Is this account truthful?
Here is basic analysis to get to the conclusion of learning if Bree Nece has told the truth about being a victim of a political assault.
I. The Statement
II. The Statement with Emphasis and Analysis
III. the Conclusion of the Matter
II. The Statement With Analysis
My sister and i had such an amazing night at the New Kids on the Block concert in Seattle.
This is where the subject began her account. She wants us to know she was not alone, the specific performing act and the location. Note the lower case "i" used.
She tells us that it was "an amazing" night.
This is not where we expect an unprovoked hate crime to begin. This is Narrative Building language, such as police commonly call "story telling."
Remember: we presuppose that the subject is truthful and that her words will guide us. In this sense, we trust the language to guide us to what happened.
"New Kids on the Block" is very important to her. This now alerts us to:
a. possible attention seeking
b. seeking favorable response from any fans of this particular band (persuasion). Seeking to curry favor with some (including those who voted for Donald Trump) tells us that the subject has a need to seek approval.
c. possible personality trait of manipulation. This is something we find in substance abuse, as well as other personality traits that use manipulation.
Unfortunately the night ended bad.
An attack is not "unfortunate" in the language of trauma. "Unfortunate" minimizes the setting for us before we get to what happened.
Remember, we are letting her words guide us.
In the flow of information she now tells us of chronology. The "amazing night" is now shown to have "ended bad" (sic). This does not negate the amazing night.
In an unprovoked hate crime attack, the incident is unexpected, which increases trauma, its impact, and its visibility through language.
We can continue to believe her that she and her sister had an amazing night and it is only the end of it which was bad.
This is not consistent with trauma. Trauma results from unknown and unexpected (no time to prepare).
We must now be alert that this was possibly not an entirely unexpected event. (surprise element). For example, in a fight, combatants square off and have an expectation of both being assaulted and assaulting another.
In an attack, there is not anticipation of assault in the moment before the attack.
This is the work of a " man".
The attack is now called a "work", which suggests the processing of events. It is conclusory language.
Note also rule 6b of quotes as she assigns a different meaning to the word "man" than normally understood.
This is sometimes used to insult the manhood of a male who fights a woman.
It is not something we expect to see in an attack.
In the assigning of a different meaning of "man", the subject shows disrespect for him.
In a totally unexpected attack, there is no concern with insult, nor is there an expectation that the assailant will have gentleman qualities, or rules by which he is governed. This use of "man" shows that the man's behavior is not considered appropriate by the victim.
This, itself, in an attack, is both unexpected and unnecessary.
In statement analysis, unnecessary words are vitally important to the analysis. It is additional information that the subject feels important to tell us.
When a person attacks another, the attacker's qualities are not in question nor in need of address: he is an attacker and this, alone, tells his character.
The she feels it necessary to visit his characteristics tells us that there was interaction between them that she is not disclosing but that she expected better behavior from him.
This is not consistent with an unknown attacker.
After leaving the concert we were walking toward our hotel room. We were approached by 2 men and a woman.
Here the pace is slowed down. Instead of saying, "we were attacked", the subject is setting the stage, which is Narrative Building (or story telling).
"Approached" continues to slow down the pace as does their "walking" toward their hotel room.
She felt it necessary to tell us in which direction she was headed.
This unnecessary information is only unnecessary to us; but not to her.
Therefore, we may now wonder if the subject intended on going somewhere other than her hotel room.
It was ok at first until the woman asked where we were from.
Here with the pace slowed, we have interaction, which affirms the analysis from above.
The element addressed here is time. She does not tell us how much time elapsed nor what was "okay" at first. This is missing information.
She then said " Well i hope you didn't vote for Trump" when i admitted that i had, she then called us a racist..
"then" speaks to the passing of time, with "well" showing a pause. There was much more discussed here that she is not telling us.
Note "admitted" is to show not only reluctance, but more processing of time within conversation.
Note the inconsistency within the pronoun. She "admitted" that she, herself, voted for Trump, but then she called "us", (more than one) "a" racist.
The article and the pronoun are inconsistent. This is something we flag for deception.
The two men with her verbally attacked us as well.
Being called "racist" is considered by her a verbal attack. Note "as well" indicates that something brought the two men into the conversation.
She physically approached me and a fight ensued.
Note that before, they "approached" but here, she "physically" approached. This is a change of language.
Note that "and a fight ensued" is to employ passivity in speech. This is an indication that she is deliberately concealing who instituted the fight.
We believe her.
We now know that she was not attacked but she got into a fight. By deliberately avoiding telling us who caused the fight, along with the other deceptive indicators, we may now conclude that our subject has a reason why she does not want to tell us who started the fight.
It is a fight and not a hate attack.
One of the 'men' was on top of me punching as my sister watched helplessly. As she tried to pull him off me, the other " man" punched her in the face.
She continues to classify the 'men' (wrong quotation marks) which tells us she expected better from them.
This is not expected in an attack (it is unnecessary) but it is not needed in a "fight" unless she had expected the male (s) to stay out of her fight with the woman.
Note the sister as "helpless" yet "tried" to pull him off.
It would not surprise me to learn that the man tried to intervene in the fight between the subject and the woman who "physically" approached her.
Her need to insult suggests this.
Her repetition of insult affirms it.
He stood up and kicked me in the face and ribs.
That he "stood up" tells us that she may have had him on the ground.
The structure of this sentence is reliable. He likely kicked her in the face and ribs.
Ive never in my life had so much rage in trying to protect my little sister.
Here we have editorializing of her emotions.
I then was the helpless one.. I conceal and carry , but i didn't this night because concert arenas don't allow guns.
Note here the pronoun "I"
The "man" came back for more,
This phrase will warrant amplification from the subject. From the context, we must now wonder if the man had separated them, was attacked again by our subject, moved away from her, but that she taunted him to come "back for more", or did something aggressive (like "physically approach" him) to cause this.
slammed me on the concrete and drug me by my hair across the sidewalk..There were 3 witnesses and the two " men" were takin to jail and released the next day.
The structure here suggests reliability. There is likely a police report filed. This does not mean she is truthful.
Next the great night with only a bad portion at the end, turns to attention seeking behavior:
This is a growing problem in our country with political differences that are causing violence perpetrated by our media. It has caused these fringe groups like "Antifa" and other extreme leftist groups to start preying on us.
This is to use a deflection, telling us her need to deflect which affirms her as the aggressor.
Antifa is a dangerous violent movement where logic is voided and moral narcissism used to fuel assaults.
It is unrelated to our subject's account.
I stood up. I fought. And I did not back down. I voted for Trump. And I am damn proud of it!!!
This is inconsistent with her "admitting" earlier. It does, however, further affirm the analysis of her instigating and keeping the fight going.
I will take these cowards to court even if it takes a lifetime. .
This sentence suggests affirmation about her persistence in having him come "back for more."
I love you sister so much.Gina Nino
Analysis conclusion: Deception Indicated
The subject was not a victim of a hate crime, that is, a politically motivated assault. She is deceptively withholding important facts of the account of what happened.
It was not an assault.
The subject got into a fight and likely the instigator.
Who is responsible for starting a fight? It is not always the one who throws the first punch but he (or she) who requires the first punch be thrown.
There may have been elements of politics verbally in the altercation, but she has given a one-sided version. The deception is within what is missing.
The use of "man" tells us that she, herself, is in conflict with her own understanding of the roles of masculinity and femininity further affirming her role as instigator. She wants to require the male to take a distinctly gentlemanly role, which is not to hit a woman, but she refuses, in this, to take the role of a lady, meaning not to imitate the male and fight physically.
This further affirms her guilt besides giving us a great deal more insight into what happened.
The fight was between women and she expected it to remain this way. This may be because she perceived herself as "winning" until the "man" intervened.
It would be fascinating to read statements from the accused.
She started the fight and very likely kept it going when it may have been broken up. She likely required the first punch. Hence, "physically approached" may have been in response to a threat or insult that she is concealing.
I am concerned that the subject may have been under the influence.
It is very likely that those arrested told a different account than our subject.
She is not truthful in that she is withholding information and she is giving a false narrative to a fight, portraying it as a political assault.
It is "fake hate."
She likely was very good at escalating the trouble.
For deception detecting training example, please see some of the video examples on You Tube here and here.
Email firstname.lastname@example.org to enroll in training at home.
Our home course is complete and the lectures are on MP3. It includes the workbook and ebook, where you receive 12 months of e support of your work.
You will also receive one free invitation training link to Go To Meeting where you do team analysis.
The end result is teaching you not only the principles, but the appropriate application of principles and working at or near 100% accuracy in detecting deception.
Our ongoing live monthly training for those enrolled, is eligible for CEUs (Continuing Education Units) from the University of Maine for professional licenses.