What were the most popular cases analyzed in 2015? Judging by numbers, there may be some surprises.
The Top Five Cases by page views:
5. Bill Cosby
This was initially a story that interested readers and analysis done on a single victim's statement showed that she told the truth, and spoke from experiential memory.
After this, a cascade of allegations came forward people lost interest in the analysis as sexual abuse, rape and assault cases are complex, and there is a strong bias towards cases that have a simple, "Is he lying or not?" element to them.
What is most interesting to analysts is not what is most interesting to the general population of readers, most of whom are interested in both crime and language.
4. Timothy Madden case.
This had many page views, but less comments. This may be due to the lack of mystery.
This next one surprised me:
3. Lonzie Barton: http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/08/missing-toddler-lonzie-barton.html
This was heavily read, though also less comments. It may have been one in which people felt satisfaction in learning.
This case produced a great deal of page views, as well as many comments. As more information came out, interest increased with most people appear settled with this:
DeOrr met death by unintended cause and the parents entered into a panic cover-up.
This case produced very strong opinions that showed low confidence in law enforcement.
1. The Murder of Amanda Blackburn produced the most page views as well as the most comments. This case surpassed the Hailey Dunn case in the need for deleting comments. Initially, the comments were focused upon analysis, but later became filled with personal drama, projection and of late, comments where confidence in law enforcement appears low.
The single most viewed article was the "Davey Blackburn Transcript" analysis.
In judging comments, most people are suspicious of the husband due to:
a. The extreme coincidental nature of the case
b. His language
c. His behavior
It appears that most people actually feel that he is both hiding background of a sexual nature, and that he may have orchestrated, in the least, the break in, or opportunity, for the crime. The doubts regarding law enforcement appear mixed; with some recognizing how difficult it would be to find a connection, while others continue to show a nation wide crisis in confidence in both law enforcement and in jury deliberation; since the Casey Anthony verdict.
The coincidental nature of the case appears to be overwhelming and what is both the strongest opinion from those in law enforcement watching the case, and the cause of the lack of confidence in the actual investigators.
The comments about Blackburn's intellect, particular, fascinate me, as these differ, almost on a straight 1:1 basis, with the opinions of law enforcement professionals who see him as a strong intellect who would need a very well trained interrogator with a good understanding of Scripture. The professionals see him as ranging from "above average" to "well above average" intellectually, while comments, particularly those with embittered feelings towards religion, see him in a lower bracket.
Cases that came close
The rash of "Fake Hate" stories were popular, including
"Relentlessly Gay" where the hatred was aimed at both Gays and Christians by a thief who had raised $43,000 before having to close Go Fund Me account. This was the simplest "anonymous author identity" case I have ever seen and even those with little experience in analysis saw the patterns. Deeper analysis showed a very disturbed narcissist with deep hatred of Christianity, and contempt for the public at large, including the gay community, of whom she sought to exploit their hatred of Christianity. This was very successful to the point where some even posted that she could keep their donation, even though it was a fraud as they could not conceal their hatred of Christianity.
Julie Baker faced many years in prison and could not keep a single penny. She even allowed us to see that her own children were following in her criminal footsteps.
Fake racism and the fake social justice warrior stories were all popular.
Readers have a strong grasp that social justice warriors will find or create an occurrence to fulfill their 'mission' or purpose in life. The comments show, mostly, that readers grasp the 'social justice warrior's' psychological need for relevancy, and how they must encounter a scenario to affirm their own worth.
False allegation of rape was popular, and readers seemed to express a strong grasp of what a real rape victim sounds like, referring to Cosby's victim. I have not found 'backlash' either against victims nor against analysis. Readers seem to have a very strong grasp on:
"this is about truth" above all else, including politics.
This leads me to a fascinating liar who provides me with helpful research via commenting:
Hillary Clinton was the most generous donator of deception, as she shows not only a pathological pattern of lying but a disconnect between herself and the population, or herself and the 'rules' in life.
Her language shows an elitism that she is incapable of masquerading, even when she uses a fake accent. While many, if not most, politicians (like actors) have strong disconnect between reality and their own lives, Hillary actually appears not only aware of it, but without the ability to counter it with substance
Hillary's contempt of the population was consistently noted by readers, and her statements produced the largest number of "passive aggressive" comments; those which bristle at Clinton being exposed as deceptive, but seek to conceal the resentment. These are valuable for research.
Making A Murderer is popular, in terms of page views, but is new to the blog, and has introduced, for the first time since Jonbenet Ramsey murder, larger scale disagreement. This is good for analysis, though the analysis itself is not challenging.
Perhaps that the analysis was not challenging, itself, a positive, since it further highlights the impact of the documentary's propaganda techniques of appealing to emotion, versus Statement Analysis science which appeals more to intellect.
It has not produced Statement Analysis debate, which is interesting, regarding principle, but emotional responses. I almost wish that there were more conflicting or difficult to discern statements that would have led to some discussion on principle, but Steven Avery is not a skilled liar.
Hailey Dunn and Jonbenet are two victims that always bring interest.
What is so interesting about linking these two victims is this:
In Hailey Dunn case we had a mother who could not be stopped from talking, while in the Jonbenet case, we had parents who said as little as possible.
Both sides were and are deceptive.
In a recent 'testing' of analysts, they had no problem with the Patsy Ramsey 911 call showing that the language was scripted (rehearse), how uncomfortable she was moving from it, and how she gave linguistic indicator that the child was dead, at the time of the call.
Also of fascination in this case is the comments which say in effect, 'I don't think the parents were guilty but I don't have anything to back this up.'
Regarding Hailey Dunn,
the mother, Billie Jean Dunn, has actually not only helped 'solve' the case, though it is not adjudicated, but has given a very large and valuable sample of language for analysis used in training.
Lastly, cases that fascinated me, but did not garner interest:
The use of propaganda in Europe and the United States, the deliberate fabrication of statistics, reports and the suppression of ideological truth did not catch the attention of readers according to the numbers. The lack of interest even in the Swedish rape epidemic surprised me but the recent Islamic terrorism in California did not show high interest, either. This may be due to the lack of mystery.
Readers did not show much numerical interest in the federal government's removal of "Islam" from "Islamic terror", nor the dhimmitude posture that has steadily increased in the last 7 years. Some chalked this up to partisan politics, which surprised me.
What does this suggest?
It may be that the lack of actual 'lie detection' necessary is the source of apathy, as they can read of the murders anywhere. Or, the apathy could be much worse:
As one person noted, "IRAN gets the bomb? Well, I pay $2 a gallon for gas."
What did catch interest for some was the Islamic teaching of using deception and the psychology behind supremacy ideology and how it leads to conflict and violence in general.
The Cosby saga was one in which initial interest, by the numbers, was very high, but latter stories showed little interest. This may be explained as "Cosby fatigue" due to the overwhelming number of accusations; there was no way we were going to have 50 statements analyzed.
Politicians' lies bring interesting reactions.
"The analysis is wrong because it is one sided."
"If Peter does not analyze Donald Trump, I know he is biased" to
"Peter only analyzes ______"
How about the goofy, "Statement Analysis only works with middle class educated people"?
I wouldn't put my signature on this one, either.
The desperation to defend a partisan opinion leads to the most interesting passive aggressive comments, but the concerning area for me is the apathy.
"All politicians lie."
My hope is that honest people are, over time, recognizing the danger of a liar and how the liar has been in training his or her entire life, and how, when push comes to shove, the liar will protect himself no matter the cost to others.
Human nature, itself, is complex, and the pattern that is evident is the exact opposite of what people expect:
They think that a person who tells lots of lies would, when the big test comes, the hand is on the Bible, and a person's entire life is at stake, will come clean and tell the truth.
The opposite is what is consistent with human nature.
The lie told under oath, when the big test has come, is the result of all the small lies told over decades.
The hope of "now" the liar will come clean comes from old Hollywood "feel good" movies where the movie concludes with right.
My hope remains, and has been realized, especially in working with businesses, that discernment of liars saves them money, time, and stress.
The companies do experience loss, which is regrettable, but the smart ones learn the lesson. True, some need more than a few losses before they finally understand how dangerous the liar really is, but when they do get it, they take preventive measures and have brighter days ahead.
At first, Oscar Pitorius caught much interest, he was seen as deceptive, and interest dropped. This pattern was also seen in 2015 with:
Jodi Arias was at first interesting by number, but once analyzed, readers cared less about her lies as her guilt was seen. Even her sexual detail and appearance gave a 'yawn' by those more interested in lie detection than the drama. Only Casey Anthony was capable of holding interest in drama, which may have been due to the boldness and incessant nature of her lies, and the lies of her attorneys.
Amanda Knox still had some interest in 2015, with most people believing that she was present for the murder of her roommate, and although it has been a long time, the former FBI analyst's article still brings both traffic and ridicule. It remains a good example of emotional obsession leading to extreme "need to persuade", including techniques of boasting of self, and ridiculing those who disagreed. Moore's article did impact readers' opinion with those who came away from the article with new doubts: they thought she was railroaded by Italian justice, read Moore's bizarre defense, and came away open to analysis which showed clear knowledge of a sexual homicide.
Comments are helpful and useful in analysis. They reveal who we are, and even those who post anonymously are able to be seen, at times, when they 'respond and agree' with their own comments, under another name.
The level of honesty fascinates me and fascinates analysts.
People of all stripes post.
Those in the stories sometimes post.
Anonymous posting is critical, as it even allows those who wish to opine, but cannot for obvious reasons (and not so obvious) may do so.
Comments are analyzed for truth and deception.
I especially enjoy the honest ones which disagree with the analysis, and state so, even saying, "I have nothing to stand upon!", which is actually to reveal honest self-awareness. This person is asking for help.
I enjoy those who love good but civic debate.
I find pedantic lectures interesting and revealing.
The passive aggressive comments are the ones I use in instruction as they are the most fascinating and the most educational. These are the most predictable, but the ones that are most useful to compare to others.
I have tipped my hat to those who have understood certain statements of my own in which I deliberately made, to be analyzed.
This can be impressive.
Comments come from all stripes, including professionals, and come from many different countries.
Comments are educational.
I often find new angles to add to my analysis.
I am forever learning more about human nature from the comments.
I am able to measure comments by length, abbreviations, and gauge emotions versus intellect.
They are valuable insights into human nature and affirm so much about analysis principles.
The analysis posted is challenged by professionals all over the world.
This scrutiny is invaluable.