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.
