Saturday, March 29, 2014

Analysis: Little Leaguer's Family Terrorized

The following is an article from the NY Daily News.  The note has emphasis  added with Statement Analysis in bold type.

Statement Analysis work can, and should be done, on Anonymous Threatening Letters and can reveal the identity of the writer, as well as learn if the threat is likely real or not. 

Was the author trying to frighten the family, or was violence planned?

Little League family terrorized for years on New York’s Long Island by crazed parent  

Woman eventually jailed for stalking Little League coach and his loved ones. In new interview, dad says the woman terrified them with threats over her son failing to make the team.

Janet Chiauzzi, 44, seen here in her 2012 booking photos, befriended a Little League coach’s family in  East Meadow, N.Y. while sending threatening, unsigned letters over her son not being picked for the travel team. NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENTJanet Chiauzzi, 44, seen here in her 2012 booking photo, befriended a Little League coach’s family in East Meadow, N.Y., while sending threatening, unsigned letters over her son not being picked for the travel team.
The terror campaign started with an anonymous letter and then grew to threats with specific details.
"We spent days, months, years … looking over our back," father John DeMasi told ABC's "20/20" in an interview to be broadcast Friday night.
"It was just anonymous letter sent, how wrong I was coaching the team and how bad they we were," said DeMasi, who was also accused of playing favorites because his son was on the suburban Long Island team in New York.
His wife, Linda DeMasi, said she became fearful and felt hunted. One letter said "I know where your wife goes every day. I know where your daughter goes to dance school," she quoted the note as saying.
What the DeMasi family didn't know was that their new friend and, Janet Chiauzzi, was the one sending the letters. Her son played on DeMasi's team.
I know where your wife goes every day. I know where your daughter goes to dance school,
The unsigned letter saga began in 2010. By the following year, it had escalated to the discovery of an anonymous note left in family's mailbox addressed to Dominic DeMasi, then age 10.
"I know where your wife goes every day.  I know where your daughter goes to dance school."
The pronoun "I" makes these two short sentences very strong.  The subject not only "knows" (truthfully) but gives "dance" school as proof.  Was the author simply attempting to scare the family, or was violence planned?
"Think about it Dom. If something terrible happens to your dad, or mom or you sister, you can blame you dad for not taking my threats seriously," the letter said. "He will meet harm and the outcome will not be good for you. You might never see your dad again."
Note the passive language.  Passivity is used to conceal identity, or responsibility.  
"something happens..." is not that the author will cause something to happen. It is the same with "he will meet harm" is stated, instead of "I will harm him..."
This reduces commitment to physical harm. 

The note appears strongly emotional, with both the pronoun, "I" and the child's name used, but when it comes to violence, it turns to passivity.  

All the while, Chiauzzi continued to get close to the family, even though police said she was sending the threats because her boy was not picked for the East Meadow Little League travel team.
She also made false, anonymous child abuse claims against the parents.
By 2012, investigators had begun to focus on the family's recent friend, Chiauzzi, and obtained a handwriting sample. Police said they matched.
After her arrest, Chiauzzi admitted sending the letters and making the abuse complaint.
She pleaded guilty to two felonies and six misdemeanors, receiving a sentence of 60 days in jail and five years of probation.
Linda DeMasi told "20/20" she is still waiting for an apology.


Anonymous said...

"He will MEET harm"she was a "new"friend to him,so she WOULD "meet"him.

JoAnn said...

"...He will meet harm and the outcome will not be good for you."

Tammy Moorer to Heather Elvis: "...your b---- is about to take his last can tell me where you are right now or I will find out another way...that way won't have a great turnout for you..."

Is there some similarity of language here? Is the threat Tammy Moorer made more direct when she says "your b---- is about to take his last breath" rather than "He will meet harm," which is more passive?
Both women allude to "something" that will not have a great turnout/outcome will not be good for you.

Skeptical said...

This woman is raising a child. How humiliating her behavior must be for him. What is sad is she has also had 10 years to model this sick behavior for him.

Carnival Barker said...

Only 60 days for this? Wow.

The use of "Dom" in the letter was underlined, but not for the reason I thought it should be. Not only did the writer address the child by name, but used a shortened version of his name. If I read this letter my first impression would be that the writer was someone that had a personal relationship with my kid.

Red Ryder said...

Only 60 days? True. But she was is now a convicted FELON with all the rights and priveleges thereof.

When you are convicted of a New York state felony you lose many of the rights and privileges of being an American citizen:

You may no longer vote (this is called “felony disenfranchisement”)
Exclusion of future purchase of firearms
You may no longer sit on a jury
You are excluded from welfare
You are barred from Federally funded housing
You are excluded from some operator licenses

So this is not a slap on the wrist!

OldPsychNurse said...

This is a slap on the wrist. Losing her "rights" won't change her pathologic behavior. She will now become more secretive and subversive which is more frightening. She should have been forced into mandatory biweekly therapy with a competent psychiatrist and required to personally pay for her therapy.

OldPsychNurse said...

This monster did not serve any time in jail.