Friday, July 15, 2016

Michael Walsh: Guilt in 911 Call


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


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

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

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


911 Call:


Operator: (OP)

Caller: (C)

OP:  Inaudible

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

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

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

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

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

OP:  Ok, where was she last seen sir?

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

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

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

OP:  What's the address hun.

C:  1725 McCleland  Avenue apartment number 2 (overtalk)

OP:  How old is your daughter?

C:  Seven years old.

OP:  Seven

C:  Yes.

Op:  Ok she was last seen last night.

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

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

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

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

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

OP: Your front door?

C:  Yes my front door  

(OP buts in)

Ok has she ever run away before?

C:  No she has never run away before.

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

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

C:  She's black.

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

C: no-no.  

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

C:  No struggle no nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 "I got off of working late last night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great questions, but not in compound form.  

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

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



OP:  Of course.

C: Yeahh...

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


OP:  Anything unusual though?

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

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



OP:  Just not out the door.

C:  She never left out the door.

Long pause, OP typing.

OP:  Ok,  Dad, what is her name?

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

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

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

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

C:  Wash  W-a-s-h

OP:  Ok.  And your last names Wash aswell?

C:  Yes

OP:  First name

C:  Michael

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

C:  (redacted)

OP:  they're aon thier way ok.

C:  thank you.

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

OP:  You're welcome

Call Ends.

39 comments:

tania cadogan said...

Off the top of my head

Spot the oopsie.

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

This then changed to:

"I got off of working late last night.

Which is it?

It also explains why the first statement sounds so convoluted.
He got off work at 8 am then WE woke up

Unless he was sleep working, he got home, went to sleep,they woke up at whatever time, looked around for her and the front door was unlocked.

He hasn't said he could not find her, he doesn't say why he was looking for her, he doesn't say she was missing, instead he tells us the front door was unlocked.
He doesn't say the door was open ether.

Why did he feel the need to say she was - She was asleep early.
Is this leakage of time of death perhaps?
He stutters with the words she was making it sensitive.

"I got off of working late last night.
We also have alibi building.

Trigger said...

"She shares a room with her little sister, but was sleeping in the room with me and her mom."

1. after "but" he drops the pronoun

2. "she shares a room with her little sister" present tense

3. "in the room with with me and her mom" Order of importance...himself first then " her mom."

4. "was sleeping" past tense

5. He doesn't say the child's name until asked by operator.

6. There is a change of reality when he mentions "little sister", then refers to "me and her mom."



"She went to bed early" How would he know this if he was "at work"?

Hey Jude said...

He asks his girlfriend what the child was wearing last night, before she went to bed - though apparently she went missing after she went to bed, so she should have been expected to be in her nightclothes, and he shouldn't have needed to ask. So, she went missing in her day clothes, which maybe means she didn't go to bed last night, or she slept in her clothes. As he begins to say what she was wearing - a polka dot something, that is probably what he last recalls her wearing, but he stops himself for saying it as he knows she should have been in her nightclothes. Weird logic lapse as how would what the little girl was wearing 'before she went to bed' be relevant to him if he said she was there, asleep in bed- presumabky not in the clothes she was wearing before she went to bed. Leakage, maybe - IDK.

There is something wrong in the thinking of a parent who accuses a child of stealing food - how can, and why should a child need to 'sneak' around to 'steal' food from his or her own home? It would be severe to view that as stealing, rather than to work out why the child wants more to eat. I'd wonder if that was an issue, if the child had got up at night, and was 'sneaking' round to 'steal' food and he got mad with her. Poor feeding maybe, withholding food as punishment, emotional issues round food - whatever, it sounds like poor parenting.

Nic said...

If (no pronoun) was sleeping with them, how come he can't describe what she was wearing?


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

Out of order. He got off at 8 in the morning, after (no pronoun) slept with he and his wife, then they woke up and looked around for "her" and the door was unlocked.

(No pronoun) slept with (note order) daddy and mommy.

"She shares a room with her little sister, but was sleeping in the room with me and her mom."

What room? Expected would be "with us".

jmo

Nic said...

*with us*, i.e., mommy and daddy sleeping together and she is "along" with them.

He says (no pronoun) was sleeping with him and her mom, making he and his daughter the couple and his wife an after thought.

jmo

Nic said...

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

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



I remember when BDJ said "but I did not touch her". I couldn't figure out why she would distance herself from her daughter. Why she wouldn't go into Hailey's room and check on her, kiss her good morning, turn her TV off (? if I recall it was on). It took me forever to wrap my head around her behaviour that she was "viewing" Hailey. BJD knew she was dead, why there was no maternalistic instinct to nest her daughter.

Here you demonstrate in SA how you knew this. It must have been agony for you and Heather to listen to BJD drone on about her supposed concern for her daughter, whom she wouldn't search for out in the ugly fields.

Sarah Highcove said...

So if I read his statements correctly he is saying that his missing daughter was asleep in the room with he and his wife before she went missing? And neither of them noticed her leaving or walking around when she supposedly did so?

Anon "I" said...

Kinda, sorta off-topic: When I worked night shift, I would call Tuesday morning "Monday" until I got home and slept. In my mind, it wasn't "Tuesday" until I had slept and then woken again for a new day to begin. When my husband works nights, one minute after midnight is the next day.... "Tuesday" 0001 is really Tuesday for him. :) I'm not sure which one of us represents the majority in statement analysis.

The Sheep said...


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


Does he really say "omg" or did the transcriber abbreviate?

Anonymous said...

Remember... this call was placed 12 hours after her body was found... not after she went missing. There is no report of how long she has been dead

How can he be the first one "up" when he got off work at 8am? I don't know a single night shift worker that goes home, IMMEDIATELY goes to bed and then wakes up a few minutes later.

According to the caller (father),
1. She was last seen this morning... well, last night
2. He got off work at 8am. -- how far away from home does he work?
3. She was asleep early. --what is early? 7pm, 8pm?
4. "We" woke up (no specific time). -- when did he go to sleep? "I" looked around
5. He can't remember what she was wearing. --means he saw her last night or that am.
6. He got off of working late last night.
7. "she was asleep. she was there" does NOT mean he physically checked on her.
8. He got off work at 8am. She slept in the same room with him and his girlfriend. He went to look for her when he got up. He last saw her last night.

Logically, he would HAVE to have seen her "this morning" as he truthfully slipped his tongue!


Expected but not said...
He does not say specifically the last time he saw her (time, day, etc..
He does not say what time he left his house for work, and whether or not she was there.
He does not say who was with her the last time he saw her (mom, grandma, etc). She is 7 and requires constant adult supervision.

-KC

Anonymous said...

Not sure about this poor little one and if she was truly "stealing" food or not, but many many foster children have issues with hoarding food because they were so food insecure prior to going into care. Children who have attachment issues will also hoard food. One of the things we have learned in our classes for fostering severely traumatized kiddos, is to have a basket of healthy food options that only belongs to them and that they can have access to, even if they need to take it to bed with them, so they can begin to relax and realize that they will have access to food.

Hey Jude said...

There is no mention she was a foster child, Anon - if she were they would/should be expected to understand the issues around food. That the father describes her as 'stealing' food is not a good sign - if she wanted more food, there must have been a reason. That he says she is stealing food is quite different than saying she is hungry, or wants something to eat in the night, which would make it the parents' responsibility. She is 'known' for sneaking round 'stealing' food - which says that is how she is viewed - he is not thinking about why she wants more food - hunger, inadequate diet, an emotional problem - rather he is blaming her for it. It also might suggest there was no snack basket, which why not, if the child was getting up for food in the night, there was some ongoing problem round food that was not being addressed. Even if she were choosing to bypass a snack basket in favour of the fridge, he still chooses to say she is stealing rather than that she has an issue round food. He relates 'stealing food' to the question of if she was disciplined the night before, which might suggest that stealing' food was a discipline issue 'normally' - she normally just sneaked round stealing food from the kitchen - did she do something different to 'normal' that night? Did she see something she was not meant to see, or did he just catch her in the act of 'stealing' food and lost it? It may have been an issue to him if he saw it in moral terms, rather than there was a reason she sought out food.

lynda said...

Peter said,

C: Hi i'm calling to, to report my daughter missing.
Here we have a missing child with a caller using the casual polite greeting of "hi" unexpectedly.
Note the repetition (stutter/halt) upon the word "to" giving the reason for his call.
This is a most sensitive point. He is not asked "why are you calling?" but the emergency itself stands as the expected response. To give the reason for his call is to distance himself from the issue at hand, slow down the pace of the call, and is the third point to be noted within his very first sentence that something is wrong with this call.
He states the reason for his call, rather than the report itself. It is subtle, but in an emergency, there should be no linguistic display.

_____________________

I'm having trouble with this rule. Why is it distancing to state reason for call? Doesn't everyone do that right away? "My daughter is missing" "My mom had a heart attack" I don't understand why him saying that makes it sensitive. Isn't stating the reason for the call also reporting it?

Help anyone?

rjb said...

Lynda, I think it's because it is so calm and detatched, if that makes sense. "I'm calling to report my daughter missing" is so very different from an agitated, worried, distraught, "My little girl is missing!"

Hey Jude said...

Lynda, I think it is his phrasing - he's calling 'to report' it, as one would a stolen vehicle.

What is your emergency?
Hi, I'm calling to, to report my daughter missing.

vs:

What is your emergency?
My daughter is missing from home - she's seven.

He says he is calling to report it - that is why he calls. The OP (presumably) asked what his emergency was, not why he was calling. She already knows he"s calling to report something.


Anonymous said...

Dammit, Peter, the caller never said she stole food. YOU are the one who introduced the word "steal" into this analysis. You have contaminated the analysis.

lynda said...

rjb and Hey Jude....I get it now, thanks!

Elizabeth said...

Is it common in USA for two adults who does not know each other, to call each other "baby" ?

It seems very inappropriate of the 911 worker. I wonder if that person is black too.

Hey Jude said...

Anon - double checking, I see you are right, the caller did not say it. I thought by the end of reading that he had said it, but Peter said it for him. Would that be an instance where someone didn't say it, but we can say it for him, as that is how he meant the operator to understand him? No, as that is not the rule and he didn't say it - if pressed he might have chosen a different word. 'Sneaking' does imply furtiveness, and secrecy, and he did link it to discipline - so he might as well have said that. Still, he did not say it. Dunce hat for me today.

Elizabeth said...

Why are people talking about stealing food? The father does not use the word steal.

Elizabeth said...

Regarding dicipline. The operator introduced that word, not the father.

Anonymous said...

I think it's a regional thing, it'd be a bit unusual where I live but elsewhere it might be more typical. Like how some people refer to their fathers as "their daddy" long into adulthood lol. Weird to me

Hey Jude said...

He responded that she hadn't been disciplined that day - but 'she do get in trouble' for sneaking about sneaking food - he related that to why the child was disciplined (on other days) - for 'sneaking' food. Reasonable deduction - she was disciplined for 'sneaking' food, which was what she 'normally' did.

Anon "I" said...

Elizabeth said...
Is it common in USA for two adults who does not know each other, to call each other "baby" ?

It seems very inappropriate of the 911 worker. I wonder if that person is black too.

July 16, 2016 at 7:09 AM
*******************************************************
In the south, this kind of language is not uncommon in my experience. The emotional tone of the situation or the effort on the part of the operator to feign sympathy gives it sort of a motherly, reassuring tone. In this situation, it is the operator who is driving the conversation and who is taking the more responsible role.

It can easily be taken offensively if someone is not used to hearing it and its use is lessening over the years. Honey (or hon) and dear are more frequently used in my area. Having grown up in the south, it warms my heart because I interpret it as care and warmth. Of course, my sons will always be my "babies" and my parents were "mama and daddy." To me, "yes, ma'am/sir" are used by younger people to the older as a sign of respect (and proof they were raised right, ESPECIALLY necessary when a middle name is included in the conversation!! LOL). And yes, I still say "thank-you, ma'am/sir" much of the time. I might possibly be a dinosaur, though.


The Sheep said...

I'm from the Southern US; it's not uncommon for a woman to call someone baby.

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

lynda,

Re your question. In context, the infinitive verb (to call, to eat, to move) answers a question that was not asked, making "to" (part of the infinitive) sensitive. If the question wasn't asked/a reason needs to be given, then this is someone making an excuse which makes "why" they needed to do something sensitive.

The 911 operator doesn't ask, "911, why are you calling?"

I'm calling *to report*
I'm calling *to say*
I'm calling *to let* you know

They know the caller has an emergency at their end, 911 just wants to know what kind of help to send, i.e., "911 what is your emergency?"

My mother fainted and she won't wake up!!!
My wife's water broke and the baby's head is right there!! She needs help, right now! Please send an ambulance for her!!
My kitchen is on fire!!!

"Hi" slows down the pace of the urgency of the call. It's also ingratiating (social). Think of a hotel fire. Would you walk up and down the corridor, politely knock on each door, apologize first for waking them and then inform them that there was a fire and to evacuate immediately? See how long that is? Or would you cut to the chase and just pull the alarm and quickly exit the building?

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

versus

MY DAUGHTER IS MISSING!

Nic said...

Note the "to, to" (stutter) above. It's as if the caller had to remember why he was calling, or he was trying to get out correctly what he is suppose to say. (Scripted)

Nic said...

Peter said:

1. The Reason Why

In (1), we highlight, "so, since, to, therefore, hence..." and so on, for sensitivity. You will see them in a statement highlighted with the color blue.

a. "I went outside to my car on my smoking break" is one way of saying something, yet here is another:
b. "I went outside to my car because I needed to smoke"

In the second sentence, (b) the person feels a need to explain why he was outside. The first sentence (a) the subject felt no such need. The sentence (b) is sensitive. For whatever reason, the subject anticipated being asked, "Why did you leave the building?" or, "Why did you go outside?" and said to himself, "I better explain why I went out there, otherwise, they are going to ask me." This is often a guilty conscience at work.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.ca/2012/12/child-molestation-highlighting.html

Nic said...

And to quote myself, above I should have said " In context, the infinitive verb (to call, to eat, to move) may answer a question that was not asked,

Habundia said...

"She shares a room with her little sister but was sleeping in the room with me and her mom."

Why would she have been sleeping with her parents that night?
He was the first to wake up as normal he said....but he then went to see if the girl was somewhere......so if she wasnt a sleep at her parents bed anymore...which she was that night, as he said....then he wasnt the first to get up...then the girl would have been up first....if he went out of bed and go check on her to find her not there but the door was unlocked so he went to playground and drive around.....

Anonymous said...

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

The way this was said is critical in that if affects the meaning.

He could mean: She was asleep last night. She was there.
or
She was asleep [the] last night she was there. [not last night, tho]

Becky Rose said...

The fact that a 7 year old child felt the urge to "sneak" to the kitchen to eat food secretly in the middle of the night tells me that there's something amiss going on in that family. More than likely, she ate because she was hungry.

And if that's the case, it's highly suspect that a child would feel the need to hide their hunger and feed themselves in the hopes that their parents don't find out about it, lest they be punished. This tells me that she was being abused, probably emotionally as well as physically.

It's probably not important, but I noticed the difference in nervousness between this father and Bilie Jean Dunn. She was more calculated and calm, whereas he was tripping over himself while trying to keep his story straight. Besides the fact that Dunn is a better liar, it makes me wonder if this new case was spontaneous in nature, rather than premeditated, maybe like a punishment that got out of hand and ended in tragedy.

It's got me thinking that the murder of Hailey Dunn was premeditated and not spontaneous, as has been suggested previously. Looking at pictures of Dunn and Adkins smiling makes me feel sick to my stomach, because I get the feeling that she gave him permission to execute his sick, violent fantasies on poor Hailey. Maybe it's because of how pleased he looks in pictures, I'm not entirely sure. I know that type of smile from somewhere else, but I can't place which case it was.

trustmeigetit said...

That's just it. No panic.

History has shown innocent callers, especially parents are in panic mode.

We greet callers when we order pizza.

This is an emergency.

And in panic mode, you want help now and you are direct. Like rjb said. You blurt it out.

trustmeigetit said...

This poor child!

Her body was found Wednesday during the day...

Dad says they put her to bed Wednesday night.

Can't get much more clear guilt than that.

The lake she was found in was 2 hours from the home.

Dad and step mom charged with aggravated assault, cruelty to children, giving false statements, and concealing the death of another.

I will never understand how a human could hurt a child, but especially their own child!

Birth mom clearly wasn't doing her role.

Quote from her

She says they both had custody of Kamarie, but that wasn't working out very well.

"The last time I seen my baby was July fourth of last year. I was supposed to get her for the summer this year, and for some reason, he did not give her to me."

Um sorry, if I was divorced and shared custody and I will see my kid. She clearly didn't make an effort.

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

I read the part about the sleeping arrangements differently-

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

I think he's saying the other little girl was sleeping with them. I think that because he says "her mom" . So I'd guess the "little sister" is the woman's child. And it would set up a perfect scenario for that poor little girl to be alone

Esther Tarkus said...

couldnt it be that they werent sleeping togheter anymore always?
you do see that sometimes happen when kids are born and relations anrent that good as they seem. kids end up sleeping in parents bed and one of the parents is sleeping elswhere, maybe he then slept in the "little sisters" room

but reading the tragic end of this case, she probably never got in that bed that night.
was her "little sister" her half sister maybe and he was hating his ex wife (which he shared custody with and for some reason, even the birth mother dont know, he kept her from her....after not seeing her for a year)and maybe he (and his new girlfriend) acted out on the child......every time its sad to read stories about parents killing their child(ren)....cant grasp my mind around that. It's tragic.

Esther Tarkus said...

#DeorrKunz
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/mothers-911-phone-call-released-my-2-year-old-son-we-cant-find-him/
After hearing this call...........when I before have seen other vids of them talking to media about the case crying their eyes out (especially the mom)....i find them even more unbelievable then i already did the first place, because in this first moment of calling 911 because you cant find your child, you have to feel kind of panic
She doesnt sound like a mother who is missing her 2 year! old for over an hour! Shes near water and she doesnt seem concurned at all when dispatcher asks for it. She doesnt seem panicing at all.
What are your all thoughts about this case, this 911 call in particular?