Katelyn Markham disappeared in 2011. Her then fiancée, John Carter, called 911 to make the report, and a few days, later, he spoke to the media. Within John Carter's language there is an abundance of "Latent Linguistic Evidence." In other words, his words reveal his guilty knowledge - IF you know what to listen for!
Wednesday, 8 May 2024
Katelyn Markham 911 - Latent Linguistic Evidence
Wednesday, 11 January 2023
The Staircase: Michael Peterson 911
Let's go back to the beginning and start with the initial phone call placed by Michael Peterson
By, Peter Hyatt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPOctXwZr5I
Wednesday, 28 July 2021
AMY WROE AND THE BIZARRE 911 CALL
Analysis by Evgenia K. Sarri
24th July marks the 24 anniversary of Amy’s disappearance. Her case remains unsolved.
Twenty-four-year-old Amy Wroe and Steve Bechtel were married in 1996. They were avid fitness enthusiasts; she loved running while he loved climbing. They moved to Lander, Wyoming, because its rugged terrain made it a perfect training ground for them. They had recently bought a home of their own and planned to move in sometime during late July 1997. At 9:30 a.m. on July 24, Steve Bechtel left to go rock climbing with a friend while his wife Amy had to teach a fitness class and run errands that day: call the phone company, get the gas turned on, and buy home insurance.
Amy was spotted at a photo store at 2:30 p.m. that afternoon. This is the last confirmed sighting of Amy. It is alleged that she left the photo store and drove to the Shoshone National Forest to explore the course of a 10 kilometer race held by her gym that she was planning on entering.
When Steve returned home at 4:30 p.m. from rock climbing, Amy was nowhere to be found. When darkness fell, Steve called family members and enlisted neighbors to help with the search for Amy. He called the police at 10.30 p.m.
Amy’s car was found parked off a dirt road in the wilderness of the Shoshone National Forest. Her keys were in the car, but her wallet was missing. No signs of foul play were discovered in or around Amy’s vehicle. And Amy has never been found.
We will analyze Steve Bechtel’s call and attempt to outline his profile using the analysis. Additional statements made by S.Bechtel will also provide insight into his personality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Versus Unexpected
In Statement Analysis we expect in each case we analyze to find certain words, behaviors and feelings expressed in the statement, taking context into account. This is what we call “the expected.” Words will reflect the subject’s truth, whichever it is. In every case individual responses may vary, but as we are all humans and our bodies are governed by the same chemistry, we all respond to events in a similar manner. A traumatic event affects us all in almost the same way. Emotional expression may differ from person to person depending on their character, but language is different; it always reflects feelings.
When we do not find in the statement what is expected depending on the situation, but we find words and behaviors that do not fit in, we call it “the unexpected.” It can be very surprising at first, but it is a very valuable indicator of what lies beneath the surface of a person’s reaction and leads us to the truth of the person’s feelings. Exploring what caused the unexpected reaction and what it reveals helps us get closer to the true factors at play in the case we are analyzing.
The significance of 911 calls as first reactions
911 calls are invaluable to analysis, as they constitute the very first statement one makes to the police. By answering the question “what is your emergency?” the caller chooses his/her own words, without any contamination by investigators or lawyers, to describe an event and make a request. There are many cases in which the perpetrator of a crime is the one who calls the police. Besides the guilty caller cases, 911 calls reflect the caller’s priorities and thoughts.
When people call 911, it means they are in a state which needs immediate attention and they are in dire need of assistance. It is the only way they will have a service respond and provide them with the help they require. They may call for the police, the fire department or paramedics. In any case, what we expect to see is a sense of urgency. People in despair who are seeking help urgently will most often state their need and provide essential information in order to receive the help they are asking for. The intent is not to give a fully developed account of their recent experience, but to elicit a response from the agency they have called. We expect to see the presence of emotion and the expression of a demand as time is passing by and anxiety and fear are increasing.
Outlining the caller’s profile
Besides detecting points of deception in someone’s language, we can also gain insight into the subject’s psychological profile. The main personality traits are revealed in the way someone speaks and reacts in everyday life situations as well as in traumatic ones.
Since our character dictates our attitude and language is the main expression of our inner truth and feelings, when we analyze someone’s words the basic profile of their character emerges. We can detect their thought process and behavioral characteristics. We can make hypotheses about their priorities, their background and experiences in life which shaped their personality. And this happens because certain character types react in certain ways. We can, therefore, look for signs of emotion and which emotion is that is expressed; empathy, attitude towards self and others, their view of life and society in general; all these are points which can lead us to the main personality traits the subject possesses. We can then explore our hypothesis using corroborative evidence and additional information.
Is it possible to profile someone using one statement?
In context, a simple statement can reveal a lot about the person making it. We may not be able to create a full profile, but when the circumstances in which the statement was made are known, we are able to focus our attention on the subject’s emotions and attitude in a situation at the point of the statement. These are revealed by the grammar the subject uses and any modifying words which provide insights into their behavioral characteristics. What emerges is a broad outline which can later be elaborated on if other statements and information are, or become known.
Steve Bechtel’s 911 call
Unfortunately, the Sheriff’s office has not released the call. They have only released the first part of it.
What do we expect Amy’s husband to say? We expect him to be terribly worried about what has happened to his wife and ask the police to find her, or to help him find her. We expect him to be frantic, distraught; after all, he is a young man in love with his wife, to whom he has been married for just one and a half years. The thought of her having had an accident and being out there somewhere injured or helpless must be driving him crazy. What do we expect to hear? My wife Amy is missing.
This is the start of Bechtel’s 911 call:
Hi, this is Steve Bechtel calling. I’m, um, I’m missing a person… and I was wondering if you maybe had an extra…
Analysis
-Hi, this is SB calling
The call begins with a greeting and SB is introducing himself to the police. There is no urgency. By now, it has been about six hours that he supposedly has been waiting for Amy to come back from her jog. It is about 10.30pm. This is not a situation in which something terrible has just happened and the caller needs assistance for a victim suffering in front of him. This is a husband who is worried about his wife not coming home. The introduction could be appropriate. Something bad but not fatal may have happened to her; a minor accident, or an incident with her car. We know though, that he has not called any hospitals before the call to the police; just his neighbors and Amy’s parents.
We note the fact that the call begins with a salutation and we should keep it in mind. Even though we already said it could be appropriate, we should also think of the possibility that the caller is trying to ingratiate himself to the police.
We also note the formal way in which he introduces himself. Introducing himself on its own is not unexpected, as he could be providing essential information; the rest of the call should help us determine more accurately the reason behind it. We should keep in mind his priorities though. Could it be his sense of self-importance which dictates this start? Could it be distance through formality?
In any case, his introducing himself as a priority and the casual salutation can be an attempt of ingratiation and also an attempt to sound relaxed. Or, he could be relaxed and indifferent.
-I’m, um, I’m missing a person…
The subject stutters on the pronoun. This indicates nervousness. There is also a short pause between the two pronouns which could give him time to think.
Then he goes on to state his problem. Once again, his focus is on himself. This statement is about him.
He is missing a person, not his wife, not even gender is mentioned. Amy is deprived of her wife status. She is reduced to being just a person. This is unexpected from a husband who has been married to her for just over one year. It is extremely distancing language and negative linguistic disposition towards Amy as there is no social introduction of any kind. The impression given is that he is missing something that could be considered a possession.
What we would expect to hear from a distraught husband at that point is: “my wife Amy is missing”; the subject of the sentence and the focus should have been his wife, not him. The absence of a salutation would also be what is expected after anxiety must have been building up for hours.
-and I was wondering if you maybe had an extra
This is the definition of the unexpected; a caller that makes a joke on a 911 call.
Why would he do that? Who does that? What produces it in the subject’s mind?
If one decides to call 911, it means they have no other option. Anxiety has turned into fear and desperation and they need help. In this context, it is very unlikely that they will use humor in their communication with the police.
Why is the subject saying that?
Is he happy and he can’t hide it?
Is he nervous and his attempt of an awkward joke is a manifestation of his state?
Is this an attempt to minimize the fact he is reporting?
Is it an attempt to ridicule the fact that she is missing?
Does he have reasons to believe that she is not missing, that she may have left him and he does not want to lose face if this is the case? This is not a public statement; it is between him and the 911 operator. Is this his way of saying: this may be an overreaction, but…
Could it be about control? Could it be an attempt to show he has not lost control of the situation or his wife?
Humor always has a source and a reason to be present as we mentioned above. In Analysis we always note when it is produced and explore what may have produced it.
Furthermore, we know that he had some errands for her to do before she went missing, while he allegedly had gone rock climbing. No one who is going to leave their spouse makes sure that the gas and the phone for their new house will be connected.
Does he have guilty knowledge of what happened to her and makes the call to the police as part of a plan because this is what a worried husband would do?
Let us pause and look at what he is saying. What is this call about? We may not have it in its entirety, but “order shows priority”. This part is his priority sentence.
It is to report he is missing someone and is looking for a spare. He is asking for a replacement. It is as if he has spilled his coffee and is asking the waiter to bring him another one, or as if something has broken down and he is asking for a spare part to go on doing what he was doing. This is not a call for help. This is the subject stating that she is just a person to him and he does not need her. She is not irreplaceable to him.
Conclusion
Taking into account the importance he places upon himself by introducing himself the way he did and putting himself first, combined with the extremely distancing language regarding Amy and the fact of his inappropriate humorous attempt, we can conclude that there is no sign of any feeling whatsoever towards her. She is not his wife, she does not have a name, and she is “a person”. His linguistic disposition towards her is extremely negative. We would expect, even in a problematic relationship, to see human empathy for someone who may be alone and hurt in a mountainous area at 10.30pm. Even a stranger would have more feeling in their language than he has. This is why it is difficult to imagine joking about something like this, even if one called the police to report the disappearance of someone they did not know.
We note his focus is completely upon himself, his attitude towards the victim is cold bordering to hostile, and we also note a complete lack of any emotion relevant to a traumatic situation. He does not seem to be overwhelmed as we would expect a caller in these circumstances to be.
At the point of the call the subject does not present any of the characteristics an innocent caller would present. Further exploration of his attitude is necessary to determine if he has guilty knowledge of the events which caused his wife’s disappearance, or not.
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2021/07/guest-submission-missing-amy-wroe-by.html
Thursday, 18 March 2021
911 Call: Was AG Jason Ravnsborg Truthful?
Caller: Hello.
Dispatcher: Hi.
Caller: Can you hear me?
the greeting "hello" is contextually appropriate if the caller was uncertain about the communication as suggested by the question, "Can you hear me?"
Generally, we do not expect an emergency call to begin with a greeting.
Dispatcher: I can.
Caller: Hello.
Dispatcher: 9-1-1. This is Ally. How can I help you?
Caller: Ally. This...well...Ally, I’m the Attorney General. And I am...I don’t know...I hit something.
1. Note the use of the name, "Ally"
Note its use twice.
This is an attention getter and not likely something we expect in a call to police emergency. That he repeats her name may indicate a need to be seen as "friendly" with her. This may indicate a form of ingratiation as to appear to be "the good guy" in the call.
The need to be perceived as "good" or friendly, often indicates to the contrary.
2. "I'm the attorney general" is a priority for him. His status matters in this call to police, which is very important to the analysis of what he reports.
3. "I hit something" is reliably stated and likely to be true. However, he does not say,
"I hit something; maybe a deer..."
Dispatcher: You hit something?
Caller: By Highmore. Highmore. And it was in the middle of the road.
Dispatcher: Okay. Give me one second here. Let me get you mapped. Do you know where you’re at?
Caller: I believe I’m by Highmore. I can...I’m right...I can see the town.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Caller: I think that’s Highmore.
Dispatcher: East or west?
Caller: I just went through it. I am...west of Highmore...
The caller is helpful regarding his location.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Caller: Ah...about a mile, if that.
Dispatcher: Okay. And this is Scott?
Caller: Uh, say again?
He may have trouble hearing which is another reason why we do not flag the greeting above.
Dispatcher: What was your name?
Caller: Jason...
no last name as if he and Ally are on first name basis. He already identified his job title.
Dispatcher: Jason...
Caller: ...Ravnsborg
Dispatcher: ...Ravnsborg. Perfect. Okay.
(Typing)
Dispatcher: Are you injured at all, Jason?
Caller: I am not, but my car sure as hell is.
He answers the question, but then goes further to report his car. He does not report on the status of what or whom he hit; only his car.
Dispatcher: Uh oh. Are you out of the roadway?
Caller: I am out of the roadway. I was able to get over, but...
Dispatcher: Okay.
(Typing)
Now, he changes his account from "I hit something" to:
Caller: It sure hit me...smashed my windshield...
He shifts the blame to "it" and specifically mentions his windshield.
Dispatcher: Oh no. Okay, do you think it was a deer or something?
A natural question that is only necessary because the subject has not offered it.
Caller: I have no idea...
This is not expected. The subject hit something, it ruined his car and it smashed his windshield. Was there blood? Evidence? Would he have "no idea" what it was?
Dispatcher: Okay...
Caller: Yeah...It could be...I mean...it was right in the roadway and...
Whatever "it" was that hit him (his perception), he now blames "it" for being "right in the roadway."
Dispatcher: ...(typing)...K...and were you traveling westbound then?
Caller: Yes, westbound...back to Pierre.
Dispatcher: Okay...(typing)...alrighty, well I will go head and let the...ah...sheriff know. He’s the one that’s on call right now. He’ll be responding from home and I’ll have him come out and talk to you and take the report. Can I just...
Caller: Okay.
Dispatcher: ... get the license plate off your vehicle, Jason?
Caller: Yes...G...zero, zero, zero, two, seven.
Dispatcher: Okay. Government plate?
Caller: Well, it’s a bronze star plate.
Dispatcher: K...
Caller: It’s my personal car...
Dispatcher: K...alright...I will get him headed that way for you, Jason.
Caller: Alright. Thank you.
Dispatcher: You’re welcome, sir. Bye-bye.
Caller: Bye.
Analysis Conclusion:
The subject is deceptively concealing knowledge of what happened.
1. "I have no idea" by itself, does not indicate deception. Yet in context we learned:
2. He did not offer any possible explanation. This is to leave something a mystery that isn't natural. To speculate based upon impact is expected. "I hit a deer" or "I hit a moose", or something along these lines. "Deer" was the most likely and the operator may have been surprised that the "Attorney General" did not even offer a guess.
3. He changed language.
Language does not change on its own, but represents a change of perceived reality (or a liar has lost track).
In this change, we go from the reliable, "I hit something" (he did) to shifting the blame to the victim ("it") and then to double down on blaming the victim for the location in the road.
Had he said, "a deer ran out in to the road", there would have been no mystery, but it is in his avoidance that he gains our attention (and the operator's).
4. Did you notice that he offered no information as to what happened to the victim? Was the deer, or large animal blocking the road?
5. He specifically referenced the windshield. This is where impact would be most for him---it is what he would see.
He was not truthful about not knowing who he hit.
External information:
Q. In hindsight, was the original greeting to 911 an example of ingratiation?
Response: It may have been, but in analysis we attempt to clear sensitivity indicators due to context. This way, if we conclude deception, it is of a greater certainty.
He was later confronted by police:
South Dakota’s attorney general — who said he hit a deer after fatally striking a pedestrian last year — allegedly had the victim’s glasses inside his car, according to newly-released interviews.
The state’s Department of Public Safety on Tuesday released recordings of investigators questioning Jason Ravnsborg about the Sept. 12 crash that left 55-year-old Joseph Boever dead.
The footage shows how, during a Sept. 14 interview, detectives told Ravnsborg that they had discovered a pair of broken glasses on the front passenger floorboard of his vehicle.
During a second sit-down on Sept. 30, interviewers asked about the glasses again, telling Ravnsborg that they had belonged to the victim.
“They’re Joe’s glasses,” an agent says, referring to Boever. “So that means his face came through your windshield.”
Upon hearing that, Ravnsborg looked down and sighed deeply, before shaking his head, the footage shows.
If you wish to study deception detection or host a seminar, please visit Hyatt Analysis
Sunday, 15 November 2020
Angelika Graswald 911 Call Statement Analysis
Operator
911 Where is your emergency?
Angelika G
Hi, I’m uh, I’m in the Hudson river by Cornwall yacht club. My fiancé fell in the water. Can you please callanybody.
1. “Hi” is a polite greeting. In an emergency situation a greeting is not expected. Excited utterance of the emergency is.
2. The subject uses the pronoun “I’m”, and stutters over it indicating a possible increase in anxiety. This stuttering could also be a result of the unexpected initial question “where is your emergency?”
3. The subject only speaks for herself. “Hudson river” on its own would answer the question. The subject tells us where she is. Not “we”.
4. “My fiancé” This is an incomplete social introduction indicating a less than perfect relationship between the subject and “my fiancé” at this time. We expect to hear his name.
5. Does a kayaker “fall” in the water. Did he capsize? She does not say. He “fell”. Is this congruent with a kayaking accident?
6. “please” is polite again.
7. What is it that the subject wants? She wants the operator to “call anybody”. This is not a request for help. She has not asked for help to be sent. She only wants the operator to “call”. This lacks urgency and action that would help “my fiancé”.
8. “anybody”. If the subject does not know who specifically should be sent then “send help” is expected. Not the vague “anybody” who is only to be called.
This is the priority sentence in an emergency call where the subject’s fiancé is in grave danger. Within it there are numerous points of concern.
Operator
Alright. What’s your name?
AG
Angelika.
Operator
Tell me exactly what happened.
This is a good question.
AG
We are kayaking, my fiancé flipped over. He’s in the water right now
1. Are they still kayaking? Is the present tense congruent with the emergency situation?
The “fiancé” still does not have a name. We expect to hear his name if the relationship is good at this point. It should be as he should be elevated in status in her verbal perception due to his being in peril.
2. What is “in the water”? This is a passive description of the “fiance’s” situation. She is withholding vital information. Is he under the water? Is he face down floating in the water? Is he moving? Is he holding onto his kayak? She tells us none of this information that is vital in assisting the operator.
3. In an emergency call we look at whether the subject is helping in every way they can or whether the operator is having to force he information from the subject. The subject here does not appear to be forthcoming with the information as is expected.
Operator
Alright stay on the phone with me OK.
AG
I can’t get to him. It’s very windy and the waves are coming in and I can’t, I can’t paddle to him.
1. “can’t” is repeated 3 times. Anything in the negative is doubly important as is anything repeated.
2. The subject gives us the reason why she can’t. This is sensitive to her.
3. She does not say the wind is too strong to paddle to him.
4. She does not say the waves are too big to paddle to him.
5. If she got off the phone would she be able to paddle to him?
He’s getting, he’s getting further and further away from me. I, I… He’s gonna drown! Please call somebody.
1. The subject tells us that he (still no name) is going to drown. We should believe her.
2. The subject stutters on the pronoun “I”. This is an indication of an increase in anxiety.
3. Again, she does not request help for the “fiancé”. She requests “call somebody”
Operator
We’ve got help on the way. Stay on the phone with me Okay?
AG
Okay. I have you on the speaker cause I’m, I’m trying to paddle. The waves are very strong. I can still see him floating, but I’m getting further and further.
1. Again, the sensitive reason why. This is now a cluster of blues likely indicating critical missing information from the subject.
2. Does the subject have a need to persuade us that she is trying to help her fiancé?
3. The passivity in describing her fiance’s situation continues. He is “floating”
4. The word “but” either minimizes or refutes what came before. What came before was him floating.
Operator
Okay, good. So, he’s still, he’s still above water, right?
AG
He is in the water, yes. HOLD ON BABY! Oh my God.
The subject avoids answering the question making it sensitive to her. Remember a direct lie is stressful to the brain and will be avoided.
The shouting to the “fiancé” “Hold on Baby!” This is likely for the benefit of what we call in analysis the unintended recipient. In this case the operator or anyone who may listen to the 911 call recording.
Note the fiancé still remains nameless indicating a bad relationship between them.
Operator
We’ve got everybody coming out there, okay.
AG
Okay. I can’t see him anymore.
What is it that triggered the subject reporting that she “can’t see him anymore”? It is the imminent arrival of help.
Operator
You don’t see him?
AG
No. Oh my God.
The call drops out.
The operator calls back
AG
I don’t see him anymore. I’m afraid he’s drowned.
This is difinitive from the subject. Is she pushing this narrative? Before she was “Afraid he is going to drown”, and now moments later She is afraid “he’s drowned” all while she is on the phone not trying to save him because of what she is unable to do reported in the negative with the reason why (very sensitive).
Operator
Okay, what’s his name?
AG
Vince. Oh my God. I’m in a red kayak, but he fell in and I couldn’t swim to him. I couldn’t paddle to him.
Finally, the subject tells us the name of her fiancé. It is only however from a direct question from the operator. She did not give his name freely.
The subject reports that she is in a red kayak. Why is this important to her? She then refutes or minimizes this with the word “but” and reports what she couldn’t do again. This time she says she couldn’t swim to him? This is incongruent. She is not likely talking from experiential memory and is deceptive.
Operator
Did he have a life jacket on when he flipped over?
AG
He had a little, um, like a floating thing. He didn’t have a vest.
Oh my God
Operator
Can you see the kayak still?
AG
No, the kayak went under water. The water is very cold. I’m afraid he…oh my God.
“The kayak went under water” is reliable on its form.
Operator
Can you see the rescue boat? We have a boat in the water coming to you guys.
AG
I’m not worried about myself. I’m worried about him.
The subject again avoids the question and reports what she is not worried about.
Conclusions
1. The subject’s language indicates that her relationship with her fiancé is not good at the time of the incident.
2. The subject does not request help for her fiancé.
3. The subject does not report reliably the status of her fiancé during the call. If she is unwilling or unable to say it we cannot say it for her.
4. The subject does not report reliably that she is, or has attempted to help her fiancé.
5. The subject is deceptive in her account.
6. The subject shows indicators of critical missing information as well as a lack of experiential memory when giving her account.
Angelika Graswald admitted to letting her fiancé drown after pulling the drain plug from his kayak. She was convicted of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Vincent Viafore in 2017 and spent just two and a half years behind bars.
Posted 2nd February by Through the Lens
https://lensofstatementanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/02/angelika-graswald-911-call-statement.html?m=1
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)