In assessing the level of a threat, we seek to identify the one making the threat. The words the person making the threat will reveal:
1. His Background
2. His Experiences
3. His Priority
4 His Personality
By getting to know the threat maker, we are better able to assess the level or seriousness of the threat, itself.
Statement Analysis gets to the truth.
Here we seek to learn the
Background, experiences, priority and personality of the person who painted "kike" and a swastika on the door of Anna Marteen, from Ottawa, Canada.
Anna Marteena is "deception indicated" regarding the painting of a swastika and the removal of the evidence. She concealed the identity of the remover, which may be under the context of "responsibility" over "identity." For example, if she instructed another to remove it, she may not want his or her name used; but passivity conceals "identity and/or responsibility" which avoids saying, "I had John Smith remove..."
Here she gave another account of "what happened" to her:
"This is what I woke up to at about this morning.
Note first the passive language of the statement. This is an intrusive and traumatic threat but the subject begins her statement with passivity.
Passivity can be used to conceal identity and/or responsibility, such as "the gun went off", while avoiding responsibility for pulling the trigger.
Next note that she gives us the context of timing, "3 o'clock this morning" which tells us that it has not even been 24 hours time allowed for processing the traumatic information.
The missing pronoun and the qualified "disturbance" speak to a lack of commitment. An outright lie comes from creativity; not experiential memory, and is stressful, which is why it is often (90%) avoided.
Then we note that the element of "disturbing" is qualified with "rather", which is a dependent word (comparative) that is used to compare "disturb" with something else.
She does not say "I was disturbed by it" which would be a technically stronger sentence.
Yet, above all of this, we have the hallmark of narrative building or what police call, "story telling." She places her emotions at the time of the "waking up" period. Given the short time period (under 24 hours), this is an indication of artificial placement of emotion in the statement.
In this alone, we have 3 indicators of possible deception:
1. The dropped pronoun
2. The location of the emotion
3. The minimizing of the emotion
Um, I’ve never experienced anything like this directly before.
This is where deceptive people are caught because the need to persuade her audience causes her to use additional and unnecessary language. In her earlier statement she said she had never experienced this before, and now she adds in the word "directly", which changes the information.
She now needs to be asked what, like this, did she experience indirectly.
This simple word, "directly", should also cause advanced analysis to consider not simply the question about "indirect" experiences, but to explore (and consider) that "indirect" experience may include the experience of conception and execution of a plan. This may be her "indirect" experience.
We look at the "linguistic relationship" between subject and perpetrator. If the subject is the perpetrator, she should have a neutral (favorable) disposition towards the perpetrator.
For example, "ATTN: African American Family" began the "fake hate" note written by the subject, herself, who is black. The anonymous threatening letter telling her to move out of her house showed a favorable disposition through the language. She was 'polite' and even accommodating to the stresses of having to move out. In fact, the author of that letter, herself, did not reveal herself as a racist (racism towards white), but one who sought publicity and used a pragmatic technique of exploiting the "politically correct" environment of the United States, as Americans bow before a deceptive system, while congratulating themselves as moral supremacists, and condemning others.
We now look to listen to the linguistic disposition:
Somebody obviously came in between about when I was in bed last night and spray-painted my front door.
The perpetrator of the self described "hate crime" is "somebody"; gender neutral and singular. He is not a "hateful" person, nor even a "NAZI"
This, she unnecessarily says, is "obvious." We take nothing for granted and it is she that has the need to persuade that it was "obvious"; and this need, itself, is weak.
Next note the focus of the sentence is the time. This is called "alibi building" in analysis.
The subject is establishing her alibi similar to Billie Jean Dunn, mother of murdered 13 year old Hailey, was asked,
"What happened?" to which she said, "she went missing while at was at work."
She was not asked "when did she go missing?" but had the need (priority) to establish her alibi, thus bringing our attention to her involvement in her daughter's murder.
Rabbi Anna has a need to establish an alibi and that it is "obvious", meaning: do not question it.
This need to establish an alibi brings the investigation's focus upon her, along with the linguistic disposition towards the perpetrator of a "hate crime."
Not really sure what to say.
Again the subject drops the pronoun "I", psychologically removing herself from this sentence. It is a strong signal that she knows exactly what she wants to communicate. Note in the previous analysis that she had "the message", with the word "message" and the article, "the", showing preparation.
Guilty subjects will often repeat the alibi due to nervousness. Here we have the continued editing of emotion and a revisiting of her alibi:
It’s just a really, deeply, hurtful, experience to wake up to this kind of message.
a. Note the artificial placement of emotion
b. Note the minimized emotion. This is a frightening threat against Jews.
c. Note that she calls is a message but when she deceptively talked about removing the evidence, she called it "graffiti."
This further keys advanced analysis to focus upon the real message that this deceptive subject wishes to convey. Although her FB post blamed Donald Trump and those who voted for him, analysis of her statement does not show a political motive.
Like the "African American" woman from Lindenhurst, the motive is specific: publicity.
We see that she shows a lack of acceptance from the local Jewish community, and likely a lack of formal recognition of her self claimed status of "rabbi."
She used this deception to gain attention for her work, and the employment of deception shows:
a. Contempt for the public
b. Contempt for police (including the washing of the paint)
c. A personality unafraid to harm others for her own purposes.
This is something that is likely easily affirmed by family members. She is willing for at least one innocent Ottawa citizen to be arrested for "hate crime" in order to further her own promotion. She has worked for "more than five years" at trying to be accepted as a rabbi and here shows how dangerous her ambition is.
This is not her first attempt at exploitation via deception.
Um, I’m covering it back up because I take care of a two-year old and I don’t actually want to explain the pictures on the door to her.
The need to explain why she is covering it back up is sensitive; she has not been asked such.
Yet, how many two year olds will both recognize a swastika, read the word "kike"with understanding, and will thus inquire about why it is on her door?
The parent of the two year old should be very concerned about leaving a vulnerable child with this subject.
Back to context: A threatening message has been posted on her front door, with paint. It is a direct message of death to Jews. It is thus reported to police for investigation. Will her words reflect this?
Uh, uh it’s uh, rather alarming to have this kind of experience happen to me directly and also to have it happen here in Ottawa. But as uh, I shared with others already this morning, I really think that the president-elect south of the border has kind of opened the pandora’s box to people feeling more comfortable expressing their hatred to others,
Here we have projection via the linguistic disposition continuing. Consider only a few simple points:
This vile and frightful threat is now a "kind of experience", which is soft minimizing language.
Question: Why would she use such soft language?
Answer: Because she does not wish to portray herself as "hateful" or "Nazi like" as the painter.
Note that she did not "report" this "crime", she "shared" this "experience."
Note the weak commitment to condemning Donald Trump.
Question: Why would she only weakly condemn him?
Answer: Because she is the author of the painting and to give strong commitment (Pronoun "I", strong verbiage, etc) would be to condemn herself. This is to continue to look at the "linguistic disposition" towards anyone targeted with blame.
She does not show animosity towards the President elect, even though she wishes him to take the blame for it. This further affirms that her motive was not an anti-Trump or anti-American or any other political agenda;
her agenda is profit.
Here, she has a very soft stance:
has kind of opened the pandora’s box to people feeling more comfortable expressing their hatred to others,
The pandora's box is not opened, but has "kind of" opened to "people" who (now note the soft language)
"feeling more comfortable expressing their hatred to others."
This is not "hateful people" but "people";
This is not people "expressing their hatred" but are "feeling" (a) "comfortable" (b) with this comfort being increased "more" (c)
Although she has expressed hatred for herself, no matter how intense it may be, it is subordinated to her ambition for publicity. This continues to indicate that although she may have strong hatred for both Donald Trump and those who voted for him, her own desire for acceptance and publicity remain paramount.
um about others about anybody different than themselves,
The lack of acceptance by her own community has likely led her to a personal crisis. She may have heard people tell her, in a negative sense, that she is "different" than they are. This is not likely taken by her as a compliment but a criticism. Exploring her status as a "spiritualist" who calls herself "rabbi" may show some very "different" beliefs she has attempted to peddle to the Jewish community who has not accepted her:
anything they don’t understand um, and this is just an example of that.
She is not 'understood' and hopes that this "anti-semitic" attack will cause Jews to rally around her.
By her own words on the previous analysis: they did not.
Um, where people feel because others in power have had the permission granted to them to speak about their bigotry, their racism, their sexism, to speak um horribly about women and others and not be censored for it, that it’s okay for everyone to do that.
The gratuitous use of propaganda directly appeals to those who have fallen for deception where:
if you disagree with Obama, you are "racist"
if you did not vote for Hillary, you are "sexist"
if you do not endorse what the politicians demand you endorse, you are given to "bigotry";
It is interesting to note that what is missing from the list of media victims, is
Consider the message painted on her door was directly written to Jews.
It recalled, specifically, the killing of at least 6 million Jews in Europe.
Yet, she chose to use other victims.
She chose victims other than the intended victim.
This is a very strong indication that she knows the "threat" to herself and Jews is not a threat at all.
This is further confirmation of the analysis conclusion: Deception Indicated
Um, however, as the campaign message often said um, over the last few weeks, “Love Trumps Hate” and my response is to go on with my day and continue to do what I normally do which is to be a spiritual leader, care for children and mothers and families in this community
Some will question her sanity and in the very least, no matter where one's understanding of deception is, she is not safe around children.
Note after this threat of death against Jews, she tells us she is going to do what she "normally" does.
What might this suggest?
It might suggest that the subject is concerned about something very "not normal" coming her way.
The subject may fear arrest and the publicity fall out from the false claim.
This is my assertion to now follow. We always remain open about such assertions and submit to the statement. This means that I must change my mind if the subject goes in a different direction. In analysis training we ask:
Will the statement now affirm, deny, or remain neutral to the assertion?
We let the subject guide us:
and just hope that whoever did this um has an opportunity to speak
The "somebody" is now "whoever" (a non negative linguistic disposition is "favorable" in threat analysis)
The painter needs:
This has entered her language. Consider the motive that was revealed before where ambition trumped politics.
The "somebody" who did this is not a hateful Nazi, but someone who needs an opportunity to be heard.
This is not simply a narcissistic attempt at 'forgiveness, understanding and tolerance' less than 24 hours after a hateful and dangerous threat, but it is specifically the words her brain is telling her to use:
Somebody, the painter, needs opportunity and Somebody, the painter, has a need to be heard.
What do you know about the painter?
The painter's gender is concealed.
The painter is given favorable linguistic disposition
The painter needs an opportunity
The painter needs to be heard.
The painter is not understood.
The painter wants Jews, specifically, to hear her message.
The painter is not a "nazi" nor "hater" making a threat against her and all Jews.
The painter needs to have her message heard and the erasing of the message (destruction of evidence) tells us that "kike" and swastika are not the message.
She tells us more about the painter:
The painter feels hurt.
to somebody about why they feel so hurt that they need to strike out
The painter has been silenced and hurt for too long and now shows a need to "strike out."
Keep in mind: the intention of fake hate is not a victimless crime. Besides resources there is always the chance of innocent citizens being falsely arrested, incarcerated and convicted.
To whom is the painter "speaking"?
to someone whom they don’t know, um, probably have never encountered or only encountered uh, minimally.
The painter has had contact with the subject.
And really come to a uh, uh greater level of self-awareness.
The disposition continues: "a greater level of self-awareness."
How does she feel about the hateful Nazi who made this threat?
Uh, hurt people hurt people so I have a, some compassion for this person knowing that people who do these kinds of acts are hurting themselves and need to have the a-need to have the attention that comes with this kind of activity."
As if Adolf Hitler only needed to be understood, heard and told to stop hurting himself?
Get to know the one making the threat, and you are better prepared to assess the level of harm within the threat.
There is no threat because Anna Maranta is deceptive about the threat.
The threat is directly made to Jews, but in the subject's language, she does not direct the threat to Jews.
The "linguistic disposition" of the subject to the painter is "Favorable" status. This means she is either the painter, or she had someone paint it for her, but it is an expression of who she is.
Although Anna Maranta was deceptive about the "hate crime" alleged, she has revealed information about the painter.
The painter has a need to be heard. She is misunderstood and not recognized. She is "different" and people have not acknowledged her accomplishments and in particular, Jews have not supported her.
She shows an awareness of the political environment of which she seeks to take advantage of, and connects herself, as a liar, to children. This is a danger to both children and their parents, as her word is not only unreliable, but she has such ambition that she will harm others if it benefits her.
She shows a desperate need for relevance, which she indicates fatigue over her efforts for acceptance. She uses 'sales techniques' and sets herself up as a moral narcissist. This is where she uses a fake threat to 'preach' how wonderful she is, as if Hitler (the author and orchestrator of the holocaust) was only hurting "himself" and needed to be 'healed', showing a willingness to be absurd if it serves her desire for publicity.
There is no threat to Jews, by the subject.
The danger lies in how far one will go in order to fulfill her own ambition.
Few understand the risks involved in those who are willing to fabricate reality.
Honest people who say, "Aunt Polly, your blue hair looks really nice", using a 'white' or social lie, often project this upon others.
It is not supported by truth, nor by criminal statistics.
To Human Resource professionals:
What does the profile of this subject tell you what she might be like if you hired her?
She may not be a "social justice warrior" in the pure sense (she is, but here, her ambition lies in publicity, not a cause of justice), but consider:
The pragmatic viewpoint she carries in life.
If hired, she would invent a "crisis" which would cost the company dearly, including financial, court costs, attorney fees, stress and reputation.
We teach HR professionals how to screen for deception before hiring.
For law enforcement hiring: we teach how to screen out for poor impulse control and violence before hiring. One violent law enforcement official taints the multitude of servants.
If you wish to learn deception detection, please click Hyatt Analysis Services for training opportunities.
Lie detection is hard work. It takes disciplined, concerted study. Those claiming special 'gifts' of such will not permit career growth. The information is often entertaining, but it will betray you professionally.
In learning a strong foundation, the investigator, analyst, journalist, etc, is prepared for future content analysis, psycho-linguistic profiling, and interview/investigation strategy and tactics leading to the ultimate conclusion: