Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Yasmin Seweid Pleads Guilty to Fake Hate

The  Muslim who was arrested for making a false police report about "Islamophobia"; has pled guilty.    

 The original analysis was done on December 16, 2016.  It concluded that the claimed assault was deception indicated and said to be "fake hate."  

This statement is useful for introductory training in deception detection and is reposted here.  

When we have a fabrication, the list of topics one may use is endless.  Therefore, the topics and words used are of great importance to the person, subsequently, to us.  

It is the ultimate display of projection of self.  

For those who wish to study Statement Analysis, this is an insight into some advanced techniques used to highlight:

The subject's priority, background, experiences and...

personality type. 

Although not so much in this case, the principle remains the same and can not only tell us how to conduct the interview, but what crimes this person is capable of.  

She said that 3 men assaulted her which could have led to the arrest of 3 innocent men. 

Analyzing this Islamist's statement, were there other indicators of deception besides the sole number of attackers?  Absent of any other indicators of deception, we would not conclude deception based upon the use of 3 attackers.  

We need to listen to her to learn the truth, including why she did it.  

Here is her statement followed by basic analysis: 

I initially was not planning on making a post about what happened yesterday, but you will probably be seeing stories about it on the news & in the newspaper tomorrow. I take the train every single day going to & coming from class, but yesterday, something happened that I never thought would happen to me. I was harassed on the subway last night and it was just so dehumanizing I can't speak about it without getting emotional. Three white racists ripped the straps off my bag & attempted to yank my hijab off my head. They yelled such disgusting slurs at me, I was so helpless and felt defenseless. "Look it's a f------ terrorist", "go back to your country", "take that rag off your head", and so many more. Trump's name was repeatedly said & it finally clicked in my head. No matter how "cultured" or "Americanized" I am, these people don't see me as an American. It breaks my heart that so many individuals chose to be bystanders while watching me get harassed verbally and physically by these disgusting pigs. Trump America is real and I witnessed it first hand last night! What a traumatizing night. Please stay safe everyone & never let anyone take your rights away. Just thought I should share that with you all tonight.

She blamed her father but does NOT wear covering to court

Now the same statement with emphasis added for analysis:

I initially was not planning on making a post about what happened yesterday, but you will probably be seeing stories about it on the news & in the newspaper tomorrow. 

Here is where she began her post and where one begins speaks to priority.  There are several things of note here in her priority:

a.  She begins by telling us what she did not intend to do.  This is called the "rule of the negative", where one tells us what she did not think, did not do, etc, elevating its importance. 

b.  Her priority is immediately seen by using the simple technique of the word "but":   to view as superior to what just proceeded it.  What proceeded was her negative intention, and now what follows is elevated in importance two levels (one is due to the word "but" in comparison, and the other is the rule of the negative):


but you will probably be seeing stories about it on the news & in the newspaper tomorrow.

According to the post, the writer's priority is making the news.  

I take the train every single day going to & coming from class,


Here is the 'principle of "normal" in statement analysis.  It is something that every school child knows from having stories read:  when someone presents something as "normal" it is indicative of "narrative building", something police call "story telling,"

"Once upon a time, it was a day like every other day..." causes the child to sit up and know:

something unlike every other day is coming!  

We find this language in fiction; not criminal reports of assault, harassment, or attack. 

As a side note:  when someone, in a statement, calls himself "normal", such as, "I am a normal man", it is a very strong indication that he, or someone else, has considered him "not normal."

We find this in child sexual abuse statements where instead of denying molesting the child, the subject says "I am a normal married man", as if being "married" precludes him from the assault.  The term "normal" is a verbal indicator that he knows he is not normal; that is, he has an unnatural (abnormal) sexual attraction.  

 but yesterday, something happened that I never thought would happen to me. 

Narrative building seeks to build tension or anticipation.  In doing so, Statement Analysis notes the "slowing down of the pace" of the statement.  Another indication of "narrative" or "story telling" is the location of emotions. 

In trauma, it takes time to process emotions.  Therefore, in viewing many truthful accounts of assaults, for example we find that the subject will report what happened, without emotion.  This is especially true if the subject gives us the dating of the event. 

If the event was years ago, so much time has passed and the story told and retold, the emotions are right at the point of the event.  But in events that are fresh, truthful accounts give us the emotions much later in the statement.

Therefore, when someone includes emotional language at the point of the event, we must consider the artificial placement of emotion, to persuade the reader to believe, as part of editing of a fictional account:  

I was harassed on the subway last night and it was just so dehumanizing I can't speak about it without getting emotional. 

Not only do we have the rule of the negative (she "can't" speak) but we even have the statement of emotions.  

Note the classification is of being "harassed" which could be anything.  Will what follows be appropriately described as "harassment" or something else?

Three white racists ripped the straps off my bag & attempted to yank my hijab off my head. 

This is an attack and attempted theft; not "harassment."  Therefore, we have minimizing language as yet another indicator of deception.  

In advanced analysis, we would complete this analysis, and then return to it, changing our presupposition from innocent to guilty deceiver, and then work through it again seeking to learn about the subject, herself. 

Question:  What does she tell us about herself?

Answer:   She is a racist.  

She was willing for 3 innocent men to go to jail and suffer any subsequent consequences of the incarceration.  Why?  What could possibly justify such an action of hatred?

Answer:  they are "white."  

They yelled such disgusting slurs at me, I was so helpless and felt defenseless. 

Here the emotions are in the "perfect" or "logical" part of the account.  This is a strong indication that they are artificially placed here by the editing process of fiction.  The emotions are further buttressed by the unnecessary word "such" in her statement.  

She introduced racism via her language.  

"Look it's a f------ terrorist", "go back to your country", "take that rag off your head", and so many more. 

Note she does not say that anyone said this to her.  Remember:  statement analysis 'believes' what one says and does not interpret.  Deceptive people are counting on you to interpret this as to say, "and they yelled at me, "Look, it's a f-----"

We do not interpret.  

Trump's name was repeatedly said & it finally clicked in my head. 

We take note of all people in a statement.  This includes pets as for some people, their pets are as important, and in some cases, even more important than people.  

We list the names to view priority for the subject.  

The first is "I" and it is repeated. 

The second "person" is media

Third is "three white racists"

Now is "Trump"  entering into her language.  This makes Donald Trump important to the subject.  We should consider now why she gave us a priority of news and media.  

Please note the passivity of "clicked in my head"; while she was being attacked = incongruity.  

No matter how "cultured" or "Americanized" I am, these people don't see me as an American. 

She does not say that she is cultured or "Americanized"; do not say it for her.  She says "no matter how..." as a comparison.  This is a strong signal of what appeals to her about wearing Islamic garb.  

Islam teaches that women who are not covered up may be raped, meaning the "sartorial prison" protects them from sexual assault.  Yet, avoiding rape is not why she wears the covering.  This sentence shows an acute awareness of just how much she is "not Americanized" and loves the attention that being seen different affords her.  Consider this with her priority of seeking attention both from social media and television and news.  

Note that she can read their hearts and minds:  they don't "see" her as an American. 

Note her dress and the word "see", as specific sensory discernment.  This further affirms her self-attention seeking awareness.   

It breaks my heart that so many individuals chose to be bystanders while watching me get harassed verbally and physically by these disgusting pigs. 

This is a particularly interesting insight into her.  Note she was defining them as "three white racists", labeling them, and now they are "pigs" something that Islam uses to describe Jews.  This is not "halal" or permitted, as pig is pork.  Jews are said to be "descendents of apes" and are "pigs" by Islamists and taught in Islamic schools.  She is a racist and she is anti-semitic.  

She could tell us anything.  She could stick to condemning the "3" attackers, but instead, she turns to condemn others, innocent citizens who did not intervene.  

This this did not take place,  and she could tell us anything (literally, as she is fabricating) what did her words choose to tell us?

She chose to condemn American citizens in her verbalized perception of reality, while being deceptive. 

She chose the language of anti-Jew. 
She chose to condemn using race.
She chose to even condemn others, not involved in the fake attack. 

This is contempt. This is what liars have for their audience, but she, in addition to being a liar, identifies this with those who are not recipients of her deception.  It goes further and deeper.  

Note the additional information beneath the analysis regarding her family's contempt for their host nation.  


Note the language of supremacy.  This sentence tells us she is not likely a new convert to Islam, or a "supremacist wanna-be" but one who is steeped in Islamic supremacist criminal ideology, including the use of "tacquia" here. 

How does she reveal this?

She now takes to insulting Americans. 

She is not only insulting the "three disgusting pigs" she shows her contempt towards the many people present she calls "by standers" and insults them for not intervening on an event that did not take place.  

This is to show contempt towards the general, unnamed public.  She is not done there, she now is going to insult the millions who voted him to be president against the wishes of the Islamists:  

Trump America is real and I witnessed it first hand last night! 

Although media reports that this was an attempt to embarrass Donald Trump, the language shows that this is not her primary motive.  

She is using this for her highest motive:  to gain attention for herself.  

She is not even practicing genuine (genuine?) tacquia, though this would be used by CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.  We learned from Hillary Clinton's emails that Saudi Arabia's common financial interest was both ISIS and Hillary's election, as they donated money to both.  Yet, this is only "taquia" for Islam, but not for the subject, herself, even as she uses it.  It is not her priority.  

This subject is using Donald Trump and Islam to gain attention for herself. 

She craves it.  

What a traumatizing night. Please stay safe everyone & never let anyone take your rights away. 

Here she follows the CAIR party line, which the political elite repeated during the election:

a.  Islam is "peace"
b. If you do not let them migrate to the United States, they will become violence
c.  The violence is not the fault of the Islamists.  
d.  With unvetted migration, jihadists enter the country.  
e.  Any attempts to stop jihadists from entering is religious discrimination. 

Just thought I should share that with you all tonight.

Here we see the final element of her deception:  the dropped pronoun.  

This tells us that she has far more on her mind than "just" sharing with "you all."  

Analysis Conclusion:  

The number 3 is  a very minor point.  There is so much more to the statement to indicate deception, particularly her "narrative establishment" or story telling. 

As media quickly reported the "Islamophobia attack" without discernment, so they will now report her political motive.  This is not true. 

The highest motive is self-attention, and politics is used as a means to her end.   Even dating a Roman Catholic, which may have caused her to run away, is not part of her priority here:  gaining attention for self.  Her boyfriend, alcohol, freedom, Donald Trump, Islamic culture, etc, are all important for her, but they are yet subordinated to her desire for attention for self.  

Her language indicates a history and comfort of deception.  This is part of overall acceptance of deception within Sharia (tacquia). 

Interesting side note on being raised in a supremacist ideology that permits deception:  

Among those to support her in court on Wednesday was Seweid's older brother Abdoul who was himself arrested in 2012 for lying to police. 

He claimed his friend had been 'assaulted by three unknown males', but was later charged among other teenagers with breaking into cars to steal their valuable contents near their home in New Hyde Park.

As to the public contempt in which "bystanders" are targeted as part of her fabrication, we learn more about the family culture from the NY Post.  The sister blames the police.  In supremacist ideology, there is no personal responsibility from within.  Blame is assigned to others, leading to the phenomena known as "Muslim Grievance" where complaints are insatiable.  

Muslim hate crime hoaxer’s sister blames the NYPD

Muslim hate crime hoaxer’s sister blames the NYPD
The sister of the Muslim teen who lied about being harassed to avoid parental punishment for breaking curfew posted a Facebook rant blaming the NYPD and the media for her sister’s lies.

Sara Seweid made the post Thursday morning and wrote “the NYPD should have never been involved in the first place even if the incident did happen. It became super clear to me these past two weeks that the police’s first instinct is to doubt your story and try to disprove it.”

Note that she allows for the "incident" to have not happened, but blames police for not believing it happened. 

She blames police for using good judgement.  

This is the "absurdity" of supremacists' grievances.  They are incapable of being satisfied, and when one is seemingly satisfied, a new one erupts.  This is why supremacist ideology, even in 100% Islamic or "peaceful submission" countries are ripe with incessant violence.  Life is full of inequalities and supremacist ideology is provoked by this as it seeks excuse.  

“I’m not excusing what my sister did.  I was horrified yesterday and I’m still trying to grapple with the facts. Things snowballed out of our control because of the media… reporters made things so much worse for our family.”

Note that she begins in the negative, and that she shows no concern for the possibility that three innocent white males could have been arrested.  

She said anti-Trump posts made by her family on their Facebook pages forced the cops and the media to discredit their story.

Recall the inclusion of race by the subject's original post indicating a projection of racism.  Here we see it in the admission of the sister:  

I had more than one cop tell me that they’ve looked through all our social media… and it doesn’t look good that we’ve been vocal about certain issues they perceive to be anti -trump, anti-white and even anti-men.”

She continued that no one understood the “extent of the emotional and mental trauma Yasmin had to endure.

Nothing even resembling personal responsibility for the attempt to slander the President elect, nor the innocent whites, nor the citizens who were by standers.  

Cops realized her story was a fake when surveillance video didn’t show an attack.  She later confessed.  

The sister blamed police for uncovering the racist postings and discerning the lie. 

This, itself, gives us insight into the family.  

The brother used a false police report to steal.  
The sister used a false police report to seek attention while diverting away from her actions. 
Her sister blamed police for doing their job. 

All the while, the family lives in an upscale neighborhood on Long Island.  

She reports that she lied to protect herself from her father, since she had been out drinking.  

Yet, she is in court, with a shaven head, and no head covering. 

Her motive, according to her words, is attention seeking.  

For training in detecting deception, visit Hyatt Analysis Services


John Mc Gowan said...


Cruz on porn video 'liked' on his Twitter account: 'It was not me'

General P. Malaise said...

you did a nice job of outlining the level of dishonesty found in Islam.

Her arguments are not unlike a two year old who can't think past her own petty wants. Nothing is ever my fault crowd. thanks obama.

Anonymous said...

Excellent, in-depth analysis Peter.

Did her father shave her head?
Is there any indication she may have been projecting attacks from father onto the fabricated "3 racist attackers" ie. "Trump's America"?

General P. Malaise said...

University of Michigan student lied about hijab threat

She must go through six months of counseling and complete three days of community service.

If Seweid fulfills the terms of her deal, the top charge against her will be tossed and she’ll be left with just a violation.

The prosecutor read an apology letter from Seweid.

“I was stupid,” the teen wrote. “I plan to continue to find ways to better myself.”

She’s due back in court in November to update the court on her progress.

EVEN NOW SHE CONTINUES WITH DECEPTION. "I plan to continue to find ways to better myself." She plans to, intent does not equal action.
"to find ways..." she says she will find ways, again there is only looking for ways and no commitment to change. But when you think you are right why would you need to change.

rob said...

The penalty for the faker/liar should be the same that the 3 men if arrested for this assault would have received. The only way to discourage this, and it's not only muslims who use it, should be tough enough to deter the crime. Let her worry about the Americanized muslim in prison, and she'll think twice before trying this again.
Seems like she would have learned something from her brother.

Anonymous said...

Great analysis. "But" is so interesting. I'll be on the look out for this.
I'm so glad NYC went after her for her lies.
Tacquiya drives me nuts and also the fact that most people will only think about the initial story, "Muh feelings hurt by the white racists in Merica", instead of the truth.

Anonymous said...

OT: Davey Blackburn - opportunity for denial.

I missed this earlier. In May, Davey spoke at a Christian showcase and mentioned the he was the first suspect. He does not deny it but basically confirms that we need to look at him.

"You gotta understand that, immediately before they arrested everybody, I was the first suspect. And even after the investigators said ‘OK, he’s totally not the suspect, at all’; and released that publicly, Megyn Kelly, on Fox, and Judge Jeanine Shapiro went on and said the husband is a suspect. Everyone needs to look there.

What do you do when people are saying that about you, right after you’ve lost the most important person in the world? Your best friend. Your ministry partner. Your co-parenting partner. What do you do? To be honest with you, I didn’t care. And that’s why it made me dangerous. What would it be like to walk through life, not enslaved to other people's opinion about you, but to be so committed to the mission that God has for your life no matter what, you're doing in your life? No matter what career. Wherever God has you on the map and whatever industry he has you- he has you on mission, and you're not a slave to other people's opinion anymore. You are enslaved to one person, and that's Christ and his mission. Dangerous."

Anonymous said...

OT: More Davey Blackburn comments ^^

From earlier in the same showcase as above:

"And we get to the hospital and I get in a waiting room and I’m waiting to see my wife in her hospital, bed, and, investigators, and, police officers and doctors come into the room and start questioning me. I had no idea what was going on. All I knew is that my wife was fighting for her life. ( ) Had no idea why. Again ( ) thinking something had gone wrong with the pregnancy. And, here I am getting investigated and, questioned, about something, that was completely amiss to me. I find out through those investigators that she actually had three bullet holes, in her. One was in her arm. One was, grazed across the back of, her back and one was, actually through the back of her head. And the bullet was, that was in her head was currently lodged behind her eye."

Anonymous said...

OT: One more missed chance for a reliable denial.

Q: From early on in the investigation, police cleared you. Cleared you 100%, and yet there were people that still felt that you had something to do with it. How did that make you feel? And how have you, reacted to some people feeling that way?

Davey: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, well, I mean I, obviously it makes you feel hurt, you know. I mean, when you hear things like that, it, you know, it’s like pouring salt in a wound. And I wish people understood that. I mean, I wish. I wish people understood. People who, people who make those kinds of allegations clearly don’t understand the pain that you’re going through, in this. And if they did, if they really and truly did step into that, there’s no way they’d be able to say things like that. One of the things that we always, Amanda and I used to always talk about, in ministry, is the phrase our pastor coined. Love assumes the best. And so, so, any, anything like that is not. It’s not love, because it’s assuming the worst. It’s not assuming the best. Now I understand. I get it, that, that’s the first place that investigators are going to go. And then they’re going to, you know, weed out, all of the, all of those, but that’s the first place. I get that. I understand that. I wasn’t surprised by that. Um, but, but I’ve chosen not to react in those things either, because it’s not going to do me any good. Um, it’s not going to be, do me any good to give them a voice, give them a platform, because they’re not spreading anything but hatred. They’re not spreading anything but, um, but their own, um, vices and their own problems. And so what we’ve chosen to do is we want to make this about jesus. We want to make this about Amanda, and we want to honor both in the whole process. And so, yeah.

Anonymous said...

"if they truly did step into that"

Did Davey step in her blood or step across her after or while shooting her?

Anonymous said...

"One was, grazed across the back of, her back"

There is a lot of sensitivity regarding the word "back"

Is it because Davey was looking at her back as she ran down the stairs? He approached her from behind?

"the back...of her"

He's catching himself and changes it to "across the back of, her back" bc he's aware he needs to linguisticalky hide his physical position (prevent it feom leaking out in his words) which was "in back of her" when he attacked her.

Bobcat said...

OT @ anon 1:27

I think the first shot was into Amanda's charging and outstretched strong left arm.

After being hit in her arm, she may have pulled her arm back and dipped her upper body down but continued her forward charge.

I think that's when the second shot went "across" her back.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

OT: David Blackburn

The one that "was grazed across the back of, her back..." is a gross understatement. For a husband supposedly grieving the loss of his "best friend", "ministry partner", and co-parenting partner", it's beyond eunexpected that he would minimize even one of her injuries.

The Affadavit of Probable Cause describes this particular injury quite differently: "She also had a through and through gunshot wound which exited and entered her upper back. The back wound was downward."- per Dr. John Cavanaugh, Autopsy No. 15-1380, Affadavit of Probable Cause Pg. 18 P 2

The devil really is in the details. Davey Blackburn seems to have a hard time keeping them straight.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

OT: Davey Blackburn

As one of my family members just pointed out, "Co-Parenting Partner" is the language of separation and divorce. Husbands and wives in a strong, stable, loving, "good" marriage don't linguistically "share" the children because there is no need to.

Davey Blackburn will keep talking because he likes to hear himself talk, he's a narcissist, and his career success depends on him driving his business. He must continually seek out attention through social media, promotions, speaking engagements, "worship" album promos, and interviews. No self-promotion equals no audience, no audience means no money, no money means no mega-church following or lifestyle.

Hey Jude said...

^ 'Dialoguing with Weston' sounded like he wanted a divorce from his baby, too.

Horse chestnut said...

"And also raped" ??

New England Water Blog said...

Yes, I was just going to post about the same Swedish pol who said

"I was brutally treated and raped at knifepoint on the pretext that I was a left-wing [expletive], that people like us like this, and finally that I was a traitor," he said."

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Re The swedish gay politician: I almost published his comments but readers here saw the order. This is good!

If you were raped would you say "brutally treated" before raped?

Would the rape be an add on with "and"?

Very good!

Sweden is now grappling with the absurdity. The no male music festival in response to Islamic rape now must confront men who claim to be women, dress like women and take knives to their bodies to look like women do not want to be excluded.

What an absurd way to deal with Islamic rape!

yet, in deception, the "tangent" is employed.

I appreciate readers' ability to discern!