Question: What happens when a liar is caught?
Answer: The liar will both lie again, and go on the attack.
Liars do not like being exposed and it causes them to say and do things that reveal just how far removed they are from the reality of their own lies.
First, she needed money because of "hate", but then, she wanted donations to stop their increase because of "hate." Then, she wanted them to be refunded because of "hate."
Now, she wants the public to know that she didn't take the money because of "hate."
A liar is one who fabricates reality and holds the world, at large, in contempt. The liar habitually walks in deception, and is not one who "learns from his mistakes" or changes his life. When they speak, they reveal their nature.
We all lie, hurt over lying, and make amendments in life, going back to childhood lessons embraced where we were taught that lying was wrong. It is part of growing up.
Liars are not so.
They were not taught so in childhood, and embraced lying as a means of never outgrowing the natural narcissism of childhood. They build upon their own childhood successes, their entire lives, and put themselves above others, in all things, and in all ways. They trouble households, businesses, and societies. They use deception to separate others from their money and their homes, and, if needed, their lives.
Liars do not turn from lying. Even in "mea culpa" the liar...
lies. Minimizes. Denies. Tangents.
Many of us tuned in to see Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah in which he admitted drugging.
Readers here knew before he spoke that the pattern of the liar is to continue to lie, minimize, and even when making an admission, it will be attended by lies.
We then saw the show: he was still lying.
Even when caught, the liar will continue to lie, and then do what they all do:
When a liar is caught, the liar goes on the offensive.
We have seen this when the liar attacks police, often blaming others for their own actions; blaming judges, blaming jurors, claiming, not to have not "done it", but to not having their rights read to them.
Liars forever love to fleece others, even when they do not need the money, because it allows them to psychologically feed the very nature of a liar: superiority.
Remember: the liar holds you in contempt.
The liar holds me in contempt.
The liar holds the public in contempt.
The liar has full expectation of being believed, and the liar will often take the polygraph, believing himself superior to the machine.
The liar has had this success since childhood and the ego is firmly entrenched in its position. It knows not the language of humility.
The contempt is seen in that the liar fully expects you, and the public at large, to be deceived.
When caught, you will not hear, "I am sorry. I was wrong. I lied. I did so to steal."
Instead, you hear even more lies and more contempt.
Consider the scammer Julie Baker of the "relentlessly go-fund-me" scam.
She hated both the gay community and the faith community, all in one shining example where she wrote an anonymous threatening letter, implicating people of faith, against her sexuality for the purpose of separating a particular people from their hard earned money.
She "rallied" the gay community to donate a lot of money to her.
She got caught.
Police investigation showed what the analysis showed: she wrote the note herself.
She was given a choice: withdraw the money and face charges, or allow people to be refunded and we will not press charges. We may argue with this, but this is what was done.
She chose not to risk imprisonment. Police had solid evidence against her, including the analysis, other writing samples, which included the silly capitalization practice, but also that her other writing samples, included the same anti-Christian theme of her "anonymous" letter.
Her hatred towards people of faith was obvious, but what of her hatred of the gay community?
She knew, when she began her "go fund me" that the gay community would be the most active responders, which was true. They were the target of her internet fraud.
It was the gay community that she showed the greater hatred towards, in her contempt of them, believing that by throwing the word "Christian" into her letter, they would be blinded by emotional response, and dig deep into their pockets and give the money their own hands had earned, and place it into her deceptive hands. Her original goal was a few thousand dollars for what would cost about $50 worth of plastic lights.
She played them well to the tune of more than $43,000.
Some wrote in expressing frustrations that real causes could not get donations, even that a family who's house was burned down could not raise 10% of this amount, while this hate-driven letter brought in a bonanza of money.
Her prior written articles showed a seething anger towards people of faith, particularly Christians. These articles did use the same capitalization errors that were in her "Go Fund Me" original announcement and in the "anonymous letter."
After the backlash began, she wrote again, yet this time, she dropped her capitalization.
In turning down the money, she took a passivity towards refunding people, refusing to refund them directly, forcing them to contact Go Fund Me, which did refund the illicit donations. This angered many.
She then began her defense. It is interesting to follow her exposure as a liar, just as it has been with Lance Armstrong. He lied in his interview, has continued to lie, and even had his girlfriend lie to police, switching seats with him in the car. What does that, alone, tell us about his "lesson learned" from admitting using performance enhancing drugs?
Following the exposure of a liar is useful for study.
Here are the claims that followed the exposing of the scam, as they developed:
1. No more donations as it is enough and there seems to be some "hate" out there. She did not want to appear "greedy", so $43,000 was "enough."
The first claim was that she had raised "enough" money, as if someone who is not wealthy would be suddenly satisfied after having gone more than 8 times her initial goal. Why not stop at the initial goal? Why not stop when the goal was doubled? Tripled? Why did it go this high?
This was not a credible statement. Like the original theme, it contained the sensitive word, "hate" in her writing. She was now having to be careful to Stop using Her illogical capitalization theme She had been Employing.
This was met with backlash as well as reports made to both Go Fund Me and the Maryland police (Internet and Commerce Fraud department) and it then reached a critical point where she would face charges should she withdraw the money.
Deceptive people will, in their own defense, say "off the wall" things, which reveal a disconnect with truth and reality. She then moved to the next deception instead of owning what she had done:
2. Refunds due to tax consequences.
This was laughed off. Think of it carefully, however, as it is not humorous, but it reveals with startling insight, the mind of a pathological liar and just how disconnected one can become with one's own lies.
'I'm not going to take $43,000 because I have to pay $13,000 in taxes and only be left with a profit of $30,000. Having the free and clear $30,000 is just too complicated.'
As goofy as it sounds, is as goofy as it is, but it shows how deeply a deceptive person will go in self defense: to the illogical.
Julie Baker is not stupid.
The analysis showed an intelligent writer.
She knows simple math:
$30,000 post tax is better than zero money pre tax.
Yet, she did not see how this made her appear to the pubic, and did not mind floating this folly as it revealed just how far her contempt had taken her from reality. It is a strong signal of a pathological liar who struggles with perception.
She does not consider nor see how ridiculous it sounds because her own lifetime of deception has so insulated her from a conscience, that she not only does not "see" how foolish this sounds, but does not care to see. Julie Baker is not alone in this manner, as liars, when caught, say some of the most illogical things imaginable.
We sometimes see this in professional athletes or celebrities who seem to have no connection to reality.
Lance was stripped of his Tour De France titles, so what did he do? He took a narcissistic "selfie" with his collection of yellow jerseys. This angered people, and he did not realize how it would anger them. Later, with the police accident report, he did not consider how he had told the world of his great new insight into his character: simply put, he didn't care. He would let his girlfriend take the rap. If she has any insight into his character, she will run for her life.
Recall Michael Jackson saying he has "loved children all over the world" rather than say that he did not sexually molest a child. This opened up the suggestion of just how many victims he may have had in his tours of the world.
It is like a bank robber saying, "I have withdrawn hundreds of times from ATMs without robbing them!" as a defense. When caught, the liar will say things that appear utterly void of sense, yet not understand when this is pointed out.
It is illogical, and it is juvenile, but it is the liar's verbalized perception of reality.
When Billie Jean Dunn was pushed into taking a polygraph, she used drugs in an attempt to beat it, with eyes glazed over, in an even 'less affect' posture than is her norm; so much so that it was visibly recognized. When she had to then take it sober, she promptly failed. What would she say?
Would she say, "I told the truth!"?
No, instead she said, "At the police station, I talked to 3 people who said they failed it."
This was her defense? Later, this became an attack on police, which eventually degraded to name calling.
Baker, the commerce fraud, tells us that her earnings were too expensive in taxes??
It actually shows how desperately disconnected the liar is from personal responsibility.
Baker wasn't done with her lies. She has since gone in, especially with the loss of 'relentlessly selling trinkets' business down the drain, and claims that it is "hate" that caused her to lose the money.
Hate? This was a word that she used repeatedly in her posting, revealing just how deep her own hatred runs, towards others, and perhaps, towards herself. It is the one word that in Statement Analysis' view of repetition, seems understated in principle. She uses it so often, that a skilled therapist may seek to uncover its roots.
Yet, the only kinetic hatred in this equation was first her hatred of people of faith, and then her hatred of the gay community that she attempted to fleece. One may speak or write of hate, but it was Baker, herself, who acted upon it, in reality.
Liars project their own lies upon others, and believe that everyone is a habitual liar. Here, she held deep seated hatred, which would have been used against her in court, against people of faith as evidenced in her earlier writings, that caused her to then claim that she was, again, a victim of hate.
First, she was a "victim" of "hate" in the original letter, and needed money to overcome the hate, and then she was yet again a victim of "hate" in having to give back the money.
The "hate" in incessant.
Her supporters now say that she did not refund it due to taxes alone, but more "hate" with a single vague reference to a 'death threat' that is also a deception.
The sad result of this is that if she was threatened, for example, by someone who donated money, who would believe her?
This is what police often refer to in the "fake hate" crimes: they worry that real victims may fear not being believed, the same as when immoral defense attorneys smear rape victims with "suggestions" of multiple partners, walking close to receiving bar discipline, but still getting that deceptive message out which is clear:
Victims may not be believed.
The underlining cause of "the boy who cried wolf" is deception.
As if the world is safe from her, we learned that she had her own daughters work on their own "go fund me" scams, with her own daughter, admitting in writing, that her mother was a liar. Rather than teach them to be honest, prize the truth, work hard, and help others, she taught them that people exist for their benefit and that people should be exploited. She taught them pragmatism in a new level: they could both satisfy their hatred of one group, while exploiting, through hatred, yet another.
The pattern of exposing a liar is something law enforcement frequently sees, and that Human Resources may experience: repeat offenders, with elevated levels of rage.
Richard Blumenthal was caught lying about his feet being in a foreign country during a war. His mea culpa had little "mea" and no "culpa" as he blamed some gnostic-mystery person of showing up and "mispeaking" his words and then turned on the self-divninity rage to tell the world how he would "not allow anyone" to damage his reputation, as if he controlled the world.
His "mea culpa" echoes that the liar is the center of his or her own world and we are the subordinates there to serve the liar's needs. This is how deception is linked to theft, murder, and a myriad of crimes.
Next up: Human Resource professionals dealing with fraudulent claims