Thursday, February 16, 2017

Ibtihaj Muhammad: Suffering Persecution or Fake Hate?

Hat tip:  John
Fake News

Islam's power has changed western travel, adding billions of dollars and long and often intrusive vetting at airports.  On a cross country trip, at O'Hare, I was pulled aside and subject to an intensive search.  The delay was about one hour.  I answered questions "yes or no" and only stated the time of my departure.  My cooperation made it go smoothly.  

Fake Hate via Islam is very popular today. 

Here we get the statement to analyze.  

Olympic Fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad

Muhammad, a lifelong American citizen, claimed in an interview last week that she was detained “just a few weeks ago” by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. She said she was held for two hours without explanation.
Her remarks on Feb. 7 earned her an entire news cycle, as several journalists ran with reports suggesting, and alleging outright, that the American Olympian had been ensnared in the president’s executive order temporarily barring immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries.
When asked if she knew anyone directly impacted by the travel restrictions, Muhammad responded,
“I personally was held at Customs for two hours just a few weeks ago. I don’t know why. I can’t tell you why it happened to me, but I know that I’m Muslim. 

Always note the additional unnecessary wording.  
Note what is told to us in the negative as an elevation of importance.  We expect to hear straight forward sentences of what happened, what was said, and so on.  

She was "personally" held; there is no other way for her to be held for a security check.  It is a routine flagging, and the TSA is looking for weapons.  The TSA did not need to tell me what they were looking for.  With the rise of Islam, this is now done throughout the western world due to an ideology that is political, social, sexual and religious, which uses violence as a conquest.  

She said she "can't" tell us why it happened to her.  This is to be restricted ("can't") which is immediately 'challenged' in her language by the word "but."  What follows "but" is elevated above that which preceded it:  "but I know I am a Muslim."


Did you notice that she did not say, "I am a Muslim"?  In Statement Analysis, she did not tell us that she is a Muslim but told us what she "knows."

She has now just created some distance, unnecessarily, from being a Muslim.  You may interpret her words, but in analysis, we do not.  We believe what one tells us unless they talk us out of it.  I believe her when she avoids saying she is a Muslim, reducing it to only what she "knows." 

Next, she makes a similar statement, without any distancing language:  
I have an Arabic name. 

And even though I represent Team USA and I have that Olympic hardware, it doesn’t change how you look and how people perceive you.

She frequently poses in Islamic covering with an American flag behind her. 

“Unfortunately, I know that people talk about this having a lot to do with these seven countries in particular, but I think the net is cast a little bit wider than we know. And I’m included in that as a Muslim woman who wears a hijab.”

The seven countries known for exporting Islamic terror were named by Barak Obama.   Note that she does not say she "knows" the net is "cast a little bit wider", as she goes to the plural pronoun "we":  this is a very strong indication that she is influenced by someone else, and an activity outside the airport vetting.  This is confirmed by the unnecessary 'addition' of "And I'm included."

She strongly relates to having an Arabic last name, but she does not strongly (linguistically) relate to being Muslim.  

This should cause us to ask about her Muslim beliefs here, in context.   "As a Muslim woman" is what we classify as "passive voice" (though it is not the same as "passivity") in particular, if the subject has avoided a close connection to being Muslim.  This is something reserved for Advanced Analysis.  


A Customs official confirmed that she was detained in random vetting; less than one hour.  The TSA is also aware of the boarding time and will not cause someone to miss a flight unless they have very strong suspicion of weapons.  
Even though this is a plane booking, with dates confirmed verbally, electronically, and on the ticket, Muhammad refused to commit to the date she was detained by Customs.  "I don't remember" is the number one deceptive response in courts and we find it in language.  The article did not give the quote, but only to say that she would not give a "hard date"...not only do we know our plane ticket dates,  but we are to believe she had a memorable experience.  If the date was long ago, it could be forgotten, but if it was since the January 27th mandate, the date will be known.  This is our 'expected.'  

She is an outspoken Trump critic, and that she is extremely displeased with his immigration order.
Leftist media including  Motto, the Independent, the Daily Mail, the New York Daily News, the Hill, Sports Illustrated, and  ESPN all published outraged articles stating or heavily implying that Muhammad was subjected to this horrific inconvenience as a result of Trump’s travel ban, which was instituted on January 27, 2017.  

Is this "fake news" again?  

We rely on the language to guide us.  

Muhammad elaborates on her ordeal, and here we are given insight into why she used distancing language as to being a Muslim:  
“It’s really hard. My human response is to cry because I was so sad and upset and disheartened — and just disappointed. At the same time, I’m one of those people who feels like I have to be strong for those people who may not be able to find that strength.

Here we see the narcissism.  She did not say she cried, but it would be her "human response"; which is to be "human."  She gives a rebuttal about being human, however:

"I'm one of those people..."

"human response" is now "people", separated by the word "but", which relegates being "human" to the lower side of comparison.  

She wants us to know her strength is superior to her human side.  

She is not one of "these", herself, but she is one of "those."  This, too, is distancing language. 

She does not keep herself from crying for herself, or for her religion, but for "people who may not be able to find that strength. "

 Note "that" strength is distancing language as well. She does not say "for people who may be unable to find the strength..."

In a security vetting, it is a passive position.  Agents search your person and belongings for items used to harm others.  

Here we are given insight into why she did not give in to her human side to cry.  We know she has a "human" side and some other side, hence, the narcissistic language.   



“I feel like I have to speak up for those people whose voices go unheard. It was a really hard two hours, but at the same time, I made it home. I try to remember to be positive and to try to leave all these situations, even if they may be very difficult, with love.

She puts herself in 'messianic' status:  she was given a security check by TSA and did not cry for others.  

How does her not crying, while separated from others, for a security check assist people?  This is the language of narcissism. 

Next:   Who are the "people" that she refuses to be human for?  

We now see why being a "Muslim" produced an instant weakness of distancing language.  When we see "I know I didn't shoot him", analysts immediately flag the statement for what he "knows", not what he did.  Here, we flag it the same way. 

With "voices go unheard", I would be very interested in obtaining her childhood background under Islamic males. as a female.  

There are many Muslims who are not religious and not interested in jihad or coercive conquest; they are Muslims by culture, but not religious.  This is similar to many who may have been raised as Christian but do not consider themselves Christian.  This is why analysis views the cultural impact of religion upon language.  We are all impacted by our culture.  In Islamic lands, Muslims are target by the Islamists but in confrontation, resistance quickly dissipated (Bat Ye'or) historically, and freedom fell.  When Islamists settle in western lands and do not integrate, the host natives deal with increased crime, "no go zones", and the increasing aspects of civil war.  As violence increases against host citizens, demands are made by the guests, and when the welfare finances become unsustainable, conflict is inevitable.  A huge step towards this conflict is when police are targeted.  This is an attack on authority in general; a glue that is necessary for any society to survive.  When police are out-gunned and flee, the criminal mindset is filled with resolve.  In the states, it is the "Ferguson Effect" where officers fear being labeled racist, and having their own families  attacked by "protestors."  Baltimore politicians taught police that they had to preserve their own employment first in order to protect and serve.  Their service has been targeted since 2008.   This video is similar to others and is disturbing.  As Angela Merkel invited Islam into Europe, she and Obama told the public that they were "refugees" and were "women and children" in need of protection.  They were actually 80-90% male, age 18-35.  

100,000 troops now patrol France, yet their politicians claim that there is no foreign enemy present as in past wars.  The elite who imported Islam refuse to name those of whom protection is needed. 

Children are growing up with this as a norm, with armed guards posted at Jewish schools.  One French police officer allegedly snapped and the result has been rioting, looting, burning cars; night after night, even though he faces charges.  

Lying by Muslims, especially CAIR, exasperate the American public.  "Fake Hate" has consequences.  

Discernment via deception detection is critical. 

Why did she distance herself from being a Muslim? 
I think that we will come out on top as women, as people of color, as Muslims, as transgender people, as people who are part of the disabled community — I think that we’ll come out on top.”
She pulls out the popular political identity victim list that politicians use to exploit, of which Islam's direct teaching and practice are contrary to what the west believes as basic human rights.  

Islam executes homosexuals, as well as men who claim to be women, and it subjugates women.  

Why are Muslim women taught to cover themselves up?


 O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested. (Koran 33:59)

Here is an article that explains why the coverings are symbols of sexual violence and they identify those who can be targeted.  The hina clause tells us "why" they are to cover themselves.  


Note the word "think" as a weak assertion for someone who is above human emotions.  She does not say "we will come out on top" but she only "thinks" this to be so.  

This sheds light on why she identifies more as Arab than Muslim.  

You should be able to identify her statement as "fake hate" but if confirmation is needed:


Research into why she refused to give a date showed that she was detained  before the 2016 election, while Barak Obama was president. 

Journalists ran with her deceptive story without checking out dates or corroborating it with Customs.  This is an example of "fake news"; as it fits a narrative.  

It is not an error by a journalist, but a pattern of deception by the political elite and main stream media in criminal conspiracy against the people.  

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Analyzing Corporate Statements



We regularly analyze corporate statements, annual reports, sales reports and other business related material.  In it, we learn content, but we also learn 'spin' that is, information that seeks to change communicative meaning without being technically deceptive.  This insight can prove valuable to investors.  

Target had major expansion plans.  

Target boldly took advantage of political correctness and the main stream media/celebrity push, in stating that a man could use a woman's bathroom "of his own choosing" if he "identified" as a woman.  

This did not go well with parents of young girls.  A man's mental heath being so singularly in jeopardy as to convince him he is not who he is, by itself, is alarming, but to allow him access to little girls in a bathroom was all too much for parent shoppers.  

When the public reacted with anger stating that this could be putting children at risk, Target doubled down and further divided customers with its "identity politics"; the single most divisive technique used in America today.  Target took to lecturing and insulting Americans on this 'new morality' where someone who was in need of mental health intervention, is now a "cause" for celebrities.  Given the main stream media predictions on the elections, Target's CEO likely felt great confidence in lecturing Americans on the new morality.  

When threatened with a boycott, Target responded harshly.  

A boycott ensued and since that time, Target has had more than 10 billion dollars in reduced stock value and had major plans for new stores, manned by robots, which had been long planned and invested in.  

Here is the announcement canceling it.  

Target has denied that their same store sales losses have been due to the boycott.  



At Target, we regularly pause to evaluate our business and have to make tough choices about where our company is best served to invest our time and resources. We recently made some changes to the innovation portfolio to refocus our efforts on supporting our core business, both in stores and online, and delivering against our strategic priorities. Target remains absolutely committed to pursuing what’s next. We see a tremendous opportunity to drive innovation in areas that will fuel our growth both in the short and long-term in areas such as digital, technology, supply chain and merchandising.

Here is the statement again:

At Target, we regularly pause to evaluate our business 

Here the use of "normal" begins the statement.  We have two principles in play:

1.  Priority of the opening sentence
2.  The use of "normal" in analysis.  

1.  Where the statement begins is always important and sometimes it is so important that it tells us why the statement is being made.  

2.  Next, we have the issue of "normal" and here it is in a "hina clause"; that is, a need to explain why.  When someone is dealing with something very "not" normal, in which they wish to conceal, they will openly portray it as "normal."

This signals to us that it is anything but normal.  

3.  Explanation of why the "regular pause" is made: 


and have to make tough choices about where our company is best served to invest our time and resources. 

Companies do often pause to re-evaluate but it is the need to call the pause "regular" here, coupled with the need to explain "why" the pause is being made that greatly increase the sensitivity of such.   When we add the principle of "priority" to the statement, it becomes outstanding for the analyst.  


We recently made some changes to the innovation portfolio to refocus our efforts on supporting our core business, both in stores and online, and delivering against our strategic priorities. 

Note minimization.  This was a major 'groundbreaking' plan is now labeled as "some changes" to the "innovation portfolio.  


Target remains absolutely committed to pursuing what’s next. 

The weakness is seen in the need to make the commitment sensitive with "absolutely."

Shareholders should now be aware that leadership is very likely divided in their commitment to the program of new robotic stores.  

The word "absolutely" is not necessary and weakens the commitment by 'attempting to seal off every area of weakness.'

Stronger?  "We will..."

This commitment is not to building the announced plans but to pursuing "what" is next; with "what" being undefined. 

This suggests to shareholders that Target leadership is uncertain about the future.  


We see a tremendous opportunity to drive innovation in areas that will fuel our growth both in the short and long-term in areas such as digital, technology, supply chain and merchandising.

Note the order as important.  What do they see?

Do they see growth?

No. 

They see not only an opportunity to drive innovation (the focus is on innovation, not growth) but "tremendous" opportunity.  

They do not see tremendous potential in growth, but in innovation.  This is very different and it puts distance between what they "see" and "growth." 

Note that "tremendous" and "growth" are in the same sentence quite purposely.  It is by design.  

In the faltering stock price, this is intended to have an impact, particularly on portfolio managers who's buying, selling and holding of large portions of stock, have impact upon the value.  

Identity politics continues to divide and enrage Americans as the list of "hyphenations" grows as does the alphabet lettering.  Eventually, identified groups recognize the exploitation by politicians for political gain, and by celebrities for publicity, and a backlash of anger results.   

How powerful is moral narcissism?

Target may have identified less than .000001 % of a customer base, and chose to taunt and insult their client base upon it.  

Listening to hearings shows the absurdity of identity politics.  Eventually, those who are being used as pawns by politicians are likely to become angry.  

'With military upgrades and weapons technology showing missiles can now be fired from off sea ships, Admiral, and more than 3 billion dollars investment, can you tell me how this new technology is going to impact  transgendered Americans?'

Statement analysis is used in law enforcement, business, social sciences, journalism and wherever deception detection and content analysis is needed.  

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Theresa Forbes: The Murder of Karina Vetrano



When we speak, the words we choose reveal us.  They reveal:

A.  Our background

B.  Our experiences

C.  Our priority

D.  Our personality traits. 

These four elements are the profile of the subject.  This is how we identify anonymous authors.  

Statement Analysis training begins with:

1.  Deception Detection and moves on to
2.  Content Analysis.  From there, we seek to learn the four elements (above) regarding the subject:
3.  Psycho-linguistic Profiling.  

For law enforcement, given an allegation and a statement, the investigator can know:

If the subject is lying;
What really happened; and

How the subject should be interviewed.  

In a shaken baby case, a lengthy interview and interrogation produced nothing, as the investigator lost patience (overnight hours) and screamed in the face of the suspect. 

What he did not consider was the suspect's profile:

military background.  

The investigator gave up, frustrated, but convinced the suspect (boyfriend of mother) did, in fact, shake the baby, who was brain dead. 

I very quietly asked the subject to tell me what happened. 

He confessed.  

Katrina Vetrano was allegedly raped and murdered by a Chanel Lewis,  now in custody.  From the NY Post:  

The sister of Karina Vetrano’s accused killer said Monday that her sibling was framed—and that he was only arrested because he’s black.

“I think the cops framed him because he’s a black person. They couldn’t find anyone else to pin this on, so they pinned it on my brother,” Theresa Forbes, 36, told reporters.


Here, readers may say "race card!" or "she is blaming police" but to listen to her, note her language:

"I think the cops framed him because he’s a black person. They couldn’t find anyone else to pin this on, so they pinned it on my brother..."

First, notice that she reveals weakness in her own assertion.  Does she believe he didn't do it?  
She can only say she "thinks" they framed him.  This is a weak assertion, which allows for her, or others, to "think" differently; that is, to change her mind.

Yet, we have two high sensitivity indicators very close together with the need to explain "why" she "thinks" they did this.  

The need to explain why means she anticipates being asked, 

"Why do you think the cops framed him?"

What does her answer show?

a.  First, because he is black.  

Here is where we see our deception.  It is not only in the weak assertion (which, by itself, does not conclusively indicate deception), but in something else:

it is not in the need to explain why (racism), either.  

It is only natural that in making an assertion, one might anticipate the need to prove it. 

It is in the second need to explain:  "so they pinned it on him" is a different reason than race:

b.  Secondly, it is police incompetence she identifies. 

She gave us two reasons why she only "thinks" he is framed:

Racism and police incompetence. 

The order is important.  

In less than a millisecond of time, her brain went to "racism" first, and then "incompetence" in an attempt to support a contention she herself refuses to commit to.  

 Chanel Lewis, 20, was charged Sunday with murdering the Queens jogger in August based on DNA evidence and two videotaped confessions, authorities and law-enforcement sources have said.

Asked about the alleged forensic evidence against her sibling, Forbes said,“The DNA lies sometimes. They wanted to get confirmation so they framed him for murder.


Here, she feels the need to give us a third reason, this third reason is the weakest of all:  "confirmation."

Confirmation of what?

Although this part is missing from the article, we learned that he has confessed.  

Note her use of the word "lie" regarding DNA; rather than 'error' in any form.  This is the word of her choosing.  Consider it while considering her use of "coerce."  

Next, she seeks to issue a denial.  We expect her to say "he didn't kill her.
“My family, we are God-fearing people. The Bible tells us ‘Do no kill’—we do not kill,” she said.


Here we have the invocation of Deity (-) and we have present tense language (-) and we have the plural "we" rather than her brother (-).  This gives us 3 negative marks, on this alone yet, there is more. 

She needs to explain why they are God fearing:  The Bible tells us. To be "God fearing" is to suggest fear of negative external consequence for murder.  


As for his alleged confessions, “I think they coerced him into a confession. They tricked him,” Forbes added.


We have another weak assertion with "think" but we have a change of language:

a.  coerce is to use force or threats.  It changes to
b.  trickery, which is to use cleverness.  

Analysis Conclusion:

She knows her brother killed Karina Vetrano, and she likely knows his motive as well.  

We do also know a bit about her.  In spite of her status (plural) of "God fearing", we know she is not afraid to lie, and to bear false witness against innocent police.  

There is one last thing to consider regarding the subject:

Racism

We later learned that her brother refused to speak to a white investigator but confessed to a black investigator his racial motive.  

“I’m sorry for their loss, but they have the wrong person in custody,” Forbes said.

It is interesting that she calls him "person", gender neutral.  Here may be the reason:  
She added that her brother “did not have any problem with women.”


This assertion, given in the negative, is very important.  She goes from "women" to: 
“He has nieces, and he played with them,” Forbes told reporters.


This is an indication that the subject knows her brother  "problems" he has with women.  "Nieces" for the 20 year old, is not likely a reference to "women" but to female children.  

This is very concerning

Lastly, she reveals his serious history from school:  
She said his behavioral issues in high school consisted of “regular stuff. He made regular problems.”


This is, within analysis, the principle of "normal" which tells us that she is aware that he was anything but "normal" in high school. The need to minimize is computed with this theme.  When one says "I am a normal male", it is likely due to either the subject believing himself not to be normal, or that he is aware that others consider him not normal. 

We sometimes hear this from pedophiles and child molesters as a 'defense':

"I'm a happily married man!" rather than "I didn't do it."  This subject wants us to believe he did not molest a child because his sexual desires are fulfilled in marriage.  

It is also not the thinking of normal men.  Innocent men do not feel compelled to defend their sexuality.  There is no need to justify.  This is akin to a pragmatic view that says 'if I were not married' or 'if I were not happy in my marriage...'  

The Post reported:

Lewis had a history of threatening female students in high school, telling a teacher’s aide at the High School for Medical Professions in Brooklyn in 2011 that he wanted to “stab all the girls.”

Besides racism, there may be an element of humiliation as the final 'trigger' to the murder .


That same year he “cursed at a female student and threatened both her and her family,” according to law enforcement sources.
Lewis also told authorities that he had gone to Spring Creek Park to cool off after fighting with family members the day of the murder.
He became “startled” by Vetrano’s presence and took his anger out on her, Lewis told cops, according to sources

For training opportunities, go to www.hyattanalyisis.com and on to "training", including exploration of some cases covered.  
In at home training, tuition payment plans are offered for Law Enforcement only.  





Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Pop Quiz: Facebook Post for Analysis

This comes from New England and is posted on social media.  

We have seen a great increase in "fake hate" reports since the 2016 election.   

Is this yet another, or does the subject have a legitimate complaint? 

Put your thoughts in the comments section.  Analysis will be posted later.  

1.  First, is it a genuine threat? 

2.  Secondly, what do you believe the writer has revealed about herself or himself?  

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  

For formal training for law enforcement, business, or other professionals in need of deception detection, click HERE

*******************************************************************

"3rd time in a week that joyriding teenagers flew past me screaming vicious slurs to get their kicks, mock-inviting me to satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods. I'm filing an e-complaint of civil rights violation with Healey's office this time. Enough is enough."

Monday, February 6, 2017

Jennifer Williams: Notes from Analysts




Here are the notes from analysts working as a team as well as their conclusion.  To enroll in training, go to www.hyattanalysis.com, read up on it there and with the search feature here in the blog, and email hyattanalysis@gmail.com to enroll.  

Law Enforcement:  

Currently, we are offering tuition payment plans for Law Enforcement.  

On December 12, 2016, Jennifer and David Williams stated that they were attacked by an arsonist racist who was still on the loose.  

Jennifer blogged about it in this statement and raised money via Go Fund Me.  
Then she reported that David confessed to it (to her)  and she is refunding the donations, minus the percentage that Go Fund Me charges.  

David, she said, will be arrested when he is released from a mental health facility. 

Here is a new twist in the case:  the original analysis showed that she had guilty knowledge of the fake hate crime.  Now, go back into the analysis and consider this knowledge (prior analysis conclusion) as a form of contamination.  

*Does she cover for him?
*At what time did he start the fire?
*Where was she when he started the fire?

Critical is the fire, itself, above spray painting.  Please focus upon the time periods in her language.  

Question for Statement Analysis:


Does the subject (statement) have guilty knowledge of the crime?

First, the statement and then the analysis and profile.

I.  The Statement

Breaking My Social Media Silence.

I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December. You see, there is so much that I could say, but I want to say the right things. I wanted to speak wisdom and not perpetuate hate. Sunday night was just like any other school night this year. The kids went to bed at 8. David and I watched TV while I worked from home, something I am glad to be able to do. Then just like any other night, we went to bed. 

In the wee hours of Monday morning I heard, what I though was the transformer behind our house blow. A sound we have heard a number of times and think nothing of. I nudged David awake and asked him if he had heard it too. I don't know if he had heard it, I know he recalls a coherent response, I do not. We both drifted back to sleep without much thought. It was a short time later, that there was a pounding on our door. We were both awake again, rattled this time. Who was banging on our door and what could be so urgent. A father moving his son into a house 4 doors down the street, had heard the explosion too, followed by the sound of a car horn. He was curious about the sound, stuck his head out the front door, saw nothing and went about his business. A short time later his son arrived home from a trip to the grocery store and told him that there was a fire down the street. Both the men came to our aid. David answered the door in his boxers. "Your truck is on fire, is their anyone else in the house." David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants. We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire. In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam.  The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate. I don't know if we were all slow or the fire department was that fast, by the time I reached the back of the house the fire was out. I came back to the house to tell the kids to go back to sleep. "Mom, there is a fire truck at our house, I want to see it." So I let the children outside, far enough that they could see the fire truck, not so close that they could be underfoot or get hurt. Then I ushered them all back in, telling them to go to bed. Reality check, in what world after all of that commotion was anyone going to go back to sleep. I went back around to the back of the house. The gentlemen, who's name I still don't know asked if we knew of anything spray painted on our garage door. I will let the pictures here speak for themselves as I have no desire to type those words. After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive. The kids had still not gone to bed. The firemen offered them a private tour of a fire truck. Yes, even our oldest, who is almost 14, couldn't resist that offer. The arson investigator arrived and after a brief reporting of what they had found and done, the firemen loaded up and left.  I was astounded by the vast knowledge of the arson investigator

As one of our dogs returned home after being let out, or escaping from the back yard in fear, the investigator stopped to help us try to find the other. We wouldn't have any luck with that, but she would be found and returned later in the day. Back to the investigation, evidence was collected. Motives and suspects were discussed. We said good bye to the investigator and went in the house. The children, who had never made it back to bed, were much to my amazement ready to go to school when we came back in the house. I had offered to let them stay home, since they had missed out on sleep. They all said that they were not tired and off to school they went. So there, now you have it, the narrative of the events that occurred.  We have been asked a few questions several times, so I will answer them now. If you have more questions please ask in the comment section below and I will do my best to answer them. Do you know who did this? No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them. How did the fire start? While the investigator has shared his theory with us, one I fully support, I am not going to broadcast that on the internet. If you know David or Me personally we will happily tell you one on one. 

Won't your insurance cover it? The homeowner's insurance only covers vehicles that can not be registered to be driven on the road. It would cover the garage door, but the amount of our deductible is grater than the cost of a new door. The Harley was not currently insured or registered as it had a bad voltage regulator. I had lowered the insurance coverage on the truck in September or October to liability coverage only and arson is only covered under comprehensive.  UPDATE: Did you know your homeowners insurance will pay to clean your concrete driveway? With the addition of the driveway and a few other miscellaneous melted items, we have exceeded our deductible in damages. The estimated damage done to our home and personal property covered by insurance was just under $1,739, after subtracting our deductible and  depreciation we were issued a payment of just over $168.00  Why wasn't your motorcycle in the garage? Anyone who has asked that has never seen the amount of tools David owns. Is this, or why is this, considered a hate crime; aren't you white? Yes this is considered a hate crime. It is considered a hate crime because of what was painted on the garage door. Yes, we are white. It just so happens that we aren't as racist as someone would like us to be. Tell me about the GoFundMe campaign. David and I do not have direct access to this account and had no knowledge of it's creation. It was set up by a dear friend and David's sister. We are very appreciative and would like nothing more that to be able to thank and hug each person who has given to the campaign. As you can imagine, there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas, and this campaign and the generosity shown has lifted a burden. What can I do to help? So many people have asked this question. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and love that has been show to our family. I don't have a specific answer to this question though. At first my obvious answer was, do you have a car I can borrow? Days after, here are my thoughts. I am not going to tell any one how they can help. If you feel like helping, if you have an idea that would benefit anyone, not just my family, do it. Show love in every place and any place available to you. If you have the means to help someone going through a rough patch, do it. So now that all of that has been said... Racism is not comfortable subject. There are many who would like to pretend that it doesn't exist. There are those who believe racism only exists because, we continue to talk about it. I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism or why it continues. What happened at my house is the cold hard evidence that it does exist and that it continues. The questions is what am I going to do about it?  What are you going to do about it? In spite of what was meant to cause fear, I am going to continue to love, without regard to race, gender, age, religion, sexual preference or orientation. I am going to acknowledge the experience of those who are discriminated against daily. I will stand up for what I know to be true and right, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. I am going to pick up the pieces and create something beautiful. I am going to embody the cliche "Be the change you want to see in the world."






II.  The Analysis:  Does the subject show guilty knowledge of the crime?




2.      If so, what does content reveal
3.      What does the PERSON tell us about herself

Breaking My Social Media Silence.

Allegation:  Arson and “hate speech”
Europe = Truth has become “hate speech”
almost anything can be interpreted as “raising animosity”

1.      Background
2.    Experiences
3.    Priority
4.    Personality traits

Projection:  journaling and being bluntly honest –

Santa Claus –body posture tension –



BreakinMy Social Media Silence.

without the pronoun “I”?
“my” Social Media Silence –
a.      she takes ownership of
b.    likely spends much time
c.     the ‘norm’ is to be very vocal on social media
d.    she has been “un-silent” elsewhere
e.     there is more information to be heard –
f.      suppressing information in reverse:  It is challenging for her to keep her mouth shut on social media

“I don’t remember” in an open statement”       Education – writing skills (background)


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

a.      break silence on social media
b.    she is now writing on social media, in the sense of a “blog”
c.     she begins with “I”, psychologically strong
d.    verb:  have stayed” imperfect past tense –this has NOT been easy for her. The event was December 12th, and this statement was approximately December 19th. This short period of time, 1 to 2 weeks max, is very trying for her. This is very long.  Emotion is building up in intensity.  It is not only difficult for her to be silent, (she has not been!) but the pressure is escalating.  “breaking” a pattern? Is something “Broken” for the subject?

The need to be heard ---is this acute for the subject?

Question:  When someone has an acute need to be heard, what should be explored?
Answer:  That the subject has been ‘silenced’ in possible trauma (experience)

e.     “silence” and “quiet” =  “quiet” is now qualified.  She has NOT been silent. She has only been “pretty quiet” thus far.

‘quiet’ is the lesser of silence’;  quiet speaks to volume, silence speaks to the absence of volume

“Silence” is now “quiet”, which is further sensitive with “pretty.”  Is there anything within the context that justifies this change of language?  If not, the analyst should consider:   possible deception. 

“safe space” from disagreement ---males ----they do not like disagreement. 

“religion” or “god”:  final arbitrator of right from wrong tells us a person’s “religion” or “religious viewpoint” ---emotion. –employment


My feelings versus principle

I “feel” or “sense” that she is not truthful here, but the context is in fact different. 

Conclusion:  The change of language is justified in context.  She would have to “talk me out” of this later. 

“Tell me what happened” in a sexual assault statement.  The subject was the victim’s mother. 

She was asked to write this out.

She began with “I was divorced…”  10 years ago.

20 years of age

This was her priority yet it was 10 years before the alleged assault.  How could this be?

$100,000 per year

$20,000 per year to the worker



I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

about what happened  --arson and “Nigger Lover” spray painted on garage.
Passivity but it is also minimizing language. 

‘catching readers’ attention encouraging them to read more to learn…”

Narrative Building or ‘story telling’ –creative/right brain –

appears to need to be heard; likes attention, very regular poster on social media –struggles with being quiet or silent….good grammar, possible trauma victim (need to be heard) –selfish, attention seeker,

I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

“our” home shows sharing of the home.  Not “my” but “our” –
“home” is where we sleep.  Sleep is a situation of vulnerability –
When a “home” is violated or “intruded upon”, it is often very personal.  She began with “I” and the expected is “my home” –of a mother and wife, who is the “nester” of the home. 

“home” --- “house” –


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

Why?  Why the need to write/say it this way?

Why not, “On Monday, the 12th of December, we were ______...”

What is more important, her or what happened?
Answer:  her
What is important about her?
Answer:  her communication (silence/quiet):  “herself and her silence” takes precedent over “what happened” on the exact date. 

If the date came first, it would be more like a “report” rather than “narrative building” or “story telling” ---emotion over the logical; something that is less reliable than a report. 









You see, there is so much that I could say, but I want to say the right things.

 I wanted to speak wisdom and not perpetuate hate.


a.      “you see” is “of course” in S/A.  This wants acceptance without explanation.  We need explanation.  We only “see” what one tells us.
b.    “could” addresses limitation. 
c.     “but” indicates the explanation:  I want to say the right things.”  This subject is concerned about what comes out of her mouth.  For one with a need to be heard, this topic (arson/’hate crime’)  has told us that she must limit herself.  She can say the “wrong” things possibly.  She is aware of who is listening (audience; which is going to be very important in a moment), so we ask:

Who is the audience?

Context tells us:  the audience is the public, reading this statement.  There is a problem with this, however.

The change to past tense tells us:  there was a different audience. 

Let’s let the statement affirm or deny this:

Did she speak to someone else prior to this address?  If so, that communication should be considered very important to her. 

We should now consider whether or not her HUSBAND is taking the fall for the wife. 

a.      her husband
b.    the message itself
c.     the arson investigator (police/authorities)

Please consider that if this is an embedded confession:

1.      Did husband have relationship with black female?
2.    Only husband’s items were targeted
3.    The pronoun “our” with “home” suggests possible marital discord.


Will these traits show up in her? 


 Sunday night was just like any other school night this year.

“normal” in S/A 101 tells us that this was anything but normal.  This is akin or consistent with narrative building instead of reporting.  It is acceptable only after lengthy processing time (usually years)

2016 is the year. 
School year is Sept to June
This year, specifically, is her time frame.

Please note that outside the statement we have learned that in January of THIS year, she sought money from the public via Go Fund Me. 

*What was this year like?
*how were the finances this year?
*how were the bills this year?

When does the event start? This is a dual question.  This means there are two beginning points for us in analysis.

1.      Measuring the form
2.    When does it begin for her 

8pm when the kids went to bed. 

What happened began, in the subject’s perceived reality, only AFTER the kids (eyewitnesses) went to bed. 


The kids went to bed at 8.

potential witnesses are removed from the story. (narrative)

David and I watched TV while I worked from home, something I am glad to be able to do. Then just like any other night, we went to bed. 

a.      David and I”  ISI but is this blog article written to those who already know David?  If so, the ISI is reduced.  If not, the ISI stands alongside the other indicators of a troubled relationship. 
b.    when “we” is not used, but “David and I” (separate people) there is sometimes a situation where one watched TV while the other read or was on the I phone or something similar.  Generally speaking, “and I” with TV means there was conversation that took place. 
c.     Context:  kids are removed from this “social” time.  If this was conversation, it was only AFTER the kids were no longer there. 
d.    timing is involved.  They both watched TV but she did something else:  she worked from home. 
e.     she is glad to not have to go to a job to work.  We work to earn money. 
f.      Then” now skips over time.  Here we have indication of some form of conversation that is being skipped over. 
g.     “home” is where the ‘invasive’ activity took place (incongruent) and it is where she likes to work from.  “Home” is very important to the subject.  One should ask about the mortgage and bills. 
h.    “alibi” building:  Her viewpoint or linguistic disposition towards the place of attack is very positive. 
Therefore, she COULD not have done this, because she is very “glad” to be there.  This is alibi building.

Whatever happened began at 8pm and had to have the kids out of the scene first. 
She loves her home.


Did he complain about money and her needing to help him by getting a job outside the home and she answered “I will raise money!”

“just like any other night” to be the normal factor x two.  It is very sensitive. 
Also there is something here that

A “confession by pronoun” in 80% of cold or closed unsolved case files. 

we went to bed” = this tells us that whatever was discussed during the “social activity” (TV) and about working from home, came to resolution.  They are united in this account.

Assertion:  She is involved in this. 

Will the rest of the statement affirm or negate this assertion?



In the wee hours of Monday morning I heard,


the language of “story telling” is also a most inexact time.  Consider this with we went ot “bed” not to “sleep.”



what I though was the transformer behind our house blow.

She tells us of what she did not hear; her misinterpretation.  This is also narrative versus reporting. 

“the” transformer, not “a” transformer:  Why is the article here important?  What does it indicate?   

The use of the article, “the” is only appropriate in the narrative IF a transformer has been spoken about previously.  This is a very strong signal of scripted language. This fits with the pronoun “we” 

Also:  house v home?





 A sound we have heard a number of times and think nothing of.

An attempt to hide guilt within a crowd ----


 I nudged David awake and asked him if he had heard it too. I don't know if he had heard it, 

“Scripted language” does not come from experiential memory, therefore, it often sounds awkward unless there is a very talented liar behind it, and even then, it has holes in it! 

Since “awake” is unnecessary, we now should doubt that David was asleep.  She does not tell us David was asleep but wants us to interpret it by her “nudge”; thus continuing to stay with a script written from non-experienced memory.  This could come from the discussion over TV, a book, a movie, etc.  IT is not her own.




I know he recalls a coherent response, I do not. We both drifted back to sleep without much thought.

Deception Indicated

“wee hours” avoids directly telling us what time the fire started (unexpected) even though she uses the exact date (expected). 

2am ?

yet, the story started at 8PM

deception----

 It was a short time later, that there was a pounding on our door. We were both awake again, rattled this time.  (emotion)

Consider “rattle” with spray paint can. 

Who was banging on our door and what could be so urgent.

The narrative continues by building suspense and asking questions.  This is consistent with scripted language and is not a reliable report of what happened. 


 A father moving his son into a house 4 doors down the street, had heard the explosion too, followed by the sound of a car horn.

She has a need for her audience to know that she does not know who this is;
She has a very strong need to slow down the pace, giving unnecessary and irrelevant detail to avoid getting to “what happened.”
Additional and unnecessary details are often a sign of “NTP” that “it must be true” because these small details are verifiable.

a
b
c
d: 

experienced and accomplished liar. 


He was curious about the sound, stuck his head out the front door, saw nothing and went about his business.


In an arson and “hate crime”, the subject introduces the word “business”
Business  is associated with money.
She began with “broke”

The pace is slowed down dramatically;
She has gone out of chronological order to give us additional and unnecessary personal information about the man who “pounded” on “our” door. 
Second use of “door”;  explore within the relationship as well as childhood sexual abuse. 


 A short time later his son arrived home from a trip to the grocery store and told him that there was a fire down the street.

The narrative language continues with verifiable points suggesting overall deception. 

What is the race of this father/son?



 Both the men came to our aid.

These men are given positive linguistic dispositions by her.  She did not want to “hate” so the race should be known here.  Not only is this a positive view, but she knows a lot about these two men (including their relationship and what they were both doing) even though she was watching TV while working, and was asleep.  The need to give verifiable detail suggests an unverifiable point is coming. 


David answered the door in his boxers.

Here we have the third “door” in her statement.
She wants us to know before the arson and hate attack, that David is in his underwear.  People will report what is most important to them. 
NTP that they were NOT DRESSED and NOT committing these crimes. 
In spite of the intention to persuade, she still chooses language that is associated with both deception and trauma. 

The need to persuade us that they were asleep strongly suggests that they were not asleep.  The need to portray David as undressed seeks to further buttress that they were asleep. 

This is to anticipate the allegation:  you were not asleep.  You were outside, dressed, committing this crime.  She is defending David where no accusation has been made.         Hina

That she felt the need to add “doors” to her statement should be viewed with “our” and her need to be heard. 

The unity between them is very strong (“we”, even to the point of knowing each others’ thoughts) and it is very difficult to believe she did not have guilty knowledge of what he had done (according to her later statement that he confessed).  



 "Your truck is on fire, is their anyone else in the house."


Who said this?

To whom was this said? 

father-son (relationship)

There is reduced commitment to this as a question by not assigning it to one or the other.   


Note it is “house” here, too. 


David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants.

a.      “hurried” is unnecessary.  No one thinks he took a nap before
b.    David is now ‘important’ as he is being given linguistic attention.  Before this, the “son” had more attention on his “shopping trip” to the grocery store. 
c.     “to” tells us why he went to the bedroom.  This is very sensitive information. 
d.    “some pants” is not “his pants.”  She has a need that is causing emphasis, to make us believe that HE DID NOT HAVE PANTS ON.  She is telling us, via the lens of analysis that he did have pants on.  He may have had to take them OFF when he answered the door! 
e.     David is now acting independently of the subject, who had previously relied very heavily upon “we”


We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire.

The unity returns.
The “kids” are now “children” (risk)
She gives us the knowledge of both, refusing to think for herself.  She is so closely unified with him that it is in every point except the pants.
House (distancing, expected in danger).  When combined with “children”, the subject (Jennifer) may have had fear that the fire could spread. 

*Did she have to remind him to take off his pants before answering the door?


 In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam.  

‘Universal’ commentary:  She does not say, “I had trouble telling the difference” (because she did not) as she avoids a direct lie.  At this point, she likely assessed the fire, and knew that the “children” could now be “kids” again: 


The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate.

Mild, passive, and additional (narrative/story telling)

 I don't know if we were all slow or the fire department was that fast, by the time I reached the back of the house the fire was out.

I came back to the house to tell the kids to go back to sleep.


 "Mom, there is a fire truck at our house, I want to see it." So I let the children outside, far enough that they could see the fire truck, not so close that they could be underfoot or get hurt.

“children” (risk) returns but in WHAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT??

Good mom! 

Neglect and/or abuse. 

Then I ushered them all back in, telling them to go to bed.

 Reality check, in what world after all of that commotion was anyone going to go back to sleep.

insomnia is likely part of her reality


 I went back around to the back of the house.


The gentlemen, who's name I still don't know asked if we knew of anything spray painted on our garage door.

spray painted” and “rattled”
Gentleman:  complimentary (ingratiating)



 I will let the pictures here speak for themselves as I have no desire to type those words

Look at this great mom who is also above racism.

 The NTP of personal greatness suggests the subject, herself, has two issues:
one with parenting
one with racism. 
“type” versus “spray paint”



After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive.


“Business” and now “investor” 
Note the subject’s refusal to be “alone” in the statement here, even offering drinks.
Note how wonderfully hospitable she is.  (ingratiating)
Note the timing of hospitality is very important to the subject.  When is she (we) so wonderfully hospitable? (in her perception of reality)

She is wonderfully hospitable specifically in the time where she was waiting for the arson investigator to come. 

We “all” waited.  She will NOT be alone with the arson investigator. 

The arson investigator can become an investor when he gives the all clear about the wonderful hospitable, fantastic mother subject. 

MONEY

The kids had still not gone to bed. The firemen offered them a private tour of a fire truck. Yes, even our oldest, who is almost 14, couldn't resist that offer.

The arson investigator arrived and after a brief reporting of what they had found and done, the firemen loaded up and left.


 I was astounded by the vast knowledge of the arson investigator

Please note the “intrusion” of the powerful pronoun “I” supplanting the constant use of “we” here.  The arson investigator is very important to her, the subject, herself. 
Next, note that she has gives a very positive linguistic disposition of her view of him.  This is ingratiating. 
When it comes to the arson investigator, she stands alone. 

This may be because she is the one who conceived of this plan. 

As one of our dogs returned home after being let out, or escaping from the back yard in fear,

 the investigator stopped to help us try to find the other. 

look at the wonderful relationship we have with the wonderful arson investigator who was so NOT concerned about us being guilty that he took time out of his job, in the middle of the night, to help us find our doggie. 



We wouldn't have any luck with that, but she would be found and returned later in the day. Back to the investigation, evidence was collectedMotives and suspects were discussed



We said good bye to the investigator and went in the house.


From “I” to “we” again (guilt)
“goodbye” is to portray the relationship as positive; a linguistic signal that it was not good at this point. 

Now, consider if this is correct; the “goodbye” (S/A 101) means trouble.

The use of “the house” is the first ‘expected’ usage.


The children, who had never made it back to bed, were much to my amazement ready to go to school when we came back in the house.

Child abuse.



 I had offered to let them stay home, since they had missed out on sleep.

Great mother portrayal in language  = child abuse. 


 They all said that they were not tired and off to school they went.


1.      The emphasis on “all” is unnecessary
2.    “off to school they went” is passive, removing responsibility for them going to school (concealing).
This is another indicator of child abuse. 



So there, now you have it, the narrative of the events that occurred.  

minimizing language in a narrative form.   Confession. 

We have been asked a few questions several times,

interrogation


 so I will answer them now. If you have more questions please ask in the comment section below and I will do my best to answer them.

Do you know who did this?

No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them.

How did the fire start?

While the investigator has shared his theory with us, one I fully support, I am not going to broadcast that on the internet. If you know David or Me personally we will happily tell you one on one 

If you doubted that it was just David, simply listen to her. About who did this, she will not “broadcast” it but the first names to enter about the responsibility is “David” and “Me” (with “Me” in capitalization)



Won't your insurance cover it?

Cover what?
What is “it?”

She has not told us of damage yet. 

Her answer tells us that someone has done her homework, although about fire setting, she has been “astonished” at what the arson investor, investigator, knows. 

She should be.



The homeowner's insurance only covers vehicles that can not be registered to be driven on the road. It would cover the garage door, but the amount of our deductible is grater than the cost of a new door. The Harley was not currently insured or registered as it had a bad voltage regulator.


 I had lowered the insurance coverage on the truck in September or October to liability coverage only and arson is only covered under comprehensive.


 UPDATE: Did you know your homeowners insurance will pay to clean your concrete driveway?

With the addition of the driveway and a few other miscellaneous melted items, we have exceeded our deductible in damages. The estimated damage done to our home and personal property covered by insurance was just under $1,739, after subtracting our deductible and  depreciation we were issued a payment of just over $168.00 


 Why wasn't your motorcycle in the garage?

Anyone who has asked that has never seen the amount of tools David owns.

Please note:  she has avoided answering the question. 


Is this, or why is this, considered a hate crime; aren't you white?

Yes this is considered a hate crime. It is considered a hate crime because of what was painted on the garage door. Yes, we are white. It just so happens that we aren't as racist as someone would like us to be.

Earlier, she projected racism.  Here she admits racism, but just not as racist as someone (singular) would like them to be. 


Tell me about the GoFundMe campaign.

 David and I do not have direct access to this account and had no knowledge of it's creation.

It was set up by a dear friend and David's sister. We are very appreciative and would like nothing more that to be able to thank and hug each person who has given to the campaign. As you can imagine, there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas, and this campaign and the generosity shown has lifted a burden.

 What can I do to help?


So many people have asked this question. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and love that has been show to our family. I don't have a specific answer to this question though. At first my obvious answer was, do you have a car I can borrow? Days after, here are my thoughts. I am not going to tell any one how they can help. If you feel like helping, if you have an idea that would benefit anyone, not just my family, do it.

 Show love in every place and any place available to you.


I am a wonderful person = in S/A, neglectful abusive mother, racist…moral narcissism

 If you have the means to help someone going through a rough patch, do it. So now that all of that has been said...


Racism is not comfortable subject. There are many who would like to pretend that it doesn't exist. There are those who believe racism only exists because, we continue to talk about it. I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism or why it continues.

The argument she is holding is if racism (this event) is real or not! 

 What happened at my house is the cold hard evidence that it does exist and that it continues.

She has a need to persuade in light of what just happened, that what happened is real.

Question:  Who would have such a need to persuade?  (“cold hard evidence” with “cold” and “fire”).  This is the language of a bad relationship. 

Answer:  the one who is faking it.


The questions is what am I going to do about it?  What are you going to do about it? In spite of what was meant to cause fear, I am going to continue to love,

She introduces “fear”
Who’s items were lit up??

It was his items.  Did she do this to not only gain money but to scare him?
Or did he do this to scare her??

Is one of them involved with a black person??




 without regard to race, gender, age, religion, sexual preference or orientation. I am going to acknowledge the experience of those who are discriminated against daily.

 I will stand up for what I know to be true and right,

She knows this story is not true. 


even when it is uncomfortable to do so.



The discomfort may be due to the arson investigator.

 I am going to pick up the pieces and create something beautiful. I am going to embody the cliche "Be the change you want to see in the world."

Conclusion:

Here you get to read the comments of analysts working as a team

Jenny has guilty knowledge of the crime.  She will not pass a polygraph.  100%

Financial motive is strong.  She appears to have been surprised by the knowledge of the arson investigator, and had a need to praise him (I will explain ‘ingratiating)

Jenny shows borderline traits, mental health issues unresolved, need to control; including control of David.  She may have even had to tell him to take his pants off to answer the door (example) 
Domestic violence should be explored, as well as financial issues.
Jenny may have trauma history, including childhood sexual abuse.
She and/or David may have been investigated before. 
She likely has been accused of neglect or abuse of her children. 
Manipulative, impulsive, poor boundaries, desperate for relevancy and attention.
She appears to be the lead in this crime, and shows a need to control, including the husband’s confession being to her. 
The racial aspect must be explored; contact with blacks, possibly within the context of marital discord.
Has family ever accused her of racism?

She may have held the paint can (rattle)