Thursday, December 15, 2016

UPDATE: Islamist Female Arrested for False Report


This  Islamist female was arrested for making a false police report about "Islamophobia"; the term used by Islamists to hinder criticism of the ideology.  This is common with the terrorist-designate organization CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood.  

This lesson is powerful.   See updates below.  


When we have a fabrication, the list of topics one may use is endless.  Therefore, the topics and words used are of great importance to the person, subsequently, to us.  

It is the ultimate display of projection of self.  

For those who wish to study Statement Analysis, this is an insight into some advanced techniques used to highlight:

The subject's priority, background, experiences and...

personality type. 

Although not so much in this case, the principle remains the same and can not only tell us how to conduct the interview, but what crimes this person is capable of.  

She said that 3 men assaulted her which could have led to the arrest of 3 innocent men. 

In research, Statement Analyst instructor and author, Mark McClish  conducted research and concluded  that when a deceptive person is fabricating and must choose a number, the number 3 is gravitated towards.  My own work has affirmed this.  Although it is called "the Liar's number", its application is most always wrongfully employed.  It is limited to the fabrication of reality where there is a necessity of an invention of a number; with "1" sounding too small, and "4" sounding too great. 

We have seen examples of "fake hate" where "3 men attacked" before.  See "Charlie Rogers" for one such example. 

Analyzing this Islamist's statement, were there other indicators of deception besides the sole number of attackers?  Absent of any other indicators of deception, we would not conclude deception based upon the use of 3 attackers.  It is a struggle to sometimes get readers of S/A to abandon their thinking on the number 3, as there is within human nature a desire for 'quick fix' and easy answers.  This is not one of them.  

We need to listen to her to learn the truth, including why she did it.  


Here is her statement followed by basic analysis: 


I initially was not planning on making a post about what happened yesterday, but you will probably be seeing stories about it on the news & in the newspaper tomorrow. I take the train every single day going to & coming from class, but yesterday, something happened that I never thought would happen to me. I was harassed on the subway last night and it was just so dehumanizing I can't speak about it without getting emotional. Three white racists ripped the straps off my bag & attempted to yank my hijab off my head. They yelled such disgusting slurs at me, I was so helpless and felt defenseless. "Look it's a f------ terrorist", "go back to your country", "take that rag off your head", and so many more. Trump's name was repeatedly said & it finally clicked in my head. No matter how "cultured" or "Americanized" I am, these people don't see me as an American. It breaks my heart that so many individuals chose to be bystanders while watching me get harassed verbally and physically by these disgusting pigs. Trump America is real and I witnessed it first hand last night! What a traumatizing night. Please stay safe everyone & never let anyone take your rights away. Just thought I should share that with you all tonight.

She blamed her father but does NOT wear covering to court

Now the same statement with emphasis added for analysis:


I initially was not planning on making a post about what happened yesterday, but you will probably be seeing stories about it on the news & in the newspaper tomorrow. 


Here is where she began her post and where one begins speaks to priority.  There are several things of note here in her priority:


a.  She begins by telling us what she did not intend to do.  This is called the "rule of the negative", where one tells us what she did not think, did not do, etc, elevating its importance. 


b.  Her priority is immediately seen by using the simple technique of the word "but":   to view as superior to what just proceeded it.  What proceeded was her negative intention, and now what follows is elevated in importance two levels (one is due to the word "but" in comparison, and the other is the rule of the negative):


Publicity. 


but you will probably be seeing stories about it on the news & in the newspaper tomorrow.


According to the post, the writer's priority is making the news.  




I take the train every single day going to & coming from class,



Normal

Here is the 'principle of "normal" in statement analysis.  It is something that every school child knows from having stories read:  when someone presents something as "normal" it is indicative of "narrative building", something police call "story telling,"

"Once upon a time, it was a day like every other day..." causes the child to sit up and know:

something unlike every other day is coming!  

We find this language in fiction; not criminal reports of assault, harassment, or attack. 

As a side note:  when someone, in a statement, calls himself "normal", such as, "I am a normal man", it is a very strong indication that he, or someone else, has considered him "not normal."

We find this in child sexual abuse statements where instead of denying molesting the child, the subject says "I am a normal married man", as if being "married" precludes him from the assault.  The term "normal" is a verbal indicator that he knows he is not normal; that is, he has an unnatural (abnormal) sexual attraction.  


 but yesterday, something happened that I never thought would happen to me. 

Narrative building seeks to build tension or anticipation.  In doing so, Statement Analysis notes the "slowing down of the pace" of the statement.  Another indication of "narrative" or "story telling" is the location of emotions. 

In trauma, it takes time to process emotions.  Therefore, in viewing many truthful accounts of assaults, for example we find that the subject will report what happened, without emotion.  This is especially true if the subject gives us the dating of the event. 

If the event was years ago, so much time has passed and the story told and retold, the emotions are right at the point of the event.  But in events that are fresh, truthful accounts give us the emotions much later in the statement.

Therefore, when someone includes emotional language at the point of the event, we must consider the artificial placement of emotion, to persuade the reader to believe, as part of editing of a fictional account:  


I was harassed on the subway last night and it was just so dehumanizing I can't speak about it without getting emotional. 

Not only do we have the rule of the negative (she "can't" speak) but we even have the statement of emotions.  

Note the classification is of being "harassed" which could be anything.  Will what follows be appropriately described as "harassment" or something else?


Three white racists ripped the straps off my bag & attempted to yank my hijab off my head. 

This is an attack and attempted theft; not "harassment."  Therefore, we have minimizing language as yet another indicator of deception.  

In advanced analysis, we would complete this analysis, and then return to it, changing our presupposition from innocent to guilty deceiver, and then work through it again seeking to learn about the subject, herself. 

Question:  What does she tell us about herself?

Answer:   She is a racist.  


They yelled such disgusting slurs at me, I was so helpless and felt defenseless. 

Here the emotions are in the "perfect" or "logical" part of the account.  This is a strong indication that they are artificially placed here by the editing process of fiction.  

She introduced racism via her language.  



"Look it's a f------ terrorist", "go back to your country", "take that rag off your head", and so many more. 

Note she does not say that anyone said this to her.  Remember:  statement analysis 'believes' what one says and does not interpret.  Deceptive people are counting on you to interpret this as to say, "and they yelled at me, "Look, it's a f-----"

We do not interpret.  


Trump's name was repeatedly said & it finally clicked in my head. 

We take note of all people in a statement.  This includes pets as for some people, their pets are as important, and in some cases, even more important than people.  

We list the names to view priority for the subject.  

The first is "I" and it is repeated. 

The second "person" is media

Third is "three white racists"

Now is "Trump"  entering into her language.  This makes Donald Trump important to the subject.  We should consider now why she gave us a priority of news and media.  

Please note the passivity of "clicked in my head"; while she was being attacked = incongruity.  


No matter how "cultured" or "Americanized" I am, these people don't see me as an American. 

She does not say that she is cultured or "Americanized"; do not say it for her.  She says "no matter how..." as a comparison.  This is a strong signal of what appeals to her about wearing Islamic garb.  

Islam teaches that women who are not covered up may be raped, meaning the "sartorial prison" protects them from sexual assault.  Yet, avoiding rape is not why she wears the covering.  This sentence shows an acute awareness of just how much she is "not Americanized" and loves the attention that being seen different affords her.  Consider this with her priority of seeking attention both from social media and television and news.  

Note that she can read their hearts and minds:  they don't "see" her as an American. 

Note her dress and the word "see", as specific sensory discernment.  This further affirms her self-attention seeking awareness.   

It breaks my heart that so many individuals chose to be bystanders while watching me get harassed verbally and physically by these disgusting pigs. 

This is a particularly interesting insight into her.  Note she was defining them as "three white racists", labeling them, and now they are "pigs" something that Islam uses to describe Jews.  This is not "halal" or permitted, as pig is pork.  Jews are said to be "descendents of apes" and are "pigs" by Islamists and taught in Islamic schools.  She is a racist and she is anti-semitic.  

She could tell us anything.  She could stick to condemning the "3" attackers, but instead, she turns to condemn others, innocent citizens who did not intervene.  

This this did not take place,  and she could tell us anything (literally, as she is fabricating) what did her words choose to tell us?

She chose to condemn American citizens in her verbalized perception of reality, while being deceptive. 

She chose the language of anti-Jew. 
She chose to condemn using race.
She chose to even condemn others, not involved in the fake attack. 

This is contempt. This is what liars have for their audience, but she, in addition to being a liar, identifies this with those who are not recipients of her deception.  It goes further and deeper.  

Note the additional information beneath the analysis regarding her family's contempt for their host nation.  

 

Note the language of supremacy.  This sentence tells us she is not likely a new convert to Islam, or a "supremacist wanna-be" but one who is steeped in Islamic supremacist criminal ideology, including the use of "tacquia" here. 

How does she reveal this?

She now takes to insulting Americans. 

She is not only insulting the "three disgusting pigs" she shows her contempt towards the many people present she calls "by standers" and insults them for not intervening on an event that did not take place.  

This is to show contempt towards the general, unnamed public.  She is not done there, she now is going to insult the millions who voted him to be president against the wishes of the Islamists:  


Trump America is real and I witnessed it first hand last night! 

Although media reports that this was an attempt to embarrass Donald Trump, the language shows that this is not her primary motive.  

She is using this for her highest motive:  to gain attention for herself.  

She is not even practicing genuine (genuine?) tacquia, though this would be used by CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.  We learned from Hillary Clinton's emails that Saudi Arabia's common financial interest was both ISIS and Hillary's election, as they donated money to both.  Yet, this is only "taquia" for Islam, but not for the subject, herself, even as she uses it.  It is not her priority.  

This subject is using Donald Trump and Islam to gain attention for herself. 

She craves it.  


What a traumatizing night. Please stay safe everyone & never let anyone take your rights away. 

Here she follows the CAIR party line, which the political elite repeated during the election:

a.  Islam is "peace"
b. If you do not let them migrate to the United States, they will become violence
c.  The violence is not the fault of the Islamists.  
d.  With unvetted migration, jihadists enter the country.  
e.  Any attempts to stop jihadists from entering is religious discrimination. 





Just thought I should share that with you all tonight.

Here we see the final element of her deception:  the dropped pronoun.  

This tells us that she has far more on her mind than "just" sharing with "you all."  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The number 3 is  a very minor point.  There is so much more to the statement to indicate deception, particularly her "narrative establishment" or story telling. 

As media quickly reported the "Islamophobia attack" without discernment, so they will now report her political motive.  This is not true. 

The highest motive is self-attention, and politics is used as a means to her end.   Even dating a Roman Catholic, which may have caused her to run away, is not part of her priority here:  gaining attention for self.  Her boyfriend, alcohol, freedom, Donald Trump, Islamic culture, etc, are all important for her, but they are yet subordinated to her desire for attention for self.  

Her language indicates a history and comfort of deception.  This is part of overall acceptance of deception within Sharia (tacquia). 

Interesting side note on being raised in a supremacist ideology that permits deception:  


Among those to support her in court on Wednesday was Seweid's older brother Abdoul who was himself arrested in 2012 for lying to police. 

He claimed his friend had been 'assaulted by three unknown males', but was later charged among other teenagers with breaking into cars to steal their valuable contents near their home in New Hyde Park.

As to the public contempt in which "bystanders" are targeted as part of her fabrication, we learn more about the family culture from the NY Post.  The sister blames the police.  In supremacist ideology, there is no personal responsibility from within.  Blame is assigned to others, leading to the phenomena known as "Muslim Grievance" where complaints are insatiable.  



Muslim hate crime hoaxer’s sister blames the NYPD

Muslim hate crime hoaxer’s sister blames the NYPD
The sister of the Muslim teen who lied about being harassed to avoid parental punishment for breaking curfew posted a Facebook rant blaming the NYPD and the media for her sister’s lies.

Sara Seweid made the post Thursday morning and wrote “the NYPD should have never been involved in the first place even if the incident did happen. It became super clear to me these past two weeks that the police’s first instinct is to doubt your story and try to disprove it.”

Note that she allows for the "incident" to have not happened, but blames police for not believing it happened. 

She blames police for using good judgement.  

This is the "absurdity" of supremacists' grievances.  They are incapable of being satisfied, and when one is seemingly satisfied, a new one erupts.  This is why supremacist ideology, even in 100% Islamic or "peaceful submission" countries are ripe with incessant violence.  Life is full of inequalities and supremacist ideology is provoked by this as it seeks excuse.  


“I’m not excusing what my sister did.  I was horrified yesterday and I’m still trying to grapple with the facts. Things snowballed out of our control because of the media… reporters made things so much worse for our family.”

Note that she begins in the negative, and that she shows no concern for the possibility that three innocent white males could have been arrested.  

She said anti-Trump posts made by her family on their Facebook pages forced the cops and the media to discredit their story.

Recall the inclusion of race by the subject's original post indicating a projection of racism.  Here we see it in the admission of the sister:  

I had more than one cop tell me that they’ve looked through all our social media… and it doesn’t look good that we’ve been vocal about certain issues they perceive to be anti -trump, anti-white and even anti-men.”


She continued that no one understood the “extent of the emotional and mental trauma Yasmin had to endure.

Nothing even resembling personal responsibility for the attempt to slander the President elect, nor the innocent whites, nor the citizens who were by standers.  


Cops realized her story was a fake when surveillance video didn’t show an attack.  She later confessed.  

The sister blamed police for uncovering the racist postings and discerning the lie. 

This, itself, gives us insight into the family.  

The brother used a false police report to steal.  
The sister used a false police report to seek attention while diverting away from her actions. 
Her sister blamed police for doing their job. 

All the while, the family lives in an upscale neighborhood on Long Island.  

She reports that she lied to protect herself from her father, since she had been out drinking.  

Yet, she is in court, with a shaven head, and no head covering. 

Her motive, according to her words, is attention seeking.  


30 comments:

Nic said...

Speaking of the election ...
o/t and I hope this doesn't happen - electoral voters are flipping!
I can't believe that there is no mechanism in place to protect the voters.
Prayers for America!

Insider: Democrats Intend To Overturn The Election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SKVC6VxNU&feature=youtu.be

lynda said...

Peter..The woman in question appeared in court today with her head shaven forcibly by her parents and not wearing a hijab. Her father was with her. It seems she lied to cover up a drinking night with her Christian boyfriend. Interestingly, her brother was arrested for making up a story in 2012 about THREE attackers to cover up his petty crimes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Peter Hyatt said...

I am aware of the Roman Catholic boyfriend, etc. This is where the analysis becomes important in advanced work:

Studying Statement Analysis will cause the new analyst to conclude "deception indicated" before news like this breaks.

But in moving to advanced analysis, we get insight into her motive but then, deeper, into her personality.

She did not make this report for her boyfriend, drinking, Donald Trump, and so on...She did not even make it, as a priority, for her father.

Although these things are important to her (they are all important features), what drives her most here is her need for attention.

This is critical.

It is not critical for her specific case but using the principles will prove vital for criminal cases.

The need for attention is so overwhelming that she went very far into trouble. She is smart enough to use a diversion from her father, while serving his own, perhaps, Islamic desires of conquest, but she, herself, is the issue.

If this was a different criminal case, she would be at very high risk for future criminal action.

As it stands with her, she has shown a personality consistent with intelligent deception and will likely bring trouble to others in life; whether it be future husband, or raising troublesome children in society, or in employment, which, if possible to follow her life, she would be likely to make false claims against a company in order and seek money, in order to satisfy this intense need for attention.

She is a very troubled deceiver.

Politics will likely make sure that her punishment is very light and she will have to become more adept at deception to get what she wants.

Hopefully her boyfriend and/or his family, will run far away from her.

You are free to believe MSM's report as to why she made this false claim, or you can believe her own words.

Her brother's story is new to me, but it is not surprising. This is their culture.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

PS:

Thank you, lynda for the link.

Also, for others:

please consider yet another motive:

The Russians made her do it.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Who is she addressing via facebook? Who is you all? If she has contempt for Americans then is she addressing other Muslims? Did she have a quarrel with boyfriend that initiated her false claim against white men? No one really cares about the headscarf. Its not unattractive or really objectionable. So, her identifying it as a target for racists is a miscalculation itself. Also, she's not unattractive but overly painted unnecessarily. The photo of her IMO indicates self importance. If she wanted to be considered Americanized then she totally sabotaged herself. And I'm not convinced she's an Islamist although well versed in the Islamaphobia narrative. She may've just used it as cover. She brought the dishonor of herself and family to a very big audience. Her parents responded by humiliating her publicly. Her hair. Her looks.

lynda said...

Peter..thank you for the above explanation.

When you read this article, that is what I think. Oh, she did it to cover up the BF and being out late. Even her father said, "she was late". I think, okay..typical teenage crap, she lied hastily because she didn't want to get into trouble, etc.
Since you have clarified and redirected the TRUE purpose, I can see it and it changes EVERYTHING. When you break it down into what the future could hold for her and those she comes into contact with it drives home exactly why SA is so compelling and why companies hire people such as yourself, to interview.
So what will happen now is that MSM and the general public will feel sympathy for this girl. The consensus being she is just an average "American" teenager and lied to cover up drinking, and look what happened to the poor girl!! Her father shaved her head! There may be a sense of "we have to protect her and get her out of the situation she obviously doesn't want to be in." But that is FALSE with your analysis. She is an attention seeker and has a hatred for Americans (pigs) and America itself.
This is exactly what you described in your previous blog that really stuck with me..

Don't believe your own eyes..believe ME
Don't believe what you hear with your own ears..believe ME

And people are doing it!! I admit that when this article came out I felt sympathy for her..not NOW..but I did.

Fascinating and eye opening!

lynda said...

Muslim women in general put much emphasis on make-up. They usually wear it rather heavy because of the hair covering hijab. To put emphasis on their face since they do not have their hair showing to add to their attractiveness. At least this is what has been told to me by at least 3 Arab women. I don't believe she has made her face much lighter than her natural tone. I don't really see that.

Peter Hyatt said...

Lynda,

the immediate "trigger" or cause was likely getting caught out with boyfriend, but this is why we listen very carefully to what one tells us.

She is telling us so much more about herself than about anything else, including her own issues of racism.

Objection: white boyfriend!

Answer: this does not preclude racism but is often used such as "some of my best friends are..."

That she was willing for three males of a specific race to possibly be arrested tells us what she thinks of a race; not of a specific person (such as boyfriend).

Although this may appear minor, it is not. The reason:

The same principles used here on a minor case (it is minor), when applied to a major case, will not only predict future potential for crime, but could cause police to investigate several unsolved crimes that such a person may have committed.

I give the journalist high remarks for digging into the brother's false story, as this shows a familiar connection with exploitation (a natural outworking of supremacist ideology) and deception.

The conclusion of the analysis is not for everyone. There are those who hold anger towards an analysis conclusion, even years ago (like JBR, McCann, Amanda Knox, etc) who seek to find some small and seemingly insignificant point to not so much disprove THIS analysis, but actually to disprove the pet analysis they disagreed with.

It is fascinating to watch.

When they have this mindset, they "see" things that do not exist. Sometimes they are helpful for research purposes, in attempts to remain open minded, but other times it is too much of a struggle.

Here goes:

Peter Hyatt said...

Person A feels emotionally committed to ______________ innocence. This emotional commitment is so powerful that it may even supplant reason.

Yet, Person A is also intelligent and recognizes the struggle.

Person A thoroughly disagrees with analysis of _______________ but recognizes the same principles have been evenly applied to so many other cases, over so many years, that they cannot argue with it.

Yet, emotionally, it burns still.

They begin to "see" in words what does not exist and they are in conflict. This conflict sometimes shows itself in passive - aggressive commenting most always anonymously.

The pressure is upon them; not upon others, and there is a great way to overcome this by honest people

Journal.

Write out in length and detail why _______________ could not have done it.

This is where one must be extremely honest with self. Write out even the most ridiculous arguments ---no matter how silly it may sound.

this sort of thing:

"Patsy Ramsey could not have done it. She reminds me of my mother, who passed away..."

some times, the source is identified!

Now, this intelligent and honest person is able to explore this...

why does Patsy remind me of my mother? Is it the red sweater?
was it my own history of sexual abuse?
was it...?

and on and on the honest self-analysis goes.

Freedom can be found.

Now this is not something that is for disagreement. When one disagrees with analysis, it is proper to say "I disagree with the analysis here, at this point, because..."

This is for those who are conflicted.

They know the analysis is accurate but they wish it wasn't and want to explore conflict.

Those in training find that they all come to certain points about self that they DO NOT LIKE. It is a great sign of growth.

If we cannot confront our prejudices ourselves, we cannot grow.

Those in training also come to a point where disappointment in cases loses its punch. They stop caring.

Did ________ (my hero) lie or do this terrible thing?"

I will let my hero, my candidate, my idol, my whatever, speak for himself and let his language guide me.

It is a great feeling of freedom.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

This statement is really a great lesson for some advanced work.

I have added some points, particularly about what we look for when a person is making up a story.

When making up a story, they could chose to say almost anything!

This means that when they do speak, the words are very important to her, herself, making them important to us for analysis.

Who did she condemn?

Liars hold their audience in contempt. They are "too dumb" to catch on.

She targeted her assailants as "racists" and used the Islamic term "pig" *(unclean) for Jews. She, not us, introduced racism and anti semitic language.

But that is not all.

She also decided to attack the American citizens who did not intervene in this non-attack.

Remember: she could choose any words and give life to ANY possible thing but she chose to condemn non combatants.

This reveals her contempt for society.

Now, consider Islamic supremacy and the information OUTSIDE the analysis: her brother.

Not only did he use the Islamophobia card, but he, too, used the opportunity to cast potential harm upon others.

They are birds of a feather.

The father's bigotry, condemned by daughter, is embraced by daughter.

Lesson: When someone is fabricating a story, the topics they choose are limitless.

Therefore, what they choose is critical information that comes from...

themselves.

It is the ultimate projection screen of self.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

More insight into common contempt

http://nypost.com/2016/12/15/muslim-hate-crime-hoaxers-sister-blames-the-nypd/

lynda said...

Thank you Peter, I know that this blog in particular has really opened my eyes about the WHY we are swayed to feel a certain way and I have been guilty of being in "conflict" because I didn't want it to be true on other cases.
Your continued, deeper and more precise explanations are very informative. Your "fill in the blank" exercise is quite good, and you're right..growth and freedom come from looking in the mirror and self honesty. NOT EASY THO! :)

rob said...

I for one don't believe the father had her head shaved. Even if he did, if he was truly devout, I think he would have insisted on her covering her head.
What is the penalty for making a false claim like this? Needs to be the same that the offender would have received if it had been true. There needs to be a deterrent(?).

Peter Hyatt said...

lynda, you're welcome. I appreciate the deeper thinking!

Rob,

great point. ...She was in court uncovered and with her father...

rob, this should be discussed more.
thoughts??

others?
Peter

Anonymous said...

OT: "Santa"'s original statement sounded off.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/12/14/boy-santas-arms-unravel/

http://www.knoxnews.com/story/entertainment/columnists/sam-venable/2016/12/11/sam-venable-santa-grants-final-wish/95091356/

Peter Hyatt said...

rob,

the uncovered head is really more significant that I thought.

I don't believe her confession to police. It is not what her statement reveals.

Now, as I consider that she not only went to court with an uncovered head, but did so with her own father.

Is this another lie to protect her?

great observation!

Peter

Anonymous said...

I saw two commentators on the news today already saying we have to show her sympathy and understanding to this poor teenager and this episode doesn't mean there aren't real hate attacks towards Muslims. I wonder what they would say if she actually accused someone and they were arrested (ala Tawana Brawley). Would there be any sympathy for the supposed white perpetrators? I don't think so.

It's frightening to see the denial of liberals. I watched a short clip by Ari Horowitz he filmed in Sweden asking people what was to blame for the rape epidemic to hit Sweden - influx of migrants, clash of cultures .... Imagine my surprise (not) when the pat answer from men and women alike was "it's a male problem" and "no, we can't do too much to help these immigrants and we should do more." He interviewed 2 police officers who said they had 2-3 incidences of rape/other crime in their town PER YEAR and now it's 2-3 incidences or more PER WEEK and yet the Swedish people don't think it's a migrant problem?


European liberals are committing cultural suicide rather than risk being thought of as mean - meanwhile radical muslims are marching right along with their world domination theme. It's scary.

Tiffany Gerik said...

OT: this is from an old case. Gabe Watson is accused of murdering his while, or being culpable. While on their honeymoon and scuba diving, the wife ended up on the ocean floor while he and others scuba dived. His story is covered in odd behavior on his part. I think he's guilty, but I didn't hear it in his words... until this.


In a 20/20 interview:
Interviewer: (NOT VERBATIM) She asks something like: "Did you kill your wife?"
GW: No. I didn't kill her intentionally.

You can't see what I quoted in this clip, I just saw it on TV in the full-length episode from 20/20. It was like a bombshell going off. He admits to saying he did in fact kill her. Just not intentionally. He also tried to get life insur. money out from it. Possible motive.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/honeymoon-killer-gabe-watson-breaks-silence-details-wifes/story?id=15819106

Anonymous said...

That entire lying family needs to be deported. They have nothing of value to add to our society, but have the intent to cause problems, lie, steal, cheat us out of money, disrupt our way of life. Buhbuy

lynda said...

I'm not getting the significance of the head shaved, no hijab, and her father being with her. I thought it was a punishment for bringing shame to the family? Is this not so? What is the significance then?

lynda said...

I have looked around and am seeing that a woman shaving her head would be haraam in Islam.

Rob..Are you inferring that she shaved her own head?

elf said...

'something happened that I never thought would happen to me'
as a woman, that part of her sentence raised a red flag. Don't all of us women run through various scenarios in our heads about what could happen to us and how we'd react in a dangerous situation?
Also I'd like to point out that girls will often date guys parents don't like. Just because she's dating a white male doesn't mean she's not a racist. It could just be her way of rebellion.I.

lynda said...

Anonymous Betty said...
Lynda, Thanks for sharing your understanding of make-up use by Muslim women...it's fascinating that "3" Muslim women told you about how make-up makes them feel attractive due to their head scarf making them feel less than glamorous.

Case solve

_______________

Oh please Betty..give it a rest.

My pharmacist is Muslim, My friend is Muslim, and her friend is Muslim. I asked all 3..yes 3..should I lie and say 4 or 2 so as not to give you ammunition to snark?
I also did NOT say that their hijab makes them feel less glamorous. I said that they said they do not have their hair to style/arrange to add to their "attractiveness" because they cover it. According to them, they love make-up and think up all different ways to make themselves look "unique". Different lipsticks, dramatic eyeliner, false eyelashes, etc. They said it was "cultural." Whether that is true across the board, I do not know, I only know what they told me.
It is what it is Betty.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Bobcat said...

The shaved head looks like more attention seeking. She's been raised on Long Island! Imagine the Kardashians of the east - the spoiled children will do ANYTHING for attention.

Peter Hyatt said...

Bobcat, you may be right.

If she went uncovered, it means the father did not enforce sharia compliance upon her.

Since she has a history of lying, and two lying siblings, was this another attempt to falsely accuse another? This time, the victim being her own father?

I caution speaking of any Muslims. Here is why:

at any time, any singular experience may be such and such, and there are many fine Muslim individuals.

As analysts, we deal with ideologies.

The exception would be someone who frequently works or interacts with a large number of those who follow the ideology, or has covered the statements of many, etc.

I've had some very negative and very positive experiences, personally. While filming 20/20, a Muslim from the middle east inspired me with his story of violence. He also stated he was atheist.

I have also interviewed a number of criminal Islamists; particularly showing what supremacy is like in action.

The rest has been through analysis.

At any given time, any given person can be the rule or the exception. This is why we deal with the ideology.

Think of someone you know who is Christian. Then consider how plainly this person may go opposite the teaching of Christ.

We look at the cultural impact of the ideology of Christendom, for example, and how society that embraced "do unto others" evolved over time, and how it restrained criminal behavior, or forged societal norms.

When you do this, you will get a clearer picture of language.

Pat Condel, the comedian who speaks against Islam, is a good example.

He rails against Christianity (and religion in general) but what he does not understand is that he is not only the beneficiary of the ideology's impact upon his culture, but he:

uses the logic of Christianity to condemn Christianity.

He literally borrows its morals to highlight, for example, the immoral of Islam, without understanding its origin.

Not that he is a rocket scientist but he is funny and he has strong points about Islam and destruction.

Those serious about analysis must now study Islam as, at least in the US, Barak Obama has forced Islam into the nation and into the national dialog. This is not something he told anyone publicly before he was elected. Now we are dealing with, in ever greater numbers, the sexual attacks, jihad, and "Muslim grievance" that is inherent in any supremacy ideology.

White Supremacists, though small in number, were bad enough to deal with. Black Supremacists have become financially sound due to Soros funding, but neither can stand up to the power of an ideology that appeals to the lowest levels of human nature, and needs no funding, nor any singular charismatic leader to prosper.

It not only appeals to the baseness of us all (take what you want, you are superior) but it also uses coercion by fear (slay those who disagree or even criticize Islam).

There is nothing like it in all of human history that has produced a death culture.

I remain amazed by its power.

Peter

Covert_Creep said...

You should do one on the "Santa" and his story of the boy dying in his arms. No way it really happened.

Peter Hyatt said...

Covert_Creep said...
You should do one on the "Santa" and his story of the boy dying in his arms. No way it really happened.
December 16, 2016 at 10:37 AM


If there is no way it really happened, why analyze it?


You already know.


Peter

New England Water Blog said...

OT but related. I got to see first hand the tremendous racism that exists among Muslims. I was on a flight to Dubai and sitting next to a young dark skinned somalian. Behind us sat another muslim of lighter skin whose young son was kicking the Somalians seat. He turned around and politely asked the man to have his son stop. The man stood up in his seat and sneered and I heard him use the word Slave in a questioning and drawn out tone.
Slave? I should talk to a slave? he sneered at the younger guy , smaller and darker guy sitting next to me. It was all a skin color thing and was an extremely ugly example of racism at a level I have not seen in maybe 30 or 40 years.
A light skinned muslim sneering at a dark skinned muslim and calling him a slave for his skin color is a brutal thing. Racism amongst musims is real.

Anonymous said...

The boyfriend is camouflage.

Dating a white guy makes everyone think SHE is not racist or anti-American. And it is now well-publicized that he is Catholic. That gets her extra points in the tolerance category.

We know that Islam promotes deception, especially for the greater good of Islam.

As with all narcissists and socios, they dont care who the person is, only what he/she can do for them.

Anonymous said...

The Saddam interrogation: Ten years after the tyrant's execution, the CIA agent who grilled him reveals the shattering truth... that everything the US thought it knew was WRONG. Debriefing The President: The Interrogation Of Saddam Hussein, by John Nixon, is published on December 29