Sunday, June 28, 2015

Anonymous Letter Sent To David Shaw Part One



Anonymous Threatening Letter analysis is very difficult work.


Recently, a letter was sent to a black family on Long Island telling them to move out of Lindenhurst to a town where there were other black families.  It was reported to Suffolk County Hate Crimes Division and the recipient family had plans for how to gain national attention for what happened.

Analysis of this letter revealed that the author was not a white racist but:

A black female, educated and intelligent, who had a history and empathy for moving, and connected herself to the home, itself.  The conclusion suggested itself:

The recipient was the author.  You may read the specific profile and analysis HERE.

I was concerned that because the exact identity of the author emerged, aided by the recipient's own writing sample, that readers would take lightly the work, and make error the 'norm' for

A homeowner with inexpensive outdoor lights; perhaps $5 or $10 worth, received an anonymous threatening letter which was targeting, not race, but sexuality, claiming, in context, that police would be called because of Christianity, and the danger of exposing children to homosexuality.

Statement Analysis of the letter did provide a profile.

Principles of Anonymous Letter Work

Anonymous Letters have the linguistic fingerprints on them.

There is a statistical connection between homosexuality and authorship of anonymous threatening letters.  This is specifically in the element of "confusion" or difference of opinion regarding a sexual identity.

Anonymous Letters can yield a profile of the author.

Anonymous Letter analysis can identify the author.


The Letter Itself


DAVID


IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE A BIRMINGHAM BOY
LEAVING AND BRINGING BACK A BLACK WIFE

YOU NEED TO MOVE TO CALIFORNIA  WHERE THAT
IS SOP

OR GO BACK TO WOODLAND


The envelop shows:

Birmingham, AL postmark.


DAVID

Within the letter itself, we note that it is all in caps, which when typed, does not indicate emphasis.  This is because of the "cap lock" key.  We note anything that takes more effort as important, even in typing.  In the anonymous letter sent to Julie Baker, we note that it had some strange capitalization patterns.  Even when typing, this is important.  For Baker, this was her standard, as all of her writing on Facebook indicated the same pattern.  When she became aware of the analysis, her writing, for the first time, was void of the capitalization pattern, making it significant to the analyst as it showed a need to break the pattern, further confirming that she, herself, was the author.

We also note that this letter does not contain insult, nor does it contain any threat.  Racist notes have an expectation of insult and/or threat, as it stems from a specific emotion.

Also note that length is often indicative of emotion.  Emotional sentences, for example, are generally longer than shorter sentences.
Shorter sentences are often more logical, void of emotion.
Yet we continue:  "staccato" often indicates emotion within the shortness, with repetition indicating anger.

This is why the analyst must always remain open-minded with analysis.

We next note that the letter begins with the name, "DAVID" with all caps not being significant since it is the same throughout.  (We would have noted anything that was no longer capitalized, as a "downgrade."

Examples of Downgrade:

"I proceeded to instruct Mr. Smith that he needed to compose himself, otherwise I was going to have to take action.  Mr. Smith raised his arm as if to attack me and I put mr. smith into a hold while telling him that he needs to stop and cool down. "

You noticed that "Mr. Smith", once he was grabbed by the staff, became "smith", without the capitalization.  This was an investigation into an assault at a hospital where abuse was alleged.  One of the elements we needed to know was if the staff had grabbed the patient unnecessarily, but also if it was done in anger:  that is, what was the staff's attitude towards the patient.  The patient alleged abuse but staff denied it.  The patient said that staff had hated him and threatened him repeatedly, but staff countered that the patient was so mentally ill that he was not reliable.  This was true enough, so we relied upon the staff, himself, to guide us in the investigation.

The staff did that very thing, and did guide us.  He knew the patient could not communicate properly but his statement (in full) revealed a great deal of animosity, of which I confronted him with.  I asked him if he thought any security video might show us something very different than what he had reported.  (there was no video, so I only asked him, "if").  Consistent in his statement was a 'downgrading' at critical points of the statement.

He was found to have abused the patient, lost his job, and faced legal consequence.  His statement (several pages in length), showed that once "Mr. Smith" was assaulted, he was "mr. smith" and even "smith", but later, in the statement, after the victim received medical care, he was "John" and "Mr. Smith" in attempts to "make friends"; that is, to appear in a positive light.

Another example is, agains, from "Fake Hate" Julie Baker.  In the "hate" note, the word "Christian" was capitalized, as was "Children", given additional emphasis (unnecessary), which revealed that it was suspect as being concerned about religion or children.  This was also the pattern for Baker.

The word "Christian" is appropriately capitalized, but not "Children."  "Children" was given capitalization for additional emphasis, something that helped reveal the scam.

When she responded to the claim that she wrote it, she changed her pattern to no longer capitalize, so "Children" became the appropriate "children", but "Christian" was given the downgrade to the inappropriate "christian", revealing her animosity towards Christianity.   This is what a "downgrade" looks like and it is why even one letter can make a difference.

DAVID is first name only and it is an indication that the author is familiar with Mr. David Shaw, in such a way, as to use his first name only.

DAVID has bold print, which means that effort was taken (sensitive) and the need to emphasize noted.  That it is not the norm, that is, straight capitalization, this use of bold type may affirm the personal connection between the author and the recipient.

It is important to learn what Mr. Shaw is normally referred to as.  Is he "David"?  "Dave"?

1.  The author knows the recipient, increasing the odds that the recipient knows the author.  

2   The letter is without animosity or threat.  

We continue....


IT IS HARD TO IMAGINE

Here, we ask ourselves:

Who would say this?

Who uses this phrase more, men or women?

(We continue to assert the scientific findings that the biological difference between a male and a female are discernible.  Should this change, we will let readers know that our analysis will be changing, too.  Should someone receive a serious threat letter, to avoid sexism, we will refrain from asking these questions, therefore, not allow police to know if they should be searching for a man or a woman, instead, focusing upon testosterone levels).

Is this something a black person might say, more than a white expression?  (When this is condemned as racist hate speech, we will let readership know.  When someone receives a threatening letter, and police wish to know if they should be looking for a white perpetrator, we will refrain from letting them know).

Enough politically correct ranting.

Is it something a man might say, or a woman?
Is it something a white person would say? Or, would a non-white (including Hispanic/Asian) might say?

Is it regional?

Is it education level orientated?

The bottom line is:  We are attempting to learn who wrote this and cannot be held back by nonsense, especially when a threat is included.  Since no threat is included, we have already noted this in point #2 above.

Begin first with Gender:

Who uses this phrase?  "It's hard to imagine"?

It is a commonly used phrase and one that does not assert impossibility  and in this case, there are lots of bi racial couples, so, like so many anonymous letters, the author's assertion may be the very opposite of what is stated.

"This is from the community of Lindenhurst" was a strong indication that, no, it was not coming from a community, but a single author.

"It is hard to imagine" tells us that the author is actually quite familiar with bi-racial couples.

3.  The author is likely to be familiar with bi-racial couples, whether married or dating.  

Therefore, though not finished with this phrase yet, we have three points of which to consider.  As we consider these three points, we seek to learn if the rest of the letter will:

a.  Affirm the assertions
b.  Deny the assertions
c.  Neutral:  They neither Affirm nor Deny the assertions.

1.  The author knows the recipient, increasing the odds that the recipient knows the author.  

2   The letter is without animosity or threat.  

3. The author is likely familiar with bi-racial relationships.  

...To be continued...

What do we ask about the author's "imagination"?
Would this phrase be in other writings?
Does it 'feel' male, or female, to you?
Do you have an opinion on the age of the author?

We need to know:

Gender
Race
Age
Education
Background
Experiences
Priorities
Personality

in order to identify a profile of the author.

...to be continued...

A BIRMINGHAM BOY
LEAVING AND BRINGING BACK A BLACK WIFE

YOU NEED TO MOVE TO CALIFORNIA  WHERE THAT
IS SOP

OR GO BACK TO WOODLAND





DISCUSSION:

Please choose a user name as the chat room will  remain open for the day.


41 comments:

Frank said...

Hi Peter,

I'm glad you are analyzing this letter! I find it to be interesting.

The 1st item, David's name, is written in all capitals but it is also written in bold print. I don't know if this makes any difference. The fact that it is such a familiar term (his first name) makes me think that the writer is either David himself or a close relative of David's. I feel that if it were someone not related to David they would have chosen to distance themself by calling him Mr. Shaw. However, I feel a spouse or 1st degree relative or the individual themself would have difficulty distancing and would therefore use the name "David". The fact that the name "David" is written in bold suggests to me (and I could be wrong!) that the letter may have been written by David himself. My reasoning for this is that I feel the bold print with which "DAVID" is written may suggest ownership. It reminds me of when we are younger and in school when we cover a book or have a binder and then write our name on it to indicate ownership, oftentimes we would go over the letters of our name many times with a pen making the letters bold.

"It is hard to imagine"

I agree with you that this statement indicates that for the writer it actually is not hard to imagine a bi-racial couple, and also, as you said, that the writer actually has familiarity with bi-racial couples.
The language is mild. It indicates what is foremost on the writer's mind which is what one is capable of thinking inside their head, what they or others are capable of "imagining". To me, this is interesting, because I wonder if this is leakage from the writer indicating that the whole letter is "imagined" rather than real, in other words, it is "fake", "fiction". "imagined".
I feel the phrase seems more "feminine", but, to me, this does not rule out that it may have been written by a man. However, I feel that if a man wrote it, he was in fact, concerned in some way of what others were thinking (imagining) about "David".
I feel the writer is educated, after all, the letter begins with what one is "thinking" or imagining.
Thus far in the letter, I lean towards David being the writer.
I will be interested to analyze more and hear others opinions and analysis.

Peter Hyatt said...

Frank, bold print took extra effort. I will add this to the article. It may strengthen belief of familiarity

thank you for pointing this out. My eyes went too quickly past it.

Anonymous said...

My opinion is that it was the wife who wrote the letter.

But my question is: What was her motive in writing it? My initial reaction would be that she wants to leave the area but why wouldn't she just tell her husband that she wants to leave or nag him until he finally gives in, which would mean it wasn't necessary to send him an anonymous letter. What then, was her underlying motive?

If the motive was to bring attention to their business and increase sales, just how much increase could one expect from this type of business that would become lucrative enough to make it worth their while? Could it be that she wants to leave the area plus go into a different type business?

Or a money scam that could lead to enough donations that would make it worth her while so they could leave the area or go into a different type business venture?

Motive?

Yukari said...

The "SOP" struck me as unusual language, both in general and in this specific context (the act of "bringing home a spouse" referred to as "standard operating procedure"). The writer could have a background in a field where this abbreviation is commonly used. Now, according to Wikipedia, this is the case with a variety of different contexts, so it does not narrow things down much. It does, however, include food and drug safety, where "Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures" are used, which would be familiar to the owner of an ice cream shop.

Speaking of which, the name of the shop is written incompletely in the address.
It is actually "Magic City Sweet Ice", but the writer left out the word "sweet".
The word "imagine" also stands out in a different way than pointed out by Frank: it refers to "leaving" and "bringing back a black wife", placing both in the realm of fantasy, rather than acknowledging them as real events. (Is it at all possible the relationship of the Shaws is no longer as "sweet" as it once was? Perhaps the challenge of launching their own business has taken a strain on the couple?)

Woodlawn is a street market where the Shaws had a push-cart before they opened said ice cream shop in April, so only a few weeks ago. The references to "a Birmingham boy leaving..." and "go back to Woodlawn" suggest a degree of familiarity with David´s life and history; the writer is not a stranger. "Birmingham boy" especially is a term of closeness, ownership, suggests "one of us".





JC said...

Nice pick up Frank!

JC said...

Off Topic

AJ Hadsell’s father believes her final text messages were sent by someone else


Norfolk, Va. – For the first time since Anjelica ‘AJ’ Hadsell`s body was found, her adoptive father Wesley Hadsell spoke exclusively with NewsChannel 3 from behind bars.

Wesley Hadsell believes his own family is setting him up – making it look like he murdered AJ.

We recently learned the 18-year-old died of acute heroin poisoning, but the circumstances surrounding her death are still undetermined.

Wesley has been in jail since March for charges connected to AJ’s disappearance, however he has not been charged in her death.

Click here for our full coverage of the AJ Hadsell story

Now he says he wants the truth to finally come out.

The interview lasted about two hours, and Wesley’s statements and emotions were all over the place.

One minute he seemed angry, the next he was crying.

He also named specific people who he thinks is responsible for AJ’s disappearance and death.

But a lot of the conversation focused on his drug use – and whether AJ had a drug problem.

Wesley shared new details about AJ’s final text messages to him – messages he believes were sent by someone else.

“The text messages from Anjelica were saying that she used heroin two week prior to her disappearance. ”

“Wait a minute. What text messages?”

“Oh you don`t know about those then. Anjelica texted us throughout the day of March 2nd after no one physically saw her after 2 pm I guess. Anjelica’s phone communicated with my phone and her mother’s phone. That`s why in the beginning I said that was not my daughter texting, someone had her phone. I can`t prove that but that person texted us and came out in little bits and pieces that she had used heroin two weeks prior to her death.”

Wesley stood firm in his belief that AJ never had a drug problem – but thinks someone tried to make it look like she did.

http://wtkr.com/2015/06/29/aj-hadsells-father-believes-her-final-text-messages-were-sent-by-someone-else/

C5H11ONO said...

Is it possible that the person who wrote the note is so familiar with him, that they find it hard to imagine he would marry a black woman, because in the past, he and David shared racist remarks and animosity toward black people? I think that would cause the person to make that statement. Several possible writers come to my mind, 1. David, 2. a parent; 3. an ex-girlgriend, 4. an old school friend (maybe junior high or high school). I don't believe the wife did it.
These people like to be interviewed. They were interviewed when they were opening the shop. She always remarked about how friendly everyone is. I doubt she did it. Her Linked In profile reveals that she studied at the University of Rhode Island and received a certification f Master Seamstress & Tailoring. She does volunteer work. She received a certification in Health Services Administration from Delaware Technical and Community College. She comes across as a good person and I don't believe she perpetrated this. He on the other hand revealed several discrepancies on his linked in profile that were not clear and any employer would certainly ask: You state in your LI profile that you worked as an Information Technology Assistant Manager (part time) at Contractor at blr further from (the name itself is unclear, why) 11/2011 - June 2013, but then from January 2007 to Present you were an Information Technology Manager at ECATS? Are these the same company? Can you work in the same position at two jobs? They are two totally distant locations? How did you commute to do both jobs? Is there a conflict of interest? He has an overlap. That doesn't come off as being honest. He doesn't list part owner of a business, yet his wife does. Why didn't he update it. Isn't being an owner of a business something you would want to include? Linked In is very important to employers. His information is confusing at best and an employer may look over him due to the discrepancies he was unable to correct. If he held two jobs at one time, it is in his interest to state it. If it is an error, then shame on him for shoddy work, and reflects on what he does...shoddy work. Also, for two years he worked part time. Was he laid off in his previous job? Why? On a personal level it reflects to me that his wife took the load on to provide, which is admirable for her.

I believe he is the one that set up all the interviews. I believe he saw the positive reaction and the business that stemmed from it, and is making attempts to continue it. Because of his unclear page I believe him to be dishonest. He comes across to me as a Balloon Boy Dad in the making.

Sus said...

"To imagine" seems something a female would say. The rest of the letter seems written by a male.

Something David said that bothered me: He posted the letter on his facebook. He then commented "I love my black wife." This is unexpected to me. I would think he would say, "I love my wife." Bypassing the black. Or better yet, use her name, "I love Wani."

Buckley said...

I googled "it's hard to imagine" and tallied quotes and articles by gender (if it could be determined.) I got to 25 male to 9 female.

Sus said...

That surprises me, Buckley. I would guess males would use visual words such as "see" or "picture." Thanks for doing that.

I think the form of the letter shows male. All caps, spaced rather than punctuated between sentences. This is the quickest, easiest way to type. It hints to me the writer has a background in dispatching - getting a message out as quickly as possible. I immediately thought military, but it could be dispatching in any field.

Buckley said...

I don't believe this letter is really about wanting the Shaws to move. It refers to California as a social/political slur and indicates the author was around in the 1970s. We even saw the perception that California is culturally different in 79 year old conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent on the gay marriage ruling when he said California shouldn't be considered a Western state. Seeing that geographically it certainly is a western state, he meant it culturally, and as a slur. Same thing here.

If the writer really wants them to move why follow a suggestion over 1000 miles away with one that's simply another suburb of Birmingham?

"Birmingham boy" makes me think the writer is male. It is used in a positive light- "one of us". It is contrasted with the choice David made in leaving and bringing home a black wife. He is no longer "part of the club." To me this suggests an author who considers himself a "Birmingham boy" and has standing to declare David's choice a disappointment.

Wani Shaw's quotes suggest to me she is happy and ambitious about the newly begun business venture ("we want more".) Writing anonymous notes attempting to get her family to move contradicts that.

Buckley said...

What do you guys think of this as a "social introduction" to one's grandchildren?

"The oldest one is 6. She was born 4 months premature and weighted 20 ounces. She was only given a 10% chance to live. She is some what a slow learner and has some respiratory problems but is otherwise healthy. The other girl is 5 and the grandson is 3."

JC said...

Sus said...

That surprises me, Buckley. I would guess males would use visual words such as "see" or "picture."

Hi Sus,

You make a valid point. It's known through research (not that it's needed though, lol) Men are more "visual" especially when it comes down to describing the fairer sex.

Lemon said...

Not only is "DAVID" bolded, as Frank pointed out above, but it is also in a different font than the body of the letter.
DAVID is in a sans serif font, the body of the letter is not.

C5H11ONO said...

Before the letter and envelope disappears, can they perform DNA testing on the stamp?

Anonymous said...

I would disagree that the wife is happy with their business venture. It is below subpar and cannot possibly be an upper scale or highly lucrative business. IMO, it would be questionable if they are barely eeking out a living.

It started as a piddly little push-cart business, walking miles everyday all day just to make a few mediocre sales, and has only just recently reached the walk-up rental-stand type of business with one or two persons employed, now with additional overhead that includes rent and utilities on the space. It will never be a chain venture.

What hard-working aggressive wife would be content with this kind of hard struggle when she can do better?

My earlier question, to repeat: What is the motive of the note? There is always a motive, so what is it?

Frank said...

Off topic: Could someone more skilled than myself please just take a moment to look at the brief video/quote from state trooper on killing of the 1st escapee I posted on the other thread? Someone more level-headed than me? Jen Ow? Red Meat? Anyone? I honestly don't believe they have the 1st guy. What strikes me is how similar the pattern of "ums" surrounding the part where the state trooper describes the actual confrontation/capture just vividly reminds me of the "ums" you see in "false confessions". It is being said now these 2 had split up 5 days ago. Sure, they might have him, but it seems to be said in a lying way much the way someone spits out a false confession after being prodded by police.

Frank said...

I wonder in the DAVID letter about the "leaving" and bringing back a black wife.

It seems the "leaving" is unnecessary isn't it?

Wouldn't you just say "bringing back a black wife or woman"?

Actually I just thought of something. Could the writer of the letter have said "black wife" instead of "black woman" or something derogatory because what irks the writer is that David has a wife, that David is married? Is there any chance at all this could be an ex-girlfriend? Or someone who had unrequited love for David?

Think about it: The writer is mad David
1) Left the area/moved away (or they wouldn't have mentioned it)
2) Came back married (to a black wife)

Who would be mad that he moved away?
I feel like it would have to be either one of his parents or an ex-girlfriend or someone who had "unrequited" love for David.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Frank,

I watched it, and while I do notice an increase in 'ums', and 'uhs' when he relays the confrontation with Matt, he also does it through the interview as part of his speech pattern each time he pauses.

Since the confrontation is the most significant/ sensitive part of the story, this may explain the increase in pauses, and 'ums', as he chooses his words more carefully? (Maybe due to having to quickly filter down what he is allowed to release to the media, from all the information that he knows?)

I assume they probably want to be careful about what they release regarding his death. Even though he was an armed, escaped murder, there will still be people who get mad that he was killed by police.

(I actually have a friend on FB who was making remarks about how he shouldn't have been killed, and they should have taken him alive with that many officers. She wouldn't hear any different, and argued that he (Matt) "couldn't shoot them all", basically saying that it didn't matter if he killed a few officers in the process of being taken alive, because there were still enough of them there to bring him in.)

Anyway, hopefully they will release more info, and we can get a better idea what happened!

Anonymous said...

Too be realistic Frank, don't you think that it would be ridiculous for LE to claim they had apprehended Matt and that he had been shot dead if he had not been? Of course it would, while his body lies with head smoldering in the morgue!

What would be more realistic is the descriptive manner in which Matt was apprehended and shot. Three times in the head? Totally unnecessary. All those LE officers on hand against one man?

We will never know the truth, Frank; and that right there is the REAL truth. LE are involved and they can say whatever they like, and do. No proof other than their word and we all know how good that is, don't we?

Just like in the case of James DiMaggio (and so many more)on the run with Hannah Lolita Anderson, surrounded by multiple local and state LE, and FBI; while DiMaggio supposedly defies apprehension (big fat lie), shot dead when IN FACT he was waving his gun in the air and attempting to surrender. Case closed. Just like this one; case closed. Now the one who shot Matt reaps applause and acclaim. Sickening.

C5H11ONO said...

Anon 9:51. I am certain that there are troubles in the marriage. David revealed it in his response. He stated:
1) I LOVE my beautiful black wife and everything about her, (most everything about her).
--He weakened the statement. It would have been strong had he just replied, I love my wife. Yet he added LOVE in all caps, then added beautiful which is unnecessary and black also unnecessary. Then he weakened the statement further by added everything about her. Then weakened it by adding a personal insult, "most everything about her". He knew she would read that, that hundreds of thousands of people have read this statement. He reduced her publicly.

Our love for one another is far deeper than skin color.\
--He reduced the commitment to this statement as well. He could have replied, Our love for each other is deeper than skin color. He reduced it by adding "far". Furthermore "one another" is distant. Together would have been "each other".

I believe that this marriage is having difficulties. Money troubles can cause difficulties in a marriage and it appears from his lack of work that he has not been able to "hold down the fort" but she has.

If she did this, it's probably because he doesn't let her have a voice in the home, so she is doing it anonymously. I believe he did it though because when they were "interviewed" for the opening he realized all the publicity it garnered and he may have done this as a stunt to get more customers and get more money.

I find it interesting that Frank pointed out: "It seems the "leaving" is unnecessary isn't it?"
It appears that when David left Birmingham it wasn't a happy celebratory moment. I would like to know what where the circumstances that led to his departure. It was anything but friendly. The writer of the note is clearly remembering his departure and it was significant to point it out again. It remains a point of contention.

Also, the part of California and SOP, I believe are David's words. I think this person is utilizing David's own words against him. Maybe before he left, he had discussed with this person about the liberal California and he may have done it in a negative way. It seems like the writer is throwing it back at him as if to make him eat his words. Also, SOP, is probably one of David's words as well. Maybe this was a recurring word in his vocabulary - like a "click" word, prior to his departure. Or words he used frequently in the past. This may be how the writer is reminding him about "something".

jen-d said...

I find it odd for an anonymous & supposed-to-be-threatening letter to have any kind of salutation. Arent anonymous threatening letters supposed to be straightforward, to the point & has no need for any salutation? Isnt it similar to throwing a rock through a window with a message in it -- and getting straight to the message -- "Get out while you still can" etc. I feel there is no need for salutation (if a rock was thrown through a window, the recipient/is is obviously whoever is in the house or address). The "David" letter has its address on the envelope so the presence of a salutation is unnecessary & even redundant. The letter referencing a "Birmingham boy" makes it obvious that the target of the letter is male or in this case "David."

I feel anonymous letters with salutations arent anonymous at all. It's as if the author wants to be unconsciously known or be acknowledged. As if author wants to let recipient know who recipient is talking to.

Either David knows who the letter writer is or he is familiar with him/her.

Peter Hyatt said...

Jen-d,

you are thinking correctly. Here is why:

In training (which goes much deeper than anything covered in the blog), you are asked to put yourself in the shoes of the subject (writer).

Consider if you want someone "out", what you would say.

Please look at the Long Island "Fake Hate" analysis for confirmation that your basic thinking is on target. Ask yourself what you would say if you wanted the family to move.

If you conclude that it is "fake", then consider part two:

If you were writing this yourself, and you wanted to convince family to move, what would you say?

Next, consider if you wanted a Go Fund Me page to make money. What would you say?

Peter Hyatt said...

PS

Report back your findings!

Peter Hyatt said...

Reminder to All

Off topic posts (OT) or requests for others to view an article or video are welcomed.

They often yield interesting discussion and analysis.

Therefore, they are encouraged!

Also, if there is a particularly good time period for group discussion, let me know and I will post the "chat room" for readership.

Peter

jen-d said...

i just realized, when i said 'author wants recipientto know who recipient is talking to' that the purpose of anonymous threatening letters is to make recipient know what the author thinks, it doesnt care what the recipient thinks. letter just wants to deliver the message. when author wants recipient to know who recipient is talking to,it defeats the purpose of anonymous letter. i did place myself imagining im in front of pc and highlighting "David" in bold, i realized,connecting this with redundant items on letter, the "David" salutation, the bold David text, "birmingham boy" all seem to be hard efforts to convince someone that whoever is writing this is Not David.

Anonymous said...

SOOOOooo, somebody;

What the hell is the MOTIVE ?!

Buckley said...

Yeah, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question at 12:35 about how David's father describes his grandchildren. He tells a woman he hadn't spoken to in years his granddaughter is a "slow learner." What's the motive in that?

Frank said...

Jen Ow and Anon, thank you for taking a look at the video! I will write more when I get freed up, but wanted to thank you and Jen Ow, I agree with you about his speech pattern and what you have said that he may be filtering things down because of the sensitivity of shooting Matt makes a lot of sense. I feel the trooper was careful with every detail he shared including Matt (allegedly) being armed. I am going to rewatch the video considering what you have said, and anon I want to respond to you more in depth. Suffice to say, if they did get Matt it would seem alcohol was what interferred with Matt's plan as it is said they found an open bottle of alcohol in the cabin they allegedly tracked him to after he shot the camper (for unknown reasons) and there is one detail I find particularly doubtful which is that after the camper had traveled 8 miles after it was shot, and after the police backtracked those 8 miles and found the cabin they claim that the smell of gunpowder from a discharged gun was in the air at the cabin. Meaning, Matt would have had to have fired into the air at the cabin (drawing further attention to himself?) Perhaps he wanted suicide by cop? It also cannot be true that the border patrol that got Matt "heard" Sweat running away at that time, because the 2 had split up 3 days before that according to Sweat. I also do not believe Sweat was armed, one would think that both would be but perhaps they only found one gun in a cabin. Perhaps that led to him splitting from Matt because Matt had gotten a gun in one of the cabins and Sweat was starting to get scared of him? I will write more and will rewatch video. Thank you for your input!

Anonymous said...

Your welcome Frank; however, I did not get to see the video. (For some reason I cannot open any of the links that are posted here). I have seen many news articles on Matts' capture though, and knowing how crafty and what liars so many of our LE officers are, I dismiss most of what they say with a grain of salt.

Hell, they even lie to their apprehended suspects while interviewing them... including those who are as innocent as the day is long, while trying to entrap them; AND get away with it. It is a damned sorry shame that we can no longer trust a one of them but that's what it comes down too now. Might as well toss the dice to the wind.

Based on this knowledge, it seems outlandish for me to believe that Matt fired a gun up into the air while on the run. I mean, good golly; the man was an escaped convict ON THE RUN and he fired a gun into the air? AIN'T NO WAY. If he just wanted to commit suicide by cop, all he had to do was sit down and wait. That's it.

As to Matt being drunk, I question this as well, knowing we can't believe a damned think LE says AFTER they have killed somebody. Go figure.

jen-d said...

"Ask yourself what you would say if you wanted the family to move. 

If you conclude that it is "fake", then consider part two:

If you were writing this yourself, and you wanted to convince family to move, what would you say?

"

Re: Long Island Fake Hate

If I wrote this letter, and if I really want them to move out. I’d cut to the chase and remove the “ATTN: AFRICAN-AMERICAN FAMILY THIS IS COMING FROM LINDENHURST COMMUNITY” and start with

“YOU DON'T BELONG HERE !!!”

I’d not ask them to leave – as shown by the “please” and simply tell them to LEAVE (I'll remove "LINDENHURST" as it is obvious where the family is and the recipient would highly likely know where they are being told to leave from).

I’ll also remove “AS SOON AS YOU CAN.” Maybe I’d instead write “Now!”


"IT WILL BE BETTER FOR ALL OF US."

“For all of us” is unnecessary. “IT will be better” is unnecessary too.
I’d instead maybe write, “It will be better for you” – so I can appear more threatening.

I also wouldn’t care where else theyd go. I just want them out. I wouldn’t care where they go.

“Sorry if this is rude” – why would an author who wants to make a family leave say sorry?

“But it’s the truth” – sort of weakens everything before it. A genuinely threatening letter sets out to write what the author thinks is true. Why the need to say something as truth when it is originally assumed – the letter – to be true. Maybe because the author is afraid to not be believed that what he/she is writing isn’t the truth.

Sus said...

OT Frank,
The autopsy of Richard Matt was released and today a picture of him lying dead was released. Matt was shot 15 times, three into the head. That was after refusing to comply with orders to put up his hands.

I agree that the spokesman showed sensitivity. The governor also did speaking of Sweat's capture. He went so far as to quote the regulation that allowed the Sargent to shoot a fleeing unarmed felon. I believe the sensitivity is due to the recent attirude surrounding LE.

I have read numerous comments that Matt could have been taken alive, that it was thousands against just one, etc. Media headlines refer to his capture as being "gunned down." Even on this blog Anon is blaming LE's dushonesty.

There was a reason New York was so intent on capturing Matt and Sweat. They are the baddest of the bad. I suggest you look into their crimes. There's no doubt anyone crossing their path was in grave danger.

Which brings me to the "thousands of dishonest trigger-happy" LE searching for them. Not a one of them deserved to lose their life with a bullet from Matt. When he refused to comply with orders to put his hands up, the chances increased that his hand was on a gun. Simple.


Buckley said...

Agreed. Good riddance and thanks to LE for saving us tons of money. If anybody deserved a swift death penalty, these guys are it.

Frank said...

Hi Sus, where can one see the picture and autopsy?

Hi Anon, I'm hearing what you're saying and we are thinking on the same lines. I am having trouble believing the state trooper's version of what happened. As I was transcribing the "sensitive" statements he made about the actual confrontation and killing of Matt, I was struck by how similar the pattern of "ums" were to one of the false confessions I had read coming from one of the Memphis 3. This is not to discount what Jen Ow said about the trooper possibly "filtering" down what he was telling to the public. However, I will say that it had the linguistic mark of someone who had been "fed" a story to tell much the same way you see in a false confession.

I also cannot believe for certain any of the details that Sweat is supposedly giving while he lies in serious condition in the hospital, including that he supposedly split from Matt because he was drunk and slowing him down.

I find it very doubtful Matt fired at a camper that was being towed! Even LE initially acknowledged that they were not sure why he would have fired at the camper which was being towed and have not offered any explanation since that time. I also DO NOT believe and will never believe that Matt fired into the air at the cabin and that the smell of gunpowder was in the air at the cabin when authorities arrived. Matt has been said to have a genius IQ. To have fired at the camper being towed and into the air at the cabin when he was only a few miles from the Canadian border would have been beyond stupid, completely purposeless unless he desired to be shot by police. Sweat is supposedly saying Matt had bad blisters on his feet. OK, so what? He could have hung out in that cabin in peace for days! It is also being said Matt was dressed for the elements and well-fed with some bug bites on his extremeties. It doesn't sound like someone all that desperate. Why get all the way to the Canadian border and draw attention to yourself in the most dramatic way possible firing guns at vehicles and into the air???
One possibility is that whoever they shot is not, in fact, Matt. It could have been a vagrant crashing in the cabin. Or even someone maybe kind of a hermit who lived in the cabin. Or someone who was checking out their cabin because of all the talk of Sweat and Matt probably using the hunting cabins scattered in the woods of Northern New York. It could have been a homeless person. Being shot 3 times in the head means that there is a possibility that this person is not recognizable! They probably shot him in the face because if they shot him in the back of the head 3 times that is not going to make much sense if he had his back turned to them and yet they shoot him 3 times in the head!!! If you listen to the trooper, he was not brandishing a gun because according to the trooper it was "discovered" on his body.
Well, anyway, I'm not convinced it's him. You have to believe that the guy did something beyond stupid and actually wanted to die by suicide by cop to believe the story! Linguistically, I'm hearing way to many "ums" that show to me he is making up every detail of the confrontation and shooting.

Frank said...

Also, when they initially announced that Matt had been shot, they said how Matt's body was dressed for the elements, well-fed, and with some bug bites on his extremeties they added "consistent with someone who had been living in the woods for 3 weeks".

To me, this is a possible indicator that he is not identifiable by his face!
And, he has tattoos! Yet no mention of them!!! No mention initially that they have shot Matt 3 times in the head (ie face) and it says "Mexico Forever" tatooed on his back! Wouldn't that make more sense than looking for bug bite indicators that this person that they had shot had been living in the woods for 3 weeks? Also, Sweat does not look well-fed. Sweat looks underweight. It is hard to believe either one of them would have been well-fed.

Frank said...

Surprise, surprise, noone is claiming Matt's body so the state of NY is burying him. Even though a close friend of his who he had sent all his paintings to did an interview talking about what a close friend he was and showing his paintings.

Anyway, here is the link

http://www.wptz.com/news/report-richard-matts-family-will-not-claim-his-body/33902146

Frank said...

Sorry to post again.

Sus, I actually found the supposed picture of Matt shot dead. There is no way to tell if it is him! It does not show his face! Very gruesome picture though, and it shows that whoever they did in fact shoot, they shot him in the top of the head in a laying down position!!! He would have been laying down when they shot him in the head. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell if this picture is actually Matt.

Frank said...

Anon 8:49,

The unsettling part is that (although the picture certainly did appear to realistically show someone who had been shot at close range in the top of the head, meaning the crown and the sides of the head as they lay on their side) there is no way to tell it is Matt. You cannot see his face. You cannot see any tattoos.
If noone is claiming the body, again, noone to verify it is Matt. There is an interview given by a friend of Matt's who was very close friends with him and saying yes he has a dark side but also has a human side and Matt entrusted him with a dozen paintings he had done. (I am merely repeating what he said, not agreeing with him, as his crime was extraordinarily barbaric). But I am simply stating that to illustrate the fact that, again, odd that noone would claim him since he did have this friend. And it will allow for noone to identify him.
Also, in the picture which appears to have been taken immediately after the killing, ,there is no visible weapon near Matt or any visible indicator he has one on his body. (He may have had one on him, but you certainly cannot tell from the picture).
It would seem they would have wanted to take a picture pulling down the back of his shirt to reveal the "Mexico Forever" tattoo just to confirm they got their guy.
I certainly do detect that the statement given by the trooper regarding the confrontation/killing was either filtered as Jenn said, or fabricated. There is no way to tell.
Also, it is VERY strange that the man who they are claiming is Matt has gunshots on the TOP of his head! He appears to have been shot at close range as he lay on his side. I am just saying it is bizarre.

Anonymous said...

It may be "simple" Sus, but not necessarily true. Maybe. Maybe not. Consider the source; not trustworthy, regardless as to whether you think they are or not.

Frank, I read on the New York Daily Post this morning that Matt's son will be claiming the body and has made arrangements with a funeral home to have his body picked up for preparation. There will be a tremendous cost in having his father buried, many thousands in advance. I just hope he has some financial help doing it as funeral homes will not budge unless they are paid first.

I sorta had the feeling the son might come forth in his fathers' death. I'm glad he did, it shows admirable character and would be hard for the young man to live with the aftermath of not paying any honor to his father in death even though the man was never a father to his son and was a hardened criminal. Sad ending, all around.

jen-d said...

Re: Long Island Fake Hate Letter "Next, consider if you wanted a Go Fund Me page to make money. What would you say?"

Considering the letter is fake and Id make a Go Fund Me page, I’d highlight/emphasize/start with the “fact” that `We are victims of hate /racism’.
I’d then tell the story of how I saw this letter. I will post the letter too in its entirety.
Im just not sure what to ask for though. Should I ask for funds for moving? For the distress the letter has done to me and my family and so I need medical help for the fear/sleepless nights the letter has caused? Funds to fight the author of letter? Funds to help further strengthen my ties to the community (?). Fund to add more space to the house? Or if I have a business, to make the business help the community more e.g. free food for homeless?

I’d also ask people that their support will help fight such “racism/hate” – or that their support will give a “We’ll show them!” attitude to all those haters.

Peter Hyatt said...

Should the Long Island family start a go fund me, I think prosecutors would wait until the money is withdrawn and then charge them with fraud.

See Relentless Gay go fund me case.

Peter