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