Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Analysis: Was Joy Reid Hacked?

For several years, MSNBC's Joy Reid posted homosexual insults at a politician on her blog.  She eventually admitted that it was actually her and she apologized for it. 

Now more homosexual insults have come out and Reid is claiming that her site was hacked. Here is her statement of denial for analysis. 

Question:  Was she hacked?  

Here is her statement:  

In December I learned that an unknown, external party accessed and manipulated material from my now-defunct blog, The Reid Report, to include offensive and hateful references that are fabricated and run counter to my personal beliefs and ideology.
I began working with a cyber-security expert who first identified the unauthorized activity, and we notified federal law enforcement officials of the breach. The manipulated material seems to be part of an effort to taint my character with false information by distorting a blog that ended a decade ago.
Now that the site has been compromised I can state unequivocally that it does not represent the original entries. I hope that whoever corrupted the site recognizes the pain they have caused, not just to me, but to my family and communities that I care deeply about: LGBTQ, immigrants, people of color and other marginalized groups.

Analysis Expectation

"I didn't write this.  I was hacked." 

In some manner, this is the expected.  It is simple, straight forward and economical.  It needs no persuasion because it would have the psychological wall of truth between her and the allegation. 

Linguistic Disposition 

With the claim of being hacked (not her word), what was written was, according to the subject, done by an anonymous author. 

Let's see if we can get Joy Reid's view of the anonymous author.  This is called "Linguistic Disposition."

The anonymous author wrote a number of homosexual insults.  The author equated being homosexual with insult.  

Originally, she apologized for the posts which included mocking the sexuality of Rachel Maddow.  The old blog post belittled then Gov, Crist as dreading physical relations with his wife on their honeymoon and included a joke about Crist having sex with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Reid commented in the blog that Crist got married to a woman in the first place to help him become McCain’s 2008 running mate. Mediaite counted 17 times Reid's blog derisively referred to Crist as “Miss Charlie,” and the subject led her to opine on why gay men stay in the closet.

“When a gay politician gets married, it usually indicates that he is highly ambitious, and desires to put himself in a position to move up the power ladder,”
Some confusion exists as Reid apologized originally but now in referring to the posts from her blog that have been recovered, she introduced the above statement that someone else wrote them. 
The anonymous author wrote that homosexuality was "gross" and 
“Keeping it real … most straight men feel exactly the same way, and would have the exact same reaction to the idea of stripping naked in a sweaty locker room in close quarters with a gay teammate. Most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing… Most straight people had a hard time being convinced to watch ‘Broke Back Mountain.’ (I admit that I couldn’t go see the movie either, despite my sister’s ringing endorsement, because I didn’t want to watch the two male characters having sex.) Does that make me homophobic? Probably.”
This is the context of "Linguistic Disposition" in Statement Analysis. 
What does the subject (Joy Reid) think of the anonymous author who wrote these things?
This is critical in obtaining a profile and in identifying the anonymous author. 
Expectation:  We hold to the expectation that Joy Reid will have a decidedly negative linguistic disposition towards the author who wrote the above insults. 
We now look at Joy Reid's denial and LD: 
In December I learned that an unknown, external party accessed and manipulated material from my now-defunct blog, The Reid Report, to include offensive and hateful references that are fabricated and run counter to my personal beliefs and ideology.

The first thing she begins with is the element of time.  "In December" is noted to not begin with the pronoun "I", nor to deny authoring the published material.  The material was republished in April 2018.  

The original insults, Reid apologized for.  The blog was deleted but was recovered.  

Timing is very important to her.  She reports what she learned in December, rather than issue a denial.

Remember, outright lying is rare.  People will go to extremes to avoid it.  By simply saying, "I didn't write that", there would be nothing more to say, only to wait behind the psychological wall of truth for the inevitable evidence of hacking to emerge.  It is interesting to note that she released this statement yesterday, but learned of this 4 months prior.  Timing is important to her, so much so that she begins her denial with it. 

Next, we note that author is now mentioned.  Who is the author of the blog post?

a.  unknown
b.  external
c.  party 

If the author is "unknown" the word "external" becomes unnecessary.  

"party" is gender neutral and is not a "person" either.  "Party" can be a legal term and it can also indicate plural. 

Expectation:  we expect this person to be a "hacker" in the softest language and for Joy Reid to condemn the hacker by linguistic disposition.  Therefore, due to the context, neutral disposition is "positive" linguistic disposition thus far. 

Since "external" is unnecessary, in the principle of "masking", the analyst should now consider the opposite. 

Remember the Ramsey ransom note?

The author wrote "we are a small foreign faction", and in masking, we note that the self revelation of plural often means singular, and the need to call oneself "foreign" suggests domestic.  This is "masking the identity" of the anonymous author.  

We expect Reid to identify and condemn the author as a hacker, criminal, and one of hate due to the homosexual slurs used. 

Question:  Will Joy Reid condemn the author?

We continue to listen to her and notice just how sensitive the element of time is.  She began with "time" and now continues with it in the following: 
I began working with a cyber-security expert who first identified

"Began" identifies the element of time and "first" identified does so as well, as we now expect a "second" or "third" identification of the hateful hacker. 

Q.  Is it a "hateful hacker" who criminally broke into her website?

began working with a cyber-security expert who first identified

 the unauthorized activity, 

It is not the hacker, but the "activity" (the actual writing) and she wants us to know that the unidentified outside party was not authorized. 

This is unnecessary information. 

Note "activity" specifically avoids condemning the author as it address what was done, but not by whom. 

This is a form of distancing language, much like blaming an inanimate object rather than the person operating the inanimate object. 

She did not condemn the author, but addressed the "activity", not as immoral, unethical, hateful, etc, but only as not authorized by her. 

and we notified federal law enforcement officials of the breach.

This is of special interest.  

Q. Who first learned?  
A. "I" did. 

Q.  Who began working with cyber expert?  
A. "I" did. 

Q.  Who contacted "federal law enforcement officials of the breach"?

A.  "We" did. 

Note that what was written were "offensive and hateful" "references", not slurs, insults, etc. 

Again, this focuses upon the writings and not to condemn the author of the writings. 

Note the unnecessary inclusion of going against "my personal beliefs and ideology."

This is to contradict what she apologized for posting previously.  

Q.  Is it necessary to state that the insults were against her personal (private) beliefs and ideology?

A.  It is for her. 

She continues to address the material but not the criminal who broke into her website. Actually, no one "broke" into her website, like "references" she uses the softer "breach." 

Question:  Did an anonymous author post false material?

 The manipulated material seems to be part of an effort to taint my character with false information by distorting a blog that ended a decade ago.

Answer:  No it was not "false" material but only "manipulated" material.

Next, we have the subject taking the roll of victim:

yet it only "seems" to be part of an effort to taint her character. 

One should question how these insults taint her character but the ones she apologized did not. 

Note that the ones insulted were homosexuals, not the subject.

The need to portray herself as a victim is noted. 
Yet the need to portray herself as a victim necessitates a "victimizer" who should be identified as a criminal, hater, hacker, thief, etc.  

Question:  Was the site compromised?

Answer:  We believe her words and do not interpret.  What does she say?
Now that the site has been compromised 

a.  "Now" is the element of time.  She does not state "my site was hacked" but reports it as a matter of timing, not fact. 

b.  "compromised" continues to use soft language.  

Next we have her assertion and her "sermon": 

1.  Assertion

"I apologize" is very different from "I would like to apologize" which is still very different from "I can apologize."

Here she does what many deceptive people do under an allegation: they report what they "can" say, rather than saying it. 

I can state 

This is a psychological distancing perspective of what she "can", or is capable of stating. She continues to weaken this assertion by the multitude of words: 


This is an unnecessary qualifier of what she "can" say.  She is choosing her words very carefully: 

that it does not represent the original entries.

If she is unwilling to say that these are false posts, we cannot say it for her.  She distances herself from saying this by reporting what "represents", which is another degree of separation. 

She is not able to condemn the hacker. 

 I hope that whoever corrupted the site recognizes the pain they have caused, not just to me, but to my family and communities that I care deeply about: LGBTQ, immigrants, people of color and other marginalized groups.

Unnecessary Sermon:

She deals politely with the "whoever" that did not break into or hack her site, but "corrupted" it with a "representation" not false material.

Linguistic Disposition towards the anonymous author:  Positive. 

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated. 

Joy Reid is the author of the insults posted. 
Joy Reid is unwilling to say she was hacked .  If she cannot say it, we are not to say it for her. 

Joy Reid is unable to condemn the hacker. This is where anonymous authors give themselves away.  In a context where the expected and acceptable linguistic disposition is negative, anything but negative is positive.  The insulter is not a "bad" person, but she does admit that this "party" caused her pain.  

In this, she has told the truth. 

Joy Reid came to her views as an intelligent educated adult.  Being incapable of condemning the author, she reveals that her beliefs have not changed.  The need to sermonize in the unnecessary manner reveals her own projection of guilt. 

The passivity, soft minimizing language and the disposition towards the author indicate both deception and authorship.  

This is an example of Statement Analysis in abbreviated form.  For training in detecting deception, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

Lena Lunsford: Guilty of Murder of Baby Aliyah

This is analysis from 2012.  

23 April 2018:  Lena Lunsford has been found guilty  in the murder of her daughter. 

Statement Analysis of her emergency call indicated:

1. The child was not going to be found alive
2.  The mother had killed her. 

To study deception detection, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services for opportunities. 

The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call, made 11 days ago, by Lena Lunsford, reporting her 3 year old child missing. 

911 What is your emergency?
My baby’s missing. 

Note that this is the first thing mentioned.  There is no information give as to what happened, only the present status.  No name used.  
Q. What is your address?
(address given)   I was out looking for her for over an hour.

In 911 calls, it is common to find over-talking, so it may be that one interrupts the other. 
Here, we have the caller portraying herself in a positive light, adding in the time she has invested.  

Note that after answering the question that she provides additional information.  When an answer goes beyond the scope of the question, every word is critical.  What is it that is a priority to the caller that she goes beyond the address alone? It began well with "my baby's missing" but without listening, she has a message for police. 

The subject wants police to know that she has been out looking for over an hour. 

Please note that she does not say "I was looking for her" but "out" looking for her for "over an hour".  This is important as it is a reference to time; as all time references are significant. 
Q.  How old?  I need you to calm down.
A.  I’m sorry she’s she’s only three.
Please note "I'm sorry"has entered into the subject's language.  This is always noted no matter why the subject is using these words (see Casey Anthony's 911 call) 
We red flag it because it enters the language of the guilty.  It does not conclude guilt (we do not make conclusions on a single indicator) but is part of an overall view.  
We wonder if there is guilt within the caller that causes the words, "I'm sorry" to enter the language.  

911. When was the last time you saw him?

Lena:  It’s a girl.  This morning. Real early.  I went in and checked on her because she’s been sick with the flu. 

Note that "because" tells us why, rather than simply answering the question.  This goes beyond the realm of the question of what happened and goes to why something happened.  Here she says that she checked on her "real early" because she was sick.  Note that she "went in" and checked on her.  
Note that sick with the flu is now mentioned.  The caller feels the need to explain why she checked on a little girl, making her checking on the child very sensitive to the caller.  She was only asked when; not why. 

It is norm for a parent to check on a child, yet here, it is beyond the norm. 
911:  Okay is it a male or female?
Lena:  It’s a Girl
Note that "it's" is reflective language; entering into the language of the operator.  We might expect, "she's a girl!" or the use of Aliayah's name here, but we only find her using the 911 operator's language.  

A girl?
Ok you saw her this morning around 6:30?
911:  That’s the last time you saw her was at 6:30 this morning?
Yes and then she laid back down and went back to sleep.  And we went back to bed.

Note that she "laid back down" would indicate that she would have to be up in order to go back down.  

She is 3 years old. 

Note that when a sentence begins with "And" the subject has missing information here.  This information is about the time Aliayah got up, and laid down again.  Note that the child laid back down, not that the mother put helped her back to bed.  Given her age, and the fact that Aliayah was apparently awake (laid "back" down), the normal or expected is that she would be up and she would be hungry.  Children have "stomach clocks" that once they go off, they stay on until fed.  We must consider this in light of the "blue" indicator above:  The mother felt the need to explain why she was up checking on her.  This is a critical period of time in the case. 

Note that "we" went back to bed.  Who is "we"?  Is it she and Aliayah?  Since "we" indicates unity or cooperation, was it she and her husband who went back to bed?  She and another child? Who is the other part of the "we"?  
911:  Ok was the doors open or anything?

Lena:  No the doors weren’t open. 
Note that she uses reflective language (the language of the operator).   No information is offered.  The 911 operator has to ask questions.  The flow of information is not smooth nor 'forthcoming' from the mother.  

911:  Were they locked?
Yes I think. 
(Inuaudible) the residence?

It was difficult to hear the question but it sounded like who lives in the residence, of which the answer is important: 

Lena:  Me and my other kids.  

Note that "other" is a dependent word. She has now separated one child from the other kids. 

She does not mention the husband or step father.  This is not lost on the 911 operator who then asks: 
911:  Ok do you live with her father?


Note that other questions she answers but then adds information.  Note here regarding who else resides there that she does not give additional information and is not bringing up her husband's name.   We note all names that enter the language, especially the victim's name.  
Q.  Who is her father?

A.  Her father is a guy named Eric Harris.  He doesn’t even know that she exists.  

Note that she references the father (male) as a "guy" and gives his full name.  
911:  Ok and you’ve been looking for her for the past hour?

Lena:  Yes I’ve looked everywhere (inaudible) 

This is alarming.  It is a red flag as it goes against the natural denial of a mother. 

First, "I've looked" is first person singular, but then she says,
"everywhere".  When someone says that they have looked "everywhere" they have no other places to search.  This is akin to saying, "I've told you everything" therefore, there is nothing more to say.  When someone says "I have looked everywhere" they are saying that there are no more places to look, a strong indication that she has no places to search; hence, out of hope. 
911:  What was she wearing when you put her back in bed?

Timing is on the mind of the 911 operator; recall she had been "out" looking for "an hour." 

Lena:  She had a little pair of purple Dora pj’s.  We went up all these streets.  We went up all these streets.  

"we" often shows the desire to share guilt or responsibility.
The pronoun is changed to plural, "we"; which is repeated.  If she is now speaking of herself and her children, please note that it is repeated:

this is sensitive.  

She did not say that they searched or looked for her; only that "we went up" these streets.  We seek to believe what people tell us. 

If she does not tell us that they went up searching, we cannot say that they were searching.  This correlates to what the lawyer said:  children asked him for gas;  and it fits what another neighbor said:  he was out at his truck all morning and no one was searching, nor asking him if he had seen Aliayah.  People did not report searching.  If the children were begging gas from a neighbor, would they not alarm the neighbor and tell him about the missing sibling?  This sets the scenario for a contrived situation set up by Lena. 

If she went "up" by herself without the children, the change in pronoun is deceptive

Also, that she went "up" ; something that is repeated.  Does this mean that she went up, and that she did not find Aliayah, that Aliayah is "down" somewhere?

Past tense reference is specific to what she was wearing...
911:  Have you been outside checking the area?

Please note that she checked "everywhere" but the operator asks this question anyway. 

Lena:  Yes I’ve drove up all the streets around here looking thinking that maybe she went outside or something.  And don’t think my mom would have came and got her because she’d have woke me up and stuff 

1.  Please note that she uses for the third time the word "up" where Aliayah is not found.  This may indicate that Aliayah will be found "down" somewhere; down in water, buried in a grave, et.c.

2.  "all" the streets; with the same meaning at looking "everywhere".  All the streets "around here" have been looked so even though she has been thorough, she has not been located. 

3.  Note the inclusion of her thinking, even though it wasn't 'correct' thinking. 

4.  Note the inclusion of "or something" which strongly indicates that Aliayah went out "or something"; what is the choice?  It is she went outside "or" something else happened to her.  She is giving police a choice.  If she went out, we won't find her because she has searched "everywhere" and on all the "streets around here" where Aliayah, "only three"could have gone. But since she didn't, we then must conclude "or something" took place with Aliayah that Lena knows and is not sharing.  This sentence is an indiction that Lena Lunsford is deceptively withholding information and would like to limit the searching.  She does not want someone else to find Aliayah.  

5.  Lena introduces, with the word "And" to start the sentence (missing info) her "mom" to the operator.  Her mom is significant to Lena and her mother should be carefully interviewed.  Please also note that she tells us "because" which explains why something, rather than report what happened.  Her mother would have wakened her "and stuff"; what stuff?  Police should seek to learn if there has been any arguments, specifically about child care, between Lena and her own mother.  What other "stuff" would the mother have done, besides woken Lena up?
911:  Ok have you called your mother?

Lena:  No I need to do that.  

Did the operator just give Lena the idea that she should have called her mother?  Now she "needs" to do it. 

Please note that she allegedly drove around for an hour and did not call her mother.  If she was searching for her child, would she not, after the first few minutes, called her mother?  Why would she think that her mother could have had Aliayah ?  Is this the type of family that takes a 3 year old without notice?  How could a three year old leave without it being known?

This appears contrived and false. 
Do you have a phone number for her?
Yes its (number).  
What is her name?
Joanne Evans.
Joanne Evans?
Do you want to just call her real quick and call me right back so I know what’s going on ok?

This is unusual and may indicate that the 911 operator did not entirely trust the caller and wanted her to check with her mother.  Better would have been to keep Lena on the line, give pauses to allow Lena to choose her own words, while the police were en route to the home.  But it does not answer the question as to why she would need to call her mother when she was out searching "everywhere" (everywhere but...her mothers?  everywhere, but..."down" where Aliayah can be located?)

911 what is your emergency?
This is Lena Lunsford my mom doesn’t have her.  

We do not like to hear the child's name avoided by biological mother.  
She doesn’t have her she’s coming now. Oh my God. 
You don’t know of any place she would have went there in the community?  Is there a friend’s house nearby or somebody that she plays with?
No (crying)
911:  Ok.  Is there any place there in the community, a playground, or does she go to church anywhere there?

Lena:  No. (crying)  Help me find her.  

The caller specifies her request for help:  "help me find her" yet she has looked "everywhere" (see above) so there is no other place to look.  This is a subtle brain hint that Lena may need assistance for herself.  It is not conclusive by itself. 
911:  I have an officer on the way mam, I need you to calm down ok.  You’ve looked everywhere in the  house
Lena:  Yes
911:  All the closets, under everything?  Under every beds
Do you have a basement?
Its been checked too.

The passive language here suggests that she did not check the basement.  It is a distinct change from what she previously stated.  Recall:  there is no hope because she has searched "everywhere." 

It is likely that if police asked the children if they searched the basement, they would tell the police that they did not.  Passive language is used to conceal identity often, or when a subject does not want to own a statement with the pronoun, "I" such as "I checked the basement too" especially since she said "I" previously, but then also said "we" drove up the streets...
911: Ok how about the vehicles outside?

Lena:  Its been checked that’s what I used to go look for her.

She reported driving around for about an hour looking for her. 
And you said that there’s other children in the residence?
Yes.  (Noises)
Is she old enough where she would be able to reach the door handle?
Yes she is. 
Oh my God.  Here, please play with your brother for a minute. (talking to child)

Note inclusion of Divinity.
What color is her hair?

She has brown hair and brown eyes.  

Here the subject gives the additional info of the color of her eyes which would have been asked next.  Was this rehearsed?  That she has not been forthcoming causes us to expect only parroting answers.  Here, she goes beyond that and we must consider scripted language.  Recall the pattern of parroting prior. 
911:  Do you know how much she weighs?

Lena:  She weighs approximately 32 to 35 pounds. 
Maybe a little more. 

Ok.  Do you know how tall she is?

Lena:  Um I’m guessing around three feet I’m, I’m not for sure right now I’m sorry. 

Please note that this is the 2nd time she has said "I'm sorry" to a 911 operator. 
That’s ok.  Was there anybody else in the residence with you this morning, any other adults?
No, umm the only adult that
The tape cut out here.  

911:  Other children in the residence?

Lena:  Umm I have five kids

That she has five kids does not say they all live there.  This may speak to custodial issues.  
911:  OK so there’s 4 others in the residence? 

The operator digs...

Lena:  There’s three right now
Ok. Where is the other one?

Lena:  My son is at visitation with his father. 

Note:  he is not visiting or even with his father, but "at visitation" suggests court ordered or even supervised. 
Ok.  So you got up at 6:30 this morning with her?

Yes she got sick.  Yes

Hina Clause: This should be considered sensitive; via repetition and that the time frame is mentioned and she repeats about being sick.  That the child was sick may prove vital in the investigation. 

911:  She went back to bed, went back to sleep and you laid down on 

Lena:  Yes

Lena is not working to facilitate the flow of information.  
911:  How old are your other children that are in?
Ok did any of them see her this morning? What time did they get up?

The compound question is to be avoided. 

Lena:  They came in here umm, I’m not sure maybe around 7, 7:30, came in my room with me. 

Please notice that the additional qualifiers are found when asked about timeframe.  
"I'm not sure" is a qualifier
"maybe" is a qualifer
"around" is a qualifier, equally three in one sentence to this point, but then she says "7, 7"30, 
which is the fourth.  Investigators assuming that this is sensitive and deceptive would be correct.  Overall, her time frames are sensitive and she does not appear truthful about them.  
911:  Ok you said 11 year old 9year old and 8 mos?
Lena:  Yes
911:  Ok can you look outside and see the officer?
Lena  Yes Inaudible Oh God.  
In the front.  Oh my God.  Yes I see one out here. 

Please note that in these two calls, she appeared to avoid talking about her husband, Aliayah's step father.  Statement Analysis means not only looking at the words chosen, but what is missing. 

It can be assumed that the following are sensitive to Lena Lunsford:

1.  Time Frame
2.  Actual Searching
3.  "Up" versus "down"
4.   Her husband; Aliayah's step father

It appears that she does not want them looking for Aliayah, as she has already told them that she has searched "everywhere" and that being only 3, she could not have walked far, but "we" have been "up" all the streets in the area.  

It should be noted that twice she formed the words "I'm sorry" in this call.  This is often an indicator of a form of regret; for some, they are sorry for what they have done (or failed to do) and for others, they are sorry for being caught.  

It is likely that Lena Lunsford knows more than what she has said to police and may be directly involved, or may be covering up for someone else, including her husband.  Careful interviewing and polygraphs should be conducted also with the grandmother, and from other statements, the aunt. 

Others will weigh in on the crying; those trained in voice recognition, for example; though at times, to my untrained ear, the crying sounded contrived and forced. 

911 Call Analysis Conclusion:

Lena Lunsford is  deceptive by withholding information, and the searching, timeline and topic of her husband should all be considered  sensitive areas for her. 

Note:  past tense reference of missing child by bio parent so close to disappearance is flagged.  Even in parroting language, a mother on 'high alert' due to extremity of hormonal response is to 'correct', intuitively, the past tense reference.  If it is not corrected, it is seen as 'neutral to slight negative' in rating the quality of the response.  There is a difference between "expected" and "appropriate" and "acceptable" and "concerning" as it is broken down for overall conclusion. 

Here she told the operator that there was no hope of finding the victim alive. She had searched "everywhere", so the natural powerful maternal denial is absent.