Anonymous Author Identification is an inexact form of Statement Analysis. With deception detection, the expectation is at or near 100% accuracy. Once trained, this can become routine for analysts, which can lead to complacency.
In identifying the author of an anonymous letter, if 70% accuracy of the four dominant themes is realized, it is likely that the recipient of the threat will know the identity. In this, team analysis is essential, particularly employing male and female analysts to work together.
Threat Assessment Analysis
We view the linguistic strength of a threat. Qualifications, delays, and weak commitment are to reveal an alternate motive.
Sex in Anonymous Threatening Letters
The anonymous threatening letter has a correlation with same sex attraction. This may be due to the psychological need to "come out" for male authors.
For female authors, which are less frequent and with reduced or non threat status, we often find betrayal, infidelity or sexual abuse, where the author has a need to be heard.
With whistle blower style letters (threatening to expose), if the letter is deemed "reliable" (genuine), there is no connection to sex.
We seek four elements:
The author's (1) background, (2) personal and professional experiences, the author's (3) motive (priorities) and the author's (4) dominant personality traits. These four elements are within all of our communication, though the larger the sample, the more we know.
Jussie Smollett reported being attacked by "MAGA" (Donald Trump slogan) males who used racially charged and homophobic slurs, while assaulting him with a chemical and a noose.
Many doubted his account. I wrote of these doubts, but prior to his statement, I could only state that his manager does not believe this to be true. Why? Because his manager spoke.
I do not conclude deception with implausible circumstances. Weirder things have happened in life.
The idea that 2 MAGA white males would recognize an actor I had never heard of, knew his show, (which I had never heard of), and happened to be in a sub zero freezing Chicago night at a Subway, waiting with bleach and a noose, is implausible. Yet, strange things happen in life and I trust the science of Statement Analysis to guide me to the truth. Smollett had not yet spoken, so I did not "know" what happened.
When he spoke, the truth came out.
A few days after Smollett received the above threatening letter, he was alleged to be attacked.
He spoke on Good Morning America and from this, I posted "deception indicated."
He did not connect himself to an assault, and he did not connect himself to the truth.
He offered "if I told the truth", guiding us to question him. If he cannot say, "they attacked me; I told the truth", I am not going to say it for him.
What do you notice about the letter?
"You will die" is truthful. We all will die and one day, the recipient will die.
Threats contain threats. The author does not say "I will kill you" (strong) or even who will kill the recipient or how he will die. Intimation is not a strong threat. Those who intend to cause harm state is plainly. Those who wish to frighten but without intention of carrying out the threat will heavily qualify and reduce priority.
"If you want to live, you should..." (advice).
Recall the "threat" to the black family of Lindenhurst in which the author said she knew it was not convenient for the family to move, but they needed to. The author actually held the family's best interest in mind and was not a racist. (the author was living in the home; a family member).
Consider that the anonymous threatening letter does not articulate a threat.
What do you make of the crayon coloring style?
This is a form of psychological comfort after using "black fag" in cut out letters.
The author wishes to bring a form of comfort, such as in a children's writing, of which it will be difficult to take seriously.
The noose is around the neck of one who looks sad.
The author of the letter has empathy for the recipient. The author (s) will not terrorize the recipient, but make him "sad" for calling him a "black fag."
In this strange sense, the author feels sorry (empathy) for the recipient. This is called
We know how the author feels about the recipient: he likes him. He has a "Positive (+) Linguistic Disposition (LD) towards the recipient.
He is either Jussie Smollett or one who Jussie Smollett hired to do so, and who personally knows Smollett (the brothers) and has a good relationship with him.
Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated
The letter does not threaten the recipient.
The author of the letter likes the recipient.
Jussie Smollett knows the identity of the author.
Jussie Smollett either authored the letter or he directed it by someone who had, at the time of its construction, a favorable relationship with Smollett.
Jussie Smollett may face federal charges as well as local.
The noose is key. It is an instrument of asphyxiation. It is human nature's normal reflex to tear it immediately off the body.
Smollett left it on.
Smollett linguistically referenced it in the Good Morning America interview, without language of fear or more importantly, disgust.
Smollett used sexually charged language in the interview. The Good Morning America interviewer should also be considered for deception, in that she knew he was deceptive, but provided the cover that Smollett expected, for his fraud.
There is also an indicator within the language that should warrant further exploration:
illegal activity on his phone.
At one point, Smollett began his sentence with,
"I want a young gay boy..." regarding fear.
In an interview, it is natural to parrot; it is the expected. It requires less brain processing which allows for the Interviewer to focus more energy upon a point.
When there is a point of parroting where the Interviewer (or even the subject) changes the language, we know that there is an addition effort for processing necessary. There is a change of perceived reality.
The interviewer parroted and interrupted her parrot with a change of language in her follow up:
"you want a gay man to..." changing "boy" to "man."
It is very likely that this interviewer knew he was deceptive and there is something alarming that she did not want to raise.
She entered into his deception as the narrative was consistent with the anti-Trump media.
"I'm sorry" enters the language of the polite and it enters the language of the guilty. We look to see:
"What is the context of the statement?"
When Casey Anthony was put on the phone with police (911) by her mother, Casey used "I'm sorry?" as a pause, indicating a need to think of what to say next. The context of a missing child call to police is not where politeness is the expected.
An assault is "personal" in that it happened to the person, intruding upon his personal space of safety and survival. The language should reflect this. When a woman is sexually assaulted, even when traumatized, she connects herself to the assault. It is how we discern truth from deception.
Context: 2 Men who are racist homophobic murderers, looking to lynch a gay black male, are on the loose. They know who he is and they found him once, they can find him again. They represent a great risk to society and are free to fulfill their plans. They were willing to do this in the freezing cold and in the middle of the night. They are serious sociopathic types of whom Smollett should be scared out of his mind of, for himself and for the public.
When asked about his phone, he referenced his refusal to hand it over with the words, "I'm sorry" while speaking of "photos" as one of the reasons for not handing over the phone. It took weeks before he was ready to hand it over.
Consider this in the many sexually charged expressions that he used in the short interview. Sex is in his words because sex is in this event.
Police should seek to learn if child pornography or another illegal activity (drugs, fraud, etc) is evidenced in the deletions.
The initial reports showed the language alleged to come from the perpetrators is similar to the language of Jussie Smollett tweets in his attacks on President Trump.
His "love" (a constant theme in his language) is projective guilt which, as "unnecessary information" tells us to the contrary. Media, politicians, and Hollywood sermonized with unnecessary moralizing to condemn anyone who did not agree. Even in "mea culpa", we find continued unnecessary informant. One actress tweeted "it is wrong" as if anyone thought to the contrary. She also used vulgarity to show the personal impact upon her; the narcissism linguistically pronounced in a short venue of a "tweet."
2 white males could have been falsely arrested.
Racial conditions could have exploded.
Genuine victims will fear cynical disbelief, which furthers injustice.
Jussie Smollett's "love" is to divide and destroy, yet to bring him the attention he craves. The lack of threat reveals the motive is not to terrorize the recipient, who is "sad" according to the childish drawing. The author needs attention and he needs it to make him no longer "sad."
I would not be surprised to see a continuation of his manipulation within the upcoming weeks where justice is sought in this case. He is a skilled deceptive manipulator with some acute unresolved psychological issues. This could include various attempts to employ deception tangent (its Trump's fault), contempt for blacks, Muslims and homosexuals (used in the interview), mental health issues and possibly suicidal ideation that is either verbalized to willing media, or put out by his publicists.
For training for law enforcement, military, intelligence and the private sector, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.