Saturday, June 21, 2014

Is Russell Lindstrom Deceptive?

Did he tell the truth?



Is Russell Lindstrom deceptive about what happened to his daughter, who died while in his vehicle?

Recently, Dr. Paul Ekman said he would not answer whether or not Edward Snowden was truthful or deceptive unless he, himself, could ask the questions and observe the answers.  Snowden was recently interviewed as Americans have been torn on whether he is a hero whistle-blower, or he is a traitor.  The television interview may have answered questions for many Americans, but more on this later.

It is helpful to know what questions are asked, but in the simple, "What happened?" we often know, thanks to Avinoam Sapir (www.lsiscan.com) if the subject is truthful or deceptive, and, using Mr. Sapir's instruction, much more may be known as well.

All Statement Analysis taught in the United States (and internationally) owes the debt of knowledge to Mr. Sapir.  This is why I often refer to him, and his instruction for everyone from journalists, to therapists, to investigators, to learn to listen and "decode" the personal, internal, subjective dictionary of a subject, in order to gain vital information.

Is Russell Lindstrom, father of deceased daughter, truthful or not?

I will answer this question directly at the conclusion of the article.  Child Protective Services is investigating him for Negligence in the death of his daughter.  They are doing this with police.

I will employ a measuring technique as well as look at specific indicators within his speech as I believe there is enough here for me to make a conclusion.

Statement Analysis counts words to make determination of deception.  There is a general math formula that is very useful. It is the:

25/50/25 Measurement of a statement's balance.

First, some short statements made by the subject.  

We have seen how the father of the dead child placed his emotions artificially within his story, as well as a few other red flags, including early willingness to accept death, and conflicting accounts of knowing if his child was dead.  The death of a child is a brutal, shocking event.  It takes time for humans to process emotions.  In truthful accounts, emotions are usually given after the account.  In story telling, emotions are placed in the "perfect" or "logical" part of the story, such as:

"I was walking alone in a dark alley when I felt terrible gnawing fear within me, when suddenly a man jumped out..."

It makes for great story telling.  However, in real life:

"I was mugged by a man in that dark alley.  I gave him my money and called police.  I was terrified." is something that is more likely to be true. It doesn't grab your attention as much as the former, but it is how truthful accounts appear.

Deceptive people feel as if they have a need to persuade that it really happened and they really felt fear, so they put it in to the part of the story where they think they should feel fear.  It is often artificial.

Recall that in Statement Analysis, we draw a conclusion based on many signals, and not just one.  A single artificial placement of emotion will not be enough for an experienced analyst to make a conclusion.  It's often done "anonymously", but not when the analyst's reputation is on the line.

I want to be certain.

I will do the same with measurement (form) and pace of a statement.  Truthful accounts sometimes have a few red flags, but it is the overall portrait that I seek to judge.

We also saw that drugs may have been involved, as marijuana was apparently found, and as I have written and said many times, drugs and children do not mix.

Will Russell Lindstrom face Negligent Homicide charges?

They're treating me like I murdered my little girl,” said Lindstrom.

"I murdered my little girl":  is the subject quoting someone else, or does this come from his own free editing process?  Is it an embedded confession, or is he quoting police?

I've been in terrible situations all my life, especially in the military and nothing like that can compare to losing your daughter, to losing one of your own children, especially at an age so young,” he said.


Note that he avoids the personal, "losing my daughter" and "losing one of my own children", instead opting for the second person, "you", which is distancing language. 

They found marijuana, percocet and confiscated several computers.  This, when coupled with the infusion of the word "laundry" within his statement, draws our attention and concern.  


Here is a transcription of some of the video interview, first alone, and then with analysis:

"Yesterday started out pretty much like any other day. There was a little bit of excitement because the vehicle that my daughter died in, we were supposed to be trading in for another vehicle yesterday. A 2008 Chevy Avalanche. And my kids were really excited cause they (hard to understand this part) were gonna get to go and leave the house. Or as they would put it, they were gonna get to go “bye bye”. And… but they got up in the morning and then ate breakfast and came outside and played because a couple of days ago it rained and they’ve been cooped up in the house and there real outdoors kids. And so, they came outside and I was outside with them. They were running around the yard playing Dora the Explorer and even tried to run off in the woods a couple times like she does on the cartoon. Yah know I had to yell at them to stay in the yard a couple of times because of it. And (long pause) lunch time came around, they came in the house, I fed them something to eat and then we came back outside after they were done eating. Maybe an hour later err later. I can’t be yah know, accurate on times. What happened was my kids generally put themselves down for a nap especially when they’ve been outside playing a lot and ah especially on a warm day. And they came into the house and started playing in their room quietly and then they both wrapped up in their blankets and laid down. And I thought they went to sleep so I figured I had time to do go do some chores in the house. I was in the back of the house doing laundry and straightening things up. And in between load of laundry I’d go sit on my bed which is in the next room over from them and cause from my room I can always hear them when they get up and start moving around. And so I thought they were asleep and I thought I had time to do some chores and didn’t have to worry about them. And I came outside to have a cigarette and fiancés little brother came out and asked me when the last time id actually seem my kids was and I told him it was about an hour and both of us immediately got up and started looking for em just because anytime you’re a parent and somebody brings up the fact that you haven’t seen or heard from your kids for a little while, you go look for them. And so we checked the house, they weren’t in their room, they weren’t anywhere in the house. We checked all the rooms in the house. All the places they like to hide and get into things..."


This is 476 words.  We can divide the statement into three basic parts to test the statement's "form" as we know that, in general, a Truthful or Reliable account will have a balance to it. 

Part I is the Introduction to what happened.  This is, generally speaking, about 25% of the account, in truthful and reliable statements.  

Part II is the most important part of the statement, it is the Main Event, or, precisely, what happened. The bulk of the statement should take up about 50% of the account. 

Part III is what happened afterwards and is generally about 25%. This is what happened afterwards, including calling police, etc. 

This is only one way of measuring a statement.  The overwhelming number of deceptive statements have a lengthy introduction.  Psychologically, this makes sense because if the account is deceptive, therefore, stress inducing, it is only natural that a subject would want to delay it as long as possible.  This is why a very lengthy introduction is a sign of imbalance.  

Anything that is close to the 25/50/25 will not be deemed unreliable, and the analyst will then go into the words to look for other indications of veracity or deception.  It is possible to have an "unreliable" statement in measurement that still does not indicate deception.  It is just one tool of many to use.  We look for imbalance, particularly, how long does it take to get to what happened?

If it takes a long time, with lots of tangent detail, it may signal that the subject does not want to get to what happened. 

In this case, had I lost my two children and found them in the car, I ask myself, "What would I say?"

I'd likely go right to the point.   Let's look at Russell Lindstrom's statement, noting that it is not likely complete.  



Part I is the introduction.   He uses 402 words to introduce his story before telling us what happened. 
Part II begins when the fiancé's little brother and subject "immediately got up" to look. 
Part III is what happened after.  This is not in his statement.  

the introduction is 402 out of 476 words, or 84%.

This makes the statement Unreliable or Deceptive, based upon its form.  This is a measurement which is only one tool of many to use, and it is from the video, which may tilt the math downward, but still, at 84%, it is extremely imbalanced.  

Although there may be more, after finding them he took action, cooling them down, CPR, etc.  

Yet, even without a full statement, this is a lengthy introduction with other issues for the analyst to consider.  



"Yesterday started out pretty much like any other day

Even a child in the First Grade knows that when someone is telling a story and starts out like it was a "normal" day, it was anything but normal.  It is a tool of story telling.  Always flag the word "normal" (or words similar) so that you are on the alert for something not normal. 



There was a little bit of excitement because the vehicle that my daughter died in, we were supposed to be trading in for another vehicle yesterday. A 2008 Chevy Avalanche. 


This is a strange thing to even be thinking about having just had a daughter die.  It appears utterly irrelevant, given the death of a child, and how the child died.  Yet, it entered into his language.  

I cannot help but ask why this was in his mind?  The vehicle has been impounded by police.  The "vehicle" his daughter died in was to be traded in for another "vehicle"; using the word "vehicle" twice. 



And my kids were really excited cause they ___ were gonna get to go and leave the house. Or as they would put it, they were gonna get to go “bye bye”. 

This is to portray the kids as happy, excited or content:  in other words, he is portraying the children in a positive manner, while one of them is dead.  

The analyst must ask, "Why does he need to portray things as positive?"

Putting "excitement" in the statement while his daughter is dead strikes us as strange (view comments) but for the subject, he is moving the topic away from his dead daughter and more about the vehicle.  This is why we see the model and year added.  Most people would be too distraught to even think of such things, no less speak them, so early after what has happened. 

We highlight the subject's need to move away from the topic at hand:  his daughter, and to take the listener to the vehicle.  

It is a diversion.  

That the kids get to go "bye bye"; is this something so special to them that it is an event, unto itself?  Do they not get out often?  

Were they usually locked in the house?

In today's age, kids are out and about in life constantly.  This appears unnecessary, which makes it very important to us to try to learn more about their lifestyle. 



And… but they got up in the morning and then ate breakfast and came outside and played because a couple of days ago it rained and they’ve been cooped up in the house and they're real outdoors kids. 

The word "but" is used in comparison, to refute, to compare, that which preceded it.  What was in his mind that produced "but" here?  Recall:

he just portrayed them in a positive manner and now uses "but" and goes on to explain about rain from a couple of days ago.  

This is out of chronological order, for us, and before getting to find his daughter, he first began in the specific day, but now has gone back a "couple" of days.  This should be part of the interview process, knowing his actions and activities the days preceding, especially since drugs may be a part of the equation. 

"Came outside" may indicate that that is where he was.  What was he doing outside?  This is what Analytical Interviewing does:  he asks questions off of the analysis.  

The need to explain why the kids had to come outside may suggest interruption of what he was doing; an intrusion of sorts.  I then note that he needed to tell us that they were "cooped up" and "real" outdoor kids.  This may be a subtle shifting of blame:

Were they so out of control that he locked them in the vehicle, not considering what the temperatures would do to them?

Let's say, for argument sake, that he was very busy doing something important and he could not get them to behave, so he put them into the vehicle, and locked them in, so he could do whatever it was that was more important to him at the moment.  
He would now feel guilt. 

Guilt has a strange way of trying to alleviate itself, and is often well suited to finding ways to blame others.  

If they weren't so "cooped up" and they weren't so "outdoor" kids...is to touch upon not only circumstance (blaming the rain) but also it speaks to character of the kids, being not just "outdoor" types, but "real outdoor" types.  


And so, they came outside and I was outside with them. 


This is an awkward statement that shows distancing language from the children. 

He does not say, "They went outside" but they "came" outside.  This indicates that he was outside first.  

Next, he says he was outside "with" them.  Why the need to tell us, if they "came" out, that he was with them?

This father uses a lot of distancing language and when the word "with" is found between people, it is distance. 

"Heather and I went shopping" versus "I went shopping with Heather."  The latter shows distancing (I didn't want to go shopping).  In his case, the distance is there, but why?  

We sometimes hear a father say this, "I was outside with the kids" for something like this:

He was mowing the lawn while they were playing. 
He was raking and they were pestering him to play with them, instead.   Thus, the distancing language can enter his vocabulary as he recalls being outside with them. 

In context, we are at a situation in which a child is dead.  

There is, at this point in his statement, distance between himself and his daughters.  Then,  "them" and not "my daughters" or "my kids" is also noted. 

He may give us the reason for the distance here:  


They were running around the yard playing Dora the Explorer and even tried to run off in the woods a couple times like she does on the cartoon. Yah know I had to yell at them to stay in the yard a couple of times because of it. 


In spite of the positive portrayal of the kids, the word "but" refuted it, and now we have not only the details of the rebuttal, but, perhaps, the reason for distancing language:

He was having a hard time controlling them.  

He mentions "Dora the Explorer" rather than "they were playing" or "they were playing a game", but gives the additional detail of the specific game they were playing.  This may be an attempt to portray himself as very close to them, to the point of knowing what they watched (Dora is a TV program, versus "real" outdoor kids) and played. 

This reminded me of Dylan Redwine's father trying to persuade the audience that he knew his son well, by mentioning TV shows,  but those shows were too young for Dylan and ones he had outgrown years earlier.  

It is the NEED to persuade that Statement Analysis focuses upon.  

Next we continue to ask:  

Is this a subtle blaming of the victim?  

Were they so out of control that he locked them in the vehicle?

This is where police should focus, not only upon drugs and neglect, but his temperament at the time of the event.  

He was under stress.  This is evident in his lengthy opening and need to attempt to make things sound positive when they were not.  He "even" noted that they took off to the woods.  This is the language of exasperation, and, perhaps, 'challenge' of sorts.  

It is as if he is blaming the rain, and the children's character, for what he may have "had" to do to control them from running off, "even" to the woods, where there would be danger.  This sounds like a father attempting to justify his actions.  


And (long pause) lunch time came around, they came in the house, I fed them something to eat and then we came back outside after they were done eating. 


They were out how long?

Note that he gives details about the vehicle, but not about anything he fed them.  

Note the word "we" (unity, cooperation) enters his language here:  they may have been better after eating.  





Maybe an hour later err later. I can’t be yah know, accurate on times.

What limits his ability to be accurate about "times"?  This is concerning. 



What happened was my kids generally put themselves down for a nap especially when they’ve been outside playing a lot and ah especially on a warm day. And they came into the house and started playing in their room quietly and then they both wrapped up in their blankets and laid down. 

This is also concerning.  He not only tells us what they "generally" do, rather than what they did, he tells us:

a.  warm day
b.  wrapped in blankets

"They both wrapped up in their blankets" does not tell us if they wrapped themselves, or he wrapped them.  This is an awkward and alarming statement. 



And I thought they went to sleep so I figured I had time to do go do some chores in the house.


Here he tells us why he thought he had time to do chores.  This anticipates the question of "Why did you have time...?" but, why would anyone ask such a question?  This does not make sense to us, but it does to him.  We need to learn why.  

Note that "blankets" (coverings) are associated with:
Sexual abuse, particularly childhood sexual abuse, but it also is associated with sufferers of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from combat situations.  

Some linguistic signals of childhood sexual abuse:

water, in various forms
doors, opening and closing
lights (sexual activity, both abusive and non abusive)
windows open, closing
coverings, blankets, towels, etc.  

"I took a shower, and dried off with a towel, got dressed and went to work" with "towel" being completely unnecessary to us, but not to the subject.  The subject needs to be "covered", or "protected" with the towel.  We did not think he ran around naked to dry off.  Unnecessary information should be deemed "doubly important" (LSI) to the analyst.  


 I was in the back of the house doing laundry and straightening things up. 

laundry is noted as associated with "water"


And in between load of laundry I’d go sit on my bed which is in the next room over from them and cause from my room I can always hear them when they get up and start moving around. 

Here we have indications of deception as he does not tell us what he did.  

He changes from past tense verbs to present tense.  He changes from what happened to what 'usually' happens.  

Note that body posture ("sit") is a signal of increased tension for the subject at this point of the statement.  

"I can always hear them" is what he can "always" do, but is not what happened.  He is avoiding telling us what he did at this time.  



And so I thought they were asleep and I thought I had time to do some chores and didn’t have to worry about them. 

Here is another 'out of chronological' order of events.  He is backtracking to explain why he had time.  

Note he tells us what he "didn't" have to do.  This also appears artificial. 


And I came outside to have a cigarette and fiancés little brother came out and asked me when the last time id actually seen my kids was and I told him it was about an hour and both of us 

Critical:

1.  "fiancé's little brother" is an incomplete social introduction which may suggest problems in the relationship at this point in the account.  

2.  He is "little" brother.  Why the additional word "little"; is it demeaning to him?

3.   "Actually" is a word when comparing two or more things.  "Would you like vanilla ice cream?"   "No, I'd actually like chocolate..."  

In this statement, there appears to be tension, and a challenge from the "little" brother.  When was the last time you actually seen...argument.  

4.  Note "told" him and not "said", indicates authoritative or argumentative (firm).  "My boss said to be at work at 9."  "My boss told  me to be at work at 9" is a lot firmer.  Add in the word "stood" and you have tension.  

5.  "both of us" instead of "we", shows distance and affirms the argumentative challenge that took place.  The "little brother" challenged the subject. 


immediately got up and started looking for em just because anytime you’re a parent and somebody brings up the fact that you haven’t seen or heard from your kids for a little while, you go look for them. 

"Immediately" is unnecessary and often found in 911 calls when someone feels the need to portray themselves in a favorable light.  No one would think that the subject stopped to have another cigarette first.  That he adds "immediately" tells us that he is concerned about perception rather than reality. 

"Because" shows that he feels the need to explain why he did not delay looking for his daughters.  This is a very sensitive issue to him. 

Yet, he immediately distances himself from the scenario:   "you're a parent", not that he is a parent, and "somebody" brings up the fact...

This is not his first act of Neglect.  

He may have a CPS history, or has been accused by friends/relatives of neglecting the children.  



And so we checked the house, they weren’t in their room, they weren’t anywhere in the house. We checked all the rooms in the house. All the places they like to hide and get into things.

The unity returned as they shared the same purpose.  

Although we do not have the complete statement for a complete mathematical number, the lengthy introduction with unnecessary details tells me he has a reason to delay getting to the point. 

The distancing language is noted. 

The argumentative challenge between the subject and his fiancé's brother is noted. 

As I take these into consideration, along with his other statements, I am able to conclude:

Russell Lindstrom is deceptive in his account of what happened to his daughters.  

149 comments:

Hobnob said...

There was a little bit of excitement because the vehicle that my daughter died in, we were supposed to be trading in for another vehicle yesterday. A 2008 Chevy Avalanche.

Why does he feel the need to tell us what vehicle he was trading his vehicle for?

It is irrelevant information, it also makes the vehicle his daughter died in sensitive.
It was important enough to him to warrant him introducing it, but not to what happened in his own vehicle.

There was a little bit of excitement because the vehicle that my daughter died in
WTH?
His daughter died in the vehicle and his other daughter almost died and he calls it a little bit of excitement?

I hope they did blood tests to see what, if any substances were andministered to them.
He told us he fed them something to eat, does this mean he has previously ded them something not to eat?

I would also suggest doing hair strand tests since we know he had drugs in the house, it could reveal any exposure they had to his smoking.

I wonder what his surviving daughter will say?
Did he expect her not ti survive, and now that she has, he knows perhaps the game is up, hence his resigned language and behavior?

He doesn't tell us what time the girls 'went to bed for a nap' nor does he say what time the brother asked him when he had last seen the girls, this could be important, a temporal lacuna.

We can see lots of distancing from the girls and the vehicle, i wonder, since cadaverine takes a minimum of 90 mins to develop for a dog to be able to detect it, if a cadaver dog would react in the vehicle?

If he could be pinned down on times, lumch when the boy asked about the girls, the search, we would have a general idea of time of death since it isn't an exact science.
If it turns out that the time could have been perhaps an hour and the dogs react we have an unexplained 30 mins, if the time turns out to be several hours then his timings are off for everything else.

He doesnt tell us how long they were outside for, nor what he and they did, he tells us only that they tried to run off into a the woods a couple of times.

I had to yell at them to stay in the yard a couple of times because of it
Interesting that he tells us he had to YELL at them a couple of times for doing it (anger) rather than tell them (calm, passive)

This is the sensitive time as now we have a temporal lacuna.

And (long pause) lunch time came around, they came in the house,
what happened between him yelling at them and them coming in for lunch?
He hasn't told us what he was doing or did, he hasn't told us he returned to the house whilst they continue playing.
He has gone from being outside with them to them coming into the house where he is already!
Did he magically appear in the house or did he do something and then is making up the rest of the story?
An autopsy will reveal what she last ate and approximately when, it will prove or disprove the ded them something to eat.
They could ask what he gave them for lunch, if it matches then fine,it supports his gave them something to eat at lunch story. If it doesn't match then Houston, we have a problem.

What is clear is he is being deceptive.
A person who is deceptive has a reason to be deceptive.
It may be due to something else such as drugs, alcohol, sex etc or it could be guilty knowledge and fear of the consequences.

it will be interesting to see if he passes or fails a polyfraph, they need to ask the right questions though which is where statement analysis comes in.
Why would he need to lie about lunch?

Carder Gravitt said...

Good one, Peter!!

john said...

It will be interesting to hear what his fiance and her brother have to say. More so her brother, as he tells us he helped look for them.

Jo said...

"All the places they like to hide and get into things."

Setting up the situation for the girls to have climbed in the car themselves.

And I came outside to have a cigarette and fiancés little brother came out and asked me when the last time id actually seem my kids was

And so, they came outside and I was outside with them.

Is there significance to using "came" instead of "went". He says he came outside and little brother came out. Was little brother in the house also when girls went missing? When someone says they left the house, the house is sensitive. If he, the girls, and the little brother came outside, is it because outside was sensitive to him? He is putting emphasis on moving toward where the girls were found.

Anonymous said...

He uses excuses and tells stories like a classic drug addict.

Since when have percocet, an opiate based and highly addictive controlled substance, been prescribed for long term PTSD treatment, if he has PTSD? Generally speaking, people that suffer from PTSD are on hyper vigilant alert, suspicious of everyone, jittery and of course depressed. This man shared his life with a complete stranger. He rambled on and on like he was sitting in a poppy seed field.

"It's bad enough losing a daughter, but its even worse not knowing whether or not you have or not, and having to go all that time wondering were they able to revive her? Were they able to save my little girl? Is she dead?" His first statement said he lost his daughter. ???

I hope the police checked the spoon to fork and knife ratio in the house.

After 2 kids and at least 4 years together, specific time frame unknown, why did he and his fiance never marry? What prompted the fiances brother to go to the house? Was he already there or did he go there to check on the girls after dad did not answer the phone and a confrontation took place? The mother knew about the drug use. The brother had been in this situation before. She wants nothing to do with the father of her kids. Her worse fears have now become her reality. Had the brother not shown up when he did, most likely the other girl would have passed.

The porch appears to have liquids that should be stored in a safe place sitting out in the open. This shows no concern for the safety of the kids.

Everything about this man is a complete mess. Why was this environment tolerated by anyone?

Our outside self and surroundings mirrors our inner self value.

SL

Hobnob said...

off topic

http://www.news4jax.com/news/haleigh-cummings-mom-arrested-in-baker-county/26481934

Anonymous said...

I also think this is a very strange recollection of events. If the girls had really slipped out of the house and gotten themselves locked in a car, you would think the father would go through his mind when exactly that would have happened, if and when he had heard a car door slam. Instead he is vague about that time frame. Also you would expect him to feel guilty and responsible, as any parent would when their child is hurt, even if it is an accident. If only he had checked on them better, if only he had locked the car so they would not be able to get in, if only he had heard the car door slam, if only the brother would have been there earlier. But he shows no such regrets.

I think the statement 'I fed them something to eat' was very strange. For one daughter that was her last meal. So normally you would expect this have more meaning than just 'something to eat'. That makes me wonder is he is maybe is thinking about the autopsy where stomach contents are analyzed and he wants to 'keep his cards to his chest' in that matter.

If he is deceptive, what might have happened?

I bet they did not even make it to lunch time in the house. He was so upset with them running off again and again, that he snapped and locked them in the car before lunch. He left them in there for a while. The girls went quiet after some time. And then two things might have happened. Either he might not have realized the danger of a car in the sun, thinking they were asleep and that he had some time to himself. Or either he did realize it, and while smoking a cigarette thought to himself, well, maybe life is easier without those kids, I can get away with it looking like an accident.

john said...

In the SCAN technique from LSI, we give "so, since, to, therefore, because" the color coding blue as the highest level of sensitivity that can be found in a statement of someone reported what happened.

Peter said.

And I thought they went to sleep SO I figured I had time to do go do some chores in the house.

I keep missing the word "so" in statements, along with the word "To". Because, therefor i pick up on, i guess its because they are longer words?. As you say, even if we have to go through a statement letter by letter, word by word, it will yield valuable information. 40%

Anonymous said...

""My youngest was laying on the floorboard in the backseat, my oldest laying in a puddle of vomit. The doors were locked so I had to run in the house and get the keys," Lindstrom said.
Lindstrom tells CBS19 he immediately took the older daughter to the pool and tried to revive her by splashing water on her. He then brought Zoey underneath the porch and she started moving around and moaning. He went back over to Bella, to check for any signs of life.

"I couldn't save Bella. I couldn't save her at all," Lindstrom said.

He admits this isn't the first time this has happened.

"They've gotten into the vehicle and locked themselves in before. And ever since then we've tried to make sure the vehicles were locked so that they couldn't because we knew this could happen," Lindstrom said.

Yesterday the family had planned to go to the dealership to get a new truck. The grieving father says knowing that, he believes the girls just wanted a jumpstart on getting to take a trip. He says his Nissan pickup was parked in the direct sunlight all day and estimates the girls were in there about 20 minutes."
snipped from http://www.cbs19.tv/story/25756072/smith-co-sheriffs-office-2-toddlers-found-in-car-1-dead

I wonder if he could have been mad because Bella got sick in the just-cleaned, ready-to-be-traded car
references to the importance of the vehicle, the cleaning, the car being unlocked, the feeding them something...

Anonymous said...

I am also curious as to why the younger, with the smaller body (thus prone to heating up more quickly) would survive and the older not? And the younger girl only needed treatment on the scene, not hospitalization.

Anonymous said...

Even without doing SCAN, I had to throw the BS flag early on. His story simply did not make sense and was alibi building from the very beginning.

Trading in the car just makes one scratch their head and say "Huh?"

Making sure to point out he was outside with them also doesn't make any sense.

The biggest red flag was when he said they usually get themselves ready for a nap. What child in the world voluntarily takes a nap?

Then he claims he relies on sitting on is bed in the next room because he can hear if they are getting up and moving about. Well what ever happened to looking in the room as you walk by while doing chores? Since they are in such convenient proximity of each other, then why wouldn't it be just as convenient and more thorough to check in on them?

Finally, the girlfriends brother coming over and asking when was the last time you "actually" say the kids? Seriously? I might ask that in a sarcastic manner because I just saw them down the block playing with a group of other children- but who says that in every day conversation? Unless one was in the habit of losing their children.

SCAN makes sense of that which doesn't make sense- but it is that which doesn't make sense that grabs my attention first.

Speaking of things that don't make sense, It would be interesting if Peter would take a look at the story of the little girl mauled by pitbulls and then allegedly asked to leave a KFC. Grandma's story makes no sense whatsoever. I guess KFC and authorities are looking into it as possible fraud.

Anonymous said...

Lunch time doesn't "come around" when you are only adult with two kids- you decide its lunch time abd decide to make lunch. its all the passive language that starts around the time of " i had to yell at them". Nobody has to yell at kids. you choose to. i think when he says he sat on his bed he really sat on his bed and willingly chose not to worry about his daughters that he had locked in the truck. I think he locked them in the truck when they came outside that morning.

Anonymous said...

How on earth could he estimate how lonf they had been in there?

Peter Hyatt said...

He would know how long they were there if he locked them in. Next:



"I couldn't save Bella. I couldn't save her at all," Lindstrom said.

Then he said police would not tell him if she was alive.

He admits this isn't the first time this has happened.

This is scary:

"They've gotten into the vehicle and locked themselves in before. And ever since then we've tried to make sure the vehicles were locked so that they couldn't because we knew this could happen," Lindstrom said.

Note how he then turns to "we" to share the guilt and responsibility for them locking themselves in the vehicle.

3 and 4.

Peter

Anonymous said...

So we know hes lying but can we figure out what actually did happen from his statement? All that talk of rain and reason why the girls wanted to be outside .... thats weird. thats already weird. unessary info. kids dont need a reason to play outside. i think he either killed Bella then or put them in car together togethrr then.

Maybe said...

I wonder if he cleaned out the truck right before he called for help, and said that they were going to trade it for the reason it was freshly cleaned.

Peter Hyatt said...

This is part of the element of Statement Analysis. We know he is deceptive, but we may not know why. That's why doing an interview based upon the analysis is so important.

My guess:

they were under his skin and he locked them in the truck so he could do what he wanted to do, and they fell asleep, and...due to drugs, forgot what he did with them.

his fiancé's brother showed up and it was not good, as he challenged the father as to not knowing where the kids were, and they argued, which gave way to the search and the CPR and the calling of 911.

I hope that is all there is.

Yet, the computers were confiscated by police, along with drugs and paraphernalia.

I hope that there is no childhood sexual abuse involved.

It is too much...just too much.

Peter

CG said...

He went in the house to get keys when his kids were locked in a truck unresponsive? How about a brick through a window? Nope that was an important truck.

He ran the older daughter to the pool and tried to save her, leaving the younger one in the truck, even though all indications at that time were that both were unresponsive? When he couldn't revive the older daughter he went back to the truck and got the baby?

None of this makes sense. As a parent you yank both of those kids out together and then worry about who needs attention most. They are young enough, most parents could have carried both at once to the pool and tried to cool them down.

His whole story sounds like he is defending against unstated accusations such as:

left them unsupervised all morning
didn't get them lunch (saying he gave them lunch would seem normal, or I gave them mac and cheese, but I fed them something sounds like he's covering up)
didn't put them down for naps (Probably everyone has seen kids take naps on their own when exhausted and that happens how often at that age? No these kids we are to believe regularly put themselves to bed for naps)
locked them in the truck
wasn't checking on them regularly (the fiance's brother comment sounds skeptical of whatever he was told about where the girls were)

Were they there at the same time for the whole time? The younger girl survived but the older did not.

I am also confused about locked in the truck. Maybe it's true these kids hardly ever get out and don't know much about the world as he implies. Most four year olds could unlock their own family vehicle.


john said...

@ 5:02 he says.

"All i was able to was give them my address and tell them, that you know, i found my kids in the tr--you know the vehicle unresponsive."

"i found my kids in the tr--you know the vehicle unresponsive."

Notice the self editing. Now, if is he going to say Truck, why does he self edit. He has already used the word "Truck" in his statement, so why does he check himself.

Now, here is my thinking of what he was about to say.

i found my kids in the TRUNK you know the vehicle unresponsive."

This to me makes more sense. We have all been wondering why didn't his kids just open the door and let themselves out. So, maybe they climbed into the trunk and shut it down on themselves. This then would be very difficult for them to free themselves, and suffocated. Or did he put them in the trunk himself, intentionally?. Was there any signs of vomit in the truck?. I'm sure LE have checked (hopefully) if not, have they checked the trunk.

When you look at the vt, and i urge you to, watch his reaction when he self edits from tr--to vehicle. I do hope i am wrong. This is really getting to me. i'm going to take a back seat on this case for awhile.

http://www.tylerpaper.com/TP-News+Local/201177/video-father-this-is-one-of-the-worst-days-of-my-life#.U6RzWJRdWWd

Hobnob said...

20 mins in a hot car isn't like;y to kill a child, they will be hot and sweaty and if as claimed they locked themselves in, why did they not beep the born wind down the windows or unlock the door> They would be uncomfortable and would be wanting out, There was nothing to restrain them in the truck.

This leads me to conclude they were in for far longer than 20 mins since noon till approx 3 is the hottest part of the day.
This then nullifies his claim of lunchtime etc.

he would only know how long they had been in there if he put them in there in the first place as Peter points out.

This contradicts his about an hour as he was doing laundry and chores etc.

I wonder if he thought both would be dead and was shocked to learn one has survived.

if he put them in the truck then it is game over for him.

I hope LE are watching him , he seems the sprt to self harm given his history and what has happened.

Anonymous said...

When the fiancée's brother asked about the kids, why did that prompt an immediate "search"? If my kids were napping, and someone asked me where they were (and not the "last time you saw them', because that in itself is a weird question), I would say "they're napping", and not think anything of it.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if he invites they brother over to play video games and be a witness to the " accident"

Anonymous said...

He said he went out to have a cigarette, and brother "came out", not that he came over, so the brother was already there. For how long before, I wonder, does he live there too, or just visiting? I wonder when the brother saw the kids last.

Anonymous said...

Why separate kids when pulling them out of truck? Is it because he knew bella was dead and had only put zoey in there for much shorter time?

Anonymous said...

Probably the older daughter was more precotipus amd so.hes more likely to give her longer time out.

Anonymous said...

It is after this point my greatest nightmare began to unfold. Without me knowing, without me even having a clue, like a thief in the night, my worst fear was creeping into my life unseen and without even the slightest sound.
Without me knowing what was about to hit me, the next day also began with the same now ominous normalcy.

It makes for great story telling. However, in real life:

Deceptive people feel as if they have a need to persuade that it really happened and they really felt fear, so they put it in to the part of the story where they think they should feel fear. It is often artificial.

Anonymous said...

if there was someone there with him, why didnt that other person get the second kid out?

Anonymous said...

8:21 I LOVE YOU! Been thinking same thing through all of this. keep thinking of all that i bought them christmas presents they wanted talk too. why tell us how good father you were?

Anonymous said...

Why didnt second person help call 911. Carry girls. break into truck. yes very goo point. And why no talk of screaming fir hekp?

Anonymous said...

I didnt think trucks had trunks

Anonymous said...

To play devils advocate. Could he be lying but also be innocent? Perhaps just so in shock searching for meaning and explanation himself?

Anonymous said...

John,that self-edit is concerning. The look on his face too.

Anonymous said...

The Dad said

"There was a little bit of excitement because the vehicle that my daughter died in, we were supposed to be trading in for another vehicle yesterday."

Anyone else notice the tense in the sentence? Along with the order?

He doesn't say "There was a little bit of excitement because the vehicle my daughter ENDED UP DYING IN was supposed to be traded in for another vehicle yesterday."

He tells us flat out that the vehicle that was supposed to be traded in later was the vehicle the daughter died in.

This places her death PRIOR to the cleaning out of the car and plan to trade it in.

Did he place the girls back into the car, one of them already dead so that the fiance's uncle could be witness to the "accident' after an initial panicked effort the clean out the car and sell it in?

I think he is telling us in his language that the one daughter died in the car previous to it being cleaned out.

This may explain the "wrapping" in blankets. Perhaps he had wrapped the one daughter in a blankeT after she died but then decided to stage the scene by putting the girls back in the car for the fiance little brother to witness the "accident".

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:21

I recalled that piece of writing also while reading the way this Dad begins his story.

Anonymous said...

If the Dad staged the scene of the girls in the car after the one had died in the car earlier, it would also explain the dramatic act of getting water from the pool to splash in her face while fiance's little brother was watching.

One thing I recalled while reading the Dad's story that he told, was Patsy Ramsey (who also staged a crime scene) talks about how the first thing she does upon waking is to go to the laundry room and contemplate doing laundry.

Anonymous said...

did anybody else ever read morgans facebook post to her sister commemorating how heather used to sneak into their house through morgan's bedroom window, because she had lost her house key and was too scared to tell their dad for months.

Anonymous said...

just made me think of the sneaking in like thief in the night thing.

Anonymous said...

I find it strange when people arrange a witness for them discovering that their child is missing.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:33

I had read that, and found it concerning.

I also remain troubled by many things about that case.

Anonymous said...

Good catch on the "thief in the night" phrase also. Wow, that IS strange.

Lemon said...

He mentions blankets, laundry, and his bed- could he be anticipating forensics finding "transfer" between these items? I find the mention of his bed the most odd, and very disturbing. I would also like to know how often in the past he's done "laundry" and "chores".

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:27

It is strange that Lindstrom does not give any context to the fiance little brother being there and his suddenly asking when was the last time Lindstrom had actually seen his kids.

It is unnatural as to the way he tells it.

He doesn't say

fiance little brother showed up and asked

fiance little brother came out of his room and asked

fiance little brother was hanging out with me and after a time asked where are the kids

It is like the "appearance" of fiance little brother in the story is simply to trigger the "search".

My opinion about it is that, going on his words and his omitting any context for the fiance little brother entering the story, I think that Lindstrom may have "provoked" fiance little brother into asking essentially well when was the last time you actually saw them. I believe Lindstrom may have provoked him to ask this by saying to him something like "Do you think the kids are Ok? I HEARD them about an hour ago." Fiance little brother then would have asked him well when was the last time you actually SAW them?"
At that point, Dad could begin his search, leading fiance little brother to what I believe may have been a staged crime scene and at that point he could "discover" the girls locked in the car therefore having a witness to the "accident" that had befallen the girls.

Anonymous said...

Lemon, I agree. It is very strange how he says he sat on his bed LISTENING. For some reason, I feel this statement in truthful. Peter pointed out that the word "SIT" indicates increased tension at that point in the story. I feel like at that point in the story, something bad had been done to one or bother girls.

Anonymous said...

Sorry post above should say "one or both girls"

Anonymous said...

I agree he sat on his bed for real. but i think bella was already dead or intentionally locked in car at this point. i think he sat on that bed and came to terms with what he had done and decided what to do about it. decided to get lil bro in as witness to discovery.

mammy said...

Imo I think he sexually attacked the older girl and killed her in the truck then put the younger one in and covered them with blankets. Also didn't he say the truck was parked down a path
..then says it was parked in the sun

Anonymous said...

Could the little bit of excitement be when he was was sexually abusing her then panicked and killed her

Anonymous said...

I know this family. First off Jeremiah stays with russell and Michelle. He also has a brain injury. He really wouldn't be able to anyone many events from that day.

Anonymous said...

Lemon your comment made me think perhaps he put Bella in the pool to wash away evidence on her body or clothing? If something happened in the house and he washed laundry to cover up that evidence, he might have had to come up with a way to cover up the evidence on her body without getting caught since the gf's brother was there.

Still there was vomit in the vehicle, a sign of heat sickness. So I don't know... unless she got sick and he got mad because of the car sale and accidentally killed her, then staged the accident to cover it up.

One thing I can't quite fathom though from the comments suggesting it could have been staged is why bring the second daughter into it at all?

Anonymous said...

Can you tell us anything about the family? What do you think happened, if you don't mind sharing.

Not to get too personal (again, if you don't mind sharing), regarding Jeremiah's brain injury: Do you think he really asked when the kids were "actually last seen", is that something he'd be concerned with, or is he maybe being used as a "witness".

I feel like that's not a question one would ask, and that maybe Russell was putting words in Jeremiah's mouth. Now that you've brought up a brain injury and Jeremiah not being able to recall most of the day, now I really question it. IF Russell is story telling, that would be a "good" question to spark a major panicky search for the girls, but in actuality, it's a strange question. It's more of a question that would be asked AFTER someone was reported missing.

I agree with Anon 11:08, if Russell didn't make up the "when was the last time you actually saw them" question, then he probably did bait Jeremiah into asking/wondering.

Maybe I missed this part, but I'm just curious, where was Michelle?

Also, if Jeremiah lives with them, that could explain Russell saying the girls came out, if he was already outside.

Anonymous said...

I've read that he tried to save/revive her, but he couldn't; he knew she was dead, he's seen death, etc. Then I read that he said it took 911 30 minutes to arrive. Then I've read that she later died at a hospital. Reports could be wrong, maybe she was pronounced at the hospital, idk, but if it's true that she died at the hospital, why was he SO extremely sure she was already dead? I don't have first hand experience (as he claims he does), so would it be possible for her to still be alive, and he to be certain she was not? At the least, as a parent, I would think you'd hold on to the hope that she WAS alive, not concede to your childs death.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your last paragraph. Either this was a terrible "accident", at the least neglect, OR I imagine they both would have been put in together, not separately.

The younger one is 3, correct? Hopefully she'll be able to recount the happenings that day.

Peter Hyatt said...

If something nefarious happened before the vehicle, and he put her in the vehicle to cover up, it may explain why the sensitivity about the vehicle, even mentioning the trade in...while his daughter is dead.

The comments here are interesting.

I know that he is deceptive, and it is the Analytical Interview that would allow investigators to know.

I do not know the extent nor talent of the CPS worker who will (or has) be conducting the interview.

I hope his printed statements are, in the least, studied before the interview.

Interesting comments, readers. I am being provoked to much thought on this case. Lemon, astute and fascinating as your norm.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Lemon, I agree. It is very strange how he says he sat on his bed LISTENING. For some reason, I feel this statement in truthful. Peter pointed out that the word "SIT" indicates increased tension at that point in the story. I feel like at that point in the story, something bad had been done to one or bother girls.

Anonymous said...

If they young brother lives there with them that makes all the more likely its an accident. thats one hell of a crime to pull off with another adult in house. im inclined to recall josh and terry here. their language sounds guilty as hell but there may be a reason for that that we arent privy too. motive is incredibly weak even allowing for fact that his story sounds convoluted. And i personally cant imagine kids can open truck door from outside but not from inside. However the likelihood that he did this on purpose is also outlandish. even with ptsd etc. this all could have triggered his combat memories instead of been a result of them which would explain why he focussed so much on them. no his story doesnt make much sense but maybe nothing makes sense maybe theres nothing to explain since he didnt know about the important parts of the events as they occured. so hes describing things that dont matter because he wasnt privy to what did matter. to me this guy reminds me of josh or terry. his language is "wrong" but we are too quick to assign meaning to that wrongness. now all these may may indeed be guilty or just one or two of them.. but im starting to think a flawed account of events is not reason enough to demonstrate guilt. at all.

Anonymous said...

I think a lot of times we look at circumstances and instinctually suspect somebody because of suspicious circumstances and then we look to justify our suspicions through statement. And often it works. but i dont think its scientific method-y enough. i think this practice could use more assumption questioning at every step. ( yes i've been watching lots of cosmos. love that show)

Anonymous said...

I think (possibly, IF something nefarious happened), he mentioned the year/make/model of the new vehicle to try to come off as "responsible". It's a fairly expensive vehicle, even used. Idk why I think that, it just crossed my mind.

As far as the girls opening the old vehicle doors, I have a Chevy 2500 pick up, and my 5 year old daughter can not open the door from the outside, it's not the same as a car door, it's way harder to open, heavier, and higher. Idk if she could open it from the inside, although it seems it would be easier for a child to open it from the inside, probably not push it all the way open, but to engage the door handle. Does anyone know how the doors of his old truck compare to a car door?

Anonymous said...

Someone above said that they know the family, and the brother has a brain injury, and probably couldn't recall events of the day. Not knowing him/them, it could be possible that he wouldn't be much of a "witness".

I do agree with a lot that you've said though. I enjoy this site and being able to pick up on possible questionable language. Sometimes it's very obvious, and sometimes not. We have to keep in mind that deception does not automatically assume guilt. There can be other reasons for being deceptive. The statements that are flagged require further questioning. Some things that I think are obvious, for example, would be speaking of a missing child in past tense.

In this case, for example, his change of language from tru.. to vehicle - I change my language in regards to my truck all the time. Generally I call it a truck, but sometimes a car or vehicle. For me, it's not because anything has happened surrounding it, it's mostly because I think of it as a truck (because it technical is), my husband works with big huge trucks for a living, and considers my truck, a car. Sometimes I call it a vehicle to lesson confusion, sometimes I say "can you get the xyz out of the tru.. ca.. vehicle. "
So, I know change of language is to be flagged, but it doesn't always mean deception.

Anonymous said...

Anon who's doubting any guilt,
Im the anon who thinks he staged the scene.
The fiance little brother living there does not mean the Dad didnt harm the girl. It actually reinforces motive in that it explains that if he was abusing her, as sick as it is, he may have brought her into the car to abuse her so fiance little brother would not be aware of what he was doing.
Lots of clues support that he staged crime scene
1) Car was cleaned out that day.
2) One of the girls was fine and was checked out by EMS at scene and was originally going to not even be taken to hospital bc she was fine. The other girl was dead. How was one girl fine and the other girl dead unless he staged and put them both incar for a short time to stage the scene as a heat death accident?

Anonymous said...

I'm not the same one, I'm on the fence here, I've agreed with different aspects by all. If he staged it and put the little one in after, would he be hoping she'd die too? If not, she can potentially explain things that happened. If so, why didn't he wait longer for the "immediate search", to make sure?

I see your point too. How can one be pretty much fine, and one not make it at all?

It's so confusing. I like seeing everyones observations and opinions, it helps in trying to understand.

Anonymous said...

I hate to even think this but.. what else do we know of that the change from tr-- to vehicle could mean?

trail
trash
?

Did he do something to the girls after Bella vomited in the truck? It doesn't sound like BIL saw him get the girls out of the truck. Maybe they weren't there. Maybe Bella was dead from another cause and left in the hot sun somewhere with the little sister at her side.

There was a past truck incident and on this day he'd left the truck uncharacteristically unlocked. Wouldn't that be a first place to check, before running through the woods? Did he send his BIL off to the woods to distract him so he could go stage the accident?

Anonymous said...

I think when he staged it he just put them in car for a short time. I dont think he was trying to kill the other girl. I bet he just put the other girl in the car too so that she would not interfere with the staging by getting upset or saying Daddy why did you put her in the car and fiance little brother would hear her say that and also just to make it look mire like an "accident" where they both went in the car.

Lemon said...

Thank you Peter.

Anonymous said...

Won't she be able to tell now, if he put them in there, and wouldn't she be upset being put in with her dying sister? I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just curious on your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:55, She WAS upset bc Lindstrom said how she "kind of fought against him" when he took her out of the car. She could be able to tell now what happened (if the Dad put them in car) although who knows if he threatened her saying something like if you tell anyone some terrible thing will happen. It is pretty common for abusers to make those kinds of threats. Or, maybe she has told authorities something incriminating about the Dad's actions and that's why or one of the reasons why they have confiscated things from him.

Anonymous said...

Also, didnt John Ramsey (crime scene stager) similar to this Dad also talk about how he had seen death before when talking about his reaction to "discovering" Jon Benet.

Anonymous said...

To the poster above who would like some more information. Jeremiah is 24, he is not a child. He doesn't remember much, but could recall certain things if asked. I will not give a lot of information about the family, I will however tell all of you, that russell and Michelle are wonderful parents. They love those girls with all their hearts. It is true that Zoey and Bella were very used to being outside. Their mother always made it a point to teach them about nature, like she grew up. I do not think there was any wrong doing whatsoever. Their a great family who are trying to make a living after being out of the army, they do t have a lot of money and live pretty simple. They would have given those girls the world if they could. Also I might add, russell is not a mean or aggressive guy. He is very funny and enjoys life. Some of these posts are disturbing with all the assumptions people are quick to make. I can tell you that a lot of these assumptions are far from the truth.

Anonymous said...

Im inclined to believe this person who says the family are loving patents. i see no evidence otherwise. a scattered account of events does not mean guilt.

Anonymous said...

I dont think one sister witnessed anything to incriminate father or he would express something about what her memory might be. it would be on his mind. but he says nothing of it. i dont think he fears what zoey will say. this speaks to his innocence imo.

Anonymous said...

Id want to know if chance brother put girls in car. even without malice. and id want to know if father had any pattern of voilence or extreme punishment wuth kids. but I dont think he did it. i know all those bad things people are supposing do happen. but i dont see indicators of them here. not with info so far. certainly worth investigating but so far i do not see indicstors. the talk of doing laundry and sitting on bed and wrapping in blankets. thats exactly what kids and patents do during a day home its reasonable to name those things in context.

Lemon said...

Photo of Bella Rose and Zoey Lindstrom's room (Source: KLTV Staff)

http://www.kltv.com/story/25774600/search-warrant-reveals-items-seized-in-investigation-of-toddlers-death

Minotlady said...

I think father causes thé death n'y accident agile high, then stages to cover or up. He may have been an ok parent before (as far as that goes for a user), but definitely comes across as an addict and therefore habitual liar. I've worked with drug users and a very common place they indulge is "sitting on their bed" ie bedroom for the semi-privacy. All in all his first instinct is to cover his butt and rationalize, rather than to despair and self blame (as would be real).

Minotlady said...

Meant death by accident while high

Anonymous said...

Geez items seized

Anonymous said...

looking at pic of bedroom, it's hard not to wonder about stains and mess on one of the beds.

it that a scene of abuse or murder?

at the least if laundry was getting done wouldn't that be the first thing in the wash?

I'm the anon who's supposing his innocence -- but that pic does jump out at me

Anonymous said...

Thank you for replying.

People will always have opinions and assumptions, one way or another, it's human nature I think. I understand why it's upsetting though, if you personally know someone being judged. Thank you for sharing your feelings and thoughts.

Anonymous said...

It is true that he would probably be wondering or worried about what the other daughter would say to authorities, however that does not mean, in my opinion, he would express this or say what he feels she thinks or what he feels she might say etc.
IF, and obviously, it is a big if, he threatened her to keep quiet, then why would he bring up what she would say or not say?
Why did the daughter struggle against him when he tried to remove her from car, and he does bring this up?

Why was one daughter fine and the other dead, especially since they were similar ages how would them being in there the same amount of time cause this extreme difference--one fine, one dead? Unless one had serious medical problems but you would think he would mention that if that were the case.

Anonymous said...

I guess there could be underlying factors for one being fine, and one dying. Maybe one did have a medical issue that they weren't even aware of yet, maybe she was running around/physically active before and the other one wasn't, maybe she was dehydrated (hadn't drank a lot) and the other one had, who knows what other possibilities there could be, plus ultimately everyone is just different.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the commenter who wondered why a 4 year old couldn't unlock the family vehicle. Most have power windows and locks these days. Even if it did not, children usually learn the tricks early of getting into things. Did he threaten them with some type of punsihment if they got out of the truck?

Getting in and out of a truck is difficult for many adults. Hard to fathom a child of 3 or 4 crawling in unless the door was left open due to cleaning and slammed shut due to wind or something.

If he has too much stress he may lose lapses of time which may explain the blankets if he thought of when they were locked in during the winter.

Too many chores, too many decisions concerning upcoming purchases, too many children. Why did his fiancee clean the truck?

This man was crumbling. Why did he have the children? It's easy to point the faults seen in photos and try to beleive the reporter tells the gospel, but this sounds like an eroding situation that did not happen overnight.

Anonymous said...

Anon, yeah I'm not a doctor but I would really think that if 2 kids are the same or almost the same age, and they are both trapped in a hot car so they are both experiencing the same temperature, that it would have similar effects on both of the kids since they are the same age. Sure, maybe one would be in slightly worse shape than the other if one had drank more etc but it seems a huge disparity for one to be fine and almost released at the scene by EMS and the other dead.

Anonymous said...

Maybe one was in shade. i want to see a pic of this type of truck. how hard is it to shut the door and lock themselves in? Thats seems hard.

Anonymous said...

I watched video again. i think when he says girls went outside to play. and i went wuth them. - thats not true. i think he was not with them. i think something happened to bella while they were unatended. theres a full kiddie pool. she could have easily drowned and theres reason he splashes that water on her face. but keeps zoey in other area. and putting them in car was just cover.

Anonymous said...

When talking about his phone he says it got wet and died. then says or overheated and died. that made me wonder why the correction? And then i thought did bella really die from water not from heat. if she drowned it absolutely explains why he brings her back to the pool and kept zoey far from pool. to have reason to put water on her face and then have pool water in autopsy explained. ..forget my brother did in theory im on kiddie pool now.

Anonymous said...

Why did he not mention having to keep them away from the pool?he probably didnt think of it being full of rain water. he probably let them play on their own outside. realized bella drowned. tried to save her. put them both in car and got brother to witness finding them. the urgency to break window wasnt there because he knew the exact time frame they had been in there. but if the vomit part of story was true perhaps she had chance of survival that he missed and it really was murder.

Rachael said...

"Maybe one was in shade. i want to see a pic of this type of truck. how hard is it to shut the door and lock themselves in? Thats seems hard."

Do a google image search of Nissan Frontier.

I've been trying to find exactly how high the door handles are fromt he ground on this truck, but I'm not coming up with anything. It looks to me as if it is way too high for a 4 year old to be able to even reach, let alone open.

trustmeigetit said...

Kids at that age "putting themselves down for naps" is a sign of neglect. Kids that age are my responsible. They want to play. The fact that he says this tells me the kids often fend for themselves.
Also, minor thing but the only photo he shows of the 4 year old is when she was still much younger. While I noted it's minor, I often see a lack of photos of kids who are abused and neglected. We don't know why he choose such an old photo but if he didn't have a more current one that concerns me.

It reminds me of Erica Parsons. She was 15 at the time she was first in the news but the last photo of her was clearly several years old. Neglect.

trustmeigetit said...

Just say the photo of the room. The one bed is covered in food and some large stain. This worries me.

The fact that they are removing stuff for the investigation shows they do not think this was a tragic accident. At least that's how I take it.

trustmeigetit said...



This man just keeps on talking. See new statement below. I do not like it.

HIS LATEST STATEMENT:

“I want people to understand, this was a terrible tragedy. An accident.

That many people are gonna say was preventable, but short of treating your own kids like prisoners, there was no way to yah know, prevent it, no way to know they were going to do that.”



Not one word of the children’s pain, suffering. Not one word of the guilt. Not to mention, if I lost my child, I would be so distraught that talking to the media would be the last thing in the world I would want to do.His talking seems very self serving. His focus is telling us his version of what happened. Making excuses of why this happened.



Not an ounce of guilt. Even in true accidents the normal parent would blame themselves. If only I…… He reminds me a lot of Angela Steinfurth. She talked a lot and had the tears and the poor me. Only to find out she had beat her child so bad she nearly died before her boyfriend finished her off.



trustmeigetit said...

I saw that a poster claims to know the family.

I think it's important to know that you don't always know people.

Angela Steinfurth was described as a good parent by her dad and sister and even in a video clip from the neighbors home security she is seen being very loving and sweet to the child.

We know now (she's confessed) that she threw her baby girl against the wall. The injuries were bad but instead of getting her medical treatment, she allowed her boyfriend to kill the child.

So you do not know what they may be like behind closed doors.

Jen Ow said...

"To the poster above who would like some more information. Jeremiah is 24, he is not a child. He doesn't remember much, but could recall certain things if asked. I will not give a lot of information about the family, I will however tell all of you, that russell and Michelle are wonderful parents. They love those girls with all their hearts. It is true that Zoey and Bella were very used to being outside. Their mother always made it a point to teach them about nature, like she grew up. I do not think there was any wrong doing whatsoever. Their a great family who are trying to make a living after being out of the army, they do t have a lot of money and live pretty simple. They would have given those girls the world if they could. Also I might add, russell is not a mean or aggressive guy. He is very funny and enjoys life. Some of these posts are disturbing with all the assumptions people are quick to make. I can tell you that a lot of these assumptions are far from the truth."

-It looks like Russel Lindstrom has discovered our little blog! This appears to have been written by him. Read it carefully, the author hits all the same talking points as Russell did in his statement:

-brother
-kids loved outdoors
-army
-no wrongdoing
-etc...too much to list

The author also speaks to knowledge of the feelings/intentions of Russell (and Michelle), and 'the truth', which only Russell knows for sure.

Jen Ow said...

I also notice that Russell' s name is not capitalized both times it is written, but all of the other names are...Bella, Sort, Michelle, russell.

Not sure what that means, lol....but it is a bit strange!

Jen Ow said...

Sort= Zoe

Geez, I've got to turn off the 'auto guess what word I'm about to type' option on this phone, it's cramping my style, lol

Hobnob said...

I don't know about others but i don't use capital letters for names of killers,criminals or suspects (or those that i don't like)

Capital letters for names in my case , indicate respect,

Killer, abusers etc do not warrant my respect.

Occasionally i woll typo and not hit the shift key for a name, if i spot it agfter and i can edit it i do, otherwise, ooopsie and my apologies, insult was not meant or implied.

With kate mccann's book Madeleine, the title of the book was madeleine with a lower case M whilst kate's name was capitalised.

To me that smacked of insult to and demeaning of her missing little girl.

This is highly unexpected and downright blatant showing the world just how poor her relationship with Madeleine was and gives a darn good motive for the death of her daughter.

Hobnob said...

I don't know about others but i don't use capital letters for names of killers,criminals or suspects (or those that i don't like)

Capital letters for names in my case , indicate respect,

Killer, abusers etc do not warrant my respect.

Occasionally i woll typo and not hit the shift key for a name, if i spot it agfter and i can edit it i do, otherwise, ooopsie and my apologies, insult was not meant or implied.

With kate mccann's book Madeleine, the title of the book was madeleine with a lower case M whilst kate's name was capitalised.

To me that smacked of insult to and demeaning of her missing little girl.

This is highly unexpected and downright blatant showing the world just how poor her relationship with Madeleine was and gives a darn good motive for the death of her daughter.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't assume it's actually russell posting on here. I mean maybe it is -- but there are a lot of people out there -- it could easily be another person who is close to him. or it could be somebody who doesn't know the family at all. and they just just feel like acting like they do with minimal info that they have. I don't think this site has good track record for correctly assessing who is behind anonymous messages. I remember back with heather elvis somebody was posting pretending to be her friend and then was like - ha - I'm not here friend just messing with you, -- it could even be that same poster again.

Anonymous said...

there's always somebody on the internet who can lock into what you are craving to hear and then give it to you, -- course it was happening long before internet, think of Jack the Ripper case -- they had hundreds of people claiming to know the killer or even be the killer. as long as there have been high profile crimes there have been people claiming to know more than they do just to be a part of the madness, and maybe feelthe power of contributing to it.

Anonymous said...

I noticed too, the lower case r, in both that comment, and the previous one. Just Russell's name, no one elses.

Anonymous said...

I think the statement mirrors russels claims so much because the poster does not really have their own knowldge on case/family and is only posing, basing what they wrote off russels statements

Anonymous said...

http://www.moibibiki.com/Nissan%20Frontier.html

images of truck,

no freaking way 4 year old opens that door lets her and her sister in and closes and locks it behind her,

A) if it was shut and unlocked it would remain unlocked when shut again. that's proof his story is a lie unto iteslf.

b) that door looks hard to open and shut period, when you are under four feet and weigh under 60 pounds?? I don't know how much 4 year old weigh but I'm sure its not much and that door looks hard to open for me, and I'm healthy adult female. i don't even think I'd do it with one arm, I'd need to most of my strength, which is more than a little girl has. but especially from a sitting position in the car -- you have no leverage -- thats why its customary for somebody to shut a door from outside while somebody sits inside -- it's much harder to di it from inside when you are not standing, -- there's just no way these girls locked themselves in.

Anonymous said...

Jen, I agree, I think it may have been Russell writing. I noticed when you posted what he wrote the lack of capitalized letter in his name. I feel he may have done this for the same reason Peter often says it causes people anxiety to lie. If Russell is the author pretending he is not the author and that the author is just someone who "knows the family" then the lack of capitalized letter could be a result of him being uncomfortable typing his name since he is being deceptive about the identity of the writer and just pretending it is a family friend.
I think it is odd that the writer claims to have knowledge of the parents loving nature. He also mentioned that in his initial statement. The mention of it again (which seems needless) makes nature sensitive. It seems like part of the cover story which seems to be taking the shape of the girls were such outdoors kids and loved nature and that is why they went out of the house and into the car.
I am the anon who thinks that the scene was staged to look like a heat death and that the girl died previous to the car being cleaned out.

trustmeigetit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
trustmeigetit said...







If this is a true story, this is very sad. To think they would arrest these parents for giving the child a legal drug, yet the Mccanns left their children alone unattended and not a single thing was done?

And no British officials seem to have stepped in.



ARTICLE TITLE

A Belfast couple whose daughter was seized by cops in Portugal because they gave her Calpol have opened up about their holiday hell after being told by police: “We don’t want another Madeleine McCann.”

LINK



http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/maddie-mccann-police-took-our-baby-because-we-gave-her-calpol-belfast-couples-portugal-holiday-hell-30375896.html

trustmeigetit said...







If this is a true story, this is very sad. To think they would arrest these parents for giving the child a legal drug, yet the Mccanns left their children alone unattended and not a single thing was done?



ARTICLE TITLE

A Belfast couple whose daughter was seized by cops in Portugal because they gave her Calpol have opened up about their holiday hell after being told by police: “We don’t want another Madeleine McCann.”

LINK



http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/maddie-mccann-police-took-our-baby-because-we-gave-her-calpol-belfast-couples-portugal-holiday-hell-30375896.html

Anonymous said...

I think it was staged to look like a heat death too.

before I though the brother did it, I've changed my mind after watching the video a couple times.

what I can't decide is if it was accidental death first or abuse resulting in accidental death or even murder. I think she could have drownded in kiddie pool. I think whatever it was was "worse" than a heat death. at least would have looked worse for him.

Anonymous said...

agreed - pic they have of 4 yr old Bella is from 3 years ago, when she was 1, thats nuts.

oooh. it's just coming into forcus for me what a rat this guy Russell is.

Something awful happened, and he put those girls in trat truck and faked discovering them.

I hope he confesses.

Hobnob said...

trustmeigetit said...

If this is a true story, this is very sad. To think they would arrest these parents for giving the child a legal drug, yet the Mccanns left their children alone unattended and not a single thing was done?

And no British officials seem to have stepped in.



ARTICLE TITLE

A Belfast couple whose daughter was seized by cops in Portugal because they gave her Calpol have opened up about their holiday hell after being told by police: “We don’t want another Madeleine McCann.”

LINK

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/maddie-mccann-police-took-our-baby-because-we-gave-her-calpol-belfast-couples-portugal-holiday-hell-30375896.html


The Police took their baby not because of calpol as they would have you believe, rather because mom was seen staggering around drunk on the 8th floor balconey with hubby almost passed out drunk on the floor.

Multiple witness saw them drunk with their baby and notified hotel management who called the police as they will do in every case where am incapacitated adult is in charge of a child.

They would not have removed the child due tio it being given calpol since it is a legal medicine.
They can and will remove a child or children where they are at risk of harm, in this case drunk parents.

What we are seeing is the mccann excuse, parents unwilling ro admit they were neglectful and thus at risk of harming or allowing harm to befall their child, instead they will claim innocence, corrupt police, the mccann effect and so on, in an attempt to garner sympathy and minimise their own behavior.

Sadly brits on holiday have a nasty habit of getting completely rat arsed and falling off balconies, losing their children only to find them floating face down in a pool, or any number of things that will end up in ER or jail.

They are mostly liked mad because they were caught and had their child removed whilst the mccanns were feted and praised for doing the exact same thing.

rather than whining about the nasty PJ, they should be thinking about their own actions and being thankful the residents and mamagement acted promptly, leaving them with a live but bruised child and not a dead child.

trustmeigetit said...





Haleigh Cummings bio mom was not arrested. This poor child, I can only imagine her life. There was not one good person from what I can see. These people have no right having children.


And Cummings' mother, Crystal Sheffield (pictured below), has been arrested in Baker County for violating her probation. The nature of Sheffield's parole violation has not been released by authorities. Since late 2013, Sheffield has been arrested for petite theft, disorderly intoxication and possession of drug paraphernalia.



What bothers me, she has a smirk on her face.


Your child is “missing” and your being arrested again and you are smirking. Again, another parent doing nothing to find their “missing” child.



http://www.news4jax.com/news/haleigh-cummings-mom-arrested-in-baker-county/26481934

Jen Ow said...

The reason I suspect it's him is not only the same talking points, but also the overall tone of the comment. Just like in his video statement, the author is attempting to explain away/excuse what happened. Claiming the kids loved nature, (what kid doesn't love playing outside), and claiming knowledge of Russell and Michelle's love, intentions, etc. The army talk, attempting to excuse the state of their home by stating they didn't make a lot of money, etc. (He had enough 'extra' money for weed!)

Then we have the always troubling 'wonderful parents' statement. (Clearly they weren't as wonderful as they think, one of their kids is dead and all dad wants to talk about is himself, his military service, and his likely punishment...and of couse, begin every statement by repeating that it was an accident.)

Anonymous said...

Jen, you got a good point, we don't tend to agree much on here - but I am feeling like you may be convincing me on this one.

I can't get over how this guy reminds me of Elvis tho. in his focus on his personal experience and how he didn't know what was happening, and how he's a great father. and if I'm gonna be convinced Elvis is innocent I don't know how to think this guy is guilty. but I do think this guy is guilty.

Anonymous said...

Jen, Really good points about the writer overpraising the parents.

I just now googled a video interview, and as you have mentioned, his repeated mentioning of loving nature. I was struck in the video by him saying that some would say the tragedy was preventable but there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it "short of treating your kids like prisoners".
Why is he stuck on this that the parents and kids love nature and are outdoorsy as opposed to being "prisoners" (like there is no inbetween)? One written interview he says the kids were excited to actually get to go somewhere. At this point I'm wondering if he was treating them as prisoners or POWs.
Another thing I found deeply troubling in the video interview is he talks about how "Bella" means beautiful in Spanish and that she was a beautiful rose. He also says that she had thorns though and something like you don't want to get to close because of the thorns.
After watching the video I am wondering if this man was suffering from mental illness and was either extremely depressed/partially detached from reality as well as abusing the kids.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:42

Elvis is very composed though. Lindstrom seems mentally ill IMO.

Anonymous said...

4:52,

agreed that is a difference. I wonder what that difference indicates and doesn't indicate tho, composed doesn't contradict lying, malice, etc.

how mentally ill do you find Lindstro to be? I wouldn't doubt he's "messed up" but if he's fabricating his story and convincing many people of his story, i,e pulling off a cover up, he's got to be somehwhat together.

I agree with the person who said he sounds like an addict. tho I don't know first hand what that sounds like really, - I would believe it - to me he mostly just sounds like guy who's covering his ass. he made up a story and he's sticking to it and meanwhile he's rationalizing to himself too. I think he cares more about not getting in trouble than about his daughters' honor/welfare/life. you could call that mental illness, but I just call it being a selfish guy who needs to be held accountable for his actions.

there are plenty of people in this world who are not crazy but damage others via accident or poor judgement or even rage, and then rather than take responsability and surrender to consequences -- they haul ass to save what they still got, as in a job, family, reputation, freedom, etc. and lying is part of that. and they may even feel bad about it but they choose to do it, they feelit is their priority to survive and to maintain the best life they can despite their missteps. I don't think that's madness, I think it's the reason civilization was built and laws made, and jails etc, because not everybody -- but a good portion of the hu,man population functions this way.

Anonymous said...

do you have link where he talks about thorns?

Anonymous said...

I"m sorry I'm ranting, :) ah. I am having a ranting day. it wasn't directly at anybody, just thinking it out on keyboard.

Anonymous said...

http://raycomgroup.worldnow.com/story/25761152/cps-investigating-father-of-dead-toddler-for-neglectful-supervision

I just watched this . ,"she had thorns when you tried to touch her but sometimes it was worth it"


"you gotta care about the living and think about the dead when you have time"

I'm over all my sympathy, I think he raped and killed her and staged all of it.

he says brother was in back yard when he discovered them -- & he didn't even call out to brother so nobody even witnessed finding them in the car.

this guy is a monster I take back any shred of sympathy.

nobidy says their daughter is beautiful to admire but they have thorns but sometimes its worth it, -- nobody who isn't evil,

Anonymous said...

now I think when he says "there was a little bit of excitement" the reason he does not attribute that excitement to anybody is because it was his excitement. and it is code for rape.

Anonymous said...

http://raycomgroup.worldnow.com/story/25761152/cps-investigating-father-of-dead-toddler-for-neglectful-supervision

he says "they couldn't even have the common decency to tell me the truth" numerous times. truth= sensitivity. he's talking about cops. but makes me think he's projecting, that that's what he couldn't do -- was tell the truth.

Anonymous said...

Anon, no offense taken, I didn't feel you were ranting.

How mentally ill do I think he is?
A little bit, not very. He's not out of touch with reality, although I'm thinking he may have breaks with reality. Overall, though, he is trying to cover his ass.

I get the feeling, though, that he is not very mentally stable. His thinking seems to go to extremes (black and white thinking). Strong focus on himself (narcissistic tendencies). These qualities can exist separate from PTSD as well as heighten or encourage PTSD, so I get the feeling there is actually a tangle of psychological problems. Does he seem manipulative? Yes.

There are linguistic indicators he may have been treating the girls (perhaps fiance too) like prisoners.
I think from linguistic indicators he was abusing the girl and most likely this resulted in her death.
I believe from linguistic indicators she was killed previous to the car being cleaned out, most likely in the car.

Anonymous said...

which statements make you think she was killed in the car before it was cleaned out? I didn't catch that.

sidenote: in that video where he mentions thorns he says he was trying to get off meds& over his disabity and be a good father, this time me says he knows he did it, I believe his disability was emotional -- seems he's saying his behavior killed her.

Anonymous said...

Omg, I didn't read the article yet, but the quotes you provided are disturbing, to say the least. :(

I was "hoping" this was a case of neglect, and was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous said...

I think whatevers wrong with his started when he was a kid, to me it's a developmental thing, you never get essential nurturing at some early stage so you forever feel desperate to self precerve and never learn to place others above yourself. some basic thing like that. you can overcome it or not - but I think he's one of those people who had it in spades. which is probably why the military suited him. his military experience surely compounded his issues and gave him new ones but I think he's git that whole -- lack of empathy thing, IMO one of the more common things talk therapy seeks to cure but rarely does,

Anonymous said...

I didn't read it either just watched indoor video, it's super creepy, I went from thinking he was innocent to thinking he raped her, and killed her to keep her quiet, no question.

Anonymous said...

he also reffers to "the worst" as something the cops may suspect. to me in common unspoken dictionary the worst is not just murder but rape and murder

trustmeigetit said...

This guy talks non stop. It's like Billie Jean Dunn.

Those autopsy reports are what I am anxious for. And that 3 year old has to be able to tell police what happened.

Anyone know how long an autopsy takes when the person just recently deceased.

trustmeigetit said...

I will say this, the PTSD thing scares me the most. I've heard stories that men who were perfectly normal came back violent. It really is scary the effect that such violence witness and part of in war does to a normal mind.

Part of me wonders what he was like before.

Jen Ow said...

My husband's college roommate died of an overdose in 2005. To me, Lindstrom hits all of the addict indicators.

A bottle of Percocet was taken during the search warrant. Percocet is an opiate medication, and highly addictive. A person who takes it for more than a few weeks will eventually develop a physical dependence on it.

His language reeks of addict rationale. If he seems removed from his emotions, it's because he likely is...addiction deadens the soul, and erases the conscience. An addict doesn't feel what you or I would feel in their situation. Instead they seek to justify their irresponsibilty, (what was I supposed to do, treat them like prisoners), they rationalize to themselves that it wasn't their fault, (my fiance left the truck unlocked, and taught them to love nature, they loved to explore and get into things they weren't supposed to, etc) I need the drugs, (I'm a two time combat veteran that was 'blown up' on my last tour)...and on, and on, it goes.

Lindstrom's description of his conversation with his fiance sounds to me like exactly what would be said if the fiance had previously warned, or expressed her concern about his addiction, and it's possible consequences. Now her worst nightmare is reality, and he is saying..'well you will be glad to know, I'm facing jail time, and I won't be around our other daughter for a very long time'.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure war ptsd is enough to make somebody a killer. enough cases out there where it seems clear thats what it is. but I think it's childhood trauma that makes you a child killer. (that is my own theory, based on -- no relavent certifications in anythnig etc.)

also does PTSD make you scheme to cover it up like this? I feel like most PTSD rampages the perps are like -- take me away -- I did it and I'll do it again. I can't stop what's happened to me. like they really feel victim to the moster they've been made into.

but this guy hides his crime like he's got life long skills of denial.

als I just realized -- he's way more angry about bein interrogated than about the fact that his daughter needlessly died. reminds me of Amanda Knox. so angry for being interrogated - no perspective of the greater tragedy at hand.

Anonymous said...

I thikn he was so needing to know if bella was stilll alive while in interrogation -- because he was scared she woke up and told them what really happened and he'd have to adjust his story accordingly

Hobnob said...

"she had thorns when you tried to touch her but sometimes it was worth it"

If this is an exact quote it is very disturbing.

Firstly it is subtle demeaning which, is unexpected, especially when a parent says it in relation to their dead child.

Is he perhaps giving us a motive as to what happened?
An explanation?

Which ever way i look at it and say it, i can't get past the sexual connotations of those words.

What concerns me is the when you tried to touch her

Firstly we have the distancing YOU rather than the expected I

Next we have the word TOUCH not hug or cuddle.

What is his definition of touch?

Why touch and not hug or cuddle?

Where would he try to touch her?

Where did he touch her that provoked her to be thorny? (angry, refusing to allow it)

Why would it be only worth it sometimes?

It sounds as if he tried to touch her somewhere she didn't want to be touched thus provoking her 'thorny' response.

What would her reaction be, that, to him, it was sometimes worth it?

What did he do in reponse to her being 'thorny' (resisting, screaming or crying, fighting back or running away) that made it worth it?

What was the worthwhile response he felt when he touched her despite her being thorny?

I hope they check for signs of drugs in her system and hair (indicating long term exposure in her hair through deliberate ingestion such as sedation , or passive ingestion such as being aound when dad smoked) and that they also do a check for signs of sexual trauma or activity.

if such signs are visible, and it would not surprise me given his language, then this is not an accidental death per se, she could have died accidentally whilst being abused, it could have been a spur of the moment death, she resisted, she misbehaved and he lost his temper and killed her manually or locked her in the vehicle as punishment resulting in her death.

I am not sure how accurate a time of death would be given the temperature inside the car.
What i am sure of is, unless that car was oven hot 20 mins isn't likely to kill a healthy child, they would be hot and sweaty and distressed, dehydrated to a degree.
Why would it kill her and yet her sister was pretty much unharmed and wasn't even going to be taken to hospital?
If they went in the vehicle at the same time, then both would be in a similar state.

I wonder if he expected both to die?
If so then i bet he was shocked one one survived.
She will be able to say what they did and when and how they got in the vehicle and when.

I really hope they don't give him access to his surviving daughter since he may have made threats or will threaten her.

If she tell police what happened and it isn't as dad claims, then it is game iver, it may explain his acceptance of charges and a long jail sentence.
he seems resigned to the fact that charges will be laid.

My concern is since he has issues he may self harm since he basically has nothing to lose if his surviving daughter tells what happened and it implicates him in a homicide.

Anonymous said...

I would agree he's got his fiance in his mind as he gives these interviews, he doesn't address them to her - but I bte thats who he imagines watching

Anonymous said...

http://raycomgroup.worldnow.com/story/25761152/cps-investigating-father-of-dead-toddler-for-neglectful-supervision

here's the video with the thorns quote, it gives me the super creeps, I can't remember if he specifically said touch, maybe he said get close, something like that. but it comes off as -- violatng her space because she's beautiful -- if you ask me.

Anonymous said...

he starts laughing when talking about her thorns, he really lights up, its bizarre,

Anonymous said...

maybe he did drug his daughter and thought he o.d. her. maybe she said she'd tell he abused her, 4 yrs old is an age that could happen for first time.

the talk of thorns is in direct context of her beauty - she's beautiful to admire but theres thorns when you get close but sometimes its worth it,


ahhh. I'm convinced the "little bot of excitement" that morning was him raping or sexually abusing her. reminds me of Humbert Humbert language in Lolita, the way he would indicate rape with "gentle" language. notice it is what russell opened how whole stopry with. "there was a little bit of excitement". and everybody listening or reading is like -- what the freak does that have to do with anythng why does that even cross your mind and why are you saying it so passively?? -- I think it's code for rape. little bit of excitement was his. and that's what set all wheels in motion.

Anonymous said...

I believe he raped his daughter that morning. and -- "but" they got up and had breakfast anyway. over course of morning he either realized -- he either couldn't hide physical done to her or that she was going to talk and he killed her. and staged the truck.

Anonymous said...

I think the autopsy itself is fairly quick, but a toxicology can take quite a bit longer? Someone more in-the-know could verify. I'm going off of celebrity deaths, it seems like it takes a long time, which I don't understand why it takes so long.

After seeing the most recent quotes, this has become so much more disturbing than first thought. :/

Ps, can we move this conversation over to the other thread (the one with the dog pic), it's becoming difficult, with so many comments?

Anonymous said...

"you get too close you gotta watch out for the thorns, but sometimes it was worth it"

is the quote, with some mumbling preceeding it I can't make out.

sure -- I'll post on dog instead

Anonymous said...

Jen wrote

"His language reeks of addict rationale. If he seems removed from his emotions, it's because he likely is...addiction deadens the soul, and erases the conscience. An addict doesn't feel what you or I would feel in their situation. Instead they seek to justify their irresponsibilty, (what was I supposed to do, treat them like prisoners), they rationalize to themselves that it wasn't their fault, (my fiance left the truck unlocked, and taught them to love nature, they loved to explore and get into things they weren't supposed to, etc) I need the drugs, (I'm a two time combat veteran that was 'blown up' on my last tour)...and on, and on, it goes."

Interesting insights especially the justification of lack of responsibility/wasn't his fault and that being the mentality of addiction.

He seems like there is something mentally wrong with him in the interview I watched. Reading what you wrote, I am thinking maybe it is withdrawal from opiate. He looks very sweaty too like possible withdrawal.

Do you think it was neglect and truly a heat death or something worse (not that that isn't bad enough)?
Just curious.

Anonymous said...

Anon, I think you are onto something also with lack of nurturing in childhood and essentially a developmental disability where there is no empathy.
Drug addiction is it's own animal and can intermingle with these other psychological or character failures.
His thinking seems black and white, extreme self-focus, he is not seeming to acknowledge the horror of what has happened without immediately shifting the focus back to himself.
This is very concerning and makes me think he did abuse his daughter.

Anonymous said...

Hobnob,

I agree with everything you wrote and I wouldn't be surprised if he did drug her, because I thought it was really strange he said he "fed her something to eat".
It made me think he may have fed her something which was not food as it seems unnecessary to clarify that he fed her "something to eat".

Anon, it is really strange how he says those words. REALLY strange.

I think he was abusing her.

Anonymous said...

Anon,

I thought of Humbert Humbert's character from Lolita also, because of the way he was talking about her saying he liked to admire her, etc. like he seemed like he was justifying to himself whatever horrible thing he'd done to her by believing he was "in love with her" or something like Humbert Humbert does in Lolita. Eeeeww. But I do think Lindstrom had similar thinking as Humbert Humbert. Horrifying!

Lemon said...

To the Anon posting "quotes" within "quotation" marks:
Respectfully, they are not a suggestion or interpretation or guess of what is said. They are used to signify what is actually said. If what you are posting is not verbatim, PLEASE do not use quotation marks.

Anonymous said...

Lemon, sorry if you're talking about the post @ 9:48, I didn't think that would come across as directly quoting.
That was not a direct quote to clarify.

Anonymous said...

yeah Lolita is a book about rape and emotional sadism. it's one of the best books ever written IMO. but it's not, as vanity Fair reviewed it " the only believeable love story". shame on vanity fair forever for that one.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like, "if you get too close, not careful she's sharp(?), you just gotta watch out for the thorns, but sometimes it was worth it".

Idk, what do you think?

trustmeigetit said...







Anonymous said... “he starts laughing when talking about her thorns, he really lights up, its bizarre”







That freaked me out too. I do not understand how you could laugh during a time like this. I would be so distraught over losing my child I would probably need to be committed. Even when I have had break ups from a boyfriend in the past I have been so upset that I just would cry for days. He lost a child and he can find it in him to laugh.







As odd as it was to make that statement however about her being like a rose….I do think that he is very drugged up. Being on drugs people can say some odd things. So it’s hard to know for sure.




I shared the video with Eyes for Lies. I don’t agree with her always (she thinks the Mccans and Mark Redwine are innocent) but still usually like to see her thoughts in combination with SA. She didn’t say much about the long video other than she notes a lot of red flags and she also said it looks like he’s on drugs.

I still think the autopsy will come back that she died from the heat. But how that happened I think is what we don’t know. That 3 year old needs to talk. I hope she does. I just do not think that even if they got out of the house with out making a noise, and were able to then open that truck door and climb inside that the 4 year old could not then open the door back up and get out if it got too hot. I just don’t see how they were “stuck”. I recall my son at the age of 4 and he often would open the door himself to the car to get in, put on his own seat belt and always wanted to open the door himself. A 4 year old can open the door. So if they were trapped in that car, it was done by someone else.


trustmeigetit said...





Jen Ow said “If he seems removed from his emotions, it's because he likely is...addiction deadens the soul, and erases the conscience”



This is very true. My best friends bother started doing hard drugs (meth) at the age of 11. By 20, he was a father but he was so drugged up, he didn’t care at all about his son. But he then got sober when his sons mom took off and now that he is sober, is a great father. Drugs do numb you. He did and saw the most horrible things while on drugs. Now that he is sober he is a different person in every way.


I really think drugs are the cause of his lack of emotion and why he is saying some odd things. However, I think the PTSD is a factor and he may have locked them in that truck on purpose out of anger or just to keep them quiet. I think he did murder them so to speak. Weather his intention was to murder them or just to make them suffer or stay away…. Who knows. But I think the PTSD with the drugs is a bad combination.



We need to take better care of veterans. They need help they are not getting and I think it’s dangerous.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:43,

Nabakov is an excellent writer, Noone strungs together the kind of prose poetry Nabakov does. However, many critics, for reasons I do not comprehend, have made similar disturbing comments about the book as you read in Vanity Fair. I read the book 25 years ago, but if I remember right, the only nice thing Humbert Humbert ever does is at the end of the book after Lolita escapes him, he actually thinks a kind thought about her hoping that her boyfriend will not harm her. How does anyone warp that into being "a great love story"??? (which is what many critics have called it). They are, to say the least, missing the point, in that I think the book is largely about Humbert's cruelty.
One weird thing, the very 1st paragraph of Lolita is Humbert talking about Lolita's name in a disturbing way. It is oddly similar to the way Lindstrom talks about his daughter's name in an inappropriate way.

Anonymous said...

I think that he Killed Bella. it what I think.

ya - I just can't tell what he's saying I do hear "sharp", it kinda sounds to me like he's not saying something - like saying half words to censor himself.

I don't think it was an accident. I think he chose to kill her. he is so disparaging to her.

I don't know how he did it but I hope the autopsy leads to murder charges, because i'm sure he murdered her and that's likely the only way they will prove it.

Lemon said...

Anon @ 10:00
Your post at 9:48 was not the one I was speaking to.