Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

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

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.

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 TPD0

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 she 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 redi rect 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Analysis by Peter Hyatt

Statement Analysis: Charlie Rogers 911 Call

Statement Analysis: Charlie Rogers 911 Call

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made regarding the Charlie Roger's fake hate crime with transcription by Equinox.

Operator: 911. Where is your emergency?

Rappl: [beeped out]

Operator: Phone number you're calling me from?

Rappl: [beeped out]

Operator: what's going on?

Rappl: umm.. My neighbor just came over and knocked on the door. She said her house is on f..fire and umm.. She's not got any clothes on. She's handcuffed.

Note priority of response. The order in which someone speaks tells us about priority. In the first response, we see the doubt expressed:

1. Neighbor came over 2. Knocked on my door 3. Neighbor "said"her house is on fire 4. She doesn't have clothes on 5. She's handcuffed.

The neighbor did not report Rogers' house on fire but only reported that she said it was on fire, reducing commitment. The commitment reduction is also seen by the fact that it was the 4th thing said by the caller, not the first or second. She appears, at this point, to show doubt about the story. We soon see why. The fact that she mentions "knocked on my door" is because it is in the caller's mind: this is quite a disturbance for her and the "knock" was something that may have emotionally upset her enough to tell the 911 operator about a "knock" on the door. It is unnecessary information meaning that to the subject herself, it is doubly important, as it is to analysis. This hoax impacted the neighbor.

Operator: she's handcuffed?

The caller just reported a house on fire and the operator's response is to ask about the handcuffs.

Rappl : Yes! Umm.. She's not got on..

Operator: Do you see flames or smoke?

The operator regains bearing and now goes to the fire.

Rappl: no I don't. She lives right across the street. She lives at [beeped out]

The caller's doubt is now explained. She did not see flames nor smoke. She mentions for the first time the close proximity: "right across..."

operator: she lives at.. Where?

Rappl: [beeped out] and I live on the corner of [beeped out] and she lives right across the street from me on the east, to the east of me.

The closeness of proximity is sensitive to the caller, as it is repeated. Even the position where they were standing was sensitive to the caller.

Operator: Okay. And you don't see any flames or anything?

That someone lives "right across the street from me" caused the 911 operator to question again about the fire.

Rappl: no. [beeped out]

Rappl to Charlie Rogers: you say your house is on fire?

It is that the caller, herself, now seeks affirmation. Rogers, in the hoax, was careful not to damage her home. Police said that with the pouring of gasoline and lighting it on fire, it only caused $200 worth of damage. Rogers was careful not to damage her home, just as she was careful not to damage her body. The forensic expert said that the cutting was not only superficial in the skin, but was in straight lines and carefully avoided sensitive parts of the body. She protected her body and her home in the hoax that put her front and center, just as her Face Book writing said: "Watch me." Rogers: yeahs

Rappl: she says yeah but I don't see any smoke or anything.

It is often said that the word "but" is the most important in a sentence as it refutes that which came before it. Here, the neighbor shows her doubt. Will this theme of distancing herself from the neighbor continue? We saw that she has mentioned how close Rogers is to her home.

Note "she says"

Operator: Okay well we're startin' everybody.

Rappl: Okay. I appreciate that.

Operator: Why is she wearing handcuffs can you ask her that?

Rappl: I… I don't know. umm.. Anyway, we're standing out, We have a, I have a ramp on the east side of my house, we're standing out there and umm.. The caller had already repeated how close Rogers lived to her and the sensitivity continues. Here, she begins with "we", as there is unity, but uses the word "standing" which tells body posture. Body posture inclusion is a signal of increased tension. The oft-used example:

"My boss said for me to be at work at 9AM" is one way of saying it, but a stronger way, indicating memory in play is:

"My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9AM" showing the body posture (tension) and change of "said" to the more firmer "told." We note whenever body posture enters a statement.

Note the change of "we" to "I" making the "I" part of the sentence, very important: "I have a ramp on the east side of my house" which shows "my" house; taking ownership and "east side" is something repeated several times. When the pronoun "we" changes to "I", there is an increase of importance for the speaker. Here we see that she is asserting the ownership of her "ramp" and in it, there is no "we"; but after, the "we" returns. This shows that she is clearly setting a boundary.

It would appear that the neighbor feels intruded upon by Rogers, (see "knock") and her dogs, as she is sensitive of just how close Rogers lives to her. Note that "we" indicates unity. It is likely that the caller, howbeit intruded upon or disrupted (scary event), feels a certain unity or kindness towards Rogers.

Note also about the body posture of "standing": She did not invite her bleeding neighbor into her home.

Operator: Okay. Is there anybody else in the house?

Rappl to Charlie Rogers: [come here, here puppy]… Charlie, is there anybody else in the house?

Rodgers: no. nobody's in the house.Reflective language: repeating back what was said. This is not part of the free editing process.

Rappl: no, nobody's in the house. [Come here.] I'm trying to keep her dogs, there too. She's worried about her dogs.

Note that someone brutally attacked, carved into, bleeding, stunned from the horror, is acting in such a way that the neighbor can tell that she is worried about her dogs. This impacted the neighbor enough to offer it as an observation. The caller does not tell us that Rogers is tending to her wounds, or holding her stomach as she is doubled over in pain, or anything expected.

This is observation of Behavioral Analysis that is important enough not only to enter the caller's language, but it does so without being asked.

Within the next 30 minutes, Lincoln Police would use Behavioral Analysis to begin to assess the scene and conclude that Rogers created this hoax, as they observed her behavior, and the logistics of what she reported. See affidavit. Operator: so she lives alone there?

Rappl: uh-humm, yeah.

The neighbor knows this without asking Rogers. Rogers: sorry

In Statement Analysis, we flag the word "sorry" or "I'm sorry" any time and in any place it appears, for whatever reason. We note that it often appears in the language of the guilty. Recall Casey Anthony's 911 call.

Operator: So who put her in the handcuffs then?

It is almost as if the 911 operator's curiosity got the best of him.

Charlie Rogers said that she accepted that people would have a hard time accepting the story. Victims of violence do not allow for any doubting of their story: they respond with anger at the slightest doubt. This is because truth is merged with physical pain: there is no acceptance of doubt. To accept one to doubt is to seek to appease while persuading. It is a strong signal of deception. If someone has ever been violently attacked, they can, even after years, vividly recall certain aspects of it, usually sensory connection, and will not accept any room for doubt. The 911 operator is repeatedly expressing doubt, as seen through the sensitivity of repetition.

Rappl: I don't know you want to talk to her?

Operator: yeah

Rappl: okay, go, just a minute.

Rogers: h. h. h. h. h. Hello,

For Charlie Rogers, the call begins with a greeting.

Regarding Stuttering: Please see the "stuttering I" research.

We take note that a traumatic event can cause stuttering: therefore, we note what words are stuttered and what words are not stuttered. This is the same with the phrase, "you know" (which shows acute awareness of the interviewer's presence: where it appears as a habit of speech, and where it does not appear)

operator: hello, are you okay?

Rogers: no n.no No

The yes or no question, "Are you okay?" is answered with a stuttering or repeated "no", making the answer "sensitive" to the subject.

Operator: Okay what's going on? Why are you wearing handcuffs?

Compound questions are to be avoided, but the 911 operator cannot help but go back and ask about the handcuffs. Note that "what's going on?" is the best question. Note that the operator does not ask about the fire. Her house is supposed to be on fire right now.

Rodgers: somebody broke into my house.

Here is a signal of deception by Charlie Rogers even before police arrive at her home. "Somebody" is singular, not plural. Rogers said "three masked men" broke into her home. When asked 'what is going on?' and "Why are you in handcuffs?" Rogers does not say that her house is on fire, nor that 3 men put her in handcuffs, instead, she said that "somebody", singular, broke into her home. She avoided the question about the handcuffs entirely. Of all the things that she could have said, she chose to say that "somebody" broke in. She could have reported the assault, the house burning, or even the handcuffing, or how terrorized she is.

Operator: Somebody broke into your house? Is it on fire?

Compound questions are to be avoided because they allow the subject to pick and choose which question to answer.

Rodgers: yes, yes, I saw them, I saw them light it on fire, and they cut me.

Repetition indicates sensitivity. We repeat something because it is important, or sensitive to us. It may be sensitive due to impact, or it may be sensitive because it is deceptive. The analyst simply notes the repetition:

a. What things are repeated

b. What things are not repeated?

The analyst takes these sensitivity indicators, notes them, and continues through the statement, seeking to learn if a conclusion will suggest itself.

That Charlie Rogers "saw" them is something that is sensitive to her. Note that she has changed from singular ("somebody") to plural, "them" Note "they cut me" is mentioned. She chose "cut" and not "carve": To cut someone could be in any number of ways, but to "carve" is sadistic, deliberate, slower, cruel and to make a point such as "carving" hate language into the flesh. "Cut" is softer than "carve."

Operator: Okay.

Rogers: and I can't find my dogs.

Someone who has just been the victim of a vicious, cruel, sadistic attack, who should have too much pain to function, shows concern about her dogs. The operator appears to struggle to accept any of this and asks for clarification: operator: someone broke in, handcuffed you and cut you?

Rogers: yes, Sir! [sobbing]

Additional, "sir" is for emphasis. We note any emphasis and ask, "Why is emphasis needed in a truthful report or statement?" We note it is polite. Politeness in 911 calls is unexpected.

operator: okay, we're going to get an ambulance there too Okay? Are you okay?

This was asked before of which Rogers said, "no" with stuttering and repetition. Here she gives a different answer. Rogers: I I I I don't need.. I mean.. yeah. [sobbing]

Please note the stuttering "I" in Statement Analysis is a scale of anxiety with 2-3 showing an increase of anxiety. (7 or more is ususually found in a domestic homicide where the stutterer is guilty of a personal, upclose murder, and about to have a nervous breakdown and be hospitalized)

4 = Acute increase in anxiety.

We note that she used it four times here and we note the context:

"I don't need..." is an incomplete sentence. This is self censoring on her part. What was it that she did not need. The first thing that comes to mind is with a 911 operator sending an ambulance.

Was she going to say "I don't need an ambulance"? Note that she then says "I mean" without the stuttering. This is why we note where the stuttering appears and where it does not, in context. She was able to say "I mean" without stuttering.

Operator: How long ago did they leave?

Rogers: just a few minutes ago. I I I couldn't see them.

In truthful statements, someone should tell us what they saw, what they heard, and so on. When someone offers what they did not hear, or what they did not see, not in response to a direct question, deception is present. Here she was asked "how long ago did they leave?" and she answered it appropriately, but the additional information she offers indicates deception. If she couldn't see them "just a few minutes ago" how did she know they left? Were they very quiet, suddenly, after being loud? If so, why not express what she did hear, rather than what she did not see? By offering what she did not see, she is setting the stage to resist questions.

She knows she is going to be asked to identify the three attackers. Before even being asked what they looked like, she seeks to put up a road block to investigators regarding gaining the identity of the three men.

Alibi building.

We also note that in this 'negation' (reporting in the negative) she stuttered again, particularly after not stuttering with "I mean."

We have the "Stuttering I" regarding what she does not need and what she did not see. This is a strong indicator of deception about:

a. her wounds

b. her attackers

If she did not need an ambulance, something 911 sends out regularly, it is because her "cut" is not in need of medical attention. It is important to her that the police (or authorities) know that she did not see them. This is not lost on the operator:

Operator: you couldn't see them?

Rogers: no they were in my basement. I think.

Here she introduces "basement" to the language, making "basement" important to her. Please see affidavit regarding graffiti in the basement. "I think" is a weak assertion allowing for herself or others to "think" differently. Operator: were they wearing masks?

Rogers: I was sleeping. Yes, Sir.

Alibi building. The question is: "Were they wearing masks?" and she answered that she was sleeping first, and then affirmed the question. This means that it is important to the subject, who just reported what she could not see, that the police believe she was sleeping. This raises the question: Why would it be important to the subject to be known to be asleep? See 911 call of Misty Croslin in alibi building. Operator: Okay, how many men?

Rogers: Three..three..three

Three is the liar's number; that is, when someone is going to fabricate a number, other than when pulled over and asked, "How many drinks have you had?" ("uh, only two, officer") they often cling to three. This does not mean that three men could not have attacked on 3rd street at 3PM, but it does mean we will flag "three" for possible deception. "Just had three boats chasing us" (Tiffany Hartley) It is a psychological response first noted in the research of Mark McClish. My own work has since verified it. Operator: did you see them leave in a vehicle or anything?

Rogers: I didn't see anything. I just…

This is not a pure 'negation' as it comes in direct response to a question. "Did you see?" can be answered truthfully with "I didn't see". Yet, she went beyond the question of "vehicle" but this may be because the operator asked "anything" as well.

Had she said "I didn't see anything" by itself, it would have been flagged, but because she entered the 911 operator's language, it cannot be. It is only in hindsight that we know this answer could be deceptive, making it outside the realm of analysis.

Operator: okay, I know I know it's hard. I'm sorry and I am just trying to get some information, I'm sorry. Try to calm down if you can. I know it's not easy. Okay?

Rogers: [sobbing]

Operator: There's nobody else in your house?

Rogers: Nobody's.. I live by myself with my dogs.

Operator: what is your name, ma'am?

Rogers: my name is Charlie Rogers. Sir, [sobbing]

This is a very direct question: What is your name? She answered it but went outside of the bounds of the question: Sir, they did it because I'm g.g.gay. They kept saying…

We noted that she used "sir" above, giving emphasis and being polite. Here we see it repeated. One of the things we notice in truthful 911 calls is the absence of politeness.

Politeness in a 911 call is a signal that the caller is deceptive, as the caller is trying to 'win over' or persuade the operator. 911 calls are notoriously impolite. It is in domestic homicide calls where the caller is the killer, that we often find the call to begin with a greeting. Generally, the caller is far too upset and too much in a hurry to give a polite greeting. Here, we have the word "sir" repeated, making it sensitive. By itself, it will not cause any conclusions, but when taken in concert with other indicators of deception, we question its use as an attempt to persaude rather than report.

Note that when a person feels the need to explain "why" something happened, instead of truthfully reporting "what" happened, it is very sensitive and it is noted by the sensitivity color scale (blue). That she is "g-g-gay" is sensitive to the subject. We note that it provoked stuttering.

Operator: they did this, they told you they did this because you are gay?

Rogers: yes. I performed with a little kid last weekend… at Pride… and they they… they… They said, they told me stay away from kids.[sobbing]

Now we have communication with the three masked men, whom she didn't see leave. She answers the question about being "told" this in the affirmative, "yes."

Note that the sentence "I performed with a little kid last weekend" is First Person Singular, past tense verb, and uses "with" between people (distance) and is likely a truthful sentence. Since it is constructed in a truthful manner: notice that it has no stuttering "I" in it. But, when she spoke of the three masked men, she used the pronoun "they" and repeated it five times.

Yet there is another indicator of deception. Did you see it? I did not highlight it.

The operator said, "they told you they did this...?" and used the communicative word "told" appropriately: it is stronger and more authoritative (see the above regarding body posture and the boss)

"Said" is softer than "told" as "told" is more authoritative. The 911 operator pictures these three men tying her up, cutting her and setting the house on fire. This means that there is a level of coercion and authority: they "told" you.

She repeats back to him but it is in her change of language that deception is indicated.

She began with the reflected language (she entered into the 911 operator's language) with "told" but then as she spoke further, she changed "told" to the softer "said".

Deception indicated.

We highlight all communicative language in a statement. We note any changes or inconsistencies.

Here, we have deception indicated. They "told" her it was because she was gay, or they "said" it was because she was gay.

We liken this to the fake robbery scam where the "victim" says, "the gentleman asked me for the cash" rather than "the ****** told me to give him the money"

Note: The change from "told" to "said", by itself, indicates deception. Note: The use of "said" instead of "told" under the brutal conditions, itself, indicates deception.

Rogers to her dogs: Tye.. No.. Tye.. No..[Dog's barking)

Rogers to arriving police: Nobody's inside.

Operator: is that a police officer?

Rogers: Yeah yeah.

Operator: hopefully they can get the handcuffs off of you.

Rogers: Okay okay it's a zip tie.

This is the first correction that she used regarding the "handcuffs" Operator: Oh it's a zip tie handcuff, Okay. well, they'll be able to get that off.

Rogers to arriving police: No one else's inside.

[Dog's barking]

Rogers: is that all?

Operator: Do you see an officer there? Charlie, Talk to him.

Rogers: Okay, bye.

Operator: all right. B'bye.

Rogers bye

Analysis by Peter Hyatt

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/statement-analysis-charlie-rogers-911.html

Update

Lesbian ex-basketball star is jailed for 'claiming that she was attacked by masked men who carved anti-gay slurs into her skin'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311430/Charlie-Rogers-Lesbian-ex-basketball-star-jailed-claiming-attacked-masked-men-carved-anti-gay-slurs-skin.html#ixzz2zhK8toWN Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

Sergio Celis: Statement Analysis of Complete 911 Call


The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

Analysis by Peter Hyatt.

The techniques used here are from SCAN, Scientific Content Analysis, as developed by Avinoam Sapir. They are applied to 911 calls in the same manner in which they are applied to statements:

The expected versus the unexpected.

Place yourself in the position of the caller, with the presupposition of innocence; that is, no involvement, nor guilty knowledge of what happened.

This is an emergency.

We expect to hear the information that best helps the victim, and not about the caller. We expect a rush to give the information; therefore, we do not expect to hear a "greeting" or any attempt to be 'friendly' to the police. This is an emergency with all expectations of an emergency in place.

We listen for the "expected", but when we are confronted by that which we did not expect, we apply analysis. This is what it means to have the "Expected Versus the Unexpected" in analysis.

Katelyn Markham was reported missing by her fiance, John Carter. The following is his 911 call with analysis. John Carter: Hi, my name is John Carter, I am calling - I know that you're not supposed to report a missing person after - before 24 hours, but my fiancee is missing, I can't find her anywhere.

1. "hi" Please note the that call begins with a greeting.

In Analysis, we deal with the unexpected.

Put yourself in the caller's shoes and presuppose innocence. Would you begin with a greeting as such? This is not expected in an emergency. It may be an attempt by the caller to be in a 'friendly' position with law enforcement.

If your fiancé was missing:

You would be upset, fearful, that your fiancé is in danger. Let's note some of the red flags in the call:

2. Note the Incomplete Social Introduction.

Please note that there is no use of her name indicating a problem in the relationship. He says "my fiance" without using her name. We expect him to be frantic, not casually, meaning that his words will be in a 'hurry' to get to the specific issues. Instead, it begins with a casual greeting and here he does not give Katelyn's name.

This may be considered a form of distancing language, and an ISI (Incomplete Social Introduction) indicating possible difficulty in the relationship. The analyst should now question if there was a problem in the relationship that is related to Katelyn's disappearance.

3. "I can't find her anywhere" should lead to the question, "Where, specifically, have you been looking for her?"

911 Dispatcher: Okay, where'd you see her last?

J: Um, I saw her at like 12 o' clock last night. She stays in a house by herself, um, so, she - I'm just, I'm really nervous. Her car's still there, her purse is still -

Note "um" is a pause to think, indicating sensitivity. Why the need to pause to think? He was asked a direct question: Where did you see her last? He was not asked, what time, nor where she stays, nor about his own emotional state. He was asked to tell police where he had seen her last.

In his answer, he avoided saying where he saw her. The location of where he saw her, therefore, is to be considered very sensitive to John Carter.

"She stays" is present tense. This is outside the boundary of the question, "where did you last see her?" He avoided answering the question, instead choosing to report where she normally is. This is a strong indication that she was somewhere else when he last saw her.

Note that "so" is highlighted as very sensitive since it shows a need to explain ("so, since, therefore, because, to...") Yet, he broke his sentence (self censoring) so we do not know what explanation he was going to give. There should be no need to explain why his emotional state would be such. This then suggests that the emotions may be in question:

Is he nervous for her, or is he nervous for himself?

"I saw her at like 12' o' clock last night" is only slightly weakened by "like"; investigators should focus upon this time period as it is introduced by the subject along with the pronoun "I" and the past tense verb "saw" connecting him to her at this time. This time period is likely very important to the story. It sometime near midnight, is likely truthful.

Please note the phrase, "I'm really nervous"; not just "nervous" but "really" nervous. This is a focus upon the caller himself, not the victim. Innocent callers focus upon the victim and ask for help, specifically, for the victim. This is a focus upon himself. We have already seen that.

The focus is upon the caller, not the victim. He is the one who is "really nervous" but she is the one alleged to be missing. Note also the context of being really nervous: it is around midnight and he reports she is alone. This is suspicious.

D: Is there an address?

J: Yeah, 5214 Dorshire Drive.

D: 5214?

J: Dorshire, yes.

D: Okay. And you're out there now?

J: Um, I'm heading out there now, I, like, have been trying to get ahold of her and I decided to go by her house to see if she's okay, and her car's still there - she would be at work right now with her car. Which is why I'm like really freaking out.

1. Note that the question, "you're there now?" is sensitive to John Carter who did not say "no", but avoiding answering it directly.

2. He is only going to "go by her house" and reports being in transit, rather than simply stating he is going there.

3. "to see" is the same as "because", indicating the need to tell why he is doing something rather than report what he is doing.

4. "and her car's still there"; is he there now, and can see that her car is still there, or is he just "heading out there" now?

5. "I'm like really freaking out" now uses two words to modify "freaking out", making it very sensitive. This should question if he really is "freaking out". Again, note focus upon himself and his wellbeing.

6. She "would" be at work right now instead of she "should" be at work

.

7. Note the inclusion of "decided" to...What made him "decide" to? Why the need to add this?

Has he "like trying to get a hold of her" or has he "searched everywhere" for her?

D: What's her name?

He had to be asked before he gave her name. This is indicative of something amiss in the relationship. Police should seek to learn if they fought this night. Were there any ongoing disagreements between them? Were there tough issues in what otherwise may have been a functional relationship?

J: Katelyn Helene Markham.

full name given, which is appropriate.

We look to see what he calls her next:

D: Have you called the hospitals or jails or anything?

J: Um -

D: Where was she at midnight last night when you last saw her?

J: She was at her house. She was going to bed. She wasn't going out to do anything, so she would've been in her bed. And I mean, I've been with her for 6 years - she's not deceiving, you know, she doesn't -

He did not use Katelyn's name here.

1. She was at her house.

2. She was going to bed.

These are two things he states and it is likely true. He has brought us to a very critical point of the night she went missing. He should continue to tell us what was happening, or about to happen. She was at her house and was going to go to bed when something happened. Now notice the sequence is broken:

"She wasn't going out to do anything"

What someone tells us in the negative is important information. Here he has three things to tell us what she was not doing: not going out "to do anything"; not deceiving, and doesn't, but stops himself or is interrupted.

He not only tells us that she wasn't going out, but adds "to do anything." This is critical.

Police need to learn what he does when he goes out at night.

Did she refuse to go out?

He has known her 6 years. He does not say she went to bed, or was in her bed.

D: Okay, and you guys didn't have an argument or anything?

This is a "yes or no" question.

J: Not at all.

"Not at all" is not the simple "no" and should lead to follow up questions such as, "What did you discuss last night?"

This is an indication that they had an argument.

D: Okay. Is she on any medications or anything?

J: Not at all.

He now repeats his previous denial. Repetition becomes weaker as it goes on, because it gets easier and easier (less stressful) to use. She may not have been on any meds but she may have been on "anything", such as marijuana. Compound questions are always to be avoided as they let the subject pick and choose, by concentrating on one aspect over the other, reducing stress over deception.

D: Has she had thoughts of suicide or anything like that?

J: No. Never. I... never.

Broken sentence means missing information. This is self-censoring.

He begins with a strong, "no", but weakens it with "never"; but then makes this about himself with "I"

Why would her suicide thoughts be linked to him? What was he going to say?

This is concerning.

He still does not use Katelyn's name yet, nor express concern about what state she may be in. We expect to hear concern for the victim and not the caller.

D: All right. And have you talked to her mom or anybody like that, to see if maybe she's out shopping, or - ?

J: I called her father. The only thing that's not there is her cell phone, which is positive, but she's not answering it. So... and the Sacred Heart Festival is going on right up the street, and there's a lot of questionable people there, and it's just kind of. I'm sorry.

The question is answered, but then he goes beyond the question to talk about the Festival, casting suspicion towards those at it.

This is important: he was asked if he spoke to Kaitlyn's mother, instead, he introduces the "cell phone" in the negative (that's not there). Does this mean he searched the apartment and knew that everything else she owns was there except her cell phone?

The cell phone can 'ping' to locations.

Often the addition of "phone" connects a perpetrator to a crime.

Note "I'm sorry" is often found in the language of the guilty, no matter what its usage is. See Casey Anthony. It is a red flag for possible guilt.

We look to see if the words "I'm sorry" enter the vocabulary of the caller for any reason as it is a red flag, as it is not expected. This may be an example of guilt leaking out. We look for its inclusion for any reason, even as if used as 'pardon me' type of pause.

He has not used her name yet.

D: Okay, well, we'll go ahead and have somebody meet you there. What kind of vehicle are you going to be in?

J: A 2008 Ford Docus. It's red.

D: Okay, we'll have somebody come out and speak with you, okay?

J: Okay, thank you.

D: Mmmhmm. Bye.

J: Okay. Bye.

He did not use her name except to give the full, formal name. This, itself should be considered distancing language. Why would he distance himself from his fiance? It is concerning.

Analysis Conclusion:

The caller has not told all that he knows about what happened to Katelyn Markham.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/katelyn-markham-analysis-of-911-call.html

Statement Analysis of 911 Call Missing Newborn.

The Nature of 911/999 Calls:

The importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911/999 calls made by individuals during homicides, alleged suicides, alleged accidental deaths, alleged abduction, kidnappings and thefts Etc. Do the callers words indicate innocence, and NO involvement of the crime, or do they indicate deception, guilt or guilty knowledge of the crime being reported?:

Statement Analysis Gets To The Truth.

Statement Analysis of 911 Call Missing Newborn.

Statement Analysis of 911 Calls comes from the teaching of Avinoam Sapir (www.lsiscan.com) in which students are taught to line up "The Expected versus The Unexpected", with analysis dealing with the 'unexpected' as cause for pausing.

Here is a call regarding four day old Caden.

What is expected from the mother making the call? What will the priority be?

Recall the 911 call of Misty Croslin, when she reported that 5 year old Haleigh Cummings went missing. Analysis of the 911 call showed that Misty Croslin's priority was to establish an alibi for herself, rather than report a missing child.

As in the 911 call of Sergio Celis, father of missing 7 year old Isabel Celis. His priority was to clear himself, and his call showed "guilty knowledge" of what happened to his daughter.

Here is the transcript with Statement Analysis in Bold type. The conclusion of the analysis is also in bold type.

GRACE: And tonight, to Wisconsin suburbs. A four-year-old baby, baby Caden, snatched from his little bassinet by a woman who fakes pregnancy with a fake pregnancy belly. She`s got a fake stroller. she`s got baby clothes, but then after she steals the baby, she abandons the baby and leaves him for dead in freezing temperatures.

GRACE: Straight out to Dan O`Donnell, anchor at WISN. Dan, what happened?

DAN O`DONNELL, WISN: Little Caden`s mother, Brianna, woke up in an absolute panic to find that Caden was missing from his bassinet, an almost unspeakable, unbelievable occurrence. She called 911 immediately.

GRACE: Let`s take a listen to that 911 call.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rock County, 911. Where is the emergency? What`s the address? And what city?

The question is not "what happened?" but "Where?"

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Beloit, Wisconsin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that Beloit Township?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s going on?

This is the open ended question that allows the subject to speak for herself, indicating her priority. Where one begins a statement is often the reason for the statement, and often indicates priority.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My son is missing.

This is the expected.

Note "my son" is possessive pronoun, taking appropriate ownership.

Note priority: "is missing", not "I was sleeping"

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. How old is your son?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s four days old.

Note direct answer to question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s four days old.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four days old?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

And there was a knife laying next to my bed.

We note the posture of the knife is given. Please note the article, "a" in "a knife", which shows that the knife is not recognized. Often when an inanimate object's posture if given, the question should be posed: Did the subject place it there?

The articles, however, are used correctly. Guilty subjects sometimes confuse articles, which, like pronouns, are instinctive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a knife laying next to your bed?

He correctly uses her language rather than introducing his own.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any blood on the knife?

A natural question. Remember, time is short for this interview and the 911 operator does a good job.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. I picked it up and seen it was a knife and then I threw it back down and looked over and my baby was gone.

Note the order:

1. I picked it up.

2. Seen it was "a" knife ("the knife" is one already recognized)

3. Threw it down>.

4. Looked over.

"my baby" is not "my son"; both taking ownership. She has introduced him as "my son" and here, the vulnerable "baby" is used.

What is the difference?

In the former, it is an introduction. While being "gone", in the latter, he is a "baby"

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you just please have the police here?

Exasperation which is recognized by the operator:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re not slowing help down by talking to me, I`m just trying to get more information, okay? Is your boyfriend the child`s father?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. All right. Why is he yelling? What`s going on?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Huh?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

There is naturally questions about how a mother could sleep through her baby's kidnapping, and substance abuse should always be explored.

The call does not indicate guilty knowledge, and the priority indicates the missing child's wellbeing.

Analysis by Peter Hyatt

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/statement-analysis-of-911-call-missing.html

UPDATED:

Snipped:

Infant found alive: Missing Wisconsin baby Kayden Powell; Kristin Smith, aunt, charged with kidnapping from Beloit bassinette

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?id=9423313

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?”

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!”,/p>

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:

violence.

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 noise0

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?

By

Peter Hyatt

Justin DiPietro's 911 Call

Statement Analysis: Justin DiPietro's 911 Call

Ayla Reynolds vanished in Dec. of 2011 while at her father's home. Justin DiPietro -- her father -- has notoriously been uncooperative with investigators as well as his mother, sister and girlfriend. Ayla's maternal family wants to know what happened to Ayla.

Statement Analysis: Justin DiPietro's 911 Call

Analysis by Peter Hyatt.

The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 emergency call made by Justin DiPietro to report his child, Ayla Reynolds, missing, from his home.

We use the SCAN method of analysis, which sets up The "Expected" versus the "Unexpected"

Very simply this means that we begin by asking ourselves what we expect to hear from the father of a missing child.

The SCAN technique (Scientific Content Analysis) deals with not only the words spoken, but what words are missing from a statement.

When we find the "expected" words missing, we are left to deal with the "unexpected", confronting the words and absence of words, to learn, in this case:

Are there signals present which indicate that the caller has guilty knowledge of what happened to his child?

Is Justin DiPietro a "guilty caller", feigning a missing or kidnapped child report to police in order to cover criminal activity?

Justin DiPietro, father of two children, while unemployed, took out a life insurance policy against one of his children, Ayla Reynolds, and not his other, weeks before making this call. Is this call a genuine call for help for Ayla, or is it a deceptive ruse to cover a crime?

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.

I.The expectations of a kidnapped child 911 call

II. The text and analysis

III. Analysis Conclusion

I. The Expected

What do we expect Justin DiPietro to say to the 911 operator about his daughter, Ayla Reynolds?

In a call to report a missing child, we expect the caller to seek help for the child, and express concern for the child/

We look for a complete social introduction indicative of a good relationship: "my daughter, Ayla" is a good sign, using her name, title, and the possessive pronoun.

We look for a sense of urgency. A child is in danger...imminent danger.

We look for a sense of need, since the child is incapable of self protection, and expressions of such. We think the parent might mention that she needs her "blankie" or her "binkie" or favorite toy, medicine, or food.

We look for a deep rooted panic and parental anxiety, protective instincts inflamed from the caller, with a sense of urgency, not for himself, but for his child.

We listen for a sense of impotency and utter frustration and fear, in a parent, left utterly bereft of strength to help his vulnerable child.

We listen for impatience, even rudeness, as the father cares only for his child, and not politeness, or worse, over-politeness, in a manner more consistent of guilt.

We expect to even hear foul language as the father of a missing child may become unhinged at the thought of terrors facing his beloved daughter.

Will he ask for help for Ayla?

How often will he use his daughter's name while speaking of her?

Will he ask for help in finding her?

Will he offer tips to the police to assist them?

We do not expect a dull, scripted call, with a bare minimum of information given. We expect to hear a father filled with resolve in finding his daughter.

II. The transcript with Statement Analysis applied.

911: Where is your emergency?

In Enhanced 911 systems, this is unnecessary and the better question is, "What is your emergency?" which allows the caller to chose his own words and begin his response according to his own priority.

A: *** Waterville

911: "What's going on there?"

Instead of "What is the emergency?"

JD: "Ah, I woke up this morning, my daughter is not here."

Please note that the order of the call:

"I woke up this morning" is mentioned first. What is first said in an emergency often speaks to priority. To this caller, that he was asleep is first.

"my daughter is not here" is a truthful statement. He does not say she is "missing", only that she is "not here." To a deceptive caller, "missing" would not be truthful. Only that she is "not here" is reported.

People rarely lie directly, as lying causes internal stress. Most lies are by omission, or missing information.

Order speaks to priority. What is most important to the caller is that police believe he was asleep, by reporting first that he "woke up"

Please notice, however, the additional wording, "this morning", which is not necessary. This should make investigators question whether or not he was asleep, since he does not say so, and he feels the necessity of adding that he woke up "this morning

Please note the name: "my daughter" is "not here", and not, "my daughter, Ayla" or "my daughter, Ayla Bell..."

This is an incomplete social introduction (ISI) and may suggest a troubled relationship.

Commentary: This can be seen in light of the reports of physical abuse of Ayla at the hands of her father including a black eye, injured legs, and a verified broken arm, which timely medical intervention was not sought by Justin DiPietro.

911: Okay, how old is she?

JD: She is an infant she's only twenty months years old.

Here is the mention of her young age. It is that she is "only" twenty months that means she is vulnerable and incapable of self protection. It is here we expect to hear something about her characteristics, particularly in regard to being so young.

Nothing more is reported, however. This is not expected.

911: She is how old?

JD: Twenty months old.

911: Twenty months old?

JD: She's not even two- twenty months old.

911: Was there anybody else with you overnight?

The question is specifically to "overnight"

"Overnight" is when he would have been asleep if he woke up this morning. The answer should be in the past tense.

JD: My sister's here, her daughter and my girlfriend and her son are here.

Note that he does not say if they were there overnight, but speaks in the present tense.

Note the order:

2.Her daughter

3.my girlfriend,

4.her son

.Please note the incomplete social introduction as he does not use his sister, Elisha's name, nor does he use his girlfriend, Courtney Roberts' name.

911: Hang on, I'm putting you through- this is in Waterville?

JD: Yes sir.

911: What number are you calling me from case I lose you?

JD: (sigh) ***-****

911: Okay, hang on, I'm putting you through, do not hang up.

(dial tone/telephone ringing)

WCC: Waterville Communications Center, what's the address of emergency?

911: DPS Augusta. I'm putting through a report of a missing child from a residence at *******.

.WCC: Okay.

911: Sir, go ahead.

WCC: Hello.

JD: Hello.

A greeting is not expected, though this is simply responding to the greeting, therefore, appropriate.

WCC: Hi, How long ago did you see your child?

JD: When I put her to-

Note interruption likely due to phone going dead.

AV: December 17, 2011

08:56:00

911: 911, where is your emergency?

JD: Yeah, I, I was just, I'd called, my phone just died and I have another cell phone now, so

Please note the stuttering on the pronoun, "I", which shows increase in anxiety. Please note that the pronoun "I" is used millions of times and is not likely to be stuttered on since its focus is the person itself, unless the person is a stutterer. Note no other stuttering.

In Statement Analysis, this is called the "stuttering I of anxiety", since humans are highly efficient at using this pronoun.

911: okay, where are you located?

JD: *******

911: ********, is this regarding the juvenile?

JD: It is, yes sir.

Note the respectful and short response. The respectful response is not expected during such an emergency, and neither is such short responses. An overly respectful 911 call may cause some to question whether the caller is trying to 'make peace' or 'be friends' with law enforcement, rather than the demanding of help for the child.

911: Hang on, I'll put you back through Waterville Com.

(dial tone/telephone ringing),

WCC: Waterville Communication Center, what is the address of your emergency?

911: DPS, putting through

JD: Yes ma'am I was just on the phone with you and my cell phone died.

Note again that while his toddler is missing, he has the presence of mind to use respectful language. Those who know him best would be able to say whether or not this is his norm. This is not evidenced by his other statements. It is not his norm, according to his televised interviews.

That he would be very polite to police, while under such extreme circumstances, is indicative of one attempting to please police and be seen in a favorable light, rather than a frightened, urgent father.

WCC: Okay yep, I tried calling you back it went right to voicemail. What is your daughter's name sir?

END

WCC: Waterville Communication Center, what is the address of your emergency?

911: DPS Augusta- putting through a report of a missing child from a residence at *****.

WCC: Okay.

911: Sir, go ahead.

WCC: Hello

JD: Hello

WCC: Hi, how long ago did you see your child?

The question is specific to Justin DiPietro: how long ago, which is time period, did you, Justin, see your child:

JD: When I put her to bed last night. My sister had checked on her. Um, woke up this morning, went to her room, and she's not there.

Any information that goes past the boundary of the question is to be considered very important information.

1. He answers the question with: "when I put her to bed last night." instead of saying "when I put her to bed"; he adds, "last night" which is not necessary. This unnecessary information, along with woke up "this morning" brings the time frame to the place of being considered "sensitive" information that may prove unreliable.

2. He went beyond the boundary of the question: "my sister had checked on her" and not "my sister, Elisha," or "Elisha";

3. "my sister had checked on her" using "had" to elongate time. This makes the time frame, again, sensitive. "My sister checked her" would have been sufficient.

4 "Woke up this morning" has dropped the pronoun "I" making it unreliable. He does not say that he woke up this morning, therefore, we cannot say it for him.

5 "Went to her room" also drops the pronoun, reducing commitment. He is unable or unwilling to say that he woke up, and he went to her room. We cannot say it for him. We cannot say that he went to her room which will cause readers to believe that Justin DiPietro is revealing that he knew she was not there to be found prior to entering her room.

6. "and she's not there" is to speak in the present tense, and not the past tense. The test for reliability in language is the pronoun "I" connected to an event by a past tense verb. He violates this by dropping his pronouns, and switching to present tense verb.

This is a very strong indictor of deception in his speech.

WCC: Okay, how old is she?

JD: Twenty months old

.

WCC: Twenty months?

JD: Yes ma'am.

He stays very close to what now appears to be a 'script' giving very short answers with little additional information.

WCC: All right. So you saw her last sometime in the evening?

911 operators should avoid leading questions and specifically avoid introducing new language whenever possible. Training in Analytical Interviewing needed.

JD: Yeah, yeah, I put her to bed (inaudible) at 8:00.

The 911 operator gave him reason to agree. Note the repetition of "yeah" making it important to him.

WCC: Alright, hold on just one second while I get somebody started right over there okay, don't hang up the line.,

(brief pause)

WCC: Sir./p>

JD: Yes ma'am.

WCC: Hi, I've got officers on the way over there. What is your name sir?

JD: ****** ********

WCC: ******* ********?

JD: Yes ma'am.

WCC: And you said ***** or ***** sir?

JD: ********

WCC: Alright. What was she wearing the last time you saw her?

JD: Um, she had some pajamas on, um, they were green pajamas.

Note the extra word "some" to describe the pajamas. The subject is initially vague and inconclusive in his description of the pajamas, then describes them as "green." Why would the subject's initial description of his missing daughter's clothing, an important piece of information in locating her, be vague?

WCC: Green pajamas?

JD: Yeah

WCC: Okay, can you remember the exact time you saw her last or somebody saw her last in her crib?

(JD referes to Elisha in the background)

Please note that unless an inaudible portion in the transcript contained the word "crib", we have not heard Justin DiPietro use this word. If so, the 911 operator should have followed the rule of not introducing language and should not have assumed she was in a crib

.

This is an error.

JD: Um, Elisha, when was the last, when is the last time you went in her room last night when you saw her?,

Note that rather than ask the question, he gives additional information which suggests scripting by agreement:

He could have simply entered the language of the operator and asked "when was the last you saw Ayla, Elisha?

Instead, he has not yet used Ayla's name (outside being asked her name) and he uses the additional, "when you went into her room"; making this needless. Here is why:

If she was, really, in her room, and Elisha checked on her, there would be no other room to check her in. Yet, DiPietro feels the need to add the location which should have been presupposed.

This is indicative of scripting by Justin DiPietro.

EP: 10:00

JD: 10:00, 10:00

WCC: 10:00 okay.

(radio communication)

WCC: (inaudible) units responding, she was last seen her crib wearing green PJs approximately 2200 hours last night.

WCC: What's a good phone number for you sir?

,pJD: ***-****

WCC: ******, okay. I've got officers on the way over there right now sir and well help you, okay?

(disconnect/return call)

WCC: What is the address of your emergency?

911: DPS, putting through

JD: Yes ma'am I was just on the phone with you and my cell phone died.

WCC: Okay yep, I tried calling you back it went right to voicemail. What is your daughter's name sir?

JD: Ayla Reynolds

WCC: I'm sorry, Ava Reynolds?

JD: A-Y-L-A

WCC: E-Y-L-A, okay.

Thus far, he has not used his daughter's name except when asked. This is distancing language and not at all expected from an innocent father.

WCC: Okay, and you've checked all through the house, is there any way she could have climbed out of her crib?

JD: No ma'am, she, there is no way she could a got, there's no way she could.

Self censoring is when one stops himself from completing a sentence. What was he going to say here? "there is no way she could a got..."? Gotten out of the house? Out the door?

Note that he attempts to only answer the question by using the 911 operator's words. This is not expected.

This is minimized responses.

An innocent parent will, when given an opportunity like this, not only use his child's name, but will jump in and speak of her characteristics, how well she was walking, climbing, opening doors etc.

The lack of information here is unexpected from an innocent father.

It should also be considered that the caller self censored here because the child was not in a crib, as this may have been language introduced by the operator. If the child was not in a crib, it would be difficult for the caller to place her there in his mind and subsequently his language.

WCC: Okay.

WCC: Okay, the officer is there with you right now. I want you to go out and speak with her, okay?

JD: Okay.

WCC: Alright, Bye-bye.

END

III. Analysis Conclusion

Justin DiPietro said as little as possible and entered into the language of the 911 operator whenever he could.

There is no urgency in his words, no impatience for help.

He does not ask for help for Ayla, nor even for himself to find Ayla,

He gives no description of her abilities, character, nor even her needs. This is strongly indicative of distancing himself from the child.

He does not use Ayla's name, other than to answer the direct question. This is strongly indicative of distancing language.

Not once does he express concern for the child. He does not speak of her being vulnerable, nor in danger. In fact, not once does he say anything that shows concern for the child.

We do not find complete social introduction indicative of a good relationship: "my daughter, Ayla" is a good sign, using her name, title, and the possessive pronoun. Instead, he says as little as possible.

We look for a sense of urgency. A child is in danger...imminent danger, and find none.

We look for a sense of need, since the child is incapable of self protection, and expressions of such. We think the parent might mention that she needs her "blankie" or her "binkie" or favorite toy, medicine, or food. Here, we find not a single mention of anything about Ayla.

We hear a man previously described as a prideful bully, fighting, getting arrested, assaulting others, speaking with hyper-respect to the 911 operator. This over politeness is indicative of one who is more concerned to appear to be cooperative, than concerned for his daughter. We expected impatience and even foul language, yet we found none.

He began his answer wanting the police to believe he was asleep overnight. This need, itself, told police that he was not asleep, nor was Ayla in her bedroom, nor in a crib, that fateful night.

He did not ask for help for Ayla.

He distanced himself from Ayla.

p>He did not offer tips to police, nor even suggest what might have happened, or who might have taken her.

He offered nothing other than direct answers.

p>

This was a scripted call and it is deceptive and is designed to deceive police into believing that Ayla was fine that night and in bed, when she was not.

Statement Analysis indicates that Justin DiPietro has guilty knowledge of the fate of Ayla Reynolds, and his call was scripted and an attempt to deceive police.

http://www.statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk