Thursday, June 25, 2015
Statement Analysis and the Relentlessly Gay Fraud
As an analyst, I recognize the impact of my work, particularly when it results in an arrest. I also recognize that in instructing law enforcement, specifically, there is much to be considered, as the law enforcement officer in study seeks justice within his or her career. This serves the public at large, and helps make life safer, in many ways, for those they serve. This safety includes exposing theft, in any form as it makes us safe from those who wish to gain money their own hands have not earned, in a fraudulent manner.
This is a blog, and it is not a training seminar. The seminar and subsequent courses and follow up training are far more challenging and in depth, and require much commitment on the part of the attendee, yet the blog serves several purposes, not the least of which is general 'practice' of analysis and learning how to discern deception from truth. I recognize that it is a common interest of many readers to disdain being lied to, and love getting to the truth. These are those who, in childhood, likely enjoyed puzzles, or even "who done it" books, as I did. "Encyclopedia Brown" and "The Hardy Boys" were constant companions of my youth, sandwiched in between swimming, Little League, and lazy summer afternoons where I had both a transistor radio listening to "Lindsey Nelson, Bob Murphy and Ralph Kiner", as if they were old friends, and the two Hardy brothers, who always seemed to be respectful of their father, even when 'pushing the envelop' in solving a case. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches with a slight touch of sand from the beach was a delight and the pattern was continuous: ride the waves to exhaustion, back to the blanket, crunchy sandwich, book and radio, and back to the water.
To this 12 year old boy, life was wonderful, particularly in Summer.
As a boy, I learned lessons about lying. Raised Roman Catholic, there were many lessons that were, in deed, too harshly given, yet the lesson was learned: lying was a sin, but it was a sin that not only was a transgression before a Thrice Holy God, but had consequences upon others. I am grateful to the nuns who reinforced what my parents told me at home, in no uncertain sound.
When you are lied to, you feel a certain sting of emotion as you recognize that the one lying to you does not respect your intellect enough to consider that you would discern the deception.
This is what we call, in analysis, the "contempt" that all "true liars" have.
For those new to analysis, the "true liar" is the one who's habitual pattern in life is to deceive, in order to protect oneself from consequence; real or perceived. Remorse is shown only in being caught, as this is a person who was not taught that lying was both wrong, and that lying inflicted harm upon others, in childhood. The "true liar" is not the person who says to his or her boss, "I was here at 9!" only to later reflect, feel remorse, and own the lie. Nor is this the person who responds to a social situation with a response that is not believed, such as when one forcefully demands an opinion on a new haircut, or perceived weight loss. This "social" lie is also one of which the person feels remorse over, though may not "make amends" due to the hurt that the recipient may feel.
Liars are said to be "murderers in training."
This is difficult for many to grasp, though long term readers here likely have little issue with it. The reason that liars are "murderers in training" is because the liar is one who's habitual pattern of life is to deceive whenever it serves the liar's well being and as it is learned early in life, it becomes so ingrained into the personality that it has a two fold impact:
1. It desensitizes
2. It builds tolerance
This is to understand, simply, that success breeds success.
The liar who steals $10 from an employer will steal $100. If the liar is put under oath, over the $100, the liar will testify falsely. In a life time of "me first", should the liar be "tested", the liar will falsely testify, if it serves his best interest, in a capital crime case.
Thus, the liar is a murderer in training; quotation marks removed.
The one who lies on a job application, or in the interview process, will steal from the company. This theft includes fraudulent claims of harassment, discrimination, injury, and so on, in order to gain money his or her own hands did not earn. The habitual liar will not simply "turn it off" because his hand is placed upon the Bible. See Mark Fuhrman's oath having never said "nigger" in his life.
The liar also develops a personality that holds the world in contempt.
This is something law enforcement learns how to use in the interview process, as part of "Analytical Interviewing" training.
The liar expects you to be fooled. This is sometimes called "high mindedness" in analysis and is why some liars will agree to take a polygraph. (See Billie Jean Dunn).
In conducting a seminar, I am aware of the consequences of my analysis, as every one in the legal system should. I believe that when I interview a subject, I will get to the truth if the subject speaks, and have confidence in the system to the degree that I will not give up until I do. The system's own strength negates any violation of rights. I welcome lawyers into the interview and have, frequently, stopped interviews to ask, repeatedly, if the subject would like a lawyer present.
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you" can also be seen from my age and vantage point:
"Treat this young man the way you would like your son treated."
To conclude, wrongly, that one has lied, can destroy an innocent person's life.
It can also destroy confidence in the system, and it can ruin my career; the means of which I feed my family.
You can see, therefore, why it is so much easier to say, "this may be deceptive", and things such as:
"This is concerning"
"More information is needed"
"We are looking at possible deception..."
and so on.
I have used all of these phrases when appropriate, but I have also said, "Deception indicated" when the conclusion of the analysis dictated.
If a written report by me is going to result in an arrest, I must have certainty in doing so. The certainty must be "insured" by something.
The most powerful insurance I can offer is my own name and reputation in analysis.
Look, please, at the case of Charlie Rogers. You may see a re-post of the analysis here.
She stated that 3 men had broken into her home, which is something terribly traumatic, itself. Our homes are place of refuge and safety and people who have been victims of home invasion report never feeling safe again in life.
Yet, not only did they break in, but they wore masks.
This is to increase the intensity by bringing the victim back to childhood fears of the nightmare realm in life and can have a lasting impact upon the brain.
If all of this was not enough, they tied her down and carved letters into her flesh. This means that the one holding the knife had the ability to steady his nerves while his victim screamed and fought to get free, with such precision, as to make discernible letters. The assailant must have no human empathy for others. I described this as the worst "Nazi on steroids" that could exist. No squeamishly turning away from the skin parting ways and the blood spurting out: this man who did the actual carving is a killer on the loose.
To make this horrific scene even worse, he carved slogans about her sexuality, adding insult to injury.
Ms. Rogers is a lesbian who is outspoken about her sexuality.
Yet, the gang of three masked men were not done yet.
They went to her basement and spray painted their condemnation of her sexuality on her own wall, which, once she healed up physically from the carving, she would have to paint over. She would never, at least in my estimation, heal from the psychological trauma of what these brutish animal-like assailants did to her.
Still, the cruelty was not finished.
They then took gasoline and poured it in her place of safety, and lit a match to it.
She ran, naked and bleeding, from the burning home to a neighbor's house to call 911.
Police called in the FBI and they reported to the public that this was a "hate crime" and would not release the name of the victim.
Charlie Rogers thought otherwise and contacted the media, herself.
She spoke for less than 5 minutes.
She spoke 464 words in total.
The result of this interview:
People all around the country (and internationally) donated thousands of dollars to her cause; so much so, that she retained a lawyer to handle the money.
Colleges held protests, with one shutting down.
People showed their support of Charlie Rogers by getting "Charlie Rogers" tattoo'd on their bodies.
Candles were lit in her name.
I, and a team of 5 others, scanned the news stories across the country, reading through the comments. There was not a single comment found that doubted her story.
No criminal profilers said it was fraudulent.
No crime reporters expressed doubt over the story.
The response was not simply overwhelming positive; it was 100% positive.
When she spoke, I analyzed her words and wrote an analytical report and mailed it to both the FBI and the local investigators and said, in conclusion:
'This is a 'fake hate' report. She was not assaulted and there are not three vicious dangerous men on the outlook. She likely had assistance in the cutting, and the wounds are, judging by her words, superficial 'scratches' at best. Find evidence of who helped her.'
My report was accurate, though only Rogers was arrested. They found additional "unknown female" DNA in the gloves used while holding the knife she had purchased at the local hardware store.
Charlie Rogers' 911 call was deceptive. This is because it did not proceed from experiential memory.
What is forgotten is this:
What if any man in the area was falsely arrested and falsely convicted?
I only post public stories on the blog; not cases that are being investigated, or even cases that are now closed. This is not just to make certain that I do not interfere with justice, but also to the confidence that law enforcement, in all steps, must hold in me. The blog is only for public news stories.
If the two meet, I only post what is publicly known.
There was a backlash, initially, to my blog posting of analysis. It was so intense that my wife, Heather, stopped entirely reading the blog, and my family was frightened for its safety. "Homophobic" was the least of the deletions. It was vile, hateful and somewhat surprising. My expectation was off: I thought some would say "thanks" for saving them money, as I had written that "fake hate" as all false reporting of crimes, can damage future victims. This was lost in the rage of comments.
There is more to Charlie Rogers' story than just the arrest and the plea of guilt.
She once carved a cross on her forehead, and told police that her own father had done it. They investigated and found that she had done it herself.
She was, however, willing to have her father arrested for assault. Her hatred of Christianity is powerful.
I understand this hatred. Christianity, like Judaism before it, plainly teaches "thou shalt not.." and all the protesting in the world will not change this. The twain do not meet.
There is nothing wrong with disagreement, either. There are "thou shalt nots" that I have broken, yet I do not call for a change in ancient text because of me. I can choose to believe, or choose not to. If one says that one of the "thou shalt nots" is more important than the other, I am reminded of the old story where a man is dangling just above death on a chain with 10 links, with each link one of the Ten Commandments. Does it matter which broke, while he hurls to his death, yelling, "yeah, but this one wasn't the really really important one!"?
Tolerance can and should exist. That two ideologies do not meet is plain.
I see no problem in this, as tolerance can exist, and both Judaism and Christianity are "religions of persuasion" and not "religions of coercion" like Islam, where, weekly of late, video or pictures of homosexuals being murdered is published. To 'reinterpret" the "thou shalt nots" regarding homosexuality is to not only "lie" but is to destroy the meaning of communication by simply redefining words. Like the propaganda of taking the plain teaching of the Koran's "beheading" and saying "my personal jihad is to 'behead' my bad habit of eating chocolate' is to state that no communication can exist. This is the essence of deception:
Words are the currency in which we exchange ideas. Lies are counterfeit currency.
If one wishes to bend over backwards to re-define what words mean, to fit their agenda, it is their business, but it is not truth.
Julie Baker wrote the "anonymous hate note" herself.
This is not my conclusion based upon the matching styles, though this, alone, would have caused me to believe it. Kudos to those of you who picked the similarities (plural) up.
Sadly, more than 1,000 people have donated more than $43,000 to this fraud.
Statement Analysis of anonymous threatening letters (ATL) is very difficult work and not something published in full here at the blog. It is work done with a team of analysts and it is very time consuming.
We have had two recent examples of ATL's in which the recipients, themselves, providing writing samples on social media which hastened the conclusion.
The ATL work is done to seek the profile of the author so that the threat may be met with the appropriate response.
In both cases (I am referring to the Long Island Fake Hate racist letter telling a black family to move out), the analysis was 'rushed' because of the additional writing samples, but although the rushing proved to be true, caution, in fact, extreme caution, should be exercised.
When I wrote, "Julie Baker wrote the note herself", I signed my name to it. With my name, is my full time occupation. I did not write, "Julie Baker should be investigated for possibly writing the note", as would have been appropriate had the conclusion not been as strong.
Being wrong would erode confidence in my work, and damage my career, while the "gain", that is, what I, personally, can gain from "being right" is negligible. For someone to post anonymously, or even, for example, a salesperson who uses his or her own name, to post, "she wrote it herself" and later be found wrong, has risked nothing as to his career. For him, it's "just an opinion."
This speaks to certainty.
Julie Baker sought to cash in on the existing animosity towards Christians, which is why she not only included Christianity in the note, but the emotional inclusion "Children", without explanation, indicated that she knew exactly what she was provoking in people. It is the same vein of hatred that Charlie Rogers attempted when she said that a mother refused to let her, a lesbian, near her children.
This later was learned that in her discussion with the mother, the mother was attending a gay pride parade with her children and was not comfortable with marching Charlie Rogers, a stranger, taking one of her children with her.
By targeting Christianity, and even the Presbyterian church across the street, her followers should consider that they have been emotionally manipulated by one who has been doing this since childhood.
They may consider that she has not stated, "I did not write the note."
They may consider that the refusal to hand over such an important document to police is for a reason.
They may consider, even if discounting the profile, the striking similarities between the writing samples of her own on Facebook and the note.
Behavioral Analysis confirms the Statement Analysis:
That there was no cause for an innocent person to put an end to the flow of money, and nothing to fear.
She now claims "hate" while deliberately showing hatred to
She held homosexuals in contempt by considering them incapable of discernment, and those most readily deceived through the employment of one of the oldest techniques commonly used by even politicians:
When a small company saves all of its money to pay politicians to lobby for a law on bicycles helmets, saying "take away the choice from parents", they made countless millions on the time tested phrase,
"Who'll save the children?"
"What about the children?"
Matt Groenig used the same in his cartoon, which was one of the more clever moments of his work where a protest of sorts was taking place that had nothing to do with kids when one of the female characters began to shout this out loud. It was a clever commentary on how to emotionally twist caring people.
Liars hold the rest of us in contempt. In Julie Baker's scam, it was the homosexual community, or Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgender, specifically, community that she targeted by use of the emotional technique, while capitalizing on the political environment for her own gain.
There was no ill will by those who warned potential donators against the fraud. There was lots of ill will by Baker towards the potential donors, as she considered them ill equipped to discern her scam.
She knew that Christians would not be the main group of donators, though some made "guilt offerings" in their remarks, with 'here is my donation. I am a Christian and I am ashamed of how..." sort of remarks.
She even played them as well.
She is playing a very dangerous game and although Charlie Rogers did not spend a long time incarcerated, she did not keep a penny of the donations and was fined heavily. The judge demanded that she stop living in fairy tale land and get a job.
With Julie Baker, it is one heck of a roll of the dice. She risks a great deal when she withdraws the money. Her attorney will keep her from taking a polygraph but her life will change dramatically, as evidence and testimony comes out.
In the McStay murder, the officer testified the defendant referenced McStay "in the past tense", which is something that has impact upon a judge or jury.
In the Sarah Cherry murder trial, Dennis Dechaine, claiming to be alone in the woods, having "never" met his victim, said, "...and we were losing daylight, so..." of which the prosecutor said,
"Mr. Dechaine, who is "we"?"
This was recessed and 'explained' the next day by attorney coaching.
Dechaine was found guilty of her murder. He was not alone as pronouns are "instinctive and intuitive" and 100% reliable.
Yes, Julie Baker risks a great deal by yielding to the temptation to accept the money. I do not know if she would still face charges if she instructed "Go Fund Me" to refund all the money, but it would likely have a strong impact upon a prosecutor.
Julie Baker is risking a great deal.
There is no risk. My agenda is truth and Ms. Baker has, like others, provided yet more sample for instruction in discerning truth from deception.
Julie Baker, (or the one who wrote all that is attributed to Julie Baker on Face book), wrote the anonymous hate letter, herself.
Her hatred is not just against Christians, but of all the people of good will of whom she did not think they would be wise enough to exercise discernment, because she infused the deception with the power of emotion, by two words:
"Christian" and "Children."
Both words, in her defensive initial reply, were given without capitalization.
In the last bit of comedy, Julie Baker's own daughter wrote that her mom "rarely lies to her", which was embarrassing enough, but it was Baker's own final writing that should have spoken to donators when she removed all of her 'trademarked' capitalization.
"I did not write the note!" followed by...
Federal and State?
The time of the free editing process is passed, and sufficient sample has been provided for a conclusion that needs no qualification.
For some, they have said, "even if she wrote it, I would still donate. " There are just some things that cannot be easily explained in life, though words like these reveal a great deal about one's character.
Stay tuned. Should she face charges and go to trial, prosecution is likely to call in experts to testify, not simply to the writing, but...
technical experts as to ink, printer, computer, and so on, along with the lengthy "history" that even destroyed computers hold within the hard drive.
Should the note not be "found", and even if the home computer "breaks" and is "forever thrown out", these same elements, when presented to a reasonable mind may produce a reasonable conclusion.
Habitual deception desensitizes the person and it escalates as 'tolerance' is built up, and the conscience deadens with time and success.
This is why some deceptive people take polygraphs. Billie Jean Dunn could not back down, so she talked Shawn Adkins into it, with both showing up under the influence. When they were sent away, should they not return for the polygraph, everyone will "know" she is a liar. So what did she do?
She and Shawn Adkins showed up, were asked basic questions about her daughter, and both promptly failed.
This process of desensitization and escalation within habitual deception deepens the ego of the deceptive one, causing them to take risks in ways of which angels might fear to tread.