Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Anna Maranta: Victim of Anti Semitic Crime?

Anna Maranta, who claims to be a Jewish Rabbi, claimed to be a victim of a "hate crime" at her home in Ottawa, Canada.  

Is she telling the truth?  

Evan Soloman (host)  interviewed Anna Maranta, a Jewish spiritual leader, about a swastika and anti-semitic slur spray painted on her front door.  She had posted about it on social media.  When we analyze a statement, including FB posts, tweets, emails, and formal transcripts from an interview, we begin believing the subject and in order to discern deception, she must "talk us out of believing her."  

Does she? 

Special thanks to Nic for transcription.  

In seeking to identify the author of the painting, we look carefully at Anna Maranta's verbal disposition towards the alleged perpetrator.  This is the standard we follow in analysis.  

This. This is what has been unleashed by the American President Elect, and those that support him. 
Anti-Semitic Graffiti found at Glebe home
Rabbi Anna Maranta woke early this morning to find anti-Semitic graffiti spray-painted on the front door of her Powell Avenue.
The incident happened sometime between 11 pm Monday, November 14 and 2:45 am November 15, 2016. If anyone has any information about this incident they are asked to contact Rabbi Maranta directly or contact the Hate Crimes Unit, Ottawa Police Service: 613-236-1222 ext 2466
Rabbi Anna Maranta
The Glebe Minyan
64 Powell Avenue, #1, Ottawa, K1S2A1
Tel. 6138675505
E. or

We also look at where one begins a statement.  She does not begin by telling the public that her life has been acutely intruded upon by a swastika but by a statement about the United States presidential election:

"This.  This is what 
has been unleashed by the American President Elect, and those that support him."

The American President Elect is Donald Trump.  She begins her public announcement blaming Donald Trump first, and his supporters secondly.  She does not blame the person who painted the swastika.  This is a crucial point.  She does not blame the one who actually painted the National Socialists Party symbol.  

In Anonymous Author Identification and threat analysis:  We look to learn how the victim feels about the perpetrator.  


ES:  The home of Maranta this morning, she woke up to find a horrific graffiti on her front door, spray painted a swastika and a very vulgar anti-semitic slur in large red paint on her front door.  Anna Maranta joins us now to tell us about it.  First of all I really appreciate you joining us on the program today.

AM:  Thank you for contacting me.  I appreciate an opportunity to discuss this.

Her specific thanks is made:  for contacting her.  

ES:  Tell us exactly what you found uh, when you opened your front door.

This question about "what" was found is designated to a specific time:  "when you opened your front door."  The answer should begin at that time.  

AM:  When I went to bed last night everything was usual.  But when I woke up uh, mid-way through the night at about 2:302:40 I noticed that there was something on my front door.  And when I opened it, I realized that there was not only a uh, swastika painted but also as you've said a vulgar word referring to jews, um, there.  

We now know something very important:  the timing of what happened to her was not when she opened her door.  The event, for the subject, begins much earlier. 

Remember:  this is her answer and we are believing her.  According to Anna Maranta's verbalized perception of reality:  This event did not start when she opened her front door and found a swastika painted.  It began the night before. 

 When I went to bed last night everything was usual.  

Here we have the element of "normal" in statement analysis which tells us that it was anythingbut normal.  Even first grade readers know that when a story begins with "it was a day like any other day", the child knows that something very unusual is about to happen, so he sits up and takes notice.  

This is called "Narrative Language."  It is story telling and is something police are often very good at recognizing.  Yet even in knowing she may be story telling we may discern content useful for both the analysis and investigation.  She has told us that her story starts off the night before and that something, in her account, was not "usual" or "normal."  

But when I woke up uh, mid-way through the night at about 2:302:40 

She next gives the element of time.  She reports not what woke her up, but "when."  

I noticed that there was something on my front door. 

Here we have her waking up at a certain time and "noticing" something on her front door.  

First, there is missing information.  She does not tell us what woke her up, and she does not tell us what led her to her front door. 

Then, we consider "notice" is often used when one is looking at or for something.  

 And when I opened it, I realized that there was not only a uh, swastika painted but also as you've said a vulgar word referring to jews, um, there. 

Here we have the language of narrative continuing, with a "realization" that came from the effort of taking notice, which is now reported in the negative:

"not only a, uh, swastika"

This is 'processed information' for the subject.  She is going to elevate something above the National Socialists (NAZI) swastika. 

This is not a 'shock' for the subject.  

If this is her home, it is where she sleeps.  This is always important because we cannot live without sleep, and when we sleep, we are most vulnerable.  This is something that is reflected in truthful accounts:  the element of invasiveness in the language of victims.  Here, rather than the intrusive element, we have a narrative with missing information.  These are two points that strongly point to deception.  

That she did not say why she woke up at 2:30 is not lost on the interviewer.  

ES:  You, you woke up at 2:30?  Uh, just out of interest, how, d-is that typical to wake up at 2:30 an, and check your front door?

To enter one's property with such animosity (even in pranks), the subject's language will reflect an increase in suspicion and concern:  potential danger.  

AM:  (laughs)  no it’s not typical to check my front door.  It is typical for me to be up once or twice during the night.  Um, but I-you kn- as I was returning to my room it was quite obvious to me that something was on my front door and that spurred me to go and take uh, a closer look.  

She wants her audience to believe it was not only "obvious" that something was on her front door, but it was "quite" obvious.  This shows a need to not only accept something she does not assert, but to persuade us to accept something she, herself, is not willing to assert. 

We believe what one tells us unless they talk us out of it.  

(crosstalk) ES: because it was across the window

AM:  my front door, my front door is a glass door.

/ES: yeah/

AM: um, so that it is really quite obvious from the inside.

ES:  So you saw that.  You knew, 

(AM: mm-hm)

 you immediately recognized the symbol.

AM:  Correct

ES:  What was your reaction?

AM:  I was actually in shock initially.  Um, just you know why, why? wh-why would somebody do this?  And then you know the thought of, “My front porch is always lit.  I live on a Glebe a-um, avenue that is quiet and has never had this kind of uh hate crime committed on th-this street."  Um, m-my front door faces the street so it’s highly visible.  Um, how and why anybody would do something like this um was, were my first thoughts.

To say she "actually" was in shock uses the unnecessary word "actually" which indicates she is comparing being in shock with something else.

Next, we note the immediate distancing from a most personal and intrusive event with her choice of pronouns. 

Then we consider the highly sensitive repetition by a non-stutterer on the word "why"; which she then moves to the judicial conclusion of the matter:

"hate crime committed."

This is not the words of one either "in shock" or one who felt "shock" or even surprise at what was on her door.  

ES:  You um, most jewish homes have what something is called the mezuzah on, as you’re facing the door on the right-hand side, which is a small kind of box that contains a scroll that signifies a jewish home.  Do you have one of those?

AM:  Yes I do.

ES:  So, so in other words, there’s a possibility that your home was immediately identified as the home of a jewish person because of that.

We now may be given insight into motive.  But before we do, we must consider the linguistic relationship between the subject and the perpetrator.  

What does she think of this Nazi hateful monster?  Note my words, "Nazi" and "hateful" and "monster" are not her words, but mine.  

The linguistic relationship between the subject (speaker) and the perpetrator is critical to assess.  

Those who commit "fake hate" crimes have a very difficult time condemning the author of the hate because they, themselves, are the author.  

Now, listen to her priority and her choice of words.  She is a victim of a frightening hate symbol, one that represents the murder of 6,000,000 Jews.  

Openly, Islamists hate Jews and Islamic nations call for the destruction of Israel.  

AM:  That is true.  I am also uh, a rabbi.  I lead a spiritual community and I have my information like my whereabouts, my, my uh  location, my phone number and everything uh, it’s published publicly on various social media sites or web sites and its frequently in various advertisements throughout the city.  So, um, although I’ve had this community and been active with this community for more than five years now, I’ve never experienced anything like this.

Note that nothing is said of the "hateful" perpetrator and the possible danger it exists.  With the Nazi history and fanatic religious hatred of Jews by Islamists, coupled with the highly personal and intrusive element of painting one's own front door, we expect to hear concern about her safety or her family's safety.  Instead, note the words of self promotion:

a.  I am a rabbi
b.  I lead a spiritual community (not a formal description)
c.  my information 
d.  my whereabouts 
e.  location
f.  phone number 
g.  everything
h.  published
i. publicly 
j.  various social media
k.  websites
l.  frequent advertisements 

Next note the word "with" used between her and the "community" indicates distancing; particularly noted with repetition of "community."   How long?  For "more" than five years.  

This is a strong indication of motive.  She may feel that her personal promotional efforts have not been enough as it has not been five years but "more" (emphasis on time) than five years. 

"I've never experienced anything like this.

"this", the invasive threatening message, is an "experience", which she has "never" had before. 

This comes after the lengthened time of promotion is given.  

ES:  Right.  Um, again, just so people appreciate, (AM:  mm-hm,) uh, you-y-you, and people will read that you're a rabbi and then some rabbis will say that  well, you’re not an ordained rabbi.  Can you just tell people you’re the leader of a spiritual community.  Rabbi technically means teacher, uh, b-but you’re a leader of yo-is it a, is it a private uh, jewish community?  Or is there a synagog involved or a temple?  

The "community" sensitivity is noted by the Interviewer who then directly asks about a synagogue or temple affiliation.  This comes after the lengthy statement of self promotion.  

AM:  Um, I am the leader of a small jewish renewal community.  Um, a minion is this, kind of the smallest number of people who can come together for jewish prayer.  And I have private ordination and I’ve also completed the bulk of my, uh, rabbinical education through Aleph Alliance for Jewish Renewal.  And I am also in a interface ministry program.  Um, I am well known  (crosstalk) known in the community as a spiritual leader.

The subject shows a desperate need for acceptance as a rabbi.  Please consider the context:  a hateful threat is upon her front door.  

ES:  So, so you’re well known.  Th-that’s the thing, so you’re well known in the community.

Agreed:  being "well known" is "the thing" which the subject emphasized as motive becomes apparent.  

AM:  Yeah, that’s right.

ES:  Uh, when you saw this, (AM:  Mm, hm) an-and about as horrific a graffiti you could see, and I’m speaking to Anna Maranta whose home was uh, vandalized and with racist graffiti, um, did you call the police right away?  It’s 2:30 in the morning.  It must have been a bit scary.  When did you call the police?

AM:  I contacted the Hate Crimes Unit uh, fairly quickly thereafter.  I took a photo and then contacted them um, through their web page and followed up this morning.

She did not say "I called the police" but went directly to a specific unit instead.  The unnecessary "fairly quickly" element tells us that there was a pause in time.  

She did not immediately call police, instead showing the possibility of pre planned steps.  Note "then" goes back in time *out of sequence.  This is another indication of preplanning.  

ES:  Okay so you sent them a web page right away within like, that, early -

If you saw a threatening message on your front door, would you call police immediately?  This delay appears to be caught by the interviewer who now presses further:  

AM:  Uh, within 10-15 minutes, it wouldn’t have been more than that.

The need to persuade rather than work from experiential memory is in play here, further affirming the planning of the "experience."  

ES:  Oh, okay, an-and did the, and s-so the Hate Crimes Unit knew that, and then in, when did they come and see it?

Yes or no question:  

AM:  Um, I received a telephone call early this morning, like, and uh, they were -there was a representative here maybe about 11 o’clock this morning.

ES:  And wh-tell me their reaction when they saw that.  I-I’m intrigued by the investigative um, were there any other signs, any markings, any other spray paint..

Intrigue:  the interviewer's use of language tells us of the IR's own suspicion.  

AM:  No, there was nothing, there was nothing else.  Um, by the time they had arrived it had been removed.  Uh, Good-bye Graffiti came first thing this morning and removed the um, (talk-over ES: oh really, even)  graffiti from my door.

Note the use of passivity:  "it had been removed" is to conceal the person who "removed" the "graffiti" before police could investigate.  

ES:  So Good-bye Graffiti removed it even before the police were there.

AM:  Yes, that's correct.  They apparently um, do do that especially in situations where the um, graffiti is uh, um, hates uh, (talk-over ES:  right,) crime oriented  um, so they that’s part of their action they usually take photos and, and so that uh, they can report it to the police.

ES:  And, Anna did y-were there any other signs, no other violations at all?

AM:  Absolutely nothing at all. Um,

ES:  Just the spray paint.

AM:  just the spray paint which you know leads me to believe it’s not personal because typically when somebody um, you know has uh a pers-attacks somebody personally there’s usually messages to that person, you know, “you are” or “I hate you” or something like that.  This was just you know, th-the epithet and the swastika uh which leads me to believe that it’s more of a global you know, kind of condemnation of jewish people as a whole.

The "victim" is not capable of condemning the "perpetrator" instead, although she has "never experienced" this before, knows how it works.  It is not personal.  

We should believe her.  It was not personal.  She does not self loath.  She avoided telling us what the "epithet" actually was.  She may feel some element of shame for painting it.  

[… ES:  What has been the community reaction to this?

This presses to her motive:  

AM:  People are appalled that this happened that it app-that it happened in this neighbourhood, and I've received many, many phone calls of condolence of supports, um many best-many wishes for strength and, um, I’ve been-received also visits from people in the community as well as media people um, contacting me throughout the day.

"People are appalled" using a word stronger than any word she, herself, has used.  She was not "appalled" at the perpetrator, but "people" were.  This is another in a series of indications that she does not want to condemn the painter. 

That she does not want to say who removed the evidence further points to her as the painter.  

ES:  An-and has that for you been,  how has that all made you feel after yo-after this-after you’ve discovered this?

AM:  Aside from overwhelmed for the amount of contact that I’ve received um, really well supported.  I think the message has been um, clearly communicated that such crimes of hate will not be tolerated and will be responded to um, by s-people speaking out against um,

Here she tells us that this preplanning was to get out not "a message" but "the message", a most specific thought out message:  to condemn Donald Trump.  

ES:  Anna Maranta, on your Facebook post, you blamed this on the - on Donald Trump’s election as if this is unleashed forces, and you know, I have to be honest I-I-I find the crime so disgusting and the violation of your property and the messaging so horrific, an-and I’m certainly not excusing Donald Trump for, for anything he’s ever said, but you wrote, this is what has been unleashed by the American president-elect and those who support him.  I’m always hesitant to draw a link.  This could be a n-we don’t know about who-who did this and why do you suggest there might be a link between what happened on your front door in the Glebe an-and Donald Trump?

AM:  I think we’re seeing a, a shift in the way people speak uh, openly, um versus q-um act um quietly or covertly um, when they feel they feel um hatred towards other groups.  Donald Trump over the course of his campaign and certainly throughout his past has uh, expressed himself um, using words of hate and actions of hate towards large swaths of people identifiable minorities including half of the human population by speaking very negatively towards women.  Um, when somebody with the power and prestige of Donald Trump is given uh, a venue, a platform from which to speak, it gives, um, society permission to speak out in those ways. We’ve seen (talk over)

ES:  But, I-I-I and I appreciate the political element to this.  But is it I think shouldn’t we be a bit careful before we link what could be a very different crime to that?  I mean, I understand you may have passionate feelings about Donald Trump an-and again, he’s accountable for his own language.  But how do we link an incident in Ottawa that we don’t know that who’s behind it to that?  Wha-what do you make of that?

AM:  There has been a significant uh, increase  in these kinds of events across North American in the last few days and weeks leading up to his election and following his election.  And certainly if you follow uh, social media, um, you see that uh, people are receiving these kinds of messages and there has been a significant spike in them since he became president-elect.  I mean it’s very easy to um, make that link.  Um, I believe that it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who said that Canada and the US are like a mouse sleeping beside and elephant.  When the elephant sneezes, Canada reacts and we, we do feel much uh, of the impact of what happened within the United States.

Note the great deal of volume given to her political view versus the small detail she gave about "what happened" to her.  She is deceptive.  

The interviewer shows more signals of disbelief but is afraid (anxiety with the stuttering "I") to disagree.  This evidences the pressure of being "politically correct" while struggling against truth:  

ES:  I-I-I-I and that may be true, certainly we’re we’re linked very closely, um, but again, we don’t know, we but I-I guess my point is, Anna, an, and again my job here is not to defend one side at all (AM: mm-hm) but, you have no evidence to link what you’ve seen, this is your, this is what you believe is linked to it, but it’s not like you may, you think there is now a, you’ve been targeted by a group that happens to be Trump supporters.  That’s what you believe.  There’s no actual evidence about that, though, right?  I’m just trying to be clear because we don’t know if the police have told you something that say, ‘hey, w-we’re on the lookout for a spike in these crimes that have happened since November 8th.'

She now goes to the 'Nazi monster' follower of Donald Trump who did this horrible thing:  

AM:  There’s no direct link in that the person did not leave a message.  But given that the spikes of crimes have increased in the last days of the election in the United States, and since then I believe the link can-can be made.  And given that this was not a personal attack in that as I indicated, um, my name was not included, there was nothing specifically identifying me as the subject, but rather was a, um, symbol and a word used to describe the jewish population as a whole, um I believe this was uh, a generalized hate crime and that we have seen and we will continue to see uh, further crimes such as this in the future.

The perpetrator is a "person" of whom Anna Maranta protecting by removing the painted message before police could investigate.  

ES:  Has the jewish community come, uh rallied around you on this?

The interview shows intelligence.  Recall the "community" rather than a "temple" was noted.  This is further continued in the theme about the Jewish community not ordaining or accepting her:  

AM:  I’ve had a few contacts with the community, yes.

The interviewer sensed that the outpouring of support did not include the Jews.  

ES:  And, and how are you feeling now?  I mean tonight you’re facing, it’s 2:50 right now. 

AM:  Correct.

ES:  Um, are you going to stay at your home tonight?

This question, again, shows the intelligence of the IR:  when people experience this type of threatening "intrusion" into their home, particularly at night (sleep:  vulnerability, need for safety), many victims do not want to be there again.  

But if she knows the identity of the "person", she would have no reason to fear:  

AM:  Absolutely.

ES.  You are.

AM:  When in, it’s very, very important to show people who commit such crimes that life goes on as usual.  That love trumps hates, and that causing s-uh responding to fear with love is the only way forward.

ES:  Anna, I really appreciate you talking to us.  A very disturbing, very offensive, no place for this in our city, in any city at all, and unfortunately, Anna Maranta’s uh, house or front door defaced in the most offensive, most troubling way, uh, and Anna I know you’ve had an exhausting night.  We very much appreciate you speak to us and telling us your story and what happened and again we are going to follow-up to find out who the hell did this thing and Anna, it’s just so repulsive and I appreciate very much you having the courage to talk to us about it.  Thanks.

AM:  Thank you.

Analysis Conclusion:

Anna Maranta is deceptive. 

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.  

She is deceptive about her reaction, and the timing of her call to police.  The artificial placement of emotions show the editing process in narrative building. 

Her words reveal a lack of acceptance and possibly even belief by the Jewish community. 

Her motive is revealed:   Her lengthy time of self promotion has not caused her to be accepted in the Jewish community so she has ceased upon "political correctness" to further use this deception to gain publicity for herself.  Her motive is self promotion, not a political motive.  Donald Trump is not a priority for her, within the language.  

Her soft language about the author of the swastika strongly suggests that she, herself, is the author, as her passivity regarding the removal of evidence also suggests that she, herself, washed the paint off.  I believe police will likely find that it was water soluble paint used; easy to remove.  Anonymous Author Identification focuses heavily upon how the subject feels and relates to the perpetrator.  For this subject, she is incapable of condemning the perpetrator, calling her a "person" and repeating the message that this is not "personal."  This points to her being the author of the painting and points to why she destroyed the evidence. 

Anna Maranta has committed a "fake hate" report and may be investigated by police.

We do "threat assessment" by getting to know the one making the threat   Anna's soft language towards the "nazi" who made this threat reveals that there is no threat to her danger and she knows this.    

Investigators, journalists, Human Resources, Security, Business, Attorneys, Therapists and others professionals:  

If you wish to learn how to discern deception, please click here for training opportunities for you, your department or your company.  

This is basic analysis that can be learned through training, either in seminar or, better still, from a course where the MP3 lectures may be used repeatedly, committed to memory and applied immediately to your work. 

At Hyatt Analysis Services, each enrollment comes with 12 months of e support.  This means that you will never submit an errant report.  

Your work is checked and re checked, as well as supplemental material, pop quizzes and eligibility into live, monthly confidential training for those enrolled in formal study.  

Gain the insight needed, while you build your resume, gain traction for your career, and persevere in the cause of justice and truth.  


Anonymous said...


Please have a look and critique. It's clearly amateur but I think I'm on the right track. PLEASE let me know if I'm all wrong so I can take it down if necessary.

Behold, my analysis of the swastika graffiti in Wellsville, New York:

Anonymous said...

That was a very informative analysis. All this fake hate is a strange thing to witness. I have learned much from this Blog and I appreciate Peter for sharing his knowledge.

Is anybody here aware of PizzaGate? There is a lot of information developing on /r/pizzagate (Reddit). One of the accused has made a statement and it appears deceptive.

Unknown said...

I'm getting sick of these fate hate people. The sad thing is that the more that these fake hate crimes are exposed, the less likely people are going to believe REAL victims. I know I am very skeptical whenever I hear these types of stories now. The narcissism and attention seeking of the liberal left is breathtaking in its audacity.

Bobcat said...

I believe the small group the "rabbi" refers to is a 'minyan'.

Michele said...

Looking at the website for "goodbye graffiti", I didn't see anything about free hate graffiti removal. Maybe that's something specific to Canada. I find it odd that she would allow it to be removed so soon. That is unexpected. Also there was no anger at the personal intrusion into her life. No fear that there could be more and worse.
Thank you, Peter. Well taught.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic BBM

A man has been arrested over the murder of a two-year-old boy whose body parts were found in a Chicago lake more than a year ago.

Kamel Harris, who was caring for toddler Kyrian Knox and reported him missing from Rockford in September 2015, was charged with his murder on Monday night.

Police say the boy's blood was found in the carpeting of the 41-year-old's vehicle.

Chicago Police Commander Kevin Duffin said investigators believe Harris 'snapped' and killed the child.

They say the child, who was lactose-intolerant, had ingested milk and had been crying most of the day before he was killed.

Kyrian's remains were found in the Garfield Park lagoon on Chicago's West Side last year.

The FBI positively matched the boy's DNA with that of a dismembered body found in the lagoon two weeks before he was reported missing.

The toddler's mother told police last year the child was staying with Harris and his girlfriend while she moved from Rockford to Iowa.

In November 2015, police said Harris and his girlfriend had been uncooperative with the investigation.

Harris was being held on an unrelated charge at the Winnebago County Jail in northern Illinois when he was arrested on Monday night in the boy's death.

Authorities didn't say what he's charged with in the other case.

Duffin said Kyrian is believed to have been killed in Rockford, but that Harris is charged in Cook County because the child's body was found in Chicago and police in that city did extensive work on the case.

Anonymous said...

This is something I first read here.

This is bad. The freakin guards???

Hey Jude said...

That is a horrible thing to do. I noticed there are curtains on the back of the door, which as it is clear glass, would in all likelihood have been drawn closed at night, otherwise why have curtains there. Where it can be proven, fake hate should be prosecuted in the same way as other hate crimes.

Jon said...

Anon 8.00pm. I read that as well. We all need to collectively try and "red-pill" as many people as possible, including the truly moderate Muslims who actually care about equal rights for everyone if we're going to survive.

Oh, and the new MSM narrative is that Breitbart is an extreme right-wing anti-semetic, misogynistic, homophobic and yes, islamophobic hate news site.

People hate the truth it seems.

Nic said...


"Minyan" yes, autocorrect took the wheel. I loathe it.

Nic said...

Thank you, Peter, for taking the time to analyze this interview. I was listening to it in the car on they way home last evening. When Maranta said, "Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate an opportunity to discuss this." I thought, "an opportunity to discuss this" was hinky. I read on-line today and came across the Ottawa Citizen report and therein was a video which I transcribed and shared with you, as well, which I will share for everyone:

This is what I woke up to at about 3 o’clock this morning. Rather disturbing. Um, I’ve never experienced anything like this directly before. Somebody obviously came in between about 11 o’clock when I was in bed last night and spray-painted my front door. Not really sure what to say. It’s just a really, deeply, hurtful, experience to wake up to this kind of message. Um, I’m covering it back up because I take care of a two-year old and I don’t actually want to explain the pictures on the door to her. (reporter) Uh, uh it’s uh, rather alarming to have this kind of experience happen to me directly and also to have it happen here in Ottawa. But as uh, I shared with others already this morning, I really think that the president-elect south of the border has kind of opened the pandora’s box to people feeling more comfortable expressing their hatred to others, um about others about anybody different than themselves, anything they don’t understand um, and this is just an example of that. Um, where people feel because others in power have had the permission granted to them to speak about their bigotry, their racism, their sexism, to speak um horribly about women and others and not be censored for it, that it’s okay for everyone to do that. Um, however, as the campaign message often said um, over the last few weeks, “Love Trumps Hate” and my response is to go on with my day and continue to do what I normally do which is to be a spiritual leader, care for children and mothers and families in this community and just hope that whoever did this um has an opportunity to speak to somebody about why they feel so hurt that they need to strike out to someone whom they don’t know, um, probably have never encountered or only encountered uh, minimally. And really come to a uh, uh greater level of self-awareness. Uh, hurt people hurt people so I have a, some compassion for this person knowing that people who do these kinds of acts are hurting themselves and need to have the a-need to have the attention that comes with this kind of activity.

Nic said...

*with everyone

Anonymous said...

Thank you for catching and sharing this.

Nic said...

@ Bobcat, that is a lot of work you did. The thing about second-hand reporting is that it is not reliable. It is frequently edited for space and it can be out of order and out of context. What I have learned, the hard way, (wasting my time!) is to concentrate on raw statements which remain in context, like raw interviews where no one has taken the opportunity to edit it. Always begin with pronouns. Cheers!

Nic said...

I live on a Glebe a-um, avenue that is quiet and has never had this kind of uh hate crime committed on th-this street." Um, m-my front door faces the street so it’s highly visible.

The Glebe is an affluent part of Ottawa. I noted that she said she lives on a Glebe "avenue" (destination), affluent and "safe". Which, then changed to "street" in the context of the hate crime committed on her highly visible door. (need for attention)

Talk about the door/porch light/visibility/event/activity/mouse sleeping beside an elephant/power, imo is really disturbing. I think the election woke something up inside of her and she needs therapy.


Nic said...

Something else to note, Evan Solomon always referred to the perpetrators as a group. She only ever referred to the perpetrator as a person, which IMO is up close and personal.

Anonymous said...

Attention US election voters. Our celebration in the streets continues. Madame president elect has, against all odds, united USA like its 1861 again. The doomers said It could Not Be Done. They are not laughing at us now. Are they?

Hey Jude said...

Nic - first she thanked for the opportunity to discuss it.

In your later transcript, she is taking the opportunity to 'speak to somebody' about herself:

"....and just hope that whoever did this um has an opportunity to speak to somebody about why they feel so hurt that they need to strike out to someone whom they don’t know, um, probably have never encountered or only encountered uh, minimally. And really come to a uh, uh greater level of self-awareness. Uh, hurt people hurt people so I have a, some compassion for this person knowing that people who do these kinds of acts are hurting themselves and need to have the a-need to have the attention that comes with this kind of activity."

PJ said...

yet another fake hate crime?

Anonymous said...

This analysis is an excellent lesson. I am continually delighted at the intellectual stimulation that statement analysis provides - although the subject matter is often horrendous. I only recently learned the word 'minyan' through studying statements by Peter Stein (also a rabbi) - the last person to see Suzanne Jovin alive. Suzanne's 1998 murder is unsolved.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

My apologies is this has already been posted- Anna Maranta's Linked-In profile

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Also this

"NB: Unfortunately my space is not fully accessible. There are four broad steps leading up the porch to the front door. Once inside the apartment there is one small 1" ledge/lip from the hall into the kitchen. The rest of the apartment is flat, hardwood floors.
I apologise in advance if this make it impossible for you to attend. We are looking for a suitable, (very) low-cost accessible location in the Glebe, but have not been successful."

And a shot of the front of the house here

Anna Maranta: "When I went to bed last night everything was usual. But when I woke up uh, mid-way through the night at about 2:30, 2:40 I noticed that there was something on my front door. And when I opened it, I realized that there was not only a uh, swastika painted but also as you've said a vulgar word referring to jews, um, there."

She places herself in her bedroom-I seriously doubt she can see the front door from her bedroom. Later, in the interview, it became she was "returning to my room" and "it was quite obvious that something was on my front door". Her story is out of sequence.

In the above article from her site, she says the hall leads to the kitchen. I'd like someone to ask her where her bedroom is in the house.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

The Ottowa Sun

"Anna Maranta uses the apartment as the Glebe Minyan, a place where Jews can gather to pray. She uses the title rabbi, although Rabbi Liz Bolton of the Ottawa Reconstructionist Community says Maranta has not been ordained by any recognized rabbinical body. However, Maranta contends there are several types of possible ordination and, in her case, she was ordained in 2010 by an individual rabbi."

"Maranta is a renter — she has one floor of the house — and has called the landlord, who was quick to repair the damage.

Maranta called several news media early Tuesday and posted a photo and comments on Facebook.

The house has no sign identifying it as belonging to a Jewish organization, but Maranta said she has been there for some 10 years and the location is publicly known. She has never been trouble there before.

By lunchtime, the table had three fresh pots of flowers and fresh baking from well-wishers. Former MP [Member of Parliament] Paul Dewar also dropped in to offer support."

NOTE: Could MP Paul Dewar any relation to P. Dewar in this Ottowa Journal article?
From The Ottowa Journal

TOAST TO VICTORY - ' WtUowinount Winalot, a aix-month-bld Dalmatian puppy doesn't teen too concerned with the fact that , he won the award for best Canadian-bred pup on the second day of the Ottawa Kennel Club Dog Show at the Coliseum, Hit Ottawa owner, Mrs. M; P. Dewar of 64 Powell Avenue appears to have enough jubilation , for both of them, however. He also picked up the top award In the best non-sporting group. '. (Journal Photo by Dominion WVUl 1 eventually took.

Ottowa Sun

Then there’s the swastika on Anna Maranta’s door.

Her apartment on Powell Avenue is Maranta’s home, a temple, a daycare. Maranta bills herself as a “post-denominational” radical rabbi and priestess at the tiny Glebe Minyan. She’s a former midwife, a mother of grown daughters, a lesbian whose intellectual interest in Judaism focuses on gender and sexuality. Her kosher potlucks are vegetarian.

She says she woke up very early Tuesday morning and glanced at the door as she passed in the hall.By the outside light, she saw the word “kike” and a swastika spray-painted on the glass.

During our short talk in her entryway a few hours later, Maranta spoke softly, doing her best to project serenity. She keeps her door unlocked as a gesture of “radical hospitality,” she said. A sign in the window invites you to knock and then come right in."

Me2l said...

a statement. She does not begin by telling the public that her life has been acutely intruded upon by a swastika but by a statement about the United States presidential election

But this was an after-the-fact press release--after she'd had time to form her thoughts. Has anyone heard or read a transcript of her call that she placed to the hate crimes unit immediately after discovering the swastika?

Someone mentioned the curtains. Googling the article, there are various angles of photographs of the door. The curtains were not opaque. They were mildly transparent--"sheer" is more descriptive. She would be able to detect something placed on her door through those "sheers."

Re the "it was a normal day" analysis often referred to in these blog discussions: it nearly always occurs when someone is recounting what happened...indeed, telling the story. It strikes me as the person recalling events preceding the crime against them, because in the cases of innocent victims, crimes directed towards them are shocking and not expected; therefore, it seems natural to express that by trying to recall if anything unusual should have been recognized. In fact, we often notice it when people describe an incident in which they have been victimized.

When I was rear-ended at a light, after the fact, when describing the aggravating and destructive incident, I told "the story" in much the same way as these "story telling" crime victims.

"Nornal morning. Normal driving route to work."

I'm still trying to get a handle on the "suspicion" (or unexpectedness?) of using that when recounting something from the past where the person had been victimized.

lane said...

OT: New theory emerges in decades-old murder of Kauai 4-year-old | KHON2

“She (Lacey) followed me over there,” he said. “In my mind, it seems like it’s telling me, ‘Yeah, do it, do it.’ She was screaming and I had my hand on her face, and that’s when she stopped breathing. Twisted her head. I took her out to the water.”

"I just would like to say that I’m sorry for all that is happened,” Schonlau said in court.

News of the crime spread fast, and a mainland detective wondered if there was a possible connection to a cold-case child murder he was assigned in Colorado, where Schonlau was from. That detective interviewed a camper who had been on Kauai with Schonlau, and statements revealed a deep knowledge of the circumstances. We are not naming this person as he has not been charged in connection with the case.

“I was pretty sure that this suspect had something to do with the actual commission of the crime, whether he was the only participant or not,” said retired Colorado detective Jim Benish. “Even today, I am not convinced there was only one participant. He even said the word ‘I’ a couple times,” which Benish said he likened to a Freudian slip.

How reliable was Schonlau’s account — his own memories? His first confession evolves with the questioning.

The cops asked this of the voices Aaron was hearing: “You think that you carried it out? Did you fulfill the wish of that voice?”

“I must have,” he said.

Anonymous said...

ONG. He'at it again. Jessie Jackson being honored at U of M in Michigan as reported in UK's DailyMail.
Jackson said: it'd be morally wrong to prosecute HC. He accuses of the clan riding again. That Trump lit the fires of fear and must put out the fires out. Theres more. You gotta read it and do article about it. He's fanning the flames at a major university. This is the same civil rights 'leader' who said President I should be castrated just for telling black youth to persue academic excellence for a better life rather than an unlikely career in sports or rap music.

Anonymous said...

The current President is busy awarding celebrities the Presidential Medal of Freedom. A great nation 'must' honor its 'heros'.

Me2l said...

Trump says he's not pursuing prosecution of Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Does that mean somebody else might pursue prosecution of HRC?

Anonymous said...

He cannot pardon the foundation.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Consider carefully the gentle treading that must take place between now and Inauguration.

Hillary and the foundation are two different things.

Some report that it took months to check 300,000 emails but only days to check 650,000 emails and within these emails are linguistic evidence of crimes, including the "pay for play", trips to Pedophile Island, but also

possible acts of treason.

I do not think we will learn much until after Obama leaves office.

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

Me21 said:
But this was an after-the-fact press release--after she'd had time to form her thoughts. Has anyone heard or read a transcript of her call that she placed to the hate crimes unit immediately after discovering the swastika?

Per the transcript, she did not call the Police until the next day to follow-up on the web page she sent in the middle of the night. She initially made her report on-line, through the Hate Crimes Unit web site.

Nic said...

Another one in Ottawa south:

Note this time the finder telephoned police.

The synagogue is in Ottawa South, which is not far from the Glebe. Some of the synagogues' security cameras were spray-painted (red). (5.7 km)

Nic said...

Agreed, Peter. CNN is going nuts that "nobody will take Trump's Twitter away from him." Seriously. He keeps correcting the record and making NYT and CNN look like Chicken Little -- and they are bleeding revenue big time.

President-elect and his team are much better reading the political climate/fallout and know exactly who/what they are up against. They are not going to do anything to fan the flame.

It'll be interesting to see how much they will have to pay the demonstrators to show up in blustery/sub-temp weather, or God forbid in the rain. Sugar cubes melt, you know.

Nic said...

Another Maranta video, second video in after the video associated with this 2nd graffiti story in Ottawa (south):

Um, I went to bed last night, as usual, and everything seemed normal and okay. Um, I remember, this light is on all the time, so, um, um, I was able to see through the foyer and the window and there was nothing there. I woke up um, around uh, 2:30 or so and coming down the hallway back towards the front door um, I saw the shadow of the graffiti on my door. Came and checked it out and from there took a picture and made a report to the Hate Crimes Unit of the uh, City of Ottawa Police, and then composed and sent a message to some of my Facebook followers including my students and congregants, and uh I’ve been pretty overwhelmed by the response today. Um, it’s pretty shocking experience to to wake up to find something uh, such as this, and, and trying to figure out how to respond. I don’t have any idea who who did this. The message was generic. There was no personalized component to it. Um, I am a rabbi, I'm well known in the community. I, my address is on social media, I post to social media regularly, I also advertise, and um so, it would be very easy for someone to find me and to know this is a, a, jewish home and also a rabbi’s home. I frequently have activities here so it's also obvious that uh, there are jewish um, residents in this, in this home. Um, so I have no idea who did it. Um, I can tell you from the graffiti that the word used is typically an Americanism it’s not a usual word used in Canada. 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.

Reporter: What would you say to someone that has this kind of thinking, that would do something like that?

I would want to know why. Um, my experience in all the years that I’ve been engaged as social activist and social justice worker is that people who lash out in such a way are people who have had a lot of hurt in their lives. Um, and I'd want to try and understand what drew them to this action at this time. um,

Reporter: What would you say to them?

Why. Why, why did you do this. Why did you target me. What do you hope to gain from this? Um, an anonymous act like this doesn’t bring any personal attention. Um, I’m not somebody easily scared. 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.

Anonymous said...

OT ... Alleged ransom reward for return of missing person Sherri Papini. This is beyond bizarre and smells so hinky. Could it be cover for a miraculous return?