Wednesday, July 5, 2017

NYC Police Officer Assassinated



Emergency calls can reveal much information, particularly, if the caller has guilty knowledge of the crime. 

The expectation of an emergency call is specific and even in a short "excited utterance" call, we hear priority and linguistic disposition towards the victim.  


An NYPD officer shot while sitting in a police vehicle in the Bronx has died, authorities said early Wednesday.

 Miosotis Familia, 48, a 12-year veteran and other of three children,  died in the hospital.  

Two cops gunned down the killer, Alexander Bonds, after he blasted the mobile command post parked near E. 183rd St. and Creston Ave. around 12:30 a.m.

Surveillance footage shows the suspected 34-year-old shooter marching toward the command post “with purpose,” the source said.A 48 year old mother of three  police officer has been shot in New York City.  

The cop’s partner frantically screamed into his police radio for help.

“Shots fired!” 
“I need a f-----g bus! 10-85 10-85! My partner’s shot! My partner’s shot! My partner’s shot! Hurry up central!”

The radio is the emergency call and should be viewed as a 911 call. 

Note the change and specific points of language:  

"Shots fired" is training and official language, as is "10-85 10-85" with the repetition noted. 

Note "I need" is for self.  Why might this be?

We seek to hear the caller ask for help for the victim, so this is particularly noted. 

It is appropriate whenever the caller is administering first aid, attempting to help the victim. 

Note the impolite urgency. Compare to polite greetings in guilty knowledge status calls, such as Tiffany Hartley, and Misty Croslin. 

"my partners shot" is personal, with ownership of partner by the caller.  With the urgency, there is no need to give, at this time, his partner's name.  The incomplete social introduction is noted and it is appropriate.  

Compare this with William McCollum's 911 call where he shot his wife for extreme example.  

The officer showed more linguistic closeness than the husband of the victim above.  

We need to learn the truth about motive of the killer.  

For training in Deception Detection, visit www.hyattanalysis.com 


19 comments:

General P. Malaise said...

the caller is the partner to the wounded person. this closeness would lend to using the term "I need... ".

it is also would fit with the law of economy to state "I need ...." then to explain that someone else needs.

it is also the authoritative voice to say "I need .." even if it was an unknown person who is shot the policeman might say "I need an ambulance."

in this case "I need ..." is not a reference to self as in self interest (other than the self interest for a partner) or deception.

Sad times said...

So much evil in the world :(

Anonymous said...

http://shoebat.com/2017/07/05/police-bust-cocaine-fueled-gay-sex-orgy-at-the-vatican/

Anonymous said...

Black Lives Matter and Hilary Supporter killed NYC police officer.

According to his social media posts, he hated cops and loved MSM, Hillary, Barak, LGBT, Socialism, No borders, No genders, Free money for everyone, no prisons for blacks

Jon said...

Hi Peter,

You did an analysis on Balloon boy a few times in the past and indicated Richard Heene for deception.

I'm just wondering if the below video would change your mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWhUvm8SunY

Jon

Jon said...

Now I realize this is a very short documentary, which at this stage I'm basing my opinion off of (I'm open to the possibility that it is indeed a hoax) but I read your first analysis you wrote in 2012 and couldn't help but feel like you're being really harsh on the Heene's. Ie, you seem to be starting off from a position of guilt rather than a more neutral tone - something that you're usually very good at.

Part of your analysis says:

"note that Mother said it was 20 minutes; but to Dad, it is just a few minutes. THis is not credible given a parent's worry and high state of adrenaline alert. Perhaps this is what his wife meant when she said she needed to talk to her husband: get their stories straight"

Now I admit the disparity in times are concerning, but couldn't adrenaline and a simple misstep by Richard or the wife (or both) have caused this difference in their perception?

Moreover, depending on the wife's command of English, which appears ok, but not 100% fluent, it still seems highly unfair on the mother saying she "needed to talk with her husband" as opposed to "I need" - a lack of fluency could easily explain this.

Jon said...

Your analysis

"RH: Yeah, we looked everywhere and then my son just said — he's terrified — he said yeah he went inside just before it went off. Because we have it tethered it wasn't supposed to take off"

I'm not sure if you realize that the father appears to be talking about his other son (he has 3), not Falcon who may have been in the balloon.

Your analysis

""Yeah" is weaker than "yes". "Is your son on that dangerous thing so high up in the air that he could easily die?" would be answered by a father with a resounding "YES"; not a casual, "yeah"." - Agreed, the "yeah" is worrying.

"We do not need to hear his voice inflection, but the word chosen. In a "yes or no" question, he said, "yeah" and then immediately shifted to:"

"we"

"He is the boy's father. He is responsible. The most natural response would be "I". But, in case you struggle on this one, at least you should know that pronouns are easy to make fit when you are telling the truth. He said "we" plural, but then not plural, "my son" instead of "our son" and then went back to the "we" again. This inconsistency itself indicates deception"

But couldn't the father's feeling of guilt about letting the situation unfold and his tendency to blame others (in the video he blames his wife for not tethering the balloon, and generally looks like an ass) have predicated his use of "we" thereby spreading the blame for letting his son go up in a balloon? Just because a person feels guilty, it doesn't mean they're necessarily guilty of the worst possible thing.

Jon said...

Full analysis here:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/remembering-balloon-boy-hoax.html

"Note that he did not report that his son was inside the balloon, which would be a direct lie; something rare. Instead, he uses his son's language. "Yeah, he said he went in..." but he did not say "in the saucer" or "in the balloon", and it is this type of choppy way of speaking that a liar avoids telling a direct lie. He appears to be unwilling to blame his son in full, so instead does not finish the sentence "he said he went in the flying saucer" as he likely felt the internal stress of not only lying but bringing his son into it"

I feel like the language you're using is biased against the Heene's - "he likely felt the internal stress". Technically, if the father didn't see the son enter the balloon, which he didn't, then wouldn't it be more truthful for him to say that his son told him? This is consistent with the video of the balloon launch.

"This is a reminder of the fiasco when he had his children on TV and tried to get them to lie; where he was outed by his own son"

Now I don't know why his son said "we did it for the show". It certainly sounds bad, but you surely have to be open to the fact this simple one-liner from a 6-year old could be misinterpreted by Falcon himself.

It seems like many people have made their mind up already, and I can't help but feel that's what you've done here. Would love for you to revisit, and if anyone else has good reasons that this is indeed a hoax, I'm open to that as well, just send me the right way.

elf said...

didn't they find the little boy NOT in the balloon?

Anonymous said...

Those are good points, Jon.

jonathan lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jonathan lee said...

That's correct Elf, he was found in the parents attic. But that isn't the point. The issue is whether the parents knew this and whether they did it for the attention.

2nd part of Richard Heene talking about the evidence. I'm not statement analysis expert but I'd say he's being 100% truthful. I think Peter should reconsider his analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY

Jon

tania cadogan said...

They did know.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_boy_hoax

Reader said...


OT
The recruiting continues, this is investigating reporting continued
Kids, babies, being used by nefarious agencies to condition the masses

If you have kids old enough to surf Youtube for their entertainment
this is a must watch. How codes are embedded into these videos that are
innocent search terms plunked in maybe by your kid, sitter on and on...

https://youtu.be/7gXJCOvypJI

Anonymous said...

went in..." but he did not say "in the saucer" or "in the balloon", and it is this type of choppy way of speaking that a liar avoids telling a direct lie.




Is this a tenet of SA, or is it your perception of how liars lie? In SA, these conclusions or assumptions are arrived at through what means?

Jon said...

I believe that Peter's techniques have evolved since the original article in 2012, so perhaps that's why I find it so jarring to see such obvious bias in his articles.

Also, he clearly states that "now that we know they're guilty", meaning that his whole analysis is contaminated with a biased assumption that works completely against the Heene's.

What I'm willing to concede is it's still possible that Richard Heene himself could have known it's a hoax and that he could be a convincing liar. However, other than the coerced statement from the wife who's English is actually much worse than I thought (she thought "hoax" meant "exhibition") and Falcon's easily misconstrued line on the interview "we did it for the show", there is actually evidence that neither the wife or the kids knew about, or were involved in a hoax for publicity.

Jon

Jon said...

@Tania.

The consensus is that this is a hoax, so it's not surprising the Wikipedia, a website that's susceptible to political astro-turfing, says that it's a hoax.

If you watch the videos from The Internet Historian (there are 3 that I know of), it helps to explain the case for Richard Heene, and why it appears that the prosecution were out to get him.

Jon

Anonymous said...

Mark Twain was correct, it's much easier to fool a person than it is to convince a person that they've been fooled.

Jon Lee said...

@anon. Who has been fooled? The people who believe it's a hoax or the ones who don't believe it's a hoax?