To study human nature, is to have insight into human history.
What is behind the making of war where lives are lost, as the ultimate expression of hatred?
It is greed.
We know that fame brings money, and that the seeking of fame is often the door for money and that just before World War I, industrialists were working overtime to create hostilities in Europe, as they stood to earn the most in the arms manufacturing. Making lots of bullets is great, but use those bullets and there is a need for more. Unfortunately, using them means dead bodies, but that cannot be allowed to stand before profit.
The Treaty of Versailles was a dog fight, over a limited amount of resources, picked from the bones of Germans. The allies got wealth, while Germany got anarchy, civil unrest, violence and unemployment. Bully someone long enough and you inspire them to eventually bully back.
In the 30's, FDR promised "social" security for every American, which was something previously left up to us to procure, not government, which was the start or at least, escalation of socialism in the United States. He promised many things that had to be paid for, but he also promised to keep us out of "European wars and conflicts" as our first President had warned us. Europe had a long history of greed, which led to expensive and costly wars, where lives were continually disrupted and lost.
While making public promises to Americans, he was making armament companies wealthy with increased productivity and eventually coerced Japan into attacking, as a precursor to war.
International law says the aggressor is not the one who fires the first shot, but he who requires the first shot be made.
Across the globe, Hitler promised much to his people, and his economy went from zero to 60 rather quickly...from the building of arms, those things used to kill people.
Stalin did the same thing, literally starving to death millions in one city, to feed another.
War would help pay for the things promised at the cost of millions of dead.
Iran exports terror using its wealth. The West surrendered and lifted sanctions to increase their wealth, even while they chanted our death, and our Israel's death. Caught cheating with sanctions, they are free to accelerate their weaponry. But since they are now 'welcomed' in the community of the West, they are expected to behave. This is to ignore the nature revealed in the words and actions.
History can be understood by understanding a single person, and how he, or she, will think and react. If you study human nature, you will find that the parallel between individuals and nations runs smoothly.
If one person is greedy, he or she will likely find those of like mindedness, and will be led by this desire for money. In a subjective world, it does not matter how it is accomplished because, after all, there is no objective truth to restrict one's desire for more.
Thus the case of the "Fake Hate" by Julie Baker can be understood on this primitive level, with the same steps followed, with the same reactions, consequences, and results.
1. The subject claimed to have received a hateful letter from Christians threatening police action against her due to her lights displaying homosexuality.
2. The subject took this letter to the public and raised more than $43,000 in donations, replete with angry remarks about Christians.
3. The subject wrote how it is she found the letter.
4. The subject wrote why she was stopping donations at the $43,000 mark.
Statement Analysis employs scientific applications; that is, objective applications in order to understand human language, in order to discriminate between truth and deception.
I. The Anonymous Threatening Letter
a. A female (objectively female)
b. Female who is pro-homosexual
c. Female who is anti-Christian
d. Female with an ambition that did not include hatred towards homosexuality or homosexuals
e. Adult Female, not teenager
f. Adult female, pro homosexual, anti-Christian, with an alternative ambition who is intelligent
g. Poetic leanings in writings
We were fortunate enough to have the homeowner, that is, the letter finder, tell us how it is that she came upon the letter.
II. The Homeowner's Explanation of Finding The Anonymous Threatening Letter Analyzed
Statement Analysis believes what one tells us unless there is extreme reason not to, recognizing that more than 90% of human deception takes place through the means of deliberately withholding information, rather than fabricating information.
Therefore, Statement Analysis does not question "if" something is said, but "why" it is said.
In studying anonymous threatening letters, researchers found a statistic linking a very small percentage of the population (homosexual) with a large percentage of authorship of anonymous threatening letters. This is just a statistical notation that those who teach analysis inform future analysts to be aware of. Where there is a statistical increase in any portion of the population, it should be noted, but when it comes from a very tiny percentage of the population, the math demands careful consideration. Why would a tiny percentage of the population be found to have a high percentage associating with anonymous threatening letters?
The analyst is instructed to simply "keep this in mind" as he or she seeks to learn the identity of the author of an anonymous threatening letter.
Here is the perfect example:
"I opened my door and found a note from my neighbor."
There are several things we look at in this one sentence.
1. "I opened my door"
First, we affirm that we believe the writer, that she did, in fact, "open her door" and is not lying. Next, we rely upon decades of research into statements, particularly those that were submitted to law enforcement and were studied in comparison to results of polygraphs, as LSI established long ago.
To say that she "opened" her door is not necessary in an open statement. When something is "not necessary" for communication, we deem it as very important in our analysis, and ask, "Why? Why did she feel the need to tell us she opened her door? Why "her door" and not "the" door? But more importantly, why did she have to include opening the door, when she could have said she found a note?"
The decades of research found a consistency in the phrases used regarding the opening of doors in open statements. (If someone asked, "Did you open your door?", it is not an "open statement."
We also know that from the years of research that where a person begins a statement is very important and oftentimes associated with the reason for writing the statement.
Therefore, we come to two principles coming together:
1. Where people begin a statement is very important, sometimes even motive revealing;
2. "Opening my door" is not necessary to say in communicating the finding of the letter.
Question: Since it is now important in two principles, what has research found associated with "opening" of doors?
Answer: Sexual activity.
This phrase, specifically, has been associated with the subject (the person who said, or wrote it) being sexually abused in childhood.
Why might this enter the language of a victim of childhood sexual abuse?
No conclusive answer exists but this suggestion: The child may have experienced the sexual abuse in his or her own bedroom, and opening of doors is strongly imprinted upon the brain and comes out in the language.
Remember, she could have written, "I found a letter that said..." or even "I found a note taped on my door" but instead of this direct approach, we have a 'slowing down' of the pace, as in story telling, going 'back' in time to include the actual opening of the door.
Yet, there is still more.
1. Anonymous Threatening Letters has a statistical connection to homosexuality
2. The finder began her statement with a linguistic connection to sexual abuse
3. The opening statement of the letter has to do with human sexuality.
Here, alone, we have three points with one three letter word in common: "sex"
4. The door that was opened was not "I opened the door" but "my" door, further bringing us closer to the aspect of childhood sexual abuse, with the possessive pronoun "my" used.
A more complete analysis of the statement is available here. In seminars, we do "full analysis", as it is more detailed and complex than covered here in a blog.
Conclusion: the writer gives us indicators of deception which is associated with the anonymous threatening letter, connecting her to the authorship of the letter.
As many people pointed out, the writing style alone, with its capitalization, is enough to convince a jury of fraud.
Yet, we are given more insight into the "fake hate" scam that is actually a "hatred" of:
c. Homosexuals, specifically, and the general public, who the author can deceive into donating money by employing emotional terms, including "Children"
d. the local church that supports gay marriage
III. The Homeowner's Closing of Donations
This became of peculiar note to the public, as well as to investigators, because the author turned away from her capitalization.
Because she has a history of anti-Chrisitan writing in public, investigators are able to present to a future jury the writings of the home owner (Julie Baker) where she uses the capitalization unique and unusual habit found in the "anonymous" note, as well as in her own writings.
This, however, is a distinct change in writing (of communication via words) by the subject.
Question: What has caused the change?
You may simply say, "she saw the analysis or the complaints on Face book where she was caught!" and you would be correct, but there is more.
Within her two statements, one seeking money, and the other canceling the incoming money, we have a change in writing that should represent a change in reality as found in the context.
What has changed?
Please note that in the first writing: she addresses "hate" and how she will not "relent" or give into hate.
In the second letter, she also brings in "hate" but instead of refusing to relent, she is going to stop the donations, in context because of "hate" but now "hate" is no longer alone.
She introduces a new "feeling" to her writing:
This is associated with the doubting of the veracity of the letter.
If she considers it "hate" that someone would doubt her, why has the element of "fear" entered? Is it "homophobic", that is, the irrational fear of homosexuals?
In letter one, she identifies as a "mother" and a "widow" who has "four children' which presupposes heterosexual sex and increases her "financial need" beyond a few more $10 lights.
The "fear" is, in context, linked to doubting the authenticity of the letter. She linked it with "...as such, I want to..." telling us that she wants to do something.
"I want to work to remove any doubt about the authenticity of the letter" is an intelligent and likely truthful statement. She is going to have to "work" to "remove doubt", which is to avoid simply stating that she did not write it.
Yet, in Statement Analysis, we believe what one tells us, and we must now say that she does not say she is going to "work" to remove doubt, but states that she has an emotion, or a "feeling" of "wanting" to work.
To "want" to do something is different than doing something.
This is distancing language.
It is also a means of avoiding the reliable denial of, "I didn't write the note. I don't know who wrote the note."
We have a rule in Statement Analysis:
If the subject is unwilling or unable to state that she did not do it, we are not permitted to say it for her.
Julie Baker wrote the letter and once seen as deceptive, made a meager change in her public writing, as she is incapable of removing all the former public writings she has done, in which the same quirky capitalization is used.
Julie Baker demonized those who doubted the authenticity of the letter, as "hateful", following the basic human pattern.
She wanted money.
She wanted money that her hands did not earn.
She used fraud to do so, with "thou shalt not steal", the objective and eternal truth, discarded, supplanted by "feelings" or emotions.
She claimed the moral high ground.
She demonized those who disagreed with her.
This, itself, is enough for a jury, but detailed analysis of the letter itself, first, will give a specific profile.
Next, analysis of her introduction, with references, can be testified to.
Then, analysis of her announcement to stop the inflow of money can also be testified to.
This, all with no forensically constructed evidence, is beyond what is needed.
Should a jury only view the capitalization, they would struggle not to believe Baker wrote it. But behavioral analysis is something they would hear also, including the fact that Baker refused to initially meet with police, but when she finally did, she refused to give them the letter.
A jury could hear something else, too.
Anything Baker wrote online, including her initial claim of police contact, that proves to be a fabrication of reality (every contact with law enforcement is recorded), a jury would hear.
Lastly, even with an attorney who might take one-third of the fund as compensation, may still cause her to be found guilty, and sentenced to prison. Some donators, due to the emotional cause (the demonizing of Christians) still wanted her to keep the money, cannot testify on her behalf, but those who are angry from being scammed, may. This is the sort of thing that is sometimes a factor in the sentencing, and is part of the risk of going to trial, followed by the risk of allowing her to be cross-examined, should she take the stand in her own defense.
The case against her, in its most basic element, is strong. Yet, investigators would bring in computer forensic experts for testing which, as some have posted, trace electronic "fingerprints", even if the note has been destroyed, and perhaps, even if the hard drive is destroyed.
It is quite a risk to take for the money.
History is the study of us.
Study one person's greed to see how far she will go, and how much she will risk, for how small a gain, and multiply it by many times.
Next, multiply the one greedy person many times over, to know what greed can do when it is in the controlling hands of many.
Then, the same principles to people of power and you have nations warring over the wealth from territories, colonies, natural resources, and positive trade balances.
The pattern is the same.
Obtain money (greed) by any means, righteous or unrighteous.
Demonize those who oppose.
Run the risk of consequences.
Julie Baker is a microcosm of what happens when objective truth is discarded, replaced by "feelings", that is, human emotions.
She "felt" it was "okay" for her to get money this way, and so did others, even though it is fraudulent theft and if she withdraws the money, may go to prison for it.
She explicitly used "emotion" to get the high amount of money she did, using emotionally charged language including "Christian" and "Children", inflaming some.
Regarding those who disagreed with her, she used emotional language, "hate", and later, "hate monger" and others, to demonize.
She did not argue that she didn't write the letter, instead attacked by feelings, those who did not "agree" with her feeling that getting money this was was "acceptable" or okay.
Subjectivity brings tyranny which seeks to silence opposition.
The law, "thou shalt not steal" is still, thankfully, objective, at least in the scenario of misrepresentation and solicitation by the internet, which is her own "fight against nature"; that is, her feeling of being "hated" by someone for her lights, versus the explicit targeting of homosexuals for theft, by her.
It is an interesting case study and will be even more interesting should it end up in court.