Analysis: 911: Shirley Carter Murder

Jason Carter was found Not Guilty in his murder trial where he was accused of killing his 67 year old mother, Shirley Carter.

Does his 911 call affirm this verdict?



Previously, he had been found responsible for her death in a civil suit.

Here is his 911 call with notes from a team of analysts.

911 or Emergency Calls use the same methodology of Statement Analysis. In essence, they are the "first interviews" of a case and vital for investigators.

The expectation remains the same: a form of 'excited utterance' in which the subject (caller) facilities the flow of information in order to gain assistance.

Like all interviews, the interviewer (here, the 911 operator) will be given a sense that the subject is either working with police to facilitate the flow of information, or the subject is not.

Trauma in Language.

Trauma and natural denial (familiar assault/death) are expected within the language. Trauma will hinder the processing of information, as revealed in language. Processing takes place within time, therefore a natural (family) resistance and/or denial is often seen within the language of emergency calls.

Sensitivity:

What do sensitivity indicators reveal in an emergency call?

Sensitivity indicators reveal the thought process, including disruption, importance, anxiety, clarity, effort, and so on, in the rapid processing of information from the brain to the tongue.

The legal phrase, 'excited utterance' speaks to the expectation that there is no pre thought necessary when reporting an emergency. A truthful person will blurt out what he discovers. The truthful person will tell us what he found, what happened, what he saw, what was said, etc.

This is why we highlight, as very sensitive, the "rule of the Negative" in which a person tells us what did not happen, what was not seen, what was not known, etc, in an open statement. Pre-emption of a question not asked, is acutely sensitive information.

Objection: of course this is sensitive; he just found his mother dead or dying.

Answer: The sensitivity indicators do not identify the topic; but identify the specific words that cause sensitivity.

The expectation is:

"My mother is bleeding" or "My mother has been shot", or anything close to this, as the priority and theme of the call.

When help is asked, we seek to learn context.

If a subject asks for help for himself, this is appropriate if the subject is conducting first aid to the victim.

Linguistic Disposition:

This is a form of advanced analysis that is used in psycho-linguistic profiling and in identifying the author of anonymous threatening letters.

It seeks to learn what the subject's disposition is towards:

a. the victim
b. others in the statement
c. the assailant, whether identified or not as it is presupposed
d. the recipient; both intended and unintended



Check Lists, while useful for attention to potential sensitivity indicators for the untrained, do not yield consistent success in application.

These are the notes from the team analysis.

This is a public case with public information used, including the transcript.

For training in deception detection, or to host a seminar, view Hyatt Analysis Services

****************************************************************************

D: 911 what is your emergency?


JC: Yeah heh…I…I need uh…I need…I need a ambulance fast.



D: Okay what...to what address?

JC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a 132 Perry Street. It’s BILL CARTER



and I…I’m his son



and my mom,


my mom’s laying here on the floor,



blood…there’s blood everywhere and she’s dead and I don’t know what happened.



D: Okay how old’s your mother?

JC: What?



D: How old is your mother BILL?


JC: I think she’s sixty-seven.

D: Okay is she inside the house or outside?

JC: She was…she’s laying here on the kitchen floor.



D: Okay and this is…

.

JC: There’s blood all over the floor (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I don’t know what hap…


D: Okay BILL I’m sending an ambulance to ya. Let me double check the address that’s 132 Perry Street in Pleasantville correct?

JC: It’s Lacona, Iowa.


D: It’s in Lacona?

JC: 132 Perry Street, Lacona.

D: Okay…okay BILL what’s your…

JC: It looks like you’ve been laying here (UNINTELLIGIBLE) uh…two hours, heh…what happened…



there’s a hole through the floor and into the refrigerator,



I don’t know if she was trying to…I don’t get what happened.



D: You said there’s a hole through the floor and the refrigerator?

JC: Yes.

D: Okay.

JC: And she’s laying (sobbing) in a pool of blood.



It was…she’s still (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I don’t get it. I dropped in…




D: Okay, okay, uh…I’m gonna ahead and send the officers and deputies and the ambulance to the house there so we can help you okay?

JC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) …okay…

D: They’re already on the way okay, it’ll be just a…just moment here okay?

JC: Okay.

D: All right BILL I’m gonna go ahead and let you go.

JC: Bye.

D: Mm bye.



The Analysis Notes


D: 911 what is your emergency?

This is the best question to ask. An open ended question is legally sound and it allows the subject to choose his own words and begin where he thinks he should.


JC: Yeah hey…I…I need uh…I need…I need a ambulance fast.


a. “yeah” is agreement. We should consider the possibility of Ingratiation. If this is the case, the caller (subject) has a need to ingratiate or “agree” with the 911 operator (police, authority) where no agreement or unity is needed. By itself, it is not an indicator of guilt, yet it could point to possible guilt and the need to portray oneself as the “good guy”, working with police. The need to make such a portrayal as helpful, unified or “good” to police often indicates to the contrary.

b. “yeah”is also a pause. This indicates he needs time to slow down to consider what he is going to say. It is “sensitive”to him. What causes this sensitivity? Trauma may produce this. Deception may produce this.

c. Question: is the caller on the autism spectrum?

d. “hey” or “heh” – is this similar to a greeting? Any greeting is sensitive and is consistent with Ingratiation.

e. “heh” is not a greeting, is still a pause after a pause. (increase of sensitivity)

f. After two pauses (sensitivity) the subject stutters on the pronoun “I” leading us to ask, “Is he a stutterer?” If he is not a stutterer, consider the halting on the pronoun “I” often indicates anxiety. For the subject, reporting what happened, has increased tension and/or anxiety.

g. “I need” tells us that the subject has a need.

h. Whatever is repeated, is an increase in importance (sensitive). We note –not the topic of repetition, but the words.

i. “I”is used four times, with “I need” used three times.

j. Incomplete sentences often indicate self censoring.

k. Why is he in need of an ambulance? Has he performed emergency first aid? If he did not use emergency first aid, his “need” is different than the victim’s need for medical intervention.

l. “uh”In the midst of his “need”, he has another pause with “uh”

m. The additional pause indicates increased sensitivity over what words to choose.

n. The sensitivity is regarding his “need.” As he repeats about self (“I”) he repeats about what he “needs”, which indicates high sensitivity, he still has a need to pause.

o. What does he need? “A ambulance”

p. Note that he does not say that the victim is in need of the ambulance. ("fast" noted)

q. In the extreme quickness of brain processing, the subject has told us that he is in need. If he has administered first aid and continues to do so, his “need” is contextually appropriate.

r. If he has not called 911 immediately, his “need” is for himself; not the victim. In statement analysis, we trust the subject to guide us to the truth. He, himself, is in "need"; not the victim, in spite of the incongruence of "fast" when reporting the victim as dead.

s. This leads us to questions, including: What does he need? Does the caller (subject) consider himself as a “victim” in his verbalized perception of reality?

t. As to the possibility that the caller sees himself as a “victim”, we look to see if the words he chooses address this.

u. “fast” is natural human urgency – it is appropriate in context of an emergency call. If he is running out of time in his attempt to save her life, “fast” is contextually appropriate.

v. “fast” – There is no expectation that police would delay; therefore, we ask what might have produced this unnecessary word. Did the subject delay or not move “fast” for the victim? (Outside information: Please note that the media reported that he did not call 911 “fast” or immediately, but called his sister first). “Fast”is a response that it the opposite of what he did.

w. Incongruence: the imperative of “fast” does not fit with the need to pause – was this an artificial edit? Was this a projection of guilt from having not gone “fast” in making an immediate call for help for the victim?

x. Focus of the caller to this point is himself; not the victim, which is causing the increase in anxiety (if he is not a stutterer)



D: Okay what...to what address?

a. The operator gives indication of the awkwardness of the caller’s imperative for “fast” as he has not told the operator what the ambulance is needed for, nor who is the victim in need. He has told 911 what he, himself, needs. If urgency exists, why not help facilitate the flow of information? Example: “My mom is bleeding on the floor, help!” or something similar?






JC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a 132 Perry Street. It’s BILL CARTER

a. Pause? (“a”)
b. Address appropriately given
c. “It’s Bill Carter”

Is “It’s Bill Carter” the identity of the caller?

This introduction of “it’s” is similar to one in which the recipient (911 operator) would know or recognize who “Bill Carter” is.

*Is the caller, “Bill Carter”known enough that the operator would recognize his name, with subsequent recognition of the location?

*Did the caller think that by naming his father it would help expedite the ambulance to the proper location?


If so, “Bill Carter” as the caller, it would be appropriate.

We allow the subject’s words, including the order, to guide us.

We recognize from the context of the transcript, that Bill Carter is not the caller.


Is “It’s Bill Carter” the identity of the victim?

Is “It’s Bill Carter” the identity of the perpetrator?

Is the caller seeking to implicate his father, Bill Carter?

Why the pronoun “it” here? Location expectation known?

What caused the subject to name “Bill Carter” on this call?

What caused the subject to name “Bill Carter” on a call that warranted pause and stutter?

Whoever “Bill Carter” is, we note the quality of the introduction is “incomplete” – this may be due to the operator recognizing the name.

d. In Statement Analysis, we note the order of people named in a statement, whether written or verbal, as indicative of priority. The order thus far is Self (Caller) and now “Bill Carter.”

He identifies himself first, then “Bill Carter”, yet from whom in the introduction, there is no relationship; yet:


and I…I’m his son


A second stutter on the pronoun “I” is noted;

The caller makes his connection with his father; not the victim, as a priority. The “mom” enters lower on the priority, as if an afterthought.

Father:

The order in a 911 call speaks to priority. The first words his brain produced are noted. He has a need.
Next, he was asked a direct question and he answered it appropriately. Yet, he went “outside the boundary” of the question (address) making this information very important to him.

Q. What was so important to him that he addressed it in an unrelated question?

Q. What was it that caused him to offer this information before he address the victim’s need?

Q. Is the subject attempting to blame his father?

A. We look for this answer in the statement, and if not answered here, than in the investigatory process.

“I…I’m his son”

The caller identifies himself, not as the victim’s son, nor by his own name, but by the father’s name.

Expected: the caller would be, as biological child, most associated with the victim.



and my mom,

The victim is his mom; the focus remains upon himself; not the victim, her status, suffering, condition. “Mom” is not yet a victim; nothing is wrong. “Mom” does not need an ambulance; the caller does.

Mom is also “ISI” (incomplete social introduction explored)




We now follow what the caller tells us about the victim, in his order, using his language –

She is

1. “my mom”
2. She is “laying hereon the floor”


my mom’s laying here on the floor,

This is what we know so far from him.


1. “my mom”
2. She is “laying hereon the floor”
3. “blood…there’s blood everywhere”

He does not say “my mom is bleeding” nor does he say whose blood it is.

What is the emergency?
a. His need
b. His need for an ambulance
c. My mom
d. Laying here on the floor
e. Blood, there’s blood everywhere

Note fixation on blood can be associated with experiential knowledge -specifically with the blood, itself. Note the depersonalizing via passivity.

Priority and priorities:

He has not gotten to the emergency—the question itself, thus far, has been avoided.

We expected

“What is your emergency?” to be answered by “my mom is bleeding!” in any form.


blood…there’s blood everywhere

“blood” and then “there’s blood everywhere” is a continuum of time.

This leads us to ask

“Did the caller witness his mother bleed to death?”

This presupposes the passage of time, which has been noted in the pace and specific language.


Compare“here” to the blood“everywhere” leading to the question, Did the subject move the body?
Was the subject present for the attack that caused the blood to be “everywhere” while “mom” is “here” (close)?





and she’s dead

This is what we know so far from him.


1. “my mom”
2. She is “laying here on the floor” (location)
3. “blood…there’s blood everywhere” (blood before status)
4. “and she’s dead” is the fourth point of his priority yet he is not finished:


and I don’t know what happened.

Please note that he was not asked this question. This is, in a sense, the "hina clause" of the highest sensitivity.


In his priority, he needs them to know what he does not know: “I don’t know what happened” is very important to him.

Watch the pattern of self:

“I need” is repeated and with anxiety – his need.
She is “my mom” with emphasis upon self, at the point where she is not identified as a victim.

Mom’s body posture is given using psychological and/or physical closeness

“I don't know what happened” is unnecessary and preemptive language. It is about him, not about “mom”, nor his father.

In Statement Analysis, “pre-emptive” indicates the subject anticipates being asked and is stressed by it, so he offers it first, which reduces his own internal stress.

The call began with linguistic focus of concern about self, and he needed it “fast” (urgency) yet “she’s dead”

The subject has a need to tell police that he does not know what happened. This is not expected.

Expected:

1. Express the emergency (“Mom is bleeding”)
2. Expression relationship and situational denial: not acceptance of death which takes either time or a sensory “overload” such as the smell of decomposition or physical sight of rigor mortis

We hold to the expectation that a truthful person can only tell us what they know; what they see. Those who have a need to tell us, without being questioned, what did not happen, what they did not see, hear, experience, or know, are going beyond the boundaries of the interview (call). Since he does know what happened, he takes us back to the word "fast." He'd like us to embrace the narrative or portrayal of an emergency, hence the use of the word “fast”, which directs attention away from himself. Yet, he cannot help but focus upon self;

“I need”;

“I’m his son”

“my mom”

This is a divertive technique to portray an emergency. The caller has has gone beyond familiar and expected denial that a son will exhibit and has shown the conclusion of the matter. He has processed her death in his mind, allowing him to verbalize the finality.

This may occur under the following conditions:

1. Guilty knowledge—the subject knows of the death, including pre meditation, pre planning or actual cause
2. Some time has passed to allow the brain to process and accept her death. A delay between seeing her in this state and making this call may have taken place.
3. Undeniable Sensory Overload where the subject experiences something that disallows or nullifies natural human denial. This may include Decomposition, Rigor Mortis, Dismemberment or major injury.

Natural denial is expected where even blood flow is attempted to be stopped.


D: Okay how old’s your mother?

JC: What?

*Did he hear her?

Guilty callers are often caught off guard by questions they were unprepared for – if the caller has taken the time to rehearse or pre think (note pauses above), he may not have anticipated this question.





D: How oldisyour mother BILL?

Note the present tense language used by the operator after being told that the victim was dead. This is an example of natural human denial, even while not being a relative.


JC: I thinkshe’s sixty-seven.

D: Okay is she inside the house or outside?

JC: She was…she’s laying hereon the kitchen floor.

Self editing where he changes after starting “She was…” which is past tense, and moves to present “she’s laying” and location which is close “here”; which could be psychological, physical (geographical) or both.

Question: The self editing (censoring) causes us to ask Where was she earlier, before she was “here”?”

This leads to What happened prior to the time she ended up on laying on the floor?

Was there an argument?

He stopped himself indicating to us that there is missing information.

The repetition of “laying” (3x) may suggest that he moved her or caused her to be there.
Consider this with the unnecessary addition of “I don’t know what happened…”



D: Okay and this is…



JC: There’s blood all over the floor(UNINTELLIGIBLE) I don’t know what hap…

The repetition speaks to his need to persuade or establish innocence. This is consistent with “staying to script” –affirmed by the need to consider (pause) earlier.



D:Okay BILL I’m sending an ambulance to ya. Let me double check the address that’s 132 Perry Street in Pleasantville correct?

JC:It’s Lacona, Iowa.


D: It’s in Lacona?

JC: 132 Perry Street, Lacona.

D: Okay…okay BILL what’s your…

Please note that the caller does not correct the operator addressing him by his father’s name. Please consider that the father’s name was the first name he used in this emergency call.

JC:It looks like you’vebeen laying here(UNINTELLIGIBLE) uh…two hours, heh…what happened…

Is he talking to the victim?
Even if the victim is still alive, the neutral disposition of the language, in context, should be considered indifferent, cold, calloused.

Note the time frame: “two hours” is unexpected. Due to “unintelligible” wording, it is not known what produced it, yet it is consistent with analysis of the “pace” of the statement in which the subject slows it down and accepts her death. The analysis indicates that a passing of time has taken place for the subject.


there’s a hole through the floor and into the refrigerator,

Note the careful observations here would have taken timeto make and to process.

This may also be consistent with some form of movement (see “here”) above by the victim.

Consider that he had the need to report three times that he did not know what happened while now he is giving a possible insightful description of what happened.


I don’t know if she was tryingto…I don’t get what happened.

It is likely that something took place prior to her “laying here” on the floor that the subject is aware of, and here, telling us what she may have been /:trying” to do is to affirm this point of analysis.
The third statement that he does not know what happened is noted. Investigators: if he has not been accused of knowing by the time of this call, this is unnecessary repetitive language that suggests guilty knowledge.


expected: there's a hole inthe floor; there’s a hole inthe refrigerator. The words "through" and "into" lean to experiential or sensory language—does the subject care more about material items than his mother?

The items have holes in them.
The mother’s blood did not pour or spill. It was not “her” blood. He used the passive, “there’s blood” but not her blood.

Is the subject materialistic? Jealous of father’s success? Did mother bring argument?

Earlier question: Was the subject using the language of trauma?
Answer: No. He is giving details of what happened while asserting to not know what happened.

Note: the subject may be concerned about the forensics of the investigation and may be offering these details (“I don’t know what happened”) in order to be seen as “helpful”, which is consistent with “ingratiation” into the investigation.

D: You said there’s a hole through the floor and the refrigerator?

JC:Yes.

D: Okay.

JC:And she’s laying(sobbing) in a pool of blood.


It was…she’s still (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I don’t get it. I dropped in…

“It was” is censored and tells us something else happened prior that he is aware of.
Note the continued (and unnecessary) claims of ignorance.
Note that he may be referencing time “I dropped in…” or the need to explain why he was at the home.

We do not know what to make of “two hours” other than to note the passing of time is consistent in the language and in the pace of information. Time has passed and the time has been significant enough for him to process (accept) her death.

The emphasis upon “blood” shows a disconnect from his mother (two separate entities) which is unexpected and a possible indicator of having caused the bloodshed.

D:Okay, okay, uh…I’m gonna ahead and send the officers and deputies and the ambulance to the house there so we can help you okay?

JC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) …okay…

D:They’re already on the way okay, it’ll be just a…just moment here okay?

JC: Okay.

D:All right BILL I’m gonna go ahead and let you go.

JC: Bye.

D: Mm bye.


Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated

Question: Did police have appropriate reason, based solely upon this call, to suspect him in the shooting death of his mother?

Answer: Yes

Question: Is the subject telling all he knows about what happened to his mother?

Answer: No

This is 90% or more of deception: deliberately withheld information rather than outright fabrication of reality.


The subject is not likely to pass a polygraph if administered with his own wording.
Peter Hyatt as Peter Hyatt

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2019/03/analysis-911-shirley-carter-murder.html