Monday, June 29, 2015

Understanding the Genesis of Human Behavior in Analysis: Definitions

Thus we come, in our series of articles, to the point where all analysts and readers interested in analysis come, eventually:

To your opinion on human nature, itself.

There are two basic viewpoints on human nature (as well as a myriad of off-shoots) that each of us comes to where we embrace one or the other.

The decision you make impacts:

Analysis, specifically in "The Expected Versus The Unexpected", as well as in profiling.

The decision you make also impacts:

How you raise your children.
How you treat your spouse.
How you view yourself.
How you cast your vote.
How you conduct yourself at a restaurant.

In other words, whether or not you have conscious awareness of your view or not, it impacts how you think, how you see the world, how you behave, and how you interpret the behavior of others.

Both systems teach:  The child is innocent of wrong doing.  Yet one says the child carries a nature to naturally do wrong, while the other carries a nature to naturally do right.

This is nature.

Nurturing is the development and culturing of the child's nature.

One believes the child's natural tendency is to do wrong, while the other believes the child's natural tendency is to do good.

One believes the child is naturally narcissistic and must be taught to share;

The other believes the child is born neutral, or good, and narcissism is the result of nurture.

They are very different.  What you believe will impact how you think and live.

For example:  a patrol officer can become not only acutely cynical from dealing with deception, by the hour, every shift, for years, but he can also become depressed and even suicidal.  This is what makes "snap shots" so terribly unfair. It is also why a patrol officer who has grown cynical can fail at detecting deception as he sees deception everywhere.

Conversely, the view often called "pollyanna" sees "the good in everyone" and can not only fail at analysis, but struggles with justice, itself, and can take upon himself a burden for humanity that he cannot bear for very long.  True, the gullible are easier to teach analysis, but this viewpoint will likely undergo a great change over time, as analysis yields profiles of the subjects, themselves.

Religion plays a very powerful role in this as people will respond in a religious manner to whichever they ascribe to.

Is man born basically good, but learns evil through circumstance?


Is man born basically evil (unstable) and must be taught good, through lessons in life, and the evil thus be restricted by society?

Each one of us has one view point or the other, even if we do not speak of it, or even recognize it.  For me, in interviewing, it is very easy to discern.  I love interviewing and have, professionally, conducted more than 6,000 interviews, including many child interviews.  Privately, however, I have done many more, as I "interview" people continually, on the phone, in the stores, out in the public, as I am always interested in learning about human nature.

So, which is it?

Are we basically good people, who due to poor choices, do bad things?

Or, are we basically bad, or "unstable" people, who must be taught not to do harm to others?

Although the "in between" crowd is...well, crowded, I will stick to one or the other, knowing the sub-sets may be argued by others.

What follows is an opportunity for you to understand those you may disagree with in life, as I will begin with the basic camp that says that man is born in instability, that is, not good, and must be both taught, and restrained, so that good may come, and then I will cover the opposite, which is the populous viewpoint today:  man is born good, and through poor choices and environmental conditions, learns to do bad things.

These two view points clashed in the "penitentiary" theory where prison was to cause the offender to change.  This is just one tiny outworking of the belief.

You have read here many times;  What one believes, one does.  Therefore, if you believe that "jihad" is your duty, you may not carry it out directly, but you will support it in others.  (see recent polling in Europe on this).

If you believe in socialism, where mankind is responsible for mankind, you will want laws passed to see that this is carried out.

If you believe in freedom of speech, you will want it exercised, even when you cringe hearing that which you disagree with.

The Nazis believed that Jews betrayed them in the Treaty of Versailles, so they marginalized them, legally, through legislation, made them pariahs in the nation, which then opened the door to fines, imprisonment, and eventually, annihilation.

What we believe (the ideology), we act upon, or act "out" in society.  This is how the world works.  If you believe that stealing is wrong, you will refrain from stealing, or when you steal, you will have internal conflict, which may lead you to return the stolen items and make restitution.

What one believes, one will live.
What a nation believes, a nation will live.

When you read, or even on your own, conduct analysis, you are gaining opinions, whether you are cognizant of it or not, into human nature, and the opinions are piling up on you, formulating an overall impression of mankind.

The "Protestant Work Ethic" was a title given to early America in which "rugged individualism" was seen.  Why was it called, specifically, the "Protestant Work Ethic"?

This was because the Protestant Reformation taught that any work a man does that to provide for himself and his family, that is lawful, is, itself,  "holy", or consecrated before God.  Roman Catholicism had "holy orders", or a call into ministerial life that was called "holy."

The reformation taught that sweeping a dusty floor, done properly, was pleasing to God, and was, therefore, "holy."

This belief seeped into Europe and when freedom of religion was limited, many came to America, and with them, came this work ethic.   The "Protestant Work Ethic" was a driving force behind America's early success and self reliance.  Without the artificial caste system of Europe, immigrants came to America with the idea that they could "be anyone I wanted to be" via opportunity due to hard work.  This is why the welfare system was considered something embarrassing or even shameful.  One did not need to be "Protestant" to have the "Protestant Work Ethic", as it was praised throughout America, including Roman Catholics,  and America was seen as "exceptional."  (Jewish mentality already embraced hard work as "holy").  This work ethic also said that if one refused to work, he was not to be fed.  Charities spread across the land to help people, but it was always with the end in mind:  gaining independence from others through "Yankee ingenuity" and hard work.

If one refused to work, he was not fed.  I bet you have an opinion about this very thing.  Whether you realize it or not, your opinion on this has a basis for it.  This is where we will be examining so that you can "know yourself" better, so that you can "know others" better, and discern truth and deception in analysis.

This belief system came from what people believed about human nature.

Let's consider the two basic opposing view points on whether or not children are born basically good, or basically bad, and trace where these view points came from, what actions and activities resulted from them, and how they impact analysis.

I.  The Basic ViewPoints of Humanity

II.  How These View Points Reveal Themselves in Society

III.  How These View Points Impact Analysis and Profiling

Since everyone of us has a personal, internal, subjective dictionary, it is best to begin with definitions.

"Man" is mankind, which includes "wo/man", or "she which came from man.  We will examine why this was used.  If "man" is gender specific, the context should indicate this.

"Sexism" must be defined, just as "racism" must be defined.

For the purpose of our study, "sexism" will be the unlawful or illicit discrimination based upon gender.

"Unlawful" may mean "against the law", legally, or may, via context, mean "wrong, inappropriate, illicit, immoral" in our study.

"Racism" is the hatred of a person or race of people, personally.  It is irrational, based upon skin pigmentation.

We do we need these definitions?

Because the modern, fluid definition is continually changing.  This is a form of deception and denies truth.  If someone is a male, it is because they possess male sexual genitalia.  If someone is black, it s because of racial identity.  If subjectivity is permitted, we cannot conclude, for example, that one is a female, unless we first ask, and then hope he or she does not change his or her mind.

Therefore, if analysis shows that the author of an anonymous note is a "female", this is, literally, a "sexist" remark, that is, a discernment or discrimination based upon gender.  If the analysis says, "the author is a white male", this is "racism" in the modern sense of the word.

For us, a female is defined as one born with female genitalia.  A male is one born with male genitalia.  An overweight person is one who is, medically, carrying more weight than it healthy for his or her frame.

Should one look in the mirror, as being very underweight, and "see" dangerously overweight, we will side with science in our definitions.

We will view both "sexism" and "racism" as "bad", or illicit, immoral, or wrong.  In short, for people of faith, racism, for example, is a "sin" or "transgression" of the law they follow.

I recently read that feeding children peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in school is "racist."  This came from someone who actually educates children.  The educator explained her position.  The child comes from Africa and is more "comfortable" with goat sandwich but is "forced" to have the "white people's lunch."  The child is being "discriminated against" by "white oppressive teachers" (she is white, or at least, she identifies as white), who operate in a white, oppressive system.  This is not Malcolm X or Nation of Islam, or even Al Sharpton.

This is a woman to whom your children are entrusted.

I wondered what would happen to this educator if she had moved to Kenya with her children, and demanded the Kenyan school system stop serving the "racist" goat sandwich and give her children, who are "human, too", peanut butter and jelly.  I do not think she would get very far, or even her story in the news papers. 

If you wish to learn about analysis, specifically profiling and anonymous letter work (including non-threatening statements), you will have to either put aside 'political correctness', or you cannot do this work.

It is this simple.

If you hate rap music's lyrics denigrating women, this will mean that you have a distaste for certain words used to describe actual females, in popular culture.  It will not make you a racist.

If you believe that strength means yielding to those who are weaker, you will not be a "sexist."

A black store owner in Baltimore has reopened.

The family suffered loss during the riot and for years, has had a white worker that is like family to them, employed at the front desk.

Protesters told the owners that this is why their store was targeted, and should they continue to employ the white person, they will be, in the very least, boycotted and they will be put out of business.

If they fire the white person, they are now breaking the law, and can lose their business through law suit.

If they do not hire her, they are going to be boycotted, threatened, and will, much sooner than later, file for bankruptcy.

What should they do?

How you view this situation comes from how you view human nature.

You may not see it this way, but you will, over time.

How you analyze an anonymous author stems from what you think of human nature.  If you believe that there are certain phrases more suited to men than women, you will have an opinion on who wrote it.  If you are not permitted, whether it be through law, or through social coercion, to have an opinion on whether the words sound more like a male than a female, you can go no further, but must remain silent.

When the black family in Lindenhurst received the anonymous threatening letter telling them to move out of Lindenhurst, the analysis of the letter showed that it was written from, not a white racist threatening harm should they not move, but from a black female who was intimately familiar with the family, and had an empathy with the troublesome duties associated with moving, itself.

The analysis showed that the person who received the letter wrote the letter, herself.  Go Fund Me plans could not be realized once the deception was uncovered.

Yet, what if it had been true?

What if a black family was living in terror, short on money, forced to move not simply out of the town, but out of their own home?

Many years ago when I was a boy, my aunt told me how she and her family suffered terror in discrimination while living in Brooklyn, with threats and some acts (she did not share details with her young nephew, but I saw the fear in her face) of terror that forced her to move from her home in Brooklyn, due to her race.

She had fought back, resisting the "white flight" that was taking place,  especially since she was a teacher who loved her students, both black and white. and had a solid rapport with their parents.  It was not just her "beloved Brooklyn", with all of its history, but, she said, they had overcome the "Irish need not apply" prejudices, had worked hard, and had gained acceptance into a community that she did not want to give up.  

Not only was she losing her community, her roots and her home, but her husband now had to have a lengthy commute from eastern Long Island into New York City.  She could (and did) get a job teaching in Suffolk County, but my uncle would now have to commute.

They had many years of fond memories of Brooklyn and told warm stories of the Brooklyn Dodgers and what life they loved was like there, yet, were forced, by racism, to leave their home.

                                                 Do you have an opinion of this?

I think that you do, and what I am looking for is the reasoning behind your opinion, not for me to know, but for you to know, so that you may:

Know not only what you think, but why you think it, so that you may:

Learn why an anonymous author chooses the words he or she chooses.  

Racism is the illogical hatred of a person or persons, due to race.

Sexism is the illogical hatred of a person or persons, due to gender.

Discrimination is to make a decision.  Discrimination can be righteous and moral, or it can be illicit and illegal as well as immoral.  There is good discrimination (keeping your hand from touching fire) and their can be bad discrimination (hating all white people because of country music), as we define "discrimination" similar to "discernment" (it is, in a sense, discernment in action).

A few more:

"Homophobia" is the irrational fear of homosexuality.

This means that a person has a fear of homosexuals that has no basis in reality, no different than a dangerously thin person looking in the mirror and insisting that she must stop eating food due to obesity.

If someone believes that homosexuality is immoral, it does not mean that they have an irrational fear. If someone believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, it does not mean that they have irrational fear of homosexuals.

"Christophobia" is the irrational fear of Christians or Christianity.  If someone believes that Christianity is wrong, or that Christian belief is not something they agree with, it does not mean that they have an irrational fear of Christ.  If someone touches the water font at a Roman Catholic Church and yells, "it burns, it burns!", they may have an irrational fear of religion.

"Islamophobia" is the irrational fear of Islam.  I very much fear anyone who believes that I should be put to death if I do not convert. I am even more afraid of the belief that women hold a status that should a land be conquered the women may be raped as reward.  My fear goes even deeper when this is coupled with the teaching that Mohammad was the "perfect" man, knowing that he was a pedophile.

When the UK police failed to warn the public and the school of the Islamic pedophiles and rapists targeting the local children, my fear turned to anger.  Why were the police silent?

They were afraid of being called "Islamophobes" and "racists" (though no one race was implicated), and this fear caused their silence, which led to 9-15 year old females being raped, with lives ruined forever.

This is the de fact imposition of Sharia Law through political correctness.

The "phobia" is the defense to keep contrary views silent.

Do you see how ideas have consequences?

1.  The UK believed that "diversity" was best for society, regardless of whether the diverse cultures were positive or negative, only that they were 'diverse' meant "good."
2.  The culture that came in believes that the perfect example of man came from a pedophile who taught that "foreign" women (the host country) were legitimate targets, which included the females who were not yet "women" but "children."
3.  To warn the parents (and in this case, many of the girls targeted were in foster or group homes) would be "wrong" because of "Islamophobia", that is, the irrational fear of Islam.
4. The silence led to a very large number of female lives destroyed.

Therefore, our definitions must be understood before we can go further.  We must understand that discrimination is neither good, nor bad, of itself, but it is the basis and criteria of the discrimination that makes it good or bad, positive or negative, good or evil.

"Sin" is "transgression" or "wrong doing."  What is a "sin" to people of faith, may not necessarily be illegal in many countries.  Even if "legal" the "sin" (or "transgression") remains wrong to the person's own belief system.

Profiling:  To profile means to discern the:


of the person.  "Profiling" has shifted in meaning and is often considered "bad" without further thought.  This is because of "racial profiling" becoming an "entirely" wrong thing to do.  Like most other areas in which politicians are involved, this, too, has reached the point of illogic.

Let us say that 95% of terrorists look like me:  kinda short, kinda chubby, kinda ruddy.  These short, chubby ruddy males are running into airports and blowing them up...

in Africa.

Therefore, when I am in Zambia, and enter an airport, I am immediately approached by security guards who ask me to "step over here" while they search me for explosives.

I can react in one of several ways.

1.  I can say that I have been a victim of racial profiling and in order to be fair, Airport Security must take each and every person that enters this airport, and make them "step over here" for the search, making airline wait time skyrocket to 5 hours.


2.  I can say, "I understand why you have pulled me aside.  Please check me, but let the others go on their way through the normal security checkpoints.  Better to delay me, just one person, than to punish them all.


3.  I can file a suit for a zillion dollars and tell people at Go Fund Me that Zambia is discriminating against short, chubby, ruddy males and in order to save the children, they should donate money and help me raise money for human growth hormone which promises to make me taller.

"Peter, where are those statistics about homosexuality and anonymous threatening letters to be found?"

Oh, yeah, sure.  Let me get the home address from my rolodex for ya.  That'll go well.

I think you likely have embraced my point.

When I worked with suicidal gay teens, I did not ask, "hey, I heard you may be heterosexual, so I'm thinking that you need to go find some other help here..."

When the Salvation Army feeds people, they do not ask, "So, do you like dudes or the ladies?" before they feed the hungry stomach.

When a black family is under threat, do you want to say, "Uh, I'd like to help you but you know, people might think it racists, so you're on your own..."?

In essence, this is what UK police did.

In essence, this is what the professional victims do, as well, as each Fake Hate has consequences beyond what is known with the stolen money.

Last example:

When reports came from Europe that Jews were literally being round up and gassed to death, many in America, including news paper editors, did not believe it.

They did not believe, true enough, because it sounded so incredible, but there was another reason why it was not believed across the country;

It had been said before.

"The Hun is killing, raping, plundering..." propaganda from "The Great War" (what we call, World War I) mixed truth with deception, and had left many in America (and in England) in disbelief to the reports of genocide of Jews.

When Churchill cabled Stalin that Germany was planning an invasion of the Soviet Union, Stalin dismissed it as the British propaganda machinery at work again.

When Roosevelt orchestrated "Mission to Moscow" by Hollywood, it was not only propaganda to get America to accept Stalin as an ally, (who killed more than Hitler), but it showed the weakness of:

The need to propagandize the public.

The movie opens, literally, with the author of "Mission to Moscow", who was the United States ambassador to the Soviet Union.  In his statement to the movie going public in America, he is deceptive.

Can you:

1.  Name the man?
2.  Identify the deception in the statement?

Statement Analysis gets to the truth and getting there cannot be hindered by political correctness and fatalism which arises from the declaration that "no truth exists."

We cannot do this work while bowing to the god of political correctness.  The truth is the truth, no matter how it might make us feel.  (Ok, everyone here, "jazz hands"; none of that masculine clapping as it feels unsafe)

This sounds goofy because it is goofy, just as goofy as an educator declaring my favorite boyhood beach sandwich "racist."

Racism is illogic in action. It is also very personal.

The movie:  "Gentlemen's Agreement"

"You're an anti Semite!  He's an anti-Semite!  You all are anti-Semites! Hell, even I am an anti-Semite!"

By the time Gregory Peck was done, the tedium was enough to make anyone anti-anything.

Having defined "racism" and "sexism" as above, along with reclaiming earlier, pre-insanity definitions of other words,  we may proceed to get to the point of learning not only where a belief system has come from, but why people act (and speak) as they do, and how we, now knowing these things, can become sharper at analysis and profiling.

Even that which you whole-heartedly disagree with will help you in this work as you can learn, without embracing ideologies from which words and actions flow.

This will only increase your sharpness but it is in the learning of human nature that the greatest success in analysis may come from.

The more you learn about "what makes us tick", the better your success rate in discerning deception will be.

The higher your success rate in detecting deception, the better you will be at profiling.

The better you are at profiling, the better prepared you will be for Anonymous Authorship Identification.

Next up:  The first perspective of human nature for the purpose of Statement Analysis.


stop_playing_dumb said...

Can someone analyse this hate letter. It was sent to a mother of a boy with autism. Some have accused her of writing it herself to get funds for him.

Anonymous said...

A quick scan tells me it ain't "fake" but a genuine disgusting letter from outside their family!

stop_playing_dumb said...

Thanks, that's what I believe too.

Buckley said...

Wow- it's over the top.

I find the opening "greeting" odd. "To the lady who lives at this address." The address is not on the letter. If it's on an envelope, the letter was folded awkwardly for that. "This" is close. Not that I'd expect "that" but I would have worded it differently.

If I were in my home typing a letter to someone in a different home, I would not start out "To the lady who lives at this address".

I read the father lives with them as well. Why only addressed to the lady? Why polite "lady" instead of "mother"?

Why so many punctuation marks??????????? Seems overdone as does the "euthanize" suggestion.

I think either mom wrote it OR it's a woman in "close proximity" that can easily be identified because she is unable to hide her undigified outrage which seems to have been building for a while. She's really put some thought into how much this kid annoys her.

Buckley said...

Wait- found this:

"Karla Begley told CityNews that her son Max, 13, stays with his grandmother in the morning during the summer. It was at that home in Newcastle, Canada where the letter seen below was delivered on Friday"

I assumed it was delivered to the mom's house. I don't think it was mom- but possibly the grandmother "who lives at this address."

Anonymous said...


Unknown said...

Great article Peter!


OT- letter regarding boy with autism

I find it hard to believe that letter came from a neighbor. It is WAY overboard for someone who's primary complaint is a noise disturbance! The writer goes into deeply personal territory, speculating on the boy's future place in society, his 'usefulness', and what will happen in the future when the mother is gone, as well as claiming that 'WE' would be better off if he were euthanized.

A stranger complaining about noise would have no reason to muse over the boy's future, and his fate once his primary caregiver is gone. It seems to me that whoever wrote it is intimately involved in the boy's life, and possibly wrestling with these negative thoughts about the future.

(The mother is suffering from progressive MS, is she depressed, and struggling with thoughts about her mortality, and her reduced ability to care for her son?)

This quote from the boy's father is telling:

"A person that's that crazy or demented who would fabricate something like leads me to believe that they're very dangerous,' Jim Begley said, 'and right now I'm scared for my son's safety."

- He chose the word 'fabricate' to describe the creation of the note!

- Why would he fear for his son's safety from an anonymous letter writing stranger, who appears to not even know the family's name(s)? How would this person gain access to his 13 yo, non verbal, autistic son? (Particularly after receiving a letter like this, they would not likely be leaving their son alone, with a neighbor, or with anyone they don't know.) It also would seem easy enough to remove him from the supposed danger. If this was the Grandmother's home that was targeted, then don't send him there again...threat eliminated.

On the other hand, if he thought there was a possibility that the boy's mother, (or Grandmother?) 'fabricated' the letter, he should be highly concerned for the boy's safety.

Anonymous said...

At the risk of creating hateful posts from some of the posters here, I'd like to present another side to the story of living near a child with severe autism.

A close member of my family had a friend & wife who had a son born with severe autism. We saw this family occasionally but could never visit with them for any length of time due to the son who was extremely loud and destructive. This child was so out of control that the mother had to sleep in the same room with him at all times while the father slept in the loft trying to get a little sleep as he had to work. The child slept in random spurts, as did the exhausted mother.

As the child grew older he grew worse. He was so bad that even the Autistic Non-Profit Foundation had a difficult time finding occasional sitters who would watch the child even when requested weeks in advance, just so the mother could go to her doctors appointments or out to do the family shopping. Given to headaches when experiencing loud noises for any length of time, NO WAY could I commit myself to attempt to watch this child who was so out of control that he was thought to be evil by their neighbors. And actually, he was. You'd have to see it to know.

The mother worked with him nearly every waking moment, so devoted to caring for him that she had to shower with him to keep him from burning himself; even at times having to tie him down nearby while she prepared meals, or did laundry, and while she attempted to home school him; realizing how smart he was but unmanageable, in time he became a mathematical genius and a prolific quick reader when she could calm him long enough. She had to tie the books she read to him on top shelves and tie the shelves to the ceiling and wall as he destroyed everything in his path, including breaking doors, windows, china and furniture.

She worried that one day he would be alone with no one to care for him, so she and hubby decided to have another child who could eventually take over for them. Big mistake, this little boy was born with severe autism also; God help her, even worse. The last time I saw this family I had invited them to a small Christmas dinner in our home, with gifts. I set them up on the screened-in porch (us too) so that my house would not be totally destroyed; even then it was utter hell and bedlam both inside, outside and on the street & sidewalk with uncontrollable fits and rages; stunned neighbors were coming out in total silence to watch.

The house next door to us had gone on the market and it so happened they were looking for a home at that very time. It would have been perfect and affordable for them and I knew it, but NO WAY would I be able to live next door to this insanity. I'm sorry to have to say it, and I've always felt bad about it, but I snuck around in the dark behind that house and took down the for sale sign so they would not see it as I would have never been able to live near them; I would have had to sell my own house and move. Later, learning what happened to them shortly thereafter has always troubled me; just let me say, their lives as a family did not end well.

The point is to tell you all that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for neighbors living around a child (or children) with severe autism. I know.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Raising a severely autistic child is a life long challenge and one I can only admire those who keep the child living at home with the family. I don't quickly or lightly judge those who have had to institutionalize their son or daughter. For each one that I have either met, or directly worked with who 'dumped' their child rather than care for him or her, I have met 10 who gave it everything they had, and could not, physically, care for their child. By "child", I mostly refer to the adult with severe autism.

Often, an aged grandparent tries, loathing the idea that one of their own is not at home. This has resulted in serious injury, threats to neighbors, and an ongoing threat to the adult with autism who may elope, or run into the street.

Yes, there are those who game the system, get an uneasy diagnosis, and cash in. Then, once the 'patient' or 'client' is granted funding, vicious family fights like crazy to house the one, because the tax free money can be very high.

Like most things in life, it is a very complex situation; one in which government intervention causes more waste and corruption than it helps.


Anonymous said...

Peter, it was a pathetic ending what happened to the family I speak of in my post above; which, doubtless to say, most likely would have happened anyway even if they had purchased the home next door to us.

The husband had a reasonably good job working his way up with Voice Stream. He got involved with an internet babe and ran off with her, abandoning the wife and two autistic boys. Now she was totally on her own and broke with those two severely uncontrollable autistic boys; who, YES, would become violent and destructive.

She was receiving $1010 monthly SSI for the one son, which I presume doubled after the second autistic son was born; this was her total income and not enough for them to live on. The hubby ran off to Switzerland to live where he would be able to abscond from paying child support, and did. She even got stuck having to pay his back takes to IRS. After the abandonment, in desperation she went seeking help from her hubby's family in New York who could have helped her financially but wouldn't, (and who turned their back on her), I presume having already been drained by their son on more than one occasion; causing her and the boys to wind up in a homeless shelter on the cold streets of New York City.

I sought help for her and the boys thru several branches of the National Autistic Foundation and found none, other than a one way paid trip via Greyhound for them back to Atlanta where they had once lived. She had enough $ saved to rent an apt for them, but from there was bounced from apt to apt as no one could tolerate living near her autistic children. Alone and desperate, eventually she was able to place the boys in a special day care for regular school hours, having to take them by city bus five days a week (a hell trip every day for her and other riders) while she worked in a school cafeteria trying to supplement their income.

The last I heard a few years ago she had found her way back to New York (with the boys) where she had a gay friend who said he would help her relocate, whom I happen to know was a very untrustworthy individual since he had taken money from her previously; meanwhile, never having gotten one dime from their father for child support. I do not know what she is doing now; I just know that no boyfriend or new husband would ever date her, want her or be able to tolerate her children.

The boys would be adults now, twenty-one and fifteen years old respectively; I just pray she has placed them in an adult facility where they can be cared for and watched 24/7 so that she can go on and make some kind of meager normal life for herself, if this would even be possible.