Monday, July 7, 2014

Statement Analysis of Russell Lindstrom

                             Did Russell Lindstrom intend to kill both of his children?

 Or, was it a case of Neglect by Substance Abuse, where he locked the children in the car due to bad behavior, and did not disturb them when they fell asleep, causing their death by Neglect?

We have just seen the case where a husband and wife appeared to have agreed to end the life of their toddler to save their crumbling marriage,  by researching how long a child would take to die in a hot vehicle.

Wanting to end a child's life is not something new.

Is there anything in Russell Lindstrom's words that indicate that he may have wanted to end both of his children's lives?

Or, did he just "forget" because he was so diligent doing chores?

Russell Lindstrom may never be prosecuted.  It is likely, however, that he will be "substantiated" for Neglect by the Department of Health and Human Services (child protective services) of his state.  This means that although he does not face criminal charges, he would be subject to scrutiny for any other children he may have, and that he would be precluded from jobs where state funding is present.

He may be prosecuted still, but thus far, he has not.  While child protective services was investigating, we heard nothing about a criminal case.

Child protective services' result will not be released to the public.  The only access to his record, other than a disclosure from himself, is to a social services business that seeks to hire him requesting to know if he is on the Substantiation list or not.

Even then, the answer is either "Substantiated" or "Not on list" with no further detail given.

Drugs and Children Do Not Mix.

Substance Abuse leads to Child Neglect.

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?


Trigger said...

Did Russel Lindstrom plan this accident?

His words have revealed that he did.

ima.grandma said...


ATLANTA (CNN) — A series of search warrants released Monday revealed more details of the investigation into what happened the day a Georgia toddler died in a sweltering car, and whether his father abandoned him on purpose.

The 16 search warrants in the case against Justin Ross Harris seek the medical records of Harris and his late son, Cooper Harris; a DVD; a 2-gigabyte memory card; a 32GB thumb drive; and an external hard drive.

ima.grandma said...

What is going on??? Are these situations being reported by MSM more often or are they happening more often? My generation was often accused of using the tv as a babysitter, now cars are being used! Both parents were inside the store shopping, does it really take both to buy groceries? THERE IS NO EXCUSE! I wonder if the same frequency of these insane situations occur in the freezing weather months.

(WMC) - Two Mid-South parents are out on bond Sunday night after police say the two left their 15-month-old child in a hot car.

15-month-old locked in car while parents grocery shop
It happened in the parking lot of the Kroger store located at 1230 Houston Levee Road in Cordova, Tenn. WMC Action News 5's Ben Watson spoke with the first responders who rescued the little girl, and likely saved her life.

Shelby County Fire Lieutenant Joe Rea says when he and other firefighters pulled into the grocery store parking lot, witnesses directed them to a Nissan Altima with a toddler locked inside.

In a phone interview, Lt. Rea said that firefighters moved quickly and he was able to pull the toddler out of the hot car within a minute.

"She was sweating and crying so I just told my guys to break the window."

According to an affidavit, the temperature inside the car was more than 90 degrees. Witnesses say it was a blessing they got the child out before any more time passed.

Officers traced the car's tags and then went into Kroger to find the parents, Matthew Brown and Brittany Zanetti. Shortly afterward, Brown came out and ran to the car looking for his daughter.

"And he asked me you know, 'Where's my girl, my baby girl,' and I said 'She's in my fire truck right now with the paramedics.'"

According to Lt. Rea, Brown told him that he "screwed up." The affidavit noted that the couple's initial response was that leaving the child in the car was a "momentary lapse in judgment."

Officers arrested Brown and Zanetti on the spot, and the toddler was rushed to the hospital in stable condition.

Rescuing that toddler was a team effort and Lt. Rea hopes all parents will be more careful and mindful about children being left in hot cars.

"And I just cannot wrap my head around how you can leave a child in a car by purpose or accident, and for gosh sakes, take care of your children."

Brown and Zanetti have been charged with abuse and neglect of a child under six years old. Both posted a $10,000 bond and have been released from jail.

Officials say the child will be placed in the care of her grandmother.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi ima.grandma,

I remember in the eighties there was a spate of child deaths due to climbing inside old refrigerators.

The were the old kind, with the big metal handles, and once shut, if you were inside, even if it was an adult, you would find it very difficult to get out. I wonder now, looking back. Were all those child deaths due to children alone getting inside, or was there something more nefarious going on?. I dread to think.

Happily now, they all have a magnetic closing device, making it easier to get out, if a small child was to get inside to play.

trustmeigetit said...

I think if this was just neglect, that his story about looking for them would no show deception.

There are parents that are somewhat neglectful, but at the end of the day they would never cause their children harm.

To me, if he was just being neglectful, or doing drugs and lost track and time… his words would show honestly when he discovered they were not asleep in their rooms and were not found in the home. To me, the fact that even searching for the kids shows deception leads more to this being on purpose.

But, since the child that survived is old enough to speak, I think that if he put them in the car on purpose, we would know this by now. But then I am not sure of what state she is in.

ima.grandma said...

John, I wonder how many of those deaths back then involved autopsies. Upon finding one of these children, the public would probably have been sympathetic to parents just like JRH began to receive until discrepancies followed. I'm thankful to on the scene officers for their diligence. I remember the scares of those old fridges and freezers. That was 30-40 years ago when child abuse and domestic violence was just beginning to come into view instead of "a man's home is his castle" and hiding it. I'm so cynical anymore but I didn't start out in life this way. It is a learned behavior through life's hard knocks and publicized tragedies involving those who can't defend themselves. It's a wonder so many children make it past their young years with so much neglect and substance abuse. Children learn what they live and so it is repeated and repeated. What needs to happen to society before we lose a whole generation of abused children? How can we help?

Anonymous said...

I believe Russell Lindstrom staged the scene in the car and haven't had time to read through analysis here but will later. I'm glad Peter has analyzed it and am looking forward to reading it.
Just to respond to comments, people are VERY very stupid these days. People are used to pushing a button to get immediate answers and their brains literally don't work in some ways, common sense is a thing of the past. People are not used to thinking for more than a few seconds before turning on their phones to be "entertained". This has created very very stupid people with very simple brains who don't have common sense, or, perhaps more importantly, the attention span to look at a situation logically in order to figure out what the common sense thing to do would be. Technology is destroying people's minds.

Anonymous said...


PDF for the search warrants for Ross Harris.

Mary said...

Thank you, Peter, for analyizing this case. I'm about a week or so behind on the SA blog so this is the first I've heard of this case. If it's been on Nancy "Bombshell Tonight" Grace, I cannot tolerate watching her show, anymore. She's a legal analyst on a morning show, embarrassing herself there, too ("Porn, Dan. It's porn. P-O-R-N porn..."). Ugh.

I'd rather catch up reading about this case but thank goodness a surviving child is old enough to speak. Hopefully, info can come about through that route.

Anonymous said...

glad you are bringing this one back. I'm positive it was murder 1.

Anonymous said...

he says "we came back outside" (after lunch) instead of we went back outside. (if lunch really happened) -- but either way OUTSIDE is central to him that day. makes me think one or both girls was still outside when "lunch happened" I also find it odd he doesn't mention if he himself ate. I would wager he ate and the girls didn't. maybe the girls were in the truck while he ate.

the word "my" does not preceed "fiancee's brother" in his statement. this makes me think he can't bring himself to want his fiancé. this makes me think the murder was a form of revenge on her.

S + K Mum said...

O/T Mikaeel Kular the 3 year old boy reported missing in Edinburgh and found dead behind a family home ........his mother was arrested at the time.......she is accused of beating him over 4 days and murdering him, he died of internal bleedin. She wrapped him in a duvet, put him in a suitcase and dumped him in woodland behind a bush. She is also charged with not obtaining medical treatment and trying to defeat the ends of justice. :(

Anonymous said...

notice he describes in detail his passive behavior AFTER a certain point in the day. AFTER he "believes" the girls were down for nap. but he provides no detail of his physical behavior befor this. was he standing, sitting, working on something, smoking, pacing?? we get zero imagery of him, oly that his girls tried to run off and he had to yell at them. but after his girls are still, we get all his physical behavior, the most bizzare mundane details - sitting on bed, smoking on porch, etc. because in his inaction he was taling action -- he was willfully letting girls bake.

Jo said...

I almost feel like the description of the vehicle he was supposed to get was part of a plea for charity - hoping someone would buy it for him following this "accident".

Kids were excited to "get to leave the house", I wonder if these kids really did get to play outside often or if it was uncommon for them to be allowed outside to play.

Nic said...

Excellent analysis, Peter. Your depth and breadth is really fascinating to read and learn from.

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

What got me about this part is that his is 'sitting', in-between loads, on his bed where he can easily hear them if they get up and start moving around. So were they not settling like he said (put themselves down) and he had to sit in close proximity to make sure they didn't get up?

Then, when he knows they're settled, he says he's going to do chores but goes outside for a cigarette, instead. I quit smoking back in '94. I remember the first thing I reached for when stressed or when something stressful was 'done' would be to have a smoke. Smoking happens at the end of something. Like at the end of good dinner, writing an exam, getting bad news, etc., or when bored, like waiting for a bus.

His fiancés brother challenges him about the kids whereabouts. Why didn't he simply say that they were napping? He had 'just' stepped out for a cigarette according to his timeline.

He talks about them playing for about appx. an hour (not sure) after lunch and then he tells his fiances brother that it had been an hour since he had seen them (but he had just left them to have a cig/do chores).

I hope LE and CPS are looking very closely at this guy.

Kit said...

Would anyone be interested in analyzing this statement? It has some strange language, red flags, although I get the sense that it is truthful overall.

Kit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Statement Analysis Blog said...


What red flags do you identify?


Katprint said...

This is a man who likes to talk to folks with microphones and cameras.

VIDEOS: Father - 'This is one of the worst days of my life'

Father whose daughter died in vehicle talks to Tyler Paper

No charges filed yet against father whose daughter was found dead in vehicle.
("Developing Story" update starts at 0:38 and ends about 1:10)

CPS investigating father of dead toddler for 'neglectful supervision'

Father of dead toddler found in truck speaks out, part 2
Note: At about 2:45 in this clip, he talks about lawyering up because the police started "interrogating" him instead of just asking questions. I bet his lawyer would like him to STFU now. Also, he acts very offended about being treated like a "common criminal."

His explanation that they "normally" kept the vehicles locked to prevent the children from climbing into them and playing inside them as they had done on a prior occasion last fall or winter is inconsistent with his later statement that "normally" the vehicle would have been the first thing he checked but instead that day he first checked the woods because he first thought they went into the woods playing "Dora the Explorer." Also, I have trouble following his logic that if you plan to trade in a vehicle in the evening ("that night"), you leave the doors unlocked all day beforehand even if the doors are normally locked to prevent small children from becoming trapped inside.

And hey, look at this photo of the girls' room -- NO BLANKETS on the beds!

Search warrant reveals items seized in investigation of toddler's death

Anonymous said...

Horrible 911 Audio Grandmother calls 911, her grandson,
3 yr old found in hot car

The 911 Op is struggling for the grandmothers focus, 911 Op attempting to aid the 3 yr old

He died Sunday
What is this open Season
Kids and Cars do not mix

Story here:

Anonymous said...

ot: anyone following Erin Corwin case ?

Anonymous said...

7/7/2014 another left in Car while mother shopped - 5 yr old girl

A 49-year-old woman was arrested Sunday after police said she left her 5-year-old daughter in a hot car in a store parking lot.

Jacksonville police were called to Costco at 4901 Gate Parkway at the St. Johns Town Center just before 2 p.m.

A store manager told police a customer reported a young girl was left in a car. The manager removed the girl from the car at about 1:45 p.m. because she had "sweat running down their face."

Police said the manager tried to find the mother in the store prior to calling police.

At about 2:30 p.m., Vivian Guo, the girl's mother, returned to her car. Police said she had left the windows of the vehicle barely cracked open to allow airflow.

Guo told police the girl didn't want to go into the store, and she thought it was OK to leave her in the car. Guo also told police her watch was not working and she didn't realize how long she was in the store.

Police said there was a large distance between the car and the front door of the store. The car was not visible from inside the building because the building has no windows on the side.

Guo was arrested on a charge of child neglect and taken to the Duval County jail.

Hot car deaths

So far in 2014 there have been at least 15 deaths of children left in vehicles in the United States, according to the San Francisco State University's department of Geo 12 confirmed as heatstroke and three are still pending official findings by the medical examiner.

read more

Anonymous said...

Last year, 2013, there were at least forty-four deaths of children in vehicles; thirty-nine which has been confirmed as heatstroke and five which, based upon the known circumstances, are most likely heatstroke.

Among the deaths this year were two in Georgia -- including the death of 22-month-old Cooper Harris left in a car while his father was at work -- and two in Florida: a 9-month-old in Rockledge and a 2-year-old in Sarasota. [See table of 2014 deaths at end of this article.]

The atmosphere and the windows of a car are relatively transparent to the sun's radiation of head, but the sunlight does heat objects that it strikes. For example, a dark dashboard or seat can easily reach temperatures in the range of 180 to over 200 degrees.

Heatstroke occurs when a person's temperature exceeds 104 degrees F and their thermoregulatory mechanism is overwhelmed. Symptoms include: dizziness, disorientation, agitation, confusion, sluggishness, seizure, hot dry skin that is flushed but not sweaty, loss of consciousness, rapid heart beat, hallucinations.

A core body temperature of 107 degrees F or greater can be lethal as cells are damaged and internal organs begin to shut down.

Children's thermoregulatory systems are not as efficient as an adult's and their body temperatures warm at a rate 3 to 5 times faster than an adult's.

A study by the SFSU measured how quickly the temperature of a car parked in the sun will rise:

10 minutes ~ 19 deg F

20 minutes ~ 29 deg F

30 minutes ~ 34 deg F

60 minutes ~ 43 deg F

1 to 2 hours ~ 45-50 deg F

The study also found that "cracking" the windows had little effect and the color of the interior of the vehicle was the biggest factor in how quickly the temperature will rise.

Hot car deaths of 2014

Incident # Date Location Outside temperature Name Age

15 07/06/14 El Paso, Texas 95° Girl 2 years
14 07/03/14 Lancaster, South Carolina 91° Logan Cox 3 years


13 06/18/14 Cobb County, Georgia 91° Cooper Harris 22 months
12 06/16/14 Rockledge, Florida 91° Anna Marie Lillie 9 months
11 * 06/12/14 Ardmore, Oklahoma 84° Mason Ryan Wood 2 months
10 06/10/14 Flint, Texas 88° Bella Lindstrom 4 years
9 06/08/14 Sarasota, Florida 85° Alejandra Hernandez 2 years
8 06/04/14 Dolgeville, New York 73° Sophia Lea Marie Lyon 15 months

7 05/25/14 Florence, South Carolina 86° Jeremiah A. Kennedy 13 months
6 05/25/14 Princeton, Illinois 84° Logan Jacobs 5 years
5 05/12/14 Clarkston, Georgia 87° Julius Meh 2 years
4 05/08/14 Hartsville, South Carolina 93° Sophia Goyeneche 13 months

3 04/29/14 Bakersfield, California 87° Fernando Velasquez 5 years
2 * 04/22/14 North Richland Hills, Texas 84° Aurora Hollingsworth 17 months
1 04/16/14 San Jose, California 80° Giovanni Alonzo Hernandez 9 months

Source: University of San Francisco State University Department of Geosciences

Story posted 2014.07.07 at 11:17 AM EDT

Anonymous said...

Please consider doing an analysis on this woman. She is the mother of Rebecca Sedwick. The child who died of an apparent suicide in Lakeland FL last September.
This was an interview given just hours after they found her child's body, beneath an abandoned cement silo.

Anonymous said...

Peter, excellent analysis. You were able to create a depth to what happened from Lindstrom's words. You were able to see beyond his words and paint a movie-like picture of what may have happened that day.
After reading your analysis, I am wondering if, as you suggested, Lindstrom may have binded them in the blankets and perhaps this is what caused the death of his daughter. I always thought it was very strange how he mentioned they wrapped themselves in blankets.
Another possibility I wonder is whether he may have actually poisoned one of them. I noticed he pointed out they "like to get into things" and then separated from that statement he says he "fed them something to eat" (which it is unnecessary to point out he fed them something to eat. what else would he feed them?)
Either way, something in my gut tells me he staged the car scene after the one daughter was already dead. I could be wrong.
Anyway, excellent analysis. You took his words and were able to recreate from his deception a likely scenario of what occurred that day.

sha said...

They were going to trade that car in that day......I'd like to know when. Did the girls get in the car thinking they'd be leaving soon? Did dad put them in the car to go then wonder off to have a smoke first and forget? "the back of the truck" confuses me, isn't the back of most trucks the bed? I have a hard time understanding how a kid can be strong enough to open a vehicle door from the outside, yet not be able to open it from the inside. And if that is possible people need to be keeping their vehicles locked all the time (after checking for children first).

Katprint said...

Sha, I have had toddlers accidentally lock themselves in the bathroom and in my bedroom so initially the concept that a toddler could let themself in somewhere but be unable to get back out made sense to me. However, I would expect a FOUR YEAR OLD should be able to unlock and open a car door, particularly on a vehicle that they had ridden in and were familiar with.

In one of the many interviews I linked to, there was a mention that this had happened while he did laundry AND PLAYED VIDEO GAMES. I found myself wondering if the girls had somehow interfered with his videogame playing so he told them they were going somewhere (like, for ice cream) and then strapped them into their car seats which are very effective at restraining children even if the children are attempting to get out of their car seat.

Also, I need to trade in my washer and dryer for ones like Russell Lindstrom. It takes a lot longer than a half hour for me to wash and dry a load of laundry.

Mainah said...

Natalie Hoffman Heib said...
ot: anyone following Erin Corwin case ?

I am,Natalie. Here's a snippet I just read: The mother of Erin's Marine husband Jonathan Corwin said she's particularity concerned about the attention that has focused on Jonathan.

"I know that it's everyone's first thought that it's the spouse," Sheila Braden told ABC News, "but if they knew John and Erin, and the relationship they had, they would know he's not capable of this."

Homicide investigators are leading the search after police announced last week that there were "suspicious circumstances" surrounding her disappearance.
Mother in law is most concerned for her son and keeping the attention off him. Says,"I know...." "'s the spouse"... "capable of this". "This" is close.

It can't be easy being a mother who suspects her own son of murder and chooses to lead the deception parade.

Mainah said...

OT: Erin Corwin.

Also,noticed she said the relationship they "had". She knows.

Mainah said...

OT: Erin Corwin

Here is the link:

Kit said...

I didn't get any red flags. What did you see?

Anonymous said...

I dont see drugs as the cause of the girls death. surely they may have been component in how russell made choices. but russel chose to kill his daughter. lots of parents use drugs and they are idiots and wrong to do it but they dont kill their kids too. its not an explanation.

Anonymous said...

Im convinced he did not feed them anything to eat that day. i think he says something to eat because in that moment hecrealized whatever he named his fiance willl realize is not missing from fridge.

John Mc Gowan said...

Anon 10:06

I don't see any deception in her words in this short clip.

There is strong use of the pronoun "I".

When a couple speaks together, the pronoun, "we" is expected and used often. Where we expect the change is when we come to the highly personal loss of a child. The expected is that a mother will use the pronoun, "I" when speaking about the child. Fathers do also, but given maternal instinct, particularly one who just spoke of the birth, we expect to hear the pronoun, "I" to be employed.PH

Here is her statement.

"I dont know what I am supposed to do next, I just lost my world. and I'M trying to stay strong and do these interviews so I can get the message out there to other parents, don't ignore your kids even if they seem fine, still check up on them, because YOU never know whats going on."

"WE deleted her fb, but there was many messages on there were people were sending her messages, telling her that she should just go and kill herself and everybody hated her and know body liked her."

In the first paragraph she uses the pronoun "I" and then switches to the pronoun "You". I think in the context of what she is saying the use of this pronoun is appropriate.

"Don't ignore your kids even if they seem fine, still check up on them, because YOU never know whats going on."

People commonly use the word, "you" when they speak of something common to others. Given that she speaking to other parents, and is trying to get the word out that we should always check on our kids, and it is quite common for some not to. I believe this is ok.?

Then in the second paragraph, she switches to the pronoun "We" when she says.

"WE deleted her fb"

Dillingham's research showed what all parents know: the word "we" is used when the word "I" is appropriate, when one wishes to share responsibility or guilt, as if being 'lost in the crowd', like the school boy saying, "well, everyone was doing it!".

She was being bullied on FB and her Mom was not aware of this. I believe this is where the "Guilt" enters her language ("We"). She feels guilty because she wasn't keeping a closer eye on her daughter when she was on social network sites. It could also be that she had help deleting her FB account because she didn't now how too.

MzOpinion8d said...

The Ava Rosemeyer link:
It seems that a large percentage of the writing is prior to her death, skewing the 25/50/25 guideline. I'm not sure what that means in a situation like this, where she was writing to tell her and her daughter's story, rather than it being a free writing in an investigation.

It struck me as unusual the way she described her daughter to seem demanding and stubborn, and even acknowledged that it would seem that way. She acknowledged it but didn't re-write it.

She goes on about how the daughter was perfect and never without a smile which is contradictory to some of the earlier information she gave. I know parents of lost children will idealize them but she both disparages and then idolizes. Is that unusual?

I got an uncomfortable feeling the way she spoke about how Ava was so adored by her grandfather and how the grandfather and herself were the ones who loved Ava the most. She mentioned how the 3 kids were supposed to take turns spending the night at Grandad's but Ava would pout and get her way.

She says she spent an hour moving items around, but then says Ava was in the car up to 30 minutes. What accounts for the other 30 minutes before she got in the car then?

Overall the impression I'm left with is that she had conflicted feelings about Ava for some reason, and that she feels the grandfather is partly to blame somehow.

Another unusual statement is that Ava went in the car to get lollies and then shut the door to hide. Whom was she hiding from? She knew Mom & brothers were going home and Grandad was at his house.

John Mc Gowan said...

The Ava Rosemeyer link:

I may not have this correct. As in, before, during and after.

Total number of words: 2487


Number of words: 1316

Event=Number of words: 716

After the Event=Number of words:455

Ava's name.


First person pronouns.
I =68
I'd= 12
I'm= 2
I've 1



Word Counter & Text Analyzer

This is a great be of kit.

This tool will analyze your copy, essay, or other text for word usage & frequency, as well as recurring sequences of words and other measures. Specifically, it will report the following:

Total word count.
List of all words used, and their number of occurrences, both total & at the beginning and ends of sentences.
Total estimated sentence count, as well as the min, average, and max sentence length.
Punctuation usage info.
List of recurring sequences of words.
List of consecutively repeating words.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if there's some forensic evidence to tell if a child entered a car on their own. I was thinking finger prints of the door handle, but I assume those would get wiped off or something by the adult who them opened the door.

trustmeigetit said...

One thing that is really bugging me.. which maybe it’s just me… is that the one bed (not sure which childs bed it is) is covered with what looks like a bunch of food.

So, it’s safe to say his daughter didn’t sleep on that mess so it makes me wonder about these “naps”.

Now I get that kids will often sleep on the floor or couch etc.. But the fact that his kids bed is covered in food is odd to me.

Anyone else have any thoughts on that?

Unknown said...

After all of these stories about kids dying in cars, I talked to my son yesterday about never getting into the car without me or daddy, and what to do if he ever needed to get out of a car. His response surprised me as something I hadn't thought of as far as the cases of older kids, who should have been able to open the car doors.

I showed him how to unlock the doors of my SUV, and I had him practice opening the front passenger door, due to the child locks on the back doors. He had no problem unlocking or opening the door, and he already knew which button unlocked them. Then, I let him practice blowing the horn in loooong blasts, and told him to keep blowing it until someone came to help.

His response was, "But then, I be in time out".

(He was worried about getting in trouble for getting into the car. I promised he wouldn't get a time out for getting in the car, or for blowing the horn, etc...but he was obviously adverse to the idea of alerting us that he had broken the rules.)

I wonder how much of a role this played in the deaths of these older kids? Did they not try to get out, or get help, fearing punishment?

My son asks an average of 40500 questions per day, lol. No, but really, since we had our car safety discussion, he has asked about getting in trouble for getting into the car at least 20x. Now he won't even walk in front of me to get into the car, lol. Go figure.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I openly wonder if he intended to kill them both.

Unknown said...

I also question if they were locked in the car together, (at the same time) or if the older girl was locked in first, and the younger girl added later, either to alibi build that they climbed in there together, or because the younger daughter started getting on his nerves too.

It makes no sense that the older girl was dead, yet the younger girl was uninjured. (I think I read that she was only treated at the scene by paramedics.) The younger girl should have been more vulnerable to the heat due to smaller size and her body's inability to regulate her temperature. Yet the older girl's injuries were far more severe.

trustmeigetit said...

I do as well Peter. This story just does not make sense. AND I am confident that a 4 year old would be able to get out of that truck. My son could open the door in my SUV when he was 3.

But I am still bugged by the mess on the one childs bed. It appears to be a bunch of messy food mashed up on the bed. I just feel like there is a story behind that. Maybe related to the incident. But maybe just an issue of neglect being that he didn’t clean up a mess.

My son has snuck food in his room and when I find it I immediately clean it up. This looks like it may have been there a while.

ima.grandma said...

Katprint, I remembered something similar so I found it again.

Lindstrom told KYTX that Bella and her 3-year-old sister Zoey were taking a nap after lunch, so he went to the back of the home to do chores and use the computer.

My guess is you work in the legal field or are educated in such. You are an asset to this blog. Right or wrong, I want the same laundry machines.

Anonymous said...

There are similarities to the Ramsey crime scene staging.
1). Kids were supposedly sleeping (before they are missing).
2). Another individual besides the parent prompts the parent to look for the kid(s). (This seems very important as it seems unusual).
3) Perpetrator's 1st activity after kid(s) supposedly sleeping is to do laundry or contemplate doing laundry (Patsy).
4) Both were going to go on a trip or excursion but terrible tragedy happens shortly before they are supposed to leave (Ramseys: vacation. Lindstroms: Rare trip out of house to trade in vehicle)
It makes me wonder if maybe there are some kind of commonalities in the lies/story/events when someone ends up staging a crime scene.

Anonymous said...

I could be wrong and probably am but it just jumped out at me that there did seem to be some similarities in events between the 2 cases that further reinforce my belief that the crime scene was staged.
Also there a lot of Mark Redwine-type diversions in Lindstrom's speech (as has been pointed out). Redwine struck me as extremely manipulative despite having wet brain from alcoholism. So that should be factored in also. Redwine struck me as an experienced and effective liar, and you can see Lindstrom using some of the same lying techniques.

Anonymous said...

Maybe, IF they weren't placed in there together by the father, maybe one was in for a longer period of time, then the other one came along, and then they got locked in? The younger one must've said by now what happened, unless she's afraid or was threatened. Maybe they were playing in there, one longer than the other, then he locked them in to "teach them a lesson"? Idk.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter.

This is what I noticed. (Below) I'd sure be interested in what you think. I'm a writer and former criminal defense attorney and I'm learning a lot from your blog. It's fascinating.

1) conflict

So much conflict. The arguments start the very moment the mother learns she is having a girl. She argues with the ultrasound technician. She argues with everyone after that. The only person she doesn't argue with is the grandfather who let the child get killed.

2) there's something odd about the relationship with the sister

Sister and the husband squabbled over who would take the baby from the water. The sister doesn't know her place. The sister is the one who accompanies the child as she dies. The mother writes "I can never thank my sister..." I'm taking that last statement literally. She can't thank her. Why can't she?

3) sexualizing the child

The story begins with the mental image of the baby's genitals on the scan. Her page (at the link) has kinda sexy-ish pics of the girl. Many of them with water. The talk of lipstick, lip gloss. She was always sitting on someone's lap at "kindy."

4) hostility toward daughter

So many examples. She ruled the house. She gets away with everything. Smug. She did it just to spite me. Mini diva. Swindle.

5) The mother doesn't describe the girl as a person. The transition from two to three children was barely noticeable. "I only had you so I could play with hair accessories." We lost our most precious possession.

6) love

Author uses the word 20 times but only once tells the reader, using the pronoun I, that she loved she girl.

"It's a testament to how much I loved her that I let her" dress like that.

(She makes a total of six references to loving the child.)

I'm not saying anything against the mother. These are just things I noted.

Anonymous said...

I agree on the food/mess. Regarding the doors though, I have a 5 year old that can't open my truck doors. It's a bigger truck than the one from this story, but I wouldn't automatically assume they could open the doors on their own.

ima.grandma said...

The Ava Rosemeyer link:

I also noticed the conflict and even a bit of disappointment she experienced with her daughter. I feel badly for my thoughts as reading because her love does come through in the mother's writing. I feel she shared a glimpse of her grief process through self-therapy catharsis. I can picture her in my mind her sitting at the computer writing the memorial. I feel sad for her. I also admit I had an image in my mind of Billie Dunn mentioning Hailey's autopsy of a bird at the memorial. Why spend so much time and energy on the negative?

Natalie said...

I noticed that "had" too. Still no statements or appearances by the husband.

Dotty said...

The thing that stood out to me most is that dad said they went "to look for" the girls, vs. going to "check on the girls".
You don't LOOK FOR someone when you (supposedly) know where they are.
From this I conclude that he didn't know where the girls were.

Katprint said...

@ Anonymous on July 8, 2014 at 5:53 PM:

You bring up a good point. If someone had asked my toddlers what had happened (when they had locked themselves in the bathroom or my bedroom) they could have explained in toddler-speak about accidentally pushing the privacy lock button when they shut the door and locked themselves in. The 3 year old daughter Zoey who survived is capable of explaining how she and her sister trapped themselves in the car while they were playing -IF- that was what had really happened. Russell Lindstrom seems to think Zoey's story is going to result in him being prosecuted for Bella Rose' death.

Anonymous said...

I know the family associated with the Logan Jacobs case from May 2014 in Princeton Illinois. I am very confused as to the father stating it was 45 from the last time he spoke with the child until he even realized he wasn't in the house. That is neglect and he should be charged.