Monday, February 6, 2017

Jennifer Williams: Notes from Analysts




Here are the notes from analysts working as a team as well as their conclusion.  To enroll in training, go to www.hyattanalysis.com, read up on it there and with the search feature here in the blog, and email hyattanalysis@gmail.com to enroll.  

Law Enforcement:  

Currently, we are offering tuition payment plans for Law Enforcement.  

On December 12, 2016, Jennifer and David Williams stated that they were attacked by an arsonist racist who was still on the loose.  

Jennifer blogged about it in this statement and raised money via Go Fund Me.  
Then she reported that David confessed to it (to her)  and she is refunding the donations, minus the percentage that Go Fund Me charges.  

David, she said, will be arrested when he is released from a mental health facility. 

Here is a new twist in the case:  the original analysis showed that she had guilty knowledge of the fake hate crime.  Now, go back into the analysis and consider this knowledge (prior analysis conclusion) as a form of contamination.  

*Does she cover for him?
*At what time did he start the fire?
*Where was she when he started the fire?

Critical is the fire, itself, above spray painting.  Please focus upon the time periods in her language.  

Question for Statement Analysis:


Does the subject (statement) have guilty knowledge of the crime?

First, the statement and then the analysis and profile.

I.  The Statement

Breaking My Social Media Silence.

I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December. You see, there is so much that I could say, but I want to say the right things. I wanted to speak wisdom and not perpetuate hate. Sunday night was just like any other school night this year. The kids went to bed at 8. David and I watched TV while I worked from home, something I am glad to be able to do. Then just like any other night, we went to bed. 

In the wee hours of Monday morning I heard, what I though was the transformer behind our house blow. A sound we have heard a number of times and think nothing of. I nudged David awake and asked him if he had heard it too. I don't know if he had heard it, I know he recalls a coherent response, I do not. We both drifted back to sleep without much thought. It was a short time later, that there was a pounding on our door. We were both awake again, rattled this time. Who was banging on our door and what could be so urgent. A father moving his son into a house 4 doors down the street, had heard the explosion too, followed by the sound of a car horn. He was curious about the sound, stuck his head out the front door, saw nothing and went about his business. A short time later his son arrived home from a trip to the grocery store and told him that there was a fire down the street. Both the men came to our aid. David answered the door in his boxers. "Your truck is on fire, is their anyone else in the house." David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants. We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire. In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam.  The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate. I don't know if we were all slow or the fire department was that fast, by the time I reached the back of the house the fire was out. I came back to the house to tell the kids to go back to sleep. "Mom, there is a fire truck at our house, I want to see it." So I let the children outside, far enough that they could see the fire truck, not so close that they could be underfoot or get hurt. Then I ushered them all back in, telling them to go to bed. Reality check, in what world after all of that commotion was anyone going to go back to sleep. I went back around to the back of the house. The gentlemen, who's name I still don't know asked if we knew of anything spray painted on our garage door. I will let the pictures here speak for themselves as I have no desire to type those words. After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive. The kids had still not gone to bed. The firemen offered them a private tour of a fire truck. Yes, even our oldest, who is almost 14, couldn't resist that offer. The arson investigator arrived and after a brief reporting of what they had found and done, the firemen loaded up and left.  I was astounded by the vast knowledge of the arson investigator

As one of our dogs returned home after being let out, or escaping from the back yard in fear, the investigator stopped to help us try to find the other. We wouldn't have any luck with that, but she would be found and returned later in the day. Back to the investigation, evidence was collected. Motives and suspects were discussed. We said good bye to the investigator and went in the house. The children, who had never made it back to bed, were much to my amazement ready to go to school when we came back in the house. I had offered to let them stay home, since they had missed out on sleep. They all said that they were not tired and off to school they went. So there, now you have it, the narrative of the events that occurred.  We have been asked a few questions several times, so I will answer them now. If you have more questions please ask in the comment section below and I will do my best to answer them. Do you know who did this? No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them. How did the fire start? While the investigator has shared his theory with us, one I fully support, I am not going to broadcast that on the internet. If you know David or Me personally we will happily tell you one on one. 

Won't your insurance cover it? The homeowner's insurance only covers vehicles that can not be registered to be driven on the road. It would cover the garage door, but the amount of our deductible is grater than the cost of a new door. The Harley was not currently insured or registered as it had a bad voltage regulator. I had lowered the insurance coverage on the truck in September or October to liability coverage only and arson is only covered under comprehensive.  UPDATE: Did you know your homeowners insurance will pay to clean your concrete driveway? With the addition of the driveway and a few other miscellaneous melted items, we have exceeded our deductible in damages. The estimated damage done to our home and personal property covered by insurance was just under $1,739, after subtracting our deductible and  depreciation we were issued a payment of just over $168.00  Why wasn't your motorcycle in the garage? Anyone who has asked that has never seen the amount of tools David owns. Is this, or why is this, considered a hate crime; aren't you white? Yes this is considered a hate crime. It is considered a hate crime because of what was painted on the garage door. Yes, we are white. It just so happens that we aren't as racist as someone would like us to be. Tell me about the GoFundMe campaign. David and I do not have direct access to this account and had no knowledge of it's creation. It was set up by a dear friend and David's sister. We are very appreciative and would like nothing more that to be able to thank and hug each person who has given to the campaign. As you can imagine, there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas, and this campaign and the generosity shown has lifted a burden. What can I do to help? So many people have asked this question. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and love that has been show to our family. I don't have a specific answer to this question though. At first my obvious answer was, do you have a car I can borrow? Days after, here are my thoughts. I am not going to tell any one how they can help. If you feel like helping, if you have an idea that would benefit anyone, not just my family, do it. Show love in every place and any place available to you. If you have the means to help someone going through a rough patch, do it. So now that all of that has been said... Racism is not comfortable subject. There are many who would like to pretend that it doesn't exist. There are those who believe racism only exists because, we continue to talk about it. I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism or why it continues. What happened at my house is the cold hard evidence that it does exist and that it continues. The questions is what am I going to do about it?  What are you going to do about it? In spite of what was meant to cause fear, I am going to continue to love, without regard to race, gender, age, religion, sexual preference or orientation. I am going to acknowledge the experience of those who are discriminated against daily. I will stand up for what I know to be true and right, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. I am going to pick up the pieces and create something beautiful. I am going to embody the cliche "Be the change you want to see in the world."






II.  The Analysis:  Does the subject show guilty knowledge of the crime?




2.      If so, what does content reveal
3.      What does the PERSON tell us about herself

Breaking My Social Media Silence.

Allegation:  Arson and “hate speech”
Europe = Truth has become “hate speech”
almost anything can be interpreted as “raising animosity”

1.      Background
2.    Experiences
3.    Priority
4.    Personality traits

Projection:  journaling and being bluntly honest –

Santa Claus –body posture tension –



BreakinMy Social Media Silence.

without the pronoun “I”?
“my” Social Media Silence –
a.      she takes ownership of
b.    likely spends much time
c.     the ‘norm’ is to be very vocal on social media
d.    she has been “un-silent” elsewhere
e.     there is more information to be heard –
f.      suppressing information in reverse:  It is challenging for her to keep her mouth shut on social media

“I don’t remember” in an open statement”       Education – writing skills (background)


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

a.      break silence on social media
b.    she is now writing on social media, in the sense of a “blog”
c.     she begins with “I”, psychologically strong
d.    verb:  have stayed” imperfect past tense –this has NOT been easy for her. The event was December 12th, and this statement was approximately December 19th. This short period of time, 1 to 2 weeks max, is very trying for her. This is very long.  Emotion is building up in intensity.  It is not only difficult for her to be silent, (she has not been!) but the pressure is escalating.  “breaking” a pattern? Is something “Broken” for the subject?

The need to be heard ---is this acute for the subject?

Question:  When someone has an acute need to be heard, what should be explored?
Answer:  That the subject has been ‘silenced’ in possible trauma (experience)

e.     “silence” and “quiet” =  “quiet” is now qualified.  She has NOT been silent. She has only been “pretty quiet” thus far.

‘quiet’ is the lesser of silence’;  quiet speaks to volume, silence speaks to the absence of volume

“Silence” is now “quiet”, which is further sensitive with “pretty.”  Is there anything within the context that justifies this change of language?  If not, the analyst should consider:   possible deception. 

“safe space” from disagreement ---males ----they do not like disagreement. 

“religion” or “god”:  final arbitrator of right from wrong tells us a person’s “religion” or “religious viewpoint” ---emotion. –employment


My feelings versus principle

I “feel” or “sense” that she is not truthful here, but the context is in fact different. 

Conclusion:  The change of language is justified in context.  She would have to “talk me out” of this later. 

“Tell me what happened” in a sexual assault statement.  The subject was the victim’s mother. 

She was asked to write this out.

She began with “I was divorced…”  10 years ago.

20 years of age

This was her priority yet it was 10 years before the alleged assault.  How could this be?

$100,000 per year

$20,000 per year to the worker



I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

about what happened  --arson and “Nigger Lover” spray painted on garage.
Passivity but it is also minimizing language. 

‘catching readers’ attention encouraging them to read more to learn…”

Narrative Building or ‘story telling’ –creative/right brain –

appears to need to be heard; likes attention, very regular poster on social media –struggles with being quiet or silent….good grammar, possible trauma victim (need to be heard) –selfish, attention seeker,

I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

“our” home shows sharing of the home.  Not “my” but “our” –
“home” is where we sleep.  Sleep is a situation of vulnerability –
When a “home” is violated or “intruded upon”, it is often very personal.  She began with “I” and the expected is “my home” –of a mother and wife, who is the “nester” of the home. 

“home” --- “house” –


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

Why?  Why the need to write/say it this way?

Why not, “On Monday, the 12th of December, we were ______...”

What is more important, her or what happened?
Answer:  her
What is important about her?
Answer:  her communication (silence/quiet):  “herself and her silence” takes precedent over “what happened” on the exact date. 

If the date came first, it would be more like a “report” rather than “narrative building” or “story telling” ---emotion over the logical; something that is less reliable than a report. 









You see, there is so much that I could say, but I want to say the right things.

 I wanted to speak wisdom and not perpetuate hate.


a.      “you see” is “of course” in S/A.  This wants acceptance without explanation.  We need explanation.  We only “see” what one tells us.
b.    “could” addresses limitation. 
c.     “but” indicates the explanation:  I want to say the right things.”  This subject is concerned about what comes out of her mouth.  For one with a need to be heard, this topic (arson/’hate crime’)  has told us that she must limit herself.  She can say the “wrong” things possibly.  She is aware of who is listening (audience; which is going to be very important in a moment), so we ask:

Who is the audience?

Context tells us:  the audience is the public, reading this statement.  There is a problem with this, however.

The change to past tense tells us:  there was a different audience. 

Let’s let the statement affirm or deny this:

Did she speak to someone else prior to this address?  If so, that communication should be considered very important to her. 

We should now consider whether or not her HUSBAND is taking the fall for the wife. 

a.      her husband
b.    the message itself
c.     the arson investigator (police/authorities)

Please consider that if this is an embedded confession:

1.      Did husband have relationship with black female?
2.    Only husband’s items were targeted
3.    The pronoun “our” with “home” suggests possible marital discord.


Will these traits show up in her? 


 Sunday night was just like any other school night this year.

“normal” in S/A 101 tells us that this was anything but normal.  This is akin or consistent with narrative building instead of reporting.  It is acceptable only after lengthy processing time (usually years)

2016 is the year. 
School year is Sept to June
This year, specifically, is her time frame.

Please note that outside the statement we have learned that in January of THIS year, she sought money from the public via Go Fund Me. 

*What was this year like?
*how were the finances this year?
*how were the bills this year?

When does the event start? This is a dual question.  This means there are two beginning points for us in analysis.

1.      Measuring the form
2.    When does it begin for her 

8pm when the kids went to bed. 

What happened began, in the subject’s perceived reality, only AFTER the kids (eyewitnesses) went to bed. 


The kids went to bed at 8.

potential witnesses are removed from the story. (narrative)

David and I watched TV while I worked from home, something I am glad to be able to do. Then just like any other night, we went to bed. 

a.      David and I”  ISI but is this blog article written to those who already know David?  If so, the ISI is reduced.  If not, the ISI stands alongside the other indicators of a troubled relationship. 
b.    when “we” is not used, but “David and I” (separate people) there is sometimes a situation where one watched TV while the other read or was on the I phone or something similar.  Generally speaking, “and I” with TV means there was conversation that took place. 
c.     Context:  kids are removed from this “social” time.  If this was conversation, it was only AFTER the kids were no longer there. 
d.    timing is involved.  They both watched TV but she did something else:  she worked from home. 
e.     she is glad to not have to go to a job to work.  We work to earn money. 
f.      Then” now skips over time.  Here we have indication of some form of conversation that is being skipped over. 
g.     “home” is where the ‘invasive’ activity took place (incongruent) and it is where she likes to work from.  “Home” is very important to the subject.  One should ask about the mortgage and bills. 
h.    “alibi” building:  Her viewpoint or linguistic disposition towards the place of attack is very positive. 
Therefore, she COULD not have done this, because she is very “glad” to be there.  This is alibi building.

Whatever happened began at 8pm and had to have the kids out of the scene first. 
She loves her home.


Did he complain about money and her needing to help him by getting a job outside the home and she answered “I will raise money!”

“just like any other night” to be the normal factor x two.  It is very sensitive. 
Also there is something here that

A “confession by pronoun” in 80% of cold or closed unsolved case files. 

we went to bed” = this tells us that whatever was discussed during the “social activity” (TV) and about working from home, came to resolution.  They are united in this account.

Assertion:  She is involved in this. 

Will the rest of the statement affirm or negate this assertion?



In the wee hours of Monday morning I heard,


the language of “story telling” is also a most inexact time.  Consider this with we went ot “bed” not to “sleep.”



what I though was the transformer behind our house blow.

She tells us of what she did not hear; her misinterpretation.  This is also narrative versus reporting. 

“the” transformer, not “a” transformer:  Why is the article here important?  What does it indicate?   

The use of the article, “the” is only appropriate in the narrative IF a transformer has been spoken about previously.  This is a very strong signal of scripted language. This fits with the pronoun “we” 

Also:  house v home?





 A sound we have heard a number of times and think nothing of.

An attempt to hide guilt within a crowd ----


 I nudged David awake and asked him if he had heard it too. I don't know if he had heard it, 

“Scripted language” does not come from experiential memory, therefore, it often sounds awkward unless there is a very talented liar behind it, and even then, it has holes in it! 

Since “awake” is unnecessary, we now should doubt that David was asleep.  She does not tell us David was asleep but wants us to interpret it by her “nudge”; thus continuing to stay with a script written from non-experienced memory.  This could come from the discussion over TV, a book, a movie, etc.  IT is not her own.




I know he recalls a coherent response, I do not. We both drifted back to sleep without much thought.

Deception Indicated

“wee hours” avoids directly telling us what time the fire started (unexpected) even though she uses the exact date (expected). 

2am ?

yet, the story started at 8PM

deception----

 It was a short time later, that there was a pounding on our door. We were both awake again, rattled this time.  (emotion)

Consider “rattle” with spray paint can. 

Who was banging on our door and what could be so urgent.

The narrative continues by building suspense and asking questions.  This is consistent with scripted language and is not a reliable report of what happened. 


 A father moving his son into a house 4 doors down the street, had heard the explosion too, followed by the sound of a car horn.

She has a need for her audience to know that she does not know who this is;
She has a very strong need to slow down the pace, giving unnecessary and irrelevant detail to avoid getting to “what happened.”
Additional and unnecessary details are often a sign of “NTP” that “it must be true” because these small details are verifiable.

a
b
c
d: 

experienced and accomplished liar. 


He was curious about the sound, stuck his head out the front door, saw nothing and went about his business.


In an arson and “hate crime”, the subject introduces the word “business”
Business  is associated with money.
She began with “broke”

The pace is slowed down dramatically;
She has gone out of chronological order to give us additional and unnecessary personal information about the man who “pounded” on “our” door. 
Second use of “door”;  explore within the relationship as well as childhood sexual abuse. 


 A short time later his son arrived home from a trip to the grocery store and told him that there was a fire down the street.

The narrative language continues with verifiable points suggesting overall deception. 

What is the race of this father/son?



 Both the men came to our aid.

These men are given positive linguistic dispositions by her.  She did not want to “hate” so the race should be known here.  Not only is this a positive view, but she knows a lot about these two men (including their relationship and what they were both doing) even though she was watching TV while working, and was asleep.  The need to give verifiable detail suggests an unverifiable point is coming. 


David answered the door in his boxers.

Here we have the third “door” in her statement.
She wants us to know before the arson and hate attack, that David is in his underwear.  People will report what is most important to them. 
NTP that they were NOT DRESSED and NOT committing these crimes. 
In spite of the intention to persuade, she still chooses language that is associated with both deception and trauma. 

The need to persuade us that they were asleep strongly suggests that they were not asleep.  The need to portray David as undressed seeks to further buttress that they were asleep. 

This is to anticipate the allegation:  you were not asleep.  You were outside, dressed, committing this crime.  She is defending David where no accusation has been made.         Hina

That she felt the need to add “doors” to her statement should be viewed with “our” and her need to be heard. 

The unity between them is very strong (“we”, even to the point of knowing each others’ thoughts) and it is very difficult to believe she did not have guilty knowledge of what he had done (according to her later statement that he confessed).  



 "Your truck is on fire, is their anyone else in the house."


Who said this?

To whom was this said? 

father-son (relationship)

There is reduced commitment to this as a question by not assigning it to one or the other.   


Note it is “house” here, too. 


David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants.

a.      “hurried” is unnecessary.  No one thinks he took a nap before
b.    David is now ‘important’ as he is being given linguistic attention.  Before this, the “son” had more attention on his “shopping trip” to the grocery store. 
c.     “to” tells us why he went to the bedroom.  This is very sensitive information. 
d.    “some pants” is not “his pants.”  She has a need that is causing emphasis, to make us believe that HE DID NOT HAVE PANTS ON.  She is telling us, via the lens of analysis that he did have pants on.  He may have had to take them OFF when he answered the door! 
e.     David is now acting independently of the subject, who had previously relied very heavily upon “we”


We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire.

The unity returns.
The “kids” are now “children” (risk)
She gives us the knowledge of both, refusing to think for herself.  She is so closely unified with him that it is in every point except the pants.
House (distancing, expected in danger).  When combined with “children”, the subject (Jennifer) may have had fear that the fire could spread. 

*Did she have to remind him to take off his pants before answering the door?


 In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam.  

‘Universal’ commentary:  She does not say, “I had trouble telling the difference” (because she did not) as she avoids a direct lie.  At this point, she likely assessed the fire, and knew that the “children” could now be “kids” again: 


The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate.

Mild, passive, and additional (narrative/story telling)

 I don't know if we were all slow or the fire department was that fast, by the time I reached the back of the house the fire was out.

I came back to the house to tell the kids to go back to sleep.


 "Mom, there is a fire truck at our house, I want to see it." So I let the children outside, far enough that they could see the fire truck, not so close that they could be underfoot or get hurt.

“children” (risk) returns but in WHAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT??

Good mom! 

Neglect and/or abuse. 

Then I ushered them all back in, telling them to go to bed.

 Reality check, in what world after all of that commotion was anyone going to go back to sleep.

insomnia is likely part of her reality


 I went back around to the back of the house.


The gentlemen, who's name I still don't know asked if we knew of anything spray painted on our garage door.

spray painted” and “rattled”
Gentleman:  complimentary (ingratiating)



 I will let the pictures here speak for themselves as I have no desire to type those words

Look at this great mom who is also above racism.

 The NTP of personal greatness suggests the subject, herself, has two issues:
one with parenting
one with racism. 
“type” versus “spray paint”



After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive.


“Business” and now “investor” 
Note the subject’s refusal to be “alone” in the statement here, even offering drinks.
Note how wonderfully hospitable she is.  (ingratiating)
Note the timing of hospitality is very important to the subject.  When is she (we) so wonderfully hospitable? (in her perception of reality)

She is wonderfully hospitable specifically in the time where she was waiting for the arson investigator to come. 

We “all” waited.  She will NOT be alone with the arson investigator. 

The arson investigator can become an investor when he gives the all clear about the wonderful hospitable, fantastic mother subject. 

MONEY

The kids had still not gone to bed. The firemen offered them a private tour of a fire truck. Yes, even our oldest, who is almost 14, couldn't resist that offer.

The arson investigator arrived and after a brief reporting of what they had found and done, the firemen loaded up and left.


 I was astounded by the vast knowledge of the arson investigator

Please note the “intrusion” of the powerful pronoun “I” supplanting the constant use of “we” here.  The arson investigator is very important to her, the subject, herself. 
Next, note that she has gives a very positive linguistic disposition of her view of him.  This is ingratiating. 
When it comes to the arson investigator, she stands alone. 

This may be because she is the one who conceived of this plan. 

As one of our dogs returned home after being let out, or escaping from the back yard in fear,

 the investigator stopped to help us try to find the other. 

look at the wonderful relationship we have with the wonderful arson investigator who was so NOT concerned about us being guilty that he took time out of his job, in the middle of the night, to help us find our doggie. 



We wouldn't have any luck with that, but she would be found and returned later in the day. Back to the investigation, evidence was collectedMotives and suspects were discussed



We said good bye to the investigator and went in the house.


From “I” to “we” again (guilt)
“goodbye” is to portray the relationship as positive; a linguistic signal that it was not good at this point. 

Now, consider if this is correct; the “goodbye” (S/A 101) means trouble.

The use of “the house” is the first ‘expected’ usage.


The children, who had never made it back to bed, were much to my amazement ready to go to school when we came back in the house.

Child abuse.



 I had offered to let them stay home, since they had missed out on sleep.

Great mother portrayal in language  = child abuse. 


 They all said that they were not tired and off to school they went.


1.      The emphasis on “all” is unnecessary
2.    “off to school they went” is passive, removing responsibility for them going to school (concealing).
This is another indicator of child abuse. 



So there, now you have it, the narrative of the events that occurred.  

minimizing language in a narrative form.   Confession. 

We have been asked a few questions several times,

interrogation


 so I will answer them now. If you have more questions please ask in the comment section below and I will do my best to answer them.

Do you know who did this?

No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them.

How did the fire start?

While the investigator has shared his theory with us, one I fully support, I am not going to broadcast that on the internet. If you know David or Me personally we will happily tell you one on one 

If you doubted that it was just David, simply listen to her. About who did this, she will not “broadcast” it but the first names to enter about the responsibility is “David” and “Me” (with “Me” in capitalization)



Won't your insurance cover it?

Cover what?
What is “it?”

She has not told us of damage yet. 

Her answer tells us that someone has done her homework, although about fire setting, she has been “astonished” at what the arson investor, investigator, knows. 

She should be.



The homeowner's insurance only covers vehicles that can not be registered to be driven on the road. It would cover the garage door, but the amount of our deductible is grater than the cost of a new door. The Harley was not currently insured or registered as it had a bad voltage regulator.


 I had lowered the insurance coverage on the truck in September or October to liability coverage only and arson is only covered under comprehensive.


 UPDATE: Did you know your homeowners insurance will pay to clean your concrete driveway?

With the addition of the driveway and a few other miscellaneous melted items, we have exceeded our deductible in damages. The estimated damage done to our home and personal property covered by insurance was just under $1,739, after subtracting our deductible and  depreciation we were issued a payment of just over $168.00 


 Why wasn't your motorcycle in the garage?

Anyone who has asked that has never seen the amount of tools David owns.

Please note:  she has avoided answering the question. 


Is this, or why is this, considered a hate crime; aren't you white?

Yes this is considered a hate crime. It is considered a hate crime because of what was painted on the garage door. Yes, we are white. It just so happens that we aren't as racist as someone would like us to be.

Earlier, she projected racism.  Here she admits racism, but just not as racist as someone (singular) would like them to be. 


Tell me about the GoFundMe campaign.

 David and I do not have direct access to this account and had no knowledge of it's creation.

It was set up by a dear friend and David's sister. We are very appreciative and would like nothing more that to be able to thank and hug each person who has given to the campaign. As you can imagine, there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas, and this campaign and the generosity shown has lifted a burden.

 What can I do to help?


So many people have asked this question. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and love that has been show to our family. I don't have a specific answer to this question though. At first my obvious answer was, do you have a car I can borrow? Days after, here are my thoughts. I am not going to tell any one how they can help. If you feel like helping, if you have an idea that would benefit anyone, not just my family, do it.

 Show love in every place and any place available to you.


I am a wonderful person = in S/A, neglectful abusive mother, racist…moral narcissism

 If you have the means to help someone going through a rough patch, do it. So now that all of that has been said...


Racism is not comfortable subject. There are many who would like to pretend that it doesn't exist. There are those who believe racism only exists because, we continue to talk about it. I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism or why it continues.

The argument she is holding is if racism (this event) is real or not! 

 What happened at my house is the cold hard evidence that it does exist and that it continues.

She has a need to persuade in light of what just happened, that what happened is real.

Question:  Who would have such a need to persuade?  (“cold hard evidence” with “cold” and “fire”).  This is the language of a bad relationship. 

Answer:  the one who is faking it.


The questions is what am I going to do about it?  What are you going to do about it? In spite of what was meant to cause fear, I am going to continue to love,

She introduces “fear”
Who’s items were lit up??

It was his items.  Did she do this to not only gain money but to scare him?
Or did he do this to scare her??

Is one of them involved with a black person??




 without regard to race, gender, age, religion, sexual preference or orientation. I am going to acknowledge the experience of those who are discriminated against daily.

 I will stand up for what I know to be true and right,

She knows this story is not true. 


even when it is uncomfortable to do so.



The discomfort may be due to the arson investigator.

 I am going to pick up the pieces and create something beautiful. I am going to embody the cliche "Be the change you want to see in the world."

Conclusion:

Here you get to read the comments of analysts working as a team

Jenny has guilty knowledge of the crime.  She will not pass a polygraph.  100%

Financial motive is strong.  She appears to have been surprised by the knowledge of the arson investigator, and had a need to praise him (I will explain ‘ingratiating)

Jenny shows borderline traits, mental health issues unresolved, need to control; including control of David.  She may have even had to tell him to take his pants off to answer the door (example) 
Domestic violence should be explored, as well as financial issues.
Jenny may have trauma history, including childhood sexual abuse.
She and/or David may have been investigated before. 
She likely has been accused of neglect or abuse of her children. 
Manipulative, impulsive, poor boundaries, desperate for relevancy and attention.
She appears to be the lead in this crime, and shows a need to control, including the husband’s confession being to her. 
The racial aspect must be explored; contact with blacks, possibly within the context of marital discord.
Has family ever accused her of racism?

She may have held the paint can (rattle)

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis! Thank you for this.
-KC

Anonymous said...

... and here is a news article that the husband confessed.

"
White husband confesses to wife to setting their cars on fire and painting racial slur on their garage door in staged 'hate crime'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4064080/White-husband-confesses-wife-setting-cars-fire-painting-racial-slur-garage-door-staged-hate-crime.html

-KC

Anonymous said...

Here is her Facebook statement on December 21, 2016...

"So I have no words, I want to post a blog update, but the words evade me. So for my community, who has rallied behind me and my family, your support and love astounds me. My heart is heavy, and I have more questions then answers. My children and I are in a state of shock and sadness, so this will be my only statement. Yesterday, Tuesday morning, David confessed to spray painting our garage door and starting the fire at our home, Monday, December 12th. David is currently at a mental health facility and will be arrested upon his release. The creator of the GoFundMe account has started the process of contacting donors, and returning donated funds. Please understand that GoFundMe subtracted 8% in fees, that she is not capable of returning. Funds have not currently been released to her, your patience is greatly appreciated."

-KC

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Breaking News: Tom Brady's missing jersey has been FOUND... The nation, nay, the world can now rest.

Bobcat said...

Peter, your Custom Search Engine isn't working.

Questions:

Is Jenny concerned about the close proximity of the single "son" only four doors away?

Did David meet the neighbor, without his pants, while on his "shopping trip"?

Is the new neighbor a black "lover" of David?

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Karina Vetrano NY Jogger's Killer Arrested

Would someone look at the quotes from LE in the news story and give opinion on whether there is deception regarding the DNA match?
The guy they caught from going through old 911 calls of suspicious persons in the park does not match up with a normal forensic profile of this type of killer.

1) No criminal record
2) Different race than victim
3) Confesses immediately to everything
4) Implied in report he has mental illness

I am interested in opinions of LE statements in article....any deception going on?

Anonymous said...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/02/05/dna-leads-arrest-strangling-jogger/f4d6CraO8qotsrWyNlcYEI/amp.html?client=safari

Above is link to Karina Vetrano killers arrest article.

Anonymous said...

Where is mental illness implied? Clearly states he's honor student.

Anonymous said...

Here is the quote I find troubling:

‘Karina helped us identify this person,’’ Boyce said. ‘‘She had the DNA under her nails. She had touch DNA on her back and there was more DNA on her cellphone. So three incidents. That’s how we were able to bring this profile up. And that’s how we made the link.’’

Consider that they did not "bring a profile up". They first picked one of many people who had been called in over the course of weeks as suspicious persons in the park and then asked him for his DNA. Also look at the language which shows signs of deception.

Anonymous said...

They imply it when they say that the policeman will not comment on his mental state or social behavior...I think I read somewhere else he had mental problems.

Even the look on his face after they arrested him looks innocent.

I could be wrong but just curious what others think.

Anonymous said...

It does not say or imply mental illness. You think you read it somewhere? His dad is retired school principle. Said his son is gentle. Theres simply not enough released info to SA at this point. A call to police 2 months prior was made about him in the area acting suspicious. Not revealed is what behaviours prompted the call. Claim is she was not stalked but the earlier call places him in that jogging area. Seems an oddity that her father at that time was not with her and stated he would've been and after 25 mins thought something had happened and the father found her. Report says they crossed paths by chance. IMO the story at this point doesnt seem that clearly evident.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Here is the quote I find troubling:

‘Karina helped us identify this person,’’ Boyce said. ‘‘She had the DNA under her nails. She had touch DNA on her back and there was more DNA on her cellphone. So three incidents. That’s how we were able to bring this profile up. And that’s how we made the link.’’

Consider that they did not "bring a profile up". They first picked one of many people who had been called in over the course of weeks as suspicious persons in the park and then asked him for his DNA. Also look at the language which shows signs of deception.
**************************************************


no, it is an expression regarding the DNA profiling coming "up", like a 'computer match" or "computer came up with..." type. The "three" are 3 points of DNA to "come up" with a conclusion.

I have not read the case, so I cannot comment on it further but wanted to answer the concern about the expression.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Race Card Played. Also note invocation of Deity



The sister of Karina Vetrano’s accused killer said Monday that her sibling was framed—and that he was only arrested because he’s black.

“I think the cops framed him because he’s a black person. They couldn’t find anyone else to pin this on, so they pinned it on my brother,” Theresa Forbes, 36, told reporters.

Forbes’s half-brother, Chanel Lewis, 20, was charged Sunday with murdering the Queens jogger in August based on DNA evidence and two videotaped confessions, authorities and law-enforcement sources have said.

Asked about the alleged forensic evidence against her sibling, Forbes said,“The DNA lies sometimes. They wanted to get confirmation so they framed him for murder.

“My family, we are God-fearing people. The Bible tells us ‘Do no kill’—we do not kill,” she said.

As for her sibling’s alleged confessions, “I think they coerced him into a confession. They tricked him,” Forbes added.

Peter Hyatt said...

Some insight into potential mental health issues from a perspective of S/A. Note the allegation versus the statement of "not" having any problem with "women." When issues in school are mentioned, it is usually more than just talking out in class.
The statement about "women", as offered in light of the allegation is very concerning.

Peter

******************************************************************************************************

“I’m sorry for [the victim’s family’s] loss, but they have the wrong person in custody,” Forbes said.

She added that her brother “did not have any problem with women.”

“He has nieces, and he played with them,” Forbes told reporters.

She said his behavioral issues in high school consisted of “regular stuff. He made regular problems.”

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Thank you for looking at the statement regarding the DNA and clarifying some police language....I can see how the family members statements are quite suspicious also...especially the invocation of deity and the sister stating "he had NO problem with women".
This case is baffling to me, I have read a lot on it...whoever did the crime would have probably been a local, probably did not know Karina, but probably had seen her and noted her pattern of jogging in the park, and probably basically hid and attacked. The crime itself was extremely brutal with the attacker using brute strength to rape and kill and he would have suffered serious bites bc she bit him so hard it broke off her teeth. I am very surprised the arrested man has no criminal history of violence. I can see now the family's statements are suspicious.
As a sidenote: The female jogger who resembles Karina was killed in Princeton, MA around this same time, but there are differences...Karina was killed in a public park in an area of the park known to be dangerous, and where mobsters used to dump bodies. The Princeton was kilked in a rural area probably by an opportunistic predator who just happened to be driving down that road. But it is weird that the 2 women look quite similar.

To anon: Regarding her father not jogging w her that one day...if her attacker had been stalking her at the park over the courss of days or weeks he may have taken that opportunity of seeing her alone to strike? The father made a comment which I paraphrase that DNA is reliable because even if the attacker grew a beard or turned into a woman it would not change his DNA.

Anonymous said...

The psych profile at this point is very weak. Also...some people are God fearing......and some invoke due to shock of such vicious conduct charged against someone they're close to and simply cannot believe it. And remember her father is a former city employee (fireman) who had some kind of feeling she was in trouble only after 25 mins. That is certainly odd. Viewing the photos of her that have been posted is anyone curious about her personal life? Did she regularly go out in public so obviously sexually inappropriately dressed like her in her selfies? Any jealous boyfriends or former boyfriends? At this poit I do not beieve he killed her.

Anonymous said...

Her fathers statements are more suspect than any defensive comments his family made.

Anonymous said...

Read the story again. His sister is responding to LE's allegation of deep seated anger to women. She didnt just blurt out or leak info about him but made a defensive rebuttal to what LE,for whatever reason, stated publicly.

Layla said...

Just to clarify, I will post as Layla to differentiate from anon 2:44, 2:47, 3:01 bc we are not the same anon (I was original anon poster of the question as well as anon 2:29), and so the conversation will make more sense.

Anon, I agree it is troubling. Karina was allegedly seen on video entering an area of the park concealed by very high weeds (the area known to be very dangerous, as well as a previous mobster body dumping grounds and also an area her father had warned her not to go in)....she was caught on video cam entering the concealed weeded area during the one time the father was not with her to, according to the family "look for butterflies" bc she loved butterflies. She was then brutally killed...it is worth wondering about the defendant stating he "dragged her into the weeds", as it had been disclosed months age she is on video walking into the weeds.

So, obviously, I wonder why she entered this area. Perhaps it was to look for butterflies...this is possible.

The other troubling this is that it seems the NY victim and the Princeton victim (killed only weeks apart) is unlikely to be the same killer, and there are notable differences...the NY killer left her phone there....the MA killer took phone and I believe her clothes as well....as well as there are other differences that suggest different killers including...NY victim killed in a busy park....MA victim killed in very rural area.....it seems oddly coincidental to the point where I almost dont see how it could not be the same killer, although I do believe there are 2 different killers, I dont get how there could be 2 different ones (if that makes sense).

Layla said...

Also, I dont make that much of how she was dressed on social media, bc people in NY dress very differently esp since she was a hostess at restaurant and that can be dress code to dress sexy or whatever.

My opinion is I think Karina had entered the weeds before to look for butterflies and whoever got her had seen her do that and must have been waiting in the weeds. I think it was a calculating person/stalker.
Its like intelkectually, logic tells me the NY and MA killer are 2 different people but my gut feeling tells me it is the same person, but like I said, logically, it seems unlikely.
But, its even more unlikely the MA killer was a "copycat" of the NY killer rather than the same person. I dont know.

Anonymous said...

Hasnt JK Rowling popularized witchcraft and evil spirit and marketed the same to children?

Anonymous said...

Has she? I dunno...when my son was little I tried to watch those Harry Potter movies and they were SO boring I would zone out.
Obviously the books had massive appeal to a widespread audience...I can honestly say I could not follow what was going on in the Harry Potter movies.
I dont think she was spreading any harmful Satanic message.

Anonymous said...

In the movies it seemed like there was no plot?

Anonymous said...

Rotweiller rescues white woman from black violence on hiking trail
Colin Flaherty YouTube Channel

Anonymous said...

That is a HUGE dog! Wow, he did a good job!!! Good puppy!

Sad about Karina...it seems like they got the right guy bc apparently he was covered with scratches and went to an emergency room for an injured hand. Too bad she didn't have a dog like that...

Anonymous said...

No more so than Grimm's Faery Tales.

John mcgowan said...

OT:

UPDATED: Abbotsford Police trying to track down missing pregnant woman

Search-and-rescue teams aided today in the search for a missing Abbotsford woman, but as of late afternoon, she hadn’t turned up.

Marie Stuart, 38, was last seen in the area of the Sevenoaks Shopping Centre in the 32900 block of South Fraser Way on Tuesday, Dec. 27 at 3 p.m.

Stuart is five months’ pregnant with her first child and requires medication that she does not have with her, said Abbotsford Police Const. Ian MacDonald.
He said Stuart became separated from her husband after the two got off a bus at the shopping centre and went in opposite directions. Her husband was unable to find her and then called police.

Search-and-rescue teams were called in to aid police in the search of nearby parks and neighbourhoods.

At this point, we are very concerned and, obviously, family’s very concerned,” MacDonald said.

He said Stuart does not have a history of running off, and police hope that she is safe with a friend.

She is not active on social media, MacDonald said.

Stuart’s husband, Leslie Scott Schellenberg (in photo), urged the public to alert police if they see her.

She’s been pretty moody … She’s kind of in a bit of state , and I’m worried that she might just wander aimlessly,”he said.

Disparagement.

What is a "bit of a state?"
Why was she "pretty moody?"
Why would she wonder aimlessly?
When people "wonder aimlessly" they are prone to falls, tripping over, landing in a ditch etc. ?

He had a message for Stuart: “I love you and I miss you and I want to see you again.

Did they have an argument on the bus? Did she say (if there was an argument) you will never see me again? Hence "I want to see you again.

Domestic dispute, or something more nefarious?


Stuart is 5’ 2” with black hair and glasses. She was last seen wearing a yellow toque and black jacket.

Anyone with information is asked to contact the APD at 604-859-5225 or text abbypd (222973).

elf said...

I think it would be wise to have a specialist interview the nieces to see how the suspect 'played' with them.

elf said...

Really anon@2:44pm? His DNA was found at the scene. He raped and murdered that poor woman and you're insinuating that because of how she dressed was part of the motivation? Since she was out jogging when she was assaulted I highly doubt it was in a mini skirt and heels. The suspect left his DNA all over the place. He had injuries consistent with being in an altercation. They found HIS skin under her FINGERNAILS. This poor woman FOUGHT FOR HER LIFE and your judging her Facebook selfies, skating right up to saying she deserved what happened because of how she dressed??
Perhaps you dont know the meaning of the word weak? So far the physical evidence is far from weak. His skin was found under her fingernails. CASE CLOSED. HE SHOULD GET THE DEATH PENALTY.

New England Water Blog said...

OT: Interesting complaint made by a woman in my town on fb for all to see.

"3rd time in a week that joyriding teenagers flew past me screaming vicious slurs to get their kicks, mock-inviting me to satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods. I'm filing an e-complaint of civil rights violation with Healey's office this time. Enough is enough."

It is attributed in supporting comments to be a result of the election of President Trump.
Any comments on this one?

Peter Hyatt said...

"3rd time in a week that joyriding teenagers flew past me screaming vicious slurs to get their kicks, mock-inviting me to satisfy their clearly chronically unsatisfied manhoods. I'm filing an e-complaint of civil rights violation with Healey's office this time. Enough is enough."


sounds like a post!

thanks,

P{eter

New England Water Blog said...

I stand corrected on the gender as the name was ambiguous and the primary photo was of a woman. This was posted by a man.

Anonymous said...

Elf. I hope you are never in a jury.

Linda Lazo said...

Regarding the Katrina case; I'd like to note that the killer could have stalked this victim by hiding very close to her. The park she jogged in has a feature I assume would not be common in most parks. I am referring to the tall grass that lines the entire shoreline of Jamaica Bay in that area of Brooklyn/Queens. I rode horseback there along the Belt Parkway growing up in the neighborhood. The tall grass is dense and covers a large area. You could hide inside, standing feet away from an unsuspecting person. Similar to a cornfield, and it grows as high as 10 feet. Whoever killed her hid in the tall grass. Guaranteed. And anyone who came across this young lady definitely noticed her. She was stunning.

Anonymous said...

The grass hasnt been cut in how many years? Did anyone see him?