Question: Does that mean Maranta was truthful?
Statement Analysis concludes that Maranta is deceptive.
The man arrested targeted known Jewish locales and may have had weapons, suggesting violence.
Maranta did not operate a synagogue or public place of Jewish worship. She "woke up" at 3am to find her door had been painted. This was at her home, not a known Jewish locale.
Go back to her statement and note her need to explain how it is that, according to her language, "Donald Trump" and his followers found her address.
This is both unnecessary and sensitive to her. This is to allow that her non-descript Jewish home would be known to the anti-semitic Trump supporter. This is to explain why he found her home. She was not asked, "So, how did he find your home?" but anticipated the question before it was asked.
1. Statement Analysis: Maranta's words show deception. She knows the painter and has a favorable disposition towards him/her. (this includes the element of 'self' as the painter). She then concealed the identity of the one who washed away the evidence.
2. Behavioral Analysis: Maranta's behavior shows guilt:
a. waking up at 3am noted. Here she was asked how it came to be that she woke up at 3am and why she went to the door. She avoided the question.
b. Police involvement: not calling police, but going right to hate crime website instead indicated planning and the need to avoid a connection to the ongoing investigation into crimes against the Jewish community.
c. Not allowing the evidence to be collected: she had it washed away before police could seek evidence. This shows a need to avoid allowing the evidence that would connect the male to her home, matching with what police would know about the suspect's MO; the paint or tools he used, etc.
d. Please also note her reason for destroying the evidence: She did not want to "explain hate" to a 2 year old.
This was given, not because it was asked, but as a need to explain why in anticipation of the challenge.
3. Her language showed distance from the Jewish community which appears to be in the form of a lack of acceptance of her as a 'rabbi' and her 'spiritualist' work. This was personal in her language: it went on for "more than five years", revealing exasperation and frustration at this lack of acceptance.
4. Her language showed that her motive was not political, though this was used as opportunity for advertising. Known in the Jewish community were these attacks. She would have been well aware of what was going on, which also speaks to the element of washing away the evidence and the weak need to explain why.
That actual Jewish locales were hit, and this took place only in her home, affirms the analysis motive of opportunity for acceptance via publicity and connection to the accepted Jewish community.
Anna Maranta is involved in a "fake hate crime."
The arrest, reported by main stream media, uses her photo at the top. Police spokesman did not give specific details about the locations the arrested man targeted.
Maranta deceitfully shows herself as an opportunist.
Her interview and statement are useful for training.