911 Call Faith Hedgepeth Murder 2012

911 Call Faith Hedgepeth Murder 2012

911 Call Faith Hedgepeth Murder 2012



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




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

September 7, 2012 11:01:44 AM

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

D: Durham 911, where is your emergency?
The question is the location.
K: Hi. Um I just walked into my apartment and my friend is just like (unintelligible) unconscious.
The first thing one says is important as it sets priority. Whether or not the question is understood, this is still the very first thing the caller needs police to know: she was not in her apartment.
If she did, in fact, hear the question about location, the priority of 'not being here' is further strengthened and should be seen as 'sensitive', no different than avoidance of a question.
The question is not answered but the emergency is given. Why is the question about location not answered? We let the subject guide us.
We note the order:
1. I just walked into my apartment;
2. My friend is just like...unconscious
What we first note besides the unanswered question regarding the location (which is needed to help the victim) is that the caller's priority is that she not be held responsible for what happened: she just walked into her apartment.
This is to establish an alibi and is not expected in the 911 call. We expect to hear the caller (subject) to ask for help specifically for the victim.
Please note she calls her "my friend" which is an incomplete social introduction. She should give her friend's name, though the distance without the name is not acute. A complete social introduction, even in 'excited utterance' is expected; even if it is broken into two parts, as the subject should be in a hurry.
"Hurrying" in 911 calls.
Expected: The subject is in a hurry to save the victim's life
Unexpected: The subject feels a need to portray herself as in a hurry.
Why is it "my" apartment? Is this a roommate calling and if so, it should be "our" apartment. Here, the caller takes ownership of the apartment. If it was her apartment, "my" is the expected. If it was shared with the victim, "our" is expected.
That it was "my apartment" and not "ours" is appropriate if the victim was only staying there temporarily, and had only been there a short time.

D: OK. What is your address ma’am?
"Ok" is to establish, "I heard you. I heard that you were not home. Now please answer my question..."
Even without training, the 'sense' or 'feel' remains the same.
In each interview, the Interviewer is generally given one of two impressions:
The subject is working with him to facilitate the flow of information or
The subject is not.
This is in all types of interviewing, including Analytical Interviewing, journalism, investigatory, and so on. The simply responded, "okay", or 'agreed', recognizes intuitively the priority of the caller.
People will respond, back and forth, to each others' pronoun usage. This is called "reflected" or "parroted" language. It is why interviewers, including 911 operators, journalists, and anyone interested in obtaining information must limit his own words to allow the subject to enter into the Free Editing Process, in which they are going into their own dictionary, and not borrowing another's.
Married couples together for a significant amount of time eventually will give indication of sharing a dictionary. This is what we call, "entering into" the language of another.

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

D: Give me the address
The address has not been given. This is no longer a question but in the imperative. The 911 operator appears to intuitively sense that the flow of information is not as expected. This is where the 'confrontation' takes place, even for the untrained.
The 911 operator is not hearing what was expected. What has caused this delay?
We look for the subject to guide us with her own words:

K: I just moved here, I’m gonna have to get it. (Pause) Oh my God. It’s um 5-6-3-9 Old Chapel Hill Road in Durham.
This tells us the sensitivity of the address. This is therefore a concern that is now answered.
Here, the subject tells us why the address was not given: "I just moved here."
Divinity noted.
In Statement Analysis, any use of divinity is to be considered a sensitivity indicator and is statistically linked with deception. It is not conclusive.
Please remember: we do not discern deception under a microscope. We look at various signals of sensitivity which can be in many 911 calls but it is only when the culmination of signals is viewed as 'one' overall statement, that we may draw a conclusion. Divinity is considered a 'light' red flag to be noted.
D: ok, repeat it to me so I make sure I got it correct

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

D: ok, you say your friend is unconscious?

K: She’s unconscious. I just walked in the apartment and there (possible redacted section?)…it looks like there is blood everywhere (unintelligible)
There is repetition of "I just walked in the apartment" making it sensitive. This is established as a priority above seeking help for her friend.
The first words to the 911 operator established the caller's alibi. This came before the victim's state.
This leads us to questions:
Q. Does the caller fear being blamed? If so, why?
Q. Does the caller have a need to tell police that she was not there when whatever happened to Faith took place?
A. Yes. It was not only a priority, but it was repeated.
The roommate would have to be investigated regardless, but the investigation should also consider if the roommate had any knowledge about what happened to Faith prior to making the call.

Blood
Note the lack of commitment of saying that there is a lot of blood in "it looks like..." which is to reduce commitment to the obvious.
D: Ok listen to me, listen to me. Somebody’s already sending the ambulance. OK? I need to get some information from you and I’m gonna help, I’m gonna tell you how to help her, ok?
The sensitive repetition of "listen to me" signals that what is about to follow is very important and will require concentration on the part of the caller.
We note that the caller has not asked for help for the victim.
Question: Does the caller not believe the victim needs help any longer?
K: ok
D: ok, how old is she?
K: she’s 19….
Verb tense parroted.
D: ok

K: I don’t know…I don’t want to touch her but….
It is likely that the caller knows that the vital medical information that is about to be given to her is direction of first aid application. The caller refutes her own negative, which may suggest:
She is reluctant to apply first aid but will do so to follow directions.
We have asked: Does the caller know the victim is beyond first aid?
The assertion, "I don't want to touch her but..." is consistent with death. People do not like to touch dead bodies. (See Billie Jean Dunn's statement about "seeing" what "looked like" her daughter, but "I did not touch her" in analysis and in upcoming new release on the murder of Hailey Dunn.
D: Listen to me, is she breathing?
K: I don’t know
This is not a credible response. This is instinctively found in the language of the 911 operator who then gives her the imperative of what she "needs" to do.
Recall: the speed of transmission. This lack of commitment is noted by the Dispatcher who then changes language to increase authority:

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

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

D: Ok listen to me

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

K: I don’t know what happened
This is a very concerning statement. She was not asked if she knew what happened but has offered this in the negative. It is, in wording, strong, but it is not in result of a direct question. It is unnecessary language.
a. I was not home when this happened
b. I don't know what happened

The caller may fear being blamed.


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

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

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

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

D: Ok, alright…listen to me alright?

K: Is someone coming?

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

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

K: I don’t think so

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

K: Yes

D: Ok, listen carefully

The Dispatch operator shows doubt of the caller's ability


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

K: She’s not moving

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

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

K: Lay her flat on her back?

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

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

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

D: Listen to me, what is your name?
K: Karena. I’m sorry, I’m really (tired?) There’s blood everywhere, I don’t know where it came from

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

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

The need for First Aid is no longer on the mind of the Dispatch operator.

K: (unintelligible)….hurry

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

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

K: She’s in my bedroom.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I am

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

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

D: What is your name?

K: (Redacted?)

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

K: I’m not touching anything

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

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

D: Yes ma’am, they are on their way

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

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

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

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

D: You see the police?
K: Yes

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

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

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

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


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

911 Call and Lawyer Statement DJ Creato

911 Call and Lawyer Statement DJ Creato


From: Inquirer


The father of a 3-year-old boy whose body was found in the woods in Haddon Township last week is not a suspect, and spoke to investigators without a lawyer present, the attorney for D.J. Creato said in an interview Wednesday.

"The police have told me unequivocally that there are no suspects, that my client is not a suspect, and that they're trying to piece together what happened here," said Richard J. Fuschino Jr., a Philadelphia attorney. "And in truth my client and his family are trying to do the exact same thing."

It is interesting to note that the lawyer felt the need to add the unnecessary word, "unequivocally" to his sentence.

Also note the order of his sentences.

"The police told me that my client is not a suspect" would be a very strong statement.

Yet, it is not what he said.

"The police have told me..." instead of "the police told me", which, even in this small change in the verb status, tells us of a 'lengthening of time', which suggests that it took some time to get this information.

What does that mean?

It may be that it took quite a bit of time to get a police officer to say this.
Or, it may have taken time and more than one police officer to say this.

In any case, it is a subtle weakness which is then further weakened by that which is not necessary:

"unequivocally" means, clear, having only one meaning.

Was this part of a much more elaborate conversation?

I am now wondering: during a lengthy conversation or even multiple conversations, did, at some point, police say that his client was not a suspect in a specific allegation within the investigation?

Since, "police said my client is not a suspect" is "clear, and having only one meaning", the importing of the word "unequivocally" means that there must have been a complexity of information within the communication to which the lawyer wishes to 'boil down to a simple conclusion.'

It is not a strong statement as would have been this:

"Police said my client is not a suspect." He has indicated to us that there is more to this than his simple conclusion.



Creato, 22, reported his son, Brendan, missing in a 911 call around 6 a.m. on Oct. 13, causing residents to scour their Westmont neighborhood after police sent out an automated call to the community about the disappearance.

Three hours later, Brendan's body was discovered in the woods near South Park Drive and Cooper Street, about half a mile from his father's apartment.

An autopsy last week was unable to determine a cause of death, and authorities have stayed mostly silent about their investigation. The Camden County Prosecutor's Office said earlier this week that the state medical examiner's office has assisted.

A Creato family friend advised D.J. to hire an attorney to help him navigate through the unfamiliar legal process, not because he has anything to hide, Fuschino said.

"In any situation where you have something this complicated and involved, it is smart and good advice to have a lawyer," Fuschino said.

It sounds pretty simple. A toddler got out while his father was sleeping and was found dead, hence, "my client is not a suspect."

It is not simple, but it is complex and it is involved.

How did the boy die?
How did the boy get out?
Why did the father need to communicate, first, that he just woke up?
What is the father's history?
Has child protective services been involved?
Was the father drug tested?
Did the father polygraph?
What does the house look like?
Was the door locked as claimed?

Toddler don't "leave."

Upon discovering Brendan was missing, Creato called his mother, who lives a block away, and then 911, Fuschino said. The calls happened within minutes, he said.

In the background of the 911 call, Creato's mother, Lisa, can be heard yelling Brendan's name.

"I just woke up and he wasn't in my apartment. I don't know if he wandered out or what happened. I don't know where he is. The door was locked, I guess he unlocked it and left."

The analysis of a 911 call has no special "rules" nor any different set of applications. It simply has the same "expected versus unexpected" setting, with the reference point of the larger context:

The initial report to police about a missing child.

The is the larger, or external context, and is our reference point. We speak that which is most important to us.

For the subject, the first thing he wanted police to know is not that his child is missing, but that he just woke up, which establishes his 'innocence.'

What caused this?

It could be many different things, including a shady background where he felt that this report was clearly going to be looked at as his fault.

One thing it does not show, however, is the priority of his missing child.

Ask yourself, what would you say first?

I asked several new parents recently, from this case, without referencing it.

"Hey, role play with me, for a minute. It is 6 o'clock in the morning, you just woke up, got out of bed, and found ***** (toddler) gone. Here we go:

911, what is your emergency?"

Each parent used similar wording and each parent reported the child first. It was natural.

Granted, it is not real, therefore, there is an absence of hormonal rush, but there are lots of 911 calls as a reference point for analysis.

Recall when Haleigh Cummings, 5, went missing.

Misty Croslin, baby-sitter soon to be step mother called 911:

911: “911, what’s your emergency”

Misty Croslin: “Hi…umm…I just woke up…and our backdoor was wide open and I think…and I can’t find our daughter”

1. It is not expected that an emergency statement would begin with a greeting. See several 911 calls here, including the one made by the Falcon Lake, Texas case of David Hartley by his wife, Tiffany, who re-told the story from the re-make of the re-make of the Hollywood movie, Titanic, to describe her husband's death.

2. Order speaks to priority:

a. I just woke up
b. our backdoor was wide open
c. I can't find our daughter

3. "our" daughter shows need to share, signaling that this is either not the biological mother (it wasn't) and/or the need to share is evidenced. This need to share is not necessarily limited to biology, but is especially noteworthy when a biological parent uses it and has a profound need to share guilt and responsibility. See Deborah Bradley for example.

Would you have said, "...and he wasn't in my apartment"?

This is very unusual language.

Even if he started with "I just woke up", what would be expected?

"My son is missing!" is the number answer.
"I can't find my son!"

That he said he just woke up first, speaks to priority but to then say "he wasn't in my apartment" sounds very much like the avoidance of internal stress that comes from a direct lie:

"he wasn't in my apartment", by itself, (its form) it is very likely to prove reliable.

In fact, we learned that it was a reliable sentence.

He was not in the apartment, he was about a half mile away.

This avoids saying what circumstances caused him to not be in the apartment and it brings the focus on to at what location the child is.

It is supposed to be that the innocent caller does not know where he is.

He knows where he is not, which thus hints to us with the natural, "Well, do you know where he is?" question.

This is the language he chose to use in the call and it is not expected language.

We consider what might sound reasonable, even in a panic.

What if you had been heavily drinking and slept through his normal wake up, and felt guilty about it. What might that sound like?

"911, what is your emergency?"

"My son is missing!"

911: What happened? Where is your son?

Caller: "I don't know! I just woke up and can't find him. I looked everywhere but I can't find him."

911: Did you check outside the house?

Caller: "hell yes! I looked everywhere here. Please hurry. He is only 3 years old! It is cold outside! Last night I was drinking and overslept. Oh please hurry and find him!"

This is just speculation, but it is what most would say.



Addressing concerns that Creato sounded too calm in the call, Fuschino said the father believed Brendan was somewhere near the apartment.

By the time one calls 911, panic has set in and you, the caller know, he isn't near by.

This happened to me, in 1991.

I had 4 children, with my third, a monkey of a boy. I could not find him and ran through the house searching, and calling his name. I searched the front yard and backyard, next door, and finally, down the block in some local stores.

I came to the shocking conclusion: I must call 911.

By then, we used cordless phones and I could not find it, but looked in my young daughter's room where her crib and changing table were.

On top of her changing table, was my little boy, fast asleep.

To climb up on top of the changing table was a feat of no small measure, but he was a superb athlete and had wanted his diaper changed. He was always in a hurry, as to never miss out on playing with his brothers, so he went into the room, climbed up on the changing table (high enough for adults to comfortably change babies) but fell asleep waiting!

The panic I felt, to this day, can come back to me in a flash. By the time I knew to call 911, it was because he was gone.

That this young man called 911 confident that his son was right around the area will likely cause people to roll their eyes. It is quite a stretch.

Yet, it is his need to justify his client's voice inflection that is of concern. If he didn't cause, by negligence, for example, his son's disappearance, and police have simply said, "He is not a suspect", why the need to even explain away the criticism of his calm demeanor?

If I knew my client didn't do it, I would say "I don't know."

Truth is like this. It is strong, confident and often cares not for a need to explain.

Voice inflection.

We do not use voice inflection in our analysis. I recognize that some people are good at such things, but in terms of "knowing" truth from deception, it is not something that can be scientifically applied, case by case.

I prefer the extreme high percentages of Statement Analysis results, instead.

We use the "speed of transmission" where the brain tells the tongue which words to use in a rapid fashion, and the interruption of such, through awkward or additional wording, to signal to us that more attention is needed, to guide us. This is why "unnecessary" words are so valuable: the subject could have said the sentence without, therefore, what was it that caused the brain to signal to the tongue to add in this unnecessary word?

We know that emotion is the number one impact upon change of language.

We know that the law of economy means that shorter sentences are best, and truth is often stated with brevity since it does not require layers of proof, while one is speaking.

Sometimes employees that call out sick and are lying will not only make their voice sound sick, but give an overabundance of detail, thinking their words may be more convincing this way.

Ignoring voice inflection is important for accuracy in analysis, however, after analysis is complete, this is something that can be looked at.

For example, 7 year old Isabel Celis was reported "kidnapped" by her father, Sergio, who giggled in the 911 call and had no indication of nervousness.

Lawyer statements are always fascinating. They often reveal whether or not the lawyer believes in his client's innocence, or if he knows his client is guilty. Lawyers will even issue reliable denials when they believe their client did not commit the crime accused of.

"No one thinks at first the worst has happened," Fuschino said. "So I think it's certainly a level of concern you hear in his voice, but he's not hysterical.
"It would be rather astonishing to me," Fuschino added, "if he had any level of terror in his voice that suggested he knew more than he did."

When I was resigned to call 911, I thought that my son was missing. Missing.

Even as I type this, all these years later, with time passage and processing richly done, it still bothers me. I was about to call police because I could not find him.

D.J.'s parents, Lisa and David Creato, also have retained legal counsel to assist them during the investigative process, Philadelphia attorney William J. Brennan said.

"My clients are devastated," Brennan said in an interview. "They're in the process of attempting to bury their grandchild, and they are cooperating with law enforcement. We hope to have some answers as to how this tragedy occurred."
Funeral services for Brendan, which the family has said will be private, are scheduled Thursday at Blake-Doyle Funeral Home in Collingswood.

Remembering The Balloon Boy Hoax

Do you remember the balloon boy hoax?

Don't forget the talking heads who were becoming emotional on live TV who were certain it wasn't a hoax...who 24 hours later seemed to struggle with memory...


Does anyone remember the balloon boy hoax? These people were the central point of what "reality TV" and the lust for fame has become in our country. They pulled off this hoax in an attempt to make money from infamy, nothing more, and nothing less. They are no different than an attorney who takes a high profile case in order to make money, and is willing to lie, pervert justice, and watch a guilty murderous human being walk free, just so he can exchange publicity into money.

Some people use bad behavior to get noticed, and sadly, some find that crime pays handsomely.

Millions of people tuned in via CNN hoping and praying the little boy would be alright. Experts on television later took positions on whether or not the 911 call was legitimate, or if this was a hoax. The emotional strain upon a caring American public is beyond a price tag.

Statement Analysis gets to the truth, even if this author loses all reason when he hears a woman cry.

Below is the 911 call from a frantic mother and father trying to explain that their son has floated off in a flying saucer — one they say "emits a million volts on the outer skin" every five minutes and could electrocute their 6-year-old. Since we already know they were lying, it still remains useful for teaching the techniques, or for some, practicing the application of detecting deception. This husband and wife time are, like politicians, generous in donating sample for us.


Dispatcher: Ma'am, what's your name?
Mayumi Heene: My name is Mayumi Heene.
Dispatcher: Ok. And you're at the 5434 Fossil Ridge Drive Now?... And so it was an experimental plane?
MH: It's a flying saucer.
This indicates that discussion has already taken place. The initial contact is important for analysis: the very first words in response to "911, What is your emergency?" will put the subject into a classifiction of caller and is revelatory. Here, we do not have it.


Dispatcher: It's a flying saucer? And that's gone too, right? Is the flying saucer gone as well?
MH: Yes, um, about 20 minutes or so
It is a yes or no question but the mother gives, instead, an answer of time


Dispatcher: They've both been missing for a bout 20 minutes?
MH: Yes. Oh my God, oh my God my son!

Yes confirms what she said. They've both been missing for about 20 minutes. Note that lying is stressful and it is generally avoided whenever it can be, via missing information, dropped pronouns, avoidance and so on.


Dispatcher: Hang on just one second don't hang up, ok? Ma'am, does it have any kind of a tracking device or anything on it?
MH: No, no nothing.
Dispatcher: Ok, is it electronical?
MH: Uh, you know I needed to talk with husband. ...
note that she "needed", past tense, to talk with husband, and not, "you need" to the operator, so she could gather information. MH appears in a panic at this point and wants to bail out and let her husband take over. People say what they mean and we should not interpret, but listen. She tells us here that she should have talked to her husband; that she "needed" to talk to him.

Dispatcher: Ok I can't understand what you're saying ma'am. Does he know how to work the flying saucer?
MH: Yes. I think he's calling somebody.
Dispatcher: He's what?

Dispatch is a bit surprised and repeats back words that are sensitive, such as "flying saucer" and the fact that while making this horrific report, her husband is making a phone call.

MH: He's calling somebody.

Note that "somebody" is gender neutral.

Dispatcher: He's calling somebody?

Dispatch is surprised.

MH: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Who's calling somebody?

Dispatch is very surprised.

MH: My husband.
Dispatcher: Ok, let me talk to him.

Dispatch has had enough.

MH: Rick! He's coming over.


Dispatcher: Hello? Hello? Ma'am, did you find him?
MH: No, we haven't found him yet.
Dispatcher: Ok, where was the saucer, was it in the backyard?
Richard Heene: Uh hello?

Remember our original analysis of 911 calls, especially in emergencies: Any time a caller who should be frantic and zoned upon the safety of the person at risk uses a greeting, it should be flagged for deception. Some examples of greetings in 911 calls include Adam Baker, father of Zahra Baker, and Tiffany Hartley. People under "excited utterance" in dire need of help do not make small talk but go right for assistance for the victim. This brings up another point: assistance for the victim. Some guilty callers will ask for help, but it is not for the victim; it is for themselves. It is generally a truthful thing: they do need help. The exception is a person administering CPR or in the process of saving a life in which the caller needs help. I am aware that, thus far, Zahra Baker's father has not been charged, but he had guilty knowledge when he made that 911 call, and was deceptive in other statements. Not only did he greet the operator, but he went on to disparage Zahra, howbeit subtly, but nonetheless, guilty callers find a way to push away blame and guilt, and find a way to 'justify' their actions by blaming the victim. Even in thefts, we find insults towards the company or the person victimized.


Dispatcher: Is this Richard?
RH: Yes it is.

At this point, a parent of a missing child would likely jump right in. Recall: he wants police to think his son is flying in the air in a dangerous apparatus.
Dispatcher: Ok how long has the 6-year-old been missing?
RH: Um, just a few minutes.


note that Mother said it was 20 minutes; but to Dad, it is just a few minutes. THis is not credible given a parent's worry and high state of adrenaline alert. Perhaps this is what his wife meant when she said she needed to talk to her husband: get their stories straight. Many readers seem to pick up on this readily.

Dispatcher: Was the flying saucer in the backyard?
RH: Yes.

Note the economy of words by a father who should have been out of his mind in fear.

Dispatcher: Ok, so it obviously has electronics which he can know how to work and he gets it up off the air, off the ground?

RH: No, he doesn't know how they operate.
Note that this does not have any indicators of deception. It is likely truthful that he does not know how to operate the flying saucer the world was watching on television. Note the contraction "doesn't" rather than the emphatic "does not" (Reid) This is relaxed and highlights the truthfulness that the boy did not know how to operate it. But, here, he also uses the plural, "they" meaning more than one flying saucer when there is only one being watched via television.



Dispatcher: He does not know how to operate, so and that's gone though too, right? And you're sure that he's in that?

Here is the critical point of deception. The operator is reflecting back what is known: the boy does not know how to operate the contraption. Because of having a tough time believing these two, clarification is sought in a "yes or no" question. Yes or No questions are the easiest to lie with and so every word after "yes" or "no" becomes highly significant:

RH: Yeah, we looked everywhere and then my son just said — he's terrified — he said yeah he went inside just before it went off. Because we have it tethered it wasn't supposed to take off.

Oh, those pesky pronouns!

Pronouns (and articles) are instinctive. They are learned from our earliest days and via shear volume of use, they are spoken without thought.

"Yeah" is weaker than "yes". "Is your son on that dangerous thing so high up in the air that he could easily die?" would be answered by a father with a resounding "YES"; not a casual, "yeah". We do not need to hear his voice inflection, but the word chosen. In a "yes or no" question, he said, "yeah" and then immediately shifted to:

"we"

He is the boy's father. He is responsible. The most natural response would be "I". But, in case you struggle on this one, at least you should know that pronouns are easy to make fit when you are telling the truth. He said "we" plural, but then not plural, "my son" instead of "our son" and then went back to the "we" again. This inconsistency itself indicates deception.

Note that he did not report that his son was inside the balloon, which would be a direct lie; something rare. Instead, he uses his son's language. "Yeah, he said he went in..." but he did not say "in the saucer" or "in the balloon", and it is this type of choppy way of speaking that a liar avoids telling a direct lie. He appears to be unwilling to blame his son in full, so instead does not finish the sentence "he said he went in the flying saucer" as he likely felt the internal stress of not only lying but bringing his son into it. This is a reminder of the fiasco when he had his children on TV and tried to get them to lie; where he was outed by his own son.

Dispatcher: So was it running then?

RH: Well it doesn't run, it's filled with helium. And it operates off of a million volts to move left and right — horizontal. And we were testing it to find out what effects we could get.


Dispatcher: OK. And so it was last seen 20 minutes ago?
RH: Um, probably. I'm gonna check the time. Probably, yeah.

You or I would know how long our 6 year old is up in the air, possibly with a child, but this sentence shows the usefulness of analysis:

1. The use of "probably" shows room for doubt, therefore, sensitivity indicator.
2. Repetition of a word shows sensitivity. Note that it is the same word, showing that time frame is a topic of sensitivity for the subject, which would now cause the analyst to conclude:

First, that he said "probably" so he is not certain, but
Secondly, deception may be present since he repeated the qualifier. Next note the continued inconsistency in pronouns in his response:


Dispatcher: Ok. So there's no electronics on it, there's no tracking device, right?

RH: No, no. I don't know whether it's possible you guys could detect the electricity that it emits, but every five minutes it comes on for one minute, and uh, it emits a million volts on the outer skin. And uh, if he takes a ride in it he could get electrocuted.

Note that he should be telling the operator what he knows; not what he does not know. Here we find him seeking information, rather than giving it. At this point, the analyst may need to remind himself or herself that this is supposed to be a 911 call of an emergency, not an interview. Next note that he only offers that "if he takes a ride in it he could" get harmed by the electricity.


Dispatcher: Ok, so every five minutes it comes on for one minute and then shuts off again.
RH: Right.
Dispatcher: And it does that to charge?
RH: No, no, no, no.
Dispatcher: Ok, ok, that's ok. How big is this machine?
RH: It's 20 feet across. Are you there? It's (?) feet high.

Dispatcher: Ok. And the wind is blowing pretty good today, which direction is the wind blowing?

RH: Hold on one second. Who the hell is calling me?... It's blowing southeast. So he's headed right straight for the Loveland airport. I only hope the FAA you now was listening to me because if an aircraft hits it, I mean you know.

Statement Analysis starts off believing what the subject says. Here we learn what he hopes for: The FAA.

Most would hope for the return of the child, but he hopes the FAA is listening.

If the FAA is listening, it will be the publicity he has hoped for.

When speaking to a parent of a missing child, the word "hope" is always sensitive.


Dispatcher: So it might be headed for the Fort Collins, Loveland airport area
RH: Uh yeah, I think it's just the Loveland.
Dispatcher: Is it silver in color?
RH: Yeah, it's got aluminum foil on it, that's how it gets its charge.
Dispatcher: And its totally silver foil, right?
RH: Yes.
Dispatcher: Ok. And he has no idea how to turn it or anything is that right, no instruction has been given to him?
RH: No, no, there's no way to turn it, no.

Dispatcher: And he has no idea how to land it or anything right?

RH: No. And there's no communication — I mean it was just supposed to be in the backyard, you know?

"You know" is a habit, and it is important for an analyst to note when the habit shows itself, just as it is important to note when it does not appear. It shows an awareness of the interviewer's questioning (here, the interviewer is the dispatcher), indicating that he is aware that dispatch has been questioning the validity of this call.

Dispatcher: Ok hang on just a second don't hang up...

Dispatcher: Ok sir we've already contacted the FAA they've already been made aware of it. I'm gonna go ahead and call the Loveland airport and let them know as well, ok? Sir? Hello? Hello? Hello?
This fulfilled his "hope"



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispatcher 1: 911 What is the address of your emergency?
Dispatcher 2: Hi, this is Fort Collins with a transfer for 5434 Fossil Ridge Drive.
Dispatcher 1: OK
Dispatcher 2: Phone number is ....
Dispatcher 1: K
Dispatcher 2: This woman and her husband are pleading that their 6-year-old son had an experimental flying saucer that they built.
Dispatcher 1: Mmhmm.
Dispatcher 2: They believe that their 6-year-old son is in it and flying around. They left less than 20 minutes ago.
Dispatcher 1: OK. Thank you.
Dispatcher 2: He's on the phone with me now.
Dispatcher 1: OK, thank you. M'aam, what's your name?
Mayumi Heene: My name is Mayumi ... Mayumi Heene.
Dispatcher: And you're at the 5434 Stossel Ridge drive now?
Mayumi Heene: 5434 ... yes
Dispatcher: And it's Fossil Ridge Drive, right?
Mayumi Heene: Yes, yes.
Dispatcher: Is it Drive east or west?
Mayumi Heene: West
Dispatcher: OK. And so it was an experimental plane?
Mayumi Heene: It's a flying saucer.
Dispatcher: It's a flying saucer?
Mayumi Heene: Yes.
Dispatcher: And that's gone too, right?
Mayumi Heene: Sorry?
Dispatcher: Is the flying saucer gone as well?
Mayumi Heene: Um, like 20 minutes or something.

She needed to talk to her husband to come to an agreement about time.


Dispatcher: They've both been missing for about 20 minutes?
Mayumi Heene: Yes.
Dispatcher: OK.
Mayumi Heene: (crying) We gotta get my son!

Mothers, in particular, are instinctive protectors and the use of the word "I" shows the owning of responsibility and even when a mother is seated next to her husband, when the topic is critical, the first person singular is more likely to be used.


Dispatcher: OK. Hang on just one second. Don't hang up, OK? Just a minute.


(silence/pause)

Dispatcher: Ma'am, does it have any kind of a tracking device or anything on it?
Mayumi Heene: No, nothing.
Dispatcher: OK. Is it electronical?
Mayumi Heene: Uh, you know, you need to speak with my husband ... (unintelligible) my husband
Dispatcher: OK. I can't understand what you're saying, ma'am ... Does he know how to work the flying saucer?
Mayumi Heene: (completely unintelligible)
Dispatcher: What?
Mayumi Heene: He's calling somebody.
Dispatcher: He's calling somebody?
Mayumi Heene: Yes
Dispatcher: Who’s calling somebody?
Mayumi Heene: (completely unintelligible)
Dispatcher: Let me talk to him.
Mayumi Heene: OK.

Dispatch struggled to wonder why he was making phone calls.

This ended with his son, terribly upset being told to lie, vomiting on television and showing his father to be a liar.

How selfish must one be to put his own children through such trauma in order to gain fame? What was the final cost of search and rescue operations?

Can we put a price tag on the emotional toll of a public praying and hoping for his safe return?

Statement Analysis: 911 Call of Missing 2 Year Old

Statement Analysis: 911 Call of Missing 2 Year Old

On July 10th, 2015, this little boy went missing from camp. Here we have the 911 call from the mother, for analysis.


http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/mothers-911-phone-call-released-my-2-year-old-son-we-cant-find-him

Statement Analysis of a 911 call is no different than analysis of any other statement in that:

1. We presume innocence on the part of the caller. This is not a legal or ethical assumption, but a linguistic assumption.

2. We next use this assumption to 'enter into' or understand the language of the caller via the setting.

A little boy is missing. He is just under the age of 3.

The parents likely feel guilty about not knowing the location of their child, and they must be very nervous both for the child and for the obvious implication. In context, we note who was present, and the topographical layout of the scene; so that if it is a campsite at a lake, "water", "woods" and so on, are part of the expectation. If we find indicators of sensitivity, we look to see if these indicators of sensitivity are explained either by the subject, or by the context of the call.

3. We set up an expectation of words. What do we expect the caller (parent) to say? We may even make a written list of what we expect to hear before listening to the call, and exactly how we expect it to sound.

As we listen to what the parent says, the 'expected' words pass by us without cause for concern.

4. Should we hear what is not expected; that is, words, phrases, or information that is not something that either we, or most people, would say in this circumstance, we are 'awakened' or 'alarmed' or 'confronted' by these words and will carefully note the words and ask, "What would cause a parent of a missing child to say this?", in speculation, based upon the context.

Some points to consider about the call.

1. "What's the address of your emergency?"

The call begins with the 911 operator asking the location. The immediate address is not given but begins with a pause.

A pause is a sensitivity indictor. We now ask, "Why would the parent of a missing child need to pause in answering the question about location?"

We look to see if the answer is in the language.

In a home address, this is the expected: a direct answer will be given without pause. "1515 Mockingbird Lane" should be given without any need to think (pause). At a camp ground, or remote site, a pause to give the location is expected. A pause, such as, "hmmm" or "Uh..." or even "What is the address here?" is expected if the caller is at a remote site. It is, therefore, a sensitivity indicator that is explained in context.

"an hour?" is asked by the operator, making it sensitive. This is also explained in context: the 911 operator did not hear the answer. This is confirmed by the audio, or by the repeated number of times (in the text) that the 911 operator needed to ask questions.

2. "My two year old son, we can't find him."

a. "my" The pronoun "my" takes ownership and is the language of biological parents. It is likely that the caller is the biological mother and not a step parent.

b. "we"

3. "We can't find him" shares guilt/responsibility. This can either be the guilty feeling for him being lost, or more detailed guilt.


2. "What is he wearing?"

"He was wearing cowboy boots..."

She referenced the child in the past tense. We must consider this in context.

This tells us:

a. The mother knows or believes he is dead; or
b. The mother is thinking of what he was wearing an hour ago, specifically (since this followed after having to repeat "an hour" to the operator)
c. The mother may think the child takes off his boots, clothing, regularly
d. unknown: to be determined.

We note that the references in the past tense that point to guilty knowledge are generally about character, or life, and not about specific clothing, or having specific items with the child, such as "he had her blankie with her..." or "she had her cell phone" and so on. These refer to the specific time period last seen.

Next note that she went to him as a "person" she said, "he's got shaggy blond hair", in the present tense as part of the free editing process (she was not asked) and is within the same context.

Physical description of what one is wearing, or has with him, can be past tense, appropriately, since that is what the person saw or thought, the child had on. It is when the subject (parent) speaks of the child's character, rules for life, etc, that the past tense reference becomes a red flag.

In an attribute that is ongoing, "he's..." but only in the clothing, "he was..."; which is not a conclusive point within itself. Had she said,"he had shaggy blond hair", it would have been different.

Analysis Conclusion:

There is nothing in the 911 call to suggest guilty knowledge on the part of the mother.

911 Call Analysis: Baby Left in the Car

911 call: "I left my 1-year-old baby in my SUV by accident"



911--What is your emergency
Father: "I left, by accident, my toddler, in my SUV at North Quincy Station.
911 operator: you left what?
Father: "My little baby"
Let's analyze this.
The scenario is a baby left alone. The claim is accidental.
What is the first thing the father reports? This is a bizarre circumstance so the "expected" must be what you would report.
"I left, by accident, my toddler, in my SUV at North Quincy."

1. It begins with the pronoun "I"
2. It reports in the first sentence that a toddler has been left, that it was not intentional, and gives the location of where the toddler is, including the vehicle type and the station stop.
It is safe to conclude that this caller wants the police to know about the child.
The 911 operator is taken back, or surprised, and repeats the question about what happened back to him, with "you left what?"
The father says, "my little baby"

Please note that "toddler" is now "baby", with "toddler" being older and, perhaps, safer for the time being, but "baby" increasing risk.
Even with a short passing of time, the father knows that risk increases.
The child is not just "baby", nor even just "my" baby, but "little" baby which shows an instinctive, immediate understanding of the increase in risk. The "little baby" is helpless, even more than a toddler.
Note that in the immediate answer and the follow up answer, he uses the pronoun "my."
There is no indication of deception or guilty status in this statement, or in the follow up statement. He took ownership of not only the child, but of the action that put the child in risk.
He is telling the truth.

He gave the most amount of information in the shortest manner--remember, each 911 call is an interview.

The subject (caller) will give one of two distinct impressions:

Either the caller is doing what he can to facilitate the flow of knowledge or he is not.

In other words, he is either working with the Interviewer or he is working against the interview.

Let's compare it to Chief William McCollum's 911 call.


911: Fayette county 911, what’s the address of your emergency?

Chief: 103 Autumn Leaf.

911: What’s going on there?

Chief: Uh, gunshot wound…accidental. Need medical asap

Who is shot? Who shot whom? Where is the victim shot? Who is the victim?
Since he has given minimal answers, the 911 operator is confused:

911: OK. Where are you shot at?

Chief: What’s that?

911: Where is the person shot at?

"Person" is gender neutral. Thus far, the 911 operator does not know who has been shot

Chief: In the back.


911: Is it a male or female?

The 911 operator had to ask this. She should not have had to ask.

Chief: Female.

This is all he says.

The call went on in a dramatically minimal manner in which the caller worked against the operator.

At the time this went to news, many of you wrote in your version of the "expected" had you accidentally shot your own wife.

You, in large majority wrote that you would have said,

"I shot my wife, accidentally. She is bleeding from..." or something similar.

In McCollum's call, he never identified the victim with the words, "my", or "wife", or her name. The caller had deep anger, resentment and distancing language towards the victim.

In the 911 call of the baby, the language went from "risk" to even "higher risk" as the subject considered what he had done.
He took responsibility and gave out complete information, while McCollum played a game of "pulling teeth" to watch over his every word and say as little as possible in order to protect himself, even if it meant delay of First Aid assistance.

Statement Analysis of Lena Lunsford’s 911 Call

Lunsford is the mother of missing Aliayah Lunsford, 3, who disappeared from the Bendale area of Lewis County three years ago, on September 24, 2011. No one has been charged in the case.




Age 3, Aliayah Lunsford's mother claims that she last saw her daughter at home on September 24, 2011 around 6:30 a.m.




Statement Analysis
From the Statement Analysis blog (here)
The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call, made 11 days ago, by Lena Lunsford, reporting her 3 year old child missing.
What do we look for in 911 calls?
Besides following the principles of Statement Analysis, we specifically look for some of the following red flags in 911 calls:
Does the call begin with a greeting?
Does the caller ask for help for the victim, or for herself?
Does the caller frame the words “I’m sorry” for any reason, in the call?
Does the caller disparage, in any way, the victim?
http://wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=109368
911 What is your emergency?
My baby’s missing.
Note that this is the first thing mentioned.
What is your address?
(address) I was out looking for her for over an hour.
Note that after answering the question that she provides additional information. When an answer goes beyond the scope of the question, every word is critical. What is it that is a priority to the caller that she goes beyond the address alone?
The subject wants police to know that she has been out looking for over an hour.
Please note that she does not say “I was looking for her” but “out” looking for her for “over an hour”. This is important as it is a reference to time; as all time references are significant.
How old? I need you to calm down.
I’m sorry she’s she’s only three.
Please note “I’m sorry”has entered into the subject’s language. This is always noted no matter why the subject is using these words (see Casey Anthony’s 911 call)
When was the last time you saw him?
It’s a girl. This morning. Real early. I went in and checked on her because she’s been sick with the flu.
Note that “because” tells us why, rather than simply answering the question. This goes beyond the realm of the question of what happened and goes to why something happened. Here she says that she checked on her “real early” because she was sick. Note that she “went in” and checked on her.
Note that sick with the flu is now mentioned.
Okay is it a male or female?
It’s a Girl
Note that “it’s” is reflective language; entering into the language of the operator.
A girl?
Yes.
Ok you saw her this morning around 6:30?
Yes
That’s the last time you saw her was at 6:30 this morning?
Yes and then she laid back down and went back to sleep. And we went back to bed.
Note that she “laid back down” would indicate that she would have to be up in order to go back down.
Note that when a sentence begins with “And” the subject has missing information here.
Note that “we” went back to bed. Who is “we”? Is it she and Aliayah? Since “we” indicates unity or cooperation, was it she and her husband who went back to bed? She and another child? Who is the other part of the “we”?
Ok was the doors open or anything?
No the doors weren’t open.
Note that she uses reflective language (the language of the operator)
Were they locked?
Yes I think.
(Inuaudible) the residence?
It was difficult to hear the question but it sounded like who lives in the residence, of which the answer is important:
Me and my other kids.
She does not mention the husband or step father. This is not lost on the 911 operator who then asks:
Ok do you live with her father?
No.
Note that other questions she answers but then adds information. Note here regarding who else resides there that she does not give additional information and is not bringing up her husband’s name.
Who is her father?
Her father is a guy named Eric Harris. He doesn’t even know that she exists.
Note that she references the father (male) as a “guy”
Ok and you’ve been looking for her for the past hour?
Yes I’ve looked everywhere (inaudible)
This is concerning.
First, “I’ve looked” is first person singular, but then she says,
“everywhere”. When someone says that they have looked “everywhere” they have no other places to search. This is akin to saying, “I’ve told you everything” therefore, there is nothing more to say. When someone says “I have looked everywhere” they are saying that there are no more places to look, a strong indication that she has no places to search; hence, out of hope.
What was she wearing when you put her back in bed?
She had a little pair of purple Dora pj’s. We went up all these streets. We went up all these streets.
The pronoun is changed to plural, “we”; which is repeated. If she is now speaking of herself and her children, please note that it is repeated:
this is sensitive.
She did not say that they searched for her; only that “we went up” these streets. If she does not tell us that they went up searching, we cannot say that they were searching. This correlates to what the lawyer said: children asked him for gas; and it fits what another neighbor said: he was out at his truck all morning and no one was searching, nor asking him if he had seen Aliayah.
If she went “up” by herself without the children, the change in pronoun is deceptive.
Also, that she went “up” ; something that is repeated. Does this mean that she went up, and that she did not find Aliayah, that Aliayah is “down” somewhere?
Have you been outside checking the area?
Please note that she checked “everywhere” but the operator asks this question anyway.
Yes I’ve drove up all the streets around here looking thinking that maybe she went outside or something. And I don’t think my mom would have came and got her because she’d have woke me up and stuff.
1. Please note that she uses for the third time the word “up” where Aliayah is not found. This may indicate that Aliayah will be found “down” somewhere; down in water, buried in a grave, et.c.
2. “all” the streets; with the same meaning at looking “everywhere”. All the streets “around here” have been looked so even though she has been thorough, she has not been located.
3. Note the inclusion of her thinking, even though it wasn’t ‘correct’ thinking.
4. Note the inclusion of “or something” which strongly indicates that Aliayah went out “or something”; what is the choice? It is she went outside “or” something else happened to her. She is giving police a choice. If she went out, we won’t find her because she has searched “everywhere” and on all the “streets around here” where Aliayah, “only three”could have gone. But since she didn’t, we then must conclude “or something” took place with Aliayah that Lena knows and is not sharing. This sentence is an indiction that Lena Lunsford is deceptively withholding information and would like to limit the searching. She does not want someone else to find Aliayah.
5. Lena introduces, with the word “And” to start the sentence (missing info) her “mom” to the operator. Her mom is significant to Lena and her mother should be carefully interviewed. Please also note that she tells us “because” which explains why something, rather than report what happened. Her mother would have wakened her “and stuff”; what stuff? Police should seek to learn if there has been any arguments, specifically about child care, between Lena and her own mother. What other “stuff” would the mother have done, besides woken Lena up?
Ok have you called your mother?
No I need to do that.
Did the operator just give Lena the idea that she should have called her mother? Now she “needs” to do it.
Please note that she allegedly drove around for an hour and did not call her mother. If she was searching for her child, would she not, after the first few minutes, called her mother? Why would she think that her mother could have had Aliayah ? Is this the type of family that takes a 3 year old without notice? How could a three year old leave without it being known?
This appears contrived and false.
Do you have a phone number for her?
Yes its (number).
What is her name?
Joanne Evans.
Joanne Evans?
Yes
Do you want to just call her real quick and call me right back so I know what’s going on ok?
This is unusual and may indicate that the 911 operator did not entirely trust the caller and wanted her to check with her mother. Better would have been to keep Lena on the line, give pauses to allow Lena to choose her own words, while the police were en route to the home. But it does not answer the question as to why she would need to call her mother when she was out searching “everywhere” (everywhere but…her mothers? everywhere, but…”down” where Aliayah can be located?)
Ok
911 what is your emergency?
This is Lena Lunsford my mom doesn’t have her.
ok
She doesn’t have her she’s coming now. Oh my god.
You don’t know of any place she would have went there in the community? Is there a friend’s house nearby or somebody that she plays with?
No (crying)
Ok. Is there any place there in the community, a playground, or does she go to church anywhere there?
No. (crying) Help me find her.
The caller specifies her request for help: “help me find her”
I have an officer on the way mam, I need you to calm down ok. You’ve looked everywhere in the house
Yes
All the closets, under everything? Under every beds
yes
Do you have a basement?
Yes
Its been checked too.
The passive language here suggests deception. It is likely that if police asked the children if they searched the basement, they would tell the police that they did not. Passive language is used to conceal identity often, or when a subject does not want to own a statement with the pronoun, “I” such as “I checked the basement too” especially since she said “I” previously, but then also said “we” drove up the streets…
Ok how about the vehicles outside?
Its been checked that’s what I used to go look for her.
She reported driving around for about an hour looking for her.
And you said that there’s other children in the residence?
Yes. (Noises)
Is she old enough where she would be able to reach the door handle?
Yes she is.
Oh my god. Here, please play with your brother for a minute. (talking to child)
What color is her hair?
She has brown hair and brown eyes.
Here the subject gives the additional info of the color of her eyes which would have been asked next. Was this rehearsed?
Do you know how much she weighs?
She weighs approximately 32 to 35 pounds.
Maybe a little more.
Ok. Do you know how tall she is?
Um I’m guessing around three feet I’m, I’m not for sure right now I’m sorry.
Please note that this is the 2nd time she has said “I’m sorry” to a 911 operator.
That’s ok. Was there anybody else in the residence with you this morning, any other adults?
No, umm the only adult that
The tape cut out here.
Other children in the residence?
Umm I have five kids.
OK so there’s 4 others in the residence?
There’s three right now.
Ok. Where is the other one?
My son is at visitation with his father.
Note: he is not visiting with his father, but “at visitation” suggests court ordered or supervised.
Ok. So you got up at 6:30 this morning with her?
Yes she got sick. Yes
This should be considered sensitive; via repetition and that the time frame is mentioned and she repeats about being sick. That the child was sick may prove vital in the investigation.
She went back to bed, went back to sleep and you laid down on
Yes
How old are your other children that are in
Ok did any of them see her this morning? What time did they get up?
The compound question is to be avoided.
They came in here umm, I’m not sure maybe around 7, 7:30, came in my room with me.
Please notice that the additional qualifiers are found when asked about timeframe.
“I’m not sure” is a qualifier
“maybe” is a qualifer
“around” is a qualifier, equally three in one sentence to this point, but then she says “7, 7″30,
which is the fourth. Investigators assuming that this is sensitive and deceptive would be correct. Overall, her time frames are sensitive and she does not appear truthful about them.
Ok you said 11 year old 9year old and 8 mos?
Yes
Ok can you look outside and see the officer?
Yes Inaudible Oh God.
In the front. Oh my god. Yes I see one out here.
Please note that in these two calls, she appeared to avoid talking about her husband, Aliayah’s step father. Statement Analysis means not only looking at the words chosen, but what is missing.
It can be assumed that the following are sensitive to Lena Lunsford:
Time Frame
Actual Searching
“Up” versus “down”
Her husband; Aliayah’s step father
It appears that she does not want them looking for Aliayah, as she has already told them that she has searched “everywhere” and that being only 3, she could not have walked far, but “we” have been “up” all the streets in the area.
It should be noted that twice she formed the words “I’m sorry” in this call. This is often an indicator of a form of regret; for some, they are sorry for what they have done (or failed to do) and for others, they are sorry for being caught.
It is likely that Lena Lunsford knows more than what she has said to police and may be directly involved, or may be covering up for someone else, including her husband. Careful interviewing and polygraphs should be conducted also with the grandmother, and from other statements, the aunt.
Others will weigh in on the crying; those trained in voice recognition, for example; though at times, to my untrained ear, the crying sounded contrived and forced.

911 Call Analysis Conclusion

Lena Lunsford is being deceptive by withholding information, and the searching, timeline and topic of her husband should all be considered sensitive areas for her.

Statement Analysis: Indiana State Trooper David Camm 911 Call

Statement Analysis: Indiana State Trooper David Camm 911 Call



While in training this week, someone wisely asked,

"When you talk about a Reliable Denial and someone says 'I didn't do it', is the pronoun "it" acceptable?"

This was an astute question and showed the subject was paying attention. The answer is, "no", it is not reliable.

The Reliable Denial must have three components. Two, or Four, for example, are not reliable.

I. The Pronoun "I"
II. The past tense "did not", or casual "didn't" (we do not differentiate though Reid does)
III. The specific allegation addressed.


"I didn't do it" or "I didn't do this"

911 calls of Camm family murders released. John posted this for analysis...thank you, John.

Eyewitness News is hearing the first call for help made by a former state trooper after finding his wife and children murdered.

David Camm was acquitted last month in the murders after spending 13 years in prison. Camm made a frantic call to the Indiana State Police to report the murders.

Listen to the 911 call here. (Warning - this audio file may be distressing to some listeners.)

Dispatch: Indiana police radio, Patrice. Can I help you?

David Camm: Patrice, it's Dave Camm. Let me talk to Post Command right now.

Note that he did not ask for assistance for the victims, instead, asserting himself as one of authority. This is high minded. Him talking to Post Command is his priority; not the victims.

Dispatch: Okay, he's on another line.

David Camm: Right now (shouting). Let me talk to Post Command.

He still avoids asking for help. Instead, the high mindedness is confirmed. This should cause investigators to consider if he is a controlling aggressor.

Dispatch: Hold on.

Post Command: Dave?

David Camm: Get everybody out here to my house now!

He does not ask for help for the victims; he demands, on his own authority, not upon the condition of the victims. He has still avoided telling them why.

This speaks to his priority.

Post Command: Okay. All right.

David Camm: My wife and my kids are dead. Get everybody out here to my house.

If they are beyond help, what is the urgency? Note he continues to issue orders.

Post Command: Okay, David. We got people on the way, okay?

David Camm: Get everybody out here.

He wants "everybody" out there, but does not say why.

Post Command: Everything's gonna be okay.

David Camm: Everything's not okay! Get everybody out here now! (shouting)

The repetition and unusual wording should cause investigators to consider that this is scripted.

Post Command: Go to David Camm's house now. Do you know what happened, David?

Note the yes or no question is easy to lie to. We then note every word that comes after the denial:

David Camm: No. They're dead. I just got home from playing basketball....Oh, my God. What am I gonna do? Get everybody out here! (crying)

" No " is his answer. "Basketball" is very important.

After the word "no":

1. They're dead.
2. I just got home
3. I was playing basketball. This is utterly unnecessary as to what he was doing, therefore it is critical information. This is alibi building.

4. Divinity invoked
5. Open questions within a statement (rhetorical). Note that the question is not about the victims, but about himself.
6. Back to being in charge and ordering others.

this element of control may be scripted, but it also may be a window into his personality.

Note that there is no concern as to a killer on the loose.
Note there is no concern for justice for his family.
His concern is for him, and what he will do. This is too soon for him to process, regarding his own life. He has already accepted that he will be without his wife and children and wondering what he will do.

As to the immediate finding of his now dead family: it is artificial and too soon as the grieving process takes time.
Post Command: David, they're on their way right now, okay? I've got everybody coming. Listen, I'm gonna let you talk to Patrice. I've got people coming.

David Camm: I've gotta get across the street. I've gotta get some help. I've gotta go across to my parents' house.

Note the truthful words: he is the one in need of help. This call is about him.
Again, no mention of the danger of a killer on the loose.
Post Command: David, do you need an ambulance?

David Camm: I've gotta go!

Dispatch: Dave? He hung up.

The 911 call avoids all responsibility and concern. He sounds controlling.

Police found a horrific crime scene. Camm's wife and son on the garage floor, his daughter still in the family SUV, all shot to death. Bullet holes could be seen throughout the vehicle.

Camm, who resigned from the Indiana State Police just four months before the killing was now the one and only suspect.

"I cannot believe this. I cannot believe this," Camm said in an interview.

"What do you mean? You cannot believe what?" a detective asked.

"You are going to try to blame me for killing my children," Camm said. "I did not do this."

Please note that he said "killing my children" but in his denial, he avoids saying "I didn't kill my children. Follow the word "this" (closeness) and note it is what he denies rather than killing them.
Much of the evidence hinged on Camm's bloody sweatshirt. Was the blood transferred from the victims when he tried to help them or proof he was there when they were killed?

Time and again, he insisted he was innocent.

"I didn't do this. I didn't do it Mickey. I didn't do it. I didn't do it,"Camm said.

This still avoids saying, "I didn't kill Mickey."

Camm was convicted twice and successfully appealed those convictions twice. He was finally found not guilty by a Boone County jury last month.

http://www.wthr.com/story/23950005/2013/11/12/911-calls-of-camm-family-murders-released

Ryan Widmar 911 Call Analyzed

Ryan Widmar 911 Call Analyzed







The Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) system was developed by Avinoam Sapir, and it is the basis for all Statement Analysis today. Mr. Sapir's website is LSI and his work is applied to 911 calls in the same manner as it is applied to all statements. Work on 911 calls is to the credit of Mr. Sapir. Any claim to the contrary is fraudulent and is intellectual theft, whether or not the one taking credit is a trained analyst or not.


Ryan Widmer was convicted of killing his new wife. After spending 5 months in jail, he was granted a new trial after it was learned that jurors did home experiments with their own bath tubs, against the judge's order. The 2nd trial ended in a deadlocked jury, and the 3rd trial ended with a guilty verdict.

Here we view statements for truth or deception. We will look first at his 911 call, and then at his words in addressing the court after his first conviction.

We have specific guidelines to follow in 911 calls of a death in the home. The transcripts are from freeryanwidmer.com website and have commentary removed.

We have a checklist for red flags for the possibility of a guilty caller. No one single detail should make a conclusion, though some points are more weighty than others. Please see prior analysis on the 911 call of Misty Croslin, as well as "Statement Analysis 101" and "911 Calls Analyzed" links:

In addition to the points below, we follow the same principles of Statement Analysis within the language itself.

1. Does the call begin with a greeting? Given the nature of an emergency , a call that begins with "hello" or "hi" or anything similar, is a red flag that the caller is a guilty caller in a homicide.

2. Does the caller ask for specific help for the victim?

3. Does the caller say, at anytime, for any reason, "I'm sorry"

4. Order shows priority. What is the priority of the caller?

5. Does the caller ask for help for himself or herself instead of the victim?

6. Does the caller disparage the victim, even in a subtle manner?

7. Does the caller attempt to build an alibi anywhere in the call?

8. Does the caller seek to explain 'why' something has happened when he/she should be reporting what happened?



Dispatcher: 911 What is your emergency?

This question is open ended, and is the most important question for analysis. The answer is often telling.
Ryan:

"My wife fell asleep in the bathtub and I think she's dead"

Please note that this is a conclusion and not a sentence asking for help, such as, "my wife is unconscious". Here, the caller gives his opinion on what happened to her rather than simply call for assistance. How does Ryan know that his wife fell asleep? How does he know she did not pass out, or simply report it as being unconscious or a mystery?

Note the order as order shows priority.

1. Wife fell asleep
2. I think she is dead

We look for a request for specific assistance by the caller.


Dispatcher: What's the address?

Ryan: 5250 Crested Owl Court Morrow, OH

Dispatcher: Okay I need you to calm down for me..I can't understand the address, what was it?

Please note: we do not analyze Ryan Widmar, nor his voice inflection, nor his emotions. For the Statement Analyst, the "subject is dead" to us, while his statement is "alive" to us. I recognize that this principle is difficult to follow at times, but it is the words by which we learn the truth. There are many sociopaths who are amazing in their ability to cry, or carry on emotionally.

I write this but recognize how inflammatory the laughing of Sergio Celis was on his 911 call reporting a "missing person", his 7 year old daughter, Isabel.

Still, the principle should be followed. Listen to his words, not how he delivers them.

Body language and voice analysis have their places, but this is for analysis only of the words used.
Ryan: 5250 Crested Owl Court

Dispatcher: 5250 Crested Owl? in Hamilton Township?

Ryan: Yes, Morrow, Ohio

Dispatcher: Now what's going on?

Ryan: "She fell asleep in the bathtub I think....I was downstairs, I just came up here and she was laying face down in the bathtub.

Note next that he repeats that she fell asleep rather than anything else, including passed out, or just that she is unconscious and it remains a mystery.

Note the order which shows priority:

1. She fell asleep rather than she is not breathing, etc.
2. I was downstairs
3. I just came up here" is an unnecessary connection, which is extremely sensitive.
4. She was lying facedown in the bathtub.

Note the importance of speaking of where he was; his location.

Recall: excited utterance and in this, he has the need to tell the operator his location. This is sensitive and critical

Regarding an "unnecessary connection", the teaching is that this is an indication of sensitivity and likely of missing information. Here is an example:

"I was in the bathroom. I left the bathroom and went to the kitchen" is an example of an unnecessary connection. In order to go from the bathroom to the kitchen, one must leave. There is no apparent reason to say this. By adding in these words, it is an indication that it is of such importance to the subject that he is leaving out what happened between the leaving of one room and the entering of another. Crimes have been solved by this single principle and it is where investigators focus their questions. It is unnecessary to add in that one "left".

In the 911 call, the words "I just came up here" are highly sensitive and is an indication that something happened that is not included here.

Note here he adds "I think" which was not part of "she fell asleep" when he first called. "I think" reduces commitment.
Dispatcher: In the water?

Ryan: Yes

Dispatcher: How old is she?

Ryan: She's 24

Dispatcher: And she's in the bathtub?

Ryan: Yes, she's in....the water's draining right now....I tried to do everything I could I..... (1:00)

Note that a sentence that is broken is an indication of missing information.

Note the topic of the water draining out is important enough to the subject to tell the 911 operator.
Note that "tried" in the past tense, often indicates attempt and failure.
Why the need at the 1:00 mark to report "the water's draining"?

Please note "the water's draining" is passive. He did not say "I am draining the water".
Dispatcher: Have you taken her out of the water now?

RYan: Yes the water's completely drained but she's just laying here unconscious....

Please note that the question is answered with "yes" (he took her out) but then offers the additional information, seconds later, that the water is "completely" drained out. Why the need to report about the lack of water? How could the water go from draining to completely drained in a matter of seconds?

Note that he uses the body posture in his response. She would not be expected to be anything other than laying.
Dispatcher: So she's still in the bathtub?

Ryan: Yes, Yes,

If you found your unconscious wife in the bathtub, would you leave her in it? Please note the time pace.
Dispatcher: Okay Okay. So...what...you drained the water out of the tub? (1:15)

Ryan: Yes

Dispatcher: How long was she in the bathtub? (1:23)

Ryan: I....I...I have....15 minutes to a half hour...somewhere in there...I was downstairs watching TV...she falls asleep in the tub all the time but....

Repeated stuttering on the pronoun "I" is a signal of anxiety if the subject is not a stutterer. By his other words, he does not appear to be a stutterer.

Please note that "she falls asleep in the tub all the time" may be a slight disparagement or explanation rather than a cry for help.
Dispatcher: And how are you related to her? uh...Are you her mother?....er

Ryan: I'm her...I'm her husband...

Dispatcher: Husband?

Ryan: Yes

Dispatcher: What's your name?

Ryan: Ryan Widmer

Dispatcher: Spell that last name for me Ryan

Ryan: W-I-D-M-E-R

Dispatcher: Have you tried CPR?

Ryan: Yes....as much as I could....what little bit I know..

Please note that "as much as I could" signals that he was limited in what CPR he could do. This could be due to anything from limitation by knowledge, or limited by his goal of homicide. Here, he explains why he was limited. Please note that this is similar to "so, since, therefore, because" as a reason to explain why, rather than report what has happened. "...what little bit I know" explains why, making CPR sensitive.
Ryan: Is somebody coming? (2:23)

We note that this is not a call for specific help for the victim.
Dispatcher: Yeah, they're on the way Ryan...There's no way you can get her out of the bathtub?

Ryan: I can try but I have to set the phone down..

Dispatcher: Go and get her out of the bathtub and get her on a flat surface.

It is difficult to think that a young husband would allow his seemingly dead wife remaining in the bathtub and would need the 911 operator to instruct him to take her out.
Ryan: Okay, Okay.....I'm dropping the phone (Sound of phone being put down) (2:39)


Ryan: She's on a flat surface.

(3:10)

Dispatcher: What's that?

Ryan: She's on a flat surface....

She's on a "flat surface" is reflective language, which is expected.
Dispatcher: Okay, go ahead and get back to doing CPR....try to do CPR They'll be there in a little bit, okay?

Ryan: K

Dispatcher: Is your....is your doors unlocked?

Ryan: No

Dispatcher: Are you using....Okay Run and unlock the doors so when they....they can get in....when they come back

Ryan: okay they're unlocked now..

Dispatcher: Okay

Ryan: We're.....I'm upstairs..

This is a broken sentence and means that there is missing information. Initially Ryan intends to report where he and his wife are, then changes his speech to reflect that he is upstairs.
Dispatcher: You're upstairs? (3:39)

Ryan: Yeah

Dispatcher: You have more than one bathroom in the house?....er

Ryan: No, there's two but the upstairs is the only one with a bathtub
(4:02)
Dispatcher: Ry...Ryan put the phone down and try CPR for me?

Ryan: Okay....Come on baby...come on.....

"baby" is a term of endearment


(4:27)


Silence.....

Tape ends 5:52

Ryan's cell phone shows call was almost 7 minutes before his cell phone hung up

There are enough red flags in this call that indicate that he withheld critical information in the call. The red flags in the call indicate that an investigation was warranted.

Next: Ryan Widmer addresses the court after the initial guilty verdict.