Friday, 13 October 2017

Statement Analysis: Courtney Bell's 911 Call about Caliyah

The following is the transcription of the 911 call made by Caliyah's mother.

The child has been found murdered and thus far, the father has been charged with the murder.

Question for analysis:

Does the mother show guilty knowledge of the call?

Analysis of 911 call is not unique, nor is it a "specialty" with different sets of rules or applications. It is simply an interview with authority in which the priority is to obtain assistance or intervention.

Transcript 911 call - missing infant Caliyah McNabb.
Hat tip: "Hey Jude"

PO: What is the emergency?

CB:I just woke up, my daughter woke me up on the couch, um, I have a two year old and I have a two week old - and m- my two week old is not in her sleeper, and her paci is on the floor

She has a missing child to report, but does not. Here is what she reports:

1. I just woke up.

This is to indicate to police (911 is representative of police/authority) that the caller's priority is that she could not be involved nor possess any knowledge about what happened to the victim because she "just" (time) woke up.

Note the need to presuppose that she was asleep. She does not say "I was asleep" instead focusing upon her point of waking up.

2. "my daughter woke me up."

Second is the one who caused her to wake up. This would be to double down on the fact that in order for her to be awakened, she had to be asleep.

If her own words were not believed, she now introduces an eye witness: her two year old daughter.

Note the element of neglect in which the mother is awakened by her two year old.

3. If you still don't believe she was sleeping and don't believe the eye witness testimony of the two year old (the second person introduced in this interview), she now gives the location of where she was awakened.

"...on the couch."

This is as to say "you have to believe me but if you don't you have to believe the 2 year old, but if you still don't, here is an unnecessary specific detail that only a truthful person would give...I was on the couch,

This is all to overwhelm the listener with persuasion that the caller was asleep.

This need to persuade tells us: Caller was awake.

The priority for the caller is that she could not possibly be accused of anything because she was sleeping and can "prove" it.

Will she report her child as missing?

4. I have a two year old

She further revisits that she must be truthful about sleeping because not only did her two year old wake her (on the couch) but this two year old, does, in fact, exist and his hers.

5. and I have a two week old

The victim is her fifth point, but she has not yet reported her missing. This sounds like an afterthought; not the purpose of the call.

Analysis Question: What is the purpose of this call?

This assertion of having both is unnecessary information. It suggests to the listener the need to persuade that she has two children.

This should lead us to question,

At the time of this call, does the caller know she has but one child?

She now gets to her 6th point:

6. and m- my two week old is not in her sleeper,

She does not report the child missing. She reports where the child is not.

This is an example of deception while being 100% technically truthful.

It is true that the two week old is not in her sleeper.

Where else is her two week old not?

7. her pacifier is on the floor.

Regarding what happened, the priority of the call is that the caller was not awake.

She has not reported her missing. This is not lost on the 911 operator who repeats back the words in the form of a question:

PO: She’s not in her sleeper?

CB: She’s not in her sleeper- sh-she’s not here, I’ve looked everywhere, I’ve looked under clothes and everything

She repeats back the 911 operator's words. This indicates one who is using unintended recipient (audience) and is limiting her words. This is consistent with scripting rather than excited utterance.

Only after repeating that she is not in her sleeper does she report where else the victim is not:

"she's not here" is also to report in the negative, another location where she is not.

This is language we sometimes see when the subject knows the location of the child, but wishes to only focus on "safe" locations; where the child is not.

She does not say, "my baby is missing" but reports two locations where the child is not:

"in her sleeper" and "here."

She then breaks with maternal instinct:

"I’ve looked everywhere,

There is no need for police to search for her because the caller has searched "everywhere."

This is another indicator of guilty knowledge: she does not want the child found.

This is often in the language of those with guilty knowledge of not only location, but also what condition the body is going to be found in.

Since "everywhere" has been searched, there is no possible hope of finding her.

She then expands on what "everywhere" is in her subjective understanding and uses further language of neglect of a household:

I’ve looked under clothes and everything

PO: What’s your address, ma’am?
CB:12145 highway 36, lot 31
CB:Yes, lot 31

PO: Do you think somebody took her, ma’am?

This question is forced because the caller will not commit.

Recall the language of the McCanns in what they refused to linguistically commit to.

Her answer gives further insight into neglect and the caller's personality:

CB:My child said - m-m-m-my two year old said she’s gone…a-a-and I’ve looked everywhere in the house, so I - and I don’t know another possibility

This is the same "child" who, at age 2, woke up the caller (on the couch) and made the report.

This caller will, in self survival, blame anyone, including those closest to her. This is critical information for the interview and interrogation.

She will not say "someone kidnapped my baby" for herself, in the free editing process. This is where we see similarity to the McCanns.

PO: What lot number are you at?
CB: 31

PO: Okay. And you said you were asleep, woke up and she was gone?

CB: Yes. Ma-ma-ma two year old came and woke me up

She avoids saying "I was sleeping" and stays on script.

PO: Okay
CB: That’s [inaudible] on the couch.

CB: Caliyah!! [calling loudly to missing baby]

This is an example of unintended recipient or audience. She is playing to the recording.

PO: How old is she’ ma’am?
CB: Two weeks old.

PO: Okay. Who else would have come in your house?

The operator gave her these words; she did not produce them for herself and the operator follows up on the operator's own wording. This is to indicate that the caller is not working with police to facilitate the flow of information necessary to recover her child.

CB: I - I mean - as far as I know nobody would’ve came in my house. My two year old says Poppa but I called my dad, and I called my grandparents, and they don’t have her. My dad’s on the way here now.

She now further names those she would consider blaming to save herself.

PO: Okay

[CB shouts something inaudible - a name?]

PO: Alright, how long have you been asleep?

Remember: this is an assumption that the deceptive and manipulative caller led her to. It is not what the caller said.

CB: Um, the last time I woke up with her was around - I guess five, maybe

a. note the child is without a name
b. note the word "with" between herself and the child indicates distance.

The refusal to use the child's name is psychological distancing language. Review the "Baby Lisa" case here at the blog for further understanding of how guilt will drive distance into language.

PO: Okay. So you were asleep till five o clock?

Simple question repeating back the words. This is a "yes or no" question and the answer is important:

CB: [lengthy pause] I didn’t mean to fall asleep on the couch…I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night…

What did she avoid saying besides "yes" or "no"?

Answer: "I was asleep."

The avoidance of this indicates not only the need for an alibi, but demonstrates how difficult a direct lie in an open statement is to tell.

The revisitation of the location is to stay to script and persuade that with such a detail, it can't possibly be a lie.

PO: Can you tell if someone’s been there - is her blanket there or gone?

As a mother, which would be more important to you? If someone came into your house, or the blanket?

This allows her to choose which to answer:

CB: Ur - her blanket’s gone, her paci’s here on the floor - her blanket’s not with us, I don’t know where - I mean - I g- I don’t know, I guess it’s with her

Although compound questions are to be avoided, a child with her blanket is often the work of a parent. Perhaps the 911 operator knew this instinctively.

Can you think of a case where the victim was found in a blanket and the parent or parents lied about the case?

PO: Okay.

CB: And I have clothes in totes, but i’ve looked all in ‘em and she’s not here

A two week old child in a tote, under clothes, tells you insight about the mother.

PO: Is there anything else missing, like a baby bag, that she would have, or anything -

CB: No. Her bottle’s here - on top of my shelf -
PO: Okay, what about

CB: Ah - my roo-In my bathroom on my vanity…
PO: Ma’am.
CB: Huh?

PO: What about anything else that could possibly have gone like, could be hers, that could’ve gone with her?

CB: Um - no. Nothing else. Just her and her blanket

This is likely true, but without an inventory of the house, how would she know otherwise?

PO: Okay, so the only thing that’s missing is her and her blanket? You didn’t talk to the dad, or her grandma, or anybody else?

Remember the question about someone being there? It is on the caller's mind:

CB: Her dad was here, and her dad just left- an-an he’s walking around the park looking for her - because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not

She now addresses who was there. Before she offered others, from the testimony of the 2 year old (who woke her up on the couch).

"her dad" is now very important.

What do we know about "her dad"?

1. Her dad was here,

This is not what she offered before. Instead, she offered names of those who were not there.

2. and her dad just left-

Here is a signal of withheld information. Rather than tell us where he was ("walking around the park") she reports his departure. She is not "moving forward" linguistically. He cannot be at the park unless he left there. This is unnecessary deliberately withheld information.

an-an he’s walking around the park looking for her -

Why is he walking around the park?

She anticipates being asked this question.
No one would ask this question. Of course he is out looking for her.

He was not.

He was "walking around the park."

She anticipates being asked, "Why is her dad walking around the park?" unnecessarily and this is how she, herself, is caught. She wants to preempt the asking of this question.

Note how she gives the reason why as it is highlighted in blue? This is called a "hina clause" and it is longer than just a single word.

These two points of sensitivity, so close together, tell us that she is deceptively withholding information about the child's dad.

The dad's location is so sensitive to her that she is not done yet, explaining why:

because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not

Deception Indicated about the dad's involvement in the disappearance.

PO: Have you looked through everything, ot under the bed?
CB: Yes ma’am.
PO: The bathroom?
CB: Yes ma’am.
PO: Okay

CB: Caliyah!
PO: Alright, what’s your name, ma’am?

CB: Courtney Bell C-O-U-R-T-N-E-Y B-E-L-L
PO: Just to let you know, Courtney, they've been on their way out, I’m just giving them this information to update them, okay?
CB: Thank you so much,
PO: What’s your phone number?
CB: Um, i’m not sure of this number, I - uh, my phone busted the other day, um this is my grandmother’s phone she’s been letting me use
PO: Alright, so you and the dad both were - i’m just trying to get to understand so I can let them know cause of the questions that they’re asking me
PO: You and the dad both were asleep, or he just came back home?

Note the need to link the two of them together. This is information she withheld. She gives it because she has to (she's been asked) but then returns to script:

CB: No, w-we woke up together - she woke us up together

PO: Okay. The two year old woke y’all up and told y’all that the baby was gone?
PO: Okay.

CB: Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?

PO: Okay. So the police should be in the area now
CB: Thank you
PO: I’ll go ahead and let you go, okay.
CB: Thanks.
PO: Uh huh

The politeness is the "Ingratiating Factor" where the guilty caller has a need to align herself with police. She linguistically "ingratiates" herself into their good graces.

This is similar to DeOrr Kunz spending a great deal of time and energy thanking police and authorities for not finding his missing little boy.

Analysis Conclusion:

This mother has guilty knowledge of what happened to the baby.

As of this writing, only the father has been charged.

By this call, alone, the case is all but solved.

For training in detecting deception, visit:

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Ronald McMullen 911 Call on His Daughter's Shooting

After collecting evidence and noting some things "did not add up", police have arrested Ronald McMullen in the shooting death of his daughter.

The 911 call gives us a great deal of information before an investigation even begins. It often tells us most everything we need to know to focus our investigation.

Statement Analysis is the scientific process by which truth from deception is discerned, content obtained, and a profile of the speaker (subject) emerges.

An emergency call (911) is an "interview" where questions are posed with the expectation of answers given. Once a person speaks, if the person speaks in order to be understood, analysis is applicable.

In an interview, the interviewer (here, the 911 operator) will generally be given one of two impressions:

Either the subject is working with police to facilitate the flow of information, or the subject is not.

A good example of this is in the New Year's Eve shooting by former police chief William McCollum of his wife. The subject, a police chief at the time, did everything possible to conceal information about the shooting, including his personal relationship with the victim. A contentious relationship, the caller attempted to conceal responsibility for the shooting.


In spite of what some claim, a direct lie, that is, a fabrication of reality in an open statement is very rare. Less than 10% of deception is via this means. Those who are capable of fabricating reality in an open statement are accomplished liars who bring much damage to society.

Even sociopaths feel internal stress over lying, while holding no empathy for others. This is because we are conditioned to resist direct lying, which may result in a confrontational position where we are openly viewed as a liar.

Here, the caller shot his own daughter in the face and struggles to lie.

The internal stress of lying is lessened via several means including:

1. Yes or No questions.

These remove the burden of having to formulate a complete sentence that fabricates reality.

2. Parroting Questions

This, too, lessens the burden as the subject may use the language of the interviewer rather than create his own.

3. Lack of Commitment

"I don't know" and "I don't remember (recall)" are very frequently used in deception. "I don't recall" in any form, is said to be the number one form of deception in legal proceedings under oath.

Even guilty parties who are deceptive may have 100% technically truthful sentences. Listen carefully to the words of Ronald McCullen's 911 call.

The entire call is found Here

911: Where's the location of the emergency?

Subject: gives address

911: Your name and phone number?

Subject: gives name and phone number.

He answered both questions without offering any additional information.

This is a signal of obedience that we note.

Ingratiating Factor

In Statement Analysis, we note that some guilty parties will seek to "ingratiate" themselves into law enforcement. This is a powerful emotion within humans with our need of acceptance. In statement analysis it can become a red flag in cases such as:

DeOrr Kunz jr.

Here, the father gave a lengthy praise of police (authority) and search and rescue professionals.

Q. What is wrong with praising police and search and rescue professionals?

A. They had not found his son.

Often, urgency means impolite responses, as the caller, desperate to save the victim, will interrupt and go right to what has happened. Here, he patiently answers the questions.

911: "what's the problem there?"

"My daughter's shot. Just come to this address.

Here we learn how difficult it is for a human to lie outright. It is not only less than 10% of deception, it is by those most readily accomplished in deception.

Here, the caller is able to tell the truth. His daughter is shot; this is true.

It is not expected that he would stop here with the information. Yet, there is a single word that calls us to attention. The word is "just."

The word "just" is, in statement analysis, classified as a "dependent word." This means that it is when the subject is thinking of two or more other elements. If I say to you, "this car is just $15,000" it signals that I am comparing it to a more expensive car. In a sense, it is to say "only" or "solely."

Why would he not say "Come to this address", but add in "just"?

What else might he be thinking?

This word is a hint that the subject has something else on his mind that police might do besides coming to his address.

That he did not offer information about his daughter is not lost on the 911 operator. She now has the sense that the subject is not working with her for the flow of information.

911: Your daughter was shot?

This question is provoked because the 911 operator is confronted by the unexpected. She expected more information and not silence after each answer. She expected to hear where she is shot, her condition, and who shot her, all immediately offered.

Instead, the subject is using silence.

911 calls are said to be "excited utterance"; that is, words given in haste for a specific priority, not requiring pre thought or even pause.

It is an emergency and the caller is the biological father of the victim.

The 911 operator asks the subject to affirm his own statement. This is to bring doubt into the communication.

Subject: Yes, yes, just come to this address please.

It is a "yes or no" question and he answered it twice, and then repeated his prior statement, adding the polite "please."

Some may sense this to be scripted, especially as they listen to the audio but we view only the words used.

He "only" wants them to come to this address. This is now not only confirmation that something else is on his mind, but this something else is now sensitive to him; that is, the importance of something else is elevated via repetition.

The lack of information is startling to the 911 Operator, especially given that this is the father of a shooting victim and she is now worried that he is going to hang up:

911: Sir, sir do not hang up. did she do it to herself?

Subject: "yes"


We do our best to avoid, at least initially, "yes or no" questions in the Analytical Interview process.

The 911 operator continues to be confronted by this seemingly lack of care for his daughter as he has not given any information about the wound, the shooter, if danger still exists, or even his daughter's first name.

911; Is there anyway she could still be alive?

Subject: "I don't know"

The subject offers nothing else.

911: ok

Subject: I don't know what to do I'm trying

He stopped himself. He began to tell the police what he was trying to do, but this self censoring often occurs when a subject wants to avoid the internal confrontation of a direct lie.

He is trying to do something but the self censoring tells us: he does not want the police to know what he is trying to do.

Was he trying to limit his language?

Guilty parties will often attempt to limit their words, like McCollum, as they know every word may be scrutinized, while others, especially long term habitual liars, will "attempt to persuade" by using an over abundance of language, such as Casey Anthony.

In both attempts, we are able to obtain information.

911, ok just try to stay calm

subject: just come here

He has used the word "just" again. While he daughter is shot, he is thinking of something else and this something else is of extreme importance to him.

It is not his daughter's condition which has not processed through his language.

He is not facilitating information to help or save his daughter.

911: sir, they are their way. You talking to me does not slow them down, ok?

Subject: ok

911: Ok, where is she shot at?

Subject: In the face

We like to say "pronouns and articles do not lie" in statement analysis.

This is his daughter.

This is his daughter's face.

For him, it is "the" face and not even "her" face.

This is the psychological distancing we often see in a guilty subject's linguistic disposition towards a victim. He depersonalizes her face; the most personal of locations.

Shooting or attacking the face is to attack the center of communication.

It is, with the article, "the" a strong indication that words were the final "trigger" that caused him to shoot her. He "silenced" her by shooting her in the face. He depersonalized her, both physically, and linguistically.

We now know why he has not given her condition, nor has he expressed interest in saving her.

911: How old is she?

Subject: 22

Nothing else but "22" followed by silence.

911: Can you see her breathing at all?

subject: no

911: Is she cold, or changing color, do you know?

Subject: I don't know. I just don't know.

He knows.

The repetition and the need to isolate ("just") tells us that he knows her condition.

The 911 operator projects herself here. The only way he could not know is that he must not, in her perception of reality, be in the same room as her. She makes this assumption:

911: Are you able to go to her to find out if she is breathing?

Subject: Yes

911: Ok, let me know when you are by her.

Subject: I'm by her

Yet, he does not report what he sees, specifically, avoiding answering her question about breathing. He is "running out the clock" by forcing the interviewer to obtain information.

This is extreme reluctance.

911: Ok, do you feel or see any breathing?

Subject: She's not breathing.

He parrots only and he avoids using his daughter's name. This too is to "play it safe" by parroting, and to psychologically distance himself (signal of guilt) from his victim.

911: Ok, yes, did you hear a shot?

Since he has offered no detail, she is forced to ask what should have been an unnecessary question. Will he now give details about the shooting?

Subject: Yes


911: ok did this just happen?

Subject: Err, uh yes.

It is interesting to note that this question caused him to pause; making timing sensitive to him.

The operator knows he does not care about his daughter. She does not instruct him to begin CPR, instead opting for a most unusual question:

911: Do you want to try CPR?

She recognizes his reluctance and likely has the sense that the caller does not want the victim to live.

A parent's natural denial as such will lead parents to attempt CPR on a corpse.

His response is indicative of motive:

Subject: I guess, uh, yeah.

Reluctance noted.

He went from "I guess", which is a very weak assertion, to the change of language "yeah" which is agreement.

This is a strong signal that our subject is now off his game, that is, is showing an increased self awareness of his role. He has safely given very short answers and has used parroting.

In this sense, he has "caught himself" as off script and sounding like someone who does not want to save his daughter.

consider this carefully:

He has been self aware throughout the call, but he tripped up, and now the awareness of how he is coming across to police is acutely increased.

This signals a change for the subject. We await the results of his new concern for self.

911: Ok, is she flat on the ground?

Subject: Yes

911: ok there is help on the way. I want you to lay her flat on her back on the ground.

Subject: She's on her back on the ground.

Safely in parroting mode.

911: ok

Subject: I moved her from where she was to the living room

This is a very important statement. He can now appear to be the upset dad who cares for his daughter. He can now show that he has been more helpful than just "I guess."

In context, it is the first bit of information that he offered on his own, making it greatly important to him.

He wants police to know that he touched her. He is acutely aware of how he has come across now.

911: (gives CPR directions) Can you see or feel any breathing?

Subject: She's gone.

This is against parental instinct. Although mothers and fathers speak differently, a father may be the one who picked her up when she fell, put a band aid on her cuts and soothed her tears. He is, by design, made to protect and provide, instinctively, and this falls under protect.

We do not expect this answer, but natural denial and resistance from a father.

He is now the "grieving father", which is a signal of acceptance of death via processing. This is inconsistent with trauma. It is similar to the artificial editing of emotions within a statement. This affirms the change we anticipated when he went from:
"I guess" to the agreeable "yeah."

911: ok

Subject: She's gone. She's not; she's gone.

911: Ok, so you don't think we should try CPR?

That which is worded in the negative is often elevated over that which is in the positive. The operator knows he does not want to do this. He only "guessed" he wanted to, but then recovered to affirm, "yeah", which indicated self-awareness.

This self awareness is what led to the "open sentence" where he offered information about moving her, with his hands upon her.

Subject: I don't know. I'm just telling you she's gone.


do you know how to do CPR?

I don't know what to do

I guess

I don't know what to do. I think she's gone.

911: do you know what kind of gun it is?

Subject: it was a pistol.

He changed the operator's language of "gun" to "pistol." She intuitively caught on to this and knows that he knows more about it than he may wish to reveal:

911: Do you know what caliber?

Subject: 38

Analysis Conclusion:

Even before arriving on the scene, we have a deception indicated status for Ronald McMullen regarding the shooting of his daughter.

He worked against the police, while trying to portray himself as the helpful father.

He grieved for his daughter when no such acceptance should have settled in.

He concealed the responsibility for the shooting.

He did not assert that his daughter shot herself. He avoided directly lying to police.

He indicated his intent to see that she did not survive.

He distanced himself from his daughter.

If he speaks with police, we are very likely to hear of some argument that took place just prior to the shooting, with the likelihood that he will, even subtly, blame his victim. He targeted her face deliberately, which is often associated with the need to silence words.

The police have arrested Ronald McMullen in the murder of his daughter.

For training for you, your department or business, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.

Training includes 12 months of e support so that you can become an expert in detecting deception.

By Peter Hyatt

911 Call: Daughter Shot

Guilty caller?

Or, is something else going on here?

Here is a transcript of a recent 911 call in which a man found that his daughter had been shot. Let's listen to what is most important to the subject (caller) to learn the truth. Thanks to John for transcription.

OP: 911 where's your emergency?

The question begins with location.

C: I think I need an ambulance, somebody broke into the house i dunno two just just I was upstairs i was sleeping. I heard two gunshots, my daughter is on the, on the floor..they..

a. We note that the caller asks for help for himself ("I need") and not his daughter needs. This is appropriate if he is administering first aid. If he is not, however, it is a signal that he, himself, needs help.

b. We next note the weakness of his assertion. He only "thinks" he needs an ambulance. It is very difficult to imagine even a small gun shot wound that one may not know the need for an ambulance.

c. Order = priority

We expect a father to say "my daughter is shot! We are at 1515 Mockingbird Lane!"

What is his order?

1. he thinks he needs an ambulance; not that he knows
2. somebody broke into the house; indicating that the shooter was not invited in. This is, at this point, unnecessary information given the context.
3. His location and activity: he was upstairs and he was asleep. This is a priority: he could not have done it because the one who did it "broke in" and his alibi is now established before he reports what happened to his daughter.
4. He heard two gun shots. This is to continue to delay getting to his daughter. This is reported in a reliable way.
5. His daughter's location is given.

He has not reported that his daughter was shot.

OP: Okay, slow down, So you say you were sleeping and you were woken up to two gunshots?

The operator reflects back to him his own priority: self preservation.

C: Yeah, my daughter is laying on the floor in the house.

Not only does he not give location (urgency, even if 911 has it) but he has not said that his daughter is shot.

Direct lying is very stressful and it is rare. When we find it, it is a powerful lens of insight into the personality of the deceiver. Most all deception is via missing information.

OP: Is she shot?

The operator is forced to ask this question. We now conclude that his daughter being shot is "very sensitive" to him.

C: Yeah, shot, two shots.

OP: Where is she shot at sir?

C: I dunno I dunno

OP: She's shot twice you don't know where?

The operator does not believe him.

We now know he is not administering first aid. We recognize that guilty callers seek help, but not always for the victim as they recognize on a deeper level, that they are in need of help.

He has not given his daughter a name yet.

C: No, I dunno

OP: On her body?

C: I guess, well they just fired two shots. I..she's not talking to me

He refuses to give information and refuses to assist his daughter. This may suggest that he wants her dead.

OP: Is she awake?

C: No. I dunno

The "I dunno" along with "no" is a lack of commitment to any specifics. The need to be vague is associated with deception just as a ridiculous amount of detail calls our attention to the pace.

OP: Is she breathing?

C: Oh my God, I don't know

a. Deity noted
b. refusal to cooperate regarding her physical status. This, too, suggests intention for murder.

OP: Okay, the people that shot her , sir, where are they?

The operator wisely went with plural because that is what he reported.

He affirms:

C: They ran out of the house

It is interesting that he notes how they left his house.

OP: Okay, any description? Were they males? Were they females?

C: Black hoods

Every interview, including emergency services, will lead the interviewer with one of two conclusions:

Either the caller is working with me to help facilitate the flow of information, no matter how extreme the circumstance, or the caller is working to hinder the flow of information.

Our subject is deliberately hindering the flow of information by being vague and giving as little information about the victim as possible.

Now he gives as little information about...

the shooter (s) as possible.

OP: Excuse me

C: They had a black hood. Black hoods

OP: Okay, how many were there?

C: Two, i'd seen

OP: Okay, were they white black hispanic?

C: I couldn't tell

OP: Okay, they were males?

OP: They were males, sir. Two males?

C: Yes

OP: OKay, we don't know the race and what were they wearing?

The use of "we" is very wise as it will slightly disarm him. To ask him, "you don't know the race?" is to challenge him and put him on the defensive. Some 911 operators become very good at this.

C: Black hoods

OP: Both in black hoodies?

She changed the language. This is a mistake.

C: Yes

C: she's dead, C'mon

His daughter has no name.
He did not know where she was shot or if she was breathing but accepts that she is dead. This is a red flag because of paternal (and maternal) denial is a powerful instinct.

With her being dead, what is the need to rush an ambulance?

OP: And did they leave on foot or a vehicle?

C: They left on foot I didn't hear nothing..I was..

Here he parrots the operator (reducing commitment) and reports what he did not hear. Truthful people will, in open statements, tell us what they did hear, see, etc.

OP interjects. What direction?

C: Ugh

OP: what direction?

C: I dunno it could've been towards Wimslow

OP: Okay, well you're in Wimslow did you see what direction they left in?

C: No I didn't, I told you I was asleep

Here is his priority. Incongruence noted. He did not see which way they went because he was asleep, but while asleep, he did recognize that there were two of them, wearing hoodies and that they ran.

OP: okay

He continues to build his alibi:

C: and my daughter screaming and I got out of bed I thought I was dreaming but I wasn't

OP: How old is your daughter?

C: 43

OP: 43

C: yes

OP: Okay, and what room is she in?

C: She's in the corner of the house. I'm in the bathroom. She's dead

OP: In the corner of the house?

C: She's dead. She's not even talking to me

Note the order. This is what it looks like when one does not speak from experiential memory:

When Casey Anthony's car reeked of human decomposition, she gave an explanation for the order:

"Dead squirrels climbed up into my engine"

either the caller is attempting to conceal or he is suffering from dementia.

OP: Okay, do you know how these two gentleman got in your house?

C: No, I dunno, I got through the front door. (The transcript on screen reads "front door", but the audio sounds like "cellar door".

OP: I have them on the way over there sir

C: Okay

OP: Okay, are you able to go in the room and..see your daughter?

Silence for 6 seconds

OP: Hello!

Analysis Conclusion:

The caller's words reveal that his priority is to establish an alibi to avoid being charged with her murder. He was deliberate in his attempt to hinder the flow of information to police.

What caused this fear of being charged?

Almost always, it is guilt, but we must also learn his age and mental capabilities. If he is very aged and hallucinating, this must be taken into account.

The "dreaming" is either intent to deceive or a possible indicator of acute dementia.

Remember that with any forms of dementia, reality is changed.

If he is in possession of his facilities, with no dementia, he is likely to face charges.

This happened in the end of June. Police would know immediately if he suffers from dementia and irrationally feared arrest or if he is involved.

This is a fascinating example, however, due to the rarity of age. The broken sentences withheld information...or they simply do not flow due to poor brain processing of Alzheimer's, or other such conditions.

If you would like formal training in Deception Detection, we offer our Complete Statement Analysis Course to be taken in your home, with 12 months of e support. Visit Hyatt Analysis Services to enroll.

By Peter Hyatt

Thursday, 8 June 2017

Linguistic Pendulum: The Emergency Call of Clair Shelswell

The Linguistic Pendulum

Each person has a personal dictionary of their own, with on average of 20,000 words or more. At any time when they are asked to report "what happened", they must go into this dictionary and choose

What information to present and what not to
What words to use
What verb tenses to use
Where to place each word next to another in order to make sense
What order of information to show priority.

All this takes place in the brain in less than a blink of an eye.

This is where Statement Analysis detects deception at or near 100% accuracy. and how professional training helps professionals in communication.

The words chosen will reveal the person's background, experiences, priorities, and personality traits.

This is how we can identify anonymous authors in advanced analysis.

Here, we see two powerful elements present at once:

The personal creative instinct of motherhood, and the professionally trained nurse, working in balance as a Linguistic Pendulum.

Context: Extreme Duress.

Some will attempt to excuse the guilty by saying, "you don't know how you'd react under such and such circumstances." This is to ignore the body of work done for many decades to the contrary.

Whether it be reporting a missing child or a murder, when the subject speaks there is an expectation by the subject of being understood. This is communication.

Every so often I am asked to post an example of truthful statements.

Here is an emergency call (911 in the United States).

In emergency calls, there is no special classification for analysis. It is simply a different context that is noted.

Here is an example of an innocent caller; yet we see characteristics that can mimic guilty callers. This is why context is important. The caller is a medical professional and mother who is giving immediate help, and is asking for help, to help the victim.

Emergency (911) Calls are not unique to themselves for the purpose of Statement Analysis. The "expected versus the unexpected" is applied in these calls, just as in all statements, emails, texts, and other forms of communication (including in Discourse Analysis).

In Statement Analysis, innocence (de facto, not judicial) is presupposed as a tool of detecting deception.

This is call the "expected" in analysis. When we find something other than the expected, we are confronted with "the unexpected" for analysis.

In an emergency call, we expect things such as:

Urgency, no time for small talk, or pleasantries, polite introductions, etc. All of these take time away from urgency.

We expect the caller to ask for help for the victim, not for self, unless the caller is administering first aid.

We are on alert to note that some guilty callers are "truthful" in this regard: they are the ones in need of help, and it enters their vocabulary.

We note order and emphasis as to priority with the expectation that the priority is help for the victim.

If one is reporting their child kidnapped, for example, it will be the priority of:

1. The child
2. The kidinapping of the child.

"We have a kidnapping" puts the emphasis upon the caller (and others) and when this is stated to police, we note the Ingratiating Factor immediately: The caller has a need to align herself with authority, rather than focus upon the victim.

Please see the emergency 911 call of Patsy Ramsey reporting her daughter, Jonbenet, "kidnapped."

"I'm sorry"

The words "I'm sorry"sometimes enter the language of those with actual guilt, and we flag them under any usage. See Casey Anthony using this to stall for time to think. Not only is stalling on an emergency call, but we note the wording, "I'm sorry" as the choice of wording.

In child murders, a guilty caller may place blame upon the victim, including, "she wouldn't stop crying" or "well, you know teenagers..."
It is found to be subtle.

In this case, a step father just slashed the throat of his 5 year old step child. The mother had just come in and she is trained as a nurse. This context is crucial: The nurse is attempting to save the child's life. It is, therefore, expected that a medical professional will ask for help for herself, as she seeks to save the victim's life.

This is difficult to read.

The mother's desperation shows her efforts, as well as her instincts and priority.

Question for Analysis:

Does the mother show guilty knowledge of the crime?

Answer: The mother does not show guilty knowledge of the assault. We often see guilty indicators in examples, and I have been asked to post one in which the caller is innocent of the homicide.

The victim is a 5 year old, Clare Shelswell, who's stepfather, Peter James Wilson, slit her throat to "discipline" her.

It is horrific reading.

Here you will see that an educated woman, who likely has an inner personal vocabulary in excess of 30,000 words, is under extreme duress. In play is both maternal instinct and medical training. In less than a microsecond of time, her brain, in spite of the elevation of hormones, including the "fight or flight" hormone, the brain still processes the words for the purpose of being understood.

In communication, there is a presupposition of being understood.

911 operator: What’s going on ma’am?

Wilson (screaming): Oh my God, my baby, you need to send an ambulance right now

There is no delay as the subject begins with the demand for an ambulance (medical) first.

She calls upon Deity, not as a witness to her words (signal of deception) but of desperation.

She takes immediate ownership of the victim personally, with "my" and "baby."

This is a linguistic signal of maternal instinct.

Then, she does not request an ambulance, but demands it with "you need" as her choice of wording.

Note the priority of the call is where she has chosen to begin her statement.

There is no pause, no introduction, no politeness, nor even "um" or "er", to think of what words to use. In a sense, the legal term, "excited utterance" is used to describe this rapid process where the brain chooses words so very quickly to communicate.

911 operator: You need to tell me what’s happening and calm down

This rebuke is appropriate in context. The caller did not begin with "Good morning" or "Hello" (see Tiffany Hartley)

The operator should have the address via the call, and now, in order to gain information for the victim, she firmly tells the caller to calm down.

Wilson: My daughter’s throat has just been cut. I need you to come right now! I can’t stop the bleeding.

Note the linguistic disposition towards the victim.
First, she was "my baby" and now she is "my daughter."

What has changed?

A change in language represents a change in reality. A "car" does not become an "auto" or "vehicle" by itself. Something within the brain recognizes that reality has been altered.

Question: What changed her "baby" into her "daughter"?
Answer: The charge from the operator on being both calm and facilitation of the flow of information for the victim.

The caller has heard the communication from the operator.

Passivity noted: "has just been cut" rather than who cut it.


We seek an answer as we go along in the analysis.

A. Is it that she wishes to conceal the identity? This would suggest possible guilty knowledge.

B. Does she not know who cut the throat of her "baby" and "daughter"?

C. Or, is it due to the priority of the actual throat bleeding?

In her statement she says that she cannot stop the bleeding. This indicates that at this moment, justice is not a priority, but saving the life of her daughter is.

Here we have the caller asking for help, specifically, but it is not a red flag because the caller is specifically seeking help to help the victim.

Follow the pronouns: "my baby" is now "my daughter" while the throat is cut. Note the ownership of both. Note the maternal instinct of the former with an awareness of the blood and the need to stop its flow, in the latter.

911 operator: OK, what’s the address?

Generally, the address is known. It is asked for to confirm, yet in vacation homes and rural areas, it can be an issue.

Wilson: I don’t know… by Cushman Lake.

911 operator: North, south of Seattle Lake?

Wilson: I don’t know! I don’t know where!

We will learn why, shortly, she did not know the answer.

911 operator: Ma’am, you need to calm down and give me an address, or we can’t come.

This is a verbal signal that the location did not come up on the screen for the operator. She literally threatens the caller, which is to be seen in context, "you need to calm down." The operator is doing a very good job of trying to downgrade the hysteric (maternal instinct) and appeal to reason. We do not have the audio here (nor do we need it in Statement Analysis, as voice inflection is often claimed by experts after the fact).

Wilson: North Cushman Lake- she’s bleeding so much, I can’t stop it. Oh, my God! Oh, my God…Oh my God, my baby.”

Note the priority of the call is the bleeding. This confirms the analysis of the passivity used above.
Deity is invoked but again, not as testimony Witness.

I believe that the use of "my baby" here reveals the mother's worst fears.

911 operator: Keep pressure on that cut now, keep pressure on it, please.

Wilson: “I can’t stop it, please, you have to come right now.”

Note the pronouns. Here it is strong: "I" can't stop the bleeding. "You have to come right now" is the urgency (priority) of the call.

Note the centrality of this statement: the caller herself. The focus is on the caller. She indicates the priority here is on her to stop the blood. This is appropriately focusing on the priority. She is responsible (in her language) rather than the perpetrator.

911 operator: “Ma’am, we’re getting people en route right now, OK? … Hang on. We’re dispatching the fire department right now.”

Wilson: (panting) “You have to come now, please.”

The use of "please" is now polite and it follows the change from "daughter" to "baby"; suggesting desperation. The caller recognizes that her daughter, of whom she gave birth to ("baby") and/or bonded with, once entered the world, and is now, possibly, departing.

This is the struggle of acceptance in its most primitive form:

The begging of a mother to save the life of her child shows her own weakness and inability to save her. Hence, the call to God.

The mother recognizes that she cannot save the child's life on her own and must have help. Even under duress, she keeps her wits about her. She is on high hormonal alert and her words reveal her.

This call is all about her.

This is appropriately all about her, as she recognizes that she can only delay death until the others arrive. Her change from "daughter" to "baby" is likely influenced by her medical training. We will now see the training instincts against the maternal.

911 operator: “Ma’am, they are. Please keep pressure on that wound. Don’t take anything off of it.”

Wilson: ( crying) “You have to come now, please. Oh, my God, please. I don’t think she’s breathing…Please, please, please….

Here the caller focuses upon the breathing, in the negative (rule of the negative) elevating importance in the sentence.

Wilson (panting): Please, please, please, God….

Begging Divinity to intervene.

911 operator: How’s she doing ma’am?

Wilson: She’s barely breathing, she’s barely breathing.

Sensitivity seen via repetition. That she is "barely" breathing is of extreme sensitivity to the caller. "She" is neither "baby" nor "daughter" which suggests the balance of a linguistic pendulum between mother and professional has tipped towards professional. It is expected to tip back and forth.

For an extreme example of a pendulum that did not show any balance, see the emergency 911 call made by Police Chief William McCollum when he shot his wife, Maggie.

911 operator: Ok get her on the floor, on her back

The victim is not "baby" nor "daughter" as professional is in action:

Wilson: She is on her back, but I’ve got her head up, the cut is on her throat…you have to hurry up please, you need to come now

Note the importance of the words that follow "but";
Note articles are instinctive. It is not "a" cut, but it is "the" cut that is draining away the life from her daughter.

The victim's body posture is the language of the professional
Constant begging is the expected by a mother.

The linguistic pendulum balances. The more we see "mother", the less hope. The more we see "professional", the more possibility of survival. It is as if the caller is two people:

professional is one;
mother is another.

Please take careful note of this in the McCollum case where this balance is expected.

911 operator: They are on their way ma’am, I dispatched them out.

Wilson: You need to send the police too

The urgency has precluded a further explanation at this time. The concentration has been upon the victim. The victim is the first priority, but she still is able to maintain focus upon the secondary issue: there is a murderer present.

This harrowing statement shows the presence of mind, even under the most crucial moment in her life. It may be not only justice, but she may even have concern for first responders.

911 operator: They are getting there ma’am

The mother immediately turns back to her priority, even if it is not the priority of the 911 operator, who now must see to it that the EMT workers are safe.

Wilson: She’s breathing but it’s really, really ragged and infrequent

"But" is a word that is used in comparison, or even in rebuttal. That she is breathing is now weighed, in comparison to health: the breathing is not just ragged, but "really" ragged and "infrequent."

The professional is trying to maintain herself.

911 operator: Is she changing color?

Wilson: She’s really pale, I’m cradling her

Now the professional (nurse) has her laying properly in position, head up, while the 'mother' "cradles" her.

911 operator: Ok I want you to keep pressure on that wound, whatever you do, don’t take the rag off, if it gets soaked through, put another on top of that…

Wilson: Ok I started on that

911 operator: Ok keep doing that, we have people en route now..either monitor her breathing very closely, if she stops breathing I need to know right away…is she conscious and alert?

Wilson: No she is unconscious, not alert of anything. Respiratory rate is 4 to 6 a minute

This is the language of medical expertise. The subject is mother and now professional, but in both suits, she is seeking to save her baby and her daughter. This is the priority.

Note she has no need to explain why she uses this language.

This confirms what we have seen repeatedly: her priority.

911 operator: Does anyone there know CPR in case she stops breathing?

Wilson: I’m a nurse but the gash on her throat is so big there’s no way it would work. I don’t know if its is under control

She identifies herself as a nurse, but without pre-thought, negates, via comparison, her own status with the word "but", indicating that she is not flattered, nor proud, nor defensive, but trying to save the victim.

Question: Why is this important?

Answer: It reveals priority.

Each interview (statement, phone call, etc) will show priority.

Those who's priority is the victim will linguistically identify it even under the worst circumstances.


See the interviews with the McCanns regarding the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, and note the priority was never, in any interview, the recovery of the victim.

911 operator: “How did this happen?”

Wilson: “My husband took a knife to her throat.”

Talking with police, she does not use the complete social introduction.
Note "took a knife to her throat" is not "my husband cut her throat."

We see the pendulum shift with "my husband" (personal) and minimization of "to her throat" as the natural reluctance and resistance to any final outcome. This is a battle within her mind, due to the powerful, God given instinct of motherhood. This theme has been recognized since antiquity. When a man dresses as a woman and even goes through surgical mutilation and politicians declare him a "civil right"; it remains an insult to women. This powerful nature is addressed even in the comparison where a "bear robbed of its whelps" is seen as a powerful and dangerous source to be reckoned with. Political Correctness does not negate human nature and the defense of the same is to combine deception and absurdity with moral superiority. This is why it leads to such powerful disruption within society and to violent protests.

911 operator: “Your husb- purposely?”

Shock to the operator

Wilson: “Yes.”

Note no further explanation. The focus is saving her daughter's life. After uttering such terrible odds, the mother continues her focus upon her child, who's life is slipping from her.

911 operator: “We need law enforcement on that call. Where is he now?”

The caller already stated the need for law enforcement.

Wilson: “He’s here, but he’s away from her. This is what I said you need to send police too…I haven’t really examined the wound, she’s still breathing…hang in there baby, hang in there.

Her own life, at this moment, is not precious to her. "He's here" is refuted with the word "but" and the mother states he is not near the child.

Even here, the mother is thinking of the child's safety, above her own.

She is her "baby" again. She gives words of encouragement to her "baby" as maternal instinct turns towards the victim.

911 operator: What’s going on with her right now?

The linguistic pendulum reveals her background and experiences as seen in her language. She is asked a vague question but gives a detailed response:

Wilson: Her respiratory rate seems to have improved a little bit. She’s still pale, but conforming with the rest of the colour of her body

911 operator: What did you say her respiration was?

Wilson: Approximately 8 a minute now.

Her professional training stands strong. This is where the rehearsals of the brain, over years, shows how even instinct can be subordinated, if even temporarily, with training. She is now Professional nurse again.

This is what the military does. In the natural inclination to run from danger, constant rehearsal of the brain can mitigate with success, the instinct to flee.

It is what we do in incessant Statement Analysis training to quicken the mind to listen to the words chosen, overcoming the dulled listening that we use to survive.

911 operator: “Does he still have the weapon, ma’am?”

Wilson: “No, he does not.”

very firm. She feels no need to discuss this further as her priority at this time is the victim. She is, like the mother bear robbed of her whelps, fearless.

Whatever her countenance is at this point, I believe her husband likely feared going near her.

911 operator: “OK, where is the weapon?”

Wilson: “It’s on the floor in the kitchen – where I am, not where he is.”

She does not fear him; she fears losing her baby.

911 operator: “OK, where is he in the house?”

Wilson: “He’s sitting in the next room, but he’s pretty docile right now.”

body posture and location noted. She has her wits due to adrenaline.
She recognizes the importance of his body posture (tension related) and uses the word "docile" and the element of time (right now) which tells us he has not been "docile" before.

911 operator: “OK, why is he so docile?”

Wilson: “Probably because he’s in shock over what he just did.”

The lack of words shows an almost indifference towards him. This might suggest possible guilty knowledge had it not been for her language revealing her priority.

Linguistic disposition towards him is neutral. This is likely to change but while the child is still alive, the linguistic focus is upon the child.

911 operator: how’s she doing now?

Wilson: Breathing is becoming faster, but definitely more shallow. You need to move right now.

911 operator: They are ma’am

Wilson: ETA?

The anxiety included, her priority and focus continues to be on help for the victim's life.

Wilson: I can’t give you an ETA, ma’am. Stand by.

Wilson talking to another person in the room (“Is she breathing? Yeah. Can you see the wound..can somebody stay out front, get Arthur out front?)

911 operator: Ok ma’am, is there someone there with you?

911 operator: Is there any way they can get him out of the house

Wilson; Probably, why?

The indifference (linguistic disposition) is identified through context. The caller does not want to take any time or attention away from the victim. Note how time (element) enters her answer.

911 operator: Because we don’t need him the house

Wilson: Ok, the only complication with that is if we do that there might be a second

911 operator: If you don’t think that’s safe to try and get him out of the house I don’t want you to do that, i’m just giving you some ideas.

Wilson: “She is not breathing.”

The caller has no concern about her own safety and does not care to follow "ideas" for her safety as she cares for nothing but the victim. This is a typical mother reaction, more than professional.

911 operator: “OK, then you’re going to get her some air then. Is there anybody else there who can hold that bandage on while you tilt the head back and give her CPR?”

Wilson: “Yeah, but I’m going to have to keep the phone down.”

911 operator: “OK, just keep it as close to you as you can, and let me know what’s going on.”

Here is where it seems that another woman is now talking on the phone with the 911 operator while the mother is helping the child. Unknown female is talking while mother attends victim.

Unknown: It does not look like she’s breathing

911 operator: So dad is in the other room?

Interesting that the operator called him "dad"

Unknown: Yeah…the air is just coming right through her throat

911 operator: ok, stand by, I will talk to my unit

Wilson (in background): Oh my God, they have to hurry now!

911 operator: What happened when you tried to attempt CPR?

It sounds like the air is going right through her throat…I can’t feel her chest rising
(crying in the background)

Wilson (in the background): Nothing is getting into her chest when I breathe through her mouth, it’s all exiting in the gash in her throat! She is not breathing, she is not breathing, hurry up! Goddamnit! You have to hurry!

Cursing, like all impoliteness is expected. This is the opposite of Ingratiation. Please note that Ingratiation well after a case has begun, is to be taken in context.

Guilty parties who have not been believed by police will go on the attack. This is the norm of liars in general. We use the Ingratiating Factor early on within analysis of statements.

911 operator: Ma’am we are getting there as fast as we can, please try to get some air into her. Is there someone helping you?
Continue with the CPR, Sarah

911 operator: Can you feel a pulse, a heartbeat, anything?

Wilson (in the background): Her chest is not rising at all, the gash in her throat is too big, they have to hurry up!

911 operator: They are coming as fast as they can

Wilson (in the background): Give me another rag, oh my God, my baby..

The mother is losing hope as she is now "my baby" as she calls upon God.

911 operator: Are you guys the owner of the property?

Unknown: No we’re renting the cabin for the weekend

Which is why she did not have the address.

911 operator: What started this tonight?

Unknown: I don’t even know, I was gone, I just got back here

Wilson (in the background): Please, they have to hurry!

911 operator: Ma’am do you feel comfortable moving her out of the house at all?

Unknown: I don’t think that’s a good idea

Even as non-mother, her concern is for the victim and not for herself. The operator is appropriately concerned about this woman's safety.

Wilson (in the background): There’s no difference, she’s dying!

911 operator: Is the dad still in the house?
Unknown: Yes

911 operator: What is he doing?
Unknown Sitting on the floor
911 operator: Is her alert at all?

Wilson (in the background): It’s not him, you need to get the ambulance here for her!

Note the focus of her concern is for her daughter. For her husband, she wants police but for the victim, an ambulance. The subject (Wilson) no longer shows linguistic belief in her ability to save the victim.

911 Operator: Ma’am.


911 operator: Can you get her outside? If you can get her outside away from dad, we have a better chance of aid coming in without law enforcement

That’s not important, that’s not relevant

911 operator: Ma’am can you get her outside?

There’s no point in that

911 operator: Why is that?

He’s not doing anything, he’s just sitting on the floor

Here, this subject (Unknown) is zoned so much upon the victim that she has fearlessness towards the killer.

Wilson (in the background): Where are the paramedics?

911 operator: I can’t make my units come in without law enforcement being there

The operator must care for the lives of EMT staff. This is about the worst thing either fearless woman could hear from the operator.

There’s nobody here

911 operator: We need to do something to try and save her
If he leaves, can you come in?

911 operator: Yes

{Speaking to dad): Can you leave? (To operator): He’s leaving

Why did she ask, and not order him out? This may have been wisdom in action: do not poke a dangerous animal.

911 operator: Tell him to get as far as he can but stay in the area
(She repeats the instruction)}

911 operator: Is there vehicle he can go sit in? Is he out of the house?

911 operator: Someone needs to tell me where dad went now

still concerned for the lives of staff

He went to other side of property, he’s sitting outside

911 operator: How far away?

Unknown: He’s literally non-coherent

The intelligence of the other woman is evident. She may also have professional training/education.

911 operator: I know, please answer my question. How far away from the house is he?

The next lot over…
Ok listen to me she has not been breathing for approximately 10 minutes at this point, if the paramedics don’t get there stat she is not going to survive. How far out are they?

She answers the question, but then demands attention with "Ok, listen to me" and brings back the priority of the call

911 operator: I’ve advised paramedics Dad is out of the house. Does he have any weapons on him?

No he has nothing.

911 operator: Ok, stand by…What’s going on with her now?

Unknown: She’s dead. We’re doing cpr but she’s effectively dead unless they’re here now.

The non-mother uses the word "dead" here. This would be very difficult for the mother to say.

911 operator: Are you there ma’am?


911 operator: Are you doing CPR and chest compressions?

Unknown: She’s just doing CPR can’t do chest compressions while she’s doing CPR
Wilson (in the background): How far out are they?!

911 operator: Can you give me description of male?

Unknown: 5’8”, 250 pounds, brown hair, shorts and a polo shirt, I can’t tell from here, I really wasn’t paying attention

911 Operator: You were not there when this started?

Unknown: I was not there, no one witnessed it

Note that by "no one" it would exclude the victim. This is a strange statement except that the victim is dead. It shows that the unknown woman is now thinking of justice. We have already seen her anger with the delay.

911 operator: Is the Dad still on the other property?

Wilson (in the background): We can deal with legal ratifications later! Can we please not have this be about a homicide

Appropriate impatience and even anger. This is the opposite of The Ingratiating Factor. The subject (mother) does not care about how she is viewed, nor what happens to the perpetrator because her sole priority is saving her daughter's life.

The caller is a nurse here, in professional mode. Her priority is her daughter; nothing more. She cares not for the legal ramifications.

Sarah, the mom, is doing CPR

911 operator: How many people are in the house?

Unknown: Two of us, Clare and two people upstairs

Although a guess here based upon experience, I believe the unknown woman likely had emotional closeness with the victim.

911 operator: What are the people upstairs doing?

Unknown: There’s another daughter, she is upstairs with my sister-in-law, trying to keep her away from this scene

911 Operator: how old is the daughter?

Clare is 5, maybe 6

911 operator: Is that the one with injury?

Yes..(says to Dad): They want you to stay where you are

911 operator: How old is victim?

Clare is 5

Note "is" present tense from the Unknown. Even with her original statement, the element of denial is present. This affirms my guess about some emotional closeness with the victim.

911 operator: Who’s there, ma’am?
The paramedics and police
(Sobbing in the background)
911 Operator: Alright ma’am, i’m going to let you go now

Analysis Conclusion:

This horrible murder teaches us much about Statement Analysis and what maternal instincts look like.

Please use this as a reference point in viewing other cases involving mothers, including McCann, Misty Croslin (step), Baby Sabrina, Baby Lisa, Casey Anthony, and so on.

For police training within a seminar, or to study at home please visit Hyatt Analysis Services at

We also work on missing person cases, anonymous author identification and contract with companies to do Employment Analysis, where companies can legally save themselves money and reputation, by weeding out those who are deceptive, intend to steal and who are most likely to file fraudulent complaints against them.

In Employment Analysis, we identify the "best and brightest" of the applicants.

Bookings for law enforcement training is limited.

Tuition payment plans for law enforcement only.

You may also purchase "Wise as a Serpent" from

By Peter Hyatt

Saturday, 4 March 2017

Helen Bailey: Missing Person Police Call

Here we see how even in the initial police call to report a missing person, a deceptive subject gives away the information needed.

Investigators who are trained in detecting deception, never dismiss anyone as a "liar" but recognizes that even from liars, the reliable information comes out.

Before an investigation even begins, those trained can know the truth.

Ian Stewart’s initial call to Police

P: Hertfordshire police, how can I help?

I.S: Hello there, my partner has been missing since Monday and not contacted anyone. Said she was going away, hasn’t gone... ended up where she said she was going, so I’m... we’ve just decided we should report it.

a. We do not expect a missing person's call to begin with a greeting. The greeting is seen not only as a lack of urgency, but within analysis, it is called the "ingratiating factor"; that is, one may wish to 'ingratiate' oneself into law enforcement. This is the same as saying, "I am a good guy", which is unnecessary.

Some examples:

DeOrr Kunz spoke more about Search and Rescue, in detail, than about his missing son.

He both thanked and praised them for not finding DeOrr jr.

b. Who is this "we" that he speaks of?

c. Why did they "just" (timing) decide to call?

This may be a desire to be seen as timely, that is, that he called right away. It is a signal of delay, instead.

d. to "decide" indicates both hesitation and discussion, which may have included debate. Why?

e. "so": he feels the need to explain why he made the call, though he uses the plural without expiation. The making of this phone call is very sensitive to the caller.

P: What’s your partner’s name?

I.S: Helen Bailey

I.S: She left a note, she said in the note something like, I need sp, space and time alone. I’m going to Broadstairs, please don’t contact me in any way. But in Br, Broadstairs she’s got, we’ve got a a cottage down there but we s, people have been down there with neighbours and she hasn’t, she’s not there. I haven’t been there either.

a. "like": with a missing persons report, we expect him to read the note --or recite it from memory.


The elevated importance.

The note would likely have been read by the subject repeatedly, especially during the 'discussion' as to whether or not to call police.

"Like" is a classification and may reflect his 'interpretation' rather than what she wrote.

Wrote: a note is written. In his language, he did not say she "wrote" but said that she "said in the note." This is a minor difference, yet it is here and we must consider the possibility that she did not "write" this note. Although readily verified, the analyst remains open to varying possibilities brought on by the language itself. We listen; we do not interpret.

b. "we've got a cottage down there": if the pronoun "we" is about he and the missing person, there is unity.

The unity must be understood in context: of having a cottage.

c. "I haven't been there, either" is an unnecessary statement. Unnecessary information is very important.

The location of the cottage is now sensitive.

She is missing.

He is not.

He is on the phone and it is part of his priority to tell them where he was not.

It may be that police sensed this, intuitively:

P: And someone’s been to the cottage?

I.S: Someone’s been to the cottage, yeah. Her brother went there.

P: Does it look like anyone had been there?

I.S: No. No, we.. no, someone went in and it d, d, doesn’t look like anyone’s been there.

This sounds awkward to the ear. Deception often does. "Someone" (not her brother?) went in, he affirms, but it does not "look" (appearance) like "anyone's" been there.

P: Did Helen go in a vehicle?

I.S: No she didn’t, she left her car here. She did take her dog with her. She’s got a little Dachshund but she would get there by train or she she could possibly take a taxi. She does do that sort of thing.

P: And was that note a bit of a shock, were you expecting it at all?

Here, we don't know what prompted this question. He said he had a note.

I.S: No I wasn’t... well, yes it was a shock. She had talked about it but er it was still a shock. She has talked about wanting space as things just haven’t been going well for her recently or for us.

P: Ok, so she mentioned wanting space but she had never actually acted on it, she’s not left before?

I.S: She’s never done anything like this before, no.

Not, "she's never left before" but "done anything like this"; what did she "do" that caused this language?

P: And what’s her date of birth?

I.S: Oh crikey, gosh, you’ve thrown me there… 22nd, right, just let me double check, one second, oh God, sorry. Can you still hear me?

Note inclusion of:

a. Divinity
b. "sorry"

P: I can still hear you, yeah.

I.S: I am sorry, I am just double checking, 22nd August 1964. Sorry, my just brain just went. Sorry.

The word "sorry" has entered his language four times during a call to police about his missing fiancé.

Not only is it important (once) but repetition tells us the importance of it is elevated.

Believe him.

He is sorry.

When someone repeats often how sorry he is, we should believe him.

P: And her eye colour?

I.S: Her eye colour? Oh my God, how do you forget these things? Sorry, God, that’s terrible.


a. answering a question with a question
b. Divinity repetition
c. "you" distancing language consistent with forgetting her eye color.
d. "sorry" again.

P: Are there any specific concerns, suicide or self harm, anything like that?

I.S: Well, I, I, would say no but she has, she has been very very anxious and very worried about lots of things and she is a very, she is a worrier… she is a she is a natural worrier.

P: This may sound silly, but she’s definitely not at home no?

I.S: No. (inaudible) I, I’ve literally checked everywhere. We have got quite a large house and I have literally checked everywhere.

With the cottage, the pronoun "we" was produced between him and the victim.

Here, the "large house" also produces the same unity.

I.S: And her phone is just dead, it not, when I say dead it just, it just doesn’t ring.

Note "dead" repeated and the need to explain the meaning of "dead"

P: She said nothing to you then, was she leaving the premises at the time?

I.S: No, no, she was… I left her here.

I.S: At some point I saw the note on my desk from Helen

Remember how the note from Helen "said" (spoke) rather than what she wrote?

Here, he tells us who the note is from: from Helen.

Would we even have thought the note may have been from someone other than Helen in a call to police about a missing person who left behind a note??

This is another linguistic indication that the "note" may not have been written by Helen.

P: From what I understand, from what we’ve discussed is that Helen was last seen on Monday 11th April. We’d like you to take me through what happened that day.

Great question!!

Here is where we get our information:

Where a missing person was last seen to a partner engaged is hormonally heightened. Listen carefully to his language.

A truthful person will tell us what happened. We can only tell what we do remember.

Be on alert when one tells us what did not happen, what they cannot remember, what was not said, and so on.

I.S: This is where I can’t remember very well.

The number one form of deception is missing information. Yet when one speaks, not remembering is high on the list.

a. "this" is very up close. The event is hormonally etched upon the brain. We have seen signals of anxiety in his language.

b. It is at "this" place (not "that") where he can't remember. He is placing himself close to the place where he stretched out time but can't remember...

c. "very well." He remembers, but just not 'very' well.

This is an example of the internal stress of direct lying and why one attempts to qualify to avoid such stress.

I’ll tell you what I can remember.

This is an unnecessary and important statement. A person can only tell what a person remembers. Here he is withholding information about the last time he saw Helen.

Here is where professionals recognize:

When one is deceptive and speaking about what happened, he is very likely to yield much valuable and critical information:

She went out in the car just to get some milk or something,

Instead of saying "she went out to her car" (note placing her at the car), he anticipates police asking, "Why did she go out to the car?"

This may not have been asked by police or anyone else without specific training.

He, himself, is worried that when he places her out at her car, the police are going to say, "Well, why did she go to the car?"

The more innocuous or 'unimportant' the reason, the more important it is to analysis:

milk and bits but came back almost instantly.

Here we have specific detail (unnecessary) but now timing:

"almost instantly"

We should consider that something happened to Helen there (remember the need to place her there?) and it caused a passage of time.

Was upset because something had happened and she said “I’m never going to drive again.”

"Was upset" has no pronoun. There is no person who was "upset" in this sentence. He removes her from it.

b. "because" is the need to explain why she was upset. He anticipates being asked, "Well, why was she upset?" and wishes to pre empt it.

c. "something had happened" further accentuates the passing of time. He did not say "something happened." He said that something "had" happened. This stretches time and now consider why he had the need to say "almost instantly."

He removes her from what happened, and elongates time.

d. "something" is left undefined.

Think now, how important this location is to him and about what happened.

He wants us to think it was very short in time, but his words betray him. By wanting us to think it was almost instant, we know it wasn't. He confirmed this in the imperfect past tense verb usage.

I.S: And at some point I had to dash out because I was late or I see, I could be late so I dashed out.

Here, the "double blue" (blue highlighting the highest form of sensitivity in analysis) is the most critical point of the statement:

he is now not only skipping time ("And at some point") with missing info ("And:), it is here, while he is with Helen that he is suppressing what happened.

By just looking at the color, it is here, he is likely telling the truth that he "dashed" (elevated emotion) to her.

I’m pretty sure Helen waved goodbye to me

This is often a very linguistic strong signal of the time of death.

Here we see him deceptively speaking, yet embedding his responsibility regarding his own actions that caused this phone call:

but when I think back I’m not so sure, so maybe she did, maybe she didn’t cos I was in a rush then. So then I went and I can’t remember what I did, what order I did this in but I def, definitely ended up at the doctors at some point and when I woke up, I was sort of woozy, a bit, I felt a bit like I’d been on morphine in hospital and then I remember thinking should I be driving but obviously I did so I either went to the doctors or the dump or maybe I went to the dump next day.

Even in lies, we get the truth.

Here he is lying about not remembering, admitting he did something to her, in urgency, and dumped her.

Police Arrest

This was shown as live as it was recorded on a Policeman's Camera Vest.

I.S: Jamie,(son he lived with at the same property as Helen) The garage doors open.

P: I’m arresting you on suspicion of the murder of Helen Bailey.

I.S: You’re joking?

P.O: And of disposing her body in a manner which is likely to obstruct the coroner and of the theft of the money of Helen Bailey. You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand that?

I.S: I guess so.

P: Do you want to sit down?

I.S: Bloody Hell, why? What’s happened, have you found Helen? Where is she? Is that why the garage door’s open?

I.S: I remember bits of it. The first bit I remember is we loaded the car or Helen loaded the car with an old duvet and some boxes ready to take to the dump. So I either went to the doctors or the dump or maybe I went to the dump the next day (inaudible) I’m not sure.

Where the word "we" is used, there was unity.

The cottage, the house and the car, but not personally.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Embedded Admission.

Peter Hyatt

Wednesday, 18 January 2017

Missing Child: 911 Call

Missing Child: 911 Call

Here is an example to follow, from the very first moments of a case, to know what happened as this father calls 911 to report his daughter missing. Thanks go John for transcription.

OP: Jackson Township police

C: Hi, yes ahh, I need some help.

This is an emergency call.
It comes from the biological father of a missing little girl.
It should not begin with a greeting. We note the greeting and subsequent politeness ("thank you, thank you") as possible "ingratiating" psychologically. This is when the caller feels the need to align himself with authorities. We sometimes see this in missing children cases where the father praises search efforts for not finding the missing child. (DeOrr Kunz)

Next note that the caller, 'telling the truth', says that he needs help; not his daughter. This is true, in the mind of the caller. He is going to need legal help and it 'leaks' into the language during the free editing process. Even when a call is planned, it is easy to fall off script. Regardless, it does not come from experiential memory. He does not 'know' what it is like to be elevated in fear for the sake of his daughter.
He knows what it is like to be in fear for himself.

Then note that he reduces the need for help with "some help."

These three points are incongruent with an emergency call.

OP: Ok where you at?

C: (redacted)

OP: Parrots back address.

C: Yes

OP: Ok what's going on?

C: I-I can't find my daughter

Not that she is missing, but he cannot find her.

OP: OK, how old is she?

C: Erm 5, she just turned 5 (inaudible) saturday

here we have a pause and we have a reference to her birthday. He 'must be' a good father; he knows her birthday.

OP: When was the last time you seen her?

C: Umm, this afternoon probably

The "last time" he saw her caused him to pause. Rather than be a parent on high hormonal alert, he has a need to pause and think of his answers.

OP: Around what time?

C: umm..3 maybe 4

The hormonal reaction of a biological parent is not something that would allow for this level of time to be estimated for a child this age.

Someone in the background says something in the background and he (C) replys "5 you saw her at 5", oh ok.

We now have an even longer gap of time. Since the call began with two red flags, this gap of time increases concern.

OP: What was she wearing?

C: What?

OP: What was she wearing?

C: She's wearing a purple winter coat, err.. I don't know what those things are called, they're not jeans

OP: Like leggings

C: Yeah yeah

OP: What color were they?

C: Err..grey-ish

OP: Ok, and you haven't seen her in 5 hours?

The operators reveals disbelief

C: About, yeah I - I mean, she was there sleeping, I mean you know..

The father is now on the defensive, stuttering on the pronoun "I" signals increase in stress at this question and the phrase, "you know" now shows an increase in the awareness of the operator's words (presence)

OP: Where was she sleeping, at the restaurant?

Training for the operator indicated. Do not lead the subject. See how quickly the father grabbed the notion:

C: Yeah yeah she's she was sleeping there and I picked up my older daughter from school, we all saw her sleeping there. So and
and we went to work and we let her sleep, we and we got busy and then, er.....err after it got busy we start cleening up and then we open a door because, and she's not here.

Deception Indicated

The quick agreement "yeah, yeah" is to almost thank the operator for the story.
The inability for the biological father to be "alone" in responsibility speaks to guilt.
With the need to explain opening a door with her not there:

Sexual abuse should be explored. This is extremely sensitive.

OP: Hold on one second ok.

C: OK sir what's your name>

C: Liang, Liang Zhao

OP: Ok, do you have any videos in there (restaraunt) or anything were you can video to see if she was laying there?

C: No, no no no. We don't have any security cameras in there since ahh in the restaurant, we've been here sfor six years we've never had security camera's here.


Here, the bio father cannot be alone in a context where nothing is more personal to a father than his young child. This is a strong indicator of guilt. Guilty people cannot bear to be "alone" with guilt. It is similar to a child who says "but everyone was doing it..." seeking to spread about guilt and responsibility.

C: We we saw her, like, like all of us like my wife myself and my older daughter, We I came back, when I picked up my ahh ahh older daughter from school, we saw her there sleeping.

OP: Ok and so, was there any suspicious people that came in at all?...

Caller butts in

C: No no no no no you think she could have ran out somewhere?

C: I I, have have no idea, I mean she was sleeping in the back. It's kind of hard to say when she was how long she's been missing

He stutters on "I"
He offers "no idea" on his daughter's status; something that an innocent parent could not offer due to parental instinct.
He heavily qualifies the time period with "kind of hard to say"--
not that it is "hard to say" but "kind of hard to say" suggesting knowledge of the time.

OP: None of the other employers have seen her?

C: There's only 2 of us just myself and my wife, there's nobody else in the restaurant. There's only 3 people in the restaraunt .

This discounts customers. The change in number may be that he wishes to add his other daughter into the number, further reducing his "alone status" with what happened to his daughter.

OP: When you guys left, who was there with you? Like who was there with your daughter when you guys left to go draw the kids from school?

C: My wife, I I go pick her up myself. My wife is here in the restaurant. But when we came back came back she's here. Like my wife is here in the restaurant, the restaurant is always open. Erm,,i usually open up...I pick my- I drop my daughter off I'm sorry, i drop my daughter off at school in the morning.

He shows consistent use of past tense until here.
The words "I'm sorry" often seep into the language of the guilty, for whatever reason, in the free editing process. (see Casey Anthony)
Note the need for "normal" while his daughter is "missing"; this indicates knowledge of the situation being anything but normal. It is part of narrative, rather than reporting.

His use of "normal", that is, what he "usually" does tells us that he did something "unusual" and this is not lost, intuitively, upon the operator. Note the rebuttal:

OP: But right now though like, when you left you said you your wife and your daughter left to go pick up your daughter from school.

C: No I didn't say that, I wife is here all the time.

Note the strong pronoun and past tense statement shows confidence in what he is saying.

OP: Ok, and your wife hasn't seen her either since around 4-5 o'clock?

The story unwinds:

C: Ok ok, erm, I think you, ok, when we pick, I'm sorry, what I meant was myself ok, when I went to pick up my daughter. When we came back, myself and my daughter, not my wife, my wife was here all the whole time. When we came back...

Operator interrupts, likely due to impatience. This is a mistake:

OP: Ok so you wife hasn't seen her either since around 4-5 either?

C: Err yes err..

(Caller asked his wife something (foriegn language)

"she's not sure before we got busy err usually busy around 4-5 oclock. that's the best time you know we like ahh.."

OP: What's your daughters name?

He has not once used his missing daughter's name. This is to psychologically distance himself from her. The need to distance himself is what we explore for.

C: Ashley Ashley

OP: OK. Officers outside if you want to go and meet the officer at the door ok.

C: He's here right now?

The element of time is now important to the caller. This is sensed by the operator:

OP: Yeah, he's already outside

C: In the front or the back?

OP: He should be in the front

C: Ok, alright, thank you thank you

OP: Bye

The child has been found dead with the father under arrest in her murder.

This is abbreviated analysis. For formal training please go to Hyatt Analysis Services for opportunities. and select Services and