain things. All of a sudden his hands are all over the place and the second one is his tone. His tone is higher. What's really interesting is that the research on deception is all over the place. Basically what we've learned is that different people lie in different ways. So different studies produce different results. So we have to look at metaanalyses. You look at a lot of studies together to see where there's agreement and even the metaanalyses disagree between each other. But there are two things that are consistent with all the metaanalyses that happen a lot in deception. And those things are dilated pupils and a rise in the tone of the voice. Now to be clear, I'm not saying that only deception can cause dilated pupils or a rise in the tone. That's why we need clusters. It's not enough to say, "Oh my god, the tone went up. the person's being deceptive. A lot of other things can cause a rise in tone. Excitement, stress, being nervous about something because all these things tense up the muscles around the throat and that raises the tone. And the other thing we're seeing towards the end is a lip lick. He literally licks his lips. So remember baseline and clusters, right? If somebody constantly licks their lips while they talk, it's not a big deal. He doesn't in that entire response on loyalty, we did not see him lick his lips. But here at the end, we get a lip lick. very consistent with stress because when we're stressed that tone comes up, our mouth dries up and we often lick the lips to correct that. So, the fact that we saw it here and we're going to continue to see these nervous behaviors whenever he talks about the competence of him and his team for me suggests that he's 100% aware of the fact that this was entirely their fault. But because of that loyalty, he wants to protect his team. And at no point in this interview, almost 3 hours, are we getting a serious moment of accountability. >> And so I initially dove down on top of him and and just was on him almost face to face. And then when I was doing that, I went down. I could see the wound. And so I immediately shoved my hand into the wound to stop uh the bleeding, just trying to find the pressure. And it was coming out still. And I'm on top of him like close. And it was still coming out enough that it I guess it it squirted through my fingers and I could taste it on my lips. And so I was like, man, this this is a bad wound. And so we got up. I think it was like 15 16 seconds from the time the shot happened to the time we were picking him up and hit him. >> 15 to 16 seconds. >> That's what it was. Yeah. And so >> that's fast. It And this is horrible, but >> that is fast to get an initial assessment. Plug a hole, pick them up, move them. >> Yeah. And so it it's it it's just like dang. Um, and it is some horrible realities of it too that like I told the guys this and I I haven't you uh when I jumped down on him, he his he had dolls eyes and so I like, man, these are wounds incompatible with life, >> you know. >> Yeah. >> Okay, before we look at this clip, there's something that I want to reiterate that I say a lot, but it's important to me, and it's the fact that behavioral analysis is not personal. It's not judgment. I look at behaviors in clusters. I look at the statements that people make, and I critically think about it to try to figure out what they're thinking or how they're feeling in that moment. And I know that so far I've been pretty critical of Brian and it's not personal. I have nothing against the guy personally. I don't know him. He might be a super nice guy, but in the way that there are all these inconsistencies in his answers and behaviorally we're seeing these moments of stress, but it's not like I came into this with a bias against the guy. It's that as I'm analyzing the behavior, there are things that we should see that we're not seeing behaviorally. With that said, what we got here was a real moment of emotion that if I was teaching a master class on specifically what this is, and I know exactly what this is, this is the example I would use. And what it is is someone who considers themselves like a man's man who doesn't want to publicly surrender to something that they consider to be weakness. You'll notice first he's telling the first part of the story, which is pretty graphic, how he jumped on top of him and the blood went through his fingers on his mouth. And as he's saying that, he's emotionally detached from that part. And we could look at it and go, "That's odd." You know, why aren't you getting emotional there? And then all of a sudden, it's hitting you. But then when you consider the fact that this guy was in law enforcement for 14 years and has worked private security since then, he's probably seen a lot of things and is a little bit desensitized to it. Plus, he's told this story numerous times up until now. So, he's probably going through the motions of that story. But then at some point he kind of steps into it as he thinks about that moment where he saw that look in Charlie's eyes and it starts getting to him and we start to see a lot of things. First he just stops speaking dead in his tracks and he immediately goes to not only adapters but grooming gestures and grooming gestures are anything that we do to fix our appearance and they're a very good sign that our attention our focus has turned inwards. We are more self-conscious. He adjusts his cuffs and we see him cleaning up his pants, picking some stuff off of there. And this is not just grooming, but it's also a distraction to try to get away from that emotion. We also see a very clear but quick flash of contempt. If you look at him, he literally throws it away like this. As you see the upper lip on his right go up like this in a quick flash. Contempt is one of the universal emotions which means that the research has shown that it looks the same everywhere in the world across cultures and it's characterized by a tension on one side of the mouth. So sometimes it's the upper lip doing this, sometimes the upper lip doing this. And this tension on the side of the mouth often also causes a line on one side of the mouth and it's often not always but often combined with this kind of side eye or this judgmental look called looking a scance. But in this case, we're seeing it very quickly as he's grooming this kind of throwaway with that contempt on the mouth. And I know exactly what that is as well. I've seen it a lot. It's contempt towards himself. Like, don't do this right now. Like, man up. That's that's what we're seeing there. He's grooming like, oh, man up. Don't surrender to this emotion. And it's in that one burst we're seeing that come out. Then he actually comes up with this plan to take a sip of his beverage as a way to kind of distract away from this emotion and maybe try to regulate it. So he takes that sip, puts it back, and comes back and works through it. Still a little jittery because he doesn't want to show that sadness. He wants to fight it off and just keep going with the story. And as he says he realized what he was looking at, we see a one-sided shoulder shrug as he goes, "Man, these are wounds incompatible with life." And we're seeing there, I think, a general lack of confidence in that moment of like what he was supposed to do or what he could have done. It's it's this whole moment has weakened him. We see it in his entire demeanor and his confidence in the gutter, whether it's how he felt back then or retelling the story. And we're seeing a lot of signs of that in the non-verbal communication. >> And so, um, we get in, Charlie was a big man, long, um, we kind of laugh about it now, but, um, we get him in and, uh, but the door is not going to close. We know that. And I just say, "Go." And we didn't even attempt to close it. I told Justin, "Go, go, go." So, he takes off. Justin's driving. I mean, it's it's he's he's trained driver. I mean, that's what our guys go to driving school for, just for that. It's expensive. It costs a lot, but it's a need. And it paid off cuz he drove like a champion. So, I'm just, you know, packing pressure, repack it gets, it gets saturated. You don't take it out. You just keep packing on top of it. The problem is we're going down the road and Charlie's so tall that his leg, his left leg is down in the door and the door won't close. And so I'm on my knees with the door open with my butt hanging out of the side and I'm on my knees doing the medical. >> Not too much behaviorally here, but there are two lines that he said that for me were just massive question marks. And the first one was when he said, "We laugh about it now. We we kind of laugh about it now, but um we get him in and uh but the door is not going to close. >> And I'm wondering if it's just a really unfortunate thing to say that he didn't elaborate on because what it sounds like what he's saying is Charlie was a tall guy and he goes on to say that they couldn't close the doors when he was in the back of the van. And you know, we laugh about it now now that everything's calmed down. But it's like, you know, the guy didn't make it. This is still a very fresh story. We laugh about it now is the type of thing I would expect to hear with a close call situation. You know, I say we laugh about it now, but you know, Charlie barely fit in the back of the van, but luckily we got him to the hospital. Everything was fine. I wonder if what he means is like we laugh about his height now. Like, you know, he was a tall guy. We make jokes about it, but why now? You know, why not, you know, we we laugh about this. Charlie's a tall guy. Just the way that he said we laugh about this now seems off to me. And and maybe it's just he wasn't paying attention to his words. I don't know. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but please let me know in the comments if there's a world in which that sentence makes sense to anyone. We laugh about it now. I don't get it. The other line is when he says that all his guys go to driving school and it's expensive, but it paid off because he drove like a champion that day. And no, it didn't pay off. Your client didn't make it. Nothing paid off. And again, benefit of the doubt, maybe he means that his guy drove to the hospital like flawlessly and that if time could have made a difference, it would have made a difference. But it really sounds like misplaced confidence and misplaced pride in his team when he's saying these things and we all know the end result. There would have been better ways to say it. For example, you could say, you know, they all take the training and Justin drove really effectively that day, but unfortunately it wasn't good enough. at least a bit of that acknowledgement to soften these statements where you have this confidence in your team and you're really proud of them, but ultimately we know what happened. The other thing I want you to notice behaviorally overall is that he's telling this story that is very tragic. It's the story of how a person lost their lives. And there's almost I'm not going to say super casual, but more casual than I would expect in the way that he's telling it. And this isn't judgment. is just behavioral analysis because I would imagine again with this guy's experience, he has seen a lot of stuff and he's been a little desensitized to this kind of thing. But in the way that he's telling it, it's like and you know Charlie's eggs are hanging out and I'm there, the door's open, my butt's hanging out. This almost has the vibe of like a group of guys coming back from a bachelor party weekend and telling a story of how you know he was driving, my butt's hanging out the window and you know, even like even that he could have said, you know, because of Charlie's height, the door was open, so I was partially hanging out the back and I'm still trying to do the medical. There's a way to tell the story without having this almost casual vibe to it. And again, this is just a behavioral observation, not a judgment. There's another really important note here that references several things that we saw. If this guy was here to completely lie to us about how emotionally he is and how close he was to Charlie, he would have told these stories a lot more emotionally and he would have tried to at least a little bit inject a bit more seriousness into this and he wouldn't say it in this casual way. And earlier when we saw him like try to stop that emotion from coming out, he would have let it come out more happily because he would have been happy that everyone gets to see just how emotionally he is about this. What this is telling me is that despite the fact that there are inconsistencies in his risk assessment and he's lacking confidence when it comes to the effectiveness of his team when it comes to telling the story, he's a straight shooter who's not trying to manipulate the emotion in a way that would get more sympathy from the audience. We're not seeing that at all. >> It was horrible. Compoundingly horrible. Um, when I jumped out on top of Charlie, uh, my phone came out of, uh, right here. And so I, of course, I just left it. I didn't know it came out. So I get to the hospital and, uh, um, I don't have the ability to call my children um, and tell them I'm okay or uh, my parents or my fiance. I uh, I couldn't call them. And so they're at home just suffering because I can't call them. >> Damn, man. >> Let me make this part very clear because I don't want my words misunderstood or twisted around. Of course, we all think of our family in moments of panic. That's a given. I would never say otherwise. Of course, it's normal for him in that moment to think about his kids and worry about the fact that they might be worried about him. That's very normal. So yes, I would imagine that it was quite stressful for him knowing that his kids can't reach him in this panic moment. But in this interview where he's talking about this big mishap that cost the life of his client, it should have been more of a quick cliffnotee. Even if his kids might be panicked, he has the knowledge that he's fine and that eventually they're going to sort it out and his kids are going to be able to reach him. So this panic is temporary. Whereas Charlie's kids will never be able to reach their father. So understanding what family is, you would think that in that moment he would be thinking much more about this situation that's happening rather than him, oh my god, my phone fell out and it's compoundingly horrible that my kids can't reach me in this moment. I mean, figure it out. Borrow a phone. It's not 1926. Borrow a phone, send a quick text, find a way to reach them. Ultimately, you're going to be fine. And I'll be honest with you, I don't think that I would have noticed much in this segment if it wasn't for the fact that he told the previous story a lot more casually. Like here we're seeing this big emphasis compoundingly horrible. We're seeing the eyes tear up. He has a very serious tone. He's delivering this very heavily. Whereas earlier he was like doors open, butts hanging out. That was a lot more casual. And if it was the same throughout, if he was like, you know, even now C is saying my phone fell out and I'm here. I can't reach my kids. I've got my client on the table. Fine. This is just the way he tells things. It's the behavioral difference between the two. And that's often what we look for. Changes in behavior. And how this one, which is about losing his phone and not being able to be in touch with his family, has more weight to it than the one where his client is essentially losing his life in the back of a van. >> Vice president asked him, "What do you need?" And then he looked at me and said, "What do we need?" And I said, "We need an autopsy now." So for these people that are saying there wasn't one done, go away. It was done. It was done. It do it for you. Yeah. Get the report when it comes out. It was done. I'll make this one really quick. This was hours into the interview, but it's a great opportunity to see his baseline for when he's saying something very confidently because we see that calm tonality. We literally see him put his foot down at some point. I mean, that's where the expression came from. I'm putting my foot down because very often when someone's really driving a point home and they're sure about it, we see that stomp with that leg. Then he's literally calling out the people who said an autopsy wasn't done. He wasn't asked about this. He's calling them out and he's going, "Go away." And I'm thinking those are very choice polite words for what he actually wants to say, which might be along the lines of f off. Just before he says go away, we see a mouth shrug, which is very similar, but has some key differences from when he flattens his lips when he's angry or driving home a point that's very serious. When he does that one, it's more of a thinning out or a flattening of the lips that looks more like this. And with this one, it's more of a lift. So, you can really see the mouth kind of lifting. And you even see it in the cheeks out there bubbling because he's going like this. And the research on shrugs, and this could be a mouth shrug, hands coming up like this, shoulders coming up like this, bit of a head tilt, or any combination of these, says that it represents a disengagement. I don't something. And it makes perfect sense here cuz he's saying to the people who said that there wasn't one done, [snorts] I don't know what to say. Like, I don't know how to put this. So, he's kind of thinking about it. And then he just softens it and goes to go away. Why do you think that they tore up and paved over the crime scene [sighs] >> so quickly? >> I have had and asked that at least 10 times and I said I don't understand the exigency of why they did that. And here's my question to that. March your ass up to the school. Have you marched your ass up to the school or will you march your ass up to that school tomorrow and file a foyer and say, "Hey, you're a public institution. I want the request and the plans that were made to tear that up." And when those request and plans happen, nobody went back and asked questions to the school or said, "Hey, well, let's do a foyer and do some back digging on that." That's not protected under this evidentiary gag order. >> Mhm. Now, let's just blame the security team cuz that's the easy way. Go do the foyer. >> Okay, this one was huge. Not behaviorally, but with the logic of what he's saying. So, there are several times in the interview where he encouraged people to go get a foyer to get some information about the case to prove the innocence of him and his team. And this was one of the bigger ones where Sean's asking him, you know, why do you think they tore it down so quickly the next day? and he goes, you know, anyone who wants to know that should march right up to the school right now and ask for a foyer. And if you look at his behaviors, they're a lot more consistent with his confrontational confidence cuz again, he's got that finger down like this and he keeps doing this kind of downward gesture with the one finger and he brings up and illustrates with it like this as well. And the research again has shown that when the finger is up like this, it's a very confrontational gesture that causes the audience to disconnect. And the reason for this is because subconsciously it reminds us of a weapon like a stick or a sword or something like that which is why we very often see it with discipline. And in this case it's not just a finger. It's these downward motions like this as well which is very serious in tone. And at the end he says that you know people are just blaming the security team but go get it for you. March up to that school. He's very adamant about this. And the whole time I'm sitting there thinking to myself why don't you march up to the school and do exactly what you recommended. You know, a lot of these people online are seeing these things that don't make sense and they're speculating. They're trying to put it together. You know, why would this be torn down so fast and then they're trying to think, okay, maybe does the security team have some connection with this? They don't need to prove your innocence, but you do. Throughout this interview, we've seen him shift the blame on other people. And on numerous occasions, he's talked about how the career of his co-workers is compromised and how they're being harassed. But here he's suggesting a way that people can go find out answers that would absolve them of the blame. But why not go do exactly this himself, right? He's saying here that if this were to be done, it would absolve the security team a little bit of having something to do with this, then go do it. And this isn't the only time he said this. There was numerous other points in the interview. He said the same thing, for example, about the autopsy. >> For those people saying it, do a foyer. do it for you to the the medical examiner's office to Utah County. Get off your lazy ass and do it for you. They may not give you the uh autopsy information right now, but they'll certainly tell you, "Yeah, there was an autopsy." That's the first one. But these are all things that he's saying others should do when he could do it himself to try to get more truth about the case out there and try to paint a more clear picture. if he believes in these things, go get the foyers yourself and go show that there was an autopsy and that that taking down of the crime scene was already planned. There was already a plan to do that. Okay. So, at the end of the day, what do we have? We have a guy who's so focused on clearing the name of his company and his co-workers that at no point in this interview are we getting any accountability. There's never a point where he's saying, "Look, we have the training. We have the qualified guys, but something went wrong. it's our fault and I'm eternally sorry. He's so focused on not looking incompetent that he looks both incompetent and unapologetic. And let's make something very clear. Just because he's convinced that his group of friends are loyal and that none of them would ever do anything nefarious, it doesn't mean that that's the absolute truth. His behaviors certainly indicate that there's a lot of loyalty within that group, but ironically, it makes it very easy to pull a fast one on him. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Let's make that very, very clear. All I'm saying is that his confidence in his team doesn't represent reality. It represents his perception of reality. And because he's so convinced that they're so close and they know everything about each other, and they're all pro-America Christian, have no affiliations elsewhere, he is locked into that position. So, behaviorally, yes, he's very confident in the loyalty of his group. And when he denies outside affiliations, the confidence is pretty high or I would say pretty standard with his baseline. But when it comes to competence, when it comes to their performance that day, we're seeing that stress spike as he tries to shift the blame. And he's a complete mess. And he's got even things that are completely inconsistent with the effectiveness of his job, like those drones or the security of the roofs. And he's furthermore proving to what extent they dropped the ball. And he knows it. that lack of confidence is very specific to their performance. But let me know in the comments what you think. What were for you the biggest inconsistencies in the way that he was retelling some of the measures that they took? Can you make any sense of those odd lines that he said every now and then that I was struggling with? And finally, what do you think he could have done different for this interview to come off more positive for him? Is there anything that he could have done? Or is it simply given the circumstances, given the fact that the world knows how colossally him and his team messed up, that there's no way that he could have done anything in this interview to come off well? Let me know in the comments and I will see you on the next