Saturday, December 31, 2016

Jennifer Williams: Co Conspirator of Fake Hate?



If you wish to enroll in training, please contact www.hyattanalysis.com    Note tuition increase 2017. Congratulations to the analysts who conducted this work and brought it to conclusion.

On December 12, 2016, Jennifer and David Williams stated that they were attacked by an arsonist racist who was still on the loose.  

Jennifer blogged about it in this statement and raised money via Go Fund Me.  
Then she reported that David confessed to it and she is refunding the donations, minus the percentage that Go Fund Me charges.  

David, she said, will be arrested when he is released from a mental health facility. 

Question for Statement Analysis:


Does the subject (statement) have guilty knowledge of the crime?

First, the statement and then the analysis and profile.

I.  The Statement

Breaking My Social Media Silence.

I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December. You see, there is so much that I could say, but I want to say the right things. I wanted to speak wisdom and not perpetuate hate. Sunday night was just like any other school night this year. The kids went to bed at 8. David and I watched TV while I worked from home, something I am glad to be able to do. Then just like any other night, we went to bed. 

In the wee hours of Monday morning I heard, what I though was the transformer behind our house blow. A sound we have heard a number of times and think nothing of. I nudged David awake and asked him if he had heard it too. I don't know if he had heard it, I know he recalls a coherent response, I do not. We both drifted back to sleep without much thought. It was a short time later, that there was a pounding on our door. We were both awake again, rattled this time. Who was banging on our door and what could be so urgent. A father moving his son into a house 4 doors down the street, had heard the explosion too, followed by the sound of a car horn. He was curious about the sound, stuck his head out the front door, saw nothing and went about his business. A short time later his son arrived home from a trip to the grocery store and told him that there was a fire down the street. Both the men came to our aid. David answered the door in his boxers. "Your truck is on fire, is their anyone else in the house." David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants. We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire. In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam.  The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate. I don't know if we were all slow or the fire department was that fast, by the time I reached the back of the house the fire was out. I came back to the house to tell the kids to go back to sleep. "Mom, there is a fire truck at our house, I want to see it." So I let the children outside, far enough that they could see the fire truck, not so close that they could be underfoot or get hurt. Then I ushered them all back in, telling them to go to bed. Reality check, in what world after all of that commotion was anyone going to go back to sleep. I went back around to the back of the house. The gentlemen, who's name I still don't know asked if we knew of anything spray painted on our garage door. I will let the pictures here speak for themselves as I have no desire to type those words. After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive. The kids had still not gone to bed. The firemen offered them a private tour of a fire truck. Yes, even our oldest, who is almost 14, couldn't resist that offer. The arson investigator arrived and after a brief reporting of what they had found and done, the firemen loaded up and left.  I was astounded by the vast knowledge of the arson investigator

As one of our dogs returned home after being let out, or escaping from the back yard in fear, the investigator stopped to help us try to find the other. We wouldn't have any luck with that, but she would be found and returned later in the day. Back to the investigation, evidence was collected. Motives and suspects were discussed. We said good bye to the investigator and went in the house. The children, who had never made it back to bed, were much to my amazement ready to go to school when we came back in the house. I had offered to let them stay home, since they had missed out on sleep. They all said that they were not tired and off to school they went. So there, now you have it, the narrative of the events that occurred.  We have been asked a few questions several times, so I will answer them now. If you have more questions please ask in the comment section below and I will do my best to answer them. Do you know who did this? No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them. How did the fire start? While the investigator has shared his theory with us, one I fully support, I am not going to broadcast that on the internet. If you know David or Me personally we will happily tell you one on one. 

Won't your insurance cover it? The homeowner's insurance only covers vehicles that can not be registered to be driven on the road. It would cover the garage door, but the amount of our deductible is grater than the cost of a new door. The Harley was not currently insured or registered as it had a bad voltage regulator. I had lowered the insurance coverage on the truck in September or October to liability coverage only and arson is only covered under comprehensive.  UPDATE: Did you know your homeowners insurance will pay to clean your concrete driveway? With the addition of the driveway and a few other miscellaneous melted items, we have exceeded our deductible in damages. The estimated damage done to our home and personal property covered by insurance was just under $1,739, after subtracting our deductible and  depreciation we were issued a payment of just over $168.00  Why wasn't your motorcycle in the garage? Anyone who has asked that has never seen the amount of tools David owns. Is this, or why is this, considered a hate crime; aren't you white? Yes this is considered a hate crime. It is considered a hate crime because of what was painted on the garage door. Yes, we are white. It just so happens that we aren't as racist as someone would like us to be. Tell me about the GoFundMe campaign. David and I do not have direct access to this account and had no knowledge of it's creation. It was set up by a dear friend and David's sister. We are very appreciative and would like nothing more that to be able to thank and hug each person who has given to the campaign. As you can imagine, there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas, and this campaign and the generosity shown has lifted a burden. What can I do to help? So many people have asked this question. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and love that has been show to our family. I don't have a specific answer to this question though. At first my obvious answer was, do you have a car I can borrow? Days after, here are my thoughts. I am not going to tell any one how they can help. If you feel like helping, if you have an idea that would benefit anyone, not just my family, do it. Show love in every place and any place available to you. If you have the means to help someone going through a rough patch, do it. So now that all of that has been said... Racism is not comfortable subject. There are many who would like to pretend that it doesn't exist. There are those who believe racism only exists because, we continue to talk about it. I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism or why it continues. What happened at my house is the cold hard evidence that it does exist and that it continues. The questions is what am I going to do about it?  What are you going to do about it? In spite of what was meant to cause fear, I am going to continue to love, without regard to race, gender, age, religion, sexual preference or orientation. I am going to acknowledge the experience of those who are discriminated against daily. I will stand up for what I know to be true and right, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. I am going to pick up the pieces and create something beautiful. I am going to embody the cliche "Be the change you want to see in the world."




Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  


II.  The Statement with the notes of a team of analysts who worked through the statement 







   Does the subject (statement) have guilty knowledge of the crime?
2.      If so, what does content reveal
3.      What does the PERSON tell us about herself

Breaking My Social Media Silence.

Allegation:  Arson and “hate speech”


1.      Background
2.    Experiences
3.    Priority
4.    Personality traits



BreakinMy Social Media Silence.

without the pronoun “I”?
“my” Social Media Silence –
a.      she takes ownership of
b.    likely spends much time
c.     the ‘norm’ is to be very vocal on social media
d.    she has been “un-silent” elsewhere
e.     there is more information to be heard –
f.      suppressing information in reverse:  It is challenging for her to keep her mouth shut on social media

“I don’t remember” in an open statement”       Education – writing skills (background)


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

a.      break silence on social media
b.    she is now writing on social media, in the sense of a “blog”
c.     she begins with “I”, psychologically strong
d.    verb:  have stayed” imperfect past tense –this has NOT been easy for her. The event was December 12th, and this statement was approximately December 19th. This short period of time, 1 to 2 weeks max, is very trying for her. This is very long.  Emotion is building up in intensity.  It is not only difficult for her to be silent, (she has not been!) but the pressure is escalating.  “breaking” a pattern? Is something “Broken” for the subject?

The need to be heard ---this acute (priority) for the subject?

Question:  When someone has an acute need to be heard, what should be explored?
Answer:  That the subject has been ‘silenced’ in possible trauma (experience)

e.     “silence” and “quiet” =  “quiet” is now qualified.  She has NOT been silent. She has only been “pretty quiet” thus far.

‘quiet’ is the lesser of silence’;  quiet speaks to volume, silence speaks to the absence of volume

“Silence” is now “quiet”, which is further sensitive with “pretty.”  Is there anything within the context that justifies this change of language?  If not, the analyst should consider:   possible deception. 





Conclusion:  The change of language is justified in context.  She would have to “talk me out” of this later. 
  


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

about what happened  --arson and “Nigger Lover” spray painted on garage.
Passivity but it is also minimizing language. 

‘catching readers’ attention encouraging them to read more to learn…”

Narrative Building or ‘story telling’ –creative/right brain –

appears to need to be heard; likes attention, very regular poster on social media –struggles with being quiet or silent….good grammar, possible trauma victim (need to be heard) –selfish, attention seeker,

I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

“our” home shows sharing of the home.  Not “my” but “our” –
“home” is where we sleep.  Sleep is a situation of vulnerability –
When a “home” is violated or “intruded upon”, it is often very personal.  She began with “I” and the expected is “my home” –of a mother and wife, who is the “nester” of the home. 

“home” --- “house” –

Our "home" is where we sleep.  We are most vulnerable while sleeping, therefore when a crime takes place at or in or against our home, while we are sleeping the language will show acute intrusion and not passivity.  

"House" is often attacked, while "home" is safe.  Will this pattern emerge?  When under attack, some will separate it as "house" because "home" must be safe.  While calling it her "home", we must now consider that she may have known that there was no danger to herself or her children  (mother=nester) 


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

Why?  Why the need to write/say it this way?

Why not, “On Monday, the 12th of December, we were ______...”

What is more important, her or what happened?
Answer:  her
What is important about her?
Answer:  her communication (silence/quiet):  “herself and her silence” takes precedent over “what happened” on the exact date. 

If the date came first, it would be more like a “report” rather than “narrative building” or “story telling” ---emotion over the logical; something that is less reliable than a report. 




You see, there is so much that I could say, but I want to say the right things.

 I wanted to speak wisdom and not perpetuate hate.


a.      “you see” is “of course” in S/A.  This wants acceptance without explanation.  We need explanation.  We only “see” what one tells us plainly otherwise we do not "see" anything.
b.    “could” addresses limitation. 
c.     “but” indicates the explanation:  I want to say the right things.”  This subject is concerned about what comes out of her mouth.  For one with a need to be heard, this topic (arson/’hate crime’)  has told us that she must limit herself.  She can say the “wrong” things possibly.  She is aware of who is listening (audience; which is going to be very important in a moment), so we ask:

Who is the audience?

Context tells us:  the audience is the public, reading this statement.  There is a problem with this, however.

The change to past tense tells us:  there was a different audience. 

Let’s let the statement affirm or deny this:

Did she speak to someone else prior to this address?  If so, that communication should be considered very important to her. 

We should now consider whether or not her HUSBAND is taking the fall for the wife. 

a.      her husband
b.    the message itself
c.     the arson investigator (police/authorities)

Please consider that if this is an embedded confession:

1.      Did husband have relationship with black female?
2.    Only husband’s items were targeted
3.    The pronoun “our” with “home” suggests possible marital discord.


Will these traits show up in her? 


 Sunday night was just like any other school night this year.

normal” in S/A 101 tells us that this was anything but normal.  This is akin or consistent with narrative building instead of reporting.  It is acceptable only after lengthy processing time (usually years)

2016 is the year. 
School year is Sept to June
This year, specifically, is her time frame.

Please note that outside the statement we have learned that in January of THIS year, she sought money from the public via Go Fund Me. 

*What was this year like?
*how were the finances this year?
*how were the bills this year?

When does the event start? This is a dual question.  This means there are two beginning points for us in analysis.

1.      Measuring the form
2.    When does it begin for her 

8pm when the kids went to bed. 

What happened began, in the subject’s perceived reality, only AFTER the kids (eyewitnesses) went to bed. 


The kids went to bed at 8.

potential witnesses are removed from the story. (narrative)  This includes one she said is almost "14 years old."  Please consider the possibility of mother wanting children not only "outside" the realm of witness, but as part of her mothering technique; easily bothered by them being "underfoot" and explore for Neglect.  

David and I watched TV while I worked from home, something I am glad to be able to do. Then just like any other night, we went to bed. 

a.      David and I”  ISI but is this blog article written to those who already know David?  If so, the ISI is reduced.  If not, the ISI stands alongside the other indicators of a troubled relationship. 
b.    when “we” is not used, but “David and I” (separate people) there is sometimes a situation where one watched TV while the other read or was on the I phone or something similar.  Generally speaking, “and I” with TV means there was conversation that took place. 
c.     Context:  kids are removed from this “social” time.  If this was conversation, it was only AFTER the kids were no longer there. 
d.    timing is involved.  They both watched TV but she did something else:  she worked from home. 
e.     she is glad to not have to go to a job to work.  We work to earn money. 
f.      Then” now skips over time.  Here we have indication of some form of conversation that is being skipped over. 
g.     “home” is where the ‘invasive’ activity took place (incongruent) and it is where she likes to work from.  “Home” is very important to the subject.  One should ask about the mortgage and bills. 
h.    “alibi” building:  Her viewpoint or linguistic disposition towards the place of attack is very positive. 
Therefore, she COULD not have done this, because she is very “glad” to be there.  This is alibi building.

Whatever happened began at 8pm and had to have the kids out of the scene first. 
She loves her home.


Did he complain about money and her needing to help him by getting a job outside the home and she answered “I will raise money!”

“just like any other night” to be the normal factor x two.  It is very sensitive. 
Also there is something here that

A “confession by pronoun” in 80% of cold or closed unsolved case files. 

we went to bed” = this tells us that whatever was discussed during the “social activity” (TV) and about working from home, came to resolution.  They are united in this account.

Assertion:  She is involved in this. 

Will the rest of the statement affirm or negate this assertion?



In the wee hours of Monday morning I heard,


the language of “story telling” is also a most inexact time.  Consider this with we went ot “bed” not to “sleep.”
Most people have an alarm clock, phone, or some form of electronic device and know the exact time of awakening.  Due to the trauma of having a house under attack (arson-attempted murder as fire easily goes out of control), the high level hormonal response would know the exact time.  This is narrative building with words chosen to enhance the emotions of readers, rather than truthfully report a crime.  



what I though was the transformer behind our house blow.

She tells us of what she did not hear; her misinterpretation.  This is also narrative versus reporting. 

“the” transformer, not “a” transformer:  Why is the article here important?  What does it indicate?   

The use of the article, “the” is only appropriate in the narrative IF a transformer has been spoken about previously.  This is a very strong signal of scripted language. This fits with the pronoun “we” 

Also:  house v home?





 A sound we have heard a number of times and think nothing of.

An attempt to hide guilt within a crowd ----
Note that "we" have heard (needing others) of that which they do not think of (rule of negative).  This is a deceptive editing here that is following a script rather than reporting from memory that was experienced.  She is consistent in "story telling" language. 


 I nudged David awake and asked him if he had heard it too. I don't know if he had heard it, 

“Scripted language” does not come from experiential memory, therefore, it often sounds awkward unless there is a very talented liar behind it, and even then, it has holes in it! 

Since “awake” is unnecessary, we now should doubt that David was asleep.  She does not tell us David was asleep but wants us to interpret it by her “nudge”; thus continuing to stay with a script written from non-experienced memory.  This could come from the discussion over TV, a book, a movie, etc.  IT is not her own.

We will now note the "need to convince us" that they were asleep while avoiding telling us this directly.  Always note when someone uses the plural on activities that should be limited to singular.  




I know he recalls a coherent response, I do not. We both drifted back to sleep without much thought.

Deception Indicated

“wee hours” avoids directly telling us what time the fire started (unexpected) even though she uses the exact date (expected). 

2am ?

Question:  When did this hate crime begin?

(remember, our answer is not from forensics, but from the language and when we are faithful to the language, the forensics will match)

Answer:   at 8, according to the subject.  This is critical in the narrative.  It did not begin with a loud noise in the "wee hours" IF you are listening to the subject.  This puts the author (subject) in control of the story and addresses premeditation by Jenny. 

yet, the story started at 8PM

deception----

 It was a short time later, that there was a pounding on our door. We were both awake again, rattled this time.  (emotion)

Consider “rattle” with spray paint can as sensory language.  We now must consider that the subject likely handled the can of spray paint.  If David did the painting, it is likely that she, herself, either shook the can, or she heard David shaking the can.    

Who was banging on our door and what could be so urgent.

The narrative continues by building suspense and asking questions.  This is consistent with scripted language and is not a reliable report of what happened. 


 A father moving his son into a house 4 doors down the street, had heard the explosion too, followed by the sound of a car horn.

She has a need for her audience to know that she does not know who this is;
She has a very strong need to slow down the pace, giving unnecessary and irrelevant detail to avoid getting to “what happened.”
Additional and unnecessary details are often a sign of “NTP” that “it must be true” because these small details are verifiable.

a--true
b--true
c--true
d: here is where we slip in deception

experienced and accomplished liar.  She is a habitual liar and interviews with family/friends will confirm.  


He was curious about the sound, stuck his head out the front door, saw nothing and went about his business.


In an arson and “hate crime”, the subject introduces the word “business”
Business  is associated with money.
She began with “broke”

The pace is slowed down dramatically;
She has gone out of chronological order to give us additional and unnecessary personal information about the man who “pounded” on “our” door. 
Second use of “door”;  explore within the relationship as well as childhood sexual abuse. 


 A short time later his son arrived home from a trip to the grocery store and told him that there was a fire down the street.

The narrative language continues with verifiable points suggesting overall deception. 

What is the race of this father/son?



 Both the men came to our aid.

These men are given positive linguistic dispositions by her.  She did not want to “hate” so the race should be known here.  Not only is this a positive view, but she knows a lot about these two men (including their relationship and what they were both doing) even though she was watching TV while working, and was asleep.  The need to give verifiable detail suggests an unverifiable point is coming. 


David answered the door in his boxers.

It is of priority that she tell us what David was wearing when he answered the door.  Of anything she could tell us, this is what she has chosen to do so.  It is, therefore, very important to her. 

Here we have the third “door” in her statement.
She wants us to know before the arson and hate attack, that David is in his underwear.  People will report what is most important to them. 
NTP that they were NOT DRESSED and NOT committing these crimes. 
In spite of the intention to persuade, she still chooses language that is associated with both deception and trauma. 

The need to persuade us that they were asleep strongly suggests that they were not asleep.  The need to portray David as undressed seeks to further buttress that they were asleep. 

This is to anticipate the allegation:  you were not asleep.  You were outside, dressed, committing this crime.  She is defending David where no accusation has been made.         Hina

That she felt the need to add “doors” to her statement should be viewed with “our” and her need to be heard. 

The unity between them is very strong (“we”, even to the point of knowing each others’ thoughts) and it is very difficult to believe she did not have guilty knowledge of what he had done (according to her later statement that he confessed).  



 "Your truck is on fire, is their anyone else in the house."


Who said this?

To whom was this said? 

father-son (relationship)

There is reduced commitment to this as a question by not assigning it to one or the other.   


Note it is “house” here, too. 


David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants.

a.      “hurried” is unnecessary.  No one thinks he took a nap before
b.    David is now ‘important’ as he is being given linguistic attention.  Before this, the “son” had more attention on his “shopping trip” to the grocery store. 
c.     “to” tells us why he went to the bedroom.  This is very sensitive information. 
d.    “some pants” is not “his pants.”  She has a need that is causing emphasis, to make us believe that HE DID NOT HAVE PANTS ON.  She is telling us, via the lens of analysis that he did have pants on.  He may have had to take them OFF when he answered the door! 
e.     David is now acting independently of the subject, who had previously relied very heavily upon “we”


We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire.

The unity returns.
The “kids” are now “children” (risk)
She gives us the knowledge of both, refusing to think for herself.  She is so closely unified with him that it is in every point except the pants.
House (distancing, expected in danger).  When combined with “children”, the subject (Jennifer) may have had fear that the fire could spread. 

*Did she have to remind him to take off his pants before answering the door?


 In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam.  

‘Universal’ commentary:  She does not say, “I had trouble telling the difference” (because she did not) as she avoids a direct lie.  At this point, she likely assessed the fire, and knew that the “children” could now be “kids” again: 


The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate.

Mild, passive, and additional (narrative/story telling)

 I don't know if we were all slow or the fire department was that fast, by the time I reached the back of the house the fire was out.

I came back to the house to tell the kids to go back to sleep.


 "Mom, there is a fire truck at our house, I want to see it." So I let the children outside, far enough that they could see the fire truck, not so close that they could be underfoot or get hurt.

“children” (risk) returns but in WHAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT??

Good mom! 

Neglect and/or abuse. 

Then I ushered them all back in, telling them to go to bed.

 Reality check, in what world after all of that commotion was anyone going to go back to sleep.

insomnia is likely part of her reality


 I went back around to the back of the house.


The gentlemen, who's name I still don't know asked if we knew of anything spray painted on our garage door.

spray painted” and “rattled”
Gentleman:  complimentary (ingratiating)



 I will let the pictures here speak for themselves as I have no desire to type those words

Look at this great mom who is also above racism.

 The NTP of personal greatness suggests the subject, herself, has two issues:
one with parenting
one with racism. 
“type” versus “spray paint”

The arson "investor" arrives.  

After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive.


“Business” and now “investor” 
Note the subject’s refusal to be “alone” in the statement here, even offering drinks.
Note how wonderfully hospitable she is.  (ingratiating)
Note the timing of hospitality is very important to the subject.  When is she (we) so wonderfully hospitable? (in her perception of reality)

She is wonderfully hospitable specifically in the time where she was waiting for the arson investigator to come. 

We “all” waited.  She will NOT be alone with the arson investigator. 

The arson investigator can become an investor when he gives the all clear about the wonderful hospitable, fantastic mother subject. 

MONEY

The kids had still not gone to bed. The firemen offered them a private tour of a fire truck. Yes, even our oldest, who is almost 14, couldn't resist that offer.

The arson investigator arrived and after a brief reporting of what they had found and done, the firemen loaded up and left.


 I was astounded by the vast knowledge of the arson investigator

Please note the “intrusion” of the powerful pronoun “I” supplanting the constant use of “we” here.  The arson investigator is very important to her, the subject, herself. 
Next, note that she has gives a very positive linguistic disposition of her view of him.  This is ingratiating. 
When it comes to the arson investigator, she stands alone. 

This may be because she is the one who conceived of this plan. 

As one of our dogs returned home after being let out, or escaping from the back yard in fear,

 the investigator stopped to help us try to find the other. 

look at the wonderful relationship we have with the wonderful arson investigator who was so NOT concerned about us being guilty that he took time out of his job, in the middle of the night, to help us find our doggie. 

Child protective services need to explore animal abuse/neglect



We wouldn't have any luck with that, but she would be found and returned later in the day. Back to the investigation, evidence was collectedMotives and suspects were discussed



We said good bye to the investigator and went in the house.


From “I” to “we” again (guilt)
“goodbye” is to portray the relationship as positive; a linguistic signal that it was not good at this point. 

Now, consider if this is correct; the “goodbye” (S/A 101) means trouble.

The use of “the house” is the first ‘expected’ usage.


The children, who had never made it back to bed, were much to my amazement ready to go to school when we came back in the house.

Child abuse.



 I had offered to let them stay home, since they had missed out on sleep.

Great mother portrayal in language  = child abuse. 


 They all said that they were not tired and off to school they went.


1.      The emphasis on “all” is unnecessary
2.    “off to school they went” is passive, removing responsibility for them going to school (concealing).
This is another indicator of child abuse. 



So there, now you have it, the narrative of the events that occurred.  

minimizing language in a narrative form.   Confession. 

We have been asked a few questions several times,

interrogation


 so I will answer them now. If you have more questions please ask in the comment section below and I will do my best to answer them.

Do you know who did this?

No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them.

How did the fire start?

While the investigator has shared his theory with us, one I fully support, I am not going to broadcast that on the internet. If you know David or Me personally we will happily tell you one on one 

If you doubted that it was just David, simply listen to her. About who did this, she will not “broadcast” it but the first names to enter about the responsibility is “David” and “Me” (with “Me” in capitalization)



Won't your insurance cover it?

Cover what?
What is “it?”

She has not told us of damage yet. 

Her answer tells us that someone has done her homework, although about fire setting, she has been “astonished” at what the arson investor, investigator, knows. 

She should be.



The homeowner's insurance only covers vehicles that can not be registered to be driven on the road. It would cover the garage door, but the amount of our deductible is grater than the cost of a new door. The Harley was not currently insured or registered as it had a bad voltage regulator.


 I had lowered the insurance coverage on the truck in September or October to liability coverage only and arson is only covered under comprehensive.


 UPDATE: Did you know your homeowners insurance will pay to clean your concrete driveway?

With the addition of the driveway and a few other miscellaneous melted items, we have exceeded our deductible in damages. The estimated damage done to our home and personal property covered by insurance was just under $1,739, after subtracting our deductible and  depreciation we were issued a payment of just over $168.00 


 Why wasn't your motorcycle in the garage?

Anyone who has asked that has never seen the amount of tools David owns.

Please note:  she has avoided answering the question. 


Is this, or why is this, considered a hate crime; aren't you white?

Yes this is considered a hate crime. It is considered a hate crime because of what was painted on the garage door. Yes, we are white. It just so happens that we aren't as racist as someone would like us to be.

Earlier, she projected racism.  Here she admits racism, but just not as racist as someone (singular) would like them to be. 


Tell me about the GoFundMe campaign.

 David and I do not have direct access to this account and had no knowledge of it's creation.

It was set up by a dear friend and David's sister. We are very appreciative and would like nothing more that to be able to thank and hug each person who has given to the campaign. As you can imagine, there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas, and this campaign and the generosity shown has lifted a burden.

 What can I do to help?


So many people have asked this question. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and love that has been show to our family. I don't have a specific answer to this question though. At first my obvious answer was, do you have a car I can borrow? Days after, here are my thoughts. I am not going to tell any one how they can help. If you feel like helping, if you have an idea that would benefit anyone, not just my family, do it.

 Show love in every place and any place available to you.


I am a wonderful person = in S/A, neglectful abusive mother, racist…

 If you have the means to help someone going through a rough patch, do it. So now that all of that has been said...


Racism is not comfortable subject. There are many who would like to pretend that it doesn't exist. There are those who believe racism only exists because, we continue to talk about it. I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism or why it continues.

The argument she is holding is if racism (this event) is real or not! 

 What happened at my house is the cold hard evidence that it does exist and that it continues.

She has a need to persuade in light of what just happened, that what happened is real.

Question:  Who would have such a need to persuade?  (“cold hard evidence” with “cold” and “fire”).  This is the language of a bad relationship. 

Answer:  the one who is faking it.


The questions is what am I going to do about it?  What are you going to do about it? In spite of what was meant to cause fear, I am going to continue to love,

She introduces “fear”
Who’s items were lit up??

It was his items.  Did she do this to not only gain money but to scare him?
Or did he do this to scare her??

Is one of them involved with a black person??




 without regard to race, gender, age, religion, sexual preference or orientation. I am going to acknowledge the experience of those who are discriminated against daily.

 I will stand up for what I know to be true and right,

She knows this story is not true. 


even when it is uncomfortable to do so.



The discomfort may be due to the arson investigator.

 I am going to pick up the pieces and create something beautiful. I am going to embody the cliche "Be the change you want to see in the world."

Conclusion:

Jenny has guilty knowledge of the crime. 

She will not pass a polygraph.  

This statement is a good example of what police call "story telling" but analysis calls "narrative building" including techniques of attempts to manipulate reader emotions (anticipation) as well as artificial (editing) placement of emotion.  

This is also a good example of what "scripted language" looks like. It does not come from experiential memory, but memory of what has been previously discussed.  

Jenny is very likely the architect of this fake hate scam.  


Financial motive is strong. She has the need to defend working from home, and whatever disagreement took place, was resolved with this plan. She appears to have been surprised by the knowledge of the arson investigator, and had a need to praise him (ingratiating factor in language)

Jenny shows possible borderline traits, mental health issues unresolved, need to control; including control of David.  She may have even had to tell him to take his pants off to answer the door (as an example).
Collateral interviews should be on alert for any description such as 'chaotic, controlling' especially impact upon others.  

Domestic violence not indicated here, (Jenny is controlling)  but should be explored in Jenny's childhood, as well as financial issues.
Jenny may have trauma history, including childhood sexual abuse.
She and/or David may have been investigated before. 
She likely has been accused of neglect or abuse of her children. 
Manipulative, impulsive, poor boundaries, desperate for relevancy and attention.
She appears to be the lead in this crime, and shows a need to control, including the husband’s confession being to her. 
The racial aspect must be explored; contact with blacks, possibly within the context of marital discord.
Has family or friends ever accused her of racism?

She may have held the paint can (rattle)

To date, Jennifer and David Williams are not charged with any crimes, as he is reportedly in a mental health facility and are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

If you wish to learn lie detection, please go to "services" at Hyatt Analysis Services for enrollment.