Monday, June 26, 2017

Lyn Balfour Statement on Death of Her Son in Car

thermometer in hot car

The following is an interview that took places several years after the death of her son.  

Gross Negligence:  

Question for Analysis:  Is she honest about not knowing there was a phone call from the babysitter?

Did she willfully ignore the call, or, as she claimed, did she not know it came through?

'I Left My Baby in a Hot Car': One Mom Shares Her Tragic Story

How do you leave a child in a hot car? It's a question every parent has asked at one time or another -- usually sparked by a headline about a child dying in a vehicle somewhere in the United States. Lyn Balfour has asked the question too. She's asked the question about herself.
The 13-year veteran of the US Army, member of the Army Reserves, and mother of five -- including three children 6 and under -- left her son Bryce in her car on March 30, 2007. By the time she realized her mistake, her 9-month-old son was dead.
After being charged with his death and later being found not guilty, Balfour has became a fierce advocate for educating parents on these accidental tragedies. She spoke with The Stir about the day her son died, and what kind of mom leaves a child in a hot car:

Can you walk me through that day?

This is akin to "tell me what happened that day." 

This particular week, my husband had accidentally backed into my sister's car in the driveway, so her car was in the shop and she was using my husband's. So, he was riding with me to work, and I was dropping him off first and then the baby 

The account does not begin "that day", but she does not reflect back the language of the interviewer with "that day."  This takes extra effort. 

In this verbalized perception of reality, the death of the victim began "that week", not that day. 

Here we also note the first reference to the victim, who is "the baby" here.  

This particular week, my son Bryce had been really fussy. 

Here is a good social introduction.  It includes the victim's name, title and status in relation to the subject.  This came after the introduction of "the baby", which is unusual.

Note that the subject is being interviewed about the death of her child and here begins by complaining about the child.  

Where the subject began is important and the subject's linguistic disposition about the victim is important.  

She next gives us specific details as to his behavior:  

He had a bad head cold, wasn't sleeping well because he couldn't suck on his pacifier at the same time, so he kept waking up.
The first three nights of the week, I had gotten up with him the majority of the night, and I was exhausted

We are now beginning to see how the death of the victim was not "that day" but began earlier.  

Instead of simply saying, "I forgot he was in the car", or even "I forgot because I was exhausted", the subject goes back in time to begin her statement and sets a reason about herself.  

Here is why the dating is important: 

That last night

There is a culmination of events leading to the victim's death. 

1.  He was fussy
2.  I was tired 

my husband agreed to get up with him, but then he couldn't find his pacifier in his bed. 

"agreed" suggests disagreement, negotiation.  

Bryce went ballistic, woke up completely, and then I got up, was up with him for another hour and a half to two hours.

The expected of mothers who have lost children is consistently the same:  the lofty almost "angelic" like status of the victim.  

This is not what we find here. 

The expectation is also consistent:  mothers blame themselves even when no blame should be assigned.  

They care more about what the victim went through than their own status. 

The emphasis here is not the day of his death, but the week that she suffered through.  

An example of this is when a teenager went missing and was found murdered.  Her father, who was her protector, blamed himself as years earlier, he moved the family to a state where she was murdered.  Self blame is the norm. 

"I should have seen the signs"
"I should have done this differently..."

Here we have an entire alibi set up to distance herself from her action that led to the victim's death. 

What is wrong about complaining about the victim?

Guilt seeks to alleviate itself and can be so subtle as to attempt to justify action by showing a negative status of the victim.  

"The baby would not stop crying" or "he would not eat..." is heard in Shaken Baby deaths.  

That was about 5 o'clock in the morning. I had to be up at 6:30 in order to get ready for work. I didn't actually get up until 7:15 because I was exhausted.

The initial thought in my mind was just to call in, stay home with Bryce because he was just very lethargic, he wasn't being normal because he was really tired too. But I had appointments that day -- at the  school, students were graduating and I had no way to call the students that I had appointments with. I was like, you know what? It's Friday, I've just got to get through today and I can sleep tomorrow.

That particular morning, Jarrett got Bryce ready. He went to get in the vehicle, but before I came outside we were talking about a spare car seat that we could not get into the car correctly. He had been in the car seat for a couple of weeks, but it just wasn't sitting as secure as we felt it should be so we took that car seat out and put it in his old car seat.

Context:  The subject brings up a topic of a difficulty in the interview about her child's death.  

The difficulty is the "spare car seat" not fitting properly.  

Note:  Only a "good parent" would care that the car seat fit perfectly in.  

That particular day, he said, "When are you going to get the car seat put in?" I said, "Put it in the car today, and I will go to like the fire department and get them to put it in correctly at lunch time."
He put the spare car seat in the car behind the front passenger seat in my field of view, and that car seat was empty. The other car seat, which is the car seat Bryce was in, when he put him in he put it behind my seat, the driver's seat.

In the account of the death of her child, this is a lot of detail about a car seat that was not used.  

Here is a dramatic change in language and a dramatic shift away from maternal instinct:  

On the way to work ... we don't remember hearing him. We don't remember talking with him or him cooing or anything like he normally would. We just assume it was because he was really tired.

There are several points here to note:

1.  In an open statement when one tells us what is not remembered, it is a signal of missing information.

2.  This signal of missing information's sensitivity is made even higher as she does not own it for herself, but uses the pronoun "we."

3.  Note the need to tell what someone else remembers, what someone else does not remember

4.  Note the need to report what is "normally" done. 

Consider what took place before this rule of the negative:

She has complained about the victim
She has repeatedly told what she went through
She has repeated her status of exhaustion.  

I dropped my husband off, and shortly after that I got a phone call from work, from a co-worker. It was the first sergeant of the school very upset because we were honoring a fallen soldier from Iraq, his family was supposed to be coming in from California and the tickets had not been purchased through the travel agent that the military uses.

Here, the mother of the victim slows down an already slow pace, with unnecessary details that would need to persuade us that she was not only distracted but details on who distracted her and what was used to distract her. 

All in an account of her child's death.  

This is a very strong example of one who has a need to persuade.  

Lyn and Jarrett BalfourThat was my area of responsibility -- I was transportation officer for the JAG school. I immediately got on the phone, started making phone calls, called the family that was waiting at the airport, talked to the gate agent, said please don't let the plane go, this is very important for this family to get on the flight.

Is this while you were still driving?

Yes, when I was on my way to work.
In my mind, I'd already made a stop, baby's dropped off. I passed right by where I would normally turn left to drop Bryce off to daycare.

Before I got to work, I got things resolved. I got ahold of the travel agent, they paged the tickets, everything.

I got to work, got out of the car and went into work like normal...

The subject wishes to portray this as normal; a signal that she knows it was anything but normal.  It is not that leaving a baby is "normal" that is conquering: 

It is the need to convince the audience of such that is a red flag.  

I get a phone call about 10:30 in the morning from the babysitter asking how Bryce was doing that day.

This is a very straight forward statement:  she got a phone call at the time stated, by whom she claimed, and about what she claimed.  

Note she does not say "she called me twice" or "I had a missed call."  She is in experiential memory language and she is telling the truth.  We should believe her.  

This is not a statement of missing a call; but a statement of fact.  There are so many other ways one would describe this including,
"I had a missed call from 10:30 that morning" which would place her:

a.  hours later (4pm)
b.  looking back (appropriately)

Instead, she placed herself, linguistically, in the knowledge of the call. 

This is an indicator of guilty knowledge of the call at the time it came in.  

Here, with this in mind, note what comes next:  

 The problem was I didn't get the phone call because she called my personal cellphone because the Friday before she had gotten a brand new cellphone and didn't have any of my work contact information in her phone.

This is extremely sensitive information and likely something where there is not only missing information, but information a prosecutor used.  The need to explain "why" in two locations very quickly, is something that must be explored for deception.  

That was communication failure number one.

The blaming of communication is void of personal responsibility.  This is not consistent with maternal instinct. 

The second thing was that in her file in her home she had all our contact information, my work cellphone number, my work office number, my husband's work office number but she just naturally assumed -- because it had happened in the past -- that I stayed home and he wasn't feeling well.

Note the blame shifted to the babysitter using the wrong number, but then shifted to being such a diligent worker but great mother who usually stays home with her sick child.  This is all part of her necessary portrayal of self.  

Question:  where this hyper sensitivity exists, is there deception?

Answer:  We listen for the subject to guide us.  

She didn't think to continue to communication, not thinking that he was accidentally not dropped off.

What time frame was this when she made the call?

10:30 in the morning.
I wasn't in the office when she called, but around 2 p.m., I pulled my cellphone personal cellphone out of my purse and I saw a missed call from her.

Deception Indicated. 

Here the subject tells us

1.  Where she wasn't 
2.   Where her phone was
3.  The physical action of pulling out the phone 

This is likely the missing information where you see the two blue colorings above.  

She had called me twice that morning. She called that first time and left a message and then she called again. It said missed call, but it never told me there was a message available.

Now she gives additional information in going back in time:  it was not just that the babysitter called to check on the well being of the child, but that the babysitter called twice. 

"it said missed call but it never told me..." 

"it" is to blame here. 

At 2:30, I saw the missed call, I called her back, and I left her a message. She'd taken her other daycare kids to McDonald's as a treat, and around 2:30 she was still out ... So, I called and left a message ... she called me back when she saw a missed call from me at about 10 to 4.

I was just walking out of my office because we'd been given an hour out early. She asked me how Bryce was doing, and I was like "what do you mean?"
I didn't understand. I said, "Did Jarrett pick him up early?" not thinking that he didn't have a car because I had dropped him off.
She's like no, he's not here. She began to panic because I was so adamant that he was there.
Then, she turned around and she's like, "No Lyn, you didn't drop him off."
The whole morning flashes through my mind, and I can remember dropping him off. I can remember having a conversation with her. And that memory never happened. That conversation never happened. 
At this point, I panic. I ran to the car because I couldn't believe there was a possibility he could still be in the car and then I saw him in the car.

When you found him, what did you see?
He was in the backseat, he was hooked in, and he was not responsive. He was not breathing.
Bryce BalfourWhat did you do?
I started screaming and said, "Please somebody call 911!" And then -- even though I was extremely hysterical -- it's kind of hard to explain but my military training kind of took over.
I unhooked him, pulled him out of the car, ran around to the other side of the car, laid him on the ground, and started CPR.
What was the temperature that day?
The high that day was 66 degrees.
Do they know what that translates to in the car?
I don't recall specifically what the temperature was in the vehicle -- they took the measurement at 4:30 in the afternoon, but I think it was around 100 degrees. It was too hot for the child to be in the car, obviously.
It was only 39 degrees when we left the house that morning ... he probably passed away later in the morning or early afternoon because it was so cold that day, but on an 80-degree day, a child can die in 30 minutes or less.
The degrees once you turn off a vehicle can go up 10 degrees every 5 minutes, and children under a certain age do not have the type of temperature control that adults have. 
Obviously you're very educated about this now, but before this happened, did you know any of this?
No. And the thing now, which is why I'm an advocate, is because when they told me they couldn't save him, I said to myself, "How can I forget my kid? I can manage $47 million for the US military with every penny accounted for, and I was awarded a Bronze Star for those efforts, but how can I forget my kid? How can a loving, responsible, detail-oriented parent forget him, something so precious, something so valuable?"
I started educating myself and doing research on why it was possible and how it was possible.
The more research I did, the more I learned ... we have educated ourselves on babyproofing our home, but we do not educate ourselves on babyproofing our vehicles and that's what we need to do.
Unlike some parents I was absolutely blessed to have the opportunity to hold my son one last time and tell him goodbye, and I made a promise to him that no matter how painful it would be to go through my story over and over and over again if just one parent listens and understood about the dangers and educated themselves and took the prevention measures for vehicles ... his death would be worth it.
It would be worth losing a child to save 100. No parent wants to feel like I do every day, to be responsible for your own child's death
While you were there holding him, who responded?
The police and ambulance arrived.
What happened then?
They took over; they're more professional than I am.
They wouldn't let me ride in the back of the ambulance while they were working on him, but I rode up in front with the driver, and I called my husband and told him he had to get to the hospital right away because there was an accident, I forgot him in the car.
He didn't really understand because I was hysterical.
They took him into a room and were working on him while I was in the waiting room of the hospital and one of the doctors came in and said it wasn't looking good. I started praying to God to just take me.
Then maybe about 10 minutes later ... it seemed like a lifetime ... they came in and told me they couldn't save him.
I was hysterical, and all I could think of was how am I going to tell my husband that I killed his son?
What happened when your husband did get there?
The first sergeant of the school told my husband the news. She is a pastor at a church, and she was probably the best person to be able to tell him.
He came in and he was really upset and he was crying. I told him I was so sorry I forgot him.
They probably would not have let us see him and I don't even know if I would have been in the state of mind to ask to hold him one last time, but my husband said, "I want to see him, I want to see my son."
So, they escorted us into the room to see him one last time.
It was completely unbelievable and shocking to have to leave that hospital without him.
When you left the hospital, did you go home or were the police already there?
I got to go home, but the lead investigator on the case, they interviewed me at the hospital. I don't remember that at all.
That was on a Friday. I didn't talk to the police again until they arraigned me. That following Monday, I woke up and my mom and everybody got down there on Saturday and Sunday. They recommended that I get an attorney. I called a couple of attorneys to see what I would need to do.
The interesting thing was the lead investigator on the case walked in to the hospital that same day and told the first responders on the case, "OK, you guys go ahead and write your statements because we're going to charge her for everything you can."
He had not spoken to me and he had not spoken to my husband when he made that statement. So he already had his pre-formed opinion that I was guilty and they were going to go after me, and he was the one who set the tone for the case....
Nobody ever gets arraigned on a Saturday unless you're slapped with handcuffs and taken to jail, but they waited until the day of my son's funeral on a Friday to tell me they were arraigning me on charges the next day. Forty minutes after my son's funeral was over, I was at my house and the attorney I had spoken to, they called her and told her that I was going to be arraigned the following day.
I was really upset, and I was just like .... we're not going to be able to put our lives back together as a family, we have to go immediately into defense mode. My son died on the 30th of March. My husband left on the 21st of June to deploy to Iraq as a government contractor for 18 months in order to cover my attorney fees which ended up being $126,000.
What was the charge?
The initial charge was second degree murder and felony child abuse and neglect. They later amended that dropping the abuse and neglect and reducing the second degree to involuntary manslaughter.
Here in Virginia, it says willful act or admission. That was not the case. I didn't knowingly do that.
How long did the whole thing drag out? Did they put you through a long trial?
He died in March; I was charged the following week. The trial was like the 28th of January 2008. 
What was it like trying to grieve your child's death and on the other hand you don't know what's going to happen?
My perspective on it's a little different from other people. The thing I was worried about was my family -- my husband, my son who was at the time 14. That's who I was worried about, that's who I was stressed about it. 
My husband was getting ready to deploy, my son was trying to deal with the loss of his only sibling and his mom was facing 10 to 25 years in jail.
The thing is, I've been to a lot of place in the military that a lot of people, you see and experience things, like Bosnia. You talk to war victims and people who have gone through devastating things. I've been out in the middle of the desert during Desert Storm, and I had to go to the bathroom in a hole that I had to dig and bury.
Going to jail and sitting in a jail cell with three meals a day to me is not hell, and that's what I don't think that prosecuting attorneys and them ... they don't understand.
When they punish you for a crime they think you committed, it's supposed to be a deterrent, but how do you deter someone from accidentally forgetting your kid?
This has happened to a mathematical genius. This has happened to a NASA scientist. It has happened to a pediatrician. It's happened to numerous university professors. It's happened to the poor. It's happened to rich people. It's happened to middle class. It doesn't matter.
I explain to people who try to tell me they couldn't be that irresponsible, I was one of those parents. I had heard stories about that happening, and I said that could never happen to me, I'm not an irresponsible parent, that's got to be somebody who didn't do the right thing. That cannot be me.
I have found out it absolutely can be me, and that's why I educate. 
The reality is our brains don't differentiate between a child, a purse, a cellphone, a pair of glasses. It doesn't matter.
How do you tell parents to get past that though? If parents are stuck on that idea of "I'd never do that to my child," how do you get them past that and into actually being proactive?
If people say they can never do it, I give them examples:
I know plenty of people who take medication every day. If you didn't take that medication but you swear up and down that you did, it's call mis-remembering.
If that's happened to you, you can forget your child.
If you've ever driven anywhere, and you can't remember how you got there, that's a function of your brain going on auto-pilot. If that's ever happened to you, you can forget your child.

I give these examples because people will say, "Oh, that didn't happen to me, that didn't happen to me, OH, wait a minute, that has happened to me."
If you've ever forgotten your cellphone, your pager, your wallet, your keys, your sunglasses, and you swear you know where you put them but they are not there, and you find them in a completely different location, you can accidentally forget your child.
Do you think these examples you've found out about and this research has helped you forgive yourself?
Well ... that's an interesting question. I don't feel like I need to forgive myself. I do acknowledge and have to deal with the responsibility of forgetting my son.
But I feel like parents that do this intentionally -- they leave their kids in the car and they go somewhere, like one parent, a veterinarian, she has to deal with the fact that she went into the house and got distracted on the phone and forgot her son was in the car. She has to deal with that. That to me is like I feel you have to ask for forgiveness.
But for me, when I got out of the car that day, my son was exactly where he was supposed to be.
What I have to come to terms with, and this is what is really hard for me -- because my son usually took his first bottle in the morning at the babysitter's. Because it was so cool that morning, at some point at time he woke up because he was hungry and was in the car by himself.
That's what I have to deal with -- not being there for him.
There's nothing to forgive, but I will be accountable, I am absolutely accountable for his death. That's what I have to deal with. Can you say that that's forgiveness or not forgiveness? I don't really know. But for me the problem is that I should have been the type of parent that knew  about these dangers and made sure there were steps in place to prevent that.
It sucks. It sucks every day.
It's something that you have to live with.
I'm accountable every day. I miss him every day. He would be 8 years old today. I'll never see him grow up. I'll never see him graduate from school. I'll never see his children.

How did your family move on? How did things work with you and your husband?

He was angry for awhile but not necessarily at me. He was angry because our son was gone and there was nothing he could do about it.
Unbelievably he and I became stronger and talked about it and learned to work through it and he knew it was an accident. He knew I would never leave my children in the car, not even for a second.
It was hard for awhile to talk about him without crying. I do feel like it was a blessing in disguise that my husband was deployed except for coming home for the trial.
He was not home for any of that, so I feel like it was beneficial that he was out of the country so he didn't have to go through that.

How did you decide to try again, to have kids again?

Again, it's about love and trust. He knew I would never intentionally hurt one of our children and we just didn't not try.
The interesting thing that happened was he was going to be gone for a year and a half to Iraq. Originally it was just a year ... my husband is seven and a half years younger than me, so when I had Bryce I was 31, and so I wasn't getting any younger so to speak.
We knew he was going to be gone for a year, and we talked to a counselor, we talked to our pastor and said when is an appropriate time to grieve? When is an appropriate time to have another baby?
What our pastor said and what our counselors said was when you feel like you can, there's nothing wrong with trying. 
Bryce passed away in March. We ended up getting pregnant with Braiden in September/October, somewhere around in there.
We talked about it, and I asked him if he wanted to try, and I think that was part of the healing process -- that he was so willing to have children with me, even though we were hurting and we were grieving the loss of our son.
That for me was the most telling part of it, that he forgave me.
I do think that Braiden's birth helped us to continue to heal because it pulled us away from the loss that we felt

By the time Braiden was born, had you been found not guilty?

Yes, the trial was only like three days.
Teddy Bear in CarYou have different ways you talk to parents about recognizing they can be at risk, but what do you actually tell parents to DO?

The best tool that I can provide to them is to go to the Kids and Cars website, and what I tell them is to get in the habit of babyproofing your vehicles ...
Put a stuffed animal in the vehicle, and always, always, if you have one or 50 children, if there's a child in the car, put that animal up front with you or put something in the backseat that you're going to need when you get out of the car. I don't like that idea as much as the stuffed animal up front because you can forget your cellphone that you need and you remember 30 minutes later ... and you're in the same situation.

We've started a campaign called Look Before You Lock, so you ALWAYS get in the habit of opening the back door and looking before you lock the door.

How do you deal with the criticism and with being so public?

Because I made him a promise, and nobody can judge me more than I do myself. Nobody. It doesn't matter what they say, the harsh things. I've been told you need to be locked in a hot car and allowed to die the same way your son did, you need to have your uterus ripped out, you should never be allowed to have children again, the list goes on and on.
But none of them know me. They don't know anything about the type of person I am, what type of a mother I am.
If you don't know the type of person I am, how can you judge me?

These are not the words of an innocent mother. Innocent mothers take all blame and far more blame than deserved.  This is a self defending stance that is necessary due to the critical decision she made in not taking that call, nor in even checking up on her son of whom she reported was sick and fussy.  

The victim was not the priority of the day, as seen in the language.  

In her linguistic perception of reality, his death began a week earlier.  

Please note, she did not include drinking of beer on the night before his death and asked her friend not to report this to police.   

Analysis Conclusion:  The subject is not honest about the phone call at 10:30AM. 

She chose to ignore it, as the prosecution stated, because of prioritizing her job.  "She put herself in a situation where she was able to forget her infant," Prosecutor Killeen told the jurors. Even with the stress and tension at work, "You still have to take care of your children," she said.
"Ms. Balfour doesn't get a pass because she did this to her own child as opposed to someone else's child," continued Killeen, calling Balfour's actions "gross, wanton, and culpable neglect."

To this, the words of the subject agreed.  She chose to ignore the call deliberately, that would have saved the child's life.  

Her defensive posture is acute and not consistent with innocent mothers' statements.  

The defense said:  Zwerling offered another angle.
"She came to believe she'd dropped him off," he said. "Bryce was in a place where he was safe, sound, and happy, so she didn't have to worry. Not remembering is easy to understand when she believed he was at daycare."

The problem  here is that the subject spent a great deal of time describing how Bryce was not sound and not happy, leaving the position of mother to be one of worry and concern over her child.  She then reports of a babysitter who was concerned, and how she, herself, did not even call the daycare to see how the child was.  

This is negligence. 

 The question of the phone call was pivotal in the trial.  Here, she answers for us what the prosecutor attempted to prove. 

Becoming an "advocate" for telling people not to look their infants in their cars is part of the overall profile of guilt.  The subtle blaming of the child, the babysitter, the phone, etc, all indicate as much.  

One may consider the worth of attending a seminar to have someone who chose not to make her child a priority  lecture you to not to forget your child.  

If you wish for training in detecting deception, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.  

Friday, June 23, 2017

Portland Islamic Center Receives Threatening Anonymous Letter

What can we identify about the author of this anonymous letter sent to an Islamic Center in Maine?

A letter is a statement which reveals four things about the author:

1.  The Author's Background
2.  The Author's Experiences in Life
3.  The Author's Priority or priorities/motive in sending the letter
4.  The personality traits of the Autho

Let's look at the letter:


I will enjoy the sight of the blood of you and your fellow vermin running into the streets. It will be a great experience.  Come August life will never be the same again."

There is a signature or mark that follows it. 

We view both the "masking" of the identity of the author, and the specific wording chosen that reveals the four elements of the author's identity noted above.  


It is addressed to a single "Muslim" and not "Muslims" and it begins the statement portion with the pronoun "I" which is very important. 

Note how closely "Muslim" is to the pronoun "I"  in the letter.  

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" 

Psychologically, this person is "in" the statement.  

Next, note that there is no threat made.  This is very important in threat analysis:  the quality of the sentence of the threat 

Note the author gets "enjoyment" from something.  What gives him enjoyment?

"I will enjoy the sight of the blood of you and your fellow vermin running into the streets. "

Q.  What will the author enjoy?

A.  The author will enjoy the "sight" in "the streets", making the visible not only enjoyable, but visible for others to see; that is, public.  

This is consistent with terrorism. 

The point of terrorism is attention.  It is to strike fear into the hearts of the non believers and cause them to acquiesce.  This is a very successful tool and has completely altered the way the Western world travels as there are now billions of dollars and massive delays to what was once a state of travel that reached art like form. Children attending school under military protection, with soldiers lining streets has become the norm due to this ideology.  

Gallop poll yesterday showed more and more Americans are avoiding public gatherings due to fear of Islam.  

It is a powerful ideology that has successfully existed:

1.  1400 years
2.  Without a single charismatic leader
3.  Without reformation of any kind  
4.  In spite of Western influence including hijab (Islamic take over via immigration) where integration is very low.  
5.  In spite of technological advances
6.  In spite of financial prosperity including oil wealth, foreign investments, etc. 
7. In spite of educational advancements 
8. In spite of political pressure including women's rights movements and protests 
9. In spite of military defeats (Crusades, Gates of Vienna) 
10. In spite of static view of culture and progress 

The Koran tells the Islamists to note how non-Islamic lands are in "ruins" due to Allah's anger.  This is why monuments of non Islamic societies are targeted for destruction, lest the Koran be wrong.  

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" 

This is where in the Tripolitan War,  the US Marines began to be called "leathernecks" as the Islamic fighters attempted to decapitate them in obedience to the Koran.  

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers,

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. They are often targeted for their disobedience to their prophet's command and are "traitors" if they assimilate into non-Islamic (western) culture. 

 Unlike history books, including the Old Testament, these are continual marching orders and not reports of specific battles or wars.  

In some cases, Muslims claim "it is only in self defense", which is later refuted in verses of the Koran, as well as in the precedent of 1400 years of history:  wherever Islam settles, violence ensues.  

The language of terror:

1. Hyperbolic Language 

"I will enjoy the sight of the blood of you and your fellow vermin running into the streets. "

We find in Islamic threats the use of hyperbole and the references to blood flowing.  

This strongly suggests that the author is familiar with Islamic/Arabic culture.  

Recall the hyperbole of Saddam Hussein who repeatedly used references such as "the blood will flow in the streets."

This refers to the "sight" that is visibly seen by all (the point of terrorism).  

2.  Insult 

"vermin" is a derogatory term that uses as its base, animals.  This is common in the Koran and in Islamic supremacist language where Jews are "pigs", "descended from apes", "unclean dogs" whereas "vermin" not only uses animal life, but is a term associated with Nazi view of Jews.  The use of an animal suggests Islamic background, familiarity and an attempt to mask his own identity.  

The need to insult is noted while there is no actual threat.  

This next verse is limited to war. The theme of terror's point is the same:  

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." 

Unlike the Geneva Convention and POWs:

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

This is why many have been against women in front line combat.  

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

The language of threats:

Threat Assessment within Statement Analysis is consistent with studies that show:

Weak sentences do not equate to violence while strong sentences do.  

"I will kill you" is an example of a strong threat. 

"if you don't do this, I will kill you" is a conditional threat. 

"You are going to die", is, in analysis, no threat. 

"Death will come to you" is also, technically in analysis, a non threat.  The passivity is noted as the subject does not make a direct threat. 

This same technique is used in suicide notes. 


Anything can change, so should a trigger exist, that is, an event that causes a passive threat to become an active threat, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to predict. 

Humiliation is a powerful trigger that can cause one to act out his threat.  In many cases, it is the trigger of violence.  

The Orlando Islamist is an example of this.  President Obama told us, in spite of a 911 call confessing his motive, that Islam wasn't really his motive.  Main stream media joined the echo and blamed "homophobia" (the irrational fear of homosexuals), Christians and guns.  

CNN even interviewed the killer's "boyfriend" of which Statement Analysis showed "deception indicated."  We later learned that the main stream media reports were fake:

He was not homosexual;
He had no homosexual apps, secret meetings or male partner.  

We did, however, see that the FBI analyst dismissed him as a threat and said he was a victim of "Islamophobia", or the irrational fear of Islam.  This was because, the report said, he was called "towel head."

The analyst did not understand humiliation, even in name calling, from the point of Islamic supremacy.  Islamic supremacy views "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" as inherently weak, and retribution as strength.  

In this anonymous letter, there is no threat to Muslims.  The "Muslim" to whom it is addressed is not told that the author (very strongly present) is going to do anything but "enjoy" that which is visible to all.  

 It will be a great experience.

Our author has not experienced Islamic violence to date.  He recognizes this fact in this wording.  

The author knows of Islamic violence, but this knowledge is likely through media reports and through possible other sources, including online and Mosque.  

Linguistic Disposition:

                 The author does not hate Muslims. 

The author makes no direct insult in spite of the word "vermin."

Note what he will enjoy: the sight of "the blood" and not "your" blood, nor Islamic or Muslims' blood.  The author's disposition is such that he cannot bring himself to personalize it. 

Note:   "the blood of you" separates "blood" from "you", which is a form of distancing language from violence.  "I will enjoy your blood..." would have increased the personal view. 

It is not the enjoyment of one's blood, but the sight.  This is consistent with Islamic terror, and not a threat against Muslims. It is the spectacle that matters for our author.   

This is a distancing language from the personal animosity that one has of the infidel.  Those who reject Mohammad and Allah are targeted with acute animosity. 

Our author does not show animosity towards his recipient, even though the "mask" used makes a weak attempt do so. The need to sound threatening (negative) reveals the positive disposition.  

Analysis Conclusion:

Our author does not make a terrorist threat.
Our author does not hate Muslims but has a positive linguistic view of them, even as he attempts to mask otherwise. 
Our author shows language consistent with Islamic teaching. 
Our author links himself, very closely, to being "Muslim."  
Our author was likely raised in Islamic culture.  

Our author is not against Muslims, and is with a political view to defend Muslims.  English may be second language.  See handwriting analysis below.  

Our author is a younger male who is without experience and is likely an outsider within his own Muslim community.  This makes him ripe for exploitation.   

It is likely "fake hate" intended to, as the author alluded to,

be "visible" for the sake of promoting "Islamophobia" as a defense against the truth of the ideology that calls for the subjugation of all. 

  This is the basic motive but there is more about the author, personally, within the letter, and his own need for recognition within his community.  The author is likely compulsive and one who is easily exploited by Islamists.  He may have already experienced humiliation and is ripe for mosque leaders to employ him for violence.  

In identifying the author, investigators should view what events are scheduled to take place in August and why this subject needs to feel inclusion.  All overseas contacts by members here should be checked, including all recent visitations.  

If the local organization is resistant to terrorism themselves, they could be targeted, though not yet, at the time of this letter.  

"August" is important to the author, himself, but as a threat, it is in the category of vagueness; something that those who intend on harm are not interested in.  

"Life will never be the same again" is passive voice, and an affirmation that there will be "life" and not "blood" from our author.    Our author's life is without meaning.  Although he is intelligent, he is "unheard" in his Islamic community.  

Investigators should closely watch those who seek publicity from this event as our author may have a close tie with one person in particular ("Muslim") as exploitation is the public or greater motive.  

What we consider mental health issues may not be considered as such in his community.  This includes not only depression but poor impulse control, which Islamic communities often consider "strength."  

Studies have shown that suicide bombers are often educated, intelligent, and of those who have become westernized and non-religious, the respect of the community and the "blessings of allah" come through this act of "redemption"; a way to "wash away the sins of the west" from their eternal souls.  

Although our author is not an imminent threat to this group, he may be a terror threat where he becomes newly interested in being devout and obedient, especially since it would bring his family honor and in some communities, money.  The traits we find in supremacists raised in domestic violence, which once it meets increased testosterone, is a lethal combination, are often found in angry sermons of imans who are recorded unknown to them.  The same imans who push peace and tolerance publicly, are recorded privately pushing war against the West.

Although much of the West (politicians, elite) deny being at war with Islam, Islam is at war with the entire non Islamic world. 

One of the attendants at the Islamic Center likely has some contact with the author.  

Handwriting Analysis

This was submitted by an expert Steve Johnson, from Veritas, an  analyst who is both a statement and handwriting analyst:

This person’s perception of reality is skewed – leaning toward the pessimistic.  You can expect his mood and temperament to fluctuate - unpredictable.  He will likely have a quick temper and be opinionated to the extent that he wont back down, and he will say too much. 
He has some brutality traits (could be verbal or physical).  He likely does not see himself fitting in well in society.  He is intelligent, however, he probably doesn’t have many accomplishments to speak of (more than likely due to the mental issues from above).  
All these traits make this person vulnerable to anyone that will give him attention.    He lacks follow through, which is strengthened by the fact that he didn’t actually make a threat to do anything.  I would also look for someone that has substance abuse issues and something in his past that he is running from.

 Some of his HW traits:
t's that look like r’s – pessimistic, lacks follow through.

Right side t crossing – quick temper, (nervous – impatient…)

Braced d stem – stubborn

Angular h – aggressive, opinionated, temper

wide open g stems – unsatisfied / unfulfilled materialistic goals (and sex life)

Erratic baseline -  his perception of reality is skewed.  His moods and temperament will change quickly.  

In any language, the more one writes, the more his natural writing style appears. With Anonymous Author letters, most of the time I will find what is closest to their instinctual writing habits towards the end of the letter.  

In this case, the last 3 words are connected writing. They are also written neater than the other words in the letter.  I think that is the author's instinctual writing.  
Whether the author's 1st language is English or Arabic, there are two words that should not be ignored.   
Inline image 1  Inline image 2

Both these words are fragmented.  The author cannot hold it together mentally.  The last word in the letter is "again."  Notice the large space between the g and the "ain." Then again at the end of the word there is a large space until the period.  This is a mental interruption/ disconnect in his thought process. We see this same disconnect in the word experience.  The scary thing about that word is the context combined with the mental dive ("xp") and then the mental elevation as shown with the "ienc" being disconnected and raised above the baseline.   The mental instability is also demonstrated in other areas of the letter such as 2nd line, the word "and."  

Psychological Warfare

Islam as an ideology is immune to reformation.  It prescribes the death penalty to anyone who criticizes it.  This is part of the "Islamic blasphemy laws."
protection against knife attacks and decapitation attempts

It is often why commentators say that Muslims are the first victims of Islam.  If they disagree with it, they are subject to violence, terrorism, threats and death.  
This is  a powerful element of psychological warfare and it is used against both Muslim and non Muslims.  No politician wants to refuse even a small request knowing that it would lead to protests and possible violence. 
This includes psychological warfare. 
In Europe, one may have their home raided, and be arrested for "hate speech"; specifically,  "inciting racial hatred."
Islam is not a race.  Even England's own citizens can be charged with "inciting racial hatred" by quoting Winston Churchill.  This is a de facto imposition of Sharia Blasphemy laws. 

It is not irrational to fear an ideology that calls for sexual molestation of women not covered up, nor is it irrational to fear and oppose that which calls for subjugation and even death in order to reach the level of "submission" or "peace."

The phrase, "Islam is a religion of peace" is, in itself, "unnecessary" language; that is, it is only necessary to claim in the lack of peace.  It is an ideology that teaches supremacy and enforces it with violence, beginning with young children watching the physical violence against their mothers.  This is a desensitization that when coupled with religious zealotry, leads to death.  

It is the only "religion" that ascribes coercion and "Islamophobia" is a form of psychological warfare meant to use western ethics against those who oppose the ideology.  Its power was seen, in earnest, beginning in 2009 when the FBI library was purged of the Koran teachings on violence and anti-terrorist manuals were purged of all Islamic reference.  This was a major victory for Islam. 

Even as Islamists call for the public stoning of homosexuals, leftist organizations, including women's groups and "LGBT" organizations  continue to march in support of Islam, claiming that opposition to Islam is "nazism" and "fascism."

How successful is this psychological warfare?

They march in support of laws that call for their own demise. 

In Sweden, police stations have been closed and new recruits cannot be found.  They fear arresting Islamists because they will be called "racists" and "Islamohpobes."

The power of the ideology should not be underestimated as the entire Western world is under its presence and threat. 

Muslims who call for peace are called "uncle Tom" by media and are targeted for violence, themselves.  Others use "tacquia", or the Islamic teaching of deception of unbelievers, to exploit western values in the ongoing war.  

Correction:  Hizrah is the doctrine of Islamic conquest by migration.  This is currently what is happening in Sweden, Germany, France and Brussels, as "war refugee" status is taken in deception.  

For training in analysis, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services to host a seminar or be trained in the privacy of your own home.