Thursday, October 26, 2017

911 Call: Murder of Wife





This is a 911 call of a domestic homicide (homicide which has taken place inside the home) where statistically guilt is often found with the husband/boyfriend/lover of the female victim.  

Analysis:  This call is not the initial call to police.  The son-in-law called first and while on the phone, husband called as well. 

This impacts the language dramatically as the husband may be responding to what was previously stated. 

Please note, however, that this is an excellent example of "contamination" in Statement Analysis. 

If this was the initial call, the analysis would appear very different than this being the follow up phone call where our caller may be reacting to information already communicated.  




34 comments:

Ursula franco said...

I tried to analyze the call, english is not my first language, I'm a criminologist:
911 What’s the city of your emergency?
Strongsville Ohio, we have people on the way already.

What’s the address?
Blazing Star… I think someone killed my wife.

Bruce Pleskovic shows no urgency, he doesn’t ask for help for Melinda and his ability to accept the death of his wife is not expected. He sounds distant and passive, there is no sense of urgency in his words.

You think someone killed your wife?
Yeah, there is multiple stab wounds on her back!

Pleskovic jumps to a conclusion about the cause of death of his wife without being a doctor, a red flag.

Are…?
We’ve had people trying to break in to our house all year steal… (interrupted).

He is giving extraneous information to the 911 operator to set up a scenario, those extra words should raise suspicion.

Sir, sir, sir, I under… sir, I need…, are you there right now?
I just get in the door with my new son-in-law, my son was still with her.

Bruce Pleskovic is trying to establish his own alibi.

Ok sir, what I want you to do is walk outside and stay in the front, ok? You said she has been stabbed in the back?
Yeah, I don’t want… yeah I think… I don’t think she is… her face hit the ground and there is blood, full of blood.

Is she breathing?
No, she is not… because I get there.

Did you performed CPR?
Noo!

We expected him to ask for guidance or help on how to try to revive his wife.

Ok, what I want you to do is I want you to walk outside! Everyone in the house go outside and wait in the front! Ok? Do you see anyone else in the home?
My son who has down syndrome. On purpose, she sent me a text to meet me at Brew Kettle at 4.25 p.m., I didn’t hear from her… I didn’t expect this.

“… who has down syndrome” are extra words, unnecessary information, Bruce Pleskovic is just fishing for sympathy.

No, sir, I understand you are upset.
You know, we asked people to watch our fricken’ area. We had people attempted to break in just this week I don’t know what is going on in this city but this shouldn’t get done here.

Bruce Pleskovic language reveals that his wife is not a priority, his priority is to persuade the 911 operator that she was attacked by an intruder during a robbery rather than focus on the plight of her injuries.

I understand you are upset but can you give me your name please?
No, no… you people dropped.

Pleskovic response is “No”, this make the question sensitive.

Sir, sir, can you just take a deep breath and…?
This whole city is getting fricken’ taken over.

Sir, I understand you are upset but I need you to stay focused, ok? You don’t think to performed CPR, correct?

There is no cooperation displayed by Bruce Pleskovic, the 911 operator needs to redirect his attention back to his wife as she doesn’t look like to be Bruce Pleskovic priority, a red flag.

Bruce is speaking with two police officers while on the phone with the 911 operator: She is in the kitchen… I can’t believe this… We got a break in all year, things stolen, missing… I saw this chair down… I got here, we got home about tree minutes ago, I saw her this morning, 7.30 a.m., I am her husband, ok, let’s, we have had people trying to break in our house well, like a lot, so they flashed our cameras that we are getting targeted not only by who’s doing this but I’m… I can’t believe this… I tried to figure out and to go out to eat, we always with our usual routine…

Pleskovic is pushing his theory that his wife was killed by an intruder during a robbery. His need to persuade is incessant.

Note the lack of using his wife name as distancing language.

Note that “I saw her this morning, 7.30 a.m.” doesn’t mean that it was the last time he saw her.

Behind Bruce need to make reference to a “usual routine” there is not a “usual routine” at all.

Bruce Pleskovic has guilty knowledge of what happened to his wife.

Peter Hyatt said...

adding analysis now...updating in progress. I will continue during breaks.

ursula franco said...

thank you

Anonymous said...

It sounds like he and his family were the target of a gang of hoodlums and he expresses his disgust to the 911 operator. Perhaps he called his attorney prior to calling 911 as the police proved useless in the past.

I'd assume he is innocent until proven otherwise.

If they were pointing lasers into his cameras in an attempt to disable his security system, they may have been planning the murder for a long time.

The deceased is a school teacher and perhaps the murderer(s)is or was a student that thought they should do the teaching instead of her.

Gang or group stalking is real and is often lethal.

Anonymous said...

Ursala seems to have hit it on the head pretty well I think. This crime happened about fifty miles away from where I live and quite frankly it's alarming concerning all the homicides within a 50-mile radius. I will be anxious to hear peter's analyses.

Anonymous said...

So sorry Peter, your name should have been capitalized, my bad. :)

Peter Hyatt said...

That this is a call in follow up to another call changes the setting.

It would be very different if this was the initial call.

I may post son in law transcripts first, for analysis, and then husband.

Peter

sha said...

Comparing the husband's 911 call to the son-in-law to-be's phone call is like night and day. So, they arrive home, and while the son-in-law is ....gathering up the children, getting the children outside, and on the phone with 911 long enough for him to relay the info to the husband that police and ambulance was on their way......what was the husband doing? He sure wasn't trying to revive the wife.....all we know is that he was running in and out several times according to the son-in-law, and then he decided to also call 911. Red flags are a'waving.

Jo said...

Yeah, I don’t want… yeah I think… I don’t think she is… her face hit the ground and there is blood, full of blood.

Her face hit the ground.......

If he walked in after the face, how did he witness this.

ursula franco said...

A portion of the 911 call transcribed from Bruce son-in-law

“Somebody’s been attacked in my house.”

Dispatcher: They attacked who? Who was attacked?

“Mel Pleskovic. Mel Pleskovic was attacked.”

Dispatcher: She was attacked by whom? Do you know?

“No. We just came home. She’s on the kitchen floor. I took her son and my daughter outside. Her husband is inside with her now.”

Dispatcher: So the husband attacked her?

“No. No. No. We just came home. We just came home.”

Dispatcher You came home and found her injured on the floor?

“We found her in the kitchen. She’s not moving. I took the kids and I walked outside.”

Dispatcher: Did she look like she was beaten, or what?

“She has blood all around her. I didn’t look. I just grabbed the child and left.”

The call continued…

“There’s a lot of blood.”

Dispatcher: How do you know this woman?

“I live here. I live here. She’s my fiancees mother?”

Dispatcher: Has she like had anybody trying to harm her? Harass her? Anything like that?

“No. No.”

Dispatcher: Do you have a dog that lives at that house?

“We have two. We have two dogs.”

Dispatcher: Are the dogs there, or you don’t know?

“I don’t know. We just walked in the front door and we left.”

Dispatcher: We got a phone call from somebody who found a dog that belongs at your residence. That’s why I’m thinking the dogs got out, OK?

The caller said he had just come home with the victim’s husband.

Dispatcher: Do you see any like forced entry or anything to the house?

“I’m outside. The door was locked.”

Dispatcher: The door was locked?

“The front door was locked.”

John mcgowan said...

Peter

Hi

Can an analyst work with a contaminated statement, if, they know the source of the contaminatuon?

John mcgowan said...

Thanks ^

MizzMarple said...

Peter,

I hope you will be able to do a Statement Analysis on the 9-1-1 call by Keith Pappini, wife of Sherri Pappini.

I recall you did a Statement Analysis on Keith Papini regarding his missing wife.

This case has been "revived" in the national news media the past couple of days, with the release of sketches of the kidnappers and the husband's 9-1-1 call.

Just a quick refresher here: Sherri Pappaini went missing on Nov. 2, 2016. She was last seen dropping her children off at day care. Her phone with headphones was found alongside a rural road where she in the California. About 3 weeks later -- Thanksgiving morning - she was found by motorists over 100 miles away from her. Sherry said she had been held captive by two women.


Link to the audio of 9-1-1 call:

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/25/sherri-papini-abduction-911-audio-sketches-released/


Snippet from 9-1-1 call:

Transcript of the 911 call, about five minutes long:

[CHP transfers Keith Papini to the 911 dispatcher.]

Papini: Yeah, um, so I just got home from work, and my wife wasn’t there, which is unusual, and my kids should’ve been there now from like day care, so I was like, “Oh, maybe she went on a walk.” Um, I couldn’t find her so I called the day care to see what time she picked up the kids. The kids were never picked up. So I got freaked out so I hit like the Find My iPhone app thing, and it said that — it showed her phone at like the end of our driveway, we don’t have really good service …

911: OK.

Papini: … Not the end of our driveway, but the end of our street. I just drove down there and I saw her phone with her headphones, because she started running again, and it’s — I found her phone, and it’s got like hair ripped out of it, like in the headphones, so I’m like totally freaking out thinking like somebody grabbed her.

[911 dispatcher gets his address and his name.]

911: Did you go pick up your children?

Papini: No, I’m going to call my mom and have her do it. I’m going to like knock on every door —


---------------------------


Thank you so much !

MizzMarple said...

Below is the link from Peter's previous Analysis of Keith Pappini, which I forgot to link with the above post..

https://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2016/12/statement-analysis-keith-papinis-public.html

Thank you.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

The mother of a dead 3-year-old girl from Richardson denies any role in her death.

Lawyers for Sini Mathews said she is cooperating with police in the investigation. But that’s not what police have said.

Mathews, in a statement released by her lawyers, claimed she had nothing to do with the death of her adopted special needs daughter, Sherin. She also said she did not help remove the little girl’s body.

Her statement does not address questions about her husband.

Former prosecutor Toby Shook, not involved in the case, said officials are working to make the strongest case possible.

"Ask her follow up questions about whatever came up in that statement to see if she has information about that," Shook said. "That information might help them and give them more information in their investigation of him. At the same time, that information may implicate her."

People continued to stream by several memorials in honor of Sherin on Thursday near her home.

Wesley Matthews is now in the Dallas County jail on suicide watch. He is charged with felony injury to a child.

Police said he changed his story about what happened to Sherin. He first told detectives she disappeared after he left her by a tree as punishment at 3 a.m. because she wouldn’t drink her milk.

After police found her body in a culvert near the family’s home, he told detectives he forced her to drink the milk and did nothing as she choked and died at the home. He also admitted to moving her body.

The Dallas County medical examiner has not yet determined the girl’s cause of death.

http://www.fox4news.com/news/richardson-girls-mother-claims-she-had-no-part-in-her-death


Interesting if she is not cooperating.
Where is the condemnation of the father?
The former prosecutor is right, now is the time to pull her in and ask her questions based on her initial statements.
He is right that said information may well implicate her.

The father claimed they had a feeding schedule because she was malnourished and this included night time feedings.
I don't buy it.
This smacks of control.
Parents are glad when their child starts to sleep through the night, why would they want to disturb their own sleep and that of their 3 year old by waking her up and feeding her and/or giving her milk?
If Sherin did not want the milk then she was not hungry or thirsty, why force her to drink it?
Indeed why not leave a drink or a piece of fruit or a couple of cookies by her bed if she woke up during the night?

It sounds like food was an issue and control enforced by what appeared to be alleged force feeding.
Were they depriving her of food given they claim she was malonourished and the orphanage said she had no problems?
If she was being deprived of food, what else were they doing to her?
If Sherin was given milk forcefully and 'choked' then surely milk would have been found in her lungs causing her to effectively drown.

This would have been an ongoing affair involving both parents especially as Sherin was both special needs and adopted.
Initial the father claimed she was put outside at 3am as punishment for refusing to drink her milk.
3 is know as the liars number so i wonder why he chose that time?
Was Sherin killed at an earlier time perhaps?
Why was he trying to give her milk in the garage?
That is a strange place to feed a child, why not in the kitchen or better yet her bed which would save the hassle of getting up up etc, especially since he claimed it was only milk.
This would make me wonder what he was really doing with her for her to be in the garage, it smacks of punishment or abuse.
did she perhaps sleep there?

tania cadogan said...

cont.

“Wesley Mathews said she wouldn't listen to him.”
What was he saying to her?
What was she saying to him?
What was she doing?

“physically assisted” Sherin in drinking her milk and the girl choked on the drink.
How was he assisting her?
He would have had to have held her mouth open probably whilst she was struggling so how was he holding/restraining her?
How was he getting the milk into her mouth since she could simply let it fill her mouth and pour out once her mouth was full spilling most if not all of it,keeping her mouth closed?
Did he use a funnel perhaps?
Would they find traces of milk in her lungs or something else like water?
Would her lungs be clear, if so then no choking/drowning?
What about bruising?
Was there possible sexual abuse?
The mother knew this was going on and likely participated.
She may have been in ivolved in the actual abuse rather than the disposal of Sherin's remains.
What did the mother do when she learned Sherin was allegedly being punished by being made to stand outside at 3 am?
did the mother ever physically search?
I wonder if the adoption was motivated by money especially as Sherin was special needs?
Did Sherin turn out to be harder work than expected?
Was she the source of resentment?
Did she become the scapegoat for family issues?
Were they known to CPS?
What condition was their biological 4 yr old daughter found in?

Given that the mother is a nurse,if she was at home, why did the father not call out to her for help in resuscitating Sherin if she was choking?
it would have been the natural thing to do, as would calling 911, therefore there had to be a reason not to immediately call 911.
Even if his story was true and he was "physically assisting" Sherin to drink her milk, once she started choking or stopped breathing, shouting for help is his wife was home or calling 911 would have been the normal parental instinct.
He had a reason then to dispose of Sherin's body, lie to LE and hope SAherin wouldn't be found too soon.

Given where she was found, it is likely there may have been some predation and time and exposure to the elements would have disguised or destroyed anything too incriminating such as cuts, bruising, possible fractures either healed/healing or new.

This was not a one off, this would have been ongoing and likely getting progressively worse.

Anonymous said...

I googled stalking in Ohio and it has been increasing over the last few years. They've failed to do anything about it thus far. I also found where one man was on trial-a much older man-who stalked a woman because he felt he was part of the select "Illuminati" groups of people sent to murder the old worlders and take their children to be indoctrinated into the new world order.

Whenever tin-foilers and drug cartels are in an area, it is to be expected that they will target houses be they full of people or not.

Most people are pure white trash and seek to blame the victim(s) first and have trial by media.

Most hope to cash in on neighborhood gossip, sweep the murder under the rug, and get on with their lives as if nothing happened.

It'll be the morons like those who chose to exploit Amanda Blacckbun's murder for their own prophet.

tania cadogan said...

off topic/

Lawyers statement for Sini Mathews

October 25, 2017

PRESS STATEMENT Our firm has been retained to represent Mrs. Sini Mathews regarding the investigation into the tragic death of her daughter, Sherin Mathews. Contrary to some prior reports, Mrs. Mathews has been cooperating with the Richardson Police Department since the morning of October 7th, 2017, when Serin was first reported missing by her father Wesley Mathews.

Mrs. Mathews talked to the police at length that morning at her home, then went to the station that evening for further interviews. She voluntarily went back to the station a few days later, and was interrogated for hours by several officers with no attorney present.

Since then she has assisted the police while they conducted a search warrant of her home by identifying and locating items for ease of retrieval. She has provided other information to the police, including Sherin’s dental records, to help them identify the body.

Now that Mr. Mathews has turned himself into the police and told them what happened to Sherin, we see no need for Mrs. Mathews to endure further police interrogation. She had nothing to do with Sherin’s death or the removal of her body from the home.

Mrs. Mathews is trying to grieve for her lost daughter while still caring for her remaining daughter. She is struggling to pick up the pieces of a shattered life. This will require her full focus and attention and we therefore have no plans to conduct any interviews or release any further information at this time.

Mitchell R. Nolte and Gregg Gibbs Attorneys for Sini Mathews


This phrase caught my eye and is telling.
Do her lawyers think she may be involved in someway or am i reading too much into this phrase?

Mrs. Mathews is trying to grieve for her lost daughter while still caring for her remaining daughter.

Trying to grieve?
trying?

Wouldn't she be grieving?
Wouldn't it provoke more sympathy as well as indicate innocence if they had said:
Mrs. Mathews is grieving for her lost daughter while still caring for her remaining daughter.

Mrs. Mathews talked to the police at length that morning at her home, then went to the station that evening for further interviews. She voluntarily went back to the station a few days later, and was interrogated for hours by several officers with no attorney present.
They progress from talked to interviews which would indicate more tension to finally interrogation which indicates further tension.

tania cadogan said...

cont.


It goes from what would appear calm, friendly no pressure or sensitivity even to having it at her home which would be her place of safety, talking in comfortable no threatening surroundings
Interviews which is plural.
How many interviews were there?
Who was doing the interviews
Did she initially go voluntarily to the station in the evening or was she invited?
Given that they tell us she went voluntarily back to the station a few days later perhaps implies that she was asked to go to the station for interviews.
Was she arrested perhaps and then interviewed under caution?
Interviews are stronger than talked, it implies tension, pressure and stress, more formality.
Finally it progresses to interrogation which is stronger still aggressive and implies things were found that required further and closer investigation.
It tells us the interrogation required several officers, was this because of the number of hours it went on for?
Was it because officers from different departments questioned her?
We aren't told what type of interrogation it was, whether it concerned only what she knew about her husband and his involvement or did it concentrate on her "possible" involvement.
We are told interrogated for hours by several officers with no attorney present.
Does this mean attorneys were present at other times since the fact they told us no attorney was was present at other times?
Including this makes it sensitive, why the sensitivity?
Is this included to convince us she was not hiding behind an attorney as she had nothing to fear and thus didn't need one?
Is it because if she doesn't say anything at all in response to questions or says no comment, she doesn't need one since they would tell her to keep quiet?

Mrs. Mathews has been cooperating with the Richardson Police Department since the morning of October 7th, 2017
Is she not cooperating any more otherwise they would say is?

we therefore have no plans to conduct any interviews or release any further information at this time.
In the future though, interviews could be performed or information released.
Who would the interviews be with?
Is this a polite way of saying they would not be talking to the police?

Anonymous said...

Members of a web sluting community are weighing in on the homicide with their insipid interpretations of what happened. If it hasn't already been on TV, it did not happen.

Sounds like someone that has taken up residence nearby and can prowl at night and day.

There have been domestic violence crimes in the somewhat small town. Perhaps a copy catter crime.

tania cadogan said...

another off topic, I;m sorry.

Convicted killer Jodi Arias, whose obsessed trial groupies clogged tabloid TV and social media with tales of salacious intrigue and courthouse snark, filed a civil lawsuit Tuesday in Maricopa County Superior Court against her former defense attorney, L. Kirk Nurmi.

The lawsuit claims that Nurmi, who headed Arias' legal team during her 2013 and 2015 murder trials, violated attorney-client privilege and unjustly enriched himself by publishing a tell-all book about the case before Arias has been able to appeal her conviction and life sentence for the 2008 murder of her lover, Travis Alexander.

MORE: From our archives: A look back at the Jodi Arias trial

Asked to comment on the suit, Nurmi responded in an emailed statement that when Arias failed at controlling the case, she tried to ruin his career and his reputation.

"Standing up to the abuse Ms. Arias imparted upon me over the years was an important part of my personal transformation and I will continue to fight this battle with vigor as I defend against this lawsuit which is best viewed as a continuation of Ms. Arias’ pattern of attacking men whom she feels have wronged her," he wrote in his statement.

"Of course, no one person has suffered at the hands of Ms. Arias (more) than Mr. Alexander and I look forward to clearing the air on all the derogatory assertions that Ms. Arias made about him as I defend against the outrageous claims made in this lawsuit."

Nurmi's book, which he titled "Trapped with Ms. Arias" in part because Arias hated being called "Ms. Arias," has already led to Nurmi's disbarment.

Last November, Nurmi surrendered his license to practice law after a Bar complaint was filed by attorney Karen Clark on Arias' behalf because of the book.

Clark also has filed a complaint for Arias against the case prosecutor, Juan Martinez, in which she alleges Martinez fed information about the Arias trial and a holdout juror to a blogger with whom he was rumored to have a romantic entanglement. That complaint is still pending with the State Bar of Arizona.

Martinez has fended off five Bar complaints since the Arias trials, the last as recently as last month. One of the dismissed complaints related to a book Martinez published about the case.

The current lawsuit against Nurmi was filed by Clark and Ralph Adams, Clark's husband and law partner.

It claims Nurmi violated attorney-client privilege by revealing details about Arias and her trial against her wishes. It also pinpoints passages in the book that it claims are personally disparaging to Arias or in violation of the rules of ethical conduct for attorneys.

The suit also claims that Nurmi was obsessed with the sexual aspects of the case.

tania cadogan said...

Arias killed Alexander, her sometime boyfriend, during a tryst at his Mesa house in June 2008. The nude photos they took of each other and a steamy recorded telephone conversation between them became evidence in the trial and were widely dispersed through live-streaming and social media.

Clark and Adams write in the lawsuit that Arias was embarrassed by the sexual content of the trial, and that Nurmi would taunt her about it, telling her he had made blowups of the photographs. The lawsuit also claims that Nurmi used one of the photos as the screen saver on his office computer, and that it could be plainly seen by visitors to his office.

As a consequence, the lawsuit asks that Nurmi pay Arias all of the money he received for the book, whether through book sales or appearance fees.

In a joint statement sent via email, Clark and Adams said, "Mr. Nurmi's self-published book about his representation of Ms. Arias revealed confidential and privileged information, and violated his most basic ethical and fiduciary duties to Ms. Arias. What he did was knowingly and intentionally wrong. His book violated his duty to protect confidential information and also contained false statements about Ms. Arias and gross misstatements about her case. He wrote the book in a selfish attempt to 'redeem' his public image and enrich himself to the extreme detriment of Ms. Arias.

"Mr. Nurmi is now disbarred for ethical violations concerning his misconduct involving Ms. Arias," the statement said. "The civil suit requests compensation for the damage done to Ms. Arias and that Mr. Nurmi disgorge all profits he received from the public media promotion and sale of his outrageous and self-serving book about Ms. Arias and her case."

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2017/10/25/convicted-killer-jodi-arias-sues-former-defense-attorney-kirk-nurmi-over-tell-all-book/801071001/

Anonymous said...

I agree with Jo about how her "face hit the ground". How does the husband know the wounds are just in her back? It sounds like the son-in-law entered/was allowed to enter first. Was that on purpose? The son-in-law does not hesitate to use the victim's name. If the doors were locked, how did the dogs get out? Lots of questions.

Anonymous said...

Eyes For Lies

Listen to Keith Papini’s 911 call reporting his wife missing last November. It’s quite fascinating!

Does he sound like he is scared or worried to you?

He sounds completely excited to me, which doesn’t sound anything like scared or worried.

He even suggests what happened to her. Interesting. He never entertains she could have simply dropped her phone. Hmmm….I wonder why?!

He is full of hot spots and I do not believe him one inch. Do you?

http://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/2017/10/sheri-papini-case-911-call-released/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EyesForLies+%28Eyes+for+Lies+Blog%29

Peter Hyatt said...

The central point of "Statement Analysis" is science.

This means that we operate on principles and the principles can be learned by anyone and applied with the same results. Errant results mean we go back and find out if:

a. principle not used
b. principle misapplied

and correct.

We don't say "this sounds excited" or "this person just does not sound very concerned" and present it as evidence or results.

No professional in professional investigation or law enforcement is going to stake his or her career on:

voice inflection,
leg twitch
micro expresson
hand movement,

and so on.

It is great for affect, but not for investigation.

Body language analysis is something we all do and it is useful in a complementary form, subservient to the language.
Listening to voice inflection is something we deliberately avoid in analysis, yet later will listen to it, but continue to subordinate it to the language. It is difficult to ignore Sergio Celis giggling like a school girl in his 911 call reporting his daughter "missing."

Statement Analysis is a science that is taught, studied, and deeply practiced by experts. It is not always entertaining, but it runs at or near 100% accuracy year after year. The only exception to this success is contamination.

A good example of contamination is this 911 call.

If this was the initial "what happened?" call, it will give a specific analysis.
If this was a follow up call, it will shift the analysis because the caller has knowledge of the words used in the initial call by the future son in law.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Blogger John mcgowan said...
Peter

Hi

Can an analyst work with a contaminated statement, if, they know the source of the contaminatuon?

October 26, 2017 at 4:28 PM Delete

John, we instruct analysts to set it aside as contaminated.

Having said that, advanced analysis can be done, with careful comparison of language side by side, reducing the level of sensitivity assigned to the words or information that the 2nd caller heard (or may have heard) from the original caller.

It is difficult, but it can be done.

It would be too lengthy and warrant too much explanation, point after point, for a blog article. What's posted on the blog is basic and is designed to also advertise training.

Peter

elf said...

The lawyers are setting up a defense for their client, Mrs Mathews by pointing out that she was interrogated for hours by several officers with no lawyer present.

Peter Hyatt said...

If there is a copy of the Sheri p 911 call transcripts, please send to hyattanalysis@gmail.com for analysis.

Peter

Anonymous said...

Transcript

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/25/sherri-papini-abduction-911-audio-sketches-released/

L M Cerullo said...

Very good!

Anonymous said...

Mrs. Pleskovic was both shot and stabbed in her kitchen. Since the dog was someplace else, it was either baited out or drugged.Assume the dogs stayed indoors since there is no fence shown on the property (Google can be old). The last call was about two men trying to enter the back patio door (not typically secure doors regardless of where you live).And, the stealing of keys and setting off car alarms means they must have been near to do that.They attempted to steal a computer but only made off with the case. His tires had been slashed and then nails driven into them.

They came through the back common area and most likely through the wooded area to the right. On another street looks like a home that has been added on to for rental property. Whoever was stalking them lived close.

I wonder what his occupation was.

Anonymous said...

Holy cow, that Papini 911 call! Starts with alibi, multiple "because" statements, includes "I'm Sorry" twice, possible indicators of rehearsing, extreme sensitivity concerning the phone and headphones, etc. Something is totally amiss here. I cant wait to see Peter's analysis.

Anonymous said...

Looking over it again, I think I saw the same "I'm sorry" twice, but still!

Anonymous said...

The future Son-in-Law was arrested for aggravated murder.