Helen Bailey: Missing Person Police Call

Here we see how even in the initial police call to report a missing person, a deceptive subject gives away the information needed.

Investigators who are trained in detecting deception, never dismiss anyone as a "liar" but recognizes that even from liars, the reliable information comes out.

Before an investigation even begins, those trained can know the truth.


Ian Stewart’s initial call to Police

P: Hertfordshire police, how can I help?

I.S: Hello there, my partner has been missing since Monday and not contacted anyone. Said she was going away, hasn’t gone... ended up where she said she was going, so I’m... we’ve just decided we should report it.

a. We do not expect a missing person's call to begin with a greeting. The greeting is seen not only as a lack of urgency, but within analysis, it is called the "ingratiating factor"; that is, one may wish to 'ingratiate' oneself into law enforcement. This is the same as saying, "I am a good guy", which is unnecessary.

Some examples:

DeOrr Kunz spoke more about Search and Rescue, in detail, than about his missing son.

He both thanked and praised them for not finding DeOrr jr.

b. Who is this "we" that he speaks of?

c. Why did they "just" (timing) decide to call?

This may be a desire to be seen as timely, that is, that he called right away. It is a signal of delay, instead.

d. to "decide" indicates both hesitation and discussion, which may have included debate. Why?

e. "so": he feels the need to explain why he made the call, though he uses the plural without expiation. The making of this phone call is very sensitive to the caller.



P: What’s your partner’s name?

I.S: Helen Bailey


I.S: She left a note, she said in the note something like, I need sp, space and time alone. I’m going to Broadstairs, please don’t contact me in any way. But in Br, Broadstairs she’s got, we’ve got a a cottage down there but we s, people have been down there with neighbours and she hasn’t, she’s not there. I haven’t been there either.

a. "like": with a missing persons report, we expect him to read the note --or recite it from memory.

Why?

The elevated importance.

The note would likely have been read by the subject repeatedly, especially during the 'discussion' as to whether or not to call police.

"Like" is a classification and may reflect his 'interpretation' rather than what she wrote.

Wrote: a note is written. In his language, he did not say she "wrote" but said that she "said in the note." This is a minor difference, yet it is here and we must consider the possibility that she did not "write" this note. Although readily verified, the analyst remains open to varying possibilities brought on by the language itself. We listen; we do not interpret.




b. "we've got a cottage down there": if the pronoun "we" is about he and the missing person, there is unity.

The unity must be understood in context: of having a cottage.

c. "I haven't been there, either" is an unnecessary statement. Unnecessary information is very important.

The location of the cottage is now sensitive.

She is missing.

He is not.

He is on the phone and it is part of his priority to tell them where he was not.

It may be that police sensed this, intuitively:


P: And someone’s been to the cottage?


I.S: Someone’s been to the cottage, yeah. Her brother went there.

P: Does it look like anyone had been there?

I.S: No. No, we.. no, someone went in and it d, d, doesn’t look like anyone’s been there.

This sounds awkward to the ear. Deception often does. "Someone" (not her brother?) went in, he affirms, but it does not "look" (appearance) like "anyone's" been there.

P: Did Helen go in a vehicle?

I.S: No she didn’t, she left her car here. She did take her dog with her. She’s got a little Dachshund but she would get there by train or she she could possibly take a taxi. She does do that sort of thing.


P: And was that note a bit of a shock, were you expecting it at all?

Here, we don't know what prompted this question. He said he had a note.



I.S: No I wasn’t... well, yes it was a shock. She had talked about it but er it was still a shock. She has talked about wanting space as things just haven’t been going well for her recently or for us.

P: Ok, so she mentioned wanting space but she had never actually acted on it, she’s not left before?

I.S: She’s never done anything like this before, no.


Not, "she's never left before" but "done anything like this"; what did she "do" that caused this language?




P: And what’s her date of birth?

I.S: Oh crikey, gosh, you’ve thrown me there… 22nd, right, just let me double check, one second, oh God, sorry. Can you still hear me?

Note inclusion of:

a. Divinity
b. "sorry"

P: I can still hear you, yeah.

I.S: I am sorry, I am just double checking, 22nd August 1964. Sorry, my just brain just went. Sorry.

The word "sorry" has entered his language four times during a call to police about his missing fiancé.

Not only is it important (once) but repetition tells us the importance of it is elevated.

Believe him.

He is sorry.

When someone repeats often how sorry he is, we should believe him.


P: And her eye colour?

I.S: Her eye colour? Oh my God, how do you forget these things? Sorry, God, that’s terrible.


Note:

a. answering a question with a question
b. Divinity repetition
c. "you" distancing language consistent with forgetting her eye color.
d. "sorry" again.




P: Are there any specific concerns, suicide or self harm, anything like that?

I.S: Well, I, I, would say no but she has, she has been very very anxious and very worried about lots of things and she is a very, she is a worrier… she is a she is a natural worrier.

P: This may sound silly, but she’s definitely not at home no?

I.S: No. (inaudible) I, I’ve literally checked everywhere. We have got quite a large house and I have literally checked everywhere.

With the cottage, the pronoun "we" was produced between him and the victim.

Here, the "large house" also produces the same unity.



I.S: And her phone is just dead, it not, when I say dead it just, it just doesn’t ring.

Note "dead" repeated and the need to explain the meaning of "dead"

P: She said nothing to you then, was she leaving the premises at the time?

I.S: No, no, she was… I left her here.



I.S: At some point I saw the note on my desk from Helen

Remember how the note from Helen "said" (spoke) rather than what she wrote?

Here, he tells us who the note is from: from Helen.

Would we even have thought the note may have been from someone other than Helen in a call to police about a missing person who left behind a note??

This is another linguistic indication that the "note" may not have been written by Helen.


P: From what I understand, from what we’ve discussed is that Helen was last seen on Monday 11th April. We’d like you to take me through what happened that day.

Great question!!

Here is where we get our information:

Where a missing person was last seen to a partner engaged is hormonally heightened. Listen carefully to his language.

A truthful person will tell us what happened. We can only tell what we do remember.

Be on alert when one tells us what did not happen, what they cannot remember, what was not said, and so on.




I.S: This is where I can’t remember very well.


The number one form of deception is missing information. Yet when one speaks, not remembering is high on the list.

a. "this" is very up close. The event is hormonally etched upon the brain. We have seen signals of anxiety in his language.

b. It is at "this" place (not "that") where he can't remember. He is placing himself close to the place where he stretched out time but can't remember...

c. "very well." He remembers, but just not 'very' well.

This is an example of the internal stress of direct lying and why one attempts to qualify to avoid such stress.


I’ll tell you what I can remember.

This is an unnecessary and important statement. A person can only tell what a person remembers. Here he is withholding information about the last time he saw Helen.

Here is where professionals recognize:

When one is deceptive and speaking about what happened, he is very likely to yield much valuable and critical information:



She went out in the car just to get some milk or something,

Instead of saying "she went out to her car" (note placing her at the car), he anticipates police asking, "Why did she go out to the car?"

This may not have been asked by police or anyone else without specific training.

He, himself, is worried that when he places her out at her car, the police are going to say, "Well, why did she go to the car?"

The more innocuous or 'unimportant' the reason, the more important it is to analysis:



milk and bits but came back almost instantly.

Here we have specific detail (unnecessary) but now timing:

"almost instantly"

We should consider that something happened to Helen there (remember the need to place her there?) and it caused a passage of time.

Was upset because something had happened and she said “I’m never going to drive again.”

"Was upset" has no pronoun. There is no person who was "upset" in this sentence. He removes her from it.

b. "because" is the need to explain why she was upset. He anticipates being asked, "Well, why was she upset?" and wishes to pre empt it.

c. "something had happened" further accentuates the passing of time. He did not say "something happened." He said that something "had" happened. This stretches time and now consider why he had the need to say "almost instantly."

He removes her from what happened, and elongates time.

d. "something" is left undefined.

Think now, how important this location is to him and about what happened.

He wants us to think it was very short in time, but his words betray him. By wanting us to think it was almost instant, we know it wasn't. He confirmed this in the imperfect past tense verb usage.


I.S: And at some point I had to dash out because I was late or I see, I could be late so I dashed out.


Here, the "double blue" (blue highlighting the highest form of sensitivity in analysis) is the most critical point of the statement:

he is now not only skipping time ("And at some point") with missing info ("And:), it is here, while he is with Helen that he is suppressing what happened.

By just looking at the color, it is here, he is likely telling the truth that he "dashed" (elevated emotion) to her.


I’m pretty sure Helen waved goodbye to me

This is often a very linguistic strong signal of the time of death.

Here we see him deceptively speaking, yet embedding his responsibility regarding his own actions that caused this phone call:

but when I think back I’m not so sure, so maybe she did, maybe she didn’t cos I was in a rush then. So then I went and I can’t remember what I did, what order I did this in but I def, definitely ended up at the doctors at some point and when I woke up, I was sort of woozy, a bit, I felt a bit like I’d been on morphine in hospital and then I remember thinking should I be driving but obviously I did so I either went to the doctors or the dump or maybe I went to the dump next day.

Even in lies, we get the truth.

Here he is lying about not remembering, admitting he did something to her, in urgency, and dumped her.


Police Arrest

This was shown as live as it was recorded on a Policeman's Camera Vest.

I.S: Jamie,(son he lived with at the same property as Helen) The garage doors open.

P: I’m arresting you on suspicion of the murder of Helen Bailey.

I.S: You’re joking?

P.O: And of disposing her body in a manner which is likely to obstruct the coroner and of the theft of the money of Helen Bailey. You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand that?

I.S: I guess so.

P: Do you want to sit down?

I.S: Bloody Hell, why? What’s happened, have you found Helen? Where is she? Is that why the garage door’s open?

I.S: I remember bits of it. The first bit I remember is we loaded the car or Helen loaded the car with an old duvet and some boxes ready to take to the dump. So I either went to the doctors or the dump or maybe I went to the dump the next day (inaudible) I’m not sure.

Where the word "we" is used, there was unity.

The cottage, the house and the car, but not personally.

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated.

Embedded Admission.


Peter Hyatt

Missing Child: 911 Call

Missing Child: 911 Call



Here is an example to follow, from the very first moments of a case, to know what happened as this father calls 911 to report his daughter missing. Thanks go John for transcription.



OP: Jackson Township police

C: Hi, yes ahh, I need some help.

This is an emergency call.
It comes from the biological father of a missing little girl.
It should not begin with a greeting. We note the greeting and subsequent politeness ("thank you, thank you") as possible "ingratiating" psychologically. This is when the caller feels the need to align himself with authorities. We sometimes see this in missing children cases where the father praises search efforts for not finding the missing child. (DeOrr Kunz)

Next note that the caller, 'telling the truth', says that he needs help; not his daughter. This is true, in the mind of the caller. He is going to need legal help and it 'leaks' into the language during the free editing process. Even when a call is planned, it is easy to fall off script. Regardless, it does not come from experiential memory. He does not 'know' what it is like to be elevated in fear for the sake of his daughter.
He knows what it is like to be in fear for himself.

Then note that he reduces the need for help with "some help."

These three points are incongruent with an emergency call.

OP: Ok where you at?

C: (redacted)

OP: Parrots back address.

C: Yes

OP: Ok what's going on?

C: I-I can't find my daughter

Not that she is missing, but he cannot find her.

OP: OK, how old is she?

C: Erm 5, she just turned 5 (inaudible) saturday

here we have a pause and we have a reference to her birthday. He 'must be' a good father; he knows her birthday.

OP: When was the last time you seen her?

C: Umm, this afternoon probably

The "last time" he saw her caused him to pause. Rather than be a parent on high hormonal alert, he has a need to pause and think of his answers.

OP: Around what time?

C: umm..3 maybe 4

The hormonal reaction of a biological parent is not something that would allow for this level of time to be estimated for a child this age.

Someone in the background says something in the background and he (C) replys "5 you saw her at 5", oh ok.

We now have an even longer gap of time. Since the call began with two red flags, this gap of time increases concern.

OP: What was she wearing?

C: What?

OP: What was she wearing?

C: She's wearing a purple winter coat, err.. I don't know what those things are called, they're not jeans

OP: Like leggings

C: Yeah yeah

OP: What color were they?

C: Err..grey-ish

OP: Ok, and you haven't seen her in 5 hours?

The operators reveals disbelief

C: About, yeah I - I mean, she was there sleeping, I mean you know..

The father is now on the defensive, stuttering on the pronoun "I" signals increase in stress at this question and the phrase, "you know" now shows an increase in the awareness of the operator's words (presence)

OP: Where was she sleeping, at the restaurant?

Training for the operator indicated. Do not lead the subject. See how quickly the father grabbed the notion:

C: Yeah yeah she's she was sleeping there and I picked up my older daughter from school, we all saw her sleeping there. So and
and we went to work and we let her sleep, we and we got busy and then, er.....err after it got busy we start cleening up and then we open a door because, and she's not here.

Deception Indicated

The quick agreement "yeah, yeah" is to almost thank the operator for the story.
The inability for the biological father to be "alone" in responsibility speaks to guilt.
With the need to explain opening a door with her not there:

Sexual abuse should be explored. This is extremely sensitive.

OP: Hold on one second ok.

C: OK sir what's your name>

C: Liang, Liang Zhao

OP: Ok, do you have any videos in there (restaraunt) or anything were you can video to see if she was laying there?

C: No, no no no. We don't have any security cameras in there since ahh in the restaurant, we've been here sfor six years we've never had security camera's here.

OP: OK

Here, the bio father cannot be alone in a context where nothing is more personal to a father than his young child. This is a strong indicator of guilt. Guilty people cannot bear to be "alone" with guilt. It is similar to a child who says "but everyone was doing it..." seeking to spread about guilt and responsibility.

C: We we saw her, like, like all of us like my wife myself and my older daughter, We I came back, when I picked up my ahh ahh older daughter from school, we saw her there sleeping.

OP: Ok and so, was there any suspicious people that came in at all?...

Caller butts in

C: No no no no no

OP....do you think she could have ran out somewhere?

C: I I, have have no idea, I mean she was sleeping in the back. It's kind of hard to say when she was how long she's been missing

He stutters on "I"
He offers "no idea" on his daughter's status; something that an innocent parent could not offer due to parental instinct.
He heavily qualifies the time period with "kind of hard to say"--
not that it is "hard to say" but "kind of hard to say" suggesting knowledge of the time.

OP: None of the other employers have seen her?

C: There's only 2 of us just myself and my wife, there's nobody else in the restaurant. There's only 3 people in the restaraunt .

This discounts customers. The change in number may be that he wishes to add his other daughter into the number, further reducing his "alone status" with what happened to his daughter.

OP: When you guys left, who was there with you? Like who was there with your daughter when you guys left to go draw the kids from school?

C: My wife, I I go pick her up myself. My wife is here in the restaurant. But when we came back came back she's here. Like my wife is here in the restaurant, the restaurant is always open. Erm,,i usually open up...I pick my- I drop my daughter off I'm sorry, i drop my daughter off at school in the morning.

He shows consistent use of past tense until here.
The words "I'm sorry" often seep into the language of the guilty, for whatever reason, in the free editing process. (see Casey Anthony)
Note the need for "normal" while his daughter is "missing"; this indicates knowledge of the situation being anything but normal. It is part of narrative, rather than reporting.

His use of "normal", that is, what he "usually" does tells us that he did something "unusual" and this is not lost, intuitively, upon the operator. Note the rebuttal:


OP: But right now though like, when you left you said you your wife and your daughter left to go pick up your daughter from school.

C: No I didn't say that, I said..my wife is here all the time.

Note the strong pronoun and past tense statement shows confidence in what he is saying.

OP: Ok, and your wife hasn't seen her either since around 4-5 o'clock?

The story unwinds:

C: Ok ok, erm, I think you, ok, when we pick, I'm sorry, what I meant was myself ok, when I went to pick up my daughter. When we came back, myself and my daughter, not my wife, my wife was here all the whole time. When we came back...

Operator interrupts, likely due to impatience. This is a mistake:

OP: Ok so you wife hasn't seen her either since around 4-5 either?

C: Err yes err..

(Caller asked his wife something (foriegn language)

"she's not sure before we got busy err usually busy around 4-5 oclock. that's the best time you know we like ahh.."

OP: What's your daughters name?

He has not once used his missing daughter's name. This is to psychologically distance himself from her. The need to distance himself is what we explore for.

C: Ashley Ashley

OP: OK. Officers outside if you want to go and meet the officer at the door ok.

C: He's here right now?

The element of time is now important to the caller. This is sensed by the operator:

OP: Yeah, he's already outside

C: In the front or the back?

OP: He should be in the front

C: Ok, alright, thank you thank you

OP: Bye

The child has been found dead with the father under arrest in her murder.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/missing-child-911-call.html

This is abbreviated analysis. For formal training please go to Hyatt Analysis Services for opportunities. and select Services and

Training.

Michael Peterson’s 911 call

Michael Peterson’s 911 call

Michael Peterson’s 911 call


On December 9, 2001, Peterson made his first call to 911 at 2:40 am:

911: Durham 9-1-1. Where is your emergency?

Peterson: … uaaaah eighteen ten Cedar Street. Please!

Peterson gave the address after the 911 dispatcher’s introduction.

911: What’s wrong?

Peterson: My wife had an accident, she is still breathing!

Peterson said that his wife was still breathing without being asked, that’s unexpected.

911: What kind of accident?

Peterson: She fell down the stairs, she is still breathing! Please come!

Peterson didn’t describe the scene but showed to know without doubts the cause of the accident.

911: Is she conscious?

Peterson: Whaat?

He was not expecting the question that’s why he was unable to give an answer, to answer with a question is a way not to answer and to buy time to give a reliable answer.

911: Is she conscious?

Peterson: No, she is not conscious… please!

911: How many stairs did she fall down?

Peterson: What? .. hat?

Peterson answer with a question because he was not expecting the question and was not close to his wife, unable to see the stairs.

911: How many stairs did..

Peterson: …Stairs?!

Peterson was just trying to buy time because he was far from the scene.

911: How many stairs?

Peterson: … aah… aah… ah…

We can hear he was walking to the scene to look at the stairs. Michael Peterson after this question appeared to be caught off guard and was ‘stalling for time’ with some: ‘What? Stairs? aah, aah, ah’, he was buying time to be able to get to the area of the stairs.

911: Calm down, sir, calm down.

Peterson: No, damned, sixteen, twenty. I don’t know. Please! Get somebody here, right away. Please!

After almost 15 seconds from the start of the phone call the operator asked about the number of stairs and Peterson showed not to be close to the scene, in the first 15 seconds of the phone call Peterson wasn’t approaching his wife, he was close to her just around 25 seconds after the phone call started, he went there to look at the number of the stairs because asked. I guess Peterson found the cordless phone in the kitchen, just behind the corner, very close to the service stairs where Kathleen’ body was, so why he had to walk for around ten seconds to be on the scene to be able to look at the stairs? And, how could he give informations about his wife conditions if he wasn’t close to her?

911: Okay somebody’s dispatching the ambulance while I’m asking you questions.

Peterson: It’s, ohaah… It’s Forest Hills! Okay? Please! Please!

911: Okay, sir? Somebody else is dispatching the ambulance. Is she awake now?

Peterson: … aaammh… aaah…

911: Hello? …Hello?

Peterson: … ah… ah… mmmm… aaaah… oh… aaaah…

After some questions, Peterson, fearing not to be able to track down his story, didn’t answer anymore showing a resistance in answering, one of the strongest indicators of potential guilt.

Usually people call 911 and stay very close to the victims to give the operator informations about their real conditions and to be able to help following the suggestions the operator may give them, like how to perform CPR. Michael Peterson had no intention to help his wife, that’s why he was far from her when he called 911 and went back to her just to look at the stairs to give the operator an approximate number.
Michael Peterson was far from Kathleen because she was already dead for hours and he was not interesting to help her or to give any real informations about her conditions.
When Michael Peterson called 911 he was quite far from the victim, instead, when the paramedics arrived his behavior was different, he was on her body trying to resuscitate her, he was acting, he knew she was already dead for hours. Peterson was not just acting as a grieving husband for the paramedics but he was also trying to justify all the blood on his clothes, touching and hugging the victim, he was trying to cover evidences.

Michael Peterson’s second call to 911 at 2:46 am:

911: Durham 9-1-1. Where is your emergency?

Peterson: Where are they?! it’s eighteen ten Cedar. She’s not breathing! Please! Please would you hurry up!

911: Sir?

Peterson: Can you hear me?

911: Sir?

Peterson: Yes!

911: Sir, calm down. They’re on their way. Can you tell me for sure she’s not breathing? Sir…? Hello…? Hello…?

Peterson called 911 a second time just to say that Kathleen wasn’t anymore breathing but after he gave that information to the dispatcher he didn’t answer any questions showing a resistance in answering due to his incapacity to track down his story. In this second call Peterson tried to act as a worried husband but at the same time he reported that Kathleen wasn’t breathing, trying not to motivate the paramedics to hurry up. During these two short calls Peterson said please nine times, he use the word please as a useful word to act as a worried husband but he shows at the same time a resistance in answering that is one of the strongest indicators of potential guilt. Peterson never spoke about the blood at the scene and he was in front of a very bloody scene, usually when people call 911 after they saw a bloody scene they say: There is blood everywhere! At the second question of the 911 operator Peterson answered with an unexpected: .. she is still breathing! those were ‘extra words’, he tried to ‘drive home the point’, he wanted the operator to believe that she was still alive to delay the time of her death, Kathleen didn’t die after 2.40 p.m. but between 11.08 p.m. and 11.53 p.m. In the first chapter of the documentary ‘The Staircase’ Peterson said that Kathleen left him at the pool to go inside, his words were: …and the last I saw her was when I was there and she was just walking here, and that’s it. That was the last time I saw Kathleen alive…. no… she was alive when I found her… but barely’, how could she have died in his arms in the early hours of that morning if he was far from her during the 911 call, as he said, after he found her she was alive but just barely?

P.S. to know more about the case read my articles:

The murder of Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson at the ‘hands’ of Michael Peterson


Author Unknown.

Website link below

https://malkecrimenotes.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/michael-petersons-911-call/

Jordyn Dumont 911 Call

Jordyn Dumont 911 Call


Although short, and in hindsight, it still provides a valuable lesson.

Here is one answer

to police in the 911 call of missing 3 year old Jordyn Dumont:



Operator: 911 where is your emergency?

Caller: "Yes ma'am . My oldest daughter, I was taking a nap, I just

woke up & I can't find her anywhere."

The question is "Where is your emergency?" which speaks to

location.

Callers in distress may or may not answer this immediately. Those

who do not skip the question about location and go right into

the priority: Missing child.

"Excited Utterance"

Where one begins is to show priority.

What does this short, one statement response tell us?

Listen to what he tells you.


Consider what he has told us and what his priorities are:



1. "Yes, ma'am" begins with politeness. Politeness in a dire

emergency is not what we "expect" as we measure our expectations

against what is given to us. To be polite is "ingratiating" oneself

to whom? To authorities.


2. The location is not given.


This, itself, cannot become a conclusion as some callers will

prioritize without listening: let me tell you what is first and

foremost on my mind: my missing daughter! We flag this as

'avoidance' but, in context of a missing child, we do not give it

a very high or weighty importance to it.


3. "My oldest daughter" tells us

a. the daughter is his ("my")

b. he has at least another daughter"

c. the other daughter (s) is younger


But here, he stops himself. This is "self-censoring" and is an

indication that he is not only beginning this call with the need

to be seen as favorably by the police (ingratiating) but he is

withholding (even suppressing) critical information in the context

of a missing child.


4. "I was taking a nap" is to supplant "my daughter" from the

priority of the call.


"I" is now before the concern for the child.


5. "...taking a nap" is akin to not only shifting priority and attention

away from child and towards self, it suggests alibi building.

Whatever happened to her, you can't think I did it because I was

taking a nap.

6. "I just woke up" is unnecessary information. If he was napping

he was asleep.

Unnecessary information is very important for us and he now gives
us the question:

"If you were not asleep, what were you doing?"

He literally plants the seed of doubt, himself, into the audience.

7. "I can't find her anywhere."

Since he cannot find her "anywhere", she cannot be found.

His priority comes from his words:

1. That you, the police, view me in a positive light.
2. That you, the police, understand, I have to withhold information from you.

3. That you, the police know that whatever it is you find out, it wasn't me that caused it because I was napping.

4. That you, the police, if you doubt I was napping, you must understand that I had to be napping because I just woke up.

5. Since I just woke up, I have not wasted any time.

(Analysts: this is, in a sense, a black hole or temporal lacunae of time passing by that he jumps over).

6. That a child is missing is only 6th in my priority. It is very low in importance. This is why we do not necessarily flag someone who answers/does not answer the location question. Some innocent callers have the wherewithal to give the location immediately yet will not break off the statement and go right to the missing child.

7. that you, police understand that I am a good guy who wasted no time and have looked for her everywhere.

He is now charged with her murder.

To learn Statement Analysis, contact Hyatt Analysis Services for training.

By Peter Hyatt

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/case-jordyn-dumont-911-call.html

Michael Walsh: Guilt in 911 Call

Michael Walsh: Guilt in 911 Call

EAST POINT, Ga. --East Point police have released 911 calls from a father charged with hiding the death of his daughter.


The child’s body had been found in Lake Allatoona 12 hours before she was reported missing. Authorities later identified her body. Her cause of death has not been released.

On July 1, East Point Police charged Michael Wash with aggravated assault, two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, cruelty to children in the third degree, giving false statements and concealing the death of another.

His live-in girlfriend, Lasharae Davis, is charged with being party to the crime of aggravated assault, party to the crime of two counts of cruelty to children in the first degree, party to the crime of cruelty to children in the third degree, giving false statements and concealing the death of another.


911 Call:


Operator: (OP)

Caller: (C)

OP: Inaudible

C: Hi i'm calling to, to report my daughter missing.

Here we have a missing child with a caller using the casual polite greeting of "hi" unexpectedly.

Note the repetition (stutter/halt) upon the word "to" giving the reason for his call.

This is a most sensitive point. He is not asked "why are you calling?" but the emergency itself stands as the expected response. To give the reason for his call is to distance himself from the issue at hand, slow down the pace of the call, and is the third point to be noted within his very first sentence that something is wrong with this call.

He states the reason for his call, rather than the report itself. It is subtle, but in an emergency, there should be no linguistic display.

OP: Ok, where was she last seen sir?

C: She was last seen here in my house this morning (something is said in the background, it is not the OP and think it is his girlfriend, he goes on to correct himself and says) well last night i'm sorry.

He begins with parroting language which, although not most unexpected, it follows his slow pace. Scripting language can show that the focus of the caller is upon the 911 operator (the 'police') rather than blurting out what he knows. Here, with the background chatter, we are given an indication of scripting the call.

Next, we take note that his brain told his tongue to use the words "I'm sorry" in the call. This is both ingratiating ("hi") and it is an indication that he has something he is sorry for, that is, regrets, and the target of his sorrow is not the child, but the police, as seen through the operator who represents authority.

OP: What's the address hun.

C: 1725 McCleland Avenue apartment number 2 (overtalk)

OP: How old is your daughter?

C: Seven years old.

OP: Seven

C: Yes.

Op: Ok she was last seen last night.

C: Yes, last night she was - She was asleep early. I got off of work at 8 o'clock this morning. We woke up, I was looking around for her, and the door was unlocked.

To the untrained ear, this will sound 'awkward' or strange. It sounds this way because it is: scripting sounds 'forced' or unnatural. The change from "I" (psychologically strong or 'safe' while at work) to "we" (now that the child is missing, I do not want to be alone, so I will intuitively put myself with another person) is critical. Guilt hates to be alone and guilt seeks to mitigate or 'spread it around' by being with others. Even if the punishment of the crime will not change, criminals 'like' not being alone with the consequences. It is why parents will correct children when they advance, "but everyone was doing it", as if the multitude of offenders alleviates the responsibility for the infraction.

Parents are easily manipulated with this one: "Everyone was talking!" which is to suggest:

"Only my child was punished! The teacher doesn't like my child and favors the others" effectively losing the opportunity for not only correction, but to teach responsibility.

For advanced analysis, we have "door" to explore for early childhood sexual abuse, or sexual abuse in the case, as well as the linguistic signal of beginning an activity without conclusion.

OP: Your front door?

C: Yes my front door

(OP buts in)

Ok has she ever run away before?

C: No she has never run away before.

The parroting back of answers tells us, again, how carefully (guardedly) the caller is listening to the operator.

OP: Ok. Give me a description of her, Is she Black, White or Latino?

C: She's black.

OP: Ok an...is there anything like messed up in the house.? Does the door look like it's been forced open?

C: no-no.

OP: Is there anything that..no struggle no nothing?

C: No struggle no nothing.

Here, the operator knows that the caller is not yielding information willingly, but sticking close to the operator's own words.

OP: Have you tried to call any of her friends, do you, anything?

OP: Do you need me to call anybody (overtalk, inaudible) so she doesn't have any friends?

C: I tried to call my mother cos but she doesn't live here. I just tried to call my mother to calm me down.

Key: concern for self, not for child. This tells us, not so much 'selfishness' but that the caller is in need for intervention and the child may be beyond need of help.

This is not to dismiss selfishness, and the subsequent child neglect produced, but to show that the need for assistance is with the caller and not the child, raising the possibility that the child is dead.

OP: I know baby i can only imagine.. i know i know. When you saw her last night what was she wearing?

This is interesting because it exposes the understanding of the operator: The 911 operator knows that the caller is not working to get the flow of information to police, but hindering it. The skill is evident: using empathy in an attempt to get information.

C: She was wearing like a polca do..erm, omg (what sounds like) i can't remember.

Disaffected father; not on 'high alert' hormonally, for the child.

OP: Just think baby, just calm down we'll get you baby back. Help me help you. Just think, what was she wearing last night?

The caller asks his girlfriend ( Lasharae Davis) in the back ground. "Lasharae, do you know what she was wearing last night before she went to bed"? (Mumbling in the back ground) The (C) comes back to the phone and says

"I got off of working late last night.

Here the caller feels the need to explain why he does not know the clothing the child had on (pajamas may not have been used) which affirms neglect. If a father is at work and does not know what the child went to bed in (even guessing, "her pjs!"), he would not have the need to explain why he does not know.

OP: When you got home last night you went in and checked on her and she was there?

C: She was asleep last night she was there. (OP overtalk saying "ok ok"

This unnecessary emphasis of "she was there" (if she was asleep, she would have to be 'there') is reminiscent of Billie Jean Dunn's statement to the same effect: the living child was not there.

OP: Ok. And When you got up this morning you went to look for her and she wasn't there but the front door was unlocked

C: Yes. I got up this morning i'm always the first one up in the morning, everybody else is asleep. She shares a room with her little sister but was sleeping in the room with me and her mom.

Here we see the deception of "we woke up" using the plural.
We also have the 'normal' effect: the attempt to make a situation that is not normal appear normal. This tells us a story within itself.

OP: Did you guys get into a fight or anything like that? Was she disciplined yesterday

Great questions, but not in compound form.

C: No..not yesterday, no. Sometimes she do get in trouble but yesterday..

The child is here, subtly blamed, for what befell her.



OP: Of course.

C: Yeahh...

A missing child is the highest priority to the scared parent and to this parent, the child can do no wrong. This is why we look for any slight type of 'indictment' of the child because the guilt of human nature is such that it seeks to justify itself, to lessen the guilt, and show, in some way, that the victim 'deserved' what he and/or her mother did to her.


OP: Anything unusual though?

C: She is known to sneek around the house at night like, but she normaly just sneeking for like food in the kitchen and stuff like that....

'The child is a "sneak" and even steals food. She had to be punished.' This is how the guilty mind seeks to lessen the concern for guilt for self: blame the child's behaviors, to the point here, where "she is known" for this.



OP: Just not out the door.

C: She never left out the door.

Long pause, OP typing.

OP: Ok, Dad, what is her name?

C: Kamaire, K-a-m-a-i-r-e. I just ran outside into the playground looking for her. I just got in my car looking around .

Rather than eliminate specific places where she will not be found, he:

a. gives a false sense of urgency; not for finding the child, but in his own behavior. See word "just" repeated;
b. "looking around" eliminates nothing specific in the search for her.

OP: And what's her last name honey, Kamaire what?

C: Wash W-a-s-h

OP: Ok. And your last names Wash aswell?

C: Yes

OP: First name

C: Michael

OP: Ok Michael and the call back number fro you, what your phone number?

C: (redacted)

OP: they're aon thier way ok.

C: thank you.

Polite "ingratiating" himself to police authorities. 'Maybe they will understand and go easy on me. Maybe they will see how she was known for being a sneak and causing trouble, stealing food and such and how she had to be disciplined and...'

OP: You're welcome

Call Ends.

By Peter Hyatt

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

Katelyn Markham 911 Call Analysis Report

Katelyn Markham 911 Call Analysis Report

Katelyn Markham went missing, and was later found dead. No arrests have been made. This is the call from John Carter, who was engaged to her at the time of the call.

I am sometimes asked what a written report looks like as analysis on the blog is short, superficial, and intended to catch the attention of the investigators, journalists, therapists, as well as the general public. Depending upon the case, it is generally in two parts:

I. The Analysis and Conclusion
II. Profile and Interview Strategy and Tactical Questions

Although this is not a complete report, it is a more detailed analysis of the 911 call made when Katelyn Markham went missing. There is no inclusion of Part II.

Hyatt Analysis Services
for training seminars or at home: www.hyattanalysis.com



Katelyn Markham Case: 911 Call from John Carter.

Introduction: In research of 911 calls, Statement Analysis recognizes patterns of speech within the context of the emergency that prompted the call. This is to highlight ‘the allegation’ or emergency stated’ (alleging here that one is missing) and the expected language that will be employed to facilitate the flow of information to find the victim and bring positive resolution to the call.

There is, according to the reason for the call, an expectation of wording. For example, when a person is missing, it is expected that the call is urgent and concern will be expressed for the missing person. The caller cares not for himself, or how he may appear, because his sole focus is finding the missing person.

There is also wording that is “unexpected”, and statistically, 'red flagged' for the possible conclusion that the caller has guilty knowledge of the crime. These are often elements of sense.


1. Emergency 911 calls that begin with a greeting are flagged. In an emergency, the caller is expected to go right to what is on his mind. Calls that begin with “hello” or “hi” are more associated with guilty knowledge than with innocence, statistically, and the obvious psychological element is the urgency of the call precludes any greeting. Greetings are polite, and can even be an attempt to ingratiate oneself to law enforcement, to sound 'cooperative.' This need to sound cooperative, itself, is concerning.
2. Expression of Emotions. Callers are upset in emergencies and do not need to identify their emotions. Those who have a need to proclaim what emotions they are experiencing may be doing so artificially.
3. Ask for help for the victim, and not for self. Guilty callers sometimes ask for help for themselves, revealing an understanding that it is they, themselves, in need of help.
4. The words “I’m sorry” statistically are found in callers with guilty knowledge, for whatever reason.
5. Order indicates priority. We expect to hear the order reflect the priority of the victim’s life, not the concern over the caller’s state, condition, or life. \
6. Overly polite callers. In an emergency, not only do we not expect a greeting, but we do expect an urgency that is reflected in the language. Conversely, we note any attempts on the part of the caller to ‘sound cooperative’ or ‘appear to be on friendly terms’ with law enforcement, as represented by the 911 operator.
7. We expect a complete social introduction of the victim, and the caller to not distance himself, for example, from the victim.
8. We do not expect to hear any victim blaming, even in a subtle manner.
9. We do not expect any question to remain unanswered or diverted.
10. We do expect the overall scope of the call to be about Katelyn, her well being, what she may be experiencing, and not about the caller, himself.
11. We expect the innocent caller to highlight where they were last together, as a most important and even treasured moment, using the pronoun “we” to describe it, with stark clarity due to the intense emotions of fear of what happened.
The analysis is completed for this purpose: to learn if the caller is an “innocent caller” who has made this phone call to police to help locate the missing victim;
or, if the caller has guilty knowledge of what has happened to the victim, and is working, not to find the victim, but to benefit himself by portraying himself in a positive light, and even the possibility of suggesting ‘other’ suspects for police to investigate.

Question for analyst: “Does John Carter have guilty knowledge of what happened to Katelyn Markham?”


The call began with the 911 operator asking for the location of the emergency.

J: 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 fiancée is missing, I can't find her anywhere.

This first response is important.
a. The call began with a greeting. This is a red flag that is noted. Next, let’s view the order of the wording:
b. Order indicates priority:

1. “Hi” is a greeting
2. Caller’s name stated
3. He, himself is calling
4. He is aware that you’re not supposed to report a missing person after-before 24 hours. This is against “urgency”; as one who is concerned with the welfare of the victim that he is unconcerned with any ‘rules’ to follow. This is an example of one who is ‘overly polite’ in a call that politeness is not expected.
5. my fiancée is missing. This is the fifth (5th) item communicated and is the only information about the victim, whereas he has spoken considerably more about himself, including that he is a ‘rule follower’ as a form of persuasion.

This order is important. Before he reports the missing person he has used his name, or referencing himself four (4) times, and the victim, once (1). After reporting the victim missing, he again puts himself into the statement: “I can’t find her anywhere” suggests that he has been searching ‘everywhere.’

There are three elements within this first response that are consistent: The greeting is polite, friendly (and unexpected) and he also wants them to know that he is not a ‘rule breaker’ in that he knows not to call before 24 hours, and he also wants police to think of him as someone who is helpful: “I can’t find her anywhere.”

We have an abundance of information from him, about him, but we do not even have her name.

c. Social Introductions. In statement analysis, a social introduction, chosen in less than a microsecond of time by the brain, can reveal the quality of the relationship, and it is to be noted, and then followed in the rest of the statement.
“My fiancée, Katelyn Markham is missing” would have been the first thing many callers would have said, making it (1) the priority and the words, “my fiancée, Katelyn Markham” is a complete social introduction; indicative of a good relationship. It has the three necessary elements: her name, her title (fiancée) and the possessive pronoun “my” as close personal ownership.

The lack of complete social introduction is indicative of a troubled relationship, yet it is interesting to note that when the victim is referenced, it is only in the context of how she relates to him. We now look to see if in how he references Katelyn if it will be naturally close language, or if he will distance himself from her, while she is a victim.

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


Location

Consider this question in light of his answer. This question is specifically about the location where he last saw her. Think of what he has offered: He could not find her anywhere and now is asked the last place he saw her. This is a very astute question and one that is critical in the investigation.


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 -

The question has been avoided. When one avoids a question, the question itself is sensitive. Remember, people rarely ever lie out right as it does not come from experiential memory and causes internal stress. “Where” did you last see her?
He tells them what time, but not where.
He then went into this deception more fully: he told the operator what she normally does, in the present tense, while avoiding what happened last night when he last saw her. This is a very strong signal that he last saw her someplace other than her house. Deceptive people are counting on us to interpret their words as if he said, “I last saw her at midnight at her house.” He did not say this, but uses the common deceptive technique anticipating that the police will “interpret” him to mean at her house.

Note "um" is a pause to think, indicating sensitivity. Why the need to pause to think? Generally, the brain is on high alert, with hormonal response giving clarity. He was asked the last place he saw her and he felt the need to answer the question appropriately

"She stays" is present tense. This is outside the boundary of the question, "where did you last see her?"

This signifies that John Carter has a reason why he will not tell the police the location of the last time he saw her.

Since he refuses to answer the question and then moved to the present tense tangent (a common form of deception. For example, “Did you use illegal drugs on Wednesday, while on duty?” is answered with the present tense tangent, “I don’t use drugs!” which avoids the direct question because of the internal stress of direct lying.)

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.

"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.

He may be telling the truth about the time, but withholds the location. Because he used her house in a deceptive manner, it is safe to conclude that the last place he saw her was not at her house.

Re-emergence of Self, rather than the Victim’s plight.

Please note the phrase, "I'm just, really nervous"; not just "nervous" but "really" nervous. This is a focus upon the caller himself, not the victim. It is about his emotion, and not about what the missing victim may be going through. Innocent callers focus upon the victim and ask for help, specifically, for the victim, and when someone is missing, a particular and expected portion of the statement will be to wonder or worry what the victim is experiencing at this very moment. Instead, he wants police to know what he, himself, is experiencing.

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.

Q. What does his first answer communicate to the police about Katelyn?
A. That he is the priority. He is a good guy, for he follows the rules. He can’t find her is to suggest that he has been looking for her, as a dedicated fiancée would, and that his emotions are something he needs them to know: he is scared or “freaking out” for her.

The focus upon self, even in just this short portion of his initial statement, gives signals of the status of “guilty caller.”

Lastly, “I can’t find her anywhere” is examined. If you could not find your fiancée anywhere, you would be nervous too.

In order to be unable to find a missing adult “anywhere”, the person must, by necessity, search everywhere. He reports that he cannot find her “anywhere”, which is to suggest that she will not be found. She is not found “anywhere.”

Think of who might say this?

Perhaps a parent of a toddler who has search the house, the closets, the yard, and so on, reducing the vicinity to the scope of a toddler.

An adult has a much larger scope.

Since you cannot find her anywhere, does anywhere include various bars that you searched in the area? Since you cannot find her anywhere, where, exactly, did you search that you could not find her?

This statement, in fact, is a statement of pessimism; something that the caller should not yet experience. This pessimism is consistent with “leakage” or the inadvertent release of information telegraphing to the police this message:

“you won’t find her, since, I, the fiancée, have not been able to find her anywhere” even if he has done no searching. It is to discourage police from finding Katelyn. This is his language that he has chosen. Consider the speed of transmission of choosing one’s own words is less than a micro second in time.

If he has not physically searched the area, the malls, the stores, hospitals, and so on, the deceptive nature of the statement is even more pronounced.

In just his first response, we learn that John Carter is working against the 911 operator, and is hindering the flow of information, rather than facilitate it. The priority for John Carter is John Carter, not the victim.

D: Is there an address?



J: Yeah, 5214 Dorshire Drive.



D: 5214?



J: Dorshire, yes.



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


This is a natural question because he has ‘communicated’ that he must have been there and everywhere searching for her because he cannot find her anywhere. This shows the 911 operator listening.


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 needs to avoid saying, “no” (it is a yes or no question) but pauses, with “um”, to give himself time to think of what to say. He avoided the question.
2. Note the indication of deception: he can’t find her “anywhere” but now we learn what this means: “I, like, have been trying to get ahold of her” is not to search everywhere as previously stated. He did not say the had been trying, but “like trying”, which is an extra word quickly chosen to further reduce commitment to a task. He has not been searching but only “like trying to get a hold of her.” Getting “a hold of” someone is casual language and not the language of urgency, or of searching. This is to reveal that he not only has withheld the location of where he saw her last, but that his assertion to trying to find her is a deliberate deception intended to cause police to believe something that is not true.

3. He continues this casual language. He went from “I can’t find her anywhere” to now just “like” trying to get a hold of her, and now to “go by her house”; not to go to her house nor to search the area. We “go by” someone’s house in a casual, or uninvited manner, as a consequence of convenience; such as being in the area. Instead, the innocent caller would say something firm, “I am going to her house” to search the house, to search the area, to look for possible signs of a break in, and so on. It could be anything that shows urgency and concern. His words show no urgency. He is moving away from his statement of emotional urgency and is being betrayed by his own choice of words. This is to show how difficult outright lying is: we do whatever we can to avoid direct lying by withholding information, but also we reveal ourselves in the words we employ.

4. “Decided” is to make a decision. If you were very upset and cannot find your fiancée anywhere, would a decision be necessary to go to her home? This is to say that he considered against going to her home. This lack of commitment is seen here, and in the casual ‘stopping by’ like language he used. This “decision” shows that he did, internally, debate whether or not he should go there, which tells us why he did not answer the question with “no” when posed to him, and needed to pause (“um”) to think of what to say.

5. “…to go by her house to see if she was okay…” which tells us that he is only “going by” her house to see if she was “okay.” Now, if one said that he could not find her “anywhere”, would “anywhere” include her house? Here he feels even the need to explain why he decided to go to her house. This is unnecessary information which, to the analysis, is increased in importance. It is as if he anticipated being asked, “Why did you go to her house?” It is to reveal his own fear of being questioned. If he was as concerned as he said, and that he could not find her anywhere, he would feel no need to explain why he would go to her home. Yet, going to her house is something very sensitive to him, and not something he wanted to do, and that he felt a need to explain why.

6. “and her car’s still there” indicates his knowledge of the case. He has not yet told us who the victim is, but has spoken of his own emotional estate, and now her car. One may wonder when he saw that her car was still there, since he is just “heading” there now.

7. Emotions in a statement.

We carefully note the locations within a statement. It is natural to be frightened, and there is no reason to state this. He has stated being “really nervous”, but then took this heightened emotion and “headed” out to “go by” the victim’s house. This is an incongruent statement of emotion and language; the intended emotion is not matched by the language. Now, he changes from “really nervous” to something else.

“Which is why I'm like really freaking out” is to tell the reason for something; though he has not been asked. He is not “freaking out”, nor is he “really freaking out” but, again, while committing to his own emotional state, he uses the word “like” to reduce commitment. People do not like to lie directly and they especially do not like to lie about their emotions; they do, but they don’t like it. One’s own emotions are important to self, and often protected, so when one is feigning surprise, or feigning shock, the act of feigning the emotion is sometimes seen in the wording. For him, this is the second use of the word “like” (not enough to establish a habit) and it is restricted to what emotions he wishes to express to police.

Please note that it is not the emotions that he is experiencing that we are examining: it is his need to inform the police of his emotions that we are focusing upon.

It is unnecessary inclusion of emotions and he continues to show ‘concern’ for himself, but not for the victim. Not only does he not commit to the emotion of “freaking out” (panic, anxiety, etc) with the word “like”, but he also feels the need to explain why he has this emotion, as if not finding her “anywhere” was not enough to freak anyone out. He feels the need, during this very short emergency call about Katelyn, to justify his own emotions; that is, to explain to the police why he has this emotion.

This is a very strong indication of artificial emotion; that is, artificial emotion of anxiety for the victim. This continues to show the priority is not Katelyn, but John Carter, the subject, himself.




D: What's her name?

This should not have to be asked.

He had to be asked before he gave her name. This is indicative of something amiss in the relationship. We have his name and we have his emotions, but we do not know who the victim actually is, outside of her relationship to him as engaged.

Police should seek to learn if they fought this night, in particular, and if stressors had been building in the days or weeks up to this point.

He does not want to reveal the location where he last saw her, and he does not express optimism that they will find her, nor does he show any concern for her well-being to this point. His priority has been set in his language: John Carter is the priority of this call.

J: Katelyn Helene Markham.



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



This is natural because he cannot find her “anywhere.” Note that the doubt may have crept into the mind of the 911 operator due to his “non-committal” words, or casual expressions, which caused her to add, “or anything?”

J: Um -


He does not answer, but only pauses to think.


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



At this point, she is his fiancée so the expectation is that he will say “we were at her house”, using the word “we”, which would show unity, since they were engaged to be married. Pronouns are intuitive, instinctive and powerful. Instead, we get:

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. He does not use the pronoun “we” here. This is a very tense time for him and it is the location he first did not want to answer. This was a very good question. He does not include himself in the first responses.

1. She was at her house.
2. She was going to bed. This is to show her intention, but not what happened. Both of these statements may be, initially, and technically, true, but they are not the complete answer of what happened to Katelyn. The lack of “we” in this is critical. Why?

“We drove to the woods and he raped me. We drove home and I called police.” This is an example of a deceptive statement because the pronoun “we” indicates unity and cooperation. Once the rape has occurred, there is no more “we” between rapist and victim. When the word “we” enters the statement after the assault, it is likely deceptive. Victims despise the rapist and will not use the pronoun “we” here.

In the same sense, the person he was engaged to is missing. This means he should be on high alert and well familiar with the last moments they were together, thinking of the last moments “we were together”, over and over in his mind. The high hormonal response would make this crystal clear in his mind and language. That he does not use the pronoun “we” here is most unexpected and affirms the Incomplete Social Introduction in the first response, and the distancing language of avoiding using her name.

When asked about the last time he was with her, he does not use the pronoun “we” is to reveal to us that there was, at the last time they were together, no unity between them. This is an example of extreme distancing due to context.

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?


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


This is a simple, “yes or no” question. We note that he should say “no” with nothing added as there should be no reason to emphasize the negative.


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 a strong indication that they had an argument. It is affirmed by the Incomplete Social Introduction, avoidance of her name (distancing language) and the avoidance of the word “no”, coupled with the need to emphasize, “not at all.”


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, or she could have been drugged. By simply stating “no”, it would not have triggered suspicion about possible drug use.


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



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

Broken sentence means missing information. 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? Was something about breaking up and “not being able to go on” without the other, enter the argument?

This is very concerning.

He still has not used Katelyn's name yet. This is an avoidance of the name of the victim; a psychological de-personalizing of the victim.

The 911 operator is in the place of having to go ‘fishing’ for information. Remember, he already said that he could not find her “anywhere” but in further questioning, we have indication that he has not searched anywhere, therefore, the 911 operator takes upon herself the burden of trying to facilitate information because John Carter is not.


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.

He called “her” father; still the avoidance of her name. Next he tells us that the “only thing not there” (in the negative) is her cell phone. This is to say that he has direct knowledge of what else was not missing. This tells us that he either inventoried her entire apartment or he has direct knowledge of what was not taken and has a purpose for saying so. This is affirmed by his next words, “…which is positive” while refuting this with the word “but.”

The investigators should wonder how it is that he knows that this is the “only thing” not there.

Please next note the suggestion of possible criminals with the “Sacred Heart Festival.” He states that there are lots of “questionable people” there.

Then he concludes with two words that are sometimes found within guilty callers of 911 calls:

“I’m sorry.”

There is a psychological reason for this. Guilty people who call 911 in a domestic homicide recognize that the victim is beyond help, so any words that seem to suggest concern are often weak, or even absent. They know that the victim is beyond help, and the one person who really needs help is the caller, himself. The guilty caller in a domestic homicide is the one in need of help, particularly a defense attorney. The guilty caller in a domestic homicide is the one who is sorry for what he has done; it may not have been pre meditated but something exploded out of control.

Statistically, the inclusion of these two words is associated with guilt.

When Cindy Anthony threatened to call 911, Casey might not have believed her at first, but Cindy went through with it, and then put Casey on the phone to report missing toddler, Caylee Anthony. In short order, Casey said, “I’m sorry” within the call.

It is not always sorrow or regret for the homicide, but the guilty caller may be sorry that he is even in this position, or that he “had to” take the victim’s life.



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.


The unnecessary and small detail to appear cooperative. Yet, nothing about Katelyn; nothing about what she was wearing when last with him. He gives much more information about himself than he does about the victim.


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



J: Okay, thank you.



D: Mmmhmm. Bye.


J: Okay. Bye.

Analysis Conclusion

The caller, John Carter, is deceptively withholding information about what happened to Katelyn Markham, when he made this call.

He had a need to not only withhold information, but to portray himself as a ‘good guy’; ingratiating himself to police, who would be investigating him. This is the ‘make friends’ psychological attempt to be “on the same side” as law enforcement investigators.

He does not work to facilitate information to locate Katelyn. Some specifics of this include:

1. He is the priority of this call; not Katelyn.
2. He psychologically distances himself from Katelyn.
3. He expresses no concern for Katelyn, while highlighting his own emotions.
4. He is deceptive about the last time he saw her alive.
5. He is deceptive about searching ‘everywhere’ for her.
6. He is concerned about how he is perceived by the police, rather than concern for Katelyn.
7. He signals that the search is not going to end well by claiming that he could not find her anywhere, yet, he had not verbalized any search. The “I can’t find her anywhere” is the “hopeless conclusion” that guilty parties sometimes give. “I will search for the rest of my life” said OJ Simpson about Nicole’s “real” killer. This signals belief that there will be no success. John Carter uses the same vein of thinking; offering a false exasperation in order to appear anxious, with his own ‘appearance’ taking priority over Katelyn’s plight.


Conclusion Summary: John Carter shows the status of ‘guilty caller’ in this 911 call.

This does not mean he killed her. It means he has knowledge of what happened.

If someone else is arrested, the analysis is to make a correlation between the caller and the killer.

He has not been charged and this is only the opinion of Peter Hyatt, based upon the publicly released statements.

By Peter Hyatt

Statement Analysis of Sergio Celis 2015 and 911 Call

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



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

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

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

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

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

They did.

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

The firestorm began then and there.

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

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

kidnap
kidnapper
ransom
payment
contact
getting Isabel back
return
safe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Sergio retraced his steps the morning his daughter disappeared.

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

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

Next, we note he moves into present tense language.

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

Note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire effort, he said, was just for show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A mother's love.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the analysis of the 911 call:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

By Peter Hyatt.

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