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.