Thursday, December 14, 2023

Aaron Solomon 911 Call

Context:  This is a call in which a father reports his son being trapped beneath a truck.  


[inaudible 00:00:03] County.

Aaron Solomon:

I'm trying.

Operator:  Where is your emergency?

Aaron Solomon:  It's 1357 South Water Street. It's off 109. Please hurry.

The question of the location of the emergency is answered.  The subject then says, "please hurry."  In an emergency, it is expected that the caller is in earnest and will go beyond the boundary of the question.  

Yet, the subject does not state what the emergency is, nor for whom emergency services needs to help.  

In extremity, operators sometimes have to repeat the question about location. 


Because the caller's priority is the current state of the victim.  

Even when the question is answered, the current state of the victim is the expectation.  It is front and center of the language because of the immediate need.  It is also the priority of the language due to familiar relationship:  the father's instincts to help his son. 


You said 57.

Aaron Solomon:

Please hurry.

Please hurry for what?  For whom? 

The subject now causes the operator to ask what is the emergency.  This is not expected.  The scene described by a father is one in which we expect to hear immediately.  


Okay. What's going on?

Aaron Solomon:

1357. My son's truck backed over him and it's rolled over him and drug him into the ditch and it's on top of him. He's trapped under the truck. Yeah. Somehow it drug him underneath it? Yes, my son is under it. I'm trying to ... No, I'm trying to call 911.

"My son's truck backed over him" 

Did the subject witness this?

Note next that there is ongoing action:  "my son's truck backed over him and it's rolled over him and drug him into the ditch..."

The truck:

a.  backed over him

b. rolled over him

c. drug him into the ditch. 

This is an ongoing (element of time) activity.  

He then tells us that his son is trapped (emergency) after explaining what happened.  

Expected is "my son is trapped!" as the first priority. 

The language he has, thus far, used, is to give the details of what a person witnessed.  He informed the operator that the truck backed over him, rolled over him and drug him into the ditch and is on top of him. 

He then is heard saying, "yeah somehow it drug him underneath it"

Why now the expression of uncertainty? 

As the audio continues:  

Yes, my son is under it. I'm trying to ... No, I'm trying to call 911.

If the subject is addressing someone else (or others), what would cause the need to affirm that his son is "under it"?

This raises the question that if others are present, why not make the effort to extricate his son? 


Okay. What's your name?

Aaron Solomon:

Oh my God. My name is Aaron Solomon. Oh my God.


And you said you're at 1357 South Water Avenue, right?

Aaron Solomon:



How old is the male?

Aaron Solomon:

He's 18. He just turned 18 about a month ago. It's my son. Oh my God. Oh my God. This is not good.

References to Deity repeated. The statement "this is not good" is unnecessary. 

We wait for him to ask what to do for his son.  


Is he awake? Can he [inaudible 00:01:08]?

Aaron Solomon:

Oh, please hurry. I don't know. I don't think so. He's not alert, right? No, he is out and he's trapped. I got three guys here and he's trapped under the truck.

"please" has the polite demeanor continuing.  What does his son need?  What does he need to help his son?

The question is, "is he awake?" 

"I don't know,.  I don't think so. He's not alert, right?"

Has he checked his son?

Has he spoken to his son?

The expectation is to run to the son,

Where, in proximity to his son, is the subject located?  Why isn't he next to his son for this call?

We then get the answer to whom he was speaking to:

I got three guys here and he's trapped under the truck.

He has "three guys here" on the scene, interrupts his 911 call to inform them, yet we hear of no attempt to free his son.  



Aaron Solomon:

Oh my God.


I understand, sir. Stay on the phone with me while we get somebody out there. What's your name?

Aaron Solomon:

Aaron Solomon.


All right, Aaron.

Aaron Solomon:



What kind of vehicle is it?

Aaron Solomon:

It's a Toyota Tacoma. And he's underneath the vehicle.


Okay. I've got that.

Aaron Solomon:



Okay. I've got that. What color is it?

Aaron Solomon:

It's a white truck. That's my son. Somehow it backed up. Yeah. Yeah. I'm on with 911 right now. Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh my God.


Does he know this? Did he witness it? 

If he came upon a scene in which his son was under a truck, how would he know to even speculate how this happened?  

This question is on the mind of the 911 Operator: 


Was your son working on it?

This is a logical question to a 911 call that is raising concerns for the operator.  

Aaron Solomon:

No. No. He was just getting out of it. We're on an incline and I guess he didn't have it in park or something, or it wasn't engaged or ... Oh my gosh. Oh my God. I can't believe this.

The subject affirms to know what happened and the timing ("just") of what happened.  

He still does not ask what he can do for his son, nor ask the 3 guys present to help him attempt to free his son.  

Time is passing. 


And you said he's still not responding?

Aaron Solomon:

No. No.


And he's still under the truck? No one can get him out from under it?

The operator appears aware of the passage of time in describing what happened.  

Does the operator assume that the subject and the three guys made an effort to get him out?  It is not something we have heard the subject state. 

Aaron Solomon:


He does not say, "no, we tried!" or any such description. 


We saw units en route to you. I'm just asking you questions so we can update them. Okay? Can you check and see if he's breathing?

Aaron Solomon:

Huh? Somebody's telling me that he's coming to-

Is he not with his son while making this call? 



Aaron Solomon:

... maybe.


He is waking up. Try to keep him still. So he is breathing?

Aaron Solomon:

Well, yeah, he can't move. I don't think he can move. I don't know.

The subject does not appear to be aware of his son's state. 


Okay, I understand.

Aaron Solomon:

No, he can't move. He's trapped.


Okay. We got somebody en route. Now when he wakes up, he might be scared. Can somebody just sit down there and talk to him?

The operator recognizes that the father is not with his son.  

Aaron Solomon:

Yeah, somebody talk to him.

Why would a father assign this to someone else? 

Speaker 3:

[inaudible 00:03:19].

We do not know what the subject now responds to: 

Aaron Solomon:

There's blood. Is he facing up or down? He's facing up. They said he may aspirate. We need to hurry. Oh my God.


So does he have blood coming out of his mouth?

Aaron Solomon:

Yeah. Yeah. There's blood coming out. Yeah, somehow it drug him down I think. I don't know whether it wasn't in park or what, or if it didn't engage the brake or it drug him underneath somehow.

He offers more information about not knowing, than he offers about his son.  His son's status is known because of the questions asked him and information coming from someone else ("they said he may aspirate"



Aaron Solomon:

They said he's facing up.

Again, we are led to understand that the caller, the teen's father, is not with his son.  Apparently, strangers are.  



Aaron Solomon:

But he's bleeding from his mouth. So, Grant, turn your face to the side if you can barely, but be careful.


Don't move him. Okay?

Aaron Solomon:

We can't move him. We can't move him. [inaudible 00:04:09].


All right. [inaudible 00:04:12] there. I'm going to let you go, okay?

Aaron Solomon:

Yeah. Okay.



Aaron Solomon:

All right.


Uh-huh. Bye-Bye.

Analysis Conclusion:  Concerning 

Rather than facilitate the flow of information, the subject raises questions about what happened to his son. 

The subject is the victim's father. 

He does not ask for help or directions on how to help, his son. 

He shows a priority of explaining how this happened, and then repeats it, rather than report immediately the state his son was in. 

The subject appears to be physically distant from his son.  This raises the question as to why a father would not be the closest to his son, not only there for his son, but reporting directly to the operator and receiving instruction on how to help him. 

How is it that a father could overcome the natural instinct to be with his entrapped son?  What history or background might lend itself to this distance?

The subject does not offer information in a manner that shows priority of saving his son, but causes the 911 operator to ask directly. 


I am concerned about the passing of time, as an element, within this call.  

Without informing the operator of his son's condition, the caller offers an explanation on what happened in a step by step manner.  This is, in the mind of the caller, the element of time passing.  He even speculates (unnecessary information) on why it happened.

I am concerned that more time passed here than  considered, which is vital to an investigation. It is the perceived passing of time in the caller's mind (revealed in chosen language) that should cause investigators to seek to learn if anything else took place during the passing of time, that the subject is not revealing, while he is thinking of it. 

This call is concerning.  There may be explanations for its content, but it is the caller, himself, who has raised questions about what happened to his son. 

 The priority within the language does not indicate the saving of his son, but rather to explain, in steps, how it happened. 



Wednesday, December 13, 2023

Missing: Jennifer Pandos by Eugenia Sarri

The following comes from Team Analysis with analyst, Eugenia Sarri  putting together the analysis for public reading. 

Jennifer Pandos lived in Williamsburg Virginia with her parents Ron and Margie Pandos in a gated community. Her father, Ron, was a successful accountant at the time.

In the morning of February 10, 1987, after her parents woke up they discovered that their fifteen-year old daughter had vanished. They found a note in her bedroom in which it was claimed that she had run off with an older man.

Her older brother, Stephen was away at college at the time. Her parents waited until February 13th to contact the police and report her missing. Their relatives were informed about her disappearance a month later. Relatives on Ron’s side of the family did not know anything about it for years.

Jennifer was never found. Both parents claim they had nothing to do with her disappearance. They both failed polygraph tests they took.

Her brother Stephen became convinced that his parents knew what happened to Jennifer and that his father was to blame for her disappearance.

Decades later, the case sparked the interest of HBO producers and a four part documentary which was filmed during a seven year period was made. In it, Stephen talks about his father’s abusive behavior towards all members of his family. We also learn that Jennifer was on the phone talking to one of her friends the night before her disappearance when a heated argument with her father occurred. His parents eventually divorced.

The documentary “Burden of Proof” has generated new interest in this unsolved case. In the absence of physical evidence after so many years, the note is considered to be of great significance. It did not appear to be in Jennifer’s handwriting. 

No one has ever been charged in Jennifer's case yet, and her parents deny having had anything to do with her disappearance. Investigators stated there was no evidence of a crime in her case. The case remains unsolved.

The team of analysts analyzed the note. Identifying an author and describing their personality traits is challenging and exciting work and in this case it may prove valuable in the pursuit of justice. Analysis follows:


The note

“Mr and Mrs Pandos

Your daughter is with me. She is fine. She is having some problems though. She needs some time away from this place 3-5 days max.

She is like a daughter to me, and Im like a Dad to her

here are some of Jennifers quotes

“Im fine. I just need time to think”

“Both of you please go to work tomorrow cause I will try to call you. I wont call at home, only at (  ) yalls work.

“Cancel my doctors appointments on Friday

Please put my money you owe me in my bank account. Do not call the police. I can 

Easily find out if you do and if you do I may never come back home.

“Don’t tell my friends about this just tell them Im sick

Please do what I’ve asked !!




Mr and Mrs Pandos

- The author knows Jennifer’s last name

- The note is addressed to specific recipients 

- There is no “Dear” or any kind of greeting

-“Mr” comes first – the tone of the note is polite.

The author’s linguistic disposition towards Mr and Mrs Pandos is positive.(+)

The beginning of the note is formal.


Questions: Would a peer or someone younger use “Mr and Mrs”?

Or, would someone wish to be respectful towards the recipients?  

Could it be masking?


Your daughter is with me. 

- “Daughter” is her relationship title, her name is not mentioned.  Does the author know that they only have one daughter?  In the context of a relationship, the author does not seem to have a need to use her name first. This is an incomplete social introduction. 

“Daughter” without name; the author(s) perceives Jennifer in a relational way; not as her own person.


- “Your daughter is with me”

The use of the word “with” between people indicates distance, either physical or emotional. This is used instead of, “I have your daughter.”

- The ISI (Incomplete Social Introduction) indicates a possible problematic relationship; in either direction.  If it was written by the daughter, it could indicate a reminder of relational status (a reminder would indicate a void/perceived problem in the relationship, by a child). 

Question: What is the cause of distancing language here?  


-The relationship comes before use of the name. 

 Does this highlight a parental relationship as a priority? 

 Does this point back to one or more of the parents?

- “Your daughter is with me” should cause us to consider if Jennifer is elsewhere (including being deceased) and the author knows it. 

The author’s priority is the location of their daughter.  

- Linguistic Disposition:  the author is reassuring the recipients (parents) about Jennifer.  This is another positive LD (+)


She is fine. She is having some problems though.

- “daughter” now becomes “she” following the law of economy. This normal progression should continue, but if her name is then used, we should take careful note of it.  

- “fine”: This is minimizing. The author does not say she is “safe” or even “alive”. It could indicate numbness, or trauma. It is not likely something that came directly from Jennifer. 

- That Jennifer is “fine” is separate from the quotes.  We consider this as possibly the author’s language and perception; not Jennifer’s.  

- She is “fine” is also reassuring.  This is the third (+) positive LD towards the parents. 

 We should consider that the author likes or is favorably disposed towards the parents. 



She is having some problems though.

-“she” is used again. 

- “some problems” is consistent with minimizing language in the context that she is missing.  Note the inclusion of “though” after “fine.”


Who is having some problems? 

 Is it our author?

Would these problems need some “days” to clear up? 

Why would these problems need some days to resolve?

What are the problems? 

“She” is the one having some problems. Is this a subtle blaming of the victim? 

The author (s) does not blame the parents. If Jennifer (age 15) had written this, we would expect to see blame placed with the parents, or a list of grievances.  

Are the parents (either or both), image conscious? 


 She needs sometime away from this place 3-5 days max.

- Time is the dominant theme of this sentence presenting her “need.” 

3-5 days max suggests an author who is strong on planning.  An accountant? One who likes things to “add up”?

- “this” place:  Is this a slip? (Latency) The word “this” indicates closeness.  If Jennifer had gone to the place of the author, it would be from home that she needed time away from. 

This place” could be either the parent or Jennifer, writing from home. If Jennifer, it is out of sequential order as “your daughter is with me” emphasizes location.  It would be unexpected for a 15 year old to go out of sequential order unless she was fabricating. 

This may be masking, as an attempt to sound as if it was written in her bedroom. 

Our author (s) has problems on his hands, at the time of this writing. 

Our author needs time.  In the context of a missing 15 year old, it is incongruent. 

Behavioral Analysis:  the parents took time before reporting her missing. From the time delay, we may consider the parents protective instincts were reduced or not engaged. Why? 


She is like a daughter to me, and Im like a Dad to her

- Is this an embedded linguistic autograph (self portrait) from the author?

- Note that Dad is written with capitalized “D”. 

This is another (+) positive LD towards the Dad. 


here are some of Jennifers quotes

- The name “Jennifer” now appears, which is a reversal of expected order (“daughter”, “she”) and may indicate a change in reality. What changed?

- “Jennifer” may not be his “daughter”.

- Is “Jennifer” now deceased?  

- Rather than, “Jennifer said…” the author gives her quotes. 

 This is more like a eulogy than a communication of what Jennifer said. 

This may, again, reflect nostalgia and further causes us to ask if Jennifer is dead and the author knows it.  


“Im fine. just need time to think”

- “I’m fine” is unlikely to be the language of a 15 year old who is not, presently, in a position to engage further. 

- This language is more likely to be the language of an adult male. (See the first time the word “fine” was used above) 

-We note another positive LD (+) towards the parents.  Jennifer seems to be assuring them not to worry; she only needs time to think.

The author is giving comfort and protection to the recipients (parents). 

just need time to think”

Such as 3-5 days max, would provide. 

-“I’m fine” may be the author attempting to soothe himself. Could the author, if the father, be seeking to assure the mother?  Neither reported her missing for 3 days. 


Both of you please go to work tomorrow cause I will try to call you.

- Written to Mr and Mrs, the word, “both” is an unnecessary word of emphasis. Is it a reminder?  Are they in this together? We know that “Both” did not call the police for 3 days.

 The author is likely considering what would be separate actions/testimonies. 

- “please”: courtesy is extended to parents (+) 

- “please” also expresses uncertainty.  Is a male author now addressing the mother?  Did the mother need persuading to keep things together and stay with the story? (alibi) 

- Time:  “tomorrow” may suggest the author knew the letter would be found the next day, early enough to go to work.  The author knew when the letter would be found. The author’s certainty or confidence could have been from one who is attentive to detail. 

- Sensitivity of blue: The author (s) preempts being asked why he/they would go to work, the day they learn their 15 year old daughter is missing.  As if to say this is a “normal” day to which they should carry on usual duties.  This signifies, by its inclusion, that the author knows this day will be anything but normal.  

- Our author could have used anything but chose work.  Our author is likely someone who liked work and was successful.  

- “to try to call” is a weak assertion. 

 In this extreme context, it is likely that the author knows that no call will be made to work. 


 I wont call at home, only at (  )yalls work.

-We note that “home” is used and not “house”. This seems odd in the context of a presumed runaway

-“at home”: is the author giving latent information revealing that he knows Jennifer will not be able to call “at” home? 

-The explanation as to why, being unnecessary should be viewed with the negative, “won’t” as this increases the sensitivity.  This further suggests the author does not anticipate a call at work. 


Cancel my doctors appointments on Friday

A 15-year-old girl is leaving home with someone who is not a family member without taking anything personal, without telling anyone of her plans. She is not worried about how this will hurt and worry her parents or brother. She is not worried about her possessions or her school, but she is worried about canceling a doctor’s appointment. Is the doctor’s appointment connected to her disappearance and possible death? 
15-year-old kids do not worry about canceling doctor’s appointments as they are running away from home. Their focus is on other more pressing things. Who worries about canceling doctor’s appointments?…   parents do.

This further suggests the author’s personality: one who is responsible. 


-“cancel”; not reschedule.  Will she no longer need appointments?

The author may not want the parents to get stuck with a bill and this constitutes another positive LD (+) 

Question: Might the author have been afraid of Jennifer going to the doctor?


Please put my money you owe me in my bank account. 

Question:  Did Jennifer “owe” the author? 

Please note that the parents did not put any money in her bank account though they followed all the other “instructions” in the note.


Do not call the police. 

- This is stronger as it is a change from “please”. The author DOES NOT want the recipients to call the police. 

 If the father is the author, is he speaking to the mother? 


I can easily find out if you do and if you do I may never come back home.

The author knows Jennifer is never coming home. 

- Also note:  a 15 year old girl is not likely able to get information from the police.  A dad who is friends with a police chief would.  This is another indicator that the father may be the dominant author of this letter. It points to his ego (bragging) regarding his connection with police. 

- Also, this provides the parents with the answer when challenged why they did not call the police. 

- The more we see the positive linguistic disposition towards the parents by the author, the more we now see Jennifer portrayed negatively, such as demanding, threatening and stern. 

This reveals the author’s positive view of the “Dad”, and the negative view of Jennifer, the missing 15 year old victim in the story. 


“Don’t tell my friends about this just tell them Im sick

- Does the author fear being called “sick” in context of his missing daughter? (latency)  Is this image consciousness?  The author wishes to comfort and protect the parents.  

In the alleged quotes, the daughter goes from “I’m fine” to “I’m sick…” 

Please do what I’ve asked !!

- The author moves between being polite and uncertain of the outcome three times in this note, by using the word “please” when he asks them to go to work, put money in the bank account put and do what I’ve asked, and using the imperative without any courtesy when asking the parents to cancel doctor’s appointments, not to call the police and not tell Jennifer’s friends about this. The tone changes from asking to telling them not to do the first things a parent should do in a case like this, to call the police and her friends, and has a need to also tell them to cancel the doctor’s appointments. The tone gets imperative when it comes to parental duties.

We note the emphasis added in this last instruction by the use of the exclamation marks plus the underlining of the word please. It is a strong attempt to persuade the recipient(s) to do what was asked. Again, we may ask: was this intended to appeal to the mother’s emotions?



The language and the tone used in the note are not the ones we would expect from a teenager leaving home.

The language is consistent with adult language.

The positive linguistic disposition towards the parents throughout the whole note is unexpected by an adolescent who is running away.

Time is sensitive as is the reason why they should go to work and behave as if everything is normal.

The author is organized, meticulous and cares about handling financial issues.

The author subtly blames Jennifer.

The author knows Jennifer is not coming home.

The parents, particularly the father should be considered suspects in Jennifer's disappearance.