Wednesday, 19 February 2020

Faye Swetlik 911 Call



Analysis of the emergency call to report missing 6 year old Faye Swetlik.

Expectation:

The 911 (or 999) call is the first interview of an investigation.

We hold to the expectation that the subject (caller) will:

1. Show priority of the victim; not self.
2. Work with the operator (police) to facilitate the flow of information.

It is, in a sense, an 'excited utterance' of an interview.

3. Context Appropriate: the caller is the biological mother. See Solomon for maternal instinct engaged.

This should be compared to Patsy Ramsey's 911 call.



Lexington county 911 what's the address of your emergency?

Mom: 16 Londberry Square, I need to report a missing child.

a. She answers the question
b. She uses the pronoun "I"
c. Her priority is to report a "missing child" -- She does not wait for another question, "What is the emergency?" but goes to her priority.


Lexington PD: Repeat that address for clarification

Mom: 16 Londonberry Square Cayce

SC Lexington PD: Okay, tell me exactly what's happening.

Mom: We can't find my daughter. She was playing outside and now I can't find her.

Here the mother begins with "we" which cause us to ask, "Who is also looking for her daughter?"

Note next "my" daughter uses possessive pronoun "my" which is expected.

After introducing "my", not "our" daughter, the subject continues on this vein with:

"I can't find her", which is very strong.


Lexington PD: How old is she?

Mom: She is 6, she will be 7 in June.

Lexington PD: I'm gonna stay on the line with you so you, so I'm gonna get Cayce PD on the line too, so don't hang up, okay?

Cayce PD: Cayce 911 is your emergency police, fire, or medical?

Hey Cayce, this is Lexington. I've got a lady at 16 Londonberry Square. Her 6-year-old was in the front yard and she can't find her now.

Cayce PD: Alright, hold on. What's the number? Lexington PD: 16 Londonberry Square. I have her phone number and I'm going to stay on the line so it doesn't get disconnected.

Cayce PD: you're on the line with Cayce, go ahead. What's your son's name?

Mom: My daughter's name is Faye Swetlik.

here we do not flag the pronoun "my" as above, because the PD used the pronoun "your" in the question. It does not negate its use, but it is influenced by the question.

Cayce PD: What was she wearing?

Mom: She was wearing polka-dotted rain boots, a flowered skirt (pink rose skirt), a black t-shirt that has a neon design on it.

note the willingness to give details. This is expected in a helpful caller.


Cayce PD: How long has she been gone?

Mom: Last I saw her probably about an hour ago.

Caller is taking this very personally. This is expected from a biological mother.


Cayce PD: How tall is she?

Mom: She is 3 ft 10

Cayce PD: How much does she weigh?

Mom: 65 pounds.

Cayce PD: Stay on the phone with me do not hang up. What's your name?

Mom: My name is [redacted]

Cayce PD: You last saw her in the front yard, you didn't see which way she went or anything like that?

Mom: No, she was right in front of my front porch.

Compare this language to the released statement by the family which was analyzed.

Cayce PD: Okay, does she have a cell phone?

Mom: No

Cayce PD: Have you walked around and tried to locate her?

Mom: Yes ma'am.

Cayce PD: Okay, here's what I want you to do. I want you to stay in your yard, Okay? We have a unit out that has a dog just in case we need to track her, okay? We don't need you walking if you can stay close to the last place she was.

Cayce PD: Do you have any idea where she would go? Have you looked in the back yard?

Mom: Yes ma'am. I checked all the houses in my neighborhood and anybody that's actually answered is out looking for her too.

Strong response, beyond the word, "yes"-- this indicates priority.

Note also the additional info: "and" with the information that followed it.

She facilitated a search party.

Cayce PD: Did she have a dog or anything with her?

Mom: No.

Cayce PD: Okay, my officer will be there in just a few minutes.

Analysis Conclusion:

Veracity Indicated.

The mother's priority is finding her daughter.

She is truthful and she is helpful, going beyond the boundary of some questions in order to support her priority.


The point of sensitivity is the emphasis of location.

It is unknown who wrote the family statement, but the author's sensitivity of location is consistent with the released family statement.

Sunday, 5 January 2020

911 Emergency: The First Interview



911 Emergency: The First Interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qRnvRupXjM&t=996s

Monday, 21 October 2019

911 Call: 5 Year Old Dulce Maria Alavez Missing



Missing 5 year old child


Operator: 911 what is your emergency?

Caller: I can’t find my daughter.


This is very likely to be reliable (90%) on its form.

At the time of this call, the mother cannot find her. We wait for her to ask for help and to facilitate the flow of information to find her.

Operator: When was the last time you seen her?

Caller: We were, we were with her at the park and people say that somebody, probably somebody took her.

This is a very strong indicator of parental neglect. She offers that "somebody" (gender neutral) took her, qualified with "probably." Here we may expect the mother to express concern for the victim and demand/plead that she be found in urgent terms.

1. A mother of a missing child should speak for herself. (maternal instinct)

2. The need for plurality is associated with the need to lessen guilt by dilution (crowd).

3. "people say" is passive----- she distances herself from her own daughter ("with her" and "we") and from the possible action that caused her to be unable to find her daughter.
Operator: Ok how old is she?

Caller: She’s five years old.

Operator: Ok and what park are you at?

Caller: Here in Bridgeton Park.

Operator: OK where in the Bridgeton Park are you?

Caller: Umm... The one with the basketball court where the high school is.

Operator: Ah OK so you’re at the basketball courts behind the high school?

Caller: Yes.

Mom is compliant with questions and no further. She is not offering information.
Operator: Ok, and what was she seen last wearing?

Caller: (pauses) …She was wearing um…, umm, give me a second (speaks to another person in Spanish). I don’t remember what clothes she was wearing, but she was wearing, I just remember her pants, she was wearing like a flower, flowery pants, and some heels, some white heels.

The neglect is affirmed. The pauses are viewed in context of the urgent need to find a missing 5 year old, one incapable of self protection.
Operator: Ok ma’am stay on the line I will transfer you over to the police.

Operator: And you said she was five correct?

Caller: Yes.

Police: Hello ma’am, did you she which direction your child went?

Caller: No we were in the car she, she came down with my son. They were running to the park and then me and my sister we came down. So whe, whe, when we got here at the park she wasn’t here. They said, they said that my son was just crying with his ice cream, because somebody spilled his ice cream on the floor and my daughter just ran away.

Mom is very likely willing to blame others --this should be a strategy in the interview.

Police: OK hold on.

Analysis Conclusion:

The mother is withholding information from police while her daughter is missing. This information is in context to her own status.

What is being withheld is her own responsibility/connection to the victim.

The mother does not ask for help for the victim, nor does she express concern over what her daughter is currently experiencing.

The mother is more concerned with her own status rather than the victim's. Being against maternal instinct, it does not bode well for the victim.

Substance abuse should be explored. Mother's lack of personal responsibility consistent with self preservation and lack of parental capacity for protection.

To enroll in training, or to host a seminar, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.

Peter Hyatt as Statement Analysis Blog

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/

Sunday, 30 June 2019

Was Officer Amber Guyger Truthful in Her 911 Call?



Did Dallas police officer Officer Amber Guyger shoot Botham Jean due to her belief that she was entering her own apartment?

In 2018, Officer Guyger fatally shot Botham Jean (26) claiming to believe she encountered an intruder in her own apartment.

We now turn to her own words to discover if she is truthful or deceptive.


There is much to consider in this case, but the team of analysts was focused upon whether or not the officer was truthful about believing she was in the wrong apartment.

These are notes from the team.

Consider that the team raises questions that seek to be answered within the language of the subject. There is supplemental material included.

Greater Context: off duty, coming from 14 (one report of 15) hour shift.

Analytical Question:
1. Is the subject reliably reporting what happened?
(Was she truthful about being in the wrong apartment?)

C: get up, man.

Unintended Recipient –
“get up, man”---
?
Why the command to “get up”?
Was the victim capable of “getting up”?
Was the subject arresting the victim? (interview)
Was the subject in shock, or denial of what happened?
Was anything said prior to this?
What happened prior to making the call?

Greater Context: the subject had come off of a 14 hour shift & was Off duty.

D: Dallas 911. This is Carla. Whatis your emergency?

C: Hi. This is an off duty officer. . .um. . . can I get. . .I need EMS. . .um… um I’m in number. . .um

From the language, we know the victim is a male, and the victim is down.
Shooting – victim is down.
1. The emergency call of a shooting, with the victim down, begins with a greeting, “Hi” as unexpected. Please note the possible ingratiation. The subject may have a need to be seen in a positive light, with law enforcement. Why the greeting? This is informal: could the caller (subject) expect some form of “professional courtesy” in this report? Could the caller use the greeting as routine calls to 911? Ingratiation—‘I am one of you’ bonding when the officer should direct attention to the victim.

Also consider officers may, by routine, call 911 which can produce the greeting...

2. “This is an off duty officer” –

a. The caller does not use her own name –

b. She does not say “this is an___ officer” (psychological ‘distance’? inner conflict?) --title

c. The caller produced that she was “off duty” –

d. Taken together, the caller does not identify herself, her dept/title and uses a greeting.

e. What difference does it make to the subject’s verbalized perception of reality of being “off duty”?

f. What difference would her time status make to the victim?

g. “an” – articles are instinctive (without pre thought) and guide us. It is consistent with the lack of name. Consider – ‘crowd source’of guilt? ‘Crowd source’ of personal responsibility?

Distancing: you do not know my name, my dept, and I am one of many… You do not yet know what the emergency is.

h. Does the officer see herself as law enforcement, personally? – or is she distancing? “call”—or “call of duty”; not a “good job.”

: Hi. This is an off duty officer. . .um. . . can I get. . .I need EMS.. .um… um I’m in number. .
.um

Please not the “pause” (sensitive) above, four times. The subject is slowing down the pace to give time to consider what to say.

What causes this need? Deception? Fatigue? Trauma? unknown? We look for the subject's own words to guide us.

Note that not giving her name, yet giving her time status (off duty) is a form of self censoring information. This should be considered in the following broken sentence:

“um,can I get…”

The subject is a trained law enforcement professional who has discharged her weapon and we know, (from her words) that the victim is a male and he is down.
We do not expect a question, yet some in LE will use “Can I get…?”as routine.

Pause 1 produced “I” and a question/request (unexpected) – she asks for something for herself; not the victim.
Question: Is this habit/training/norm (Greater Context) for a law enforcement official?

In the lesser context, we consider that she did not identify her name, rank nor dept.

This is appropriateifshe is administering first aid and seeking guidance.

We must consider that the request for assistance began with a pause. Is this expected? Is the subject experiencing trauma?


.um. . . can I get. . .I need EMS

Note the change of language.

For the subject, has something changed?

Might this had been something the officer rolled up on (on duty, officially sent) if the language would have been different-maybe it would have been I need vs can I get. Since she was involved I could that have changed her language?

b. Has the victim’s status (time?) changed? Is more urgency needed? Is he beyond help?

c. Note the subject has asserted that she has a need; not the victim. This could be because she is facilitating help for the victim, or it could be a signal of personal guilt, as we find in domestic homicide calls.

c. um… um I’m in number. . .um

Might this affirm, deny or not speak to, her assertion of accidental entrance?

+ + 0 + + 0 0 0 +

The pause here is about location. – the language is address of the apartment. This affirms the assertion about belief in wrong apartment. During this critical (hormonal consequence) communication (including shots fired indoors/sensory/sound), the "excited utterance" is in support of the assertion. We continue to analyze...

Please note that as a trained officer, she did not give location first.

The question is “what” is your emergency:


: Hi. This is an officer. . .um. . . can I get. . .I need EMS.. .um… umI’m in number. .
.um

1. Greeting
2. Personal Identification is incomplete
3. Request for assistance for self
4. Location of apartment –
Contextual: an officer may:
1. give their call sign
2. give their location
3. give the crime code
4. what they need


We do not know why EMS is needed. We do not know who needs it (other than the subject) – to this point, there has not been a shooting.


What does trauma in language look like?

Even with the possibility of trauma in her language, we note that she has the presence of mind greet, place herself in a group…

Passivity that is inappropriate – (mirrors deception) but sometimes with a dissociative factor as if the subject is watching and commenting on what happened, sometimes using present tense (or incomplete past tense) language.

Thus far, trauma? Not evident yet.

Processing of information is in question


____________________________________________________________________




D: What’s your address?
C: um

D: Do you need police as well or just EMS
C: Yes. Ineed both.

D: Okay, what’s the address?

C: Fuck. I’m at apartment number 1478. I’m in 1478

She does not give the address.
a. Is her priority the apt number because she went to the wrong apt?
b. Might she instinctively be thinking enhanced 911 knows the address?
C. "at" to "in" may be realization (processing)

Does this point support (+) or negate (-) or not speak to (0) the possible wrong apt assertion?

(++++) supporting the premise of wrong apartment.


?: + - 0 her assertion of wrong apartment accident:

+ + + supportive of being in the wrong apt.

“at” could be location, while “in” could be the situation inside the apartment.

Pause re location? (+++) supportive of wrong apartment assertion.

Emotion, “F”--- realization? Some personal responsibility? "in" places her as a participant; "at" could be an outside observer

Note: this could explain why she gave the address first, the shock of seeing it right there, and it's the wrong apartment (?)



External Info --

Affidavit: The affidavit says the apartment was dark and Guyger turned on the lights while on the phone with 911 after the shooting.

Guyger would later tell police she found the door slightly ajar and that it opened when she put her key fob in the door, the arrest warrant says. She told investigators she saw a "large silhouette" across the room and began giving commands, which Jean "ignored,” the arrest warrant says.



D: And what’s the address there?
C: Um.. .it’s 1210 South Lamar. . . 1478. . .yes

D: What’s going on?

Present tense – what is now happening at the location? The expectation is that the subject now identify the victim’s needs and/or what she is doing to help him.

C: I’m an off duty officer.

I thought I was in my apartment and I shot a guy thinking that he was. . . thinking it was my apartment.

a. Self identity continues to avoid using her name, title or name of her dept.
b. Repeat of earlier work status (“off duty”)
c. Note “I” and “officer” are far apart.
d. Note reliability of form "I thought I was in my apartment"
and "I shot a guy..."

I thought I was in my apartment

a. Form: Reliable on its form.
“I shot a guy”

Form: reliable – we should believe her. The article suggests not knowing him previously.

Affidavit: Jean, 26, lived on the fourth floor of the Southside Flats apartments in Dallas, according to an arrest warrant filed in September. Guyger, who lived directly below Jean on the third floor, said she parked on the fourth floor and walked down the hallway to what she "thought was her apartment," the warrant stated.


What is her level of care (LD) towards the victim, up to this point? -- thus far, we do not know where he was shot, how many times he was shot, or his present condition? There is no empathy expressed for the victim.

and I shot a guy thinking that he was. . . thinking it was my apartment.

She is explaining why without being asked.

Appropriate in context.


D: You shot someone?

C: Yes, I thought it was my apartment. I’m fucked. Oh my god. I’m sorry.


Guilt: “I’m sorry”—would be appropriate for accident and intentional, though mostly for different reasons. The latter is often associated with regret of being caught.

Note the lack of empathy towards the status of the victim. ***Key in domestic shootings where the subjects know each.

a. We do not know the status of the victim
b. We do not have concern for the victim
c. We have Ingratiation, distancing language, signals of guilt (deity, sorry)
d. To whom is she “sorry”? To the Recipient (911 operator) or to an unintended recipient (victim or police in general?
e. From the subject to the police (911), he is “a guy” but we do not know his current status.

We know her condition (she’s “fucked”) but we do not know the condition of the victim.

*If the victim is beyond help (in her understanding) the LD shifts.


D: Okay and where are you at right now?

C: I’m in uh. . .What do you mean? I’m inside the apartment with him. Hey, come on, man.


D: What’s your name?

C: I’m Amber Guyger. I need . . get me. . .I’m . . I’m in



Startled: wrong apartment, intruder, shooting, sound,

Note asking for assistance for self is found in law enforcement language (as well as medical professionals, or anyone who is seeking to facilitate assistance)


D: Okay we have help on the way.


C: I know,butI’m. .I’m gonna lose my job.I thought it was my apartment. Hey, man. Fuck


She knows help is on the way for the victim, yet expresses her need without addressing the victim’s need.

It may be she's angry for the victim putting her in this position. In this sense, she is the “victim”, which is why she expresses empathy for herself.

Subject may be low in human empathy, but did she believe she was in her apartment, and there was an intruder?

She may be shifting blame to the victim: He didn't respond to her commands. This is his fault, although it's his apartment and her mistake.

We continue to wait to hear her tell us what she did to try to save him.


D: Okay stay with me, okay?

C: I am. I am. I need. I know I need a supervisor. Hey, bud. Hey, bud. Come on. Fuck. I thought it was my apartment.



D: I understand. We have help on the way, okay?

C: I thought it was my apartment. Hurry, please.

D: They are on their way.

C: I need. . .I. . .I thought it was my apartment. I thought it was my apartment. I could have sworn I parked on the third floor.

Lack of commitment - Appropriate use or Inappropriate use?

-- she is in doubt about the parking---this make speak to confusion. This would make it an “appropriately” weak assertion.
Confused in parking should warrant exploration of lengthy hours, sleep deprivation.

D: Okay I understand.

C: No. I thought it was my apartment. I thought it was my apartment. I thought it was my apartment. I thought it was my apartment.


This is to shut down the info and any possibility to the contrary. This is self focus only.


D: What’s the gate code there?
C: I don’t know. I don’t know.
D: You don’t know? Okay
C: [Unintelligible.] I thought it was my apartment.

D: They’re trying to get in there. We have an officer there. You don’t know the gate code?

C: No. I thought it was my apartment. I thought it was my apartment.

D: Okay and what floor are you in right now?
C: On the fourth floor. Fourth.Hey, bud. Hey, bud. They’re coming. They’re coming. I’m sorry man.

Empathy towards victim noted. In subsequent questioning, the victim's condition at this point is of importance in understanding the language.


D: Okay, where was he shot?
C: He’s on the top, top left.

Long pause

D: Okay you’re with Dallas PD, right?
C: Yes. . . . Oh, my god. I’m done. I didn’t mean to. . I didn’t mean to. . I didn’t mean to. . I’m so sorry. Hey, bud.

D: They’re trying to get to you, okay.

C: I know. Stay with me bud.. . Oh, my god.

D: Okay they’re almost there. They’re already there, they tried to get to you.

C: I thought it was my apartment. I thought it was my apartment. Holy fuck. I thought it was my apartment. Oh my god. I thought it was my apartment. I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry. [unintelligible] Oh my god.

D: Okay, they’re trying to get there to you. Do you hear them? Do you see them?

C: No. . .no. . I . . I. . how the fuck did I put the. . how did I . . I’m so tired. Hurry. Hey! Over here, over here.
D: Go ahead and talk to them.
C: No, it’s me. I’m off duty. I’m off duty. I fucked. I thought they were in my apartment. I thought this was my floor.


External Info:
As a result, “Guyger fired her handgun two times striking the Complainant one time in the torso,” according to the affidavit, which says that Guyger entered the apartment, calling 911 and requesting police and EMS and provided first aid to Jean. She turned on the interior lights while on the phone with 911. Upon being asked where she was located by emergency dispatchers, she returned to the front door to observe the address and discovered she was at the wrong apartment,” the document alleges.

The Jean family attorney has also revealed that there were noise complaints made by downstairs neighbors about Botham Jean’s apartment. Guyger lived below Jean.

Supplemental Info:

Note: DOJ 2000 study Evaluating the Effects of Fatigue on Police Patrol Officers


This project’s findings have great relevance since increased fatigue worsens mood and adds to the likelihood of poor judgment and the misuse of force (see Vila 1996).

How lack of sleep may cause deadly police errors
A recent study examined fatigue’s effects on 53 officers’ decision-making and reaction times when the officers were faced with deadly-force situations
Aug 9, 2014
Officers frequently suffer from high levels of fatigue due to lack of sleep, unusual shift schedules, and long hours awake. Fatigue impairs a person’s mental functioning, especially in areas such as decision-making, reaction time, and memory.
Dr. Bill Lewinski and the researchers at Force Science Institute have done excellent work regarding exhaustion due to physical exertion, and Dr. Bryan Vila has conducted extensive research on the negative effects fatigue has on officer safety.
A new study conducted by David Blake (MSc.) and Edward Cumella (PhD) has addressed the impact of fatigue on officers’ performance in deadly-force situations. Blake and Cumella’s research examined fatigue’s effects on 53 officers’ decision-making and reaction times when the officers were faced with deadly-force situations.

Impaired Decision-Making and Slowed Reaction Times
For one week, officers completed online tasks both before and after each of their shifts. Records included a history of their sleep patterns, total hours slept, total hours awake, shifts worked, and sleep quality. Officers then engaged in a series of simulated shoot/don’t shoot scenarios using pictures of potential targets that use of force experts had previously classified as warranting either a 'shoot or don’t shoot' response or as ambiguous.
Blake — a PoliceOne Contributor and retired police officer — and Cumella — a professor of psychology at Kaplan University — found that many fatigue measures correlated strongly with officers’ impaired decision-making and slowed reaction times within the deadly force situations. In particular, poor sleep quality, greater total time awake, more days worked, and working night or swing shifts all decreased the accuracy of officers’ decisions to 'shoot or don’t shoot' and also slowed their reaction times.
“These impacts occurred most frequently when officers were faced with the more difficult decisions within the ‘don’t shoot’ and ambiguous scenarios,” Blake explained.
In other words, compared to well-rested officers, fatigued officers chose to shoot more often when they should not have done so, and they took longer to decide on the appropriate action when faced with ambiguous situations. The study also indicated that the negative effects of fatigue increased throughout each work day, with officers’ reaction times growing consistently longer from pre-shift to post-shift.
Blake added, “A surprising and concerning finding was that the officers had experienced only moderate levels of sleep deprivation and fatigue, yet even these moderate levels appeared to cause impairments in decision-making and reaction time. For example, the average total time awake per officer per day was 16 hours.”
Blake continued, “A mountain of empirical evidence demonstrates that 17 hours of total wake time is equivalent to a .05 percent blood alcohol level (BAC); in the present study, officers’ performance was shown to decrease with 16 hours of wake time.”
Officers in the study averaged 6.4 hours of sleep per night, and slept only 20 minutes less per night on work days vs. days off. Although this may not seem like a large amount of sleep deprivation, research has shown that even small decreases in sleep below an average of eight hours per night create a cumulative sleep debt, the negative effect of which is added to the total hours awake.
Consequently, with the 6.4 hours of sleep per night reported by the officers in the study, participants’ performance levels were impaired nearly to the same extent as someone with a .08 percent BAC.
Studying Fatigue in Policing: Should We Know More?
In a second phase of the study, 277 officers shared their opinions about the role of fatigue in law enforcement. The results were astonishing; with 69 percent of officers admitting that lack of sleep had caused a mistake or error in their police work. 92 percent believed that the law enforcement field does not adequately concern itself with safety issues arising from officer fatigue, and 95 percent felt the law enforcement field needs to formally explore the impact of sleep deprivation on officers’ performance.
The results of the study parallel other scientific research about the effects of fatigue on human cognitive performance. Fatigue has been linked to industrial and motor vehicle accidents, causing human errors that have resulted in loss of life and property damage, usually because of impaired decision-making, attention problems, and slowed reaction times.
“These are clearly not factors which the public would want police officers to face, especially when those officers are making the most critical decision about whether or not to use force in a police encounter,” Blake said. “The decision to take a life in the line of duty and the ability to make that decision quickly enough to save one’s own life is an extremely important public and officer safety concern that cannot be underemphasized.”
Blake contends that police executives, police unions, officers themselves, and other responsible persons should be concerned about the results of this study “because many have noted that the law enforcement industry often entails extremely fatiguing environmental conditions due to shift work, overtime, and long hours.”
Because this study involved a relatively small sample of officers and used a computer simulation that has not yet been fully validated, a next step should include a follow-up study with a greater number of officers from a nationally representative sample of police departments. If the results of follow-up investigations reveal the same findings, proactive steps would appear to be warranted to ensure that officers are not sleep deprived or awake for too many hours while on duty.
For example, fatigue-mitigating measures can be enacted using simple adjustments, such as on duty nap periods for fatigued officers, circumscribed overtime rules and total work hours, and less frequent shift rotations.
“Continued research can more precisely determine at what point total hours awake and nightly sleep quantity begin to unacceptably impair officers’ performance,” Blake concluded.
This study indicates that performance deficits arise from even low levels of fatigue. If these findings are borne out, decisive and timely follow-up may be required to ensure that those who are sworn to protect and serve are able to do so at an optimal human performance level for the benefit and safety of themselves and the public.



Analysis Conclusion:

Analytical Questions:
1. Is the subject reliably reporting what happened? Yes
2. Did the subject intentionally shoot the victim? Yes
3. Did the subject believe she was shooting an intruder? Yes
4. Did the subject reliably report the mistaken location? Yes


The subject tells the truth about going to the wrong apartment, and tracing her thoughts to parking on the wrong floor.

The subject did not intent to shoot the victim, nor acted with malice nor racist animus towards him.

The subject may very well be sleep deprived (note in context about being “tired”) as well as impacted by the prior shooting (2017) with her judgement impacted/impaired.

Self absorption: subject had more empathy for self than victim.

The subject may be narcissistic (personality driven, immature) and/or have narcissistic like traits due to self preservation from prior traumatic incident.

Much discussion as to the original psych evaluation and hiring criteria indicated.

The subject does not indicate racial animus in the language.

The processing sensitivity (pauses) are contextually connected to the wrong location (parking level) and may, very well be, the result of sleep deprivation/fatigue.

Peter Hyatt

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2019/05/was-officer-amber-guyger-truthful-in.html

Friday, 17 May 2019

911 Call Faith Hedgepeth Murder 2012



Faith Hedgepeth, a 19 year old University of North Carolina student, was murdered in Chapel Hill, NC on September 7, 2012. The link above contains audio of a 911 call placed on that date by Faith’s roommate. Faith was temporarily staying in her off-campus apartment. This note was found at the scene:

Here is the 911 call regarding the murder. It is my understanding that the caller has been cleared as a suspect.

September 7, 2012 11:01:44 AM

D = Dispatcher
K = Karena
The 911 call is here
Question for analysis:
Does the caller have guilty knowledge of the crime?
Is the caller withholding any information?

(This would be a deliberate withholding.)
Statement Analysis of a 911 call uses the same technique as employed in other situations: The Expected versus the Unexpected as the setting, and sensitivity indicators within language flagged.
This means that there are general expectations within a call, even with a wide variety of emotions in play.
*The caller will ask for help for the victim
*The caller's order, indicating priority, will be for the victim.
When Statement Analysis finds other, unexpected words within the call, the analysis is thus to 'confront' these words or phrases.
Keep in mind that even the phrase, 'excited utterance' recognizes that a 911 call is not scripted, but the subject is choosing his or her own words, from a vast internal dictionary of about 25,000 words, in less than a micro second of time. Any disruption of this speed of transmission may indicate sensitivity, or even deception.

The analysis is in bold type.

D: Durham 911, where is your emergency?
The question is the location. This should be answered immediately. What we say first can reveal our priority.

K: Hi. Um I just walked into my apartment and my friend is just like (unintelligible) unconscious.

The first thing one says is important as it sets priority. Whether or not the question is understood, this is still the very first thing the caller needs police to know: she was not in her apartment.

This is to say that the caller has come before the victim in this call.
Why?

If she did, in fact, hear the question about location, the priority of 'not being here' is further strengthened and should be seen as 'sensitive', no different than avoidance of a question.
The question is not answered but the emergency is given. Why is the question about location not answered? We let the subject guide us.

We note the order:
1. I just walked into my apartment;
2. My friend is just like...unconscious
What we first note besides the unanswered question regarding the location (which is needed to help the victim) is that the caller's priority is that she not be held responsible for what happened: she just walked into her apartment.
This is to establish an alibi and is not expected in the 911 call. We expect to hear the caller (subject) to ask for help specifically for the victim.
Please note she calls her "my friend" which is an incomplete social introduction. She should give her friend's name, though the distance without the name is not acute. A complete social introduction, even in 'excited utterance' is expected; even if it is broken into two parts, as the subject should be in a hurry.
"Hurrying" in 911 calls.
Expected: The subject is in a hurry to save the victim's life
Unexpected: The subject feels a need to portray herself as in a hurry.
Why is it "my" apartment? Is this a roommate calling and if so, it should be "our" apartment. Here, the caller takes ownership of the apartment. If it was her apartment, "my" is the expected. If it was shared with the victim, "our" is expected.
That it was "my apartment" and not "ours" is appropriate if the victim was only staying there temporarily, and had only been there a short time.

D: OK. What is your address ma’am?

"Ok" is to establish, "I heard you. I heard that you were not home. Now please answer my question..."
Even without training, the 'sense' or 'feel' remains the same. The 911 operator needs the address and the caller may not know if the region possesses the instant address feature or not, but the operator, in having to get the address, may wonder if the caller is not hurrying the flow of information in order to facilitate medical intervention for the victim.

In each interview, the Interviewer is generally given one of two impressions:
The subject is working with him to facilitate the flow of information or
The subject is not.
This is in all types of interviewing, including Analytical Interviewing, journalism, investigatory, and so on. The simply responded, "okay", or 'agreed', recognizes intuitively the priority of the caller.
People will respond, back and forth, to each others' pronoun usage. This is called "reflected" or "parroted" language. It is why interviewers, including 911 operators, journalists, and anyone interested in obtaining information must limit his own words to allow the subject to enter into the Free Editing Process, in which they are going into their own dictionary, and not borrowing another's.
Married couples together for a significant amount of time eventually will give indication of sharing a dictionary. This is what we call, "entering into" the language of another.

K: I live at Hawthorne at the View

*Please note that she says where she lives, and not where the victim is who needs immediate assistance. This may be in response to the specific question, however, with "what is your address?"

Expected is: "we are at..." which would include the victim.

If the victim is the roommate of the caller, this should be noted for distancing language. Without giving the address, there is a delay.
In any case:
We expect to hear an innocent caller state the location of the emergency and what is wrong, asking for help for the victim. That she went to where she, herself, lives, puts focus upon herself. With a bleeding friend in her bedroom, this is not the most expected response, but to parrot back language is the easiest in which to answer questions. I cannot put much weight into this; but still take note of it.

D: Give me the address

The address has not been given.
This is no longer a question but in the imperative.

The 911 operator appears to intuitively sense that the flow of information is not as expected. This is where the 'confrontation' takes place, even for the untrained.
The 911 operator is not hearing what was expected. What has caused this delay?
We look for the subject to guide us with her own words:

K: I just moved here, I’m gonna have to get it. (Pause) Oh my God. It’s um 5-6-3-9 Old Chapel Hill Road in Durham.
This tells us the sensitivity of the address. This is therefore a concern that is now answered and a fact offered that should be verified.

Here, the subject tells us why the address was not given: "I just moved here."

Divinity noted.

In Statement Analysis, any use of divinity is to be considered a sensitivity indicator and is statistically linked with deception. It is not conclusive. Someone might call upon Divinity to bear witness or testimony to her words: this is closely related to deception, such as "I swear to God!", while others are just exclaiming a habit of speech.

Please remember: we do not discern deception under a microscope. We look at various signals of sensitivity which can be in many 911 calls but it is only when the culmination of signals is viewed as 'one' overall statement, that we may draw a conclusion. Divinity is considered a 'light' red flag to be noted. We believe what one tells us unless they specifically give us cause not to.

D: ok, repeat it to me so I make sure I got it correct

K: OK. 5-6-3-9 Old Chapel Hill Road it’s apt 1602.
D: 1602?
K: yes
D: what’s the phone number you’re calling from?
K: 201-321-8075

D: ok, you say your friend is unconscious?

We finally get to the victim. The delay is noted.

K: She’s unconscious. I just walked in the apartment and there (possible redacted section?)…it looks like there is blood everywhere (unintelligible)

There is repetition of "I just walked in the apartment" making it sensitive. This is established as a priority above seeking help for her friend.
Why would the caller place herself before the victim?
The first words to the 911 operator established the caller's alibi. This came before the victim's state.
This leads us to questions:
Q. Does the caller fear being blamed? If so, why?
Q. Does the caller have a need to tell police that she was not there when whatever happened to Faith took place?

A. Yes. It was not only a priority, but it was repeated.
Anything repeated is sensitive, or important enough to have a need to emphasize it, via repetition.

The roommate would have to be investigated regardless, but the investigation should also consider if the roommate had any knowledge about what happened to Faith prior to making the call.

Blood
Note the lack of commitment of saying that there is a lot of blood in "it looks like..." which is to reduce commitment to the obvious.

D: Ok listen to me, listen to me. Somebody’s already sending the ambulance. OK? I need to get some information from you and I’m gonna help, I’m gonna tell you how to help her, ok?

The sensitive repetition of "listen to me" signals that what is about to follow is very important and will require concentration on the part of the caller. The operator may feel that the attention and/or cooperation from the caller is not what it should be; therefore, the need to emphasize by the operator.

We note that the caller has not asked for help for the victim.
Question: Does the caller not believe the victim needs help any longer?
K: ok
D: ok, how old is she?
K: she’s 19….
Verb tense parroted.
D: ok

K: I don’t know…I don’t want to touch her but….
It is likely that the caller knows that the vital medical information that is about to be given to her is direction of first aid application. The caller refutes her own negative, which may suggest:
She is reluctant to apply first aid but will do so to follow directions.
We do not know what causes such reluctance to help. This is something that should be addressed in the interview.

We have asked: Does the caller know the victim is beyond first aid?

The assertion, "I don't want to touch her but..." is consistent with death. People do not like to touch dead bodies. (See Billie Jean Dunn's statement about "seeing" what "looked like" her daughter, but "I did not touch her" in analysis and in upcoming new release on the murder of Hailey Dunn.

D: Listen to me, is she breathing?
K: I don’t know

This is not a credible response. This is instinctively found in the language of the 911 operator who then gives her the imperative of what she "needs" to do.
Recall: the speed of transmission. This lack of commitment is noted by the Dispatcher who then changes language to increase authority:

D: you need to check and see, is she breathing?

K: ( pause) k, I don’t think so….I don’t think so
"k" acknowledges the authority

D: Ok listen to me

K: There’s blood everywhere
D: There’s what?
K: There’s blood everywhere
D: ok

K: I don’t know what happened
Negation.

A negation is something that is offered in the negative and very important in analysis. Here she offers what she does not know. This is a very concerning statement. She was not asked if she knew what happened but has offered this in the negative. It is, in wording, strong, but it is not in result of a direct question. It is unnecessary language.
a. I was not home when this happened
b. I don't know what happened

The caller may fear being blamed. The reason why she may fear this must be explored in the investigation. This has not been a call in which confidence is evident in the 911 operator's language.


D: ok is she on her back or is she on her…laying on her stomach?

K: she’s on, she’s on her back, but like I think she fell off the bed ‘cos she’s like off the bed, there’s blood all over the pillows like in the comforter and I just don’t know what happened

This is not expected: the caller is describing a hypothesis into what may have happened while the Dispatcher is attempting to give First Aid instructions.
Then we have the now repeated phrase, "I just don't know what happened...." making its initial strength weaken as we now need to ask,

"Why does the caller need to repeat this?"
a. Because she knows what happened
b. Because she does not know what happened but fears being accused of knowing;
c. She has an idea about who or what in this scenario

D: Ok, alright…listen to me alright?

K: Is someone coming?

This is actually a good question and although it does not ask for help for the victim, it does not ask for help for her, either. It is a question that seeks confirmation of what is already expected.

D: Yes I’ve got somebody coming. I’ve got somebody coming. I need you for you to help her. I need you to go up to her. We need to see if she’s breathing or not, ok?

K: I don’t think so

D: ok. Listen to me. Go up…the paramedics are on the way. I want you to stay on the line I’m gonna tell you what to do next. Alright? Are you right by her now?

K: Yes

D: Ok, listen carefully

The Dispatch operator shows doubt of the caller's ability


K: She’s not moving.
D: She’s not moving, ok
K: No
D: OK, touch her arm tell me how does she feel….

K: She’s not moving

D: Ok ma’am, we need to find out if we can help her or not. You’ve got to help, you know, do as I’m asking so we can help her. Alright?

K: Ok.
D: Ok if you can, lay her flat on her back, remove any pillows.

K: Lay her flat on her back?

D: Flat on her back remove any pillows
K: Ok

D: Ok. Kneel next to her, look in her mouth for food or vomit.
K: There’s blood everywhere

D: OK, kneel next to her, look in her mouth for food or vomit
K: She’s (covered in?) blood (crying) I don’t…

D: Listen to me, what is your name?

K: Karena. I’m sorry, I’m really (tired?) There’s blood everywhere, I don’t know where it came from

This, too, is a negation; offered without being asked the source of the blood.
Please note the words "I'm sorry" are flagged within 911 calls and are often found in callers where guilty knowledge is indicated. This is an element of concern that "I'm sorry" has found its way into her language. See Casey Anthony's 911 call for this inclusion (for any reason) in a 911 call.

D: Listen to me listen to me alright alright, listen to me. When you touch her, how does she feel, does she feel warm?

K: (Pause) No she feels cold.
D: She feels cold? ok
K: Yes.
D: Ok. Alright. Don’t touch anything else ok? Don’t touch anything else.

The need for First Aid is no longer on the mind of the Dispatch operator. Preserving the crime scene is.
The call has not been long enough for the body to turn cold. Please note this with the answer to whether or not the victim was breathing.

K: (unintelligible)….hurry

D: OK, they’re on the way I’ve got police on the way to you and I’ve got medics on the way to you

K: (unintelligible)…I can’t believe this.
D: Ok. What room is she in?

K: She’s in my bedroom.

This pronoun use is important to know in relation to how long the victim had been staying there, and where the victim slept.

D: Ok I want you to go back into to the living room ok?

Dispatch has been told that the caller does not know what happened, even after the caller suggested what may have happened and now wants her out of the room.


K: I don’t know what’s going on, like there there’s stuff in my room, that like, was not here before, it looks like someone had came in here,

This warrants lots of follow up:
If you walked into your apartment and found your roommate unconscious on the floor and were on the phone with the police, awaiting instructions on how to administer First Aid, would you have the presence of mind to note that there is some "stuff" in your room that was not there before?
If the room was disheveled, it would be obvious, but note her wording:
"stuff" is non descriptive and
"it looks like someone has been in here" is not only unnecessary, but it is also without any description. The 911 operator here should ask, "like what?" to get a specific from her.
The concern here is alibi building:
"I just walked in..." which means: I was not here.
This is repeated.
"I don't know what happened" is unnecessary; making it important, but is repeated. This is coupled with the hypothesis of falling off the bed.
The additional information without description of any kind.
*Does the caller have any knowledge of what happened, even if not "what happened" in precision, but by whom?
Please consider this:
*Does the caller worry that someone might come back?
This would cause intense fear and would trigger repetition about:
-someone entered
-how soon will police arrive for her own protection.
-Or, is the concern something else?
It could be for her own nervousness of being suspected, which is seen in her repeated emphasis that she was not in her apartment at the time of the event. This suggests that she might be connected, or have some knowledge, especially in secondary manner, of the murder.
D: Ok ok
K: it really does.
This is unnecessary emphasis indicating that she has a need to persuade.
Please note: in these words, she is giving information about her room, but not about the victim.

D: Alright, what did you say your name was again?
This is necessary to ask but it does signal to the already sensitive caller that attention, linguistically

K: It looks like someone came in here….because

D: Ok I don’t… listen to me, don’t touch anything else in the room
Although Interviewers should not interrupt the flow of information, here necessity dictates. The 911 operator does have a sense here that there may be something amiss about the caller. Note the imperative.

K: I’m not touching
This is not enough for the 911 operator:

D: I want you to leave that room go into the living room. You need to make sure, make sure the door is unlocked so somebody can get in, so that the medics and the police can get in when they get there.

K: It’s unlocked. When are they gonna get here though?

D: Ok they’re on their way honey, they’re coming as fast as they can you just stay on the phone with me alright?

K: I am

D: OK, tell me again what your name is?

K: It looks like someone had been in there because she’s not like this at all I don’t know (unintelligible – how she was sleeping?)
The caller returns to the same theme: someone had been in there. She gives her reason (which is not clear on the call) but tells us that she has the need to explain not only that someone has been in there, but, perhaps, a need to state that the victim is not in her room normally (?), which is not clear due to unintelligible language.
D: OK, I have let them know, we’ve got everybody on their way to help you. Now tell me again what your name is.
K: What?

D: What is your name?

K: (Redacted?)

D: You just sit down on the couch and don’t touch anything ok, you just sit down

K: I’m not touching anything

D: OK, I just want you to sit down because the police and the medics are going to be there – they’re coming just as fast as they can alright?
The 911 operator is protecting the crime scene.
K: Ok

D: You just stay on the phone with me. Stay on the phone with me
K: Are you sure they’re coming?

D: Yes ma’am, they are on their way

K: I just can’t believe this. I know someone had to have been in there.
That "someone" entered is very sensitive to the caller. This comes after "are you sure they're coming" which may suggest: intense fear of an unknown assailant. It is gender neutral.
Please note that "I know someone" may be an embedded admission.
It is offered information without being asked.

D: OK, we’ve got first responders on the way, the fire truck is coming, there’s a medic coming and the sheriff’s department is on their way to you.
K: OK

D: You just stay on the phone with me until somebody gets there with you
K: OK
D: How old are you Karena?
K: I’m 20
D: You’re 20? Ok hon you’re doing alright, you’re doing alright, you just stay on….

K: I see the police
The word "they" is now specified as "police"
It would be interesting (though not S/A) to see if there is relief in her voice inflection at this time.

D: You see the police?
K: Yes

D: Ok, you let me know when they get in there with you then you can talk to them ok? I just don’t want you to be alone right now
The 911 operator is protecting the crime scene. The 911 operator has heard enough of that which was not expected to have concerns.

K: OK
D: You just stay on the phone with me
K: Ok (pause…sound)
D: Are they in there with you? Are they coming in?
K: Yes, thank you
D: OK hon bye bye
K: Good bye

Analysis Conclusion:
There are enough signals here to indicate that police should investigate a possible connection between the caller and the killer.

1. The caller's priority is her own alibi more than the assistance of intervention for the victim. This could be from fear of being blamed, which, if true, needs to be explored why she would feel such a need, including association. Her entire association should be explored including tertiary and distance connection; but close enough to have 'an idea' of who might have done this.
2. The caller gives indication that she knew the victim was deceased or would be deceased shortly, but in either case, not in need of medical intervention. There is no offering of detail in her language, about the victim, while she does off in the negative, of not knowing who did this, as well as offering that "someone" entered the home and that her room is not the same as it was previously. These are given more words than the victim's status.
3. Note the inclusion of divinity.
4. Note that the caller does not ask for help specifically for the victim.
5. Note the reduced commitment to the blood shed. This is a type of minimization or distancing. Who might have a need to do this?
a. a form of denial of a very close friend. This is not supported by the language.
b. one who has an idea who did this, but does not want to yield to having an extreme negative viewpoint or opinion of the person or persons responsible.
Many people speak of an unknown killer in the masculine. People intuitively know that men are more likely to commit murder than women. Here, she remains gender neutral. This may be due to wanting to conceal identity, but, as with other points, it is not definitive. Analysis takes all the points together before seeking to draw a conclusion.
6. Note the unnecessary offering in the negative, "I don't know what happened" should cause investigators to learn why she felt the need to say this.
It is likely to be technically truthful, in precision, but raises a suspicion that she has an idea of what may have happened.
7. "I know someone" may be embedded admission. In any case, it is to state that which is not necessary; making it vital for analysis.
The caller shows this in several ways, including stating that her room was different.
These show linguistic concerns that this caller may have some connection or affiliation with someone associated with the killer.

As to the note, the word "jealous" is more used by female writers than male.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/911-call-faith-hedgepeth-murder-2012.html

Wednesday, 8 May 2019

911 Emergency: The First Interview



Peter Hyatt
Published on May 8, 2019

911 and 999 calls are invaluable for investigators. Learning the principles of Statement Analysis can not only get to the truth, but can do so while saving hours of investigatory legwork


https://youtu.be/0qRnvRupXjM

Wednesday, 1 May 2019

Parents of Five Year old Reported Missing Arrested




The case is now resolved.

Analysis posted on Twitter yesterday @peterfhyatt

The 911 call is useful for training. Even in hindsight we are able to glean much information from the words.

The Linguistic Disposition of the subject towards the victim is critical information.

https://youtu.be/1UWUbl7jGUk


These are notes from team analysis. Some of the comments and questions are exploratory in nature.


D: What’s the address of your emergency?
C: [redacted] Crystal Lake
D: Yup got it and the phone number you’re calling from?
C: [redacted]
D: Ok. Tell me exactly what happened.


C: Uh, weuh, we havea missingchild. Um, woke up this
morning and uh, he wasn’t, he wasn’t

Expectation: Context is a bio dad -- sexual – distinctly as a
man, who has fathered the victim.
Take ownership of the victim.
He is telling the truth. “we” (plural) “have” something.
The use of “we” by a bio dad of a missing child in an
emergency call is unexpected. We may hear it in a later
press conference where mom and dad are standing together
and he is speaking for both.
--need to share ownership – (step parenting, adoption,
fostering)—We expect a bio dad to say “I” or “my” (singular)
ESPECIALLY in the initial report

“we have a missing child” – The Linguistic Disposition
towards the victim is neutral. Conclusion: In context, this is
negative.
Similar to Patsy Ramsey; speaking the technical truth. The
child does not “have” an issue to reckon with; the caller
(parents), however, do.
“child” is gender neutral. The caller is not working to facilitate
the flow of info. It is also to distance from gender. This
would need exploration. (resentment? Jealousy?)
“child” is anyone’s child: acute psychological distancing from
his own child. This is a red flag.
“we” is repeated indicating increased sensitivity of being
psychologically alone in this report.
“we have a missing child” is a status report; it is not personal

The subject avoids using AJ’s name. Given the context of
“missing”, this is a confirmation of the acute psych.
Distancing.

Um, ____ woke up this morning and uh, he wasn’t, he wasn’t

The psychological distancing we saw in the first six words,
now increases with the omitted pronoun,.
He did not say “I woke up” or even “we woke up”
We cannot say it for him.
Parents may not have slept.

Who woke up?

“he” – who is “he”?

They “have” a situation of a status report (“,missing child”)
, but “he” avoids the name of the child.
The subject does not tell us they were asleep. Consider the
deception possible by implication…”we could not possibly be
involved because we were asleep. Interpret our words; don’t
listen to us…”

D: how old is the child
C: we have a missing child

Even after using the pronoun
“he”,. The caller robs the victim of the status of son. He and the mother have this; not their son, but a case.
The victim has not status and has no name. He is a “case” but not a person.
D: Yeah, how old is he?
C: he’s 5
D: what was he last seen wearing?
C: um, a Mario blue, like long sleeve sweatshirt and um,
black sweat pants
D: and uh, male, white?
C: yes
D: when was the last time you seen him?
C: Uh, last night. Uh,probably9:30. Uh when he went to bed.
Why is going to bed “probable”? This is a lack of commitment; not to time, but to what follows: “uh, when he went to bed.”
Since going to bed is only “probable”, this is an unnecessary term that is not expected. He is not estimated time but possible-probable account.
When does the victim normally go to bed?
Does the victim normally put himself to bed?
The victim is still not a person. He does not have a name. The victim is still “child” –
Was the victim still in his clothes, at age 5, “probably”??
Consider that “probably” may be dismissive, uncaring, etc, as a result of chronic neglect?
This question is forced upon the operator:
D: ok. Are you the father?
C: yes
The subject did not claim to be the father, nor took ownership of his son, nor even used the victim’s name.
The father should be thinking aloud in trying to grasp his missing son’s whereabouts or what happened…he should be grappling with a terrible mystery, tearing him at the core of his very being.
Instead, he gives a one word answer.
He only “accepts” status of father by affirmation; not by his own words.



D: Ok. Know where hemight’vewent?
C: no, uh we’vecanvassedthe neighborhood.

He “canvassed” but “we” did not search. “Canvassed” is cursory or superficial, like opinions. It is not searching.
Iwent to thelocalpark.
This is the first time “I” enters his language.
90% reliable--- if he did not go to the park, we are looking at a rare and dangerous liar.
Uh, the local gas stations down here where we sometimes take himto buy treats.
a. He does not commit to going to the gas station
b. He is, however, a “good parent” in this context, who buys “him” treats. In context of this emergency call, this is a possible indicator of guilt in his role as parent. He needs to be seen as a good parent.
c. He does not “get” treats, but “buys” them. This is line with the “three p’s” of biological relationship

d. After committing to the park, he returns to the weaker “we”
Um,Ispokewiththe assistant principal over thereat the school

where the park is. Theyhaven’tseen uh, him or

any other child.
I have no idea where he would be.
The subject does not want to be alone with this event, so

much so, that the subject is attempting to portray the victim

as in a crowd. This is acute guilt. By adding in “any other

child” –he is making an extraordinary and unique situation

into one that is “normal” or common/usual.
He must be a “good person” concerned with other missing

children. Further increase of guilt.
I have no idea where he wouldbe.
This is offered freely by the biological father and is not in

response to a direct or indirect question.
The rule of the negative elevates this importance;
He does not say, “I don’t know where he is” but
“would be” (conditional) as a weakened commitment to this

lie. “Would be” rather than “is” is consistent with past tense

and weak commitment.

“They haven’t seen him…” is to avoid telling us the gender of the asst principal ---

Consider: the subject may have a need to neutralize gender, in general. (concern, background exploration)

D: Ok. So you put him to bed last night. So he was in his pajamas? And then you went to get him for school, he wasn’t there. Then you looked around for a bit?
Training is needed.
Compound questions (4)
The operator interprets precisely as a deceptive person wishes.
C: Yes
She allowed him the luxury of using only one word to answer 4 questions. The caller is not facilitating the flow of information to find the victim; who is not still…his “son.”
The victim has no title and has no name. The victim is not a “person” in this sense. This is not only extreme distancing, but likely insight into hostility felt towards the victim.

D: What time was he supposed to be at school?
C: Well, hedoesn’t go to school, butI had a doctor’s appointment this morning. When I got back from the doctor’s appointment, uh I checked in on him to say good morning. He wasn’t there,sothat would’ve been…
Narcissistic personality …possible sociopathic tendency of indifference (or guilt or both) – ‘the victim? What the victim might be going through right now? Fear, anguish, hungry, with a stranger? No, let’s talk about me.’
This is about the caller…who, along with the mother “has” a case on their minds; not the victim, who remains without a name or relationship title.

D: What time was that?
C: Between 8: 15-8:30
D: And have you check everywhere? Like under tables? Closets?
C: {unintelligible} closets, the basement, the garage.Everywhere.
The repeated words reduce sensitivity (parroting) yet it heightens the offered words of “basement” and “garage.”
Consider that the victim was wrapped in plastic (basement) and dumped in a shallow grave (shovel?)


D: What’s the child’s name?

He forced the question.

C: Uh, Andrew last name Freund. We call him AJ.
D: What’s the middle?
C: Uh, Thomas
D: Date of birth?
C: [redacted]
D: Is mom at the residence as well?
C: Yes
D: Ok and what’s your name, sir?
C: Uh, Andrew Sr
D: Ok. Do you have any pets in the house?
C: Yes.
D: Are they missing as well or no?
C: Nope.
D: Was any of the doors open?
C: No (sigh) [unintelligible] No outside doors or anything like that.
D: No doors or windows?
C: No
D: Officer’s pull up [unintelligible] now
C: Ok. Yeah, I see him
D: Just let me know, but you checked the house, right?
C: Yes. Yea. Yea, we’ve been through the house like
completely. Yea
D: Let me know when the officer’s at your door.
C: He’s here right now.

D: Ok. I’ll let you go.

Analysis Conclusion:

The technical truth told belies the deception beneath it.

The subject may be a child sexual abuser, himself. The "Sr."

defeated the "junior" from which the subject indicated distancing

language so severe, that contempt for his son is likely.


The indifference also speaks to chronic Neglect.



Like the Ramseys, they have an issue.
Like the McCanns, there is no concern expressed for the
victim.

For training in deception detection, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.