Statement Analysis of Sergio Celis 2015 and 911 Call

Statement Analysis of Sergio Celis 2015 and 911 Call
Thursday, April 23, 2015



Three years ago, Isabel Celis, 6, went missing. If you are new to Statement Analysis and new to this case, fasten your seatbelt. What you are about to read is going to sound strange, but as you read through this, and the father's 911 call, and then on to the Dr. Phil Show, you will see how the words this father uses in his 2015 interview make sense.

Three years ago, Isabel Celis, 6, went missing and before a single word was analyzed, behavioral analysis was in play:

The parents did not want to address the 'kidnapper' via media, nor in any other manner in spite of police setting this up for them. A few days passed and media pressure got to them, and they spoke. This is the same as going grocery shopping, having your toddler wander off, and you, the parent, not calling out after your child, but literally finishing your shopping, packing up the groceries in your car, driving home, unpacking them, having lunch, and then, when someone pressures you, pick up the phone and report your child missing.

In other words, the parents that behave this way, do not want their child found.

After pressure built up from both police, who witnessed the reluctance to help get in touch with whoever "abducted" Isabel, and the media reporting that the family is not cooperating, they decided to speak.

They did.

We then knew that Isabel was not "missing" nor would Isabel be found alive.

The firestorm began then and there.

Both behavioral and statement analysis showed guilty knowledge about what happened to Isabel. But it wasn't done uncovering information.

Then the family gave an interview on the Dr. Phil Show, and expert analysis from Kaaryn Gough confirmed what initial analysis showed: Isabel not only was not kidnapped, but never left that home alive and the mother, too, was covering. They reported their child kidnapped but on the show, they did not use the following words:

kidnap
kidnapper
ransom
payment
contact
getting Isabel back
return
safe

or anything associated or expected with a kidnapping. For those that thought that only Sergio was deceptive, this show indicated both parents for deliberately misleading police and the public.

Child Protective Services removed the father, Sergio, from the house and police released the 911 call which showed: deception indicated.

What's worse than this? The language employed by Sergio Celis was consistent with sexual homicide.

This call showed a giggling deceptive caller, scripting his language to fit the story. Here is a news story from WGUN9. It it, Sergio sticks to the script.

Isabel Celis missing three years later: Father says "Unbelievable disbelief of everything"

The YouTube links below to watch the full KGUN9 interview with Sergio and Rebecca Celis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieijOxx99l4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyMGPcJOLdg


TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - It's been exactly three years since Isabel Celis vanished from her home. Her disappearance and massive multi-agency search made national headlines.

But the coverage has waned and thousands of leads have turned up nothing. Her parents Rebecca and Sergio Celis say they will not give up looking for her.

Sergio retraced his steps the morning his daughter disappeared.

"I went into her bedroom. She wasn't in her bed. I said Isabel. I looked in here. She wasn't in the bed," said Sergio.

Note the awkward repetition. He is not outright lying. He did actually look in her bedroom.
Note "the" bed, and not "her" bed. He is working from his previous statements and not from experiential memory, but memory of what he reported earlier.
He moves through the house to his sons room, Julien and Sergio.

Next, we note he moves into present tense language.

"There's a lot of blankets on the ground. I lift up the blankets. She's not under the blankets. Came here knocked on door Isabel. Are you in the bathroom?" he said.

Note:

1. present tense language instead of past tense language
2. Note the dropped pronoun with "Came here knocked on door."
Please also note that blankets and doors are in his statements. These are often in statements where sexual abuse has taken place, and in statements where the speaker, himself, may have been a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
"Other bedroom I looked in here," he said.

Here he goes back to past tense. The changing of tense shows inconsistency and a signal that he is not speaking from experiential memory.
The last place to look before searching outside, the garage.

"I literally walked in the garage and walked all the way around because okay now this is getting strange," he said.

Note that he uses the word "literally" which suggests that other things he has reported may have been figurative or more simply put, not "literally" fulfilled. This is not the language of truth in searching for his daughter but indication that he knew she was not where he went.
Note "because" shows the need to explain why he walked "all the way around" as if any effort to find his daughter was strenuous.

Note the return, mid sentence, to present tense language. This is another indicator that he is making up this information as he goes along. This is consistent with "literally" being a signal that he has not been "literal" about his search.
A moment later, his son Sergio runs from Isabel's room to tell him.

"He says Dad, her window's wide open. Her screen is busted out."

He, again, goes present tense. Please also note that besides doors and coverings (blankets) as being part of the language of sexual abuse, windows, opening and closing, are also part of the language of sexual abuse.
"And then it all began. It all began," The nightmare as Sergio describes it.

The nightmare, if that is what he was referencing, did not begin when Isabel went missing, but when his son reported the window being "wide open."
After searching outside he made a phone call to Rebecca, who had already left for work. He had told her,

"Isa's not here. You need to get your butt home now. We can't find her anywhere. Sergio's out running around the neighborhood. I can't find her. The screen's broken out. The window's wide open. You need to get home. Did you call 911? No, I wanted to call you first."

This is why I referenced "scripting" language earlier. He is now repeating his bizarre 911 call, particularly the sensitive part where he giggled and said, "get your butt home" on tape; something that has been repeated often in media as inappropriate.
That call to his wife, he said, was the worst thing he's ever had to do.

One might think the worst thing he ever had to do was confront that his daughter was missing but to him, it was to do with his wife.

Please carefully consider this as truthful and then read further down to the 911 call where he was asked, "how tall is she?" and he answered with his wife's height.

He was very nervous about telling his wife, and in hindsight, this is yet another indication that she was aware of sexual abuse. Read the analysis below. It is very likely that CPS was aware of allegations of sexual abuse and got Sergio to move out of the home, via "Safety Planning" (agreement) but did not have enough to have a judge order him out.

This means that CPS talked with both parents about sexual abuse allegations; something serious enough to get him out of the house.

With this in mind, listen to his words here, and then 3 years earlier, in the 911 call. His directive to his wife is like "faux authority" where he tells her to "get her butt home" as if to portray himself in a position of moral authority, which, if true, highlights that his wife "had something on him" and knew something.
Remember, CPS got him to leave the house, and not her.


"And making that phone to tell her that was harder than making that 911 call. How the heck am I going to tell Becky that Isabel's not here."

To the public, this sound strange. It is much worse to think of a missing child than to just tell his wife, but if the scenario is as the analysis and the contact with CPS suggests, we can understand why the call was much worse.

Did Isabel threaten to report what had happened in that home? Did she have to be silenced to preserve the rest of the family? Consider this as a possibility as you read through the case, and listen to the references to the brothers, and the level of concern over them, far more than any concern about what Isabel, the "missing" child, might have experienced.
Then came the call to 9-1-1.

Cavazos: "Normally someone would think, I'm going to call 911 first. What happened?"

Sergio Celis: "Disbelief. I just felt like there has to be an explanation, you know. Don't panic."

Dispatcher: "911. What's your emergency?"

Sergio Celis: "I want to report a missing person. My little girl. She's 6 years old. I believe she was abducted from our house."

Here it is best to view the actual 911 call with analysis rather than what this station reported.
That calm tone during the 911 call -- and a little laugh opened a floodgate of accusatory finger pointing from the public.

Dispatcher: "Is mom there also? Sergio: She had just left to work. And I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. Laugh."

"Everyone is critiquing on how I sounded on my 911 call because I wanted to be so calm and get it all across. That they probably would have heard my speaking to Becky the way the nurses heard me ask for her. Maybe that is what they needed to hear or something. I just don't understand that."

Although his voice inflection is bizarre and difficult to ignore, Statement Analysis deals specifically with the words he employed instead.
These words indicated deception on his part, not nervousness, but deliberate desire to deceive law enforcement into thinking Isabel was kidnapped by a caller who knows that she was not kidnapped.
And he's frustrated, he said, that the accusations continue to this day. "So when you ask me, how am I today, 3 years later. Unbelievable disbelief of everything, of everything."

He said he's most angry and frustrated with Tucson Police Department's investigation. "The investigators. Everyone who's in charge of this investigation and the higher ups from them -- FBI, U.S. Marshals - everybody -- remembering that ridiculous circus and it wasn't to find my little girl."

The circus, he described, were the hundreds in law enforcement who scoured the neighborhood, the city, the county for days.

The entire effort, he said, was just for show

"If there was a purpose she should have been found within the first 24 hours. Instead of wasting three days on us. Having us down there 12 hours a piece -- separating us doing everything they possibly could to make our lives that much worse. We just lost our little girl. We haven't been victimized enough by that?"

Stirring his anger even more, "Letting suspects go. And not drilling the real people the way they drilled us."

One in particular, Rebecca Celis said, a relative she won't reveal to the public, who left town after Isabel vanished, hired a lawyer, and refused to cooperate with police.

Rebecca Celis: "I feel like he ran and what's going to keep him from running again."
Cavazos: "You don't know where he is now?"
Rebecca: "Yes, I know where he is."

What purpose is there to withhold his name since they already believe police have failed when they targeted the parents?

Both parents are angry, frustrated, but the current lead investigator in the case Tucson Police Lt. Matt Rondstat told KGUN 9 "that's understandable."

He said it's natural to lash out at police during the investigative process. They've followed every standard investigative procedure, every lead handed to them, and have interviewed everybody who may have information in this case.

A mother's love.

Freedom Park. The place where little Isa hurt herself on the bleachers, a moment that plays back over and over in her mother's mind.

It was the day before little Isa vanished. "Her coming up to me and saying that she hurt herself. Okay it's time to sit down with me for a little bit," said

A mother's love, the instinct to protect, runs deep. A bond that's been severed. Three years later, there are vivid details that, Rebecca said, won't ever fade.

"The last thing I did with Isa and everything leading up to that is very very clear. And I think because of what happened I don't think you ever forget those very fine details.

But those details, those images, are of a six-year-old girl. Rebecca imagines what her daughter would look like today using two of Isa's friends as a reference.
"Looking at the two girls makes me think she hasn't changed. Facially hasn't changed very much. Her expression hasn't changed much just because I'm comparing her to how those two girls are," she said.

And she imagines where her daughter might be. "I think she's in a house somewhere where she's not allowed to, maybe not allowed to use. She knew how to use a computer. She knew how to use a phone," she said.

She thinks about the 3 Cleveland girls held captive by Ariel Castro and found 10 years later.

Cavazos: "Do you think that might be the case here?"

Rebecca Celis: "Why not? Why couldn't it be? All I can hope for is that she's being well taken care of and that she's safe and that she's okay. Cavazos: You believe she's alive? Rebecca: Oh yeah. Yeah. I feel it in my heart."

Note she asks two questions without waiting for an answer. She can answer these questions and does not believe she needs to.

She dreams of her daughter's return one day -- a reason the Celis family won't move from their home though they want to.

Rebecca Celis: "You're asking if I want to move. Yes, I want to move. Do I want to move without Isa? No.
Sergio Celis: I don't see us leaving. No."

They'll remain for now, but they've changed anniversary events. They're no longer holding them for the public. Instead they hope people will donate funds in honor of Isabel to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The organization is also making a face progression of Isabel -- what she would look like today, to help in the search for her.

Here is the analysis of the 911 call:

Here is the entire 911 call made by Sergio Celis regarding his missing 7 year old daughter, Isabel.

Statement Analysis is in bold type. Emphasis by underlining, italics and color added. Please note that the color blue is given for the highest level of sensitivity.


Dispatcher:911 what's your emergency?
Sergio Celis: I want to report a missing person, my little girl who's six years old, I believe she was abducted from our house.
Please note that additional or extra words give us additional information. The added word "want" actually reduces commitment.
Please note that he is reporting a missing "person"; it is not expected that a father would refer to his child as a "person"
Note the order:
1. He wants to report a missing person
2. "My little girl"
3. He "believes" she was "abducted" from "our" house. That she may have been abducted is third.
When someone calls their home "our" house, it shows a desire to share ownership. This is often seen in divorces, or can enter the language of those who rent a room in the home, or live with others. That he feels a need to share the home while reporting a child missing should not be missed. We find that the pronouns "we" and "our" come from parents who wish to share guilt (Dillingham) especially since parenting a child is a highly personal ("I" and "my") relationship.
Note the assertion of abduction is only "believed" which is weak. If he believes that she has been abducted, he should have a reason for his belief. An abduction is conclusionary and does not hold the same meaning as "kidnapped" where ransom and contact may be expected. That a father of a missing child could jump to this conclusion should alert investigators to withheld information.
Dispatcher: What's the address?
Sergio: 57 or 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: Okay. Stay on the line for Tucson Police.
Sergio: I will.
Dispatcher: Tucson Police Department, Gabhart
Sergio: Hello, I need to report a uh, missing child. I believe she was abducted from my house.
Please note that his call to the police who will be investigating the "abduction" begins with the greeting, "Hello."
People in a hurry to report an emergency may not think to be polite, unless there is a reason to 'befriend' the operator.

There may be a psychological reason for this: some guilty parents will seek to make friends or be at peace with those who might later suspect them. This is why guilty parents will often "thank" police for their work in searching for the missing child, rather than show impatience and frustration. They are, literally, "thankful" for the police failure to locate the "missing" child. This shows itself early in an investigation, and then turns to rage (or disappears) as time passes and the public is aware that the police now suspect the same parents who once thanked them.
This should be seen as a red flag for guilty caller, and an attempt to portray him as "friendly" with the police. Urgency on the part of the innocent parent is expected; not a casual greeting.
Please note the change of language. When language changes, it should reflect a change in reality. If not, it may be an indication of deception as the subject does not speak from memory and is not keeping track of his words:
"missing person" and "my little girl" and "our house" is now:
"missing child" from "my" house.
There does not appear to be any justification for the change in the context, therefore, it may be that it is not coming from experiential memory.
Note how he refers to Isaabel:
To him, Isabel is not "Isabel" but a "person" and a "little girl" and a "child."
Person: gender neutral
"little girl" specific gender
"child" is often used when at risk. While "missing" she is a "person" (non specific) and "child"
Dispatcher: Okay. How old?
Sergio: Six years old.
Dispatcher: Okay is it your daughter or?
Sergio: Yes
Dispatcher: Why do you think she abducted?
That the subject said he thought his daughter was "abducted" was not expected by the 911 operator. An "abduction" is a conclusion, therefore, the subject must have good reason to say what he did, especially given a father's instincts.

Since he has reported his daughter abducted, he now is asked why he thinks this. It should be easy enough to explain, since, after all, he reported it as such:
Sergio: I have no idea. We woke up this morning and went to go get her up, start her baseball game and she's gone. I woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. We've looked all around the house, my son…
Deception indicated
1. Please note that "I have no idea" is not expected. He asserted what he thought but now claims to have "no idea" what caused him to say so? This is not credible. That she is "missing" would show an "idea" why. A child is missing and a parent says that they have "no idea"? We saw the same deception from Justin DiPietro, father of Ayla Reynolds, who's blood was found in his basement.
2. Please note that he reports that "we" woke up; not "I" woke up. This is an indication of deception. Note that he does not say who the "we" are here. Pronouns are instinctive and guilty people seek to share responsibility with the word "we", no different than a guilty teenager runs away from commitment in hopes of sharing guilt with the word "we"(Dillingham)
3. Note the highest level of sensitivity is found in two specific parts of language:
A. "Left" (departed) when used as an unnecessary connecting verb
B. Reason Why: "to, therefore, so, since, because..." and so on. This means that the subject, when reporting what happened, has a need to explain why he did something.
These two parts of language are given the highest level of sensitivity in Analysis, and are color coded with blue to highlight specific areas of extreme sensitivity. When more than one is found, we know we are at a highly sensitive
He tells the reason why he went to get Isabel, of whom he avoids using her name (distancing language)
4. Pronouns are well practiced by humans since the earliest days of speech and are completely reliable. When someone cannot keep track of pronouns, deception is present.
Note: "I, we looked everywhere"indicates deception.
Dispatcher: Okay, hang on.
Sergio:…are running, yeah, my sons are running around the house looking for her.
This should not have been needed to be said and is an attempt to portray the family as united and searching. There is no need for him to say that the house has been searched unless...
Unless he has a need to persuade police that they searched the house. Who would not search the house? This was expected before calling 911.
Dispatcher: the screen was on the ground outside?
Sergio: Yes
His daughter was not in her bed, and the screen was on the ground outside, yet he had "no idea" why he thought she was abducted? This does not make sense, unless it is a false report: as a false report, that is, not coming from experiential memory, it makes sense.
Dispatcher: What's her address?
Sergio: 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: What's your name sir?
Sergio: My name is Sergio, S-E-R-G-I-O, middle initial D, last name is C-E-L-I-S,
Dispatcher: I-S as in Sam?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay, what's her name?
Sergio: Isabel, I-S-B-E-L, uh, I-S-A-B-E-L, M as in man is the middle initial
Here is when her name enters his language, but only in response to a direct question.
Dispatcher: Okay, same last name?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay what's her actual birth date?
Sergio: Is (removed by TPD), of uh, (removed by TPD). I'm sorry. (removed by TPD) and she's going to seven this year, so uh, (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. Is mom there also?
This is a yes or no question. Anything beyond "yes" or "no" is sensitive.
Sergio: Uh, she had just left for work, I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. (chuckles)
Here he established his wife's alibi. Whatever happened to Isabel, instead of answering "yes or no" there was a need to explain that it happened while his wife was not home.
If he had "no idea" what happened to her, how is it that she had "just" left for work?
Please note the word "told."
The word "told" is used in authoritative sentences. "My boss said to be at work at 9" is one way of saying it, while, "My boss told me..." is stronger. Here, he portrays the sentence as if he had to exercise authority to "tell" her or "instruct" her to come home.
Is this reasonable?
No.
A mother of a missing 6 year old would not have to be "told" to come home from work: she would leave immediately. Here, the subject wants us to believe that he had to impose authority over her, as indicated by the word "told" in his language.
Next, this is buttressed by his wording "get your butt home."
By his language: He is portraying her reluctance to come home. Is this how he wanted it? Is this how Becky wanted it?
Please note that he is heard chuckling on the call made to report his missing child.
In statement analysis we say that we do not analyze the person, but the words, and that people who analyze voice inflection are often wrong as often as they are right. But it is here that it is so ridiculous that it sounds cartoon like and is impossible to ignore:
He laughed while reporting his daughter missing, while he is being deceptive. His nervousness is likely due to the deception and need to portray himself as authoritative and helpful.
Dispatcher: Okay, mother.
Sergio: But she was…
Dispatcher: What kind of vehicle is she going to be en route back in?
Sergio: Uh, in our Lexus RX300, and it's red.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio: And she's coming from TMC, so she should just be coming straight down Craycroft.
Dispatcher: Okay. How tall is she?
Sergio: She is five two.
This indicates where his mind is: he is concentrating on "pleasing" the operator and not about his missing daughter.

His language reveals that Isabel is not a priority. He thought of his wife in the "get your butt home" comment and his mind is still on his wife, not daughter, who, if truly "missing" or "abducted" would be all he cared about. This is a parental instinct to care only for the missing child. He is more concerned with image and alibi than he is with his missing daughter.
Dispatcher: No the, I'm sorry, you're daughter
Sergio: Oh my daughter. Um…forty inches. Thirty, yeah 36 to 40 inches.
If your child was missing, would a 911 operator need to redirect your attention back to your daughter? This is the reason in an interview, we do not "redirect" anything: we listen.
Dispatcher: Okay. Is she black, white, or Hispanic?
Sergio: She's a fair skinned Hispanic with uh, clear eyes and light brown hair.

What color are "clear" eyes?
Dispatcher: And what do you mean by clear eyes? Like…
Sergio: Uh, well they're a little bit green…
Dispatcher: Are they hazel or?
Sergio:…green, green, hazel, sure.
Dispatcher: Hazel, okay. And you said she's about 40 inches tall.
Sergio: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Do you remember what she was wearing last night when you saw her?
The expectation is "yes" followed by what she was wearing. It is a yes or no question, but it has the expectation of commentary for the purpose of helping locate her. His answer reveals that he saw her two times.
Please note this.
In Sergio Celis' answer, he dilineates different times he saw what she was wearing. He should simply report what pajamas the six year old had on. This is where extra words give away the information needed:
Sergio: Uh, before she went to bed I believe she was wearing little navy blue shorts and, and a pink uh, a pink like little uh, tank top type of a shirt.
He reports what she wore, not to bed, but "before she went to bed" indicating that this may not be what she was wearing when she went to bed, or when she went missing.
Also note that besides not reporting what pajamas she had on, he describes her shirt and shorts as "little":
She is six years old.
Not only does she have on "little shorts" and a "tank top" but a "little tank top" type of shirt. Since she is six years old, we would expect that her shorts would not be large. That he uses this language is concerning and the analyst should be on the alert for possible signals of sexual abuse, including lights, doors, windows, water, etc.
The dispatcher reflects back the language, without the additional and "unimportant" information of the size of the clothing:
Dispatcher: Pink tank top? Okay. Navy blue shorts. Has she ever tried to sneak out of a window or anything?
Sergio: Oh no.
Dispatcher: Have you guys…
Sergio: Hu-uh
Dispatcher: …been having any weird phone calls, anything like that, somebody hanging around?
Sergio: No. We got home late from uh, my son's baseball game.

Note that "we got home" is plural, with "my" son being singular. This is expected with biological parents. Yet, when speaking of the missing child, she is "our" daughter. This is different.
"Our" is the language of 'sharing', that is:
step parenting,
foster parenting,
adoption, or something related to having someone else involved in the child's life other than the biological parents.

This is, therefore, sometimes in the language of biological parents who have discussed divorce.

It is also found in the language of biological parents where there is a need to share guilt.
Dispatcher: Uh-hm
Sergio: You know, about 10:30 last night. (clears throat) Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching uh, the Diamondbacks game at midnight.

In sexual abuse cases, we find words such as "door", "window" and "blanket" (coverings) as well as "lights" and references to water, in any form.
"Water", in particular, enters the language of sexual homicides. That he felt the need to mention "showers" should cause investigators to explore the possibility of sexual abuse in the caller's history, including checking with CPS, school teachers, and the pediatrician.
When someone reports what happened, they cannot say everything, therefore, they edit out what they do not feel is important and keep in what they feel is needed. Next, they must choose which words to use, and what order to put them in.

All of this happens in less than a millisecond in time.


Dispatcher: Uh-hm.
Sergio: And I feel asleep and I never heard anything weird. So I was like just on the…
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…other side of the wall from her.
Dispatcher: How, how many siblings does she have?
Sergio: Two.
Dispatcher: Okay, and those are brothers you said?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: How old are they?
Sergio: 14 and 10.
Dispatcher: And you said they're out looking or they were looking all over the house?
Sergio: Oh no, they, they just, they just went right now, my oldest son, the 14 year old, he went running around just to make sure um, but I, she's nowhere…
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…to be seen…
Dispatcher: Outside or inside?
Sergio: He's outside our property wall.
Dispatcher: Okay. And where is the ten year old?
Sergio: He's in the garage. He's just out in the garage just waiting for…
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…my wife.
Dispatcher: Okay and what's mom's name?
Sergio: Becky.
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's your birth date sir?
Sergio: (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's mom's?
Sergio: Uh, (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. Any you're both natural parents of the child?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay. So no, no step-parents, any, any problems with any grandparents?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. So you're not having any family issues, anything like that?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. And you haven't noticed anybody hanging out in front of your house?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. You're son that's 14, what's his name?
Sergio: (inaudible yelling in background) Uh, I'm sorry, my wife just walked in and, and she's speaking to somebody. I don't know if she's speaking to the police also. She might have been calling on her way. You asked me about my son, what did you ask me?

In a 911 calls of domestic homicide, the words "I'm sorry" entering for any reason, were flagged for guilt. It was found in a number of guilty callers of domestic homicides. It is something that is on the mind of the guilty and it "leaks" out in the words, for whatever reason. (Gough)
Dispatcher: Yeah the, the 14 year old that's out looking for her?
Sergio: Yes. What about him?
Dispatcher: Um, well hang on a second. Okay, actually I think one of your sons is trying to call. Um, I'm sorry, what was your 14 year old's name?
Sergio: (Taken out by Tucson News Now)
Sergio: My wife just got home and she's kind of hysterical and freaking out, so.
Dispatcher: I, okay. Tell her we are on the way, we've got a…
Sergio: Okay.
Dispatcher:…bunch of officers on the way, I want you guys to stay there in the house.
Sergio: We will.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:Bu-bye
Analysis conclusion:

This is a deceptive call regarding an "abduction" that did not take place, made by a subject with willful and guilty knowledge. Specifically, the caller is deceptive about what happened to Isabel Celis, of whom he distances himself, and is deceptive about his own actions.

It is likely that Isabel Celis has been a victim of sexual abuse and is not alive.

By Peter Hyatt.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/statement-analysis-of-sergio-celis-2015.html?m=1

Haleigh Cummings: Misty Croslin 911 Call

Haleigh Cummings: Misty Croslin 911 Call

"I loved that little girl like she was my own" said Misty Croslin hours after making the 911 call to report Haleigh Cummings missing.

We note that Haleigh was supposed to be "missing", Misty in speaking to a reporter, already referenced her in the past tense. Not only did she say "loved", but also used the distancing language of the word "that" with regard to Haliegh. We saw the same thing from Patsy Ramsey, as guilt can cause one to distance oneself from a child.

As we continue to look at the case, we not only see signals of deception in Misty Croslin's language, but what do you make of Ronald Cummings?

Statement Analysis: Misty 911 Call 911 transcript for missing Haleigh Cummings

911: “911, what’s your emergency”

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

Note the call begins with a greeting. Most guilty callers in homicides begin with a greeting where innocent callers have an urgency that bypasses politeness.

Note the order in which she speaks. Order is important to note. Whether it is the chronological order in which you name your children, your siblings, or even the names of friends, order has reason. It an "excited utterance", order speaks directly of the importance.

Here, Misty tells the 911 operator 3 things:

1. That she was asleep. This is THE single most important element for the caller: that the police know she was asleep and has now just woke up.

2. That "our backdoor was wide open".

Notice that the 2nd most important thing for the police to know is about the backdoor being wide open. Misty says "our" backdoor; not "the" backdoor. Pronoun gives us ownership. "the backdoor" would be a common phrase used by any caller since the caller is from the residence. For Misty, the most important fact for the police to know is that she was sleeping; secondly, that the backdoor was open; not just the backdoor, but "our" backdoor, plural.

3. Thirdly, and lastly, she reports a missing child.

It is commonsense to suppose that if your child was missing, it would be the very first thing out of your mouth. It is a reflex by not only a parent, but a step parent, a relative, a caretaker, a babysitter. In Misty Croslin's mind, it is low on the list of priority.

We deem this 911 call to be deceptive; even from the onset.

Why did Misty say "our daughter"?

When a parent says "our" daughter, or "our" son, this is an indicator that a step parent, (or step caretaker, etc) is likely involved. When biological parents speak, it is not the norm for them to say "our daughter" as they, even when speaking together, still use the natural, "my" daughter.

The exception may be when parents have already discussed divorce and will lead, eventually, to step parenting because one of the parents may have been involved with another love interest.

President Clinton, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said he need to repair things with his mother, his wife, and "our daughter"; a strong indication that he and Hillary had discussed divorce. (Another strong indication at that time was the black eye that President Clinton sported after he told the country that his definition of sexual relations was not the same as most others; Hillary included).

Why did Misty rely upon the plural in both "our back door" and "our daughter"?

Had Misty already considered herself a step parent, it makes sense. She said, "them kids loved me like they was my own..." (past tense language noted).

But why "our" door? The norm would not have been "my back door" unless the person lived alone. Even then, the common: "the door".

Note: When someone says I must make the bed, they are likely married. When someone says they must make "my bed" they are likely single. When a married person says, "I must make my bed" they are likely headed for divorce and are already taking ownership. For married couples, "the" is the norm. "The" dog is a family dog, but "my" dog is taken care of by one person more than the others.

Since Misty is in her residence, it is a red flag that she does not use the norm.

This leads to the question: why?

Could it be that Misty has been coached? This would explain the plural use here and with "our" daughter.

Misty also began a sentence with "I think..." but did not complete it. Fragmented sentences show stress as they are fragmented thoughts. What did she think? Was an explanation of what she thinks happened about to follow?

911: “you can’t find what?”

Misty Croslin:”our daughter”

Misty revisits the plural language of step parenting, or a prepared or coached call

911:” OK, what’s your address?

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911: “OK, what’s the numerical?”

Misty Croslin: “The numerical…what’s that?”

911: “the number…green lane?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes”

911: “OK when did you last see her?”

Misty Croslin: “Um, we like just, you know…it was about 10 o’clock- she was sleeping- I was cleaning…

Here is another indicator of deception. The 911 operator asked about the last time Misty saw Haleigh. This is a sensitive question. Misty was asked when was the last time "you" saw her. Misty is unable to take ownership and begins with "um" stalling to think (a parent on high alert has adrenaline pumping overtime and has VIVID recall) and then weakens her statement with "we like just", "you know" ("you know" is often a phrase, but it is also employed to convince rather than report. This is supposed to be an informative call; not an editorialized story nor a building of an alibi. Misty began the call building her alibi; not reporting)

Misty said she was sleeping, but did not answer the question precisely, but immediatley changed the subject back away from the missing child to herself:

"I was cleaning"

NOTE: cleaning, laundry, bathing, showering, washing of hands: when enter into a statement further exploration for sexual abuse must begin, as these phrases are commonly used in cases where sexual abuse has taken place. In a child's language (or an adult recalling childhood abuse) we often have the mentioning of blankets, coverings, opening of doors, and closing of doors

What would Misty's cleaning have to do with Haleigh's disappearance. This is building of an alibi for Misty, even if it does not appear sensible. Look at the number of sentences that Misty spoke reporting a missing child.

How many sentences were about the missing child? How many sentences were about Misty?

911: “OK- how old is your daughter?”

Misty Croslin: “She’s five”

911: “Ok…what was she last seen wearing? Maam…”

Misty Croslin: “She was in her pajamas- she was sleeping…” Misty mentions now, for the 2nd time, that Haleigh was sleeping. The question was answered, but additional information is given. When information appears unimportant, in Statement Analysis, we consider it doubly important. It is vital that the 911 operator understand, from Misty's viewpoint, that Haleigh was sleeping.

I believe from Misty's emphasis that Haleigh was, at this time, not sleeping. For Misty, Haleigh being asleep is too important. I do not believe that Haleigh died in her sleep.

911: “OK…alright…You said your back door was wide open?”

Misty Croslin: “yes- it was bricked- there was a brick on the floor…when I was asleep it was not like that.”

Here, in Misty's language, enters a brick. "it was bricked"; not "it was open" nor even "it was held open by a brick". For Misty, being "bricked" means the brick had control over the door. But as quickly as Misty mentions the door and the brick, she immediatley states again that she, Misty, was alseep, and that at that time, there was nothing "bricked". I believe that this language may suggest the manner in which Haleigh died or was disposed of. It is in Misty's language for good reason.

When Texas Equasearch Tim Miller went to Casey Anthony's home, Cindy would not cooperate with the search, as she insisted Caylee was alive. "George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods, or anything". Caylee was found less than a half mile from her house, in the woods. "George and I" rather than she, herself, reduces committment to the statement, as she does not wish to own this statement alone. The "woods" was in her mind likely because she knew that Caylee's remains were out in the woods, subject to wild animals and bug life.

911: Ok…the back door…listen to me…your back door was wide open…what are you talking about a brick?”

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911: “what is a brick?”

Misty Croslin: “it’s almost like– on the stairs- we have a walkway…”

911:” uh huh….and there was a brick laying there?”

Misty Croslin: “yes…it’s still there” Misty identifies the cinder block for the 911 operator. She now identifies where a block may be found, at the crime scene.

(background) tell them they’ve better come on…

911: “we’ve got em coming- tell him we’ve got them coming”

Misty Croslin: “they’re coming”

911: “Ok what’s the color of your house ma’am?

Misty Croslin: “blue”

911: “blue, OK

(pause)

OK- what does she look like? How tall is she? Give me some description of her.”

Misty Croslin: “How tall she she? Like long hair like curly…with curls.. Misty answers a question with a question, meaning that this is a senstive question to her and she needs time to think. Even with Turner's Syndrome and doctor appointments, Misty likely does not know Haleigh's height and weight. The parent that brings a child repeatedly to a doctor knows this instantly. Usually one parent knows and the other doesn't, as both generally cannot make regular doctor appointments, but Haleigh was a special needs child and the height and weight is likely taken at every appointment. Misty will struggle if asked for specifics. Misty does not answer how tall she is, nor eye color, or hair color. All she can say is that her hair is curly. This is the excited utterance and reference for Misty: seeing Haleigh's curly hair. Was Haleigh wounded in the head? Was the head used to attach a brick? Was she hit with a brick and "shut up" by someone? Was she face down in the bed with curly hair showing? Curly hair is the answer Misty gives to how tall is Haleigh. This is what was in her mind.

911: “long curls…what color?”

Misty Croslin: “(inaudible)”

911:” ok- what color hair? Brown hair?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes…oh my gosh….”The 911 operator struggles to get answers. Misty appears to be in a panic over these questions, but was not in a panic when she first reported Haleigh missing. These are specific questions but they are not difficult questions. The 911 operator is now asking compound questions; likely out of frustration. Compound questions are to be avoided. They allow the subject to answer any question that is easist to answer. It is often done by television hosts who enjoy hearing their own voice more than the answers by the subject. Here, it is a sign of frustration as questions are not being answered in a timely manner.

911: “OK- how tall is she about? Or how much does she weigh…do you know that?”

Misty Croslin: “huh?”911: “about how tall or how much she weigh?”/p>

Misty Croslin: “24 sounds about right- I don’t know- she’s not that tall….”

911: “OK-wait- tell your husband we’ve got them coming, ok?”

Misty Croslin: “OK”

911: “How much does she weigh- do you know?”

Misty Croslin: “huh?”

The 911 Operator gets it. She understands now that Misty does not know and she must slow down and ask questions in a more simpler fashion. Do you know?? This shows te frustration.

Misty has yet to answer the specific questions about Haleigh, even though the 911 operator has been asking repeatedly. Misty is in a sensitive area. She was able to report the open door, the brick, and sleeping, without a problem. Now the focus is solely upon Haleigh and Misty is stumbling badly. If it was nerves, it would have showed itself from the beginning. Misty's responses are distinctly troubled now.

911: “How much does she weigh?”The 911 operator skillfully goes back to simple questions; one at a time. She is not going to get "she's about 4' tall, 41 lbs, blue eyes and brown hair" from Misty Croslin, as she would have from any parent, step parent, aunt, uncle, friend, or babysitter.

Misty Croslin: “um…like 40-50 pounds- 60 pounds?

911: “40-60 pounds?”

Misty Croslin: “yeah”

This is a huge spread for a 5 year old child, who has Turner's Syndrome, has to be under a doctor's care, and is tiny due to her growth problems. 40 lbs is one answer, but 60 lbs is a large percentage swing. It would be like saying that an adult female is between 120 lbs and 180 lbs. It is not credible, as a parent could attest. For a parent, who's tiny child may be 41 lbs, a jump of 10 percent would be a reason to celebrate; as it is noteworthy, given her condition.

911: “OK- let me get your name and phone number. Spell your last name…

spell your last name?

Was your back door locked do you know?”

Misty Croslin: “Yes…(inaudible)”

Ronald Cummings: “Man, I need somebody to get here now!”

This is a more normal response, "I" first person singular. The first person singular is what we would expect to hear from a biological parent, from the beginning.

911: “OK, let me speak to him…”

Ronald Cummings: “I just got home from work, my five-year-old daughter is gone- I need someone here now.”

Ronald says 3 things also. The order is important. What is first and foremost in the mind of Ronald Cummings that he wishes the police to know?

1. That he was at work ,and just came home. 2. his 5 year old daughter is missing. 3. He (singular) needs someone (unspecified) to come to his home.

911: “OK, listen to me…listen to me…we’ve got two officers…”

Ronald Cummings: “if I find whoever has my daughter before you all do, I’m killing them…I don’t care- I will spend the rest of my life in prison….you can put that on the recording…I don’t care.”

This is understandable for any parent who believes his child is kidnapped; to see vengence. It is only problematic for the reason that we do not know that Haleigh has been kidnapped. How does he not know that she simply walked off? Most kids are found near the home, wandering away. Is it the open door that leads him to believe a kidnapping has occured?

He makes a fatalistic sounding statement: He will spend the rest of his life in prison. Why? For killing? Isn't Florida the death penalty? Does he think a jury might not have mercy on a father who rescued his kidnapped child?

Or,

does he have reason to believe that he will spend the rest of his life in prison? Why did this unusual statement cross his mind?

Statistics and studies are done on 911 calls, and in specific, missing children, and domestic homicide. This call has begun with deception. Why does a 911 call to report a missing child NEED to be deceptive?

Is Ronald just beside himself with grief? It would appear that he is aware that the 911 call is being recorded and it is important enough for him to not only think it, but to actually speak it to the 911 operator. Is Ronald Cummings thinking that he is going to get life in prison? Why? Is he wild with anxiety over a missing child, or is he burning with anger?

When a child is reported missing by family who is not involved in the disappearance, the family is reported to be in a state of shock and even denial, for a period of time. The innocent do act like the parents who take polygraphs immediately, answer quesitons quickly and honestly, and then go out and search without delay. They appear to be almost like andrenaline junkies who's survival hormones and protective capacities are on full alert and have all the energy in the world to run and search for their child. They are often coached by law enforcement to sit still while others search, stay near the phone, and provide as much information as possible.

Ronald is not in the shock stage and has moved way past denial and is now seeking vengence. What does he know that he speaks this early in the case, of vengeance?

911: “It’s OK sir, we’ve got them on the way…ok- can you give me…what kind of description of pajamas was she wearing?"

Ronald Cummings: “I don’t f%$ know!”

Cummings:” Hello”

911:” OK sir let me just talk to your wife. Let me get some information from her.

Misty: (inaudible) crying. “I don’t wanna…(inaudible)”

We don't know what Misty said, but by judging how she did under specific questions, it is not unreasonable for her to say "I don't wanna talk to them again!" meaning the 911 operator. Misty was fine when giving her possibly prepared speech, but when it came to questions, she buckled and couldn't even give a simple, basic and general description of Haleigh. Misty has the exact opposite reaction of a parental rush of adrenaline: she doesn't want to talk; she doesn't want to assist. Misty has a reason not to help locate Haleigh Cummings.

911: “Can I talk to her? OK”

Misty: “inaudible”

Cummings: (inaudible, in background ) “Where my daughter at?”

Is Ronald asking this presupposing that Misty knows where Haleigh is?

911:” Ma’am. OK listen I need you to answer some questions. Does the door look like it was pried open?”

Misty:” Umm… (inaudible)”

911 Operator is frustrated by this point and begins to make mistakes. She is actually coaching Misty on how to answer. This is why we ask open ended questions and seek to NOT introduce language to the subject: let her speak her own words at all times. Direct quesitons teach a subject to lie; as we teach them what WE know, and where WE are going with our questioning.

911: “Does it look like you had to sorta…like someone tried to enter your house.”

Misty: “Umm. Hold On.”

This is a major red flag.

Does she need to check with Ronald to see if this line is where she wants to go? Why would she need affirmation? She already said the back door was "bricked" open.

911:” And another thing, make sure you and your husband don’t touch the door anymore. Don’t mess with the door or anything."

Misty: “No it doesn’t."

It isn't what? We don't know. Misty did not answer questions as they were asked, as simple as they were. "it doesn't" what? We don't know the answer. We can guess: "it doesn't look like someone tried to enter?" We do know that Misty appeared to need Ronald's guidance for an answer to another simple question; much like we saw on the TV interview where Misty, unable to answer, just looked up to Ronald for guidance.

911: “it doesn’t look like it is?”

Misty: “No”

911: “Ok, now listen, tell your husband, do not touch anything- because we are going to get a k-9 out there”

Misty: “ok….she said don’t touch anything because they are bringing a k-9 out here”

Ronald Cummings: “they better bring f’ing something out here- because if I get my hands on that mother f’er I’m going to kill him…I don’t give a f%*)@# about prison…mother F’ing prison doesn’t scare me.”

Ronald is a violent man and is speaking his own language. This is his norm; his way of life. He threatens the "whoever" has his daughter, he threatens the police, and reiterates that he is going to prison.

Why would a distraught, disbelieving, shocked father of a five year old child continue to speak about prison?

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh".

It is fair to ask yourself, how would I handle this? Would you be threatening? Would you have the bravado to say that prison doesn't frighten you? Would you even be thinking of prison, or being unafraid, or anything other than your missing child?

When pictures of Casey Anthony partying while her daughter was "missing" surfaced, Jose Baez floated the soon to sink "ugly coping" defense (she celebrated). But Cindy, in defense of Casey said, "there's no book on greiving, you know".

Actually, there is.

There is lots and lots of data collected, including how innocent and how guilty parents react when their children are reported missing. Federal law enforcement articles (the FBI Law Bulletin) and research (LSI) from thousands of polygraphs exist to guide us. There is a "book" response.

For innocent parents who find their children have gone missing? It is shock, and disbelief. Their hope sometimes continues even into denial, when they learn their child is deceased. Then they grieve, but anger is not the initial response.

Ronald is way past shock, disbelief, denial, and energetic searching. He is angry and his mind continues to go back to prison.

911:” ok, we understand- we’ve got them on the way.

What’s her name…{redacted}…how do you spell her first name…{redacted}…what’s her middle name? …{redacted}. And the spelling of the last name is? …{redacted}.”

Misty: “well, that’s my last name”

911: “What’s her date of birth?

This question is way too much for Misty Croslin. What every parent would know, immediatley, is not for Misty even though she, on the same day said, "I loved that little girl like she was my own." Not only did she speak of a missing child in the past tense (an indicator that Misty knew already that Haleigh was dead) but that Misty was likely, and sadly, telling the truth. She likely would have raised a child in the manner of neglect that her parents raised her. I wouldn't be stunned to learn that Misty's father didn't know Misty's own date of birth.

Ronald Cummings: “i’m going to f’ing kill somebody”

Ron has made this abundantly clear. He is all about the rage and anger and is actually not convincing people he is a distraught dad, but is speaking the language that may be more familiar to him than loving parental protective instincts:

911:”Tell him we understand- we need to get her date of birth.”

Misty: “what’s her date of birth?”

Ronald Cummings: “F her date of birth- we need to find her- f her date of birth.”

Even in the most vulnerable position of needing help from others, Ronald is hostile and uncooperative with the law. Why would he not cooperate with them? Is he simply running out of patience?

911: ” Ok Listen to me, I’m getting this information- I’m not the officer driving out there ok? - they are coming out there to handle that situation. I need to gather all the information from you over the phone…it has nothing to do with me driving out there…ok? They are coming out there…ok?”

Misty: “ok”

911: “ok, I’m going to stay on the phone with you ok? Until they get there…ok?”

Misty: “ok”

(backgroud noise)

911: “tell him we’ve got them coming, he’s got to calm down a little bit. The officers are going to come out there and do what they can. We can’t have him screaming and yelling at the officers whenever they get there ok?”

By now, the 911 Operator has already warned the officers that they have a violent man, likely high on drugs, and may need to protect themselves. Local responders may already be well familiar with Ronald Cummings.

Misty:” Uh huh…”

Ronald Cummings: “where is my f’ing phone…we’ve got better people to talk to then some mother f’ers who ain’t coming.”

"How you let my daughter get stole, bitch?"

Ronald has the wherewithall to remind Misty of her substatus of "bitch" and is able to still maintain control by fear over her, subordinating her with the common language of domestic violence.

To him, Misty let his daughter get "stole".

Why doesn't he think Haliegh just wandered off? Why "stole"? Why does he blame Misty now, but shortly after, would marry her?

On its whole, the 911 call's intent is to alert police of a missing child.

It is deceptive. It is not only deceptive, but it appears to be setting an alibi and possibly a staged emotional reaction from Ronald.

Ronald's rage may be indicative that he knew his drug dealing had brought trouble to his home; or it could be something worse; that he is actually staging his reaction, after coaching Misty on how to report this to police.

It appears from Misty's pauses that she was being coached by Ronald Cummings.

Why would he coach the person responsible for letting his daughter get "stole"?

Why would he marry her?

Why would he reveal to her that Texas Equasearch had someone speaking to Misty to help find Haleigh?

What motivated Ronald Cummings to protect Misty from revealing the truth about his daughter, who's own name appears so difficult for his lips to frame and say?

911 Call Faith Hedgepeth Murder 2012

911 Call Faith Hedgepeth Murder 2012

911 Call Faith Hedgepeth Murder 2012



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




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

September 7, 2012 11:01:44 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D: ok, you say your friend is unconscious?

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

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

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

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

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

D: Ok listen to me

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

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

The caller may fear being blamed.


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

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

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

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

D: Ok, alright…listen to me alright?

K: Is someone coming?

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

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

K: I don’t think so

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

K: Yes

D: Ok, listen carefully

The Dispatch operator shows doubt of the caller's ability


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

K: She’s not moving

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

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

K: Lay her flat on her back?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: (unintelligible)….hurry

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

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

K: She’s in my bedroom.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

K: I am

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

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

D: What is your name?

K: (Redacted?)

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

K: I’m not touching anything

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

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

D: Yes ma’am, they are on their way

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

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

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

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

D: You see the police?
K: Yes

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

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

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

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


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

911 Call and Lawyer Statement DJ Creato

911 Call and Lawyer Statement DJ Creato


From: Inquirer


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

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

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

Also note the order of his sentences.

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

Yet, it is not what he said.

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

What does that mean?

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

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

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

Was this part of a much more elaborate conversation?

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toddler don't "leave."

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

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

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

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

The initial report to police about a missing child.

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

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

What caused this?

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

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

Ask yourself, what would you say first?

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

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

911, what is your emergency?"

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

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

Recall when Haleigh Cummings, 5, went missing.

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

911: “911, what’s your emergency”

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

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

2. Order speaks to priority:

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

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

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

This is very unusual language.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"911, what is your emergency?"

"My son is missing!"

911: What happened? Where is your son?

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

911: Did you check outside the house?

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

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



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

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

This happened to me, in 1991.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voice inflection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remembering The Balloon Boy Hoax

Do you remember the balloon boy hoax?

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

MH: He's calling somebody.

Note that "somebody" is gender neutral.

Dispatcher: He's calling somebody?

Dispatch is surprised.

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

Dispatch is very surprised.

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

Dispatch has had enough.

MH: Rick! He's coming over.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Oh, those pesky pronouns!

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

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

"we"

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

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

Dispatcher: So was it running then?

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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


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


(silence/pause)

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

Dispatch struggled to wonder why he was making phone calls.

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

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

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

Statement Analysis: 911 Call of Missing 2 Year Old

Statement Analysis: 911 Call of Missing 2 Year Old

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some points to consider about the call.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. "we"

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


2. "What is he wearing?"

"He was wearing cowboy boots..."

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

This tells us:

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis Conclusion:

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

911 Call Analysis: Baby Left in the Car

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Chief: 103 Autumn Leaf.

911: What’s going on there?

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

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

911: OK. Where are you shot at?

Chief: What’s that?

911: Where is the person shot at?

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

Chief: In the back.


911: Is it a male or female?

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

Chief: Female.

This is all he says.

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

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

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

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

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

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