Statement Analysis: Darlie Routier 911 Call

Statement Analysis: Darlie Routier 911 Call

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

As requested: The conclusion of the analysis is at the bottom of the page.

Darlie Lynn Routier (born January 4, 1970, Rowlett, Texas), was convicted of murdering her young son Damon, and is currently on death row awaiting execution by lethal injection. Two of her three children, Damon and Devon, were stabbed to death in the home on June 6, 1996.

Darlie Routier was accused of killing both children but was only prosecuted for the murder of Damon, the younger of the two murdered boys.

Only the DNA of Damon and his mother were found on the kitchen knife at the scene. The murder weapon in Devon's death has never been identified. Darlie Routier sustained knife wounds, which prosecutors claimed were self-inflicted. Does the language bear this out?

In Statement Analysis of 911 calls, we have not only the same principles used in all statements, we have the additional observations as researched by Susan Adams. This included other "expected" versus "unexpected" scenarios of a 911 call, where red flags were issued to alert the police that the caller may have guilty knowledge of a domestic homicide. These red flags include:

*the call begins with a greeting. This is not expected in an emergency, nor is overly polite language expected. There should be urgency. For an example of greetings or inappropriate politeness (giggling) in serious 911 calls, see: Tiffany Hartley, Sergio Celis and Adam Baker.

*the caller disparages or blames the victim. See Adam Baker.

*the caller asks for help for self, and not for victim. See Sergio Celis.

We note the order of the 911 call as priority.

For an example, see the 911 call analysis of Misty Croslin's report of Haleigh Cummings (5) being missing. In the call, Misty Croslin establishes her own alibi before reporting the child missing.

Courts call 911 calls "Excited utterance" as a way of recognizing the Free Editing Process; that is, the person is speaking "extemporaneously"; that is, choosing one's own words, freely, rather than repeating back the words of another. This makes the order important in the analysis. ***********************************************************************************************************

Statement Analysis of the call is in bold type with emphasis of italics and underlining added. The color blue is used to show extreme sensitivity and the color red is used to indicate deception.

00:00:00 911 Operator #1 ...Rowlett 911...what is your emergency?

The question allows the subject to report exactly what is wrong. The subject (Routier) must choose where to begin her account. It is expected that the victims' needs is first. In Statement Analysis, we presuppose innocence and truth; therefore, when the "expected" is not heard, we are confronted by the "unexpected" and stop, pausing to take notice.

00:01:19 Darlie Routier ...somebody came here...they broke in...

00:03:27 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...

00:05:11 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my children...

Please note that in a statement, order shows priority. This is especially evident in a 911 call as the first things reported are the most important. Here is the order:

1. Somebody came here

2. They broke in

3. They just stabbed me

4. and my children.

Please note that the most important priority for the caller is that police believe that somebody (singular, gender neutral) came to the caller's home. The investigator should wonder why the children being stabbed would not be first.

We also note that "somebody" being gender neutral may be an attempt to conceal identity.

Why is it important (a priority) that she first establishes that somebody "came" here? For someone to stab them, he would have to be there.

Note that second in her priority is that they (plural) broke in to the home. With bleeding children, why would it matter if they broke in or entered through an unlocked door? The priority is that someone "came" and that they broke in.

Unnecessary language: When language is used that it unnecessary, it is deemed "doubly" important to the analysis. From the subject's first statement to the operator, we find her priority is to make sure they believe someone "came" there, and broke into the home. This has, from the beginning, raised suspicion as to why this would be necessary for the subject, since it is utterly unnecessary language.

00:07:16 911 Operator #1 ...what...

00:08:05 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my kids...my little boys...

Follow the pronouns:

Please note that pronouns are instinctive and universal. Children, from the earliest days of speech, learn and use pronouns properly. As humans, we are experts at using pronouns, which is why we conclude deception most easily from pronoun usage.

Here, she says "they" just stabbed me (naming herself first) and "my kids". Please note that she began with "somebody" (singular) and moved to plural ("they"). Pronoun usage should be consistent.

Change of language.

When language changes, there should be a reason found within context. Emotion is the number one impact upon the change of language. "I heard someone knocking at my door. I saw a man..." In this sentence, "someone" changed to "man." Question: What caused the change? Answer: She saw him.

The change in language is justified by the context. Here, we do not see any apparent reason to change "my kids" to "my little boys" in the context. When someone is not working from memory, the language often changes.

00:09:24 911 Operator #1 ...who...who did...

We may assume that this question, interrupted, would be the natural, "Who stabbed your little boys?"

00:11:12 Darlie Routier ...my little boy is dying...

The question is not answered. In Statement Analysis, we do not judge the tone or inflection. We do not need to know if she sounded upset or not. We need only to know her words. The teaching from LSI is this:

"The subject is dead; the Statement is alive", meaning that we are only listening to the words she uses, not how they are expressed.

We note that the subject did not answer the question, making the question "sensitive" to her.

00:11:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible) clear... 00:13:07 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ...hang on... hang on 00:15:03 Darlie Routier ...hurry... (unintelligible)... 00:16:01 911 Operator #1 ...stand by for medical emergency 00:18:11 Darlie Routier ...ma'am... 00:18:19 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ma'am... 00:21:26 Darlie Routier ...ma'am... 00:23:00 911 Operator #1 ...unknown medical emergency... 5801 Eagle Drive... 00:24:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 00:26:24 Darlie Routier ...ma'am... 00:27:12 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am... I'm trying to get an ambulance to you... hang on a minute... 00:28:20 RADIO ...(siren)...

00:29:13 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...my babies are dying...

Please note that the language has changed again to "my babies"; We must always note the context.

"Babies" is associated with death. "my babies are dying"

Please note the ability to accept "dying"; rather than maternal denial.

00:30:12 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)...

00:31:09 911 Operator #1 ...what's going on ma'am...

The question is asked: "What is going on, ma'am?" while emergency services is en route.

00:32:13 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) ...oh my God... 00:33:49 RADIO ...(tone - signal broadcast)... 00:34:01 Background Voice ...(unintelligible)... 00:35:20 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) thought he was dead ...oh my God... 00:39:08 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 00:39:29 Darlie Routier ...I don't even know (unintelligible)...

Every word is critical. Here, she now says she does not "even" know, with the extra word "even" used for emphasis. Does she not know? She reported that "somebody" came to her home, and "they broke in" (which is not in chronological order) and "they stabbed me" and "my children"; so she does know what is going on.

00:40:22 911 Operator #1 ...attention 901 unknown medical emergency 5801... 00:42:23 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 00:43:15 Darlie Routier ...I don't even know (unintelligible)... 00:44:04 911 Operator #1 ...Eagle Drive ...Box 238 ...cross street Linda Vista and Willowbrook ...attention 901 medial emergency... 00:49:28 Darlie Routier ...who was breathing...

"I don't even know...who is breathing" may be the interrupted sentence. Since it is expected that she would know her son's identity, this does not make sense to us.

00:40:10 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 00:51:15 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) are they still laying there (unintelligible)...

If "they" are her sons, she reports their body posture as "laying there"

00:51:19 911 Operator #1 ...may be possible stabbing ...5801 Eagle Drive ...Box 238 ...cross street Linda Vista and Willowbrook... 00:55:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...what do we do...

The subject has not asked for specific help for her son. Note what do "we" do, not what she, herself, should do to either stop the bleeding or help with the breathing issue. We look for instinctive maternal reactions for life; helping, healing, etc.

This is not evidenced here.

00:57:17 911 Operator #1 ...time out 2:32... 00:58:26 Darlie Routier ...oh my God... 00:58:28 911 Operator #1 ...stamp me a card Clint... 01:01:02 911 Operator #1 ...80... 01:01:16 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 01:02:13 Darlie Routier ...oh my God... 01:03:05 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 01:04:07 911 Operator #1 ...need units going towards 5801 Eagle Drive ...5801 Eagle Drive

01:04:07 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...my baby's dead...

Note again that "baby" is associated with death. Before her "babies" were "dying"; here, her "baby" is dead. We note the absence of maternal denial.

Maternal denial is critical. In missing child cases, an innocent mother will not reference her child in the past tense, as if dead, even often under the pressure of mounting evidence, early on in the case. For some mothers, it may take years, if at all.

Here it is instant.

01:07:08 Darlie Routier ...Damon ...hold on honey... 01:08:11 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 01:08:22 911 Operator #1 ...hysterical female on the phone... 01:10:03 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)... 01:10:10 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 01:10:26 911 Operator #1 ...says her child has been stabbed 01:11:28 Darlie Routier ...I saw them Darin...

The name "Darin" is here introduced. Thus far, her children have not had their names used. This is not expected. Motherhood is highly personal, therefore, we expect to hear the pronoun, "I" often, and we expect to hear a mother use her children's names.

Please note the complete sentence: "I saw them Darin; oh my God...came in here" is reiterating that which is unnecessary: that "they" came in there. Why does she need to report that she "saw" them since they stabbed her and the children?

This indicates the need to persuade, rather than report.

In this 911 call, Darlie Routier has the need to persuade police and Darin that people "came" there. This is a strong indication that no one came there and she is deceptive.

01:12:21 Darin Routier ...oh my God ...(unintelligible) ...came in here...

01:14:10 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...I need you to calm down and talk to me... 01:14:24 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 01:16:25 Darlie Routier ...ok... 01:16:26 SOUND ...(unintelligible)... 01:17:12 911 Operator #1 ...twice Clint... 01:18:26 Darlie Routier ...didn't you get my address... 01:20:19 911 Operator #1 ...5801 Eagle...

01:22:00 Darlie Routier ...yes ...we need help...

Note help asked for "we" here. She continues talking to Darin. She is bleeding and has just reported that she and her sons are bleeding, dying. Note what is on her mind:

01:22:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible) will be enroute code... 01:24:20 Darlie Routier ...Darin ...I don't know who it was...

By using Darin's name repeatedly, it is a signal that she wants his attention. She has not asked for his help with the boys' breathing or bleeding issues, but has focused on "they" who "came" here. Here she now emphasizes that she doesn't know their identity.

This is what comes out of her mouth rather than talking about how to stop the child's bleeding, or to get her other child, whom she declared dead, to breathe. This is a strong indicator that her priority is convincing both police and Darin that someone came there.

Why would a stabbing victim need to persuade police and a person present that someone actually came and did this? She is attempting to persuade, while being recorded, both police and Darin that someone came there. It is her priority; not the children.

01:24:23 911 Operator #1 ...2:33 code... 01:26:15 Darlie Routier ...we got to find out who it was...

Repetition indicates sensitivity. Here, she continues her repetition of "who" the assailant is. The identity of the killer is more sensitive (important) to Darlie Routier than the condition of her children.

01:27:12 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am... 01:28:04 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am listen ...listen to me... 01:29:27 Darlie Routier ...yes ...yes ...(unintelligible)...

01:30:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible) I'm clear ...do you need anything...

01:32:08 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 01:32:20 Darlie Routier ...oh my God... 01:34:00 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible)... 01:34:22 911 Operator #1 ...do you take the radio Clint... 01:35:23 911 Operator #2 ...yes... 01:36:12 Darlie Routier ...oh my God... 01:36:25 911 Operator #1 ...I...ma'am... 01:38:03 Darlie Routier ...yes... 01:38:17 911 Operator #1 ...I need you to ... 01:38:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible) start that way (unintelligible)... will revise... 01:39:28 911 Operator #1 ...I need you to talk to me... 01:41:21 Darlie Routier ...what ...what ...what... 01:44:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 01:44:28 Darlie Routier ...my babies are dead (unintelligible)...

"Children" and "little boys" were stabbed; but "babies" are dying or are dead. This should cause investigators, particularly any investigative psychologist, to go into the topic of motherhood with her.

01:46:20 RADIO ...go ahead and start that way ...siren code 4 ...advise... 01:47:10 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)...

01:48:03 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) do you want honey ...hold on (unintelligible)...

This appears to be directed to one of the children. She does not use the child's name.

01:49:17 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...I can't understand you... 01:50:21 Darlie Routier ...yes... 01:51:18 911 Operator #1 ...you're going to have to slow down ...calm down ...and talk to me... 01:52:19 Darlie Routier ...I'm talking to my babies ...they're dying...

Consistent use of "babies" with death. She has declared them both "dying" and "dead"

01:55:03 911 Operator #1 ...what is going on?

The expected response is that her children are bleeding, or having trouble breathing. The question is posed to her again. She has been talking to Darin, and to at least one of the children. We expect to hear her ask for guidance or help on how to stop the bleeding, or how to keep the child breathing:

01:56:29 Darlie Routier ...somebody came in while I was sleeping ...me and my little boys were sleeping downstairs...

She continues with the sensitive repetition (deception indicated) of the arrival to her home of assailant or assailants. Now she continues with more detail: "while I was sleeping"

Please note the singular "somebody" which is also gender neutral. By now, she would know if "somebody" (singular) is a man or a woman. The use of the gender neutral suggests that she is concealing the gender of the assailant. Note "little boys" and not "babies"; they are still alive and not associated with death in her account, so they are not "babies"

Please note that as she has continued to attempt to persuade that someone came there, she has indicated that the topic of someone going there is "sensitive"; to the point of deception. This indicates that no one came there.

02:02:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible) I'll be clear...

02:02:20 Darlie Routier ...some man ...came in ...stabbed my babies ...stabbed me ...I woke up ...I was fighting ...he ran out through the garage ...threw the knife down ...my babies are dying ...they're dead ...oh my God...

Note that now she gives us the gender: "man". He is "some" man. This is an indicator of deception:

The assailant has already been introduced, twice, as "somebody" and now should be "the" man; not "some" man. This is an indicator of deception. that he is "some man" is deceptive and indicates withholding of the identity of the assailant. He should be "the" followed by "man" but more likely harsher terms.

Next, we note the chronological order: When someone speaks from memory, chronological order flows easily.

1. The most important issue to her is found in the repetition of the word "came" as it is used repeatedly. Since he would have to have "come" there in order to do all these things. 2. Now she changes the language and order from "stabbed me and my children" to "stabbed my babies" with the word "babies" associated with death (above) coming before herself. 3. She now adds in that she was stabbed and then she "woke up" This suggests, by her words, that he had already come, broken in, and stabbed the babies as she slept through it all, and was even stabbed before she woke up.

When someone is lying, it is difficult to keep track of the chronology of the story because it does not come from memory.

4. "I was fighting" rather than "I fought" 5. He ran through the garage 6. He threw the knife down 7. my babies are dying 8. they're dead

The fact that he "came" there is first, and the babies are last. Note the continued change from "dying" to "dead"; neither are expected in maternal denial.

Note that the babies being dead is repeated.

02:14:23 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...stay on the phone with me... 02:16:11 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 02:17:06 Darlie Routier ...oh my God... 02:17:29 911 Operator #1 ...what happened (unintelligible) dispatch 901... 02:20:15 Darlie Routier ...hold on honey ...hold on...

Note that the absence of the children's names.

Note "hold on" is present tense, as if alive and not dead.

02:22:01 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) who was on (unintelligible)... 02:22:26 911 Operator #2 ...it was (unintelligible) the white phone... 02:23:08 Darlie Routier ...hold on... 02:25:26 911 Operator #2 ...they were wondering when we need to dispatch ...so I sent a double team... 02:25:28 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God... 02:28:08 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...thanks... 02:28:21 Darlie Routier ...oh my God... 02:29:20 SOUND ...(unintelligible)... 02:30:01 Darlie Routier ...oh my God... 02:30:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am... 02:31:06 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 02:31:14 911 Operator #1 ...who's there with you... 02:32:15 Darlie Routier ...Karen ...(unintelligible)...

Note "Darin" was first name introduced, and now "Karen" is introduced into her language. This was not lost on the operator who will now ask who is in the house:

02:33:15 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am... 02:34:06 Darlie Routier ...what... 02:38:11 911 Operator #1 ...is there anybody in the house ...besides you and your children... question asked:

02:38:11 Darlie Routier ...no ...my husband he just ran downstairs ...he's helping me ...but they're dying ...oh my God ...they're dead...

Note that her first response is "no" since she already said that "somebody" who later became "some man" already "ran" through the garage and dropped the knife. Now it is "my husband" (after "no") ran. Note that she said he is helping, but again "they're dying" and "they're dead" with acceptance of finality.

02:43:24 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...ok ...how many little boys ...is it two boys... 02:46:06 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 02:46:25 Darlie Routier ...there's two of 'em ...there's two... 02:48:18 RADIO ...what's the cross street on that address on Eagle... 02:50:15 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...who would do this...

The subject continues to press the sensitive issue of identity. She saw "who" did this and the need to continue to repeat herself over and over shows that the sensitivity is due to decepetion.

02:53:13 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible) listen to me ...calm down ...(unintelligible)...

02:53:21 Darlie Routier ...I feel really bad ...I think I'm dying...

This is critical. She reports how she feels, and it is "bad", qualified by "really". But it is her next sentence which shows deception:

"I think I'm dying" shows weakness. She only "thinks" that she is dying, but knows that the "babies are dying". This should lead investigators to check her wounds versus the wounds of her "babies", with hers being much less, so much less, in fact, that she would not have the same certainty of death that she had for her babies.

An innocent mother would not accept her babies "death", even in panic. This is the maternal instinct in language. It is the same instinct Solomon appealed to in the Bible when he called for the custodial dispute to end in death, knowing the maternal instinct of the biological mother would prevail.

Darlie Routier knows that she is not dying. Darlie Routier knows her children will die, or are dead. She accepts the unacceptable. This is an indicator of guilt, just as it is when a child is reported kidnapped or missing and the mother references the child in the past tense, as if dead. It goes against instinct and is indicative of guilt. See Susan Smith, Casey Anthony, Billie Jean Dunn, Rebecca Celis, Deborah Bradley; as well as fathers, Sergio Celis and Justin DiPietro.

02:55:06 RADIO ...228... 02:56:06 911 Operator #1 ...go ahead... 02:58:12 RADIO ...(unintelligible) address again (unintelligible)... 02:59:12 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 02:59:22 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here... 03:00:22 911 Operator #1 ...5801 Eagle Drive ...5801 Eagle Drive... 03:03:28 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here... 03:03:29 911 Operator #1 ...going to be a stabbing... 03:05:20 Darlie Routier ...when are they going to be here... 03:06:20 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...they're on their way... 03:08:00 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

03:08:08 Darlie Routier ...I gotta just sit here forever ...oh my God...

Note body language position mentioned.

03:11:14 911 Operator #1 ...2:35...

03:12:05 Darie Routier ...who would do this ...who would do this...

Since she "saw" who did this, she knows the answer. She repeats the question as a point of sensitivity. This is yet another indicator that she knows the answer and wants to persuade the police that she does not.

03:13:09 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible)... 03:14:26 911 Operator #1 ...(sounds of typing on computer keyboard)... 03:16:08 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...how old are your boys... 03:18:20 Darin Routier ...what... 03:19:03 911 Operator #1 ...how old are your boys... 03:20:04 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 03:20:21 911 Operator #1 ...no... 03:21:01 Darlie Routier ...seven and five...

The answer, "seven and five" comes from memory. Most children will always give the chronological order of their children.

03:22:17 911 Operator #1 ...ok... 03:23:08 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God ...oh ...he's dead... 03:29:02 911 Operator #1 ...calm down ...can you... 03:29:03 Darlie Routier ...oh God ...Devon no ...oh my God...

Note that "Devon" is now mentioned for the first time, in the negative, "no"

03:30:27 SOUND ...(dog barking)... 03:35:02 911 Operator #1 ...is your name Darlie... 03:36:11 Darlie Routier ...yes... 03:36:26 911 Operator #1 ...this is her... 03:37:09 911 Operator #1 ...is your husband's name Darin... 03:38:22 Darlie Routier ...yes ...please hurry ...God they're taking forever... 03:41:20 911 Operator #1 ...there's nobody in your house ...there was ...was...

03:44:05 911 Operator #1 ...you don't know who did this...

Note that the Operator #1 has been listening to her repeat "who did this" over and over

03:45:19 Police Officer ...look for a rag... 03:46:11 Darlie Routier ...they killed our babies...

Note that the "somebody" (singular, gender neutral) became "some man" (note lack of article, and now introduces gender, and is singular) now becomes "they"

Deception indicated

.

She is unable to stay consistent with singular or plural attackers. Here, they are plural.

03:48:03 Police Officer ...lay down ...ok ...just sit down ...(unintelligible) 03:51:11 911 Operator #1 ...(sounds of typing on computer keyboard)... 03:52:13 Darlie Routier ...no ...he ran out ...uh ...they ran out in the garage ...I was sleeping...

Note the order: 1. He ran out 2. They ran out 3. I was sleeping

Deception indicated

She is unable to keep her story straight. Is it one man? She is unable to keep her chronological order straight because it does not come from experiential memory.

03:54:09 911 Operator #1 ...(unintelligible)... 03:56:19 Darlie Routier ...my babies over here already cut ...can I (unintelligible)... 03:59:29 Darin Routier ...(unintelligible) phone is right there... 04:01:28 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible)... 04:03:01 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

Darlie Routier has shown her priority is to prove that someone came and did this. Alibi building is priority. She now has the presence of mind, while "thinking" that she is dying, to instruct police on how to conduct their investigation:

04:05:02 Darlie Routier ...ya'll look out in the garage ...look out in the garage ...they left a knife laying on...

She instructs them twice to look in the garage. This is important to her. Note that "They" is plural and note that "some man" left a knife.

04:08:21 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 04:09:19 911 Operator #1 ...there's a knife ...don't touch anything...

This would not normally be a non issue, especially since she is "sitting" there and "thinking" she is "dying", but given her repetition, the 911 Operator is acutely aware that something is very wrong with this caller, so the operator says what would not seem necessary: don't touch the knife.

04:11:18 Darlie Routier ...I already touched it and picked it up...

This means her DNA will be on the knife.

04:12:05 RADIO ...10-4... 04:15:20 911 Operator #1 ...who's out there ...is anybody out there... 04:16:07 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)...

04:17:06 Darlie Routier ...I don't know ...I was sleeping...

Ignorance of the attack due to sleeping is part of the alibi building in her story

04:18:14 911 Operator #1 ...ok ma'am ...listen ...there's a police officer at your front door ...is your front door unlocked... 04:22:11 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 04:22:15 Darlie Routier ...yes ma'am ...but where's the ambulance... 04:24:21 911 Operator #1 ...ok... 04:24:23 Darlie Routier ...they're barely breathing...

Note that previously they were "dying" and "dead", but here, they are "barely breathing" but instead of asking for instruction on how to help them breath, or to stop the blood, she kept repeating how she did not know "who" did this.

04:26:17 Darlie Routier ...if they don't get it here they're gonna be dead ...my God they're (unintelligible) ...hurry ...please hurry... 04:31:13 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...they're ...they're... 04:32:18 Police Officer ...what about you... 04:33:06 911 Operator #1 ...is 82 out on Eagle... 04:34:18 Darlie Routier ...huh... 04:35:12 Darin Routier ...they took (unintelligible) ...they ran (unintelligible)... 04:36:28 911 Operator #2 ...(unintelligible)... 04:37:08 Darlie Routier ...we're at Eagle ...5801 Eagle ...my God and hurry... 04:41:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 04:41:22 911 Operator #1 ...82 ...are you out... 04:42:25 Police Officer ...nothing's gone Mrs. Routier... 04:44:10 Darlie Routier ...oh my God ...oh my God ...why would they do this... 04:48:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible) to advise (unintelligible) 200... 04:50:18 Police Officer ...(unintelligible) the problem Mrs. Routier... 04:50:21 911 Operator #1 ...what'd he say... 04:51:29 Darlie Routier ...why would they do this... 04:53:08 Darlie Routier ...I'm (unintelligible)... 04:54:07 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...listen ma'am ...need to ...need to let the officers in the front door ...ok... 04:59:11 Darlie Routier ...what... 05:00:04 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am.. 05:00:22 Darlie Routier ...what ...what... 05:01:15 911 Operator #1 ...need to let the police officers in the front door...

The operator got her attention with "listen, ma'am" and prepared Darlie to know they were coming in the front door. Darlie said, "what? what?" so the 911 operator repeated that the police were coming in the front door.

What reaction did this trigger in Darlie Routier? Please take careful note of what is of concern to her, while her children are "barely breathing":

05:04:21 Darlie Routier ...(unintelligible) his knife was lying over there and I already picked it up...

She does not express concern for her children, but about her fingerprints and DNA being on the knife: 1. It is "his" knife. This gives ownership of the knife to the "somebody" and "some man". Note that it is singular, even though she has said, "they" did this. 2. Note "knife was lying". Principle: When an inanimate object is reported to by "lying, standing, sitting" etc, the passive language suggests that the subject placed it there. Knives cannot "lie down", nor "stand" nor "sit"; so when this language is employed, it is a verbal signal that the speaker (subject) is responsible for the placement. This is commonly seen in murder weapons and in drugs. "The drugs were sitting on the cabinet" is an example. 3. "already" attempts to shift blame: it was already touched by her before the operator warned her.

Did she do this while she was "sleeping" or was this part of the "I was fighting"

Deception indicated.

She has established that when her fingerprints are found on the knife, that it was already addressed. The mother's instinct should be on the children, which it is not. This mother's instinct is self preservation and alibi building, and an attempt to persuade all that someone did this, and it was not her.

The need to deceive is an indicator of guilt.

05:08:19 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...it's alright ...it's ok... 05:09:20 Darlie Routier ...God ...I bet if we could have gotten the prints maybe ...maybe...

She is dying from being attacked after watching her sons dying from being attacked yet uses the language, "I bet", indicating a disconnect (a linguistic disconnect) from the attack reported.

05:13:18 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)... 05:14:18 RADIO ...82 ...we'll be (unintelligible)... 05:17:12 Darlie Routier ...ok ...it'll be... 05:18:08 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...hang on ...hang on a second...

She next turns to Darin and has the need to attempt to persuade him of the same:

05:19:09 Darlie Routier ...somebody who did it intentionally walked in here and did it Darin...

1. "Somebody" returns to the gender neutral. Deception indicated. Once someone has been identified by gender ("some man") returning to gender neutral is an indication of attempt to conceal identity. 2. "intentionally" This is an unnecessary word and shows that she knew the killer's intent. It indicates planning. 3. "walked" the inclusion of the killer's body posture ("walking") indicates an increase in tension for the subject at this part of the story.

Her willful attempt to persuade that someone came in indicates that the killer was there all the time.

Her attempt to conceal the identity of the killer indicates knowledge of the killer's identity.

The identity of the killer causes an increase of tension.

The mother accepts the children's deaths, even while they were still breathing.

The mother's concern is her alibi and not the welfare of the children. Her assertion of them being dead is strong, but of her dying it is weak. This shows intimate knowledge of the stab wounds' impact upon the victims; something the killer would know.

The mother knows the intentions of the killer.

05:20:19 911 Operator #1 ...82 ...10-9... 05:21:23 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 05:22:28 911 Operator #1 ...received... 05:23:05 Darlie Routier ...there's nothing touched... 05:24:12 911 Operator #1 ...ok ma'am... 05:25:13 Darlie Routier ...there's nothing touched... 05:26:20 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 05:28:00 Darlie Routier ...oh my God... 05:29:08 Police Officer ...(unintelligible)... 05:29:23 RADIO ...received... 05:31:19 RADIO ...(unintelligible)... 05:33:25 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am ...is the police officer there... 05:35:14 Darlie Routier ...yes (unintelligible)... 05:35:23 911 Operator #1 ...ok ...go talk to him ...ok... 05:38:03 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...

Total length of tape is 5:44:28

The analysis conclusion: Deception Indicated: the 911 caller knew the identity of the killer.

The language of the 911 call shows:

1. The caller has guilty knowledge of the murder of her children. 2. The caller has the need to persuade police that someone came to the home. 3. The caller cannot keep her pronouns or articles straight. 4. The caller cannot keep the chronology of her story consistent. 5. The caller has intimate knowledge of the killer's intentions and thoughts. 6. The caller is more concerned with evidence pointing to her than her children's lives.

Deception is indicated in this call by Darlie Routier.

The language shows that she, Darlie Routier, is the "somebody" who knifed her children. The language shows that her wounds were not lethal, but her "babies" wounds would indeed be; that is, known at the time of this call.

Darlie Routier has guilty knowledge in the 911 call made in this domestic homicide.

Analysis by Peter Hyatt.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/statement-analysis-darlie-routier-911.html

Statement Analysis of Ramsey 911 Call

Statement Analysis of Ramsey 911 Call

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey to report the missing, and later found murdered Jonbenet Ramsey, 6.

If you did not know where your daughter was, what help would you seek?

It is likely that you would demand she be found.

Is that what the caller here wants?

Is that what the caller seeks?

In 911 calls, we follow the principles set forth by Avinoam Sapir, (www.lsiscan.com) that we follow in all analysis.

We view the expected, and when it does not show itself, we are confronted with the unexpected.

A 911 call is sometimes referred to as "excited utterance", meaning that it is expected to come from less pre-thought and more reaction. This is not something we need to evaluate in analysis. Even in deception, we view content, recognizing that deception does not come from a void.

We expect, that in an emergency, the caller will get right to the point at hand. This is judging priority in SCAN. We note that order indicates importance, whether it is a domestic homicide call, or you are asking your 7 year old to name his friends.

We listen carefully and allow the subject to guide us. Does the subject ask for help for the victim? Does the subject ask for help for the subject, himself? The former is the "expected", while analysis deals with the unexpected.

Is it a cry for help, or is it alibi building?

"Hello, I was sleeping and the door was open..." said Misty Croslin, showing that to her it was a priority that police know that even before she reports Haleigh Cummings, 5, missing, that police know that she was asleep.

Does the caller use the words, "I'm sorry" anywhere, for any reason? If so, it is to be red flagged. Recall what Statement Analyst Kaaryn Gough said on Crime Wire:

The brain knows even when the tongue is attempting to deceive. The brain knows.

Child injury or death call:

We expect a parent, for example, to speak for herself, take personal ownership of her child, and ask for help for the child.

What do the pronouns tell us? If the caller is on speakerphone with the spouse, we may hear "we", but if it is one parent, we expect "my" when it comes to the child in question.

I am always on alert when a single individual says, "we called 911" as I struggle to picture more than one person actually dialing the phone. I ask clarifying questions to learn if, perhaps, more than one party spoke to the 911 operator. If the subject, alone, dialed and spoke, did the subject discuss the call ahead of time, slowing the pace of the emergency down, dramatically.

Below is the call placed by Patsy Ramsey, from 1996, when she reported that she found a ransom call.

Statement Analysis has shown the following in the case:

Deception

Linguistic indicators of sexual abuse.

Scientific Content Analysis analyzes the content in a manner that is repetitive with the expectation of results being seen in a consistent manner.

911: What is going on there ma’am?

This is the best question: What is the emergency? It is open ended and allows the subject to say anything. At this point, we expect a mother to speak for herself (a missing child is a very personal thing to a mother) and if she is on the phone by herself, the expected pronoun use is: "I"

PR: We have a kidnapping...Hurry, please

The expected: "My daughter is missing" or "My daughter is kidnapped." We expect to hear the pronoun, "I" early and often in this call. This is a mother calling and she is missing her youngest child. Our expectation was the pronoun "I" as this is deeply personal (Solomonic wisdom) for a mother of a missing child.

We note first that Patsy Ramsey, mother of alleged kidnapping victim, uses the pronoun, "we" and reports a kidnapping; not that her daughter, Jonbenet, is missing.

Statement Analysis of the ransom note shows that it is deceptive; it did not come from a "small foreign faction" and that the writer attempted to disguise herself. In particular, the unusual and it is improper English: "and hence" (it is two words that are redundant) was used in it. It is an unusual phrase and what was quickly found out that it was used at least twice, including a Christmas card written by Patsy Ramsey.

This links Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note.

For analysis of the note, please see Mark McClish' work

We expect a mother of a missing child to immediately say "I" as the mother of a missing child is going to take this very personally. We also expect her to say her daughter is missing, but here, it sounds somewhat concessionary or contrived: "we have a kidnapping" not only uses the weak, "we", but also is a conclusion.

Question: Is this rehearsed? By initially declaring "kidnapping" instead of "my daughter is missing", the reader should be considering that this may be staged.

We look for her to make a request or demand for specific help for the victim, Jonbenet; not just help itself, or in general. We expect a mother of a missing 6 year old to use the pronoun "I" as this is very personal and enflames the maternal instinct. The use of "we" is not strong.

"We have" does not report Jonbenet missing and it sounds more in line with having an event which is not personal to the mother, but to be shared with others.

911: Explain to me what is going on, ok

The initial reaction of the 911 operator has caused the operator to ask for clarification because she has not said "my daughter is missing."

We look for the mother of a missing/kidnapped child to say the pronoun "I" as this is very personal to a mother and inflames the maternal instinct:

PR: We have a ...There’s a note left and our daughter is gone

Patsy Ramsey resorts to the pronoun, "we" again.

The pronoun "we" is often used in an attempt to share guilt. (Dillingham)

A broken sentence means missing information, as she stopped herself. Why?

"We have a..." sounds like a repetition of the first line, which would suggest rehearsed or coached words. This means that the operator has already spoken to Patsy Ramsey, the mother, without the mother reporting her daughter missing. It appears that this was her third sentence which still does not report a missing child.

This is the mother of a missing child calling: we expect maternal instinct to use the pronoun "I" strongly, and ask for help for her daughter, wondering what her daughter must be going through (if she was with kidnappers, particularly a "small foreign faction" holding her.

Please note "our" daughter is gone.

The use of the plural "we" is explained by Christopher Dillingham, who states that his research has shown that those who wish to share guilt will instinctively use the plural pronoun, even when speaking only for oneself. Any parent of a teenager, just like every teacher in school is familiar with this principle.

Please note that "our" daughter is used when there is a need to 'share' ownership. This is often seen when step-parenting (or foster/adoption) is involved. When "our" is used by a family that has no reason to 'share' the child, it may indicate looming divorce.

A parental instinct to protect is powerful. Humans are highly possessive, and learn the word "my" and "mine" even predating speech as a toddler. It is difficult to imagine a stronger bond than mother to child, which is why "my" is the expected.

Patsy Ramsey's use of the pronoun "we" and "our" goes against maternal instinct.

Next take notice that Patsy (the subject) says that there is a "note" here. This is her choice of wording for the ransom note, and should remain consistent in a truthful statement, unless something in reality changes.

The reason language changes is that reality changes; with emotions having the greatest impact upon language, especially to cause a non to change. If there is no change in reality, deception may be present.

"please" is polite.

*Note the order showing priority: the note comes before the daughter.

Also note that there was a note "left", with the word "left" an unnecessary word giving additional information. The subject (Patsy) is emphasizing the note. Why would this be necessary?

Priority: Here is what we have thus far in the call:

1. We have a kidnapping. 2. Hurry, please 3. We have a... (broken) 4. There's a note left

These four things are mentioned before reporting Jonbenet missing.

5. "...our daughter is gone."

Question: Would it take you to point 5 before telling police your daughter was missing?

See: Misty Croslin's 911 call on missing Haliegh Cummings.

"There's a note left" is passive language. Passivity in language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility. Here, "there's a note left" removes all traces of responsibility. She does not even say "they left a note"

911: A note was left and your daughter is gone?

Please notice that "note was left" is reflective language, using the subject's language. The 911 operator reflects back the words and the order.

The note is mentioned before the daughter which indicates the priority is the note more than the daughter. For those of you who believe Statement Analysis and know that Patsy Ramsey was deceptive in the investigation, this is a good indicator of what she was worried about: she must make them believe and she is not thinking about the child, but the note. As author of the note, it would cause her concern.

PR: Yes.

911: How old is you daughter?

PR: She is six years old she is blonde...six years old

Patsy Ramsey goes beyond the question; she repeats the answer (sensitivity) but adds a physical description in strange terms:

"she is blonde" rather than "she has blonde hair"; when one is described as "blonde" it is often a view of appearance, like "brunette" or "red head" describing someone who's appearance is of importance.

This may give insight into how Jonbenet was viewed by her mother, even as the child was dressed up like a sexualized Las Vegas showgirl. At this point, this is the only description she gave her of her child.

Please note that several pictures of Jonbenet suggest bleaching or coloring of the child's hair.

911: How long ago was this?

PR: I don’t know. Just found a note a note and my daughter is missing

Missing pronoun.

Patsy Ramsey may not have been ready for this question, "how long ago was this?" as she should know exactly how long ago she found the note. It should be burned in a mother's memory. To say, 'wouldn't a mother under trauma lose her memory?' is to seek to excuse. An innocent mother of a missing child is on high alert, with adrenaline flowing, with clarity and 'fight or flight' responses in 'fight' mode, like a mother bear robbed of her whelps.

Please note the dropped pronoun: "just found a note...". When pronouns are dropped, there is a decrease in commitment. Recent studies have verified what was taught in SCAN for decades: when pronouns disappear, there is a lack of commitment and more people that drop pronouns are likely to be deceptive. She did not say that she "just found a note." She did not lie. Lying causes stress and here she can communicate about the note without saying "I just found a note" or, consistent with her other sentences, "we just found a note." The pronouns do not lie. They are instinctive and reliable. She drops the pronoun and does not commit. We shall not do it for her.

She did not want to say, "I just found a note" because it would be a lie. "Just found a note" does not say who just found it and is a way of avoiding a lie. We hear this in children who lie, just as we hear it here.

The "note" is repeated, but consistent from the first mention of it. It is a "note" that was "left"; this should not change.

Please also note a change from "our daughter" to the more natural "my daughter". What caused the change?

A change in language must reflect a change in reality; otherwise it is an indicator of deception: the subject is not working from experiential memory and has lost track of the words used.

Is there any change in reality? The following is critical:

"our daughter is gone" but "my daughter is missing."/P>

The shared daughter is "gone" but the personal and up close "my" daughter is missing

Is there a difference between Jonbenet being "gone" and Jonbenet being "missing" in reality?

Note the word "just" in context may mean "sudden" and refer to time.

911: Does it say who took her?

PR: What?

Note that she answers a question with a question. What is sensitive to Patsy? The question is "who took her?" The operator asks again:

911: Does it say who took her?

PR: No. I don’t know it’s there...there is a ransom note here.

Please note the answer to the question, "does the note say who took her?"

a. No, even though it says a "small foreign faction" took her. b. I don't know.

Note the pronoun "I" is now used.

Note that the note says she was taken by a small foreign faction.

Please note that the "note" that was "left" has changed language and is now a "ransom note".

What has caused the change in language from "note left" to a "ransom note"

The language, if truthful, should remain consistent, unless reality has changed causing the language to change, such as insurance adjusters see:

"My car sputtered so I pulled over. It would not start. I left the vehicle on the side of the road. "

The "car" while driving (even if sputtering) changed into a "vehicle" when it would no longer drive. You can bet that after it is repaired and running, the owner will call it "my car" again and not "the" "vehicle. "

"There is a ransom note here" sounds rehearsed.

When something does not come from experiential memory, it is easy to lose track of what words were used, even simple nouns. Here, there does not appear to be any change in reality, judging by the context. This is a strong indication that the caller is being deceptive about her daughter.

911: It’s a ransom note?

Please note the reflective language of the 911 operator, instinctively picking up on the change. It was just a "note" but now it is a "ransom note". What is the difference between a "note" and a "ransom note"?

The answer is found in reading it. In reading it, it demands money, but previously, she said, "no" that she did not know, and "I don't know" but by identifying it now as a "ransom note" we have deception on the part of the caller.

PR: It says S.B.T.C. Victory...please

The subject tells the operator what the "note" and now "ransom note" says. She is referring to the end of the ransom note now.

Please note that the subject has not asked for help specifically for the victim. We look to see if the caller asks for help for Jonbenet, herself. Sometimes guilty people will ask for help for themselves, but not for the victim. Sometimes the words "I'm sorry" slip into their language indicating it was on the mind.

911: Ok, what’s your name? Are you...

PR: Patsy Ramsey...I am the mother. Oh my God. Please.

The 911 operator may have been about to ask her if she was the mother. Note "please" still does not ask for help for her daughter, who is alleged by the mother, to be in the hands of kidnappers."

"I am the mother" and not "her" mother, or "Jonbenet's mother"

911: I’m...Ok, I’m sending an officer over, ok?

PR: Please.

Who is in need of help? Is it Jonbenet? Patsy and John? For whom does she ask for help

911: Do you know how long she’s been gone?

PR: No, I don’t, please, we just got up and she’s not here. Oh my God Please.

Critical portion.

Extra words give us additional information.

Please note the question is answered about how long she has been gone:

a.No

b.I don't

The subject gives two answers; the first is "no", but then she adds the broken sentence, which indicates missing information.

Pronouns do not lie and are reliable for the analyst.

Please note that "we just got up" is additional information.

What is the purpose? The time has been sought by the 911 operator. This sentence, "we just go up" is very very important. By offering this, it shows that she is concerned with alibi building; making sure, even without being asked, that police know that they just go it: Attempt to lead police into thinking that they were both asleep.

She does not say that they were sleeping. What does the inclusion provoke?

"We got up" would cause investigators to think that "we", John and Patsy, were likely up all night. There is no reason to offer this information. Note the pronouns.

Why use the word "we" when this should be something very personal to a mother, who, if her daughter was kidnapped, would be filled with sole purpose: saving her daughter. The word "we" is not expected here, and should be viewed under Dillingham's research: the sharing of guilt.

But also note the importance to the caller that the police believe that they both just got up.

This is not asked in the question. The operator did not say "were you sleeping?" It would be presumed that they were sleeping and not that they would be awake and allow their daughter to be kidnapping. It is, therefore, needless information.

This sentence is very very important.

What do we make of needless information in Statement Analysis? We recognize how important it is to the subject, who included it, therefore, it is vital to our analysis.

It represents a need to persuade. It is needless information, therefore, doubly important. It is alibi building and because it was offered, has suggested that they were up all night

Please note that it was learned that Patsy Ramsey, known for vanity, was in the same clothes that morning that she was in the night before at a party. We have linguistic indication that she was up all night, and then we have the clothing confirming the wording and the need to persuade that in order to "get up" they would have had to have gone to sleep. She did not say they were asleep and we will not say it for her. It is likely that they did not sleep that night.

Question: Why would a parent need to tell police that she and her husband were asleep during a kidnapping since it could happen no other way?

Answer: Because they did not go to sleep.

911: Ok.

PR: Please send somebody.

Who does the subject want to come out for her kidnapped daughter? The FBI kidnapping team? A whole army of police to rescue Jonbenet from the small foreign faction who have her?

Answer: "somebody" is singular. What was the expected? Begging? Pleading? Demanding?

"Please find her! FIND HER! FIND HER!"

911: I am, honey.

PR: Please.

Note that in this call, there is not specific request for help for the victim.

911: Take a deep breath (inaudible).

PR: Hurry, hurry, hurry (inaudible).

911: Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy? Patsy?

(Patsy reportedly said "Help me, Jesus" repeatedly here. See note below)

It is believed, according to police, that at this point, the call did not disconnect and Patsy Ramsey spoke to her son, Burke, whom she later said was sleeping. Detective Steve Thomas found this vital because it showed that Patsy was lying, from the beginning.

It is, however, not necessary, as this initial contact with police showed deception.

Trust the pronouns.

Pronouns and articles are used by us more than any other words and are engrained within us from the earliest days of speech. Pronouns can solve crimes all by themselves.

When parents are seated together, speaking as one, they will use the plural, but in a time of emergency, there is no "sharing" of a child, but maternal instinct, measured in words dating back to the time of Solomon's display of wisdom using analysis, indicate the closeness between mother and child.

The pronouns bring initial doubt to the caller's veracity, which then the change of language confirms:

This is a deceptive call to 911 that does not ask for help for its victim.

She is reported to have said "help me, Jesus" in the background, highlighting the principle that a guilty caller does not ask for help specifically for the victim, and will often ask for help, for herself.

There is distancing language as the name is not used until asked.

There is alibi building with "we just got up";

There is priority seen with the "note", having not read it, but then changing it to a "ransom note" which demands payment for a child. The "ransom note" is, here in the 911 call, sensitive to Patsy Ramsey, connecting her with it.

The 911 call made by Patsy Ramsey is a deceptive call.

Analysis by Peter Hyatt

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

Here is the entire 911 call made by Sergio Celis regarding his missing 7 year old daughter, Isabel.

Dispatcher:911 what's your emergency?

Sergio Celis: I want to report a missing person, my little girl who's six years old, I believe she was abducted from our house.

Please note that additional or extra words give us additional information. The added word "want" actually reduces commitment. Please note that he is reporting a missing "person"; it is not expected that a father would refer to his child as a "person"

Note the order:

1. He wants to report a missing person 2. "My little girl" 3. He "believes" she was "abducted" from "our" house. That she may have been abducted is third.

When someone calls their home "our" house, it shows a desire to share ownership. This is often seen in divorces, or can enter the language of those who rent a room in the home, or live with others. That he feels a need to share the home while reporting a child missing should not be missed. We find that the pronouns "we" and "our" come from parents who wish to share guilt (Dillingham) especially since parenting a child is a highly personal ("I" and "my") relationship.

Note the assertion of abduction is only "believed" which is weak. If he believes that she has been abducted, he should have a reason for his belief. An abduction is conclusionary and does not hold the same meaning as "kidnapped" where ransom and contact may be expected. That a father of a missing child could jump to this conclusion should alert investigators to withheld information.

Dispatcher: What's the address?

Sergio: 57 or 5602 E. 12th Street.

Dispatcher: Okay. Stay on the line for Tucson Police.

Sergio: I will.

Dispatcher: Tucson Police Department, Gabhart

Sergio: Hello, I need to report a uh, missing child. I believe she was abducted from my house.

Please note that his call to the police who will be investigating the "abduction" begins with the greeting, "Hello." People in a hurry to report an emergency may not think to be polite, unless there is a reason to 'befriend' the operator.

There may be a psychological reason for this: some guilty parents will seek to make friends or be at peace with those who might later suspect them. This is why guilty parents will often "thank" police for their work in searching for the missing child, rather than show impatience and frustration. They are, literally, "thankful" for the police failure to locate the "missing" child. This shows itself early in an investigation, and then turns to rage (or disappears) as time passes and the public is aware that the police now suspect the same parents who once thanked them. This should be seen as a red flag for guilty caller, and an attempt to portray him as "friendly" with the police. Urgency on the part of the innocent parent is expected; not a casual greeting. Please note the change of language. When language changes, it should reflect a change in reality. If not, it may be an indication of deception as the subject does not speak from memory and is not keeping track of his words: "missing person" and "my little girl" and "our house" is now: "missing child" from "my" house. There does not appear to be any justification for the change in the context, therefore, it may be that it is not coming from experiential memory. Note how he refers to Isaabel: To him, Isabel is not "Isabel" but a "person" and a "little girl" and a "child." Person: gender neutral "little girl" specific gender "child" is often used when at risk. While "missing" she is a "person" (non specific) and "child"

Dispatcher: Okay. How old?

Sergio: Six years old.

Dispatcher: Okay is it your daughter or?

Sergio: Yes

Dispatcher: Why do you think she abducted?

That the subject said he thought his daughter was "abducted" was not expected by the 911 operator. An "abduction" is a conclusion, therefore, the subject must have good reason to say what he did, especially given a father's instincts.

Sergio: I have no idea. We woke up this morning and went to go get her up, start her baseball game and she's gone. I woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. We've looked all around the house, my son…

Deception indicated

1. Please note that "I have no idea" is not expected. He asserted what he thought but now claims to have "no idea" what caused him to say so? This is not credible. That she is "missing" would show an "idea" why. A child is missing and a parent says that they have "no idea"? We saw the same deception from Justin DiPietro, father of Ayla Reynolds, who's blood was found in his basement. 2. Please note that he reports that "we" woke up; not "I" woke up. This is an indication of deception. Note that he does not say who the "we" are here. Pronouns are instinctive and guilty people seek to share responsibility with the word "we", no different than a guilty teenager runs away from commitment in hopes of sharing guilt with the word "we"(Dillingham) 3. Note the highest level of sensitivity is found in two specific parts of language: A. "Left" (departed) when used as an unnecessary connecting verb B. Reason Why: "to, therefore, so, since, because..." and so on. This means that the subject, when reporting what happened, has a need to explain why he did something. These two parts of language are given the highest level of sensitivity in Analysis, and are color coded with blue to highlight specific areas of extreme sensitivity. When more than one is found, we know we are at a highly sensitive He tells the reason why he went to get Isabel, of whom he avoids using her name (distancing language) 4. Pronouns are well practiced by humans since the earliest days of speech and are completely reliable. When someone cannot keep track of pronouns, deception is present

Note: "I, we looked everywhere"indicates deception.

Dispatcher: Okay, hang on.

Sergio:…are running, yeah, my sons are running around the house looking for her.

This should not have been needed to be said and is an attempt to portray the family as united and searching. There is no need for him to say that the house has been searched unless... Unless he has a need to persuade police that they searched the house. Who would not search the house? This was expected before calling 911.

Dispatcher: the screen was on the ground outside?

Sergio: Yes

His daughter was not in her bed, and the screen was on the ground outside, yet he had "no idea" why he thought she was abducted? This does not make sense, unless it is a false report: as a false report, that is, not coming from experiential memory, it makes sense.

Dispatcher: What's her address?

Sergio: 5602 E. 12th Street.

Dispatcher: What's your name sir?

Sergio: My name is Sergio, S-E-R-G-I-O, middle initial D, last name is C-E-L-I-S,

Dispatcher: I-S as in Sam?

Sergio: Yes.

Dispatcher: Okay, what's her name?

Sergio: Isabel, I-S-B-E-L, uh, I-S-A-B-E-L, M as in man is the middle initial

Here is when her name enters his language, but only in response to a direct question

Dispatcher: Okay, same last name?

Sergio: Yes.

Dispatcher: Okay what's her actual birth date?

Sergio: Is (removed by TPD), of uh, (removed by TPD). I'm sorry. (removed by TPD) and she's going to seven this year, so uh, (removed by TPD0

Dispatcher: Okay. Is mom there also?

This is a yes or no question. Anything beyond "yes" or "no" is sensitive.

Sergio: Uh, she had just left for work, I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. (chuckles)

Here he established his wife's alibi. Whatever happened to Isabel, instead of answering "yes or no" there was a need to explain that it happened while his wife was not home. If he had "no idea" what happened to her, how is it that she had "just" left for work? Please note the word "told." The word "told" is used in authoritative sentences. "My boss said to be at work at 9" is one way of saying it, while, "My boss told me..." is stronger. Here, he portrays the sentence as if he had to exercise authority to "tell" her or "instruct" her to come home.

Is this reasonable?

No.

A mother of a missing 6 year old would not have to be "told" to come home from work: she would leave immediately. Here, the subject wants us to believe that he had to impose authority over her, as indicated by the word "told" in his language. Next, this is buttressed by his wording "get your butt home." By his language: He is portraying her reluctance to come home. Is this how he wanted it? Is this how Becky wanted it? Please note that he is heard chuckling on the call made to report his missing child. In statement analysis we say that we do not analyze the person, but the words, and that people who analyze voice inflection are often wrong as often as they are right. But it is here that it is so ridiculous that it sounds cartoon like and is impossible to ignore:

He laughed while reporting his daughter missing, while he is being deceptive. His nervousness is likely due to the deception and need to portray himself as authoritative and helpful.

Dispatcher: Okay, mother.

Sergio: But she was…

Dispatcher: What kind of vehicle is she going to be en route back in?

Sergio: Uh, in our Lexus RX300, and it's red.

Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio: And she's coming from TMC, so she should just be coming straight down Craycroft.

Dispatcher: Okay. How tall is she?

Sergio: She is five two.

This indicates where his mind is: he is concentrating on "pleasing" the operator and not about his missing daughter. His language reveals that she is not a priority. He thought of his wife in the "get your butt home" comment and his mind is still on his wife, not daughter, who, if truly "missing" or "abducted" would be all he cared about. This is a parental instinct to care only for the missing child. He is more concerned with image and alibi than he is with his missing daughter.

Dispatcher: No the, I'm sorry, you're daughter

Sergio: Oh my daughter. Um…forty inches. Thirty, yeah 36 to 40 inches.

If your child was missing, would a 911 operator need to redi rect your attention back to your daughter? This is the reason in an interview, we do not "redirect" anything: we listen.

Dispatcher: Okay. Is she black, white, or Hispanic?

Sergio: She's a fair skinned Hispanic with uh, clear eyes and light brown hair.

Dispatcher: And what do you mean by clear eyes? Like…

Sergio: Uh, well they're a little bit green…

Dispatcher: Are they hazel or?

Sergio:…green, green, hazel, sure.

Dispatcher: Hazel, okay. And you said she's about 40 inches tall.

Sergio: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Do you remember what she was wearing last night when you saw her? The expectation is "yes" followed by what she was wearing. It is a yes or no question, but it has the expectation of commentary for the purpose of helping locate her. His answer reveals that he saw her two times.

Please note this.

In Sergio Celis' answer, he dilineates different times he saw what she was wearing. He should simply report what pajamas the six year old had on. This is where extra words give away the information needed:

Sergio: Uh, before she went to bed I believe she was wearing little navy blue shorts and, and a pink uh, a pink like little uh, tank top type of a shirt. He reports what she wore, not to bed, but "before she went to bed" indicating that this may not be what she was wearing when she went to bed, or when she went missing. Also note that besides not reporting what pajamas she had on, he describes her shirt and shorts as "little": She is six years old. Not only does she have on "little shorts" and a "tank top" but a "little tank top" type of shirt. The dispatcher reflects back the language, without the additional and "unimportant" information of the size of the clothing:

Dispatcher: Pink tank top? Okay. Navy blue shorts. Has she ever tried to sneak out of a window or anything?

Sergio: Oh no.

Dispatcher: Have you guys…

Sergio: Hu-uh

Dispatcher: …been having any weird phone calls, anything like that, somebody hanging around?

Sergio: No. We got home late from uh, my son's baseball game.

Dispatcher: Uh-hm

Sergio: You know, about 10:30 last night. (clears throat) Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching uh, the Diamondbacks game at midnight.

Dispatcher: Uh-hm.

Sergio: And I feel asleep and I never heard anything weird. So I was like just on the…

Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio:…other side of the wall from her.

Dispatcher: How, how many siblings does she have?

Sergio: Two.

Dispatcher: Okay, and those are brothers you said?

Sergio: Yes.

Dispatcher: How old are they?

Sergio: 14 and 10.

Dispatcher: And you said they're out looking or they were looking all over the house

Sergio: Oh no, they, they just, they just went right now, my oldest son, the 14 year old, he went running around just to make sure um, but I, she's nowhere…

Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio:…to be seen…

Dispatcher: Outside or inside?

Sergio: He's outside our property wall.

Dispatcher: Okay. And where is the ten year old?

Sergio: He's in the garage. He's just out in the garage just waiting for…

Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio:…my wife.

Dispatcher: Okay and what's mom's name?

Sergio: Becky.

Dispatcher: Okay. And what's your birth date sir?

Sergio: (removed by TPD)

Dispatcher: Okay. And what's mom's?

Sergio: Uh, (removed by TPD)

Dispatcher: Okay. Any you're both natural parents of the child?

Sergio: Yes.

Dispatcher: Okay. So no, no step-parents, any, any problems with any grandparents

Sergio: No.

Dispatcher: Okay. So you're not having any family issues, anything like that?

Sergio: No.

Dispatcher: Okay. And you haven't noticed anybody hanging out in front of your house? Sergio: No.

Dispatcher: Okay. You're son that's 14, what's his name?

Sergio: (inaudible yelling in background) Uh, I'm sorry, my wife just walked in and, and she's speaking to somebody. I don't know if she's speaking to the police also. She might have been calling on her way. You asked me about my son, what did you ask me?

In a 911 calls of domestic homicide, the words "I'm sorry" entering for any reason, were flagged for guilt. It was found in a number of guilty callers of domestic homicides.

Dispatcher: Yeah the, the 14 year old that's out looking for her?

Sergio: Yes. What about him?

Dispatcher: Um, well hang on a second. Okay, actually I think one of your sons is trying to call. Um, I'm sorry, what was your 14 year old's name?

Sergio: (Taken out by Tucson News Now

Sergio: My wife just got home and she's kind of hysterical and freaking out, so.

Dispatcher: I, okay. Tell her we are on the way, we've got a…

Sergio: Okay.

Dispatcher:…bunch of officers on the way, I want you guys to stay there in the house. Sergio: We will.

Dispatcher: Okay.

Sergio:Bu-bye

Analysis conclusion:

This is a deceptive call regarding an "abduction" that did not take place, made by a subject with willful and guilty knowledge. Specifically, the caller is deceptive about what happened to Isabel Celis, of whom he distances himself, and is deceptive about his own actions.

Analysis by Peter Hyatt

Statement Analysis: Charlie Rogers 911 Call

Statement Analysis: Charlie Rogers 911 Call

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made regarding the Charlie Roger's fake hate crime with transcription by Equinox.

Operator: 911. Where is your emergency?

Rappl: [beeped out]

Operator: Phone number you're calling me from?

Rappl: [beeped out]

Operator: what's going on?

Rappl: umm.. My neighbor just came over and knocked on the door. She said her house is on f..fire and umm.. She's not got any clothes on. She's handcuffed.

Note priority of response. The order in which someone speaks tells us about priority. In the first response, we see the doubt expressed:

1. Neighbor came over 2. Knocked on my door 3. Neighbor "said"her house is on fire 4. She doesn't have clothes on 5. She's handcuffed.

The neighbor did not report Rogers' house on fire but only reported that she said it was on fire, reducing commitment. The commitment reduction is also seen by the fact that it was the 4th thing said by the caller, not the first or second. She appears, at this point, to show doubt about the story. We soon see why. The fact that she mentions "knocked on my door" is because it is in the caller's mind: this is quite a disturbance for her and the "knock" was something that may have emotionally upset her enough to tell the 911 operator about a "knock" on the door. It is unnecessary information meaning that to the subject herself, it is doubly important, as it is to analysis. This hoax impacted the neighbor.

Operator: she's handcuffed?

The caller just reported a house on fire and the operator's response is to ask about the handcuffs.

Rappl : Yes! Umm.. She's not got on..

Operator: Do you see flames or smoke?

The operator regains bearing and now goes to the fire.

Rappl: no I don't. She lives right across the street. She lives at [beeped out]

The caller's doubt is now explained. She did not see flames nor smoke. She mentions for the first time the close proximity: "right across..."

operator: she lives at.. Where?

Rappl: [beeped out] and I live on the corner of [beeped out] and she lives right across the street from me on the east, to the east of me.

The closeness of proximity is sensitive to the caller, as it is repeated. Even the position where they were standing was sensitive to the caller.

Operator: Okay. And you don't see any flames or anything?

That someone lives "right across the street from me" caused the 911 operator to question again about the fire.

Rappl: no. [beeped out]

Rappl to Charlie Rogers: you say your house is on fire?

It is that the caller, herself, now seeks affirmation. Rogers, in the hoax, was careful not to damage her home. Police said that with the pouring of gasoline and lighting it on fire, it only caused $200 worth of damage. Rogers was careful not to damage her home, just as she was careful not to damage her body. The forensic expert said that the cutting was not only superficial in the skin, but was in straight lines and carefully avoided sensitive parts of the body. She protected her body and her home in the hoax that put her front and center, just as her Face Book writing said: "Watch me." Rogers: yeahs

Rappl: she says yeah but I don't see any smoke or anything.

It is often said that the word "but" is the most important in a sentence as it refutes that which came before it. Here, the neighbor shows her doubt. Will this theme of distancing herself from the neighbor continue? We saw that she has mentioned how close Rogers is to her home.

Note "she says"

Operator: Okay well we're startin' everybody.

Rappl: Okay. I appreciate that.

Operator: Why is she wearing handcuffs can you ask her that?

Rappl: I… I don't know. umm.. Anyway, we're standing out, We have a, I have a ramp on the east side of my house, we're standing out there and umm.. The caller had already repeated how close Rogers lived to her and the sensitivity continues. Here, she begins with "we", as there is unity, but uses the word "standing" which tells body posture. Body posture inclusion is a signal of increased tension. The oft-used example:

"My boss said for me to be at work at 9AM" is one way of saying it, but a stronger way, indicating memory in play is:

"My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9AM" showing the body posture (tension) and change of "said" to the more firmer "told." We note whenever body posture enters a statement.

Note the change of "we" to "I" making the "I" part of the sentence, very important: "I have a ramp on the east side of my house" which shows "my" house; taking ownership and "east side" is something repeated several times. When the pronoun "we" changes to "I", there is an increase of importance for the speaker. Here we see that she is asserting the ownership of her "ramp" and in it, there is no "we"; but after, the "we" returns. This shows that she is clearly setting a boundary.

It would appear that the neighbor feels intruded upon by Rogers, (see "knock") and her dogs, as she is sensitive of just how close Rogers lives to her. Note that "we" indicates unity. It is likely that the caller, howbeit intruded upon or disrupted (scary event), feels a certain unity or kindness towards Rogers.

Note also about the body posture of "standing": She did not invite her bleeding neighbor into her home.

Operator: Okay. Is there anybody else in the house?

Rappl to Charlie Rogers: [come here, here puppy]… Charlie, is there anybody else in the house?

Rodgers: no. nobody's in the house.Reflective language: repeating back what was said. This is not part of the free editing process.

Rappl: no, nobody's in the house. [Come here.] I'm trying to keep her dogs, there too. She's worried about her dogs.

Note that someone brutally attacked, carved into, bleeding, stunned from the horror, is acting in such a way that the neighbor can tell that she is worried about her dogs. This impacted the neighbor enough to offer it as an observation. The caller does not tell us that Rogers is tending to her wounds, or holding her stomach as she is doubled over in pain, or anything expected.

This is observation of Behavioral Analysis that is important enough not only to enter the caller's language, but it does so without being asked.

Within the next 30 minutes, Lincoln Police would use Behavioral Analysis to begin to assess the scene and conclude that Rogers created this hoax, as they observed her behavior, and the logistics of what she reported. See affidavit. Operator: so she lives alone there?

Rappl: uh-humm, yeah.

The neighbor knows this without asking Rogers. Rogers: sorry

In Statement Analysis, we flag the word "sorry" or "I'm sorry" any time and in any place it appears, for whatever reason. We note that it often appears in the language of the guilty. Recall Casey Anthony's 911 call.

Operator: So who put her in the handcuffs then?

It is almost as if the 911 operator's curiosity got the best of him.

Charlie Rogers said that she accepted that people would have a hard time accepting the story. Victims of violence do not allow for any doubting of their story: they respond with anger at the slightest doubt. This is because truth is merged with physical pain: there is no acceptance of doubt. To accept one to doubt is to seek to appease while persuading. It is a strong signal of deception. If someone has ever been violently attacked, they can, even after years, vividly recall certain aspects of it, usually sensory connection, and will not accept any room for doubt. The 911 operator is repeatedly expressing doubt, as seen through the sensitivity of repetition.

Rappl: I don't know you want to talk to her?

Operator: yeah

Rappl: okay, go, just a minute.

Rogers: h. h. h. h. h. Hello,

For Charlie Rogers, the call begins with a greeting.

Regarding Stuttering: Please see the "stuttering I" research.

We take note that a traumatic event can cause stuttering: therefore, we note what words are stuttered and what words are not stuttered. This is the same with the phrase, "you know" (which shows acute awareness of the interviewer's presence: where it appears as a habit of speech, and where it does not appear)

operator: hello, are you okay?

Rogers: no n.no No

The yes or no question, "Are you okay?" is answered with a stuttering or repeated "no", making the answer "sensitive" to the subject.

Operator: Okay what's going on? Why are you wearing handcuffs?

Compound questions are to be avoided, but the 911 operator cannot help but go back and ask about the handcuffs. Note that "what's going on?" is the best question. Note that the operator does not ask about the fire. Her house is supposed to be on fire right now.

Rodgers: somebody broke into my house.

Here is a signal of deception by Charlie Rogers even before police arrive at her home. "Somebody" is singular, not plural. Rogers said "three masked men" broke into her home. When asked 'what is going on?' and "Why are you in handcuffs?" Rogers does not say that her house is on fire, nor that 3 men put her in handcuffs, instead, she said that "somebody", singular, broke into her home. She avoided the question about the handcuffs entirely. Of all the things that she could have said, she chose to say that "somebody" broke in. She could have reported the assault, the house burning, or even the handcuffing, or how terrorized she is.

Operator: Somebody broke into your house? Is it on fire?

Compound questions are to be avoided because they allow the subject to pick and choose which question to answer.

Rodgers: yes, yes, I saw them, I saw them light it on fire, and they cut me.

Repetition indicates sensitivity. We repeat something because it is important, or sensitive to us. It may be sensitive due to impact, or it may be sensitive because it is deceptive. The analyst simply notes the repetition:

a. What things are repeated

b. What things are not repeated?

The analyst takes these sensitivity indicators, notes them, and continues through the statement, seeking to learn if a conclusion will suggest itself.

That Charlie Rogers "saw" them is something that is sensitive to her. Note that she has changed from singular ("somebody") to plural, "them" Note "they cut me" is mentioned. She chose "cut" and not "carve": To cut someone could be in any number of ways, but to "carve" is sadistic, deliberate, slower, cruel and to make a point such as "carving" hate language into the flesh. "Cut" is softer than "carve."

Operator: Okay.

Rogers: and I can't find my dogs.

Someone who has just been the victim of a vicious, cruel, sadistic attack, who should have too much pain to function, shows concern about her dogs. The operator appears to struggle to accept any of this and asks for clarification: operator: someone broke in, handcuffed you and cut you?

Rogers: yes, Sir! [sobbing]

Additional, "sir" is for emphasis. We note any emphasis and ask, "Why is emphasis needed in a truthful report or statement?" We note it is polite. Politeness in 911 calls is unexpected.

operator: okay, we're going to get an ambulance there too Okay? Are you okay?

This was asked before of which Rogers said, "no" with stuttering and repetition. Here she gives a different answer. Rogers: I I I I don't need.. I mean.. yeah. [sobbing]

Please note the stuttering "I" in Statement Analysis is a scale of anxiety with 2-3 showing an increase of anxiety. (7 or more is ususually found in a domestic homicide where the stutterer is guilty of a personal, upclose murder, and about to have a nervous breakdown and be hospitalized)

4 = Acute increase in anxiety.

We note that she used it four times here and we note the context:

"I don't need..." is an incomplete sentence. This is self censoring on her part. What was it that she did not need. The first thing that comes to mind is with a 911 operator sending an ambulance.

Was she going to say "I don't need an ambulance"? Note that she then says "I mean" without the stuttering. This is why we note where the stuttering appears and where it does not, in context. She was able to say "I mean" without stuttering.

Operator: How long ago did they leave?

Rogers: just a few minutes ago. I I I couldn't see them.

In truthful statements, someone should tell us what they saw, what they heard, and so on. When someone offers what they did not hear, or what they did not see, not in response to a direct question, deception is present. Here she was asked "how long ago did they leave?" and she answered it appropriately, but the additional information she offers indicates deception. If she couldn't see them "just a few minutes ago" how did she know they left? Were they very quiet, suddenly, after being loud? If so, why not express what she did hear, rather than what she did not see? By offering what she did not see, she is setting the stage to resist questions.

She knows she is going to be asked to identify the three attackers. Before even being asked what they looked like, she seeks to put up a road block to investigators regarding gaining the identity of the three men.

Alibi building.

We also note that in this 'negation' (reporting in the negative) she stuttered again, particularly after not stuttering with "I mean."

We have the "Stuttering I" regarding what she does not need and what she did not see. This is a strong indicator of deception about:

a. her wounds

b. her attackers

If she did not need an ambulance, something 911 sends out regularly, it is because her "cut" is not in need of medical attention. It is important to her that the police (or authorities) know that she did not see them. This is not lost on the operator:

Operator: you couldn't see them?

Rogers: no they were in my basement. I think.

Here she introduces "basement" to the language, making "basement" important to her. Please see affidavit regarding graffiti in the basement. "I think" is a weak assertion allowing for herself or others to "think" differently. Operator: were they wearing masks?

Rogers: I was sleeping. Yes, Sir.

Alibi building. The question is: "Were they wearing masks?" and she answered that she was sleeping first, and then affirmed the question. This means that it is important to the subject, who just reported what she could not see, that the police believe she was sleeping. This raises the question: Why would it be important to the subject to be known to be asleep? See 911 call of Misty Croslin in alibi building. Operator: Okay, how many men?

Rogers: Three..three..three

Three is the liar's number; that is, when someone is going to fabricate a number, other than when pulled over and asked, "How many drinks have you had?" ("uh, only two, officer") they often cling to three. This does not mean that three men could not have attacked on 3rd street at 3PM, but it does mean we will flag "three" for possible deception. "Just had three boats chasing us" (Tiffany Hartley) It is a psychological response first noted in the research of Mark McClish. My own work has since verified it. Operator: did you see them leave in a vehicle or anything?

Rogers: I didn't see anything. I just…

This is not a pure 'negation' as it comes in direct response to a question. "Did you see?" can be answered truthfully with "I didn't see". Yet, she went beyond the question of "vehicle" but this may be because the operator asked "anything" as well.

Had she said "I didn't see anything" by itself, it would have been flagged, but because she entered the 911 operator's language, it cannot be. It is only in hindsight that we know this answer could be deceptive, making it outside the realm of analysis.

Operator: okay, I know I know it's hard. I'm sorry and I am just trying to get some information, I'm sorry. Try to calm down if you can. I know it's not easy. Okay?

Rogers: [sobbing]

Operator: There's nobody else in your house?

Rogers: Nobody's.. I live by myself with my dogs.

Operator: what is your name, ma'am?

Rogers: my name is Charlie Rogers. Sir, [sobbing]

This is a very direct question: What is your name? She answered it but went outside of the bounds of the question: Sir, they did it because I'm g.g.gay. They kept saying…

We noted that she used "sir" above, giving emphasis and being polite. Here we see it repeated. One of the things we notice in truthful 911 calls is the absence of politeness.

Politeness in a 911 call is a signal that the caller is deceptive, as the caller is trying to 'win over' or persuade the operator. 911 calls are notoriously impolite. It is in domestic homicide calls where the caller is the killer, that we often find the call to begin with a greeting. Generally, the caller is far too upset and too much in a hurry to give a polite greeting. Here, we have the word "sir" repeated, making it sensitive. By itself, it will not cause any conclusions, but when taken in concert with other indicators of deception, we question its use as an attempt to persaude rather than report.

Note that when a person feels the need to explain "why" something happened, instead of truthfully reporting "what" happened, it is very sensitive and it is noted by the sensitivity color scale (blue). That she is "g-g-gay" is sensitive to the subject. We note that it provoked stuttering.

Operator: they did this, they told you they did this because you are gay?

Rogers: yes. I performed with a little kid last weekend… at Pride… and they they… they… They said, they told me stay away from kids.[sobbing]

Now we have communication with the three masked men, whom she didn't see leave. She answers the question about being "told" this in the affirmative, "yes."

Note that the sentence "I performed with a little kid last weekend" is First Person Singular, past tense verb, and uses "with" between people (distance) and is likely a truthful sentence. Since it is constructed in a truthful manner: notice that it has no stuttering "I" in it. But, when she spoke of the three masked men, she used the pronoun "they" and repeated it five times.

Yet there is another indicator of deception. Did you see it? I did not highlight it.

The operator said, "they told you they did this...?" and used the communicative word "told" appropriately: it is stronger and more authoritative (see the above regarding body posture and the boss)

"Said" is softer than "told" as "told" is more authoritative. The 911 operator pictures these three men tying her up, cutting her and setting the house on fire. This means that there is a level of coercion and authority: they "told" you.

She repeats back to him but it is in her change of language that deception is indicated.

She began with the reflected language (she entered into the 911 operator's language) with "told" but then as she spoke further, she changed "told" to the softer "said".

Deception indicated.

We highlight all communicative language in a statement. We note any changes or inconsistencies.

Here, we have deception indicated. They "told" her it was because she was gay, or they "said" it was because she was gay.

We liken this to the fake robbery scam where the "victim" says, "the gentleman asked me for the cash" rather than "the ****** told me to give him the money"

Note: The change from "told" to "said", by itself, indicates deception. Note: The use of "said" instead of "told" under the brutal conditions, itself, indicates deception.

Rogers to her dogs: Tye.. No.. Tye.. No..[Dog's barking)

Rogers to arriving police: Nobody's inside.

Operator: is that a police officer?

Rogers: Yeah yeah.

Operator: hopefully they can get the handcuffs off of you.

Rogers: Okay okay it's a zip tie.

This is the first correction that she used regarding the "handcuffs" Operator: Oh it's a zip tie handcuff, Okay. well, they'll be able to get that off.

Rogers to arriving police: No one else's inside.

[Dog's barking]

Rogers: is that all?

Operator: Do you see an officer there? Charlie, Talk to him.

Rogers: Okay, bye.

Operator: all right. B'bye.

Rogers bye

Analysis by Peter Hyatt

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/statement-analysis-charlie-rogers-911.html

Update

Lesbian ex-basketball star is jailed for 'claiming that she was attacked by masked men who carved anti-gay slurs into her skin'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311430/Charlie-Rogers-Lesbian-ex-basketball-star-jailed-claiming-attacked-masked-men-carved-anti-gay-slurs-skin.html#ixzz2zhK8toWN Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call


The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

Analysis by Peter Hyatt.

The techniques used here are from SCAN, Scientific Content Analysis, as developed by Avinoam Sapir. They are applied to 911 calls in the same manner in which they are applied to statements:

The expected versus the unexpected.

Place yourself in the position of the caller, with the presupposition of innocence; that is, no involvement, nor guilty knowledge of what happened.

This is an emergency.

We expect to hear the information that best helps the victim, and not about the caller. We expect a rush to give the information; therefore, we do not expect to hear a "greeting" or any attempt to be 'friendly' to the police. This is an emergency with all expectations of an emergency in place.

We listen for the "expected", but when we are confronted by that which we did not expect, we apply analysis. This is what it means to have the "Expected Versus the Unexpected" in analysis.

Katelyn Markham was reported missing by her fiance, John Carter. The following is his 911 call with analysis. John Carter: Hi, my name is John Carter, I am calling - I know that you're not supposed to report a missing person after - before 24 hours, but my fiancee is missing, I can't find her anywhere.

1. "hi" Please note the that call begins with a greeting.

In Analysis, we deal with the unexpected.

Put yourself in the caller's shoes and presuppose innocence. Would you begin with a greeting as such? This is not expected in an emergency. It may be an attempt by the caller to be in a 'friendly' position with law enforcement.

If your fiancé was missing:

You would be upset, fearful, that your fiancé is in danger. Let's note some of the red flags in the call:

2. Note the Incomplete Social Introduction.

Please note that there is no use of her name indicating a problem in the relationship. He says "my fiance" without using her name. We expect him to be frantic, not casually, meaning that his words will be in a 'hurry' to get to the specific issues. Instead, it begins with a casual greeting and here he does not give Katelyn's name.

This may be considered a form of distancing language, and an ISI (Incomplete Social Introduction) indicating possible difficulty in the relationship. The analyst should now question if there was a problem in the relationship that is related to Katelyn's disappearance.

3. "I can't find her anywhere" should lead to the question, "Where, specifically, have you been looking for her?"

911 Dispatcher: Okay, where'd you see her last?

J: Um, I saw her at like 12 o' clock last night. She stays in a house by herself, um, so, she - I'm just, I'm really nervous. Her car's still there, her purse is still -

Note "um" is a pause to think, indicating sensitivity. Why the need to pause to think? He was asked a direct question: Where did you see her last? He was not asked, what time, nor where she stays, nor about his own emotional state. He was asked to tell police where he had seen her last.

In his answer, he avoided saying where he saw her. The location of where he saw her, therefore, is to be considered very sensitive to John Carter.

"She stays" is present tense. This is outside the boundary of the question, "where did you last see her?" He avoided answering the question, instead choosing to report where she normally is. This is a strong indication that she was somewhere else when he last saw her.

Note that "so" is highlighted as very sensitive since it shows a need to explain ("so, since, therefore, because, to...") Yet, he broke his sentence (self censoring) so we do not know what explanation he was going to give. There should be no need to explain why his emotional state would be such. This then suggests that the emotions may be in question:

Is he nervous for her, or is he nervous for himself?

"I saw her at like 12' o' clock last night" is only slightly weakened by "like"; investigators should focus upon this time period as it is introduced by the subject along with the pronoun "I" and the past tense verb "saw" connecting him to her at this time. This time period is likely very important to the story. It sometime near midnight, is likely truthful.

Please note the phrase, "I'm really nervous"; not just "nervous" but "really" nervous. This is a focus upon the caller himself, not the victim. Innocent callers focus upon the victim and ask for help, specifically, for the victim. This is a focus upon himself. We have already seen that.

The focus is upon the caller, not the victim. He is the one who is "really nervous" but she is the one alleged to be missing. Note also the context of being really nervous: it is around midnight and he reports she is alone. This is suspicious.

D: Is there an address?

J: Yeah, 5214 Dorshire Drive.

D: 5214?

J: Dorshire, yes.

D: Okay. And you're out there now?

J: Um, I'm heading out there now, I, like, have been trying to get ahold of her and I decided to go by her house to see if she's okay, and her car's still there - she would be at work right now with her car. Which is why I'm like really freaking out.

1. Note that the question, "you're there now?" is sensitive to John Carter who did not say "no", but avoiding answering it directly.

2. He is only going to "go by her house" and reports being in transit, rather than simply stating he is going there.

3. "to see" is the same as "because", indicating the need to tell why he is doing something rather than report what he is doing.

4. "and her car's still there"; is he there now, and can see that her car is still there, or is he just "heading out there" now?

5. "I'm like really freaking out" now uses two words to modify "freaking out", making it very sensitive. This should question if he really is "freaking out". Again, note focus upon himself and his wellbeing.

6. She "would" be at work right now instead of she "should" be at work

.

7. Note the inclusion of "decided" to...What made him "decide" to? Why the need to add this?

Has he "like trying to get a hold of her" or has he "searched everywhere" for her?

D: What's her name?

He had to be asked before he gave her name. This is indicative of something amiss in the relationship. Police should seek to learn if they fought this night. Were there any ongoing disagreements between them? Were there tough issues in what otherwise may have been a functional relationship?

J: Katelyn Helene Markham.

full name given, which is appropriate.

We look to see what he calls her next:

D: Have you called the hospitals or jails or anything?

J: Um -

D: Where was she at midnight last night when you last saw her?

J: She was at her house. She was going to bed. She wasn't going out to do anything, so she would've been in her bed. And I mean, I've been with her for 6 years - she's not deceiving, you know, she doesn't -

He did not use Katelyn's name here.

1. She was at her house.

2. She was going to bed.

These are two things he states and it is likely true. He has brought us to a very critical point of the night she went missing. He should continue to tell us what was happening, or about to happen. She was at her house and was going to go to bed when something happened. Now notice the sequence is broken:

"She wasn't going out to do anything"

What someone tells us in the negative is important information. Here he has three things to tell us what she was not doing: not going out "to do anything"; not deceiving, and doesn't, but stops himself or is interrupted.

He not only tells us that she wasn't going out, but adds "to do anything." This is critical.

Police need to learn what he does when he goes out at night.

Did she refuse to go out?

He has known her 6 years. He does not say she went to bed, or was in her bed.

D: Okay, and you guys didn't have an argument or anything?

This is a "yes or no" question.

J: Not at all.

"Not at all" is not the simple "no" and should lead to follow up questions such as, "What did you discuss last night?"

This is an indication that they had an argument.

D: Okay. Is she on any medications or anything?

J: Not at all.

He now repeats his previous denial. Repetition becomes weaker as it goes on, because it gets easier and easier (less stressful) to use. She may not have been on any meds but she may have been on "anything", such as marijuana. Compound questions are always to be avoided as they let the subject pick and choose, by concentrating on one aspect over the other, reducing stress over deception.

D: Has she had thoughts of suicide or anything like that?

J: No. Never. I... never.

Broken sentence means missing information. This is self-censoring.

He begins with a strong, "no", but weakens it with "never"; but then makes this about himself with "I"

Why would her suicide thoughts be linked to him? What was he going to say?

This is concerning.

He still does not use Katelyn's name yet, nor express concern about what state she may be in. We expect to hear concern for the victim and not the caller.

D: All right. And have you talked to her mom or anybody like that, to see if maybe she's out shopping, or - ?

J: I called her father. The only thing that's not there is her cell phone, which is positive, but she's not answering it. So... and the Sacred Heart Festival is going on right up the street, and there's a lot of questionable people there, and it's just kind of. I'm sorry.

The question is answered, but then he goes beyond the question to talk about the Festival, casting suspicion towards those at it.

This is important: he was asked if he spoke to Kaitlyn's mother, instead, he introduces the "cell phone" in the negative (that's not there). Does this mean he searched the apartment and knew that everything else she owns was there except her cell phone?

The cell phone can 'ping' to locations.

Often the addition of "phone" connects a perpetrator to a crime.

Note "I'm sorry" is often found in the language of the guilty, no matter what its usage is. See Casey Anthony. It is a red flag for possible guilt.

We look to see if the words "I'm sorry" enter the vocabulary of the caller for any reason as it is a red flag, as it is not expected. This may be an example of guilt leaking out. We look for its inclusion for any reason, even as if used as 'pardon me' type of pause.

He has not used her name yet.

D: Okay, well, we'll go ahead and have somebody meet you there. What kind of vehicle are you going to be in?

J: A 2008 Ford Docus. It's red.

D: Okay, we'll have somebody come out and speak with you, okay?

J: Okay, thank you.

D: Mmmhmm. Bye.

J: Okay. Bye.

He did not use her name except to give the full, formal name. This, itself should be considered distancing language. Why would he distance himself from his fiance? It is concerning.

Analysis Conclusion:

The caller has not told all that he knows about what happened to Katelyn Markham.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/katelyn-markham-analysis-of-911-call.html