Sunday, November 20, 2016

Anna Maranta Anti-Semitic: An Arrest

Police have announced an arrest in anti-semitic activities in the area where Anna Maranta claimed to have been a victim of "hate" by "Trump" and "Trump supporters."

Question:  Does that mean Maranta was truthful?

Statement Analysis concludes that Maranta is deceptive.  

The man arrested targeted known Jewish locales and may have had weapons, suggesting violence.  

Maranta did not operate a synagogue or public place of Jewish worship.   She "woke up" at 3am to find her door had been painted. This was at her home, not a known Jewish locale.  

Go back to her statement and note her need to explain how it is that, according to her language, "Donald Trump" and his followers found her address. 

This is both unnecessary and sensitive to her.  This is to allow that her non-descript Jewish home would be known to the anti-semitic Trump supporter.  This is to explain why he found her home.  She was not asked, "So, how did he find your home?" but anticipated the question before it was asked

1.  Statement Analysis:  Maranta's words show deception.  She knows the painter and has a favorable disposition towards him/her.  (this includes the element of 'self' as the painter).  She then concealed the identity of the one who washed away the evidence.  

2.  Behavioral Analysis:  Maranta's behavior shows guilt:  

a.  waking up at 3am noted.  Here she was asked how it came to be that she woke up at 3am and why she went to the door.  She avoided the question.  

b.  Police involvement:  not calling police, but going right to hate crime website instead indicated planning and the need to avoid a connection to the ongoing investigation into crimes against the Jewish community.  

c.  Not allowing the evidence to be collected:  she had it washed away before police could seek evidence.  This shows a need to avoid allowing the evidence that would connect the male to her home, matching with what police would know about the suspect's MO; the paint or tools he used, etc.  

d.  Please also note her reason for destroying the evidence:    She did not want to "explain hate" to a 2 year old. 

This was given, not because it was asked, but as a need to explain why in anticipation of the challenge.  

3.  Her language  showed distance from the Jewish community which appears to be in the form of a lack of acceptance of her  as a 'rabbi' and her 'spiritualist' work.  This was personal in her language:  it went on for "more than five years", revealing exasperation and frustration at this lack of acceptance.  

4.  Her language showed that her motive was not political, though this was used as opportunity for advertising.  Known in the Jewish community were these attacks.  She would have been well aware of what was going on, which also speaks to the element of washing away the evidence and the weak need to explain why.

 That actual Jewish locales were hit, and this took place only in her home,  affirms the analysis motive of opportunity for acceptance via publicity and connection to the accepted Jewish community.  

Anna Maranta is involved in a "fake hate crime."  

The arrest, reported by main stream media, uses her photo at the top.  Police spokesman did not give specific details about the locations the arrested man targeted. 

Maranta deceitfully shows herself as an opportunist.  

Her interview and statement are useful for training.  


Nic said...

It is interesting looking at her specific case from the vantage point you present. The very first case was not publicized, so unknown to the city as a whole. But being part of the Jewish community, she would have heard about it. Enter AM's front porch.

Thank you, Peter. This has been a really interesting case study.

Nic said...

Something else to note, when I went on-line to research her story after hearing her interviewed, her FB post is what I found most unexpected, i.e., titled, "press release" in all caps, and all her contact information (an invitation) for the media, etc., to contact her. That in of itself really speaks to intent, that and hearing her say, "the opportunity to discuss this", like it was a passive subject to lecture the public about when she was on with Evan Soloman. IMO, she needs therapy.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Here is another learning point :

I did not know why she felt the need to emphasize her publication of her address.

It was very important to her.

It was an unanswered question from the analysis.

With this external information we now have the question answered.

Anonymous said...

So I was right about copy cat thing?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Yes. Your comment was deleted due to post correction and re entry.

This is why she focused unnecessary linguistic energy on her publication of address without being asked.

She is an opportunist.

This is great for learning. We can see that analysis can raise questions of which we may later learn the answers.


Nic said...

Peter said:
It was very important to her.

It was an unanswered question from the analysis.

You also pointed out her need to market her qualifications and experience while being interviewed right out of the gate. Compound that with her informing the public at large, (while being interviewed/on-line video) of her strength, i.e., fearless, her "safe" location and where they can find her advertised, it's really shocking how she took a horrible crime that the community chose to keep quiet so as to not give the vandaliser a public platform or entice "copy cat" behaviour, and literally doing just that in order to pedal it as free advertising for her Minyan.


Qwerty said...

Peter, when I look at the pictures of the other graffiti in that neighborhood , I must say the swastika's and the paint color look very similar to the one on Anna Maranta's door. It very much looks like it's done by the same person. I think it's pretty difficult for an elderly woman to first buy the exact right color of paint, to know how to spray paint (not an activity a lot of elderly women are familiar with) and manage to spray such a "spot-on" swastika that looks exactly like the other ones. Although the analysis of her statement was quite convincing, I am curious how this will play out.

elf said...

Qwerty, anyone can go to Wal-Mart and buy spray paint in a variety of colors and shades. In pictures a candy Apple red looks very much like a fire engine red, which are both bright red or a dark blue and navy blue. Once you see the two similar colors side by side in person you can see the slight difference of what is essentially the same color. The police could have taken samples off of her door and compared it to other recent samples had she not washed it off (or had it washed off).

Statement Analysis Blog said...


keep in mind:

the subject (Maranta) has a linguistic disposition towards the painter that is positive.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

There are times when I have had to 'dig my heels in' and stay with the analysis.

In a recent one, two experienced investigators with a thorough investigation and knowledge of all the faces AND a passed polygraph versus

analysis of a 4 minute statement.

I 'dug in my heels' because that it what the subject told me.

He was arrested and convicted.

I hope to address this topic, perhaps this week, in an article on when to dig in one's heels. (Casey Anthony jury notwithstanding!)


Anonymous said...

Querty where are the links to the pictures? i will look at them too.

Invoice said...

Anonymous, I found them at CBC and some other places. I noticed that Anna's had the lower case "e" while the others had uppercase E, and also there is a difference between swastika' thickness. Im no handwriting expert but they are different.

Anonymous said...

how hard is it to copy cat a swastika? how many different ways seriously can someone paint it? she is lying

Mira said...

Thanksgiving and Christmas are the worst holidays ever--both cunbersome tacky productions. Nothing more annoying than totalitarian orders to "be festive!" Nothing so hideous and morbid as inflatable Frosty the Snowmans battered by the merciless winter winds, covered in dirt and grime. Nothing as disgusting as the bloated smug satisfaction of Thanksgiving...the bland combination of turkey potatoes vegetables dripping with cheese...but here, here's some cranberry does it taste it taste good? Here's a piece of pumpkin pie to top it time for the food coma before Black Friday...some sickening consumerism to drive forth the pointlessness of it all.

Happy Holidays!

Anonymous said...

Oh my word, I hate when I get tongue-tied. My thoughts are so jumbled it makes it worse. Even my dreams are jumbled.

Qwerty said...

Another thing is the height of the woman and the paintings on her door. If she did it herself she certainly must have stood on a stool or stepladder of some sorts. The painted slur on top of the door would have been too high for her.

Anonymous said...

Qwerty you is really stretching it here

Anonymous said...

What of this story written by Sherri Graeff (now Sherri Papini) on a website for white supremacists? How does it stand up to statement analysis and does it potentially reveal a motive for a hoax or a targeting?

Anonymous said...

CJ said...
To Qwerty at 12:02,

I agree with you. I see the same hand behind most of these messages. If you scroll through the links above, pay attention to lower case letters "e," "i" "g" "k" and "s."

To Invoice at 2:04: The message in all caps is the outlier. All of the other messages use lower case, or a mix of upper and lower. Is this a different vandal, or the same vandal writing with more emotion? It's hard to tell without more samples for comparison.
November 20, 2016 at 7:46 PM

haha what a shocker

Anonymous said...

police are testing the paints used to see if they are all links but unfortunately someone already removed the evidence before they could test it. why was that

Michele said...

Looking at the different types of graffiti written on the buildings, there's going to be a gang connection. #3, 4 and 5 all have markings of an Aryan gang - in the States it could be Aryan Brotherhood or White Knights or any of dozens of others.
Anna Maranta’s doesn't fit with those. Her's was simple in comparison - only the word, no other codes used. The other 3 have elements that connect them.
I've left the 1st one out because it doesn't list what the graffiti was. This minor they've arrested will probably have some connection to a gang.

Anonymous said...


A male co-worker of mine is married and his wife is 6 months pregnant with their first child. He has not been here all of last week. He is not at work today. He lives approximately 45 minutes away from our office. When I arrived at work today, there was a post-it note on my monitor. It reads, "Hey you. [Wife's name] had baby. Text me [phone #]. -[signed co-worker]"

I find it very odd. Thoughts?


Statement Analysis Blog said...


astute observation. I think also the washing away of the evidence was done intelligently; she knew that something this simple would be important.

I was going to put an explanation here about what to do when analysis is overwhelmingly deceptive, but did a short article citing two such cases instead.

Q, as to having to stand on a stool, I don't think I see a point. Is this suggesting she didn't do it because of the effort taken??


Qwerty said...

Peter, I was merely suggesting if Anna Maranta painted her door herself, it looks she must have used a stool or something because on the photograph she does not seem tall enough to paint the letters on top of her door. Also the guy cleaning the graffiti seems to have trouble reaching the top of the graffiti. It means it was either painted by a tall person or someone using something to become taller. It does seem a lot of effort indeed, which makes it a little more unlikely that she did it herself. The photos seem to indicate similarities between the different graffiti defacements and they are all pretty high placed on the doors. Also, when you look at the map of where all defacements took place (on the cbc-website), Maranta's place is located pretty much in the middle of all of them.

I am not saying she did or did not paint it herself, I don't know what the truth is. But all things considered, with the information available, it now seems most likely that the teenager arrested for the defacements was also the one responsible for the graffiti on Maranta's door (and will probably be a tall person).

Now, your analysis is also convincing, so that leaves the question how to reconcile this. Maybe I underestimate Maranta and she managed to copycat this graffiti herself. It may be the case that Maranta knows the person who did this or even put him up to this. Or maybe this defacement came at the right moment for Maranta to claim her 15 minutes of victimhood. Or maybe, just maybe, the analysis is somehow mistaken. But then again, the analysis is really convincing.

I have been reading your blog for years and I have learned a lot from it. This case is intriguing because statement analysis is tested here so I'll be very interested in further developments in this case.

Qwerty said...

I just realized that the pattern of the defacements, where Maranta's house is pretty much in the middle of, might also mean that the perpetrator most likely also lives in the neighborhood of these defacements, maybe also in the center of the pattern. Not at all unlikely then that Maranta knows the person who did this.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Qwerty: For Maranta to use a step stool, given that her house is not a known synagogue, would be no hinderance to her. Consider the time of 'discovery' for her.

Maranta, herself, would not allow for any forensic testing of the graffiti. This is consistent with the analysis .

Maranta's need to explain why she had it removed is "sensitive"; but the sensitivity is made known by her as she gave the reason:

So as not to explain to a 2 year old what happened in Nazi Germany, and how she links this to Donald Trump.

Lie after lie after lie.

Should police announce that there is no connection between her and the graffiti, I won't change the analysis. It is too overwhelming and leaves no other path to follow.

Having just experienced this 'face off' this week, it is a fresh reminder to follow the scientific process, test and re test it, and when it has been thoroughly dissected and put back together again...

to trust it.

I will bring this to live training and let a dozen experts review it. This will include HWA expert. I think they will conclude:

Maranta has a favorable disposition towards the painter.
Maranta is deceptively withholding information about what happened.

The favorable disposition status includes knowing the painter, or actually, being the painter, herself.

Publicity stunt.


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

Peter said (from first Maranta thread):

She knows the identity of the painter and it is someone very close to her with she, herself, likely the painter.

She is deceptive about what happened; she conceals the identity of the painter, while also concealing the identity of the one who destroyed the evidence. Whether her or someone else, it is likely by her own order that it was done.


Maranta said in an on-line interview

Um, and that the person is relatively tall. They came up onto a lit porch on a, you know quiet neighbourhood street. Um, somewhere between you know, Midnight and 2:30 in the morning. [...] Um, I belong to a number of minority groups and I am public about all of those. So there’s, I, I don’t understand why um painting such imagery on my front door is a way for somebody to act out against me.

Self-sensoring ("So there's, I, I don't understand...") So there's what? An opportunity she may have come in contact with him?

Listening to the follow-up reporting on this case, the way in which LE was able to catch the young offender was by the style of writing. This YO has been in trouble before, for the same thing. He targeted a family whose son he bullied. He targeted their house and vandalized their car with a swastika, male genitals and the words, "greetings b--tch". It was the father who contacted LE and put them onto him.

I think Maranta is acquainted with him. She described him, both physically and emotionally. Given what she says about herself, she is "known": she belongs to "a number" of minority groups, though she doesn't identify them and she classifies herself as a social activist and a social justice worker. If she found herself in his company and picked up on his rage, she could have easily planted a seed and made herself his target, ergo a victim in the news.

One last thing that piqued my interest, she seemed chafed at the fact that LE took their time arriving to her house. She said the Graffiti cleaners had removed the graffiti, but I doubt they would before LE had the opportunity to document the crime themselves.