A Reliable Denial is produced when the subject is freely speaking and includes:
1. The pronoun "I"
2. The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"
3. The allegation specifically addressed.
It is easy, low stress and if followed by "I told the truth", 99.9% reliable.
It is also something that guilty people avoid stating in the free editing process.
To state such, after reading or hearing of its lack, is no longer in the free editing process.
For the actual innocent, this short denial comes early and stands as a wall of protection, psychologically (intellectually and emotionally) against the allegation.
Expectation: "I did not paint the cars. I did not paint the house."
That would end it, but also, "I did not start the fire" and other reliable denials are expected as well.
Let's listen to her wording to see if she issues a reliable denial.
We may note the following:
She does not deny the allegation. Therefore, we cannot say it for her.
"I would never scare my children"
She only denies in the future/conditional scaring her children. I do not believe they were scared.
She uses ridicule rather than issue a Reliable Denial.
"Insurance fraud of all things really!" is where she began. This is indicative of her priority. She is intelligent and knows that if she were to submit this to her insurance company, she would face insurance fraud allegations.
"I can pay to have my vehicles repaired myself" is likely true, but is a tangent used to avoid issuing the denial. She may be able to pay for them herself, but she has chosen the public, via Go Fund Me, instead.
To have money does not preclude theft.
In a recent theft interview, the subject also refused to deny stealing, instead spoke of his prior opportunities to steal: "I handled thousands of dollars. Why would I steal?"
He did handle thousands of dollars and he stole due to both need and perceived insult.
This is akin to Lance Armstrong avoiding denying using PEDs, instead focusing only upon his training.
It is akin to a bank robber boasting of how many times he used the ATM without stealing.
The need to change direction (tangent) is noted.
She addressed the red paint in the house and instead of saying, "I did not paint it" and "I don't know who did", she addressed the type of paint instead.
This is to suggest an ability to deceive that is part of her personality. This is to indicate an intelligent manipulator.
"I owe no money on my vehicles" is an unrelated sentence. This also avoids a denial, but asserts something she wishes her audience to interpret: "I don't need the money, therefore, I did not steal."
It also gives us insight into her personality. Her ideological stance on theft is not "thou shalt not" but a pragmatic world view.
It is to say, "if I owed money on my vehicles, I might have stolen..."
The unnecessary information is relevant to the analysis.
"I work hard every single day" also is a tangent. Some hard working people steal. I have investigated lazy and hard working thieves. Some work very hard at not working at a legitimate job; but most mix the two together.
Remember: she is not accused of:
having spray paint instead of liquid paint
She is not even accused of insurance fraud. She is likely too smart for that and has counted upon Go Fund Me, and the race baiting that is used to exploit.
It is to say "if you hate hate, please donate money" to appeal emotionally.
The statements indicate talent at manipulation. The use of Divinity is noted as well, in support of her wording.
She tells her audience not to judge her without knowing her. This is the "Gnostic" view of separation.
Its to say "stealing is not really me."
All of this comes in light of the simple missing Reliable Denial.
She could face serious charges. She may avoid such, as we saw in the Baltimore case, by refunding everyone's money. In this case, it was hatred of Christians and a love of exploitation that drove Julie Baker. Here, the contempt which is always within the personality of deceivers, is for the general audience.
Contempt is a driving factor in deceptive people, whether they use sex or they use race; they seek to exploit those who have a need to be on the "right" side of an issue. The imperative to not "judge" shows this contempt. "Don't judge me" yet donate money, an exercise of judgement. Hence, the conflict.
Is our subject a racist?
This is difficult to discern due to the sample size but what is here does not show racism. She is "an equal opportunity exploiter" as the contempt is not race driven, but deception driven. The linguistic disposition is best seen in the lower insult "nigga" instead of "nigger" but especially in the soft "Go" imperative.
The subject knows the identity of the painter/arsonist and is exploiting emotions for money.
To learn deception detection: Hyatt Analysis Services