Tuesday, April 5, 2016

False Allegation Perpetrators: Contempt


We just looked at the Biblical story of Joseph's brothers, falsely causing their elderly father to believe his young son was dead. 
They felt terrible envy towards Joseph and had first conspired to murder him, but then had the "moral high ground" to make money off of him instead, and sold him into Egyptian slavery which was chattel slavery.  This they could use to tell themselves how morally superior they were:  they were going to teach Joseph how to work, and were responsible men with money.  Thus, the insight into human nature's tendency towards self deception is highlighted, and all this at the cost of Joseph's suffering for the next 13 years as well as the broken heart they caused their own father to experience. 

Yet, the emotion of envy had to be satisfied.  They esteemed themselves important enough to sacrifice other lives for their own benefit. 

Those who falsely accuse others of crime, for whatever reason, are those willing to see someone suffer unjustly, just to satisfy, often, an emotional desire, while for many others, it is an emotional desire coupled with the spirit of larceny. 

"Fake Hate" is not a victimless crime and it is one that should be prosecuted for the fake victim is the one full of hate.  

A women claims to have been beaten outside a hotel, "in the dark" where the hotel was "negligent" in lighting, therefore, she wants money her hands did not earn, in order to 'feel' better.  

Her statement revealed the identity of the attacker, via a "statement analysis confession" when she said, "the other person..." while the statement only had a single attacker; using the word "other" to connect herself to the attacker.  

She used make up to feign injury.  She would have signed a no-suit contract for a quick $2500 check.  

The NYC Muslim woman who said a "man in a black jacket and black hat" asked her if she was a terrorist and slashed her face had the terrorist designate organization "CAIR" rushing to defend her with yet another "Islamophobia" claim with media refusing to say the obvious:  black hat and black jacket in NYC suggests Hasidic or Orthodox Jew.  She cut her own face. CAIR would have been glad to see a Jew imprisoned, after all, their hatred of Jews is pathological.  

"Relentlessly Gay" Baltimore case had a woman raging against Christianity, while willing to victimize the homosexual community to the tune of $43,000.  Julie Baker was allowed to avoid prosecution by refunding the money.  Her contempt was not just contained to Christians, but to homosexuals, of whom she claimed to be one. 

Robert McKnight claimed to have been the victim of racial profiling by a "blonde" woman.  He wrote that his race was a "loaded and difficult calling" (it is not a 'calling'; where one can refuse the choice), twice using the word "loaded" in his fake hate claim (it was a black woman who called police on the aggressive McKnight) and his profile shows:

He is going into politics and is capable of stirring a riot like situation to gain votes; no matter how much hate and divide it brings, as he shows his contempt for black people and for "blondes" too.  One might consider why "loaded" was sensitive to him and how he lacked the self awareness to be foolish enough to actually write "blonde" in his published article.  It makes for powerful profiling in analysis, to consider just what he is capable of doing, and may be a name you want to watch as the years go by, and see the toll of those he harms.  

When caught, liars often rage towards those who exposed them. 

Lance Armstrong financially destroyed people who accused him of doing what he was doing.  He used his millions, with lawyers fully knowing what they, too, were doing, to destroy.  All this instead of saying, "I didn't use PEDs."



When Billie Jean Dunn agreed to take a polygraph, she showed up under the influence because she thought she was smarter than the machine.  Forced to, by her own pride, return sober, she promptly failed.  Her reaction quickly turned to attacking the polygraph examiner, personally.  The liar, when caught, turns vicious. 

In each case I personally interviewed the accusing parent who had falsely accused an adult of child molestation, the liar was willing for the innocent to go to prison just to keep her from being seen as a liar. 

How do we trust journalists today?

Last week, protestors in Europe marched to tell its government to stop importing violence via Islam into their country when a Muslim woman was run over by a car.  Headlines everywhere screamed about it including "right wing", "fascist", neo nazi" and so on, regarding those who disagreed with the government's policy of importing Islamic males, with little or no education, and an utter disregard for the basic civil rights (and safety) of women.  

When the identity of the car driver was known, media refused to report that the drivers were Muslims, with one named...

"Mohammad." 


The CNN and Daily Beast contributor, Dean Obeidallah,  who used this story to propagate his extreme narrative, when challenged how news outlets had to now change their headlines reacted with vulgarity, saying "Go F*** yourself!" instead of issuing a retraction, apology and correction.  


Charlie Rogers' "3 perpetrators" could have ended up with 3 men in prison falsely, yet, this did not matter:  she felt the need for recognition as a "person" who had "feelings" and "this matters."

I have not heard about who paid for having all those Charlie Rogers solidarity tattoos removed from their skin, to date.  

Liars destroy.  

This is what they do.  

Everyone lies, but not everyone is a liar.  

Honest people lie, own it, learn from it, and hate it.  It is not their norm, nor their 'walk' in life. 

Liars sometimes tell the truth.  It is not their 'norm' and it is not something they are comfortable with and will only use the truth when it is advantageous to do so.  

You have to discern the difference between who is a liar and who is a truthful person, howbeit of human frailty, for yourself. 

Know this, however:  the liar is known by patterns, and these patterns are often exploitative in nature as the liar benefits from them, and then goes on the attack when exposed.  He does not show penitence, but rage. 

We now live in a world where the lines between right and wrong went from blurry to crossed and lying and propaganda are higher now than anytime in the 20th century.  When an American President can order to mute a single word from a French president, the rules have changed; the reference points have changed.  

To stand up against an ideology that rapes and kills is to be a "nazi."

To tell the truth can mean loss of income, and even loss of freedom. 

To post a term from the Bible, in Scotland, can mean armed police officers at your front door.  

Societal Acceptance of Deception 

With millions and millions on fraudulent disability in America, millions more are, every year, are seeking money their hands have not earned with all stigma erased.  Thousands simply illegally walk across the border and are given money they have not earned.  People everywhere are trying every scam they can think of to get money their hands did not earn.  

Each week I profile job applicants for companies, or assist other analysts in doing so, and I am seeing, regularly, those who reveal that they too, will find a way to obtain money that their hands did not earn.  

I receive, on average, 4 or 5 requests, via Facebook, for money.  The two most common?

"I am a missionary in Africa" to which I write, "Great!  I am glad to hear this.  The Apostle Paul, too, was a missionary.  He supported himself by making tents.  What do you do for money?" which does not receive a response. 

"I am a refugee living in Iraq."


I write, "Shall I give you my bank account information here?"or "I am a refugee from Maine's cold, can you send me money?"  

Neither gets responses. 

I get 7-10 per week that say "Hi!" with nothing else. 

I have figured this one out, too.  

Do not underestimate the cruelty of the liar.  Those who send pictures of women are deliberately seeking lonely males to exploit, just as the "missionary" and "refugee" are also gaming the system, via human empathy, for the same person:  

Give me money my hands have not earned. 

Satisfy me at your expense. 

Satisfy my need or my want, no matter the expense to you, or anyone else. 

When one young woman accused a 22 year old male of rape, she did so because he had broken off with her and she raged.  
She was exposed by Statement Analysis and in this case, Statement Analysis only. 

When I asked her, when all was said and done, how she felt about falsely accusing someone she once cared for and did not want to break off the relationship. 

She just shrugged her shoulders. 

I couldn't let it go. 

I asked, "But what if he had gone to jail for it?"

No answer. 

"Were you really willing that he go to jail for hurting your feelings?"

She finally answered. 

"Yes."

I believed her.  

After all the years of analysis, study and more analysis, I sometimes consider how little I know about the nature of deception, and how far we, as a race, will go to deceive ourselves. 

4 comments:

peter said...

Peter,

Is this why my suspects either attack (verbally) the victim or usually the parent of the victim. I have so many cases where the suspect claims these accusations are lies perpetuated by the other party and using it to ruin them. Most of the time the victim and their other parent (if it's parental abuse) are affected far worse by coming forward, financially and of course emotionally. This is something I try to exploit in my interviews with the suspects but I haven't been able to perfect it.

Anonymous said...

What does Statement analysis have to say about the Ted Cruz "denials" of reports of affairs?

He (and a few of the accused women) have been issuing non-denial denials a few times over the past week and looking deceptive. They say "these reports are garbage, tabloid trash, etc." without ever saying "I did not sleep with so-and-so." Cruz also let Carly Fiorina answer the question for him at one point and he also denied "affairs" through a spokesman.

Now, one week later, Cruz does a bit better, but with an interesting half-denial (see link to clip below)
Megyn Kelly: "Have you committed adultery?"
Cruz: "I have not...that that that attack was complete and utter garbage, it was complete lies, and it came from Donald Trump and his henchmen."

Then later:
Megyn Kelly: "There's not going to be any emails, or texts, or videos?"
Cruz: "It's completely made up nonsense. It's simply not true. I have always been faithful to my wife. I love my wife. She's my best friend in the whole world. And this is the kind of garbage that the Trump campaign engages in."

Here's a clip:
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/tedcruz/article/Cruz-doubles-down-blaming-Trump-for-sex-scandal-7228797.php
at minutes 7:00-7:30 and 8:30-9:00 he issues denials that would be pretty convincing to the layman but don't pass the muster for Statement Analysis.

What do you think?

foodiefoodnerd said...

Fake hate liars and false rape liars, once proven beyond shadow of doubt, should automatically receive triple the maximum sentence their victim would have received had he or she been convicted.

One for the liar and accusation; one for the lied-about victim; and one for someone who won't be believed, and put through more legal and other hell, as a result of these fake victim liars.

Yes, it could cause some real victims to be afraid to come forward; hence the stronger than current legal standard of proof.

I realize it's deeply flawed; anyone is encouraged to suggest how to fool-proof it?

As to the state of journalism today, I'm still disgusted and furious by how shrilly and definitively Nancy (dis)Grace stomped all over the Duke lacrosse team, and I've still never heard an apology from her, much less a heartfelt, tearful one.

Even those who now know for sure the young men are innocent, for many that ugly word rape is the first that comes to mind still upon hearing "Duke lacrosse team."

How can that not sicken her as a journalist or human being?

Anonymous said...

The Nancy Grace show is horrible. I almost wrote Nancy Grace is awful, but actually it's the show; they've created a monster! I saw Grace on a another show once where she was talking to young incarcerated women and she was a reasonable person. The problem is her show is popular for its abrasive tone; she wouldn't have a job if she didn't act unhinged. I would have liked to have seen her in court when she practiced law because I've read she was an excellent prosecutor.