In prior analysis from March, Emily Glass was found "Deception Indicated" in the disappearance of her step son. The 911 call has been released and here is an abbreviated analysis.
Dispatcher: 911, what’s the location of your emergency?
Glass: ….. My son. My son’s gone. He’s not in the (unclear). He wasn’t in his (unclear).
People rarely (10%) lie outright in the fabrication of reality. With the cultural demand of "feelings overriding truth", the natural resistance to such may eventually push this number forward. For now, I remain comfortable with the estimate, empirically, but must remain open to change.
We next note that the question is not answered. This is an avoidance of the question.
Is it due to urgency and priority? (innocence)
Is it due to scripting? (guilt)
If we exercise restraint, we attempt to not allow prior analysis to influence us. Therefore, the answer is not yet known. The trained analyst must confront bias, in all forms, in every investigation. It is inescapable.
Linguistic Empathy is to attempt to embrace the language of the subject. It means understanding criminal behavior from the perspective of the criminal. This is often acutely unpleasant for the criminal analyst and investigator. It is necessary for accuracy.
Note in the answers she has told the truth:
her son is gone and her son is not in her room. Most deception is via missing information. This is why analysts do not dismiss liars. When deceptive people deceive, they reveal information they did not intend to, and they reveal much about their personalities. This is a treasure for the investigator who will later interview and interrogate.
Dispatcher: Where is your son at?
Glass: I don’t know.
Dispatcher: He’s gone?
Glass: Yes, he’s gone!
Dispatcher: When did he leave?
My guess is the subject was not expecting the emergency dispatcher to ask when her son left.
This places new emphasis:
a. The subject has now been told that the police authority believes that the boy left on his own power. This is something that subjects will immediately discern, often without regard to intellect.
It is a mistake by the operator, but it now may push the subject into a new narrative. Had she intended kidnapping, she would have to, now in time, change to runaway. If she had intended runaway, she would be emboldened.
How we ask questions is important.
We must avoid teaching subjects how to lie.
Analytical Interviewing is very simple and very effective. It begins with open ended, legally sound questions and follows up with questions based upon current analysis (live) and employs the subject's words; not the interviewers.
b. Time
The operator has introduced the element of time (necessary and expected) though with the burden of responsibility upon the victim with the wording "he left."
Glass: I don’t know. I don’t know. I just woke up from a long nap and he’s not in his room.
She answers the question twice. This repetition suggests she was not prepared for the narrative of runaway.
Next, we have critical words:
"I just woke up from a long nap."
The word "just" is a dependent word. This means it is used in communication depending upon another thought. There is a comparison within it.
"This car is $45,000, but this other one, over here, is just $39,000"
"I just woke up" is to indicate time.
a. It is unnecessary
b. It is comparative
c. It means she is thinking of a period of time when she makes this unnecessary statement. She is comparing time of this call with another time. This is a very important point to follow for timeline.
The parent (step) of a missing boy has the need to not only establish an alibi of sleeping but in doing so, reveals sensitivity over time.
She wants police to know that it would be impossible for her to be involved because she was asleep.
While establishing this point this one tiny word, "just", indicates to the contrary.
The establishment of an alibi in the emergency call is unnecessary, unexpected (in the presupposition of innocence) and now calls our attention to:
a. her need of an alibi though not accused;
b. the time frame of the victim's disappearance according to the subject is now suspect.
"it was a long nap" affirms the analysis of the dependent word "just" being empathic about time.
Together it is a strong indicator of guilt building before us.
Not only was she asleep but the time line is so sensitive that she needs police to know that she was asleep for a considerable amount of time.
Dispatcher: How old is he?
Glass: He’s five.
Dispatcher: Ma’am?
Glass: Oh my God!
Entrance of Divinity noted. She has not called upon Deity to affirm her words, but we make not of it just the same.
We submit ourselves to the statement and allow the subject to guide us to the truth.
Dispatcher: Ma’am, how old is your son?
Glass: He’s five years old.
Dispatcher: Five years old. Did someone take him?
Glass: I don’t know. I don’t know.
The repetition indicates sensitivity in her response. It is to suggest deception, but by itself, we do not conclude deception.
We have, however, noted:
a. alibi necessity
b. time line suspicion
This causes the investigator or analyst to say, "She may know..." as she introduced doubt.
Dispatcher: Did he walk off?
This now tells us that the Dispatcher's original thought has been challenged and doubt has entered.
Glass: No, I don’t know. I just woke up. I just woke up. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what to do.
a. "No" is a strong response (even though we reduce reliability for "yes or no" questioning.) We now see how many words she needs to buttress her denial. In an interview, I count the number of words one uses after "no."
b. "No" also now reveals that she did not script that the victim left on his own accord.
c. "No" is incongruent with her initial responses. She now says, "I don't know."
Her denial of knowledge is:
Sensitive due to repetition and
Sensitive due to incongruence.
Saying "no" followed by "not knowing" is self contradictory. In the 1940 insult movie, "Pride and Prejudice" one character said, "In spite of being ignorant of the facts, I know that..." with the character played by Greer Garson responding how amazing it is to "know that of which you are ignorant of."
The police now know that not only does Emily Glass need an alibi, but that she knows the victim did not leave of his own accord.
The deception is building, rather than engendered by the analyst, seeking to make her words match a narrative (see analysis of Peter Strzok).
Next, she affirms her need for protection:
No, I don’t know. I just woke up. I just woke up. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what to do.
She could not possibly be guilty since she was asleep.
She could not possibly be guilty since she was asleep.
She could not possibly be guilty since she was asleep.
Question: how many times does she have to tell me that she could not have possibly been involved with the disappearance of the victim due to being asleep before I recognize,
She has guilty knowledge of what happened?
This sounds humorous, but it is intention. It highlights how important it is for the analyst/investigator to recognize repetition.
Repetition means importance.
Unnecessary information means increased importance.
Qualified unnecessary information ("just") makes it even more important.
Out of boundary information increases it further.
Secondary, tierary repetition increases it even further;
you get the idea.
Q. What is most important to the caller regarding the disappearance of her son?
A. Her alibi of sleep.
*have you ever noticed how many fraudulent claims of racism has the alleged victims sleeping?
The Rule of the Negative
What is reported in the negative is to be noted for increase in importance.
"I didn't see the man run across my driveway..."
oops.
The "thou shalt not" instruction is the foundation of Western civilization. It has, immediately and in the negative, put restraint upon human nature.
This presupposes the need for restraint upon human nature.
It is easier to remember what not to do than what to do.
It is also provocative.
What is the first thing a 3 year old little boy thinks when his mother says, "don't jump in the puddle"?
He thinks to himself, "What a glorious idea it is to jump into this small puddle, causing a scientific ripple of molecules of which mother must then stop and clean off my sneakers, obtaining for me the fulfillment of both attention and defiance. I shalt jump in this puddle, with the expectation of a marvelous response from my dearest mother."
No, I don’t know. I just woke up. I just woke up. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what to do.
Next we recognize that the more she tells us she does not know (including what to do), the more we think:
She knows what she is doing.
This is to acknowledge the need to "stay in script."
She knows.
Dispatcher: What address are you at?
Glass: I’m at 655 South Edgemoor. Oh my God. I don’t know what to do.
Dispatcher: Ma’am, go ahead and repeat your location for verification for me, OK?
Glass: It’s 655 South Edgemoor.
Dispatcher: OK. All right.
Glass: Ma’am, I have to…. I need to call his father because he’s not in town. He’s at work right now.
Dispatcher: OK, can you stay on the line with me? I need to get some more information. OK?
Glass: (Crying)
Crying is often claimed (after the fact) to be "crocodile tears" by "experts."
It is not so.
She could be crying for many reasons, but she is crying. Claims of one being a "sociopath" for having tears or not having tears is not a valid conclusion.
Dispatcher: Try to stay on the line with me. What is the phone number that you’re calling from?
Glass: It’s (redacted).
Dispatcher: OK. And what is your name?
Glass: My name is (redacted).
Dispatcher: OK, OK. Stay on the line with me. I’ve got some more questions, OK? What is your son’s name?
Glass: It’s Lucas.
Dispatcher: Lucas?
Glass: Lucas.
Dispatcher: And you said he’s five years old?
Glass: Yes, he’s five years old.
Dispatcher: Is he white, black, Hispanic or Asian?
Glass: He is white. He has some Mexican in him but not a lot.
Dispatcher: You said he’s half-Mexican?
Glass: Yes.
Dispatcher: OK. That’s fine. How tall is he?
Glass: I don’t know. He’s about four feet maybe? I don’t know.
Dispatcher: Four feet? OK, that’s fine. Is he thin, medium or heavy build?
Glass: He’s little. He’s very little.
She is answering the questions but here, she goes no further.
Is this her baseline?
It is not.
Recall in answering questions above she needed to "intrude" that she was asleep.
Repeatedly.
Here, she is not offering much information other than to comment on the dispatcher's words, which may signal a need to be seen as helpful.
She is not.
She is, however, helpful regarding her alibi, but not about the victim. She devotes words beyond the boundary of the question, not to Lucas, but to self.
Dispatcher: OK. Do you remember what he was wearing?
Better: "what was he wearing?"
Do allow her the choice of what she "remembers" is a mistake and it is to offer her a shield of protection behind the frequently deceptive employed tactic: lack of recall.
The Dispatch asked a "yes or no" question and introduced recall. This reveals Dispatch's own doubt about this caller. The subject paused, "um" indicating need to consider the answer.
She was sleeping, correct?
Glass: Um, he was wearing black sweats and a green shirt with a bear on it. (Crying) Oh my God! Where’s Lucas? Where’s Lucas?
Statement Analysis: Intended and Unintended Recipient.
Analysts recognize that when one speaks the "intended recipient" is the person being spoken to, or written to.
Yet for some, the "unintended recipient", such as police investigators, television audience, etc, are far more important to the subject. Technically, police here are the "unintended recipient" which often indicates an increase of importance of the information.
She reports what he was wearing without qualifying her answer as to time (it was not just that she was asleep using the word "just" to reference time, but it was a doubling down of time: "a long nap" for her.)
Dispatcher: All right. I’m still here, OK? Just keep talking to me.
Glass: I need to call his dad. I need to call his dad.
Dispatcher: I understand, I understand. OK? I need to get a little bit more information, OK? When was the last time you saw him?
Glass: Around like 3 O’clock?
Note number chosen. Do not read too much into this. Generally when one is deceptive and must choose a number between 1 and 9, liars gravitate towards "3", particularly in giving the number of assailants in a false claim of assault.
Dispatcher: OK. And you’re at, he was at home?
Glass: Yes, ma’am.
the polite theme is noted. It is sometimes indicated for the Ingratiation Factor; that is, to "make friends" with police so that she can be seen in a positive light.
This need for portrait suggest the opposite.
Dispatcher: OK. All right. And what color is his hair?
Glass: It’s brown.
Dispatcher: Short or long?
Glass: It’s short.
Dispatcher: Was he wearing anything else? A hat or anything?
Glass: And he had, um, he had white socks on, and he had a pull up on because we were taking a nap, so.
We now have "the need to explain" something that was not asked, nor would it have been asked.
"Does your five year old wear a pull up?"
Alone, it is not a signal of abuse/anxiety, as the hands of the subject.
In context?
It is.
Emily Glass is thinking about the victim's need for the pull up. This is very concerning regarding abuse of Lucas at her hands and the resultant anxiety the child may have felt.
Dispatcher: What do you mean, a pull up?
Glass: Uh, a pull up. Um, for nighttime, you know?
Dispatcher: OK. What color was that?
Glass: White and blue?
Dispatcher: White and blue?
Glass: He has brown eyes and really, really long eyelashes.
Here is a strange intrusion that indicates an acute need to be seen as a loving, caring and closely bonded parent.
It indicates the contrary in Statement Analysis.
Frequently, mothers who put their newborns through painful drug withdrawals, often claim to be "great mothers."
Dispatcher: OK, OK.
Glass: And um, I don’t know (unclear).
Dispatcher: Just hang in there, OK?
Glass: (Crying)
Note the suspicion in the words of Dispatch:
Dispatcher: Is he the only one missing?
This is a necessary question and likely a strong intuitive dispatcher who is, (my guess) a parent. Suspicion is in the mind of dispatch and likely to enter the language.
Glass: Yes.
Dispatcher: Did you see any suspicious people in the area?
To the subject,
"hey! Great idea! Thanks!":
Glass: Um, no. (unclear) There were some like people hanging around the corner of my house, but I don’t (inaudible) …
Dispatcher: So there were some suspicious people on the corner?
Glass: I don’t know. I don’t think they (unclear) … anything to do with it. But, I’m scared. Where is he?
Note the sentence, "anything to do with it" is a very important sentence.
It indicates that the caller does not possess the urgency that she is portraying.
Q. How?
A. The information has been processed.
Processing needs time.
We now know why "just" and "long nap" were in her language and have been a priority.
She does not say "I don't know if they took Lucas" but "anything to do with it" now tells us that Lucas's disappearance is not something in the present tense, but is now a "case" ("it") and acknowledges that "I don't know" is deceptive.
Instead of a bare mystery of Lucas missing, open to any and all possibility, she gives the conclusion of it being an actual identified case, something not expected until police have interviewed her and time has worn down natural resistance.
This is why the element of time is so powerful in her statement.
We cannot escape human nature:
When we speak it is very difficult to lie and we reveal ourselves.
Dispatcher: OK. Was he taking a nap with you?
Yes or No question.
Glass: In his room.
Who was in his room?
I would want to know: what happened in his room to this victim?
Recall the "pull up" has to do with bodily function. This is sometimes an indicator of sexual abuse.
Generally unnecessary references to water are stronger indicators but with pull up, we now have:
I put a movie on for him and I took a shower really quick and he was asleep when I went and checked back on him, and so me and his little sister took a nap in my room.
a. "shower" means: explore for sexual abuse.
b. Children who are sexually abused do wet their beds
c. "really quick" is the element of time.
This, taken in the whole, tells us that this victim suffered under her hands and that she is deliberately concealing what took place in a specific time frame of which she has an acute need to remove herself from.
Dispatcher: OK. So you went to check on him and then you went to go take a nap. And he’s not there anymore, correct?
Glass: (Unclear)
Dispatcher: OK, it’s OK. Do you know if he left with anything else? Was there any pets missing or anything?
Glass: We don’t have any pets. And his shoes are here and his coat is here.
Dispatcher: His shoes and coat are in there?
Glass: Yes, ma’am.
Dispatcher: OK.
Glass: (Crying) Oh my god.
Dispatcher: Has he ever wandered off before?
Glass: No. No, (unclear) He’s not here.
This is true.
Dispatcher: OK, OK. OK.
Glass: I need to (unclear)…
Dispatcher: Where have you looked at all? Have you looked in the house at all?
Glass: I looked all around the house. And I went to the neighbor’s and I asked and they said, ‘No.’ And that’s why I called you. Because I don’t know (inaudible) … kids next door. I don’t know.
Here we have conclusion of guilt.
She anticipated being asked, "Why did you call 911 when your son went missing?"
Only she would think this is going to be asked and she pre-empts it being asked.
Only a murderer would think this question is going to be asked. It is the "tell tale heart" of this call.
Note the need to answer "why" without being asked, is repeated.
This is the highest level of sensitivity in Statement Analysis.
The repetition of (negative) not knowing tells us that she knows precisely what happened to Lucas and where he can be found.
The above past tense reference is appropriate (since the question had to do with time).
Dispatcher: OK. OK. Does he have a bicycle or anything?
Glass: He does, but it’s here.
Dispatcher: It is there.
Glass: And he….
Dispatcher: All of his toys are there?
Glass: Yes, ma’am. Oh my God. I’m here, I know.
Dispatcher: Now, do you know, is he on any medications or anything?
Glass: Yes, He’s on Zofran right now because he’s been, he’s had the flu. And he’s (unclear) … so he’s on that.
He may have been given the medication for anxiety and sleep issues due to the abuse; not the flu. Hence the need to explain why (blue coloring) and the extended time in the verb (red).
Dispatcher: OK.
Glass: Oh my God.
Dispatcher: Where’s your husband at right now?
Glass: He’s in, he’s (unclear) … He works out of state.
Dispatcher: He’s in Garden State?
Glass: No, he works out of state. He’s in Texas.
Dispatcher: Oh, he’s in Texas, OK.
Glass: I need to call him, OK? He needs to know!
Dispatcher: One second for me, OK? All right? We have people en route to you, OK? They’re looking for him, OK?
Glass: (Cries)
Dispatcher: Anyone else in the house?
Glass: It’s just me and my daughter.
Dispatcher: OK. How old is your daughter?
Glass: She’s a year old. I know, I know.
Dispatcher: Do you see PD out there at all?
Glass: Yes, they’re here.
Dispatcher: They’re there?
Glass: Yes.
Dispatcher: OK, go ahead and talk to them, OK? Call us back if anything changes. OK?
Glass: (Inaudible) … I got to call him right now.
Analysis Conclusion
Deception Indicated
This is consistent with the prior analysis.
For training in Deception Detection, we hold both seminars for law enforcement and offer a complete course taken in your home, that comes with 12 months of e support.
Seminars for law enforcement as well as private business.
Visit our website and the youtube channel for more information.
Statement Analysis for private clients contact hyattanalysis@gmail.com Limited availability.
Peter Hyatt
No comments:
Post a Comment