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.
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?
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
Breaking My 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
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
collected. Motives 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.
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.