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.
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.
Statement Analysis of 911 Call of Police Chief William McCollum Shooting Wife
Police Chief shoots wife 911 call has now been released.
In Statement Analysis, we view the Expected versus the Unexpected in 911 calls. In a domestic shooting, how the caller relates to the victim is critically important. He will either show a good relationship in the call, or he will show a troubled relationship.
Presuppositional Thinking in Statement Analysis means going word by word, first, presuming innocence (de facto innocence, not judicial), seeing if the language "fits" or is appropriate.
Then, re-do the analysis presupposing that the caller has had a domestic dispute with his wife and see if the language is fitting with this presupposition.
The Expected Versus The Unexpected.
We set up what we expect to hear from an innocent caller, who's wife has now accidentally been shot. What do we expect to hear, in such a case as this?
It is expected that the caller will:
a. ask for help for the victim, specifically for the victim; not in general, and not for himself.
b. show concern for the victim not for the caller himself. His wife is, perhaps, mortally wounded, and we expect to hear him care only for her.
c. use direct language befitting an emergency not staged language for the recording. This should sound like "excited utterance" and be helpful.
Given that he is law enforcement, we expect him to not only answer the questions, but to offer relevant information to the operator.
Remember, this is an Interview. The 911 operator is asking questions because she needs information.
In every interview, there is an impression:
Either the subject is working with the Interviewer to get the information, or the subject is showing resistance or reluctance, to impede the flow of information. This also can be where the subject impedes information by using tangents or avoidance.
d. Passive Language: passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility In an accidental shooting, it would be expected about the gun going off, but nothing else. If there is passivity, it must be noted. The passivity should not be coupled with distancing language, since passivity already shows distance.
e. The social introduction is key to understanding the relationship at the time of the call.
If he and his wife fought, and this caused him to threaten her, perhaps, and the "gun went off", we may see him distance himself from his wife by avoiding her name, coupled with her title: "my wife______"
I expect him to say, "This is William McCollom, I just shot my wife, Margaret. She needs help." and give the address. Then when he is asked for details, he will say that the gun went off accidentally.
Order teaches us priority.
Police Chief William McCollom's 911 call analyzed.
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.
Note the order shows priority.
Gunshot Wound is first, and not his wife.
Accidental --alibi set
Medical is asked for after responsibility for shooting.
The priority is not the victim.
Please note:
Here is where we expect him to say he shot his wife, If it is his gun, using her name, and asking for help for her.
If she owned a gun, and slept with it, it may be appropriate.
If this is his gun, we expect him to take responsibility because his concern is not being blamed or not being blamed, but his wife, Margaret's, condition.
Instead, he speaks in short, broken sentences:
1. "Uh" is a pause to think.
2. "gunshot wound" avoids saying "I shot my wife" or "my wife needs help!" He does not say who has the gunshot wound, or how she got it.
2. "accidental" is not to say "I shot her by accident"
3. "Need medical asap" is without a pronoun.
He does not ask for help for her, specifically. This is not expected. This early in the call we looked for a complete social introduction which would tell us that it is a good relationship.
Note that "I just shot my wife, Margaret, by accident, she needs medical assistance asap!" would:
1. Use the pronoun "I"
2. Give the complete social introduction "my" showing ownership, "wife" is her title, and "Margaret" her name. A complete social introduction indicates a good relationship.
In this opening, he has indicated that there is a problem in their relationship.
Their history will have to be explored.
911: OK. Where are you shot at?
Because of his failure to properly inform the operator, she has to ask where he has been shot. It is not clear to her what has happened. This is coming from a man who has likely spent many years in this specific field of information. His wording appears careful and cautious. We now look to see if he will give indication of a good relationship, and care for her life and get the flow of information to the operator.
Chief: What’s that?
911: Where is the person shot at?
Chief: In the back.
He gives short answers. Because he has yet to give a social introduction, he forces the operator to ask:
911: Is it a male or female?
The 911 operator had to ask this. She should not have had to ask.
Chief: Female.
Here is where we expect him to now use the introduction since he has not used it yet.
He continues to avoid saying, "my wife, Margaret" This is another place where he could identify that it is his wife in need of assistance.
That he has not yet used his wife's name is distancing language indicating a poor relationship and/or a need to distance himself from her.
This is not expected when there is a good relationship and the married couple are "one", in their minds and in their language.
In a close, married relationship, the couple often feel like "one", so that when one suffers, they both suffer.
Here, in the midst of a life or death trauma, he will not even use her name.
911: How old is she? How old is she?
Chief: 58
he does not use her name.
*911: She’s shot in the back and in the side?
Chief: Yes…and numb in back. Come on. Let’s get them here.
He does not ask for help specifically for her. He has not used her name.
911: Somebody else is dispatching help. I need to get some more information from you. You said it was an accident?
Chief: Yes.
911: She was shot twice accidental?
That she was shot "twice"
The gun went off twice? This is not something expected in a shooting where a trigger is pulled accidentally, by, for example, someone rolling over on it in bed.
Chief: Yes.
**At :58…911: Who shot her?
Chief: Me.
911: How did you shoot her?
Chief: I was…the gun was in the bed. I went to move it…uh, put it to the side and then it went off.
"I was" is broken off: this is self-censoring. Note "the gun" and not "a" gun. This means that there is something sensitive about ownership of the gun.
If the gun went off inadvertently, passive language is appropriate because one does not know how it went off, therefore, no responsibility is assigned. This is especially true if it is her gun, and she generally sleeps with it.
However, we note here that
"the gun was in the bed" uses passive language.
This conceals or refuses to identify how the gun got into the bed. Is it possible that she brought her own gun to bed?
As police chief, if it is his gun, we expect him to take ownership of it.
Please note: "I went to move it" tells us what he intended to do. We let his words guide us.
Question: Did he say he moved the gun and it went off?
Answer: No
He only "went to" move it. He does not say he moved it.
He further distances himself from the gun.
Please note that "the gun" is not "my gun", nor even "her gun." This is a strong indication that the gun belonged to him and he does not want ownership of it.
"Went": this word is important. "I went to move it" means that he knew it was there. This indicates intention, but not action.
Where was he when he "went" to move it?
Was he in the bed with her?
Was he in a different room, realizing that it was left in the bed where she was sleeping?
This is an important place to focus the interview.
Please note that this use of "went" could be a figure of speech, or even a regional expression.
911: Is she awake?
Chief: No. Everybody was sleeping.
note "everybody" is not defined.
He has not used his wife's name; this is distancing langue. We must now learn who "everybody" who is in the home as this is an indication that there are more people in the home than just he and his wife.
What caused him to say "everybody was sleeping"?
a. If it was just the two of them, it may suggest editorializing (story telling)
b. Was he thinking of someone else?
c. Was someone else there previously?
d. Had he plans to leave to meet someone else, a love interest, who was sleeping?
This is very strange and not something expected from one who is alone with his critically bleeding wife.
911: No, is she awake now?
Chief: Huh?
911: Is she awake now?
Chief: Yes.
911: Is she breathing?
Dispatch is asking questions because the subject is only answering specific questions and not giving any additional details. In a marriage, this is most unexpected.
Chief: Yes.
911: And…103 Autumn Leaf. What’s your nearest intersection or street?
Chief: Uh we’re in Center Green
**At 1:32…911: Where’s the gun at?
Chief: Uhhh, geez I don’t know. I threw it to the side. It might be in the bed here. I don’t know.
The location of the gun is important for the safety of the responders.
Note throwing the gun produced the pronoun "I" and he had the presence of mind to "throw it"; why the need to throw it?
Also, if he threw it, was this in anger? staging?
**At 1:43 Chief: You having trouble breathing Dear?
This is a term of endearment. Investigators will need to learn if this was a usual term used by him, or something for the call.
911: Alright, I want you to…you are with her now?
**At 1:50…Chief: What’s that? I’m the Chief of Police. It’s a…the bed, the gun is on the dresser.
**At 1:57…911: OK. You’re the Chief of Police in Peachtree City?
Chief: Yeah, unfortunately. Yes.
Here, we have the subject showing concern for himself. This is not expected. This may have prompted the next question:
911: Alright, is this your wife?
Chief: Yes.
911: OK sir. Um, I do want to ask you some more questions about her health right now. Somebody else has already dispatched help so we’re not delaying that OK?
Chief: OK.
**At 2:25…911: Is that her crying?
operator shows concern. Also, did operator feel need to identify who it was that was crying, thinking that someone else might have been there, based upon his language?
Chief: Yes, she’s having trouble breathing now.
911: OK.
**At 2:35…(you hear moaning/crying in background)
911: OK. (more moaning) This just occurred now right before you called?
Operator is suspicious of a possible delay.
Chief: Yep..yep went off in the middle of the night.
Note "yep" instead of formal "yes."
Some people use "yep" when they are agreeing with someone else.
We will note where he uses "yep" versus where he uses "yes."
I am concerned that this call was not made immediately after the shooting, based upon his response:
"yep" is repeated, as if 'agreeing' with the 911 operator
then taken with "in the middle of the night" rather than "just now" in his language.
This suggests a delay in calling.
This may be difficult to understand on the audio but the call should be right after the shooting. "went off in the middle of the night" sounds more like editorializing, or story telling.
Note that he even drops the pronoun "it"
This is more distancing language.
The passivity over a gun going off is expected if the subject does not know how it went off, but the dropped pronoun is not expected. Let's say that one rolled over and the gun discharged, it would be passive, since the caller did not know which of them caused it, but might say, "it went off" with the pronoun, "it." He wants to distance himself from the gun.
"in the middle of the night" is not necessary because it just happened. This is something that sounds more like story telling.
"Middle of the night" could cover a great deal of time. The expected answer is "just now" and nothing else. Even a slight delay for trying to stop the bleeding would still be an immediate response. His need to editorialize may have confirmed the intuitive suspicion of the 911 operator.
911: Is there any serious bleeding?
Chief: Well, it’s internal but yes there is.
She is in critical condition, shot in the back. The only answer to this question is "yes"
He uses "yes" after the word "but"; note it is not "yep"
911: OK, is she completely alert?
Chief: Yes
"Yes" rather than "yep"
911: OK
Chief: And you already told me it was the back.
Chief: She’s starting to have trouble breathing now so it must be internal.
It would be important to ask him about her breathing earlier (not in this call, but the investigative interview).
911: OK. Is she on her back?
Chief: She’s laying on her stomach.
911: She’s laying on her stomach. OK. If you see any external bleeding, we’re going to apply direct pressure to that OK? Is she bleeding where you can see it?
Chief: Yes.
The expectation is that with his background, he had already begun basic emergency care applying pressure to the wound.
This is also "yes" and not "yep"
911: OK, I want you to get a dry clean cloth and I want you to apply direct pressure to the wound.
Chief: OK.
(sound of moaning) Chief: Ok
911: Ok I want you to hold the cloth there. Do not lift it to look at it. Just keep applying pressure …
Chief: (hard to understand)
would one of his background have already put pressure on the wound?
911: Ok. You want them to enter through the front door?
Chief: I don’t care if they come in the side door. It’s fine, I don’t care.
He should give the answer in which the victim is accessed in the quickest route. That he does not care may be an attempt to sound cooperative, as if coming through a different door does not inconvenience him.
He should have told them to come in the most direct route.
Chief: aLright, come on guys…get here.
This is still not to ask for specific help for the victim.
Chief: Yeah, I got the door open for them.
Chief: Oh my God.
Note the use of Divinity:
He does not ask God to help or save his wife.
911: What’s your name sir?
Chief: How did this happen?
Note the open question by the subject being asked out loud. Only he can answer this question yet he asks it, anyway. This is another red flag. This is concerning and may be a play for the recording.
911: What’s your name sir?
Chief: Will McCollum
**At 4:15…911: Were you asleep also sir when it happened?
Chief: Yep, are you alright dear? I know you are not alright. I mean, are you still breathing? Still alert for me?
"Yep" is not "yes" but more casual. "Yep" is often used when one finds an answer within the question, to agree to.
Please note: he affirms that he was asleep when it happened, making it an accident where one rolls over in his sleep, yet only uses the weak "yep", rather than stronger "yes", which must be compared with:
"I went to..." contradicts being asleep.
Regarding speaking to his wife:
She may have answered him harshly. This may indicate that an argument took place before the shooting.
911: Is there anybody else there with you guys?
That he said "everybody was sleeping" has likely prompted this question. Since "everybody" was sleeping, who else is there?
Chief: No.
Did he say "everybody" was asleep earlier? This is concerning. It could point to the attempt to build 'a crowd of support' due to guilt and the need to share guilt.
Guilty parties often feel that if others are around, they can spread the guilt out. We see this in school children. Yet, there was no one there but the caller and the victim, who's name is avoided.
Chief: Come on. Hurry, hurry, hurry.
Please note that he knows how the system works; dispatch while he is speaking.
This sounds staged, just as his other phrases, including "God" and "How did this happen"" do.
911: I hear them in the background. They are coming as fast as they can. Ok?
Chief: I can hear them.
911: Do we have that dry clean cloth on her wound?
This is intuitive. She uses the word "we", as cooperation, instead of saying "Do you have that dry clean cloth on her wound?" revealing her own suspicion.
To use "we" indicates a need for cooperation. She does not sense he is cooperative and she has her doubts that he has tended to her wounds.
Chief: Alright come on guys.
He is not engaged with the 911 operator.
911: You see them sir?
**At 5:30 Chief: Right there on the dresser is the gun.
911: Is there an officer there?
Chief: Jamie is here, yeah.
Please note that he used the officer's name while avoiding his wife's name in the entire call.
911: Ok, Chief I’m going to let you go…
There are enough red flags in this call for police to consider the chief a suspect and seek to learn about the marital relationship's discord. From this call alone,
I conclude that their relationship is not good;
that he uses distancing language from her;
he uses distancing language from the gun;
he inappropriately uses passivity in language, avoiding the responsibility of how the gun got into the bed.
He expresses concern for himself, but not for her, who's name he was unable to use in the entire call.
If I did not write the word "Margaret", you would not have known her name.
If the 911 operator had not specifically asked, she would not have been identified as his wife.
How does he get through the entire call without calling her his "wife", nor use her name?
He should be a suspect in this shooting. The sensitivity indicates trouble in the relationship.
Presuppositional Statement Analysis:
1. Presume innocence. Ask yourself, "What would I say?"
Could you make it through an entire 911 call without using the word "wife", in his shoes?
Could you make it through the entire 911 call without once using your wife's name? (or knickname)
Walk yourself through the call, putting yourself in his shoes. You have law enforcement background and may even use "cop speak", with such things as "ASAP"
Ask yourself what you might say if your wife was laying in the bed, internally bleeding from not one, but two gun shot wounds, and may not survive. Loving her, would you care about yourself, or your job, or reputation? Would you need to "not care" which door paramedics enter through?
If you are married, work it through with your spouse.
2. Now, Presume a poor relationship, an argument, and a guilty caller. Presume guilt.
Work through the statement again, presupposing that this was a domestic dispute in which he shot her twice.
Follow the same as above, even working it through with your spouse.
With presupposed guilt, does the language now "fit"?
Conclusion:
The chief is deceptive. He was not asleep when it went off.
He is concerned about himself, more than her.
The relationship was bad. His distancing language is acute. He was unable to use her name nor did he even use the word "wife" in the call.
He did not help the operator gain information but showed restraint and reluctance.
He likely shot her twice in an argument. There may be a third party in their relationship, who may not have been in the home, but was in his mind during the call.
He likely did not call 911 immediately.
Pray for Margaret to recover.
