Thursday, October 6, 2016

Hindsight: Jordyn Dumont and 911 Call

Although short, and in hindsight,  it still provides a valuable lesson.

   Here is one answer

to police in the 911 call of missing 3 year old Jordyn Dumont: 

Operator:  911 where is your emergency?

Caller:   "Yes ma'am . My oldest daughter, I was taking a nap, I just

 woke up & I can't find her anywhere."

The question is "Where is your emergency?" which speaks to 


Callers in distress may or may not answer this immediately.  Those

who do not skip the question about location and go right into 

the priority:  Missing child.

"Excited Utterance"

Where one begins is to show priority. 

What does this short, one statement response tell us?

Listen to what he tells you. 

Consider what he has told us and what his priorities are:  

1.  "Yes, ma'am"  begins with politeness.  Politeness in a dire 

emergency is not what we "expect" as we measure our expectations

against what is given to us.  To be polite is "ingratiating" oneself

to whom?  To authorities.  

2.  The location is not given.  

This, itself, cannot become a conclusion as some callers will 

prioritize without listening:  let me tell you what is first and 

foremost on my mind:  my missing daughter!  We flag this as 

'avoidance' but, in context of a missing child, we do not give it 

a very high or weighty importance to it.  It could be argued that he 

is so concentrated on his daughter, that he skipped this information.  We still, however, flag the question about location as "sensitive" because he did not answer the question.  

3.  "My oldest daughter" tells us

a.  the daughter is his ("my")

b.  he has at least another daughter" 

c.  the other daughter (s) is younger 

But here, he stops himself.  This is "self-censoring" and is an 

indication that he is not only beginning this call with the need

to be seen as favorably by the police (ingratiating) but he is 

withholding (even suppressing) critical information in the context

of a missing child.

d.  His oldest daughter does not have a name. Although the possessive pronoun is here, her name is not.  This is his initial call to the police and they do not know who she is.  

4.  "I was taking a nap" is to supplant "my daughter" from the 

priority of the call. 

"I" is now before the concern for the child. 

5.  "...taking a nap" is akin to not only shifting priority and attention

away from child and towards self, it suggests alibi building.  

Whatever happened to her, you can't think I did it because I was 

taking a nap.

6.  "I just woke up"  is unnecessary information.  If he was napping

he was asleep.  

Unnecessary information is very important for us and he now gives 
us the question:

"If you were not asleep, what were you doing?"

This caller has a need to convince ("need to persuade") police that he was asleep, suggesting that he was not asleep.  He has a need, as an alibi, to convince them that he could not be responsible because he was taking a nap.  With this additional and unnecessary information, he is said to likely be doing something other than taking a nap. 

He literally plants the seed of doubt, himself, into the audience. 

7.  "I can't find her anywhere."

Since he cannot find her "anywhere", she cannot be found.  Since she cannot be found "anywhere", why bother to search for her?  This is not a desperate father wanting his daughter found.  

His priority comes from his words:

1.  That you, the police, view me, the father,  in a positive light. 
2.  That you, the police, understand, I have to withhold information from you. (self censoring) 

3.  That you, the police know that whatever it is you find out, it wasn't me that caused it because I was napping.

4.  That you, the police, if you doubt I was napping, you must understand that I had to be napping because I just woke up.  

5.  Since I just woke up, I have not wasted any time.  

(Analysts:  this is, in a sense, a black hole or temporal lacunae of time passing by that he jumps over).  

6.  That a child is missing is only 6th in my priority.  It is very low in importance.  This is why we do not necessarily flag someone who answers/does not answer the location question.  Some innocent callers have the wherewithal to give the location immediately yet will not break off the statement and go right to the missing child.  

7.  that you, police understand that I am a 'good guy' who wasted no time and have looked for her everywhere.  This is the "Ingratiating" factor. 

We saw this with DeOrr Kunz who lavishly praised authorities for not finding his son.  

He is now charged with her murder.  

To learn Statement Analysis, contact Hyatt Analysis Services for training.  


Anonymous said...

He is now charged with her murder?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

In one photo of him with the mother and children in a car he looks pleasant and normal. They all do. Reading about all the calls for the ploice to the home is crazy. 49? Havent read of drug issues but the behavior may indicate. Our president today freed 102 more drug offenders from federal prison.

Anonymous said...

Off topic:

Jay said...

Off topic (Ramsey)I really enjoyed watching B.R. interview on tv. He had some GREAT answers and I hope that members here were enjoying it too. In a video clip posted above, he is answering the question re killing his sister by "prove it" answer. Very nice. I also found Dr.P's questions interesting. They sounded like he was the best buddies with Ramsey's lawyer. Comments on "body language" is being discussed all over the Internet and any excuse for it by Dr.P. is ridiculous. He has interviewed thousands of people on camera, those who were on camera first time and nervous like everyone would be, but this one was over the top. This was "a child who got away with it" which those of us who have children can recognise.

Anonymous said...

Jay: yep!

Anonymous said...

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lynda said...

Now if only we could see some charges for poor Baby Deorr

Nic said...

Peter said:
Some innocent callers have the wherewithal to give the location immediately yet will not break off the statement and go right to the missing child.

Should this read: "...have the wherewithal to "not" give the location immediately?

TooManyWaWas said...

Nic @10.59

I think Peter meant that some innocent callers may quickly give the location, but may break off to move on to their priority, which is the missing child..... That's how I interpreted it anyway! :-))

Anonymous said...

Before reading this article, I always thought the question at the beginning of a 9-1-1 call was "What is your emergency?" When I've listened to the calls that have been released last few years, that's what I've always heard: "What is your emergency?" I've always assumed they have the caller's location without asking (GPS) but now I realize that probably can't always be the case.

Me2l said...

That's because people believe what they see on TV and in movies.

Me2l said...

Drug offenders may mean drug users. Prison isn't the best place to treat drug addiction.