Thursday, July 10, 2014

Russell Lindstrom: Charged With Manslaughter

                             Did Russell Lindstrom intend to kill both of his children?

Russell Lindstrom said he last saw his kids go to their room to nap.  When his girlfriend's brother came over, looking for them, they 'found' them in his vehicle, one was dead.

Statement Analysis concluded deception in his account of what happened. 

Now we learn that police have arrested Russell Lindstrom and have charged him in the death of his daughter as well as injuring his other daughter's life.  Child Protective Services has conducted a joint investigation, but will not release the details of their findings.

Smith County Sheriff’s Office detectives and patrol deputies arrested Russel Lindstrom, 33, of Flint in relation to the two toddlers who were found in a pickup with the windows rolled up on Wednesday. 
On the afternoon of June 11, 2014, Smith County Sheriff’s Office Dispatch received a 911 call from a person reporting two unresponsive toddlers inside a vehicle in the 18000 block of County Road 1100, near Flint. EMS arrived and found two girls, ages three and four. The four-year-old was transported to a local hospital, where she died. The three-year old was hospitalized overnight for observation and released.
Lindstrom immediately spoke out, and in doing so, deception was indicated.  
 Smith County Sheriff’s Office Criminal Investigation Division investigated, sought and gained  arrest warrant for Lindstrom  signed by Judge Christi Kennedy of the 114th District Court.
 Lindstrom is being charged with one count of manslaughter, with a $150,000 bond, and one count of injury to a child, with a $50,000 bond. Lindstrom was arrested at a mobile home park in the 17000 block of Highway 155 South. He is currently being booked into the Smith County Jail.
The Smith County Sheriff's Office is continuing to work with CPS on the investigation regarding the surviving child. Additional information will be released as it becomes available.
The analysis below not only indicates deception, but it may be that he intended both of his children to die.

Here is a transcription of some of the video interview, first alone, and then with analysis.  This is in response to "what happened?" and the video shows him entering the Free Editing Process.  This means not only did he choose his own words, but he began the account where he wanted to. This is always important.  

"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..."

See prior analysis on "Balance" of a statement.  Here, even if incomplete, is to be deemed "Unreliable" by its Balance, where his introduction is 84% of the story.  

Most Reliable Statements Balance is about 25% introduction.  This is overwhelming unbalanced in the introduction.  Most deceptive statements are weighted heavily in the introduction.  

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.  

Yesterday started out pretty much like any other day. 

"Yesterday" is the day in question.  This is where he has chosen to begin the account.  Many might consider that it could start like, "Yesterday, my daughter died..." 

Instead, we come to the Statement Analysis principle of "Normal."

"Normal" in Statement Analysis is flagged as anything but normal. 

When a man or woman says, "I am a normal person" (Anita Hill) it is a strong indication that the subject has considered himself or herself not normal, or that the subject has been viewed as "not normal" by others.  

When it begins, in any form, about a day, it is a strong indication of "story telling":  

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. 

He needs to explain "excitement", making the atmosphere, itself, sensitive to him.  Remember the context:  dead child. Little children excited over a different vehicle?  

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.  It is very important to the subject.  Why?  Why would it be so important to him, even giving more details about the vehicle than his child, when speaking about his dead child?

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. 

This is seen as a hesitancy or stalling to get to the point of his child's death.  Psychologically, the guilty mind seeks to avoid getting to the sensitive area.  

This is often confused as a guilty "conscience" but it is not always the case.  

Liars avoid lies because of the stress of being caught, not just the feeling of remorse or of a guilty conscience. 

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”. 

There was "excitement" and the kids were "really excited" leading me to consider what caused such excitement, and what actually is "excitement" to the subject?  Something was not "normal" this day, and at this point, I am wondering if "excitement" is similar to "disruption" or another negative explanation.  

This is now the second time he feels the need to explain "why" the kids were excited.  He has already told us that there was "excitement" over trading in one vehicle for another.  Here, he repeats this, specifically describing the excitement's foundation:  they 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?"

Were they really happy?

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.  It is a delay.  One should wonder just how unhappy kids might have been to have such a sensitive need to portray them as so very excited.  Little girls excited over a vehicle? Then, he changes the excitement to going "bye bye", as if they never leave the home?  

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. 

If these children were not living solitary lives, never getting out, the repeated explanation of "why" there was excitement should be questioned.  

The need to portray the "happy" household is very sensitive to the subject.  It is his "need" that concerns us.  

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. 

Here we learn:  they were not hermits.  

This now makes the "excitement" into something that may not be positive.  

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.  

It only rained "a couple of days ago" and not "yesterday" which means the kids, if "cooped up" inside the house, may either be deceptive, or, worse, they may have been confined by him.  

I have seen kids confined, terribly, when the parents were getting high.  

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.  They did not "go outside" but "came" outside. 

He reveals his own location:

What was he doing outside?  

This is what Analytical Interviewing does:  he asks questions off of the analysis.  

Breakfast:  they ate breakfast, but who made it for them?

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" 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.  It is repeated, making it very important to him.  Why is it so important. 

He would outside. 

Twice he tells us that they came outside. 

They were in an "excited" state.  

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 distancing language.  Here is a common sample I use to highlight this principle:

"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 as they were "excited"

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.  

He "had to yell at them", meaning that this was something imposed upon him.  It was not his will to yell at them.  He "had to", which is to shift blame from himself to the children.  

He is recalling his day and is choosing his own words.  

Child Abuse and Minimization:

Abusive parents will minimize their actions.  What they own to doing and what they actually did are often two very different things.  It is like coming upon an abusive parent at Walmart. The parent is willing to be abusive in public which leads to the question:

"If she is willing to do that in public, what does she do to them in private?"

The "yelling" was likely more severe.  He even tells us that they ran into the woods more than once.  The frustration and tension are in his language. 

He blames both children.  

If you lost one of your children, would you be speaking negatively of them?

Remember, when a parent loses a child, the parent will often deify the child, giving the child "God like" or "angelic like" qualities and assign to the deceased child lofty and unrealistic characteristics.  

The deceased was a normal child, subject to all the frailties that human nature is subject to, but when a child dies, the parent, in denial often, will erase memories of discipline or correction, and assign to the child realms of wisdom unattainable by human population.  It is very sad, but predictable.  The child now "watches over them", "imparts wisdom and strength" and so on. 

Therefore, the blaming, even in the most subtle of ways, is a signal of a guilty conscience wishing to justify its actions and protect itself from blame.  

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. 

1.  "Lunch time came around" is a passage of time, given in passive language.  

There is something within this time period that he wishes to pass over.  Passive language removes identity or responsibility.  Passing of time (Temporal Lacunae) is an indication of missing information.  It is in this period of time that child protective services investigators must focus. 

What happened during this time?  This may be a period of substance abuse.  There is a reason to remove oneself from the time period.  It could also have been a time of abuse.  Everything related to abuse and neglect must be explored. 

They were out how long?

Where were they outside of the house?  

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.  

The awkward feel of these words along with the missing information is very concerning.  

What was he doing during this time period of "excitement" and "yelling" and kids out of control?  What were the kids interrupting, in the language of shifting blame from him to them?

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 to reinforce the sensitivity of time within his statement.  There is missing information here.  

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. 

He was asked "what happened?" and he finally gets to it.  The 84% introduction already indicates deception but the wording itself continues to indicate deception. 

"my kids generally put themselves down" is what they normally do.  Deceptive people use this when they wish to avoid a direct statement on what happened.  There is no need to tell us what they normally did, since he started with "what happened...", which is past tense and reliable.  He then immediately moves to Unreliable. 

He can't be accurate on times.  What restricts him?  Memory or consequence?

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.  It avoids the topic directly.  He does not want to lie directly.  

He does not want to say that they wrapped themselves up, so he avoids it. 

He may not want to say that he wrapped them up. 

Did he bind them?  Did he restrict them?  It was their fault he "had" to yell, in his mindset.  This avoidance of directly stating what happened means that "what happened" is not something he wants to say outright.  

He "can't" be accurate.  Substance abuse? Alcohol does more to impede memory than narcotics. If it was not alcohol, the restriction upon his memory must be explored.  What kept him from being able to be accurate?  We note detail about vehicle, but nothing about lunch.  Would you remember your deceased child's last meal?
And I thought they went to sleep so I figured I had time to do go do some chores in the house.

He tells us what they usually do, rather than what they did. 
He then tells us what he thought, rather than what he did. 

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. 

This means he was outside the house. 

Note:  laundry is noted as associated with "water", and references to "water" should cause exploration into sexual abuse; 

either the subject himself, as a child, 

or his daughters. 

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. 

"Laundry" is repeated here, making it sensitive. 

Here we have indications of deception as he does not tell us what he did.  He has the need to avoid telling what he did.  Instead, of what he "does" is substituted.  This missing information should be specifically explored for substance abuse. 

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. 

Recall Bilie Jean Dunn telling us that she did not have worry.  It is not just the placing of emotions here that is sensitive, but it is the negative; that is, what he did not feel.  This is an indication of deception. 

We mark time (and emotion) on what happens in life, not on what did not happen.  

"Where were  you when you did not win the power ball lottery in 2010?"  versus

"Where were you when 9/11 hit?"

We do not mark time on what did not happen, nor what was not felt.  

"Where were you when you did not fear your husband was cheating on you? makes no sense. 

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 

According to his statement, he is outside when he said, "And I came outside."  This is deceptive.  He uses present tense language and passivity to make us think he is inside, but if you listen, and do not interpret, he is outside already.  

This shows deception related to what happened and should lead investigators to wonder:

Did he try to kill both of his daughters?  Or, was this a case of substance abuse related neglect and unintended death?

It is his deception that raises these question. 


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. They were "missing", that is, allegedly not known where they were.  That he feels the need to explain why he had to search for children that were not located makes it sensitive. 

The analyst should consider that he knew where they were.  

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. 

They "get into things" is also a subtle blaming of the children.  Please see the explanation above about how parents deify deceased children.  

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.  

It may be that this act was premeditated.  If not, Neglect by substance abuse will not sufficiently answer the sensitivity of the questions. 

He locked his daughters in the vehicle.  

It may be that drugs influenced his thinking, but he caused them to be in the vehicle.  Investigators need to find out why:

Was it due to substance abuse?

Or, was he seeking to unburden himself of his children?


Linnet said...

He is 33!?
He looks about 50!
I think it was an accident, caused by neglect while he was high on whatever.

My only reason for believing accident and not murder, is that he tried to do cpr on the child. If someone was with him when he found his children, then my theory is out, because then he had to pretend to rescue her.

Another thing. I always know where my youngest children are, and three and four is far too young to be left alone for even one minute.

trustmeigetit said...

Linnet...we don't know he did CPR. He told us that but doesn't make it true.

I for one think this was more than neglect. I think a 4 ur old could have opened the door. It's actually harder to open a door than be inside and be able to use your legs too.

trustmeigetit said...

Quick OT on the Mccanns....

I like what Amarals new lawyer stated to the media.

“The Mccanns have the support of society, of several public figures, so this alleged social damage is not at all justified. “

Anonymous said...

lets keep in mind, statement analysis is only a tool. imo the other supporting evidence must also agree with the analysis. if he was arrested based solely on statement analysis results, that is not good.

trustmeigetit said...

Another Mccann comment I had to share. I guess this was from the recent trial. I have the link below for the full transcript. But what she says now has me convinced that they did in fact move Madelines body. She does not state that the comment was untrue, only exaggerated!

Judge - Do you recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã?

Kate Healy - He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later [sic, car was rented 23 days later].

Also I love how here she states the documentary affected the searches but that they were the only ones making an effort. IF you are the only ones making an effort (although not searching is hardly an effort) then how did it affect anything.

Judge - What did you feel about the documentary when compared to the book?

Kate Healy - It was worst in terms of damages, because it was more definitive, Mr. Amaral's assumptions were more unequivocal, it led the audience in a journey of certainties. It compounded to the anxiety and feeling of injustice at a time when we were the only ones making efforts to find Madeleine. There was no police force investigating and it damaged the searches.

trustmeigetit said...

Ok, last one. But this was pretty good too

Gonçalo Amaral's new lawyer, Miguel Cruz Rodrigues, wants to know what caused more distress to KMC.
The judge rephrases – What disturbed you more: the disappearance of your daughter, the fact you were made arguido or the reason for this trial, i.e the book and the documentary?

KMC says there's nothing worse than the abduction of a child, but that the rest intensified the pain and that there are limits to what a person can bear.

AGAIN, Kate says “of a child” when even the judge said “your daughter”. She still can’t not make this personal.  

trustmeigetit said...

Anon at 2:47 pm...

Yes SA is a tool. However SA only notes "deception" in his statement of what happened but did not state he murdered them.

It's a tool to guide where to ask more questions to get to the truth.

Lucy said...

1) Children of that age do not decide to stop playing, go inside, play quietly in their rooms until they are tired, and then voluntarily put themselves down for a nap.

2) Why did the brother in law ask how long ago he'd seen the children? Why not, "Hey, where are the kids?" This is odd.

3) How could children of that age be able to get into the car, but not out of it?

Anonymous said...

“I have been held hostage by unknown military personal after my flight was hijacked (blindfolded). I work for IBM and I have managed to hide my cellphone in my ass during the hijack. I have been separated from the rest of the passengers and I am in a cell. My name is Philip Wood. I think I have been drugged as well and cannot think clearly.”

could you do analysis in this quote?

it has been posted online on 4chan, the coordianta of accompany photo (all black) sent are leading people to believe the missing malaysian jet was landed on diego garcia US military base in Indian ocean. and this text to internet by passenger is real.

Anonymous said...

When I first read this story I believed it was a neglectful accident. I still believe the same, after reading what happened I saw a neglectful father but not a killer. When I read about Coopers death I immediately thought it was suspicious.

Unknown said...

Hi Anon 2:47

Why would you think that Lindstrom was arrested solely based on Statement Analysis?

Lindstrom said from the beginning that he expected to face charges, and be sentenced to jail time. He had drugs in his possession, including pot and Percocet, which were seized as evidence. By his own story, he did not lay eyes on his daughters for over an hour, which is neglect. One of his daughter's died during the time she was being neglected; =manslaughter.

While he may, or may not, have set out intending to kill his daughter, his actions led to her death, which supports the charge of manslaughter.

ima.grandma said...

Affidavit reveals new details in death of Smith Co. child found in hot car
Posted: Jul 10, 2014 2:40 PM CDT
Russel Lindstrom (Source: Smith County Sheriff's Office)

The arrest warrant for a Smith County father charged with manslaughter after his four-year-old daughter died in a hot car is revealing more details about the events leading up to her death.

Russel Lindstrom, 33, of Flint, was arrested by Smith County sheriff's deputies on Wednesday and charged with one count of manslaughter and one count of injury to a child.

According to the arrest affidavit, on June 11, Lindstrom's daughters, Zoey, 3, and Bella Rose, 4, locked themselves in a pickup truck in front of Lindstrom's home.

Lindstrom told deputies he had put his daughters down for a nap while their mother was at work. He began doing laundry and playing games on his cell phone. An hour went by before his brother-in-law walked onto the front porch where Russel was playing on his cell phone and asked where the girls were. The men checked the bedroom and couldn't find the girls anywhere. A search of the yards and woods near the property turned up nothing. Russel ultimately found Bella and Zoey in their Nissan pickup.

Authorities say Lindstrom told them Bella was slumped over in the back seat, not breathing. She had also vomited in the truck. Lindstrom called 911 and Bella was transported to a Tyler hospital where she was pronounced dead. When she arrived at the hospital, her body temperature was 107.9 degrees. An emergency room doctor listed her cause of death as respiratory failure and hyperthermia.

Zoey was treated on scene by EMS and was later taken to a Tyler hospital to be treated for dehydration and heat exhaustion.

Lindstrom told authorities that his daughters had been found playing in the truck in the past and had locked themselves in before. However, their parents were able to immediately remove them.

When Smith County deputies processed the truck, they found small hand prints on the inside of the windows of the driver and passenger doors, as well as clearly visible streaks on the roof of the truck to the hood of the truck, which appeared to have been created by children.
Lindstrom's wife told deputies that she and her husband knew Bella was able to open the truck door and that her daughters played on the truck as a type of jungle gym.

Neighbors told detectives that they had seen Lindstrom daughters playing near the road in front of their house. On one occasion, a neighbor said one of the children was in the middle of the road. The neighbor stopped and walked the child back into the yard.

Officers seized two tablets and three laptops from the home, according to the report, as well as drug paraphernalia found in a chest in the master bedroom.

Lindstrom is being held on a $150,000 bond for manslaughter and a $50,000 bond for injury of a child.

ima.grandma said...
"Nobody blames Russel. It wasn't a thing he did. It just happened," says Marguerite Youngblood, Lindstrom's mother.

Youngblood says what happened that day could have happened to any parent, "To crucify him over this is just not right. There isn't a parent in the world that can say they have watched their child 24/7 because if that was so there would be no hospital visits anywhere for any child."

His family was there when officers told Lindstrom he was under arrest."He was trying to stay calm. He was pretty upset be cause it's like they're saying he murdered his baby and he didn't murder his baby," says Youngblood.

Lindstrom said he was in charge of watching his two daughters. He put them down for a nap and started doing laundry. He says they were not in their room when he went back to check. He started looking for them and went outside. He found them locked in the family's truck, a 2003 Nissan Frontier.

Lindstrom said he was able to get into the truck with the keys. He said his fiance left the truck unlocked because they just cleaned it out and were about to trade it in that afternoon. He believed the girls went outside, got inside the truck, and accidentally locked it. He said they had locked themselves in a car before during the winter, so the couple is always careful to hide the keys from them.

"I got to the end of the trail on the other side of the house and I saw the truck and I had a bad feeling," says Lindstrom. Bella and Zoey were locked inside. He pulled them out and realized Bella was not breathing.

"I knew that if she had a chance at survival, then I needed to keep breathing for her," he said.

According to Lindstrom, Bella-Rose was extremely hot to the touch when he pulled her out, claiming he knew she was dead.

"In my head, I knew she was dead. I held my little girl dead in my arms. I've seen death before," Lindstrom says, "She was definitely my beautiful rose. She was very brave, courageous and loved to explore. I loved her to death."

"I don't know if I just lost my daughter or my whole family," said Lindstrom. "I may never get to see them again.".

He told them he wanted to get a lawyer if they were going to continue the conversation. He said he saw the search warrant for his home and it said "manslaughter."

Lindstrom said he had to wait until after the interrogation to go to the hospital and learn the fate of his daughter.

"They couldn't have the common decency to tell me the truth at any point in this, even though I'm pretty sure they knew," said Lindstrom.

"It's bad enough losing a daughter, but it's 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?" he added.

Youngblood and her family members are standing behind Lindstrom. She says Lindstrom is a veteran and a father who lives to protect others, "He's always been there for them. He would lay his life on the line for anybody in his family, but especially his children because they were life."

ima.grandma said...
This site is attempting to raise money for his defense.
We need help to get a lawyer for Russel's defence. Also for expenses for surviving child and mom.They have charged him for Bellas death. He would never hurt his children, and we need money to mied'sure he gets the best help we can. Anything helps. Please don't let this injustice of loosing his child to an accident, and being torn from his family go wrong for lack of good lawyer. He loves his family and country, he served 2 tour's in Iraq and was blown up 2 ied's and medical discharged. Please help Russel get home.

Once I went to his Facebook page:
I discovered it is his mother who has started the funding request. The above statement is from her.

elsa said...

What has him being in Iraq got to do with anything?

Loosing..? Sigh..

jo said...

I don't think he put them in the car with the intent of killing them, just getting them out of his hair while he napped (sat on the bed)or whatever else he was doing during that time period. I think he was responsible for the death of his daughter as it was caused by his carelessness and neglect for the kids.

I am curious if they were both put in the car at the same time or if it was a punishment and the older daughter was placed there first. Seems odd that the older daughter died but the younger daughter was for the most part okay.

ima.grandma said...

from Peter's article:
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 to reinforce the sensitivity of time within his statement.  There is missing information here.  

the below snippet is the first time i have seen Lindstrom say it was two to three hours of time between the last time he saw his daughters.

I believe he was getting stoned and got into his video games and cared about nothing but his instant self-gratification. Marijuana produces a slowed down perceptin of time.
Lindstrom told KETK his two young girls, ages 3 and 4, were sleeping when he began to do some chores inside the home. The father said he thought he would have two to three hours of spare time while doing the family's laundry. Between loads he was playing video games and said the girls were right in the next room.

Anonymous said...

What's 4chan? Has it been reported anywhere else? If it's not true, it takes a sick mind to make that up, about the plane and passangers. If it's true, I have to wonder why he needed to explain where he hid his phone. I had been following news about the plane, but nothing has come out in quite a while. What was the date that it disappeared? Would the cell phones still be active? Well, if family was still paying for them I guess they would be. Why wouldn't he try to call someone instead or in conjunction with the text? And actually who received the text anyway? A family member or friend?

Anonymous said...

4chan is the underground internet. I've never been on it and don't know how to get on it - -just been told about it by tech nerds it's popular for illegal stuff like drug dealing, super bad porn. but also it's where people can literally post anything - as the "surface" internet can still get scrubbed. you can google the story about the posting tho - it's run on idependant blogs that are on our internet, accecable without getting on 4chan.

Anonymous said...

I can't answer all of those questions - I don't know. it seems like reasonable info to share tho - about the phone - I mean if you managed to smuggle in a phone when you got kidnapped you'd probably mention it. also he must have been very tech savvy being an IBM exec and a guy who deveoped technology that is going to revolutionize military capability. i suspect he chose 4chan because it would have a better chance of reaching more people since he could assume there was some organized attempt to suppress his communication. his girlfriend is seen giving interview -- she says she's sure he's alive and that her home has been broken into several times since plane went missing,

Anonymous said...

if you google "phillip wood girlfriend" or "phillip wood email" or "malaysia plane diego garcia" you will see lots of stories and videos on it.

Anonymous said...

oops - I meant "phillip wood cell phone"

Kit said...

4chan is a site where people post pictures. Some are awful (I hear), but some are great -- Nyan Cat came out of 4chan. People have posted pictures of crimes on 4chan, and 4chan members have tracked down the evidence and got law enforcement involved. 4chan isn't underground. It's

Anonymous said...

oh - well if it's not hard to access - then there you go, maybe i was thinking of something different - I think ther is an underground internet but maybe called something different, and I got the two confused.

anyway -- I think the post is real. I think the plane was really taken to diego garcia military base. kidnapped for rothschild. so he could retain full ownership of the patent on the technology the 20 or so IBM employees on plane had pending rights to,

Anonymous said...

now i'm rememberin -- it's like an online comminity where people do kinda vigilante research, - i think

Kit said...

About the 4chan Flight 370 hoax:

Anonymous said...

btw - rothschild is guy/family who owns most of the worlds banks. including federal reserve. they are the diobolical mastermind of ….. eh everything. including CIA operations.

Anonymous said...

yeah -- there's stuff saying its a hoax -- but I think those posts are hoaxes. they seem less credible than the post itself.

trustmeigetit said...

It is pretty clear I think with Russell, since this is manslaughter and not murder charges, that they are going the route of neglect.

But what is interesting, they noted the fingerprints on the inside of the door, but didn’t confirm if they were on the outside of the door. Which would be critical if they were not there.

I still don’t get how they could get in but not out. Being inside they could use their feet as well to push the door open if it was heavy. If they could get in, they should be able to get out.


Russel has an interesting posting on his facebook page from 5-6-14.

This is what he wrote.

To those that wished me a happy birthday thank you very much. Unfortunately it didn’t go that way. I could point out why but that would be petty and pointless. So instead I’ll just leave it at “we must all pay for our mistakes one way or another at one time or another”

He also prior to that posted a link about a satanic monument.

Could all be innocent but was strange.

Anonymous said...

what was satanic monument post?

Anonymous said...

do you have link to his Facebook? having trouble finding it

trustmeigetit said...


So has anyone else seen the leaked Oscar Pistorious video?

There is rumor that this could cause a mistrial.

I have to admit, with the defense acting like this was somehow “stolen” and “leaked” I have to admit, I am thinking this was leaked by them on PURPOSE.

If there is a chance it would be a mistrial…. It would serve their purpose well.

Otherwise, if this was so private who would leak it? It sounds like it was just family and the defense team.

trustmeigetit said...

I had a link but it never brought up his badge.

Just type Russel Lindstrom in and his profile pic looks like a military van.

Michelle Moist (mom) is then in his friends.

What is also odd but could mean
Nothing.. The last post by both mom and dad was June 7th.

Anonymous said...

I found it, he had a link to a satanic sculpture being built in Oklahoma. baphamet. (as luck would have it that's the very same religion Rothschilds are supposed to be behind - the same organization I believe are behind the malaysian plane. ) no joke.

maybe they brainwashed Russell to murder his daughters. it's supposed to be something the satanic church is into doing. I dont know what it means but I doubt it's nothing that he was posting the pics, he also posted pics of lady gaga who is supposed to be a member of that church.

Anonymous said...

if in the past the children have put themselves down for a nap, and didnt require to be checked on every 5 minutes, and they survived through those times.... there is no reason to believe he should have or needed to check on them sooner this time either. he provided them with the same level of care as before that did not result in injury or death.
therefore it is not neglect.

Anonymous said...

Not checking every 5 minutes on a napping child, is not neglect. That's clearly not what happened in this case. Regardless though, past neglect that didn't end in harm or death, is still neglect.

In this case, he didn't just not check on them. While he was doing "chores" and "sitting on his bed that was right next to their room", two kids super quietly, apparently not making a peep, got out of their beds, walked through the house, open and closed the door (very quietly again), then locked themselves in the family truck, for God knows how long, until someone else asked when he last saw his own kids.

Jo said...

Anon 7:17, he never said the girls were sleeping. He only said that is what they normally do. Checking that they are in fact sleeping before assuming they are sleeping would have been a good idea but I doubt they were ever in their room for a nap.

Katprint said...

@Anonymous at July 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM

That a child did not suffer serious injuries or die on prior occasions when they were criminally neglected, does not in any way negate the criminal neglect which eventually injured/killed them. You have confused "unforeseeable" with "habitual." It is true that a parent is not required to eliminate every conceivable risk, that some parents are more risk-adverse than others, and merely allowing your child to do something that another parent does not allow their child to do does not necessarily prove neglect. However, it is equally true that the law imposes a duty of reasonable supervision on parents.

The laws that apply to this case are found in the Texas Penal Code:

§ 22.04. INJURY TO A CHILD, ELDERLY INDIVIDUAL, OR DISABLED INDIVIDUAL. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission, causes to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual:
(1) serious bodily injury;
(2) serious mental deficiency, impairment, or injury; or
(3) bodily injury.
(b) An omission that causes a condition described by Subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) or (a-1)(1), (2), (3), or (4) is conduct constituting an offense under this section if:
(1) the actor has a legal or statutory duty to act; or
(2) the actor has assumed care, custody, or control of a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) or (2) or (a-1)(1) or (2) is a felony of the first degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
(f) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) or (a-1)(3) or (4) is a felony of the third degree when the conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly. When the conduct is engaged in recklessly, the offense is a state jail felony.
(g) An offense under Subsection (a) is a state jail felony when the person acts with criminal negligence. An offense under
Subsection (a-1) is a state jail felony when the person, with criminal negligence and by omission, causes a condition described by Subsection (a-1)(1), (2), (3), or (4).
(h) A person who is subject to prosecution under both this section and another section of this code may be prosecuted under either or both sections. Section 3.04 does not apply to criminal episodes prosecuted under both this section and another section of this code. If a criminal episode is prosecuted under both this section and another section of this code and sentences are assessed for convictions under both sections, the sentences shall run concurrently.

(c) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child younger than 15 years in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.

Sec. 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Sec. 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

Unknown said...

Anon 7:17

So, by your logic, if a person drives recklessly 100x, without having an accident and killing someone, that means that they're not being reckless...and if they eventually do kill someone with their reckless driving, it won't be a crime because they did it before without anyone dying??

Every time Lindstrom's kids were left unsupervised for hours, (as he now admits he was doing 'laundry' and playing games for 2-3 hours) or when they were found wandering in the road by neighbors, and locking themselves in the truck 'a couple of times'...they were being neglected.

The consequences weren't as dire, and he wasn't officially charged with neglect, but it WAS neglect.

Not being caught commiting a crime, doesn't negate that the crime was committed.

ima.grandma said... is equally true that the law imposes a duty of reasonable supervision on parents.

Katprint, you handled the unpopular anon opinion with expertise and facts. Documentation is everything!

JenOw, as usual, I love your no-nonsense approach to nonsense.

These little girls were three (3) and four (4) years old, I need to say it again. three and four years old.

If reports are true and these little girls were allowed to wander about the neighborhood alone, even play in the road, that is a reasonable view to suspect neglect. The report of clearly visible footprints on the top of the hood leading to the roof of the truck leads me to believe this was an allowed and common method of play, the mother stating the girls used the truck as a jungle gym, possibly without supervision. I believe they exposed the girls to risk of danger as my view of responsible supervision differs from these parents' standard of care they consider appropriate. Oversight agencies must have trained regulators and examiners who adhere to state statutes and rules. They must weigh the factors and make informed decisions as to the required standard of care. Law enforcement and the legal teams can take it from there. It is tragic Bella's father's parenting practices did not come to authorities attention through responsible reporting.

I still have a couple of questions:
-is the fiance (girlfriend) the same person as the mom?
-was the brother-in-law at the house the entire time? none of the articles address it and lindstrom's stories sound like he just appeared on the front porch to inquire about the girls.
-who called 911? all reports state a person called...

snipped: A Flint man arrested for the death of his 4-year-old daughter who died trapped in a hot car last month neglected his children by playing video games on his cell phones, Smith County Sheriff Officials stated in documents.

Det. Stockwell stated in the affidavit that Lindstrom "recklessly neglected his daughters while he played games on his cell phone, at which time, the children were able to enter the vehicle and become locked inside."

Lindstrom talked to CBS19 the day after his daughter's death and said he always locked his truck, and thought it was locked that day. But now investigators say there's more to the story than meets the eye.

"My youngest laying on the floorboard on her side in the backseat, my oldest laying in a puddle of vomit," Lindstrom said. "The doors were locked, so I had to run into the house and get the keys."

That afternoon, Lindstrom says he put his girls down for a nap, and went to do some chores and play video games.

"I saw them both wrapped up in their blankets, going to sleep," he said, "So I was like, 'Ok, I can get some chores done. I don't have to worry about my kids.'"

"There were things that we gathered through this investigation to back up the charge of manslaughter," Smith County Sheriff Larry Smith said.

Smith wouldn't say what evidence they found, but did say Lindstrom knew something like this could happen.

"He did not leave a child in a car, but he did have the knowledge apparently that the child had the habit of getting in the car," he said.

Unknown said...

;-) Have a great night Ima!

Anonymous said...

He may be neglectful yes, but he did not intentionally kill his child. Point blank.

Anonymous said...

intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly by omission

he didnt do this thinking it would result in a death, and he also didnt know not checking them every 5 minutes was needed.

he did not purposely omit any normal care he had provided in the past.

Anonymous said...

This is so sad. Those poor girls.

Kids can get into so much trouble if left alone and neglected. Years ago, very distant cousins of mine lost one of their young twin girls. They lived in the country and as that sometimes goes, the children had free range of the land. Both girls were out playing and apparently the one decided to use one of those toy lawnmowers to use as a stool to reach into the car window. She lost her footing and her head got stuck. :( This was probably 15 years ago, making me only a teen and my first thought was "who was watching them?"

Juliette said...

Texas Cops Defend Hot Car Murder Charge Against Dad Family Says Is Innocent

Texas police are defending their decision to arrest an Iraq war veteran who is charged with manslaughter after a young daughter died in his hot pickup truck and a second daughter was hospitalized, although his family maintains his innocence.

"Nobody blames Russel, it wasn't a thing that he did. It just happened," Marguerite Youngblood, the suspect's mother, told ABC News affiliate KLTV.

Russel Lindstrom, 33, of Flint, Texas, was charged on Wednesday with manslaughter and injury to a child, said Krista Caulkins, an administrative assistant for the Smith County Sheriff's Office.

Despite his mother's belief in his innocence, Caulkins told ABC News that the sheriff's office does have reason to suspect Lindstrom of foul play.

"An in-depth investigation occurred before he was arrested," Caulkins said.

"With an investigation such as this not all the facts are released. There were other statements he [Lindstrom] made when he was interviewed by [the sheriff’s office] on June 11 and evidence gathered from an evidentiary search warrant issued on Jun 11."

Dad Charged With Son's Hot Car Death Could Face Death Penalty

Authorities to Justify Murder Charge in Georgia Boy's Death

New Details Emerge in Hot Car Case

Lindstrom, who according to his family is a military veteran who served in Iraq, is being held on $200,000 bail.

"He has invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and asked for an attorney," Caulkins said.

Bella, 4, and her sister Zoey, 3, were found by their father locked and unresponsive in his pickup truck at their home on the afternoon of June 11.

The girls were supposed to be napping, but were not in their bedroom when Lindstrom went to check on them, he told KLTV.

"The bedroom is at the front of the house," Youngblood said to KLTV. "That is how they could easily enough get out the door and get into the vehicle with him [Lindstrom] being in the back of the house."

When Lindstrom found his daughters locked in his truck he unlocked the vehicle and took them out. It is unclear how long the girls were inside.

"The children locked themselves in the vehicle, but Lindstrom was able to get them out because he had the keys," Caulkins said.

Bella was taken to a hospital where she died. Her sister, Zoey, was treated at the home and taken to the hospital for overnight observation, according to a statement written by Smith County Sheriff Larry Smith.

Investigators ordered an autopsy for the 4-year old and have taken the pickup truck to a crime lab.

Police are not pursuing any other suspects because Lindstrom was home alone with his daughters at the time of the incident, according to Caulkins.

Wendy Hughes said...

" . . . and 'even tried' to run 'off' into the woods . . ." betrays a buildup of tension as he tries to justify (to himself and others) as to why he did whatever extreme measures he committed.

The 'order of operations' where he and his companion 'search' the house is all wrong and redundant. Real occurrences have fluidity when recounted, like, "we went to their bedroom, then checked all the rooms, then . . ." is much more relative and sensical.

Anonymous said...

Anita Hill? WTH? Oh, right. Noted as sensitive ;)

Anonymous said...

Anita Hill...wth happened to her? Harassed by a man whom she still followed from pillar to post?

Just for her career! No other reason.

I believe it! I believe it!

Buckley said...

Here's what I don't get: why did finances brother ask about kids? What set him off? They went to check room so it wasn't that he noticed they were missing from room. An hour nap? Shouldn't be odd. That's the detail that's missing to me: what set off curiosity about where kids were? Maybe there is something, but I'd expect it in the statement.

Unknown said...

If he had wanted to kill the kids, wouldn't he have IMMEDIATELY stopped his attempt to do so when the brother in law showed up? If I wanted to kill a kid I'd sure try to avoid continuing the murder with people present. Not looking in the car first, after acknowledging they were gone indicates lack of guilt. It indicates that he had little fear of someone finding the kids in the car and assuming he put them there on purpose. It would have been way easier to pull them out, then stick them back in later without interruption. Just a thought, most people attempt to cover crimes quickly when potential witnesses are present.

Anonymous said...

Real statement analysis requires context. Otherwise, it is too easy to inject analyst bias into the analysis. Among things to consider: Lindstrom was a vet with PTSD from surviving multiple IED explosions (death in a vehicle for his fellow soldiers). He was discharged from the military due to a bad back, for which he took Percocet. He has issues with uniformed people taking accusatory positions, because he feels that the military did not deal very fairly with him. This statement was made a day later, no doubt while he is still in the denial stage of grief, and represents to my view an attempt to create a coherent statement despite not wanting to talk about the still very fresh painful event of finding his daughters in the truck, and no doubt being derailed repeatedly by memories of previous "death in truck" events.

LuciaD said...

An important hint of parental neglect "my kids usually put themselves down for a nap." What parent says that?