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.

Homophobic, indeed.

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

A.  Christians
B.  Homosexuals

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.

For me?

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.

Surprise surprise.

What's next?

"I did not write the note!" followed by...

charges filed?

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.


Anonymous said...

A New Jersey couple with three children thought that they were buying a very nice house in Westfield for $1.3 million. And they were, but what they were also buying, unbeknownst to them, was a creepy horror movie villain who calls himself "The Watcher." They are, understandably, none too pleased.

After recieving three letters from The Watcher, the Broaddus family has filed a lawsuit against the previous homeowners, the Woods, for failing to disclose the thing about the guy who is obsessed with the house and also blood. His letters sound like the stuff of bad fiction, but in real life they have to be very frightening. Some excerpts from the letters, from the lawsuit.

Screen Shot 2015-06-25 at 10.42.36 AM.png

Screen Shot 2015-06-25 at 10.43.07 AM.png

Anonymous said...

Outstanding piece of writing.

We can only hope now that she will confess / refund the money before she has to face jail time. Amazing how this lie could destroy her entire life and family.

The Baltimore Sun ran a story about the hoax yesterday.

Looks like it won't be long before we get a real conclusion to this story.

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi Anonymous.
I saw the story and i noted how often the number 3 turned up (3 is the liar's number Mark McClish)

I also snorted when i saw this bit.

Plaintiffs demand judgement against defendant for refund of the entire purchase price with interest whilst also permitting plaintiffs to retain fee title to the home, alternatively, rescission of the contract, an unwinding of the closing and a full refund of the purchase price with interest, alternatively damages in the sum equivalent to difference between purchase price and present market value of the home with interest give plaintiffs obligation to disclose to potential purchasers of "The Watcher" treble damages, compensatory damages, consequential damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs and interest and any other relief the courts deem just and equitable.

Hmm so they want a full refund and they want to keep the house.

This makes me go hmmm.

Surely if they felt so threatened they would want a full refund and the previous owners can deal with 'the Watcher'

If as is claimed by the letter writer the house has been watched by his father and grandfather before him i would assume the previous owners would have gotten similar mail when they bought the house plus the owner(s) before them.
The new owners cliam the previous owners had at least one letter from "the watcher" in may 2014, the house was bought in june 2014.

They got the first letter 3 days later.

The case has and is being investigated yet no leads have turned up.
Presumably they will have handed the letters and parcels to LE for examination such as handwriting/typing style.
If it was mailed or hand delivered.
If mailed where from.
If hand delivered then prints and DNA.

I would also assume given the nature of the threats, that the family installed security cameras (especially if the mail was hand delivered.)

I would also be asking how long the house had been on the market.
Had the current owners offered a lower price than they paid for the house but had to up their offer?
Do the current owners have any financial difficulties that would warrant them needing to down size?
Have the current owners had any similar happen to them when buying other properties?
If they won and got free title to the house what would they do with it?

It is also worth noting in their claim it says
retain fee title to the home
Why use the word home rather than house or property?
Do the family consider it to be their home(close) or is it a house or property (distancing)?

JC said...

Re "the watcher"

If these are "fake letters" set up by the owners to claim back their money, then they are seriously in need of help. The language used in the letters is very sinister. Again, if, they are written by a member of the family, i would be very concerned for their children et al. This is not good!

I would like to know if they have any history of SS (social services) involvement. "If" they are genuine letters from someone (the watcher), then they need to be arrested asap?

Anonymous said...

retain fee title to the home
Why use the word home rather than house or property?

I think it means they retain the right to live there (as opposed to just ownership) until all finances are settled.

Unknown said...

Though I understand that the purpose of this blog is not intended as a training medium. I also understand that there is much more to it than what information I can find from all of the analyst's that post exerpts.

However, despite the fact that, in Canada, there is no point to pursuing a career in Deception detection, simply due to the fact that in Canada the process is insourced. And yet, despite the fact that there is little chance anything will come of this for me at least, I very much enjoy reading these articles. They're the highlight of my day! I first started reading statement analysis because I fell in love with the show lie to me. I did my Microexpression Recognition course through Humintell, but found it lacking. I went so far as to purchase FACS, Facial Action Coding system by Paul Ekman. I then went on to studying body language, but with all of the cultural emblems, again it appeared to be a dead end. Then I saw Mark McClish's site and I was hooked. I was excited to see that someone would post stuff that I could learn from! Everyone else it's "for 699.99 you can get this" without much detail of what "this is".

As a new father, my son is just over four months old now, and the fact that my career leaves much to be desired. I work in Security as a manager making a wage that's bordering on insulting for someone who has spent nearly ten years in the field, and six in the Canadian Armed Forces. Where's the reward? Due to the lack of excess income that would allow me to do any of the half dozen or so things I'd love to put under my belt before applying to be a police officer, not to mention the other half dozen things I'd love to do because I enjoy Deception detection in its entirety, I have to settle for what I can find where I can find it.

I do not rate myself as an analyst, nor am I remotely close to becoming an expert in Deception detection, but I would, someday like to do this as a career.

Your posts, Peter, keep me invigorated, and passionate about what I want to do. They keep me motivated that, someone is taking the time to shate their expertise with us in a world where information comes at a price.

I am grateful to you for standing up for what you believe in, and for providing an opportunity for those who made be like me, who are unable to shell out hundreds of dollars, to create a vested interest. You're not enlisting keyboard warriors, you're trying to help people to better protect themselves.

I, for one, thank you as vociferously as is appropriate for everything you've done here.

Anonymous said...

what is going on in the Tammy and Sidney Moorer case?

Anonymous said...

I agree with everthing Matt Whan said. However i don't want to become an analyst. I sure love reading everyone's analysis and glem whatever knowledge i can from it. Thanks!

JC said...


I have read in the past here, posted by others too, and i agree. SA, for me, is very difficult to block out once learned. I have however. Learned NOT (although at times i have to bite my lip) lol, to question those close to me about the little white lies that i pick up on. We all lie, myself included.

Anyway, my point. Knowing someone is deceptive is one thing. How to address it is another.


is it possible when you have the time, to post a topic, regarding, addressing deception when found.


Anonymous said...

It is not mandatory that a realtor/broker, seller (or existing owner) relay to a prospective purchaser (buyer) that the real estate they are selling has bad vibes, bad neighbors, relatives who stalk the place, unfriendly ghosts, a former HIV infected resident, or that someone died on the property, or any other such issue that is not related to the structure of the real estate, its' mechanical components and/or the grounds on which it sits that are part and parcel of the sale. Prospective buyers are instructed to order inspections of the premises to satisfy themselves at to these conditions and must execute waivers that they have done so.

Buyers are further advised to satisfy themselves as to the conditions of the neighborhood including diverse cultures, drug dealers and houses, school districts, stalkers or any other thing that might be of concern to them. Sellers have no obligation to determine for buyers that which may make them unhappy relative to neighborhood conditions; in fact, are warned against warrantying such conditions.

Property disclosure is to be made to prospective buyers prior to closing the sale of the real estate relating to any and all structural components, as well as all inspections made prior to closing the sale.

FYI, Title to the real estate is referred to as Title in Fee Simple, or Deed of Title. The highest and best use is generally a Warranty Deed in Fee Simple. There are two types of deeds that run with the land; A deed of Title which stipulates the ownership and a Mortgage Deed which specifies the mortgage deed that encompasses the real estate.

IMO, the new owners will have a hard time proving that the former owner owes them anything unless that owner deliberately lied to them upon inquiry of conditions relative to the structural condition and it's components.

Anonymous said...


That would help me with my question re: raising kids without religion from the prior blog post of Peter's.

Red Meat said...

Matt- interesting background. It has been a workshop here, even if not official. I've learned so much. Before learning about SA principle I had lots of practice analyzing in a different way, but the more I learn principles, the more it seems similar, or that I got a lot of practice.

I was an English and government teacher for many years. I read 10,000+ samples of writing from a diverse group of students. I looked for patterns of grammar mistakes to determine what grammar lessons to follow up on. I looked to see if the person had written the paper himself, detecting if it fit with other patterns of the same person's other writings, if it seemed more educated than they were able to write (plagisrism). Evaluating their arguments- how strong were they? Did they believe what they were saying? So it felt a little natural when I started learning the principles Peter takes the time to explain. It would be awesome to do it professionally or take official trainings and make at least some income doing it once I got better and was more confident in coming to the "final conclusion." But I'm with you; I wouldn't know where to start.

Nic said...

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.

As a parent we feel our kids' ’slight’ probably more so than our kids.

My 14 year-old son has been walking his ‘sweetheart’ to her bus every day for months. I’m talking since at least January. It’s the end of the school year. After much mental preparation he asked her for her phone number on the Friday before the last day of the school year. The next Monday she presents him with her email. Except it’s not her email.

Confused he comes to me about the bounces he’s getting from trying to email his crush. This is not a position I ever thought I’d be in. I go from thinking this is a sweet girl to a coward...and a liar!

So I explain to my son that she is not interested in him. If she was, she would have given him her actual email address to keep in touch over the summer holidays.

“Hrhmm,” said my son thoughtfully. He also flushed.

Then I said, “When someone shows you their soul the first time, believe them."

He got it.

I hate it when the year ends on a low note.

Anonymous said...

I feel bad about your son Nic. This is a painful experience for a young man of his age to suffer. My son had a similar experience. It was his senior year and he fell so in love with Marilyn, a junior. She lived eight blocks from us on a street that came into the neighborhood so anytime one came and went into the area it required passing Marilyn's house. He made many special trips just to see her outside her house and anywhere else in the area, and in walking her to school nearly every day. He was painfully in love with Marilyn. I tried to warn him that he might be a little cautious with his affections at this age, how well did he really know her, but it fell on deaf ears. His every waking moment was for Marilyn.

He had a demanding part time job working at a car dealership and it was his job to keep the cars wiped down and sparkling and on bad days to keep the snow and ice cleaned off all the cars on the lot as well as keeping snow paths cleared for access to the cars for customers. It was a hard and bitter cold job. He scrimped and saved his money, telling me Marilyn didn't even have a decent coat and he was going to buy a nice one for her. Finally he has $220 saved and is so excited out shopping for just the right coat, it has to be good enough for her and he finally finds just the right one; buys it and takes it to her; by now it is near the end of the school year but still cold in our area.

She wears the beautiful coat he gave her but dodges him on the last few days of school, which he doesn't understand. He doesn't see her again until after school that last day when he hurries by her house to see if something is wrong; as he comes by her house there sits Marilyn on her front porch steps with some other guy sitting next to her all cuddled up with his hand up her skirt.

I can't even describe to you how heartbroken my son was. It ruined his graduation and it ruined his summer. He didn't even care about his job anymore. I think it set the stage for his feelings of rejection that he has lived with ever since. I hope your son does not have lingering affects from this kind of rejection and deceit from a girl like my son has carried for all these years since.

Andrea said...

At least look at the very last screenshot. At the very least.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Police can use the screen shots.

Unknown said...

"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!"
- Helen Lovejoy

I love the Simpsons, lol

Tania Cadogan said...

Me as well.
There are so many truths hidden away under the guise of humor.

Andrea said...

Damn it. That was the wrong link. Hold on. Can't believe I did that.

Kim is the girl who wrote the Snopes article btw.

Anonymous said...

The Baltimore Sun released this on the 24th regarding the possibility it was a hoax:

Eleanor Justice then tweeted Baltimore Sun on the 25th asking to contact the author because his facts were incorrect. They gave her an email address for contact to point our the errors (

Now there's a new article released today:

It has an interview with Julie that may be of interest to analyze.

Andrea said...

Well, they are two different sites. One is Suntimes, the other Sun. So, it looks like we got excited for nothing. And potentially confused. Personally, Suntimes didn't seem like...very professional, so that was my bad, maybe, get excited about it coming out. I still just don't get this, though. How the hell are they still running this story in a positive light when so much about it is wrong?

Anonymous said...

That was my bad - I should have noticed the cage in publication.

What everyone should have a look at is this thread on the FB group: I'm surprised they allowed the thread to continue.

In summary, someone asked why Julie didn't have the letter. Eleanor responded by indicating that Julie misplaced it and then stated "I understand it when she found it she passed it on to the authorities." Kim from Snopes jumped in and has basically called them liars.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Don't be too discouraged. Prosecutors have brains and they have professional pride. They do not like scammers in their backyard.

MSM might not take up the cause lest they be labeled "hate" and "hurting my feelings" and "homophobic!", but prosectors can recognize that even the Casey Anthony jury could see the similarities in writing style.


Anonymous said...

I can tell you that Go Fund Me is distancing themselves from this. According to the newest article, they took down Julie's site for that brief time it was offline. Although you can still find it if you have the original link, the campaign no longer pulls up when you perform an actual search on the site. Go Fund Me is actually preventing people from finding it.

Andrea said...

Sorry, I don't doubt that they have brains. It's all so conflicting, though. I don't understand how they can be so blatant if we are indeed right in this. Like, more and more people are questioning this, and yet they are so very sure that they are right/going to get away with this.

Anon at 2:41 PM, I did the same thing too, though, LOL. I thought that it was a legit site, although it didn't look it.

I was just going to say that that is what the imgur link I just shared was about. I'm glad you linked us, though -- I hadn't realised that they were still going at it. How did you get the direct link to the post, btw? Because that is effing sweet. That is going to spare me a heck of a lot of time using that.

Anonymous said...

Andrea, if you actually click on the post and have it pull up in a separate tab/page, the direct link will be the URL in the window. I can't take my eyes off that thread because it's a circus. Eleanor says Julie turned over the letter to the police, Paula says Julie has the letter, Christian is throwing comments left and write to confuse the topic, and thankfully Kim has finally decided she's had enough. I really hope this is pursued by law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

I really don't care if all these people do get scammed and hope they do. Jesus told us to visit the sick, the elderly, to feed the poor, the widow, the orphan.

He didn't say anything about us keeping up the lifestyles of some emotionally disturbed weak-minded sexually debased deviates. And there ya have it, my honest to God opinion and that's no lie.

Andrea said...

I appreciate you trying to help me figure out how to do that too, but this is clearly not a strong point for me. LOL. Darn it. At least I have the one you shared.

Me too, definitely. Preferably real soon.

Unknown said...

If it becomes useful, I have made it a point to screenshot a number of different things regarding the "relentlessly gay" situation. Not knowing what might be helpful, I have just been trying to screenshot assertions and discord on the FB page. Most of the things I have captured have been since taken down, but I still have them.

Andrea said...

They are completely ridiculous in there, huh? All of these rules and stuff? Goodness, give me a break.

Anyway, you guys, we are forgetting the GFM page. It's filling up with supportive people comments and we can't leave it like that, now can we? We need people to be aware that something's up.

PS: Good idea, Athena. Especially since they've now been taken down.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

There is one comment in particular that was removed off the thread with Kim. It is so aggressive and manipulative, I can see why they removed it as it really points to character and sentiment. I feel badly for Kim, she is doing her job and because it hasn't been to their liking they turned vicious. Nothing in her article is anything other than the truth, but it doesn't matter. Turning vicious however is a trend I have noticed with that page. If a person disagrees with them about almost anything, they turn on that person.

It's just my feeling, but the GFM is likely them trying to bury the negative comments, but they are so prevalent at this point it might be difficult.

I had correct and then repost this, the typos were driving me crazy.

Nic said...

Thanks, Anonymous @ 6:47. We talked today. He's okay. The only thing I could tell him was that this was just the beginning of the disappointments. Then I said that if she ever has a change of heart, he can tell her that that boat sailed a long time ago. He thought that was really funny.

I can't image the hurt and betrayal your son felt. So much heart and effort put into his gift. Your son is very thoughtful and generous. Too bad her heart wasn't as pretty as her face. :0( Karma has a way of taking care of takers like her.

jen-d said...

i call pathological liars "emotional serial killers"

Statement Analysis Blog said...


Can I borrow that?


Andrea said...

Anonymous said...

Andrea, have you posted this on Snopes yet? Tammy on Snopes had mentioned it but images would speak volumes. Great detective work BTW!!

jen-d said...


Can I borrow that?


Yes sure!

Andrea said...

@Anon June 27, 2015 at 10:42 PM

Tammy was the reason that I found out about it. =) That's why I mentioned her name in the text for the last image~ But yes, I did post the link in the comment section.

Appreciate the support. =) I had actually never tried the whole cache thing before -- that was a first for me. ^_^ I tend to watch a lot of conspiracy documentaries (Sue me.) and remembered that it had been done for some Facebook stuff having to do with Sandy Hook. I figured I'd give it a try and it was really freaking easy. So freaking easy.

I came here to ask, though, those of you who read the recent Baltimore Sun article (, a question. A quite important question. Have I lost my freaking mind, or did that story used to have something in it about them donating part of the funds towards charity? Riddle me that. I am super fncking confused because I remembered being angry reading it for just that reason, as it seemed to mention something about anti-bullying work when clearly we had learned that they are not interested in doing charity. Someone please, please let me know your thoughts on this. I tried to do the cache thing but maybe it's not been long enough or I am just plain flat out wrong. I just remember the way that I felt reading it. Please help me.

Unknown said...

I cut and pasted Julie's facebook comment asking the snopes editor not to "harass" the police officer, but what I did not pick up before was this - she made a typo where she meant to say MONDAY and instead said MONEY, which, as someone pointed out over on the snopes site, is very telling. I had copied and pasted this, so I did not make this typo. Julie did. Note this very telling slip in the third sentence:

Julie Baker: “I would appreciate the officer not being harassed, they have bad guys to deal with, not filling internet pages. Kim, thank you for submitting changes, I noticed the conjecture went up really fast. The note was left money the 16th. I hope in the future the site does its best to get all of the facts before posting stories. There are many victims out \there of crimes that run the gammon of strange and difficult to believe, treating a victim like a sideshow attraction is cruel and dangerous and feeds sociopaths.”

Anonymous said...

Andrea, when I originally read the article, nothing was mentioned about donating to charity. The reason it stick in my mind is because someone had specifically asked about the topic in the FB group and Eleanor shut the topic down in her response. And, when I read this tidbit in the article, I expected the next sentences to mention her donating a portion to charity:

"It was getting frighteningly large," she said. "I don't think any one person needs that much money."

She has no intention of donating and her friends don't want her donating. I still believe her friends are sharing in the windfall (or they will if she finally withdraws the funds).

Unknown said...

I don't know anything about how gofundme operates. Will we even be able to tell when she withdraws the money? Perhaps she has already. Most people willing to lie to raise funds are not exactly patient people.

Andrea said...

@Anon June 28, 2015 at 1:48 PM

I really appreciate the response. I am still just really confused. I swear I remember being really mad reading it because it seemed to make mention of some intent to donate. I remember thinking how very convenient it was that they should be still pushing that out there when it wasn't true. Did you read it on the day it came out, or the day after, or? Maybe I'm just being overly paranoid. I just remember the feeling that I had reading it. I am definitely human, though. Certainly worn out and could be getting it wrong. Haha, that didn't occur to me when reading it. So true! Such a fail these people. Holy freakin' crap. Really is sick.

I am super interested in your story -- it would have been neat to see that, darn it.


I can't remember where exactly I saw it, but someone said that they actually getting weekly payments? Saw that somewhere today. Browsing the reddit comments on this, I think.

Anonymous said...

Andrea, I read it the day it released.

Cindy, we won't see the withdrawals. That's between Julie and the payment processor.

Andrea, if someone stated that Julie is receiving weekly payments, then it's either someone who works for the payment processor or it was info leaked from her inner circle of friends. If weekly is the case, she's trying to avoid "something." One doesn't take a weekly payment if they need to paint an entire house or the roof. She's probably taking weekly payments because she's still receiving welfare and she can't have her income surpass a certain amount or she'll lose her benefits. However, if the state of Maryland caught wind of her personal bank account, which is basically what it is now, she'd be found guilty of welfare fraud. And, there is a website for reporting Maryland welfare fraud.

Andrea said...

Please don't look too deeply into what I've said about the weekly payments. Like I said, I read it somewhere on reddit and am almost certain that it was, like, a week-old comment or so. I actually spent a good while this morning trying to find it but gave up because, as I have said elsewhere, all of this work isn't helping my wrists. I don't believe that they were her friends, but just people commenting on the story. I remember them mentioning something about her accumulating interest on the money which, justly, should not belong to her either.

I have realised that she's about $35 short on her GFM amount now. Anyone know if that is something GFM would do in order to take their share of the profits (as in deduct it quite visibly from the amount made), or could that be that people are asking for their donations back?

Also, I've noticed that the GFM page is pretty much dead. Have you guys been blocked from the page as well? Show of hands, please.

Andrea said...

I'm a pretty massive doofus. I finally realised what I was looking at after a while (and there was much rejoicing).

Anonymous said...

Andrea; I have limited knowledge to one donation fund site and it works like this:

The recipient of the funds can withdraw whatever has accumulated into the fund on a daily basis if they chose too; it's payable whenever the recipient applies for it to be transferred to them.

The funds are paid directly into the recipient's bank account, having previously been set up with the fund site. The funds do not accumulate interest with the fund donation site. The fund donation site deducts their percentage of the take from every donation at the time it is donated and is reflected on the recipients list of donations made at the time the funds are transferred.

If an individual refund is requested by a donor, this is also reflected as a refund on the list of donations made and the percentage that was owed to the fund site is charged back to the recipient, with the full amount of the donation being credited back to the donors paypal, credit or debit card. The fund site does not lose money on these transactions. Hopes this helps?

foodnerd said...

Quoting one of the 3 million Anonymouses who don't know they can choose a much-less confusing name without having to register or provide an e-mail address:

"'It was getting frighteningly large,' she said. 'I don't think any one person needs that much money.'

She has no intention of donating and her friends don't want her donating. I still believe her friends are sharing in the windfall (or they will if she finally withdraws the funds)."

ONE person??!!? With four kids to support? Very telling about the obvious scam as well as her primary priorty and general outlook in life.

Also, as others have noted Baker the Faker is definitely being edited now, and by a professional. When reporting a list, the comma after the last item before the "and" is called an Oxford comma. It isn't more correct or less correct to have the debatably extra comma, but the vast majority of non-professional writers drop it.
The few professors who do have an opinion on whether it should be there tend to feel strongly though!