Was Bill O'Reilly a Victim of Leftist Witch Hunt?

Did Bill O'Reilly sexually harass women, or was it foolish or inappropriate banter which is not illegal. 

Sexual harassment must be defined.  Workers make "sexual" comments incessantly, if the definition is broad, including "You look great!" 

Yet, this is not likely something to result in millions of dollars of pay offs. 

We have two statements issued by Bill O'Reilly. 

Given his training, we expect him to say that he did not sexually harass anyone.  Even without him defining sexual harassment, this is still our expectation.  

We recently have seen an attorney accuse Sean Hannity.  In listening to the audio, she is deceptive, but the next day, she recanted.  There is a "witch hunt" that is well known and if Bill O'Reilly is a victim of witch hunt, we may allow his words to guide us. 

First statement:  April 1, 2017

Just like other prominent and controversial people, I'm vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity. In my more than 20 years at Fox News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department, even on the anonymous hotline. 

First:  he immediately puts himself in a crowd.  Psychologically, we like to see someone stand alone and say, "I did not..."

guilt hates to be alone and will often associate with others.  He does this from the start.  

Secondly:  This is similar to the language of PED users who boast of how many times they have passed a drug test rather than when they have been caught.  

There is no denial but he specifically qualifies these complaints as to where they did not go:  Human Resources.  

We may consider that complaints went elsewhere.  

I do not doubt that many today are opportunists who in the spirit of larceny, seek to obtain money their own hands have not earned, yet we expect him to deny sexually harassing anyone.  

But most importantly, I'm a father who cares deeply for my children and who would do anything to avoid hurting them in any way. And so I have put to rest any controversies to spare my children. 

Being a father does not preclude someone from adult sex, sexual contact, or sexual harassment.  

This is a diversion and "sermonizing" (moralizing away the allegation without answering it).  

He tells us why he had to "put to rest" controversies:  for his children.  




The worst part of my job is being a target for those who would harm me and my employer, the Fox News Channel. Those of us in the arena are constantly at risk, as are our families and children. My primary efforts will continue to be to put forth an honest TV program and to protect those close to me.  

The language is similar to child molesters who use as a defense that they are "happily married" or "a father" rather than deny.  

It is likely that he was trying to save his job on this date.  
Note "families" and "children" enter his language.  This is emotional manipulation akin to "who will save the children?" by a politician seeking to exploit.  

He seeks pity rather than issue a denial. 

Statement 24 April, 2017

“I am sad that I’m not on television anymore. I was very surprised how it all turned out. I can’t say a lot, because there’s much stuff going on right now. But I can tell you that I’m very confident the truth will come out, and when it does, I don’t know if you’re going to be surprised — but I think you’re going to be shaken, as I am. There’s a lot of stuff involved here.”

“Now, I can’t say any more because I just don’t want to influence the flow of the information. I don’t want the media to take what I say and misconstrue it. And you, as a loyal O’Reilly listener, have a right to know, I think, down the lane what exactly happened. And we are working in that direction, okay?”

The truth will come out. 

This is a common thread in guilt, from OJ to Lance Armstrong to...with the only difference is that the subject gives us his reason for delay.  

Those of de facto innocence state so.  There is no legal nor civil repercussion for the de facto innocent to say "I did not..."

Here he avoids a denial and blames media.  Media will follow its narrative but to say "I did not sexually harass anyone" would have been a place to start for a denial.  

He avoids the denial and feels the need to explain why.  This continues to heighten the sensitivity.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Bill O'Reilly does not deny sexual harassment, therefore, we cannot deny it for him. He is unwilling or unable to issue a reliable denial.  

Even if the second statement's "wait for the truth" is simply exploitation due to build ratings for his program, it does not negate the rest of the analysis. 

It is likely that if Fox did, in deed, pay out millions, it was not due to a witch hunt, but self protection of its brand. 

Fox News sets up a sexualized environment with beautiful women in sexualized outfits. 

A deliberately sexualized environment is going to produce such results. 

Analysis Question:  Was Bill O'Reilly a victim of a leftist witch hunt?

Answer:  No.  

American Thinker had a thoughtful article stating hope that Bill O'Reilly will take time to reflect upon himself and be truthful.  

Murder Statement: Second Look

Update:

In the midst of an interview, a subject was asked the following question about Robert, a missing person believed to be murdered. 

The pattern was broken in the interview. 

Question:  "When was the last time you saw him alive?"

Subject:  "The last time I saw Robert was when he was on the mat beside the bed, just before I went to work."

Expected Response:

Date, and time frame.  

"That Monday before he went missing" or something similar.  

Context:  "Robert" was the theme of the interview.  After using his name several times, both the detective and the subject referred to Robert as "he" and "him."  This is an expected flow of the law of economy where speech moves towards the simpler and shorter.  It is the norm.  The brain is very efficient in doing this.  Any change becomes important.  

a.  parroting

Parrotting is the repeating back of words and it takes less effort (ease) in doing so.  It can also be used as a pause in the event one needs to carefully consider his words.

Q.  "What time did you get in last night?"

A.  "What time did I get in?  Oh, it was just after 11."  



Here the proverbial teen may have used the question to stall for an answer, making the question, itself, sensitive. 

Had the answer been, "What time did we get home last night?  Oh, it was just after 11." it would have disrupted the parroting in order to make changes, including, "we" and the introduction of "home."  This would signal that the question is more than just sensitive regarding time, but now both at least one other person is on the mind of the subject and location.  An astute dad would have caught this naturally.  

Not only was there a parroting, but there was change.  

           This is significant for investigators and interviewers.  

When the law of economy is disrupted the analyst/interviewer/investigator should take notice.  As effort is needed, sensitivity and importance is increased. 

It is here that we find a subject is very likely telling the truth:

When was the last time you saw him alive?

He we expect, "on the Thursday that..." where the question is answered directly.  He does not go to a date, but a body position instead:  

"The last time I saw Robert was when he was on the mat beside the bed, just before I went to work."

He imported Robert's name after the interview was already on to the use of pronouns.  This heightens importance. 

He parroted back his response with the change of name.  

He parroted back with deletion of "alive."

When these two portions are taken together,  we see that he does not answer the question and uses additional effort to do so.  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The subject is deliberately concealing information about the murder. 

He was asked "when" and not only did we have the change of parroting (dropping the word "alive" and adding the victim's name) but we have the word "just" used. 

This is a dependent word that seeks to compare one point in time with another.  

Remember, the question was "when" and the subject changed the language (effort) and said,

"The last time I saw Robert was when he was on the mat beside the bed, just before I went to work."

In the word "just" we find additional information. 

He could have said, "...when he was on the mat beside the bed before I went to work", with the timing of going to work still important information (alibi building), yet he said,

"just before I went to work."

This means that his time frame has a comparative element to it.  

It is very likely that he is thinking of when he saw the victim both alive and dead.  

            Special thanks to an astute instructor who asks the right        questions.  

Training 



For training we offer:

1.  Law Enforcement Two Day Seminars

2.  Private Corporation Seminars

3.  Intense and Advanced Seminars 

4.  Individual study at home:  "Complete Statement Analysis Course" which is where most begin their work.  This is a course designed to build a solid foundation which is necessary for avoidance of error.  It comes with 12 months of e support, ensuring that the analyst/investigator will not commit error.  

5.  Ongoing Live monthly trainings: 3 to 6 hour segments where the work learned is put to use.  Team analysis is so popular that analysts are now signing up for trainings more than once a month.  Significant discount offered. 

6.  The Advanced Statement Analysis Course

The Complete Course is a prerequisite for this course.  No exceptions are offered.  The Advanced Course moves from deception detection to profiling to anonymous author identification to employment analysis.  

Please note: individual courses expected in 2017 and 2018 including Employment Analysis, Sexual Abuse statements, Ransom Note analysis, Threat Assessment, and more on identifying anonymous authors.  



Certification:  

Statement Analyst I 

This comes from successful completion of the Complete Course, a minimum of 60 hours of live training and recommendations from three professionals. At this point, the analyst is an expert at detecting deception.  

Statement Analyst II:

Completion of Advanced Course
Minimum of 120 hours of live training 
Final Thesis Paper with written approval from three professionals, including federal, state and civil realms.  This is where the expert deception detector goes into content analysis, psycho-linguisitc profiling, threat assessment, and so on.  

The live training is approved for Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) from the University of Maine, for professional licenses.  

To begin training, go to Hyatt Analysis Services and go to training opportunities. 

Tuition payment plans for law enforcement available.  

We have staggered time zones for live training of international students.    

Analysis: Murder of Missing Person

Peter Hyatt at FBI National Academy

In the midst of an interview, a subject was asked the following question about Robert, a missing person believed to be murdered.

The pattern was broken in the interview.

Question:  "When was the last time you saw him alive?"

Subject:  "The last time I saw Robert was when he was on the mat beside the bed, just before I went to work."

Expected Response:

Date, and time frame.  

"That Monday before he went missing" or something similar.  

Context:  "Robert" was the theme of the interview.  After using his name several times, both the detective and the subject referred to Robert as "he" and "him."  This is an expected flow of the law of economy where speech moves towards the simpler and shorter.  It is the norm.  The brain is very efficient in doing this.  Any change becomes important.  

a.  parroting

Parrotting is the repeating back of words and it takes less effort (ease) in doing so.  It can also be used as a pause in the event one needs to carefully consider his words.

Q.  "What time did you get in last night?"

A.  "What time did I get in?  Oh, it was just after 11."  



Here the proverbial teen may have used the question to stall for an answer, making the question, itself, sensitive. 

Had the answer been, "What time did we get home last night?  Oh, it was just after 11." it would have disrupted the parroting in order to make changes, including, "we" and the introduction of "home."  This would signal that the question is more than just sensitive regarding time, but now both at least one other person is on the mind of the subject and location.  An astute dad would have caught this naturally.  

Not only was there a parroting, but there was change.  

           This is significant for investigators and interviewers.  

When the law of economy is disrupted the analyst/interviewer/investigator should take notice.  As effort is needed, sensitivity and importance is increased. 

It is here that we find a subject is very likely telling the truth:

When was the last time you saw him alive?

He we expect, "on the Thursday that..." where the question is answered directly.  He does not go to a date, but a body position instead:  

"The last time I saw Robert was when he was on the mat beside the bed, just before I went to work."

He imported Robert's name after the interview was already on to the use of pronouns.  This heightens importance. 

He parroted back his response with the change of name.  

He parroted back with deletion of "alive."

When these two portions are taken together,  we see that he does not answer the question and uses additional effort to do so.  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The subject is deliberately concealing information about the murder. 

For training we offer:

1.  Law Enforcement Two Day Seminars

2.  Private Corporation Seminars

3.  Intense and Advanced Seminars 

4.  Individual study at home:  "Complete Statement Analysis Course" which is where most begin their work.  This is a course designed to build a solid foundation which is necessary for avoidance of error.  It comes with 12 months of e support, ensuring that the analyst/investigator will not commit error.  

5.  Ongoing Live monthly trainings: 3 to 6 hour segments where the work learned is put to use.  Team analysis is so popular that analysts are now signing up for trainings more than once a month.  Significant discount offered. 

6.  The Advanced Statement Analysis Course

The Complete Course is a prerequisite for this course.  No exceptions are offered.  The Advanced Course moves from deception detection to profiling to anonymous author identification to employment analysis.  

Please note: individual courses expected in 2017 and 2018 including Employment Analysis, Sexual Abuse statements, Ransom Note analysis, Threat Assessment, and more on identifying anonymous authors.  



Certification:  

Statement Analyst I 

This comes from successful completion of the Complete Course, a minimum of 60 hours of live training and recommendations from three professionals. At this point, the analyst is an expert at detecting deception.  

Statement Analyst II:

Completion of Advanced Course
Minimum of 120 hours of live training 
Final Thesis Paper with written approval from three professionals, including federal, state and civil realms.  This is where the expert deception detector goes into content analysis, psycho-linguisitc profiling, threat assessment, and so on.  

The live training is approved for Continuing Educational Units (CEUs) from the University of Maine, for professional licenses.  

To begin training, go to Hyatt Analysis Services and go to training opportunities. 

Tuition payment plans for law enforcement available.  

We have staggered time zones for live training of international students.    

Jason Stallman New York Times

The New York Times tweeted a photo comparing White House photos showing many less in 2017's photo of the New England Patriots compared to the 2015's photo when Barak Obama was president. 

The message was clear:  Trump is hated; Obama beloved by the football team. 

It was re-tweeted by CNN.  

Question for analysis:  Did Jason Stallman do it intentionally or unintentionally?  

The New England Patriots, seeing the false narrative, sent out a message stating that many personnel were seated on the lawn.  

A recent study showed that 89% of media, in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, was decidedly negative.  The negativity ranged from comparisons to Adolph Hitler, the orchestrator of the Holocaust where more than 6 million Jews were killed, in a war where estimates run from 50 million to 80 million dead.  One MSNBC contributor called for the bombing of Trump Tower, while others routinely report "white supremacy, racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny, homophobia, hatred" and so on.  This was the message of main stream media throughout the entire election year.  

When caught promoting a false narrative, New York Times Jason Stallman made this statement:  


“Bad tweet by me. Terrible tweet. I wish I could say it’s complicated, but no, this one is pretty straightforward: I’m an idiot. It was my idea, it was my execution, it was my blunder. I made a decision in about four minutes that clearly warranted much more time. Once we learned more, we tried to fix everything as much as possible as swiftly as possible and as transparently as possible. Of course, at that point the damage was done. I just needed to own it.”

Does he take responsibility for political propaganda  in false news reporting?


“Bad tweet by me. Terrible tweet. 

Note that it does not begin with the pronoun "I."  Is this because it is a statement without "I"?  We note that he goes from "bad" to "terrible", which now follows with the pronoun "I", allowing for an uptick in reliability, as he psychologically enters the statement:  


I wish I could say it’s complicated, but no, this one is pretty straightforward: I’m an idiot. 

He tells us what he "wishes" he "could" say.  This now brings him, himself, into the statement, and he tells us he is limited in what he can say.  He uses the pronoun "I" three times in this one statement.  

The message that it is not complicated is not openly stated, but he uses the word "but" in comparison.  It would be interesting to hear him explain why this picture, sans context, is "complicated."

The New England Patriot's "uncomplicated" it with 23 words. Remember, the subject is employed as a journalist.    



It was my idea, it was my execution, it was my blunder. I made a decision in about four minutes that clearly warranted much more time.

Here we see personal ownership regarding;

a.  execution
b.  blunder

He stated that it "warranted much more time."

He does not tell us what would warrant more time.  This is a critical point in the statement because it is where he no longer wishes to be "alone" in the statement:  


 Once we learned more, we tried to fix everything as much as possible as swiftly as possible and as transparently as possible. 


At this point, he is caught promoting a false narrative against the president, and he makes a dramatic change.  No longer is it "me, "I" and "my" but now he moves into the plural use of "we." 

a.  "we tried to fix everything"
b.  "as much as possible"
c.  "as swiftly as possible"
d.  "as transparently as possible"

This is a key change from "I" to "we" that is analyzed. 

1.  "Fixing"

Please note that "fixing" is what is done when something is broken.  If this was an "accident", it would need to be "fixed", rather than owned.  

Question for analysis:  Was it unintentional?  (if so, it is a mistake that needs to be fixed). 

a.  "we tried to fix everything"

Note that "tried" means attempted but not completed. 

This is, however, heavily qualified.  

Please note that he would need to tell us what "everything" is.  He could have said, "others were seated on the lawn."

With "tried" attempting but not completion, what is the qualifications added?

*fix everything
*as much as possible

This is to state that there would be some things outside his ability to fix.  

What would this be?

*as swiftly as possible" introduces the element of time. 

This is his third use of time.  

1.  four minutes
2.  warranted more time
3.  swiftly as possible 

It is interesting to see him touch upon time these three times when we note that this statement was made while the tweet was still posted. 

All of this qualification is now under "plural" ("we") where he, himself, is no longer alone.  

b.  "as transparently as possible"

Here he introduces not only transparency (truth), but he puts a limit upon transparency.  

He is telling us that he has concealed information.    

The context of this concealed information is in the "fixing" of which he has placed both conditions and limitations upon. 


Of course, at that point the damage was done. I just needed to own it.”

Here we see the conclusion of the matter:  "the damage was done", of which he distances himself from it ("that point"). 

Analysis Conclusion:

The anti-Trump message was deliberately designed to promote a narrative and his ownership is made weak by his change from singular to plural, and his both qualifying and limitation of it. 

He does not own his "mea culpa" and uses self-deprecating words to emotionally impact his audience.  If he believed he was an "idiot" he would resign from his position as it would be too challenging for him. 

He is deceptive.  

Transparency is very sensitive to him.  This is likely a projection of his own deceptive narrative, thinly veiled, and not owned.  

Would a sports journalist be need a 'safe space'  if the conclusion is that he did not "man up" here?

Costly Errors in Lie Detection

in the shadow of brilliant minds 

Recently, an investigator was charged with learning the truth about alleged abuse against a man who is in the "mental health system."

The man made some very serious allegations against a case manager in which the burden of proof is civil:  a 
preponderance of evidence" rather than the criminal,  "beyond a reasonable doubt."   Should the investigator find for the "preponderance of evidence" it is very likely the case manager will lose his job and face possible criminal charges.

The investigator laid out her reasoning:

She said she knows the subject is telling the truth  and she knows this from her training.


She knew it and was going to go after the alleged perpetrator.  

When asked, "How do you know?"

she said there were two reasons, from her training, that caused her, with the authority of the state, to conclude against the case manager.

1.  The subject used "lots of detail"
2.  The subject repeated his account perfectly to a witness.

Let's look at her assertions.

1.  Detail

2.  Repetition 


1.  Detail. 

An abundance of detail is something of concern.  We look at the necessity of such.  

For example: 

a.  The color of an object, within a statement, is often an indicator of personal connection.  Someone who "never stole the jewels" says, "I didn't see the red bag" (without verbal prompt) is now telling us that she personally handled it (she was the thief).  When the color is "unnecessary", it is very important.  An example of an exception is cars.  People routinely label the color of a car (especially when they have seen it). 

b.  human body posture of an inanimate object. 

"I saw the oxy's sitting on the desk..."

Narcotics do not sit, stand, walk or move around.  When an inanimate object is given a distinctly "human attribute", it means that the subject (speaker) may have given the inanimate object a human connection by handling it.  By using this language freely, we are not on alert for the subject physically handling the narcotics.  

c.  sensory language 

Sensory language, "his hands smelled like motor oil..." is a signal of experiential knowledge.  By recalling the smell, it is likely that the subject is going back to a memory in which elevated emotion existed and recall from a sensory interaction existed.  It is very likely an experience.  

But...

By itself, we cannot say that it was experienced now, at the time of this statement, or perhaps, 20 years ago.  We need the rest of the statement to make the determination.  

Those who suffer various mental health and developmental delay often perseverate on events, and it can be very challenging to learn which happened yesterday and which happened years ago.  Even being on alert for perseveration allows the investigator to explore the event in detail.  

I was able to prove that a man had sexually assaulted a mentally retarded female, even though she had made false claims against others due to perseverating upon an assault from many years ago.  I "divided" the statement accordingly, and asked the alleged perpetrator questions based upon the descriptions from the current section of the statement.  (audio transcript).

Feeling trapped by the words, he confessed.  

                                 Abundance of Detail 


When an overabundance of detail is given (unnecessarily and freely), it is actually a signal of deception. 

It shows a "need to persuade" the audience, rather than report truthfully what one knows. 

Remember Casey Anthony "must be truthful" because "Zanny the Nanny had perfect teeth."

It was details like this that not only indicate deception (need to persuade) but give us insight into a pathological liar.  

Statement Analysis' lie detection is not guess work.

2.  Repetition 

The investigator interviewed a neighbor and said, "he gave the exact same account!" which convinced her of the truth.  Rote repetition is not an indicator of truth but this investigator "knew" otherwise.  

In this case, by telling us her reason for "knowing", perhaps she can be dissuaded by logic.  At least she had some basis, even if wrong, for her thinking. 

What is far worse is when one "just knows."  

Years ago I was on a radio program about the Casey Anthony trial in which I pointed out that Cindy Anthony knew where Casey had dumped the child she murdered. 

Cindy said, "George and I don't believe, you know, that Caylee's in the woods or anything."

Here, without challenge from the media, she offered to tell su where Caylee was not.  This is the "rule of the negative" in analysis.

A popular and frequent guest on the program said, "well, I don't believe that."

I said, "why not?"

He said "I just don't.  No.  No.  That isn't right..." and dismissed any possible discussion as to exploring why he did not believe it.  

The show was not a debate where I could say, 

"Well, what is your opinion based upon?"  to explore why guess work, feelings and intuition all pale in comparison to science.  

Caylee was found less in the woods, down the block from where Cindy was standing.  She was telling investigators, just as Casey had done earlier ("I know she is close") what statistics had already known. 

The dismissal of "I just know" is the ignorantly silencing of information.  It is akin to "you hate the McCanns!", rather than discuss the analysis.  Recently, one wrote that I needed to "stop defending United."  I had analyzed the words of a groom's lies  without defending nor attacking United.  

"You can't tell people are lying from their words" she wrote, though she agreed with telling that the McCanns and Casey Anthony were lying.  

What basis did she have to conclude that pointing out a liar was somehow defending United? 

 It was from she, herself and her history of illness and abuse. 

Projection:   It was her license to attack others.  

Her statement is very useful in Employment Analysis.  

Trauma in life effects us all.  People generally react in one of two ways:

1.  They become empathetic with others
2.  They attack others.  

Few people are left untouched by trauma.  

The former has been victimized and has deep empathy for other victims.  This person may see a company as "people" rather than a faceless corporate entity with endless money for write offs, so stealing is justified. Those with empathy who see a company as "people" are statistically less likely to steal. 

The latter is toxic.  This person believes they hold a monopoly on suffering and anyone who does not see her suffering as supreme is to be attacked.  When she is done bloodying her loved ones, she manipulates and forces them to take her back based upon pity.  Eventually, the toxicity will drive away family first, then friends, and then co workers and acquaintances.  Where is the last frontier of human interaction for someone like this?

Social media.  

There, the projected professional victim will attack others, receive some empathetic responses, be dissatisfied and attack some more.  When she finally is told off, she is back to her comfort zone, safe and alone.  She will eventually post how "humans suck" and only pets understand her. Although those who have friends must show themselves friendly, for this one, everyone else is wrong.  She is right. Her words are biting, but useful for teaching Employment Analysis.  

Employers who hire will find an abundance of complaints from co workers, and, depending upon  her level of thievery, a formal complaint that seeks money her hands have not earned.  She "deserves" this due to her suffering. 

In theft, it is the same:   one stolen from will either become empathetic with other victims, or turn and "get paid back" by stealing from others. 


Those trained in analysis can help companies avoid hiring such.  

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks."

When someone speaks, we have an opinion on whether they are telling the truth or not.  Our opinion is based upon scientific data so we do not engage in guess work, feelings nor intuition.  Invoking feelings is about the best way to pervert justice (see above).  

Those who excel in lie detection in training do so because they believe the subject's words.  They allow the statement to guide them.  They yield to the statement.  They tether themselves strongly to principle, and end up with a track record at or near 100% success rate in deception detection.  

A judge in child protective arbitrations said that children were incapable of lying.  

She was a judge who made decisions of permanent custody of children.  

I have been in cases where the child was truthful and in cases where the child entered the parent's language to harm the other parent due to coaching.  

This judge's personal experience (not being believed as a child) colored her opinion to the danger and ruination of lives as she perverted the justice she was sworn to uphold. 

The civil investigator must learn if the allegations are true. They may be, but the discernment will not come from "much detail" nor from intuition. This is dangerous and can lead to false allegations and much trouble. 

I have intervened on behalf of innocent parents falsely accused of child abuse, and the team of analysts with Hyatt Analysis will continue to.  

In one year, a new child protective caseworker removed 500% more children by herself than on average. In other words, if one child protective caseworker removed 10 children, less than one per month, over the course of a year in a specific district, this case worker removed 50 children from their homes.  This went from less than one child per month, to one child every week.   She was so proud of her work that she gave herself a knick name to describe what she did to children pulling them out of homes.  

She could not do this without complicity from her supervisor and from the supervisor's manager.  

Did they not question how, after years of a common pattern, a sudden 500% increase occurred?

Was this new caseworker now showing how negligent all others have been, for years?

Or, was there some new trend in severe abuse where "immediate risk of serious harm" was likely without 24 hours without intervention?

She falsified interviews, conveniently "ran out of battery" on audio recordings, and signed sworn affidavits of that which she invented abuse scenarios. 

                                            Why?

Why would she do so outright deceptive things and drag children away from their parents?

What moral justification did she use?

She, herself, explained why, on average, she removed more children than 5 other caseworkers combined.  

It was because she "knew" the children were being abused and felt "morally justified" to "stretch things a bit" to "save the child."

This is what happens when "feelings" overrule science. 

She had been left in a home where she was abused and now would not let this happen to others.  She would not let truth stand in the way of her feelings. 

Today, she is a "counselor" advising people in vulnerable positions.  

Facts do not care about our feelings.  Politicians use this to exploit those who have a strong need to feel good about themselves, framing arguments in such a way as to say:

"if you agree with me, you are highly moral, too" and people fall in line.  They yield sacred religious beliefs, personal experience, and eventually, scientific proof, just to follow their leader.  This was the case of national socialism in Germany where, science be damned, "Jewish blood was not the same as ours."  

Politicians are doing the same thing today and those who resist are being not only silenced, but coerced into it via violence and the threats of violence, as America imitates nations it once described as corrupt. We ridicule the Nazis for stating that Jews were less than fully human, while we once held blacks as "3/5 human" (and personal property)  and children in the womb as not "human" and also personal "property."  Lives were destroyed as inconveniences to the elite, even while reaching great financial profit.  

 Islamic terror does not care if you are an atheist or if you know nice peaceful Muslims. 

Rape doesn't care how you are dressed.  

Theft does not care for your pigmentation.  

Deception, no matter how wrapped, has consequences that are far reaching.  

Truth seeking is just that; putting aside narrative and letting the words guide you. 

Those who commit to a year of study will be expert deception detectors.  By the time this year is up, where they have not only completed the course, but have logged a minimum of 60 hours of live continuing educational credits, they are running at 100% with the only exception being a contaminated statement.