Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Hate Letter For Two Women



What do we know about the author?

The letter was on the vehicle of two elderly lesbians coming out of a leftist political party meeting.

Is it genuine or is it "fake hate"?

What do we know about the author's

a.  background?
b.  experiences?
c.  Motive?
d.  Personality Traits? 

What is the author's linguistic disposition towards the recipient?

What is the author's linguistic disposition towards same sex attraction?

Is there anything in the letter that suggests it is a fake?  

A fake letter would be one in which deliberately planted to appear to be "hate."  




Monday, September 25, 2017

September Team Analysis Training Schedule

Congratulations to those who completed the HIDTA (high intensity drug trafficking area) training in Tuscon, Arizona  this week.

This is a talented class of professionals who quickly embraced the basic principles of Statement Analysis and showed both a hunger to learn and keen intellects.  They moved quickly from case to case, combined instinct with principle, and were an exciting group to teach. They asked all the right questions. 

 Many have jobs that are "gold mines" of opportunity to use Statement Analysis daily in their work.  With a director who is committed, experienced, intelligent and with a good sense of humor, they furthered their own professional foundation with HIDTA's training opportunities.  

Congratulations. 

***************************************************

For those enrolled in our monthly live trainings, the training invitation goes out the night before.  The norm is to include statements, but not always.  It is beneficial for some trainings to go into a statement without preparation.

For those who wish to enroll in our training, Complete Statement Analysis is available to be completed in your home and it comes with 12 months of e support, but also one free invitation to the live 6 hour training that is done monthly with analysts from the U.S., Canada, Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Russia, Australia, and so on.  

New enrollees are often pleasantly surprised how supportive professional analysts and instructors are.  

This week:

Tuesday 9am to 3pm EST

Wednesday 10am to 4pm EST

Thursday   12noon to 6pm  EST

Any questions about your yearly subscription or about training should be sent to:  hyattanalysis@gmail.com and visit our website at Hyatt Analysis Services for more information. 

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Guest Analysis: Is Swedish Politician Patrik Liljeglöd Truthful?



by Lars Bak 

The Swedish politician, Patrik Liljeglöd, has on his facebook page published a statement, claiming that he has been raped because of his political activities. 

Question for Analysis: Is his account of the event truthfull? 

This is his recollection of the event:

"Democracy is a right but soon not a truism?
I have an important matter to present. At first glance it can seem to only affect me personally, but in the long run it affects us all.
At the end of July this year, when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening with a party comrade. There the pleasantness stops. On the way home I was attacked by a, to me unknown, man with knife. I was brusquely treated and at knife point also raped on the pretext that I was a female Left-genitalia, that the likes of us like it this way and finally, that I was a traitor.
The few words and opinions the man uttered had a clear connection to me as politically active and therefore it affects us all."


I. Statement Form 

We start with measuring a statement on its form.

A statistically reliable statement will generally dedicate the most number of lines (or words) to what happened. This is because what happened, or "the event" is the most important thing to the subject. Here the politician claimed to be raped. In reporting rape, the priority will be the traumatic event. 

When we measure his statement on "what happened", we find that  most reliable statements' percentage breaks down naturally as such:
25% of the words or lines used will describe what happened leading up to the assault
50% of the words will be dedicated to the actual assault. It is the most important part of the account and anything close to 50% should be considered reliable. This speaks to priority. In such an acutely personal assault, most of the words will be dedicated to it.
25% of the words will be about what happened afterwards, such as calling the police, or getting help.

Anything reasonably close to this is acceptable.

In Liljeglöd’s statement the percentage is:
13% is about what happened leading up to the assault
11% is about the actual assault
0% about what happened afterwards. Instead, the remaining 76% of the statement is dedicated to an extensive speech about the conditions for political activities in today’s Sweden.
Based on this, we deem the statement unreliable in its form. This now puts us on alert for deception.

II. Analysis


Democracy is a right but soon not a truism?
I have an important matter to present. At first glance it can seem to only affect me personally, but in the long run it affects us all.
Where someone begins a statement is always important. It can indicate the priority and often the reason for the statement itself. 

Here Liljeglöd tells us himself that he will present us with an important matter, having to do with “Democracy as a right”. This is where he chose to begin his statement and we should question if this is his priority. It is an "important matter" that is to all of us "in the long run."

Consider in the context of rape, it is unnecessary to state something is an "important matter."

However, he expresses doubt about this by putting an effort into assuring us that we eventually will grasp the importance. We call this a need to persuade (NTP) which indicates that Liljeglöd himself is in doubt regarding the general importance, making the claim weak. The alleged purpose is sensitive to him, also indicated by the headline ending with a question mark.
At the end of July this year,
Considering that we are about to hear about a rape, it is unexpected, that we are not given a specific point in time; being raped is a highly traumatic and often a life changing event, so we would expect the point in time to be mentioned.  The hormonal response in such events ("fight or flight") leaves a lasting impression.

July this year” might suggest that Liljeglöd does not ascribe any importance to the time of the event. 

It just happened “sometime”. We must now look for, whether Liljeglöd finds the importance in the event itself or in his use of it – what “the important matter” actually is.
when the busses had stopped running, a mild summer night invited me to wander home alone after a pleasant evening together with a fellow party member.
When someone in an open statement is supposed to tell us what happened and then explains why it happened, we always notice it as having the highest sensitivity. It is as if the subject expects us to ask, "why?" when often such a question would not enter our minds. 

The reason why Liljeglöd chose to “wander” home is very sensitive to him; it is unnecessary information as is his mentioning of being alone. 

In analysis, unnecessary information is of double importance, because we must consider, why there is a need to mention it. 

He may withhold information about both his reasons for to walk home and whether he in fact was alone. It would also be interesting to know, what “wandering” means in his personal vocabulary – does it mean to walk straight home or is there some “strolling around” for some reason to it.

We would also want to explore for entry of substances: was he sober?
The language is “passive” in the way, that there is no one acting; he “was invited”. By the lack of pronouns, Liljeglöd removes himself, psychologically, from the statement indicating lack of commitment to it at this point. Liljeström does not commit himself to what he says. With something as horrific as rape, this is most unexpected.
The whole sentence does stylistically resemble “narrative building” or storytelling, which is often found in deceptive statements, rather than a truthful account of “what happened”. It indicates that the statement doesn’t come from experiential memory, but is likely made up.
We make a note of, that Liljeglöd does not tell us, that he walked home alone; he was only “invited” to do it
There the pleasantness stops.
Here Liljeglöd “jump out” of his narrative in order to comment on it. This also belongs to storytelling. Not only does it attribute “drama” to the story: we can be sure, that the idyllic evening will soon turn into something bad. At the same time, it slows down the tempo in the statement, which is also often found in deceptive statements, when it nears the actual happenings, because the recollection of them might be sensitive to the speaker.
On the way home I was attacked by a, to me unknown, man with knife.
There is a jump in time here. We can’t say how big it is, but jumps in time suggests withholding or skipping over of information. Yet, it is on his mind enough to show a need to "jump" over it.  

It is very concerning that he gives the completely unnecessary piece of information, that the man was unknown; that the man was unknown “to me” is superfluous and makes it double sensitive. 

Is the man in fact known to Liljeglöd? Or is he known to somebody Liljeglöd knows? Why the need to emphasize that the man is not only unknown, but unknown “to me”. Had he consented to some sort of interaction but got second thoughts, angering “the man”? Is it somebody he went along with from the bus stop? At no point does Liljeström claim, that he was alone, and if he can’t bring himself to say that, we are not allowed to say it for him.
I was brusquely treated and at knife point also raped
This is not an expected account of a rape. 

Would any rape victim ever speak of a rape as an add-on? 

“By the way, I was also raped”? 

The “brusquely” treatment is mentioned first, showing that it has higher priority for Liljeglöd

We don’t know what lies in “brusquely treated” – was he spoken impolitely to, was he commanded down on all fours, was he yelled at or what? 

“Brusquely”  speaks to intonation and appearance, whereas a rape at knife point is a horrific, violent act. 

The subject’s priorities here are so unexpected, that it is hard to believe him. On the other hand “I was brusquely treated” is a strong statement, starting with I and no unnecessary information; it is likely true, but immediately after it, he removes himself from the add-on “and at knife point also raped”, which weakens his commitment to the stated.

on the pretext that I was a female Left-genitalia that the likes of us like it this way and finally, that I was a traitor.
Note: his party is named The Left-party

Now the subject introduces “pretext”. It is hardly possible to imagine any scenario, where a rapist reveals his “pretext” – “I rape you on the pretext that…”, so “pretext” must be the subject's’s own assumption. But what makes him make it? If the three alleged utterings are a pretext, then they are per definition not the reasons for raping him; then Liljeström was simply raped because he was raped. It makes no sense. Is he leaking out here, that the story is his own pretext for stating his “important matter”.
The few words and opinions the man uttered
A rape victim is not expected to give in to the rapist in any way or form. The subject however allows for the rapist to have his opinions – “I do not consider myself a traitor, but he has the right to his own opinion”. This might be appropriate in a political panel discussion, but it is not something a victim of rape is expected to make room for.
That “the man” only uttered few words seems not trustworthy. 

Did the ““brusque treatment” not include any “utterances”? The entire story lacks detail that would indicate an experienced event. Liljeström does not appear to speak from experiential memory.
had a clear connection to me as politically active
They had not.
“I was a female Left-genitalia” could be aimed at any stereotyped, active or passive, supporter of The Left-party
“the likes of us like it this way” has no political implications whatsoever. Besides it sounds as a trivial cliché from a bad Hollywood prison movie – it resembles storytelling
I was a traitor” could be connected to the subject’s political activities. But he doesn’t tell us how. Has he been accused of being a traitor? Has he betrayed someone during his political activities? Does he intend to?
There is no linguistic connection to his political activities; we have two sexually loaded insults and one undefined accusation of being a traitor, which seems incongruent with the rapist’s former utterances. Is this his "brusque" treatment?
and therefore it affects us all.
Again it is nessecary for the subject to explain why it is affecting us all, making it sensitive to him. It could be, that he is aware of that the story is only a pretext.

Analysis Conclusion:


Deception indicated

The subject reports being "attacked", then "brusquely" treated, and used "rape" as an add in or after thought.  

He is withholding information about his decision to “wander” home.
He is deceptive about whether he was alone at any point in time.
He is withholding information about his encounter with the alleged rapist, including the identity.
Being raped is very personal, and victims have strong linguistic connection to it.  

The subject does not.

The subject has no sensory detail given.

Motive: The priority is political publicity.

It is questionable whether the incident is made up in order to propagate a political agenda or if this was a random consensual sexual encounter in which he did not like the way he was treated. Either way, his priority is political.

It is not known if he knows the man of whom he reports, or if the man is a "friend of a friend." The unnecessary information "unknown to me" suggests knowledge and connection.

If you would like to enroll in training in Statement Analysis, we offer seminars for Law Enforcement and business, as well as private, at home study.

Our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done in the privacy of your own home, and comes with 12 months of e support.

Visit: Hyatt Analysis Services for information, including examples of our work.



Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Great Mom in Statement Analysis

We recognize two realities; one is within life, and one is within analysis, with the latter a verbalized perception.  

What we say in analysis is not what we say in life.  

"Never hire a _______" is both tongue-in-cheek and it is understood by analysts for what it is.  

In this sense, "I love you" is understood sometimes, not as an expression of an emotion, but in analysis, sometimes it is a signal of the time of death in a murder, and at other times, a verbal signal of a poor bonding or relationship.  

Fair Shew in the Flesh

We find in open statements, that when one writes, "I am a great mother", there is a correlation to child abuse, including both accusations and even formal investigations.  It is seen in the need to assert such, as presented.  

We find this, in various forms, in applications at Methadone Clinics particularly when a baby was born addicted to drugs and suffered acutely through withdrawal.  

We look into this need to persuade, that is, a need to make a portrayal as a good parent.  

There is an olde expression that says, "one is making a fair shew in the flesh" meaning, the "show" is done to satisfy self.  

An exaggerated version of this is when one blows a trumpet to announce how much money one is donated to a cause.  It is done to cause a presentation where self is highlighted.  "Look at me!"

At a supermarket parking lot, a woman viciously tore into her husband about a buckle on the car seat.  She caused a stir from the crowd as she gave an extreme reaction to a minor issue with the message:

"Look at me!  What a great and concerned mother I am! Only I have this high level of concern for my child! You don't love him as much as I do!" 

School teachers often bear the brunt of this.  The more negligent the parent, the more the teacher is blamed and even attacked.  When it is a negligent father, his bitterness can be frightening.  

This often leads to criticizing and tearing down of others.  

The "flesh" refers to self gratification and is often seen in narcissistic statements. The guilt of the negligent or abusive parent is countered by an over reaction to a minor issue.  

The child, as a novelty, becomes the tool for the parent. 

When we encounter, "I am a great mother" in any form, we investigate for a connection to child abuse. 

When we encounter "I love you", we investigate for a troubled relationship, whether it be in a domestic homicide or in child abuse.  

It is the need to use these words that we explore. 

To whom is the subject writing?

When we encounter "...and then I said 'I love you' to my kids and left..." in a police statement, we explore for:

a.  child abuse
b.  neglect
c.  missing information 

In the above, the subject has the need to tell police that she loves her kids.  This is unnecessary information meaning that it is very important to the analysis.  

But did you also notice her "leaving"?

The point of highlighting "left" in an open statement is this:

The person is not thinking of the destination but of the location of the departure. 

The person is not thinking forwardly, but is stalled. 

This is a statement in which the subject tells us that she is deliberately withholding information around the time of departure, likely associated with the children.  

"The Great Mom" in Statement Analysis has its examples.  

Recall in the murder of Hailey Dunn in which her mother, Billie Jean Dunn and mother's boyfriend, Shawn Adkins, failed polygraphs, she made this statement. 

Hailey's mother and mother's boyfriend had amassed a huge collection of:

child pornography
bestiality (sexual arousal in abuse of animals) 
blood lust videos (sex/violence)
and substance abuse. 

The "great mom" had burned a tattoo into one child while moving a violent pedophile into her home, after calling police on him, frightening her now murdered child.  

The mother projected her own "norm" on Facebook when she rhetorically asked,

"Who doesn't have some bestiality on their computer?"  

She carries her norm in her language and sees perversion everywhere.  

The Great Mom is not simply seen in the words "I'm a great mother" alone.  Recall the same mother, reporting to the world that her 13 year old had disappeared boasting of just how great a mother she was:  "...she wasn't just allowed to go out without asking permission...she wasn't allowed to..." 

Rather than focus on the plight of her "missing" child at this critical point, the mother focused upon her own self, and what a great mother she is.  She did not realize how she had slipped into past tense language of her missing daughter.  The need to focus on self in the very moment when all focus should be upon the child is telling. 

Recall the McCanns' early interviews.  They did not claim Madeleine was kidnapped (only their supporters did) and did not talk about what Madeleine would have been going through, hour by hour, with a kidnapper. 

This is because it did not exist in their memory bank.  It did not exist because it was not reality.  They did not spend hours stressing over what life must be like for Madeleine; if she had her special blanket, toy or bottle.  This was not a concern, therefore, it did not process in the brain, and was not in the memory bank when questioned.  

They were, however, great parents who worked diligently in dedicating words to show the exact number of meters away they were when they left their little children home alone, unattended.  They devote many more words to self than to Madeleine.  

The innocent parents of missing and murdered children speak one language while those of guilty knowledge speak another.  

The former blame themselves for any and everything, while the latter not only excuse themselves in portrayal as "good" and even "normal" parents, but the deception eventually causes them to go on the offensive and attack. 

The attack can include doubters, and then police and then even to law suits. 

The innocent are left bereft of their children and care for nothing else. 

The deceptive try to conceal their contempt for the world, but it is inevitable.  When one believes oneself smarter than all others in putting over a lie, contempt must come.

In the same sense, they often cling to their supporters but if you listen closely enough, you'll witness the contempt, often passive-aggressive, even as they praise the close circle of those they have successfully deceived.  

Parents who have a need to portray themselves in a positive light would not need to do so unless circumstances gave rise.  This is why we view it in open statements; they choose their own words and what they feel most important to state. 

For training in lie detection for your law enforcement department, business as well as for individual training in home, enroll in our Complete Statement Analysis Course at www.hyattanalysis.com











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):


Publicity. 


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,



Normal

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