Thursday, July 23, 2015

Exercise: Victim Status and Deceptive Scams

Create a victim class and watch how many seek to exploit it.

How many of you have worked with someone who basically either refuses his or her duties, or does the minimal, knowing full well that should a challenge arise, victim status will be used to silence constructive criticism?

It's become common place.

Here is a good opportunity for some "101" analysis.   The article is from the Daily Mail about a case we covered last month in which a Baltimore woman had raised $43,000 only to suddenly stop allowing donations (there is no sane reason to stop the inflow of money) because she learned that analysis had proven that she, herself, wrote the "hate" letter.

She not only held the LGBT community in contempt,  presupposing them to be without discernment, but she projected her own intolerance and hatred of Christian faith in her writing.  This was found to be consistent with other 'rants' of intolerance.

The Daily Mail listed her response as 'denial' of the allegation.

Your assignment is the following:

1.  Using copy/paste, Begin your report with the basic allegation and ask and answer:

"Did the subject deny the allegation?"  This is your opening line and should be included in your conclusion.

2.  Analyse the quotes of hers;

3.  Analyze the quotes of police;

4.  Write your "Analytical Report" with your conclusion directed to a specific audience:  Your findings are to be written to the untrained eye.

My point is that the DA didn't even even need the analysis to prove to a jury that she was the author of the note, given the volume of sample investigators obtained from a wide outlet of sources to the point where a reasonable person would need no persuasion in finding her guilty.  The analysis would have only strengthened an already relatively easy case.

You are writing in a way that explains your findings to the average juror, sans Casey Anthony Jury .

I labeled "Quote 1" and "Quote 2", with this in mind:  Quote 2 has a good deal of information within it.

If anonymous, pick a pen name so that you can be responded to should you wish for commentary.






Mom who raised $43,000 claiming her homophobic neighbor was intimidating her over her 'relentlessly gay yard' is accused of FAKING threats herself

  • Baltimore mother-of-four Julie Baker said she got an angry letter from her Christian neighbor about her front yard earlier this month
  • Anonymous writer objected to colored lamps spelling 'love, family' 
  • The letter called her yard 'relentlessly gay' and told her to 'tone it down'
  • Baker raised $48,000 to make her yard 'even more relentlessly gay' 
  • She is accused of writing the letter herself, based on similarities in grammatical errors between the letter and her own writing on GoFundMe
  • Detectives report Baker was unable to produce the letter when asked for it
  • Baker claims she has 'not been anything but authentic'

A Baltimore mom who raised over $43,000 after claiming her Christian neighbors threatened her over her 'relentlessly gay' front yard has now been accused of contriving the plot as part of a GoFundMe scam.
Several discrepancies have surfaced in the story of Julie Baker, a widowed mother-of-four who lives on the outskirts of the city and identifies as bisexual.
Baker said she received a note signed by 'A Concerned Home Owner' that attacked her colorful yard - which used lamps to spell out 'love' and 'ohana', a Hawaiian word for 'family' - for 'becoming Relenetlessly Gay!'
She then launched a campaign to make the yard 'even more relentlessly gay' and received $43,396 in online donations in just 14 days. However inconsistencies and suspicions have since been raised.
Baker then abruptly closed the account, saying she had raised 'more than plenty' of money. 
'Relentlessly gay': Julie Baker, a Baltimore woman who has these lamps in her yard, claimed a neighbor sent her an angry message demanding that she 'tone it down', but she is now accused of contriving the story
'Relentlessly gay': Julie Baker, a Baltimore woman who has these lamps in her yard, claimed a neighbor sent her an angry message demanding that she 'tone it down', but she is now accused of contriving the story
Hoax?: This is the letter Baker claims to have been sent, but comparisons have been made between it and Baker's own writing
Hoax?: This is the letter Baker claims to have been sent, but comparisons have been made between it and Baker's own writing
Julie Baker vowed to make her home 'even more relentlessly gay' and raised over $43,000 to do so. But several discrepancies have surfaced in her story 
Julie Baker vowed to make her home 'even more relentlessly gay' and raised over $43,000 to do so. But several discrepancies have surfaced in her story 
At the top of the list is the fact that both Baker and the letter she allegedly received appear to feature the same improper use of capitalization.
The letter incorrectly capitalizes words such as 'others,' and 'forced'.
Then, Baker capitalized words such as 'home', 'relent' and 'hatred' on her GoFundMe page. 
According to Queerty, Baker consistently capitalizes words on her Facebook page, where she often goes on rants about Christian's being opposed to gay marriage.

Quote 1:  
(The police) have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic' 

This prompted 'myth-busting' website Snopes to start an investigation.

The site contacted the police, and a detective reportedly told them 'that Baker was either unwilling or unable to produce the letter in question, and that she had maintained it was no longer in her possession'. 
The detective also told Snopes he was unable to meet Baker the day he wanted to.
Baker then sent the site a message on Facebook denying her campaign was a hoax.

Quote 2:

'I have been in contact with the police, they are satisfied with me, I am satisfied with them, and am grateful to them,' Baker said in the message.

'They have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic. 
'They even have the long history of the various things that have happened to me since moving into my house.' 
Aglow: At night the lamps light up, and clearly spell 'love' and 'ohana', which is a Hawaiian term for 'family'
Aglow: At night the lamps light up, and clearly spell 'love' and 'ohana', which is a Hawaiian term for 'family'
Home: The house, pictured in 2009, seemingly before the lamps were constructed, is on the outskirts of Baltimore
Home: The house, pictured in 2009, seemingly before the lamps were constructed, is on the outskirts of Baltimore
In closing down her GoFundMe from accepting donations, Baker also vaguely addressed the suspicions against her.

Quote 3:
'I want to humbly thank everyone for their extreme generosity.
'Please now, take all of this good energy and help each other. 
'I just learned moments ago that I could turn off the donations, and I am doing so because I there is plenty, more than plenty, above and beyond the goal.
'On a sadder note, the world is filled with hate and fear, as such I want to work to remove any doubt about the authenticity of the letter. 
'Until then I am not taking a dime out of this account.
'Please carry on with flooding the world with rainbows and joy, be relentlessly generous, be relentlessly compassionate, be relentlessly vibrant and stay relentlessly gay.'
This is the message Julie Baker uploaded to her GoFundMe page asking for money. Comparisons have been drawn between the writing and that of the threatening letter she claimed was sent to her
This is the message Julie Baker uploaded to her GoFundMe page asking for money. Comparisons have been drawn between the writing and that of the threatening letter she claimed was sent to her
Shut-down: Baker closed her GoFundMe page after it reached over $43,000 in donations and posted this message explaining why 
Shut-down: Baker closed her GoFundMe page after it reached over $43,000 in donations and posted this message explaining why 
The letter that Baker said she received read: 'Dear resident of [address],
'Your yard is becoming Relenetlessly Gay! Myself and Others in the neighborhood ask that you Tone It Down.
'This is a Christian area and there are Children. Keep it up and I will be Forced to call the Police on You! Your kind need to have Respect for God.
'A Concerned Home Owner.'
Images of the letter and the lamp display, which glows at night, were posted online by a friend of Baker, and were then shared thousands of times.
She said that if she were to get enough money she would get 'a rainbow-colored roof'.
On the page Baker wrote: 'Put simply, I am a widow and the mother of four children, my youngest in high school and I WILL NOT relent to hatred.
'Instead, I will battle it with whimsy and beauty and laughter and love, wrapped around my home, yard and family!!!'
'Thanks for your relentlessly gay support!'

35 comments:

Brooke said...

Q: Did the subject deny the allegation?

No, the subject, Julie Baker, never issues a direct denial. A direct denial would be "I did not write the letter / I didn't write the letter".

Here are her statements:

Quote 1:
(The police) have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic'

Here she tells us what the police do not believe making it negative & sensitive (instead of issuing a direct denial) and it is an attempt to persuade the reader. "I have done anything wrong" and "been anything but authentic" is leakage.

Quote 2:

'I have been in contact with the police, they are satisfied with me, I am satisfied with them, and am grateful to them,' Baker said in the message.

This is an attempt to persuade others that she is part of the investigation and also includes "with" showing distance. It's interesting she choose the words "contact, satisfied and grateful." She also drops the pronoun "I" when it should occur before the word grateful. "I have been in contact...I am satisfied...and am grateful."

'They have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic.

I'm guessing the author of the article included the same quote twice, once pulled out of context and once in-context. The use of the word "that" prior to "done anything wrong" could indicate her desire to distance herself from her actions.

It also leads me to wonder, if "They have no reason" to believe she is guilty, are there reasons they do not yet have? Facts they do not yet have that would change their minds? It's a lot of persuasive language with no sign of a direct denial.

'They even have the long history of the various things that have happened to me since moving into my house.'

This is a very vague persuasive statement. What long history? What sorts of things have happened at her house before? She says it's a long history but the word "even" suggests that it's a "long" list she had to give the police to support her story and not a list they already had on file.

Cont....

Brooke said...

Quote 3:
'I want to humbly thank everyone for their extreme generosity.
'Please now, take all of this good energy and help each other.
'I just learned moments ago that I could turn off the donations, and I am doing so because I there is plenty, more than plenty, above and beyond the goal.

Who turns off donations? If she's committing fraud she's going to turn them off. Otherwise this makes no sense.


'On a sadder note, the world is filled with hate and fear, as such I want to work to remove any doubt about the authenticity of the letter.

She is experiencing sadness, hate and fear. Baker feels like she has to "work to remove doubt about the authenticity of the letter." If you are innocent, you do not have to "work to remove doubt."

'Until then I am not taking a dime out of this account.

"This" account, not "that" account. The account and the amount in it are important to her.

'Please carry on with flooding the world with rainbows and joy, be relentlessly generous, be relentlessly compassionate, be relentlessly vibrant and stay relentlessly gay.'

She seems to be "relentlessly" persuading, but never denying...


Quote from Police:

The site contacted the police, and a detective reportedly told them 'that Baker was either unwilling or unable to produce the letter in question, and that she had maintained it was no longer in her possession'.

The detective also told Snopes he was unable to meet Baker the day he wanted to.

If Baker is "unwilling or unable" to produce the letter she is not being cooperative or part of the investigation as she claims. Especially with the addition of "The detective also told Snopes he was unable to meet Baker the day he wanted to."

It is also interesting that she "maintained" that she no longer had the letter which means officers asked her about it multiple times. You can't "maintain" a response if you haven't given it more than once.

Analytical Report

Julie Baker never issues a direct denial of the allegations. Not once does she say "I didn't write the letter". Instead she says the police "have no reason to believe" she's done anything wrong "or been anything but authentic".


She follows this by attempting to convince everyone she is working with the police (something refuted by the officer's own quote)Then she goes on to say that she is turning off donations and "not taking a dime out of this account" until she is able to "work to remove doubt about the authenticity of the letter."

Anonymous said...

Brooke, I really enjoyed your thorough analysis. As an on-looker who has been reading here and learning for several years; there is one question I ponder. Where you are saying that she has been asked multiple times to produce the letter; where do you get this idea? The word maintain does not necessarily lead to having been asked multiple times, IMO. I'm just wondering. Thanks!

Brooke said...

Hey Anon,

Maybe that's just me? In my internal dictionary "maintain" means to "do something repeatedly" usually to keep it from falling apart or creating a problem. As in, I "maintain" my car, my house, my appearance, etc. If she "maintains" that she cannot produce the letter perhaps it's something she's doing repeatedly to keep her story from falling apart.

What do you think? What does it mean to you? How did you view the officers use of "maintain" in the statement?

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Peter,

i posted this awhile back, there is still no sign of her or any updates. I was wondering what your thoughts on it are

Thanks.


Family Worried About Bay Shore Teen Missing Since July 2

BAY SHORE, N.Y. (CBSNewYork) — Police are asking for the public’s help to find a 15-year-old Bay Shore girl who has been missing for a week.

Brandy Walsh was last seen at her house at 1148 Joselson Ave. on July 2.

“She said she was going to a friend’s house, that was about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. I told her be home at 7, she said she’d see me at 7,” her grandfather, Kenneth Walsh, told WCBS 880’s Sophia Hall. “Never came back, never went to the friend’s house.”

Kenneth Walsh said his granddaughter is a good kid and wants her back safe and sound.
“There’s enough pedophiles out there; she’s 15 and anybody who knows where she is and is harboring her should be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” he said.
“Was she hanging out with older guys or people?” WCBS 880’s Sophia Hall asked.
“No. Not that I’m aware of, cause she knows I’d have put my foot down right then and there,” Walsh said.
Brandy is described as 5-feet tall, 140 pounds, with long hair that is dyed in different colors. Her hair was bright red when she was last seen.
Her family believes she has plans to attend the Vans Warped Tour at Jones Beach on July 11.

Anyone with information about Brandy’s whereabouts are asked to call the Third Squad at 631-854-8352 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-220-TIPS.

“She said she was going to a friend’s house, that was about 3 o’clock in the afternoon. I told her be home at 7, she said she’d see me at 7,” her grandfather, Kenneth Walsh, told WCBS 880’s Sophia Hall. “Never came back, never went to the friend’s house.”

3 o’clock

Note whenever the number 3 enters a statement as it is known as the "liar's number" It should not be considered deceptive on its own, only noted in context. When someone wishes to be deceptive and chooses a number, it is often "3" unless the subject is asked how many drinks he or she had, and then the number is "two".

I told her be home at 7, she said she’d see me at 7,”

Note that her grandfather "told" her "to be home at 7!, rather than i "said" indicates firmness; It may be that they argued, or that he wants to emphasize authority.

"she said she’d see me at 7,”

If there was and argument. Was it one sided "She said"?


“Never came back, never went to the friend’s house.”

Note the dropped pronouns, lacking commitment about her "“Never came back, never went to the friend’s house."Never" does not me didn't or did not. Did she leave the house? He only tells us that she said she was going to a friends house and not that she left to go. Did anyone see her after he said she was going to a friends house, if indeed she did leave? Have her friends confirmed that she said she was going to visit them?

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

“There’s enough pedophiles out there; she’s 15 and anybody who knows where she is and is harboring her should be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” he said.

“There’s enough pedophiles out there"

If this is said in the free editing stage, that is, choosing his own words and is not in response to a question or parroting language, it concerns me.

Was she hanging out with older guys or people?” WCBS 880’s Sophia Hall asked.
No. Not that I’m aware of, cause she knows I’d have put my foot down right then and there,” Walsh said.

Here we see he goes beyond the question which is yes or no answer, this makes it sensitive to him. We also see the authority in his language "she knows I’d have put my foot down right then and there,” Although the question maybe sensitive and he goes beyond the question asked, i would say that most guardians would put their foot down if they found out that their 15 year old grand daughter was "hanging out with older guys or people?” Having said that. She doesn't specifically put an age to "older guys or people. What does he consider "older guys or people" to be?


Given that he does not say she left the house and that she "never came back, never went (dropped pronouns) to a friends house, the possibility that there was an argument that seems to be one sided on his behalf, the number 3, the word "pedophiles" entering his language seemingly unprovoked, gives me cause for concern.


http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/07/09/missing-bay-shore-teen-brandy-walsh/

Anonymous said...

I admit it Peter, you had me stumped initially on the case of scam artist Julie Baker. I failed to see how you could declare her as being the writer of the note immediately based on her use of the words Christians and children when I know there are Christians and children in every neighborhood accept for most over-55 gated communities, which she does not live in one; and the other observation was her misuse of capitol letters which is not so uncommon among those who do not use correct punctuation. I did not see how this could be such a sudden give-away that she wrote the note herself. I questioned this but you stuck by your guns.

The note was written in such a way that I felt that it could have been written by just about anybody, not necessarily a next door neighbor but probably by someone in the neighborhood or nearby who was PO'ed about her tacky yard. I did not see it initially that her comments were a slam against Christianity and children, which was written in such a way that it appeared that the writer was being mindful of Christians and children, not slamming them particularly.

Well, you were dead on right Peter! My congrats, hats off, rain dance! Great job. I get it now in the Julie Baker scam note, but I still don't get it that there was anything negative about your comment "I was seated between two beautiful women", not when you have taught us that if the subject doesn't say it we can't say it for them; not when there was nothing indicating your negative feelings.

But that's okay, I'll just drop it for now; maybe I'll see something in the comment at some later point that I sure don't see now as it is not in the words 'two', 'between', 'was', 'beautiful' 'two', 'I', or 'seated'. IMO, joined together it was a positive statement; the word 'beautiful' being the key word that to me made it a refreshing, pleasant experience, not tension building; not when you did not say or imply that their beauty caused you tension or anxiety. Have a GREAT day!

Anonymous said...

Hey Brooke,

In response to your question last night; I view the word 'maintain' 'maintains' maintained' pretty much the same way you do, as a prefunctionary, physical job one is doing or having done, e.i., vacuuming, having their car serviced, replacing damaged gutters, and so on.

But IMO, for her to 'maintain' to the officer that she no longer had the note is not a job that was being performed, it was a status of refusal being stated. It could have been stated only once that she maintained this, to one officer, or several times to more than one officer that she was asked multiple times to produce the letter. IMO, there would be no way to know this.

More than likely the way you are maintaining that the officer maintained she would not (or could not) produce the letter is more correct than my way of thinking his use of the word 'maintains' could be only once that she was asked. Either way, I think it could be the correct usage. Over all, very good post, Brooke.

Brooke said...

Thanks Mr. Hyatt!

Anonymous said...

Hey again Brooke,

Just in case you are thinking I am Peter Hyatt who made the above response to you, posting anonymously; I am not Peter.

I am another anonymous poster here who has been reading and thinking under Peter's direction for several years, back to 2007 or 08, I believe, going back to the early stages of the investigation of the disappearance (violent rape, death, disposal and cover up) of little Haleigh Cummings in Satsuma.

I use an anonymous name due to the fact that I have been and would be harassed if I gave my real name to some of the others here. I don't mean to cause confusion, just trying to avoid unnecessary and conflicting disagreements. Peter has asked me previously if I am an attorney; no I am not, although I have studied law (civil law) and used it as it applied to my business and in being an expert witness.

I am just an average business woman, a mother, widowed, and living more or less in seclusion; well, maybe a little above average, am presently semi-retired due to having had vocal cord cancer, just perking along. Have a very nice day!

Brooke said...

Oh! And here I thought I was so smart lol.

Well neat, thanks for clarifying. It's nice to meet you. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond to my posts. I'm new and this is the first time I've tried to do an analysis. Your feedback matters a lot to me. Now you have me very curious as to who you are, though given your reasons for remaining anonymous, I won't press.

My father in law was recently diagnosed with cancer, I feel for you. Glad to know you are doing OK.

Jen Ow said...

Good Analysis Brooke! Great job on your first posted analysis!

I also use 'maintain' in the same way as you, in regard to routine maintenance. It is also 'police speak' that I hear/see often when transcribing depo's.

Coming from L.E., or an attorney, 'maintain' is often used in the context of a subject 'maintaining' their stance. (Sticking to their story, often in the face of contrary evidence.)

For example:

'Mrs. X maintains that she was unaware that the items found in her possession were stolen.

'Despite being confronted with video evidence, Mr. X maintained that he had no involvement in the theft.'

'My client maintains his innocence', etc.


In my opinion, it is a weak way of asserting something, used in a distancing way in order to avoid stating the assertion plainly, as fact.

When I hear 'maintain' used in this context, I see it as an indication that the person speaking has doubts about the assertion.

You have to 'maintain' a lie, while the truth is effortless.

Anonymous said...

Here's the latest "interview" she gave to media: http://www.baltimoreoutloud.com/lgbtq-news/maryland/item/3380-relentlessly-gay-woman-%E2%80%98it-was-not-a-hoax%E2%80%99.

The article states that she hasn't taken out funds because of "tax issues" but that is not correct. She is being investigated by Baltimore PD. They have her computer and they have a letter that is supposedly the original letter. I say supposedly because first she had it, then it was lost in the house according to her friend Eleanor, then it was given to police according to her friend Paula, then Julie herself states that she threw it away in the interview above and these statements are in chronological order. She's having a hard time keeping her story straight and her blabbing friends in line.

Bottomline, she is currently being investigated by Baltimore PD for fraud and the funds have been frozen.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Hailey Dunn's home may be destroyed
13-year-old disappeared Dec. 28, 2010 from her home


The house that was once home for Hailey Dunn - a Colorado City teen who disappeared and was murdered over four years ago - may not stand much longer, serving as a reminder of the case that's gone cold.

According to the City Manager, the Dunn house on Chestnut Street has become dilapidated and uninhabitable.

Squatters have been living inside the home for at least a month, and the City is footing the bill for upkeep.

Story from Jan. 5, 2014:
Just over three years since 13-year-old Hailey Dunn went missing, the investigation continues into her disappearance and ultimate murder.
But some milestones were reached in 2013 in the case of the Colorado City teen who disappeared on Dec. 28, 2010, from her home.

In the three years since her disappearance, investigators from Colorado City, Mitchell County, the Texas Rangers, the Department of Public Safety and the FBI have followed countless leads but to no avail. And now, the FBI is officially the lead investigating agency in the case.

On March 16, 2013, the remains of the Colorado City teen were found near Lake Thomas in Scurry County. The remains, accompanied by some clothing, were positively identified as belonging to Hailey Darlene Dunn on April 26. John Young, the attorney for her Hailey’s mother, Billie Jean Dunn, would be the one to report this to the Odessa American. The remains were identified through DNA, Young said.

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

Dunn reported her 13-year-old daughter missing Dec. 28, 2010, from the family’s home in Colorado City. Since then, there has been very little evidence uncovered involving her disappearance. Shawn Adkins, the then live-in boyfriend of Billie Jean Dunn, is the only person identified as a suspect by Colorado City police. And Young would say at the time of the identification that he believed that Adkins would be looked at long and hard by investigators, but do date, he has not been arrested for any crime related to the case.
On May 19, hundreds of mourners flocked to the junior high school gym in Colorado City to pay their last respects to Hailey Dunn, whose face had become a familiar site on billboards, posters and websites all over the state and nation. The gym was the appropriate place for the service, family members said, because it is where Hailey was at home as the 8th grade cheerleader and participated in basketball and volleyball at Colorado Middle School.

During the service, Colorado Middle School Principal Mark Merrell said Hailey was very active, participating in volleyball, basketball and cheerleading. She also played the saxophone in the school band.

"She loved her family, friends and teachers," Merrell said. "She loved school."

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

Becca Kimbler, her basketball coach, was often overcome with emotion as she shared her memories of Hailey.

"In class, she was quite well-mannered, Kimbler said. "But on the court, Hailey was competitive. She was always striving to do what's best and what's right."
Kimbler said nothing can prepare a teacher for the loss of a student.
"The world has lost a gifted child and heaven has gained an angel," Kimbler said.
Cheerleader sponsor Andra Maxwell described Hailey as a hard worker who loved her family dearly.

In a video shown during the service, Billie Jean Dunn read a message describing her daughter saying she is "now an angel."

During the service that day, Dunn’s son David Dunn, who is now 18, lives with her in Austin. During Sunday’s memorial service, Billie, her son David and her former husband and the father of the children, Clint Dunn, held each other close.
A few days after the service, Billie Dunn vowed to seek justice in the death of her daughter.

She said her focus now is also to let her family heal.
Moving forward, she wants to promote the Hailey Dunn Scholarship and advocate for families of missing children by forming Team Hailey.
“I want to take other mothers under my wing and get their child’s face out in the media,” Dunn. “I want to make sure Hailey has a legacy and I will start doing some advocating.”

FBI officials say the case is still an active investigation, but to date, no arrests have been made.
“We do request that anyone with information contact the authorities with the reminder that they can remain anonymous,” said Katherine Chaumont, a spokesperson for the FBI.

http://www.oaoa.com/news/crime_justice/law_enforcement/article_2bcd196c-3213-11e5-91e1-d3323091d5e9.html

tania cadogan said...

In a rare interview with the media since the suspicions surfaced, Julie Baker agreed to discuss the situation on the record with Baltimore OUTloud and respond to the charges. From her responses, Baker whom she self-describes as a “goofball,” shrugs off the suspicions and criticisms in a breezy, nonchalant and philosophical manner.

First and foremost, Baker denies the accusation that her effort was a hoax. “It was not a hoax. I have great neighbors for the most part and do not judge the whole of my neighborhood because of a few,” she says. “From my understanding this is the natural progression when things go nuts on the Internet. It makes good fodder for news outlets and right now people seem to be fishing for blood.”

Baker was asked why she had recently received a visit from the local police. “The police felt, in light of the insane levels that this has gone to that it would be worth peeking into,” she explains. “I have done nothing wrong so I saw no harm in it. Period. They are just doing their best to do their jobs, like any person.”

When questioned why she no longer has the note, Baker says, “Because it’s just a note. It wasn’t a threat; it didn’t tell me who sent it. It was stupid and laughable in its sad way. Almost a hundred people handled the icky thing.”

She adds, “I hope... whoever wrote the note gets so bent out of shape that they stand up and shake their fist. The funny thing is, through all this I have found out I am not the only person in this neighborhood to get notes. I am, however, the only one that spoke up online about it.”

Baker was unable to confirm if the other notes sent to neighbors were anti-gay in nature. “I think whoever did this simply is one of those nasties that like to voice their opinions and try to make others do what they want. It’s not all that unusual. I do hope this teaches whoever did this that there are more people in the world that enjoy good stuff, than there are nasty ones.”

She hasn’t taken out any money from the fund so any further rainbow decorations have not occurred yet. “I’m not sure on all the tax stuff and want to make sure I don’t accidentally trip over any existing laws that would undo future rainbows,” Baker explains. “I want this done right, and tastefully and in a way that makes those that donated smile.”

Nonetheless, the reason for most of the suspicion has to do with the similarities on capitalization on the note and her GoFundMe page. “It seems like no one understands the subtle art of mocking, or notice that millions of people write the same way... I never noticed it before but now when I read my friends’ feeds I notice it all over. People want to hate, I can’t help the way people want to think.”

Therein lies the problem.
Anyone reading the article would assume she was telling the truth and the writing on her gofundme page was mocking the note.
However,she doesn't explain why the exact same random capitalisation run through all her facebook posts, written long before she 'received' the letter.

Would this mean the author of the letter was in fact mocking her writing style?

She further claims millions of people write the same way, and, she notices the same style on her friends news feeds.

This would cause me to wonder if her friends are doing it to minimize the link between her and the letter and her gofundme page?
Her writing style is like handwriting, it is distinctive.
If , as she claims, millions do it including her friends,why did she then go to great pains to change her usual writing style including random capitalization, to writing with capitalization in only the correct places?
It shows she is aware of the link and knows how incriminating it is.

Dee said...

Did the subject deny the allegation?

Quote 1:
“(The police) have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic.”

This is not a reliable denial. The best denials use “I” as a commitment to the statement, use the phrase “did not” and are specific to the allegation. The subject did not take ownership of her denial, instead using “the police” as an authoritative, respectable channel through which she could represent her so-called denial. She could not even directly state that the police “did not” find her to be legitimate, but instead states that they have “no reason” to “believe” she has done anything wrong.

The subject also repeats the word “anything” in the context of talking about wrongness and authenticness. This suggests that these concepts are sensitive to her, and that she may in fact be doing something wrong and being inauthentic, thereby deceptive.

Each of these aspects of her statement reduces commitment, making it an unreliable denial.

Quote 2:

“I have been in contact with the police, they are satisfied with me, I am satisfied with them, and am grateful to them.”

She uses references the police four separate times in this single sentence. Does this constitute repetition as an indicator of sensitivity?

What is her internal definition of satisfied? The word is repeated, so it is sensitive to her.

Is there a dropped pronoun when she states she is grateful to the police? If so, then her commitment to this sentiment is reduced, suggesting that she may not be especially grateful to the police for their involvement in the situation.

“They have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic.”

See analysis above.

“They even have the long history of the various things that have happened to me since moving into my house.”

The words “even,” “long” and “various” are all unnecessary. Unnecessary words are an indicator of the subject’s attempts to persuade. While this is not necessarily a flag for deception, considering the subject’s inability to issue a reliable denial, the additional persuasive words do not suggest an innocent individual’s fear and desperation that would lead them to use such language, but instead come across as a liar’s attempt to be convincing when she cannot even deny her involvement. She has yet to make a statement with ownership regarding the anonymous letter; instead, she uses “the police” as a funnel through which she supposedly legitimizes her innocence.

The subject states that things have happened since “moving” into her house. The phrasing here drops the pronoun and uses more vague, passive language. The expected would be “since I moved,” but she states “since moving,” minimizing her commitment to the sentence and also to the timeframe of supposed occurrences that have happened at her house. This is a weak assertion of undefined “things” having occurred, likely as an attempt to garner sympathy or legitimize the likelihood of her claim about the anonymous letter.

Dee said...

Police:
“Baker was either unwilling or unable to produce the letter in question, and she had maintained it was no longer in her possession.”

Police refer to Julie Baker by her last name only. If I recall correctly from reading the analysis of the mother in the diner, this is an incomplete introduction that reflects negativity toward the individual.

Given that the police do not commit to an assessment of Baker’s behavior, attributing it “either” to unwillingness or inability, this shows they may question her story enough to be unwilling to assert it to be true. The order is important. The police first state that she may be “unwilling,” which suggests that they may lean more toward unwillingness as an explanation rather than inability.

The police report Baker has been claiming that the letter is “no longer” in her possession. This is phrased in the negative and is not a reliable denial. Whether this phrase was originally used by Baker or by the police, it shows that there is minimal commitment to the assertion that she does not possess the note.

Analysis Conclusion:

Did the subject deny the allegation?

Neither Julie Baker nor the police denied the allegation that she was the author of the note. Julie never stated that she did not author the note, instead reporting her supposed innocence through the channel of parroted police remarks. Her language demonstrated an attempt to persuade via the use of unnecessary words. These words are particularly important, given that they are added to statements that do not contain the simplest, most expected form of denial (“I did not write the letter”). They strike the reader as an embellishment upon a lie, rather than the emotional appeal of a wrongly accused innocent person.

The police statement indicates that they do not find Julie Baker’s explanations reliable. The order of their speculative adjectives (“unwilling or unable”) indicates that they find Julie to be uncooperative in their investigation. They too report Julie’s “denial” in the negative, that she “no longer” possesses the note. This minimizes commitment and demonstrates that the police do not believe her excuses for not producing the note for them to analyze.

To conclude, Julie Baker has not issued a reliable denial, and the police’s language indicates their skepticism of her story.

Dee said...

(may be a repost)


Did the subject deny the allegation?

Quote 1:
“(The police) have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic.”

This is not a reliable denial. The best denials use “I” as a commitment to the statement, use the phrase “did not” and are specific to the allegation. The subject did not take ownership of her denial, instead using “the police” as an authoritative, respectable channel through which she could represent her so-called denial. She could not even directly state that the police “did not” find her to be legitimate, but instead states that they have “no reason” to “believe” she has done anything wrong.

The subject also repeats the word “anything” in the context of talking about wrongness and authenticness. This suggests that these concepts are sensitive to her, and that she may in fact be doing something wrong and being inauthentic, thereby deceptive.

Each of these aspects of her statement reduces commitment, making it an unreliable denial.

Quote 2:

“I have been in contact with the police, they are satisfied with me, I am satisfied with them, and am grateful to them.”

She uses references the police four separate times in this single sentence. Does this constitute repetition as an indicator of sensitivity?

What is her internal definition of satisfied? The word is repeated, so it is sensitive to her.

Is there a dropped pronoun when she states she is grateful to the police? If so, then her commitment to this sentiment is reduced, suggesting that she may not be especially grateful to the police for their involvement in the situation.

“They have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic.”

See analysis above.

“They even have the long history of the various things that have happened to me since moving into my house.”

The words “even,” “long” and “various” are all unnecessary. Unnecessary words are an indicator of the subject’s attempts to persuade. While this is not necessarily a flag for deception, considering the subject’s inability to issue a reliable denial, the additional persuasive words do not suggest an innocent individual’s fear and desperation that would lead them to use such language, but instead come across as a liar’s attempt to be convincing when she cannot even deny her involvement. She has yet to make a statement with ownership regarding the anonymous letter; instead, she uses “the police” as a funnel through which she supposedly legitimizes her innocence.

The subject states that things have happened since “moving” into her house. The phrasing here drops the pronoun and uses more vague, passive language. The expected would be “since I moved,” but she states “since moving,” minimizing her commitment to the sentence and also to the timeframe of supposed occurrences that have happened at her house. This is a weak assertion of undefined “things” having occurred, likely as an attempt to garner sympathy or legitimize the likelihood of her claim about the anonymous letter.

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Tania

Her statement is laden with SA goodies, lol

Dee said...

Did the subject deny the allegation?

Quote 1:
“(The police) have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic.”

This is not a reliable denial. The best denials use “I” as a commitment to the statement, use the phrase “did not” and are specific to the allegation. The subject did not take ownership of her denial, instead using “the police” as an authoritative, respectable channel through which she could represent her so-called denial. She could not even directly state that the police “did not” find her to be legitimate, but instead states that they have “no reason” to “believe” she has done anything wrong.

The subject also repeats the word “anything” in the context of talking about wrongness and authenticness. This suggests that these concepts are sensitive to her, and that she may in fact be doing something wrong and being inauthentic, thereby deceptive.

Each of these aspects of her statement reduces commitment, making it an unreliable denial.

Quote 2:

“I have been in contact with the police, they are satisfied with me, I am satisfied with them, and am grateful to them.”

She uses references the police four separate times in this single sentence. Does this constitute repetition as an indicator of sensitivity?

What is her internal definition of satisfied? The word is repeated, so it is sensitive to her.

Is there a dropped pronoun when she states she is grateful to the police? If so, then her commitment to this sentiment is reduced, suggesting that she may not be especially grateful to the police for their involvement in the situation.

“They have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic.”

See analysis above.

“They even have the long history of the various things that have happened to me since moving into my house.”

The words “even,” “long” and “various” are all unnecessary. Unnecessary words are an indicator of the subject’s attempts to persuade. While this is not necessarily a flag for deception, considering the subject’s inability to issue a reliable denial, the additional persuasive words do not suggest an innocent individual’s fear and desperation that would lead them to use such language, but instead come across as a liar’s attempt to be convincing when she cannot even deny her involvement. She has yet to make a statement with ownership regarding the anonymous letter; instead, she uses “the police” as a funnel through which she supposedly legitimizes her innocence.

The subject states that things have happened since “moving” into her house. The phrasing here drops the pronoun and uses more vague, passive language. The expected would be “since I moved,” but she states “since moving,” minimizing her commitment to the sentence and also to the timeframe of supposed occurrences that have happened at her house. This is a weak assertion of undefined “things” having occurred, likely as an attempt to garner sympathy or legitimize the likelihood of her claim about the anonymous letter.

Dee said...

For some reason the first part of my analysis won't post... Grr! I was hoping for some feedback from you guys since I've been lurking so long!

Dee said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1TdCq-Eya4
“Our brother should be in jail.”

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT (PART 1)

STEVE: Brandon this is the second time that you’ve been accused of molesting your niece right? Tell me what happened.

BRANDON: Uh, one saturday night I was watching the kids, I stayed with them about a month, month and a half. The whole time I was there, they slept all day. I became a maid, a babysitter, full-time.

STEVE: For your sister.

BRANDON: Yes, nobody else was watching them. I’m the uncle, felt obligated. Um, the saturday night that these supposed allegations were made, um, I want, I was watching the kids, put them to bed at eight, that was their bedtime. My niece was watching a movie, put the boys to bed. She kept turning the tv up and down. Well, before I get into that, supposedly they have videotape of me going in and out of my niece’s bedroom. I was in and out of the bedroom. But... Um -

STEVE: They have surveillance cameras in their house?

BRANDON: Yes

STEVE: Why would, why would they do that?

BRANDON: I don’t know. Went in there three times to turn the tv down because she was keeping my nephews awake. Then she calls me back in there cuz the disc start skipping. I go back in there, clean it off, didn’t work. Go back in there again, switch the movie, it worked.

STEVE: So that’s your explanation for going back in there in the room?

BRANDON: Yes.

STEVE: When did you learn that you were being accused of molesting your niece?

BRANDON: A week later. I’m washing a load of clothes. I get a knock at the door. It was a [city] detective and two city cops. I open the door. He was like, “ are, are you Brandon?” I said “yes sir i am.” read me my rights and told me that my niece was making allegations against me that I touched her.

Sus said...

Yep, it's to jail for Uncle Brandon.

Brooke said...

Thanks Jen Ow!

I appreciate your kind words and encouragement.

Your explanation of the word maintain was brilliant and I will remember it.

"You have to maintain a lie, while the truth is effortless." This is so true!

Anonymous said...

the fake hate woman from relentlessly gay is still not done deceiving other gays and now says she has been under death threats it it must be those christians threatening to kill her her worshipping faceobook groupies have concluded
it is the same 'christian' who wrote the letter!! is there no end to how easily thse people get deceived?

Dee said...

He mentioned both "washing" and "opening doors." I found his words very interesting.

He ended up pleading guilty and got ten years.

jen-d said...

1. Did the subject deny the allegation that she wrote the "hate" letter?

Subject issued no reliable denial.
Reliable denial consists of: I didnt/did not (allegation).

2 Quote 1:
(The police) have no reason to believe that I have done anything wrong or been anything but authentic'.

"have no reason to believe" is a negative statement

"I have done anything wrong" - is this an admission?

Quote 2:

'I have been in contact with the police, they are satisfied with me, I am satisfied with them, and am grateful to them,' Baker said in the message.

"I have been in contact with the police" - Pronoun "I" is so far from "police". Distance observed between her and police highlighted by "with the".

Distancing also noticed in her statement "they are satisfied with me"; "I am satisfied with them". No pronoun in "am grateful to them."


'They even have the long history of the various things that have happened to me since moving into my house.'

Extreme distancing observed in "They" and "my house".

Quote 3:

"I want to work to remove any doubt about the authenticity of the letter."

Subject could have easily issued reliable denial - yet she claims she "want(s) to work to remove any doubt about the authenticity of the letter." Also, she doesnt say she will remove any doubt. She says she only wants to.



3. Analyze the quotes of police;

"The site contacted the police, and a detective reportedly told them 'that Baker was either unwilling or unable to produce the letter in question, and that she had maintained it was no longer in her possession'. "

Police statement fits with subject's extreme distancing statements about her "communication" with the police. Police statement also inconsistent with the impression she wants to leave that she is `removing any doubt' about letter's authenticity.

4. Conclusion:

Subject issued no reliable denial. Subject did not say she didnt write letter.
Subject's statement s shows her relationship with police is distant. This is confirmed with police's statement that subject was "unwilling..unable" to produce said "hate" letter.
Subject is therefore lying in her claim to be working with police as police confirms she is doing otherwise and her statement reflects such.
Subject, according to her statement, will not do anything to remove any doubt on letter's authenticity. This is proven by police's statement that subject is no longer in possession of letter.
Subject's actions is inconsistent with someone who is victimized by "hate". Subject has no intent to find author of letter.
Subject's action & statements are consistent with the possibility that she is author of letter.
Subject's actions & statements lead to her being author of letter.

jen-d said...

Subject's actions & statements lead to her being author of letter or that she knows author of letter and she may have had a hand in writing the letter.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Dee,

The same thing happened to me! I wrote mine up, and when I tried to publish, it disappeared. I didn't save it so I'll try again later. :-(

Anonymous said...

I think anyone would have a hard time proving that Julie Baker wrote the letter herself; unless they have a credible witness who saw her write it or helped her to write it. Just our knowing and believing that she did, or that the police believe she did, does not prove that she did and I don't think that she will ever admit she did or had any part in it.

jen-d said...

To Anonymous 510pm

I did think it was a stretch to conclude she wrote the letter. But my emotional self thought "duuh its obvious, she lied to police and she threw out the letter, why would she when its evidence of 'hate' towards her, and shes not cooperating with authorities".


But my rational self said "hmm not sure about that".

But I wrote my conclusion anyway as I want to know what my errors are.

Dee said...

Oh no! I'm glad I saved mine, I would have been so frustrated! Better luck next time, hopefully.

Juliet said...

I would like to do this or exercise, or one like it. Maybe in a few months time I would attemp it, or one like it, but at this stage I find it daunting, in terms of there being instructions and it needing a disciplined/structured response.

Can I just put in a question though? Peter, you make the observation, and so does Brooke, that there is no sane reason to stop the flow of donations. That's an opinion, outside of the analysis, which in this instance, probably wouldn't bias anyone's judgement because of the many indications within the letter that it was written by the recipient. What say, though, If the analyst had made a pre-judgement of that sort, which was not based on anything written in the letter, could their opinion cloud their conclusion, or would it not make any difference - is it always possible to determine if an anonymous threatening letter is real, or not? I think what I'm asking is the lesson here that the analyst's personal opinion round anything not based on the actual contents of the letter is irrelevant to the conclusion, and can't bias any concIusion, because a letter's content will always speak for itself?

I ask, because I found it curious that you made the proposition/challenge that there is no sane reason to turn off donations when I know otherwise, and think you, and some others, are likely to know that, too, so your saying that is just part of the exercise. An honest-fund raiser, Once he or she has reached or surpassed their target and has raised enough, or more than enough, to fulfil their intention, and not wishing to be greedy or take advantage of people's generosity, when they could now more helpfully donate to another cause, turns off their donations, with 'thanks, but no more is necessary'. Some set humble targets and find them wildly surpassed, yet don't turn off the donations because the people giving want them left on for longer. A good case in point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-31125543

Julie Baker, on the other hand, allowing her donations to go so high for a few fairy lights, and a few home repairs (what does that have to do with anyone not liking her fairy lights?) does seem a bit insane, as in suspicious, and greedy, and inviting of questioning round motive in setting up the fund-raiser. So I think we are meant to take from this that an analyst's opinion may or may not be correct but as it's likely to be a distraction, one should keep the focus on the words spoken/written. Would that be correct?