Thursday, October 12, 2017

Statement Analysis: Courtney Bell's 911 Call about Caliyah

The following is the transcription of the 911 call made by Caliyah's mother. 

The child has been found murdered and thus far, the father has been charged with the murder. 

Question for analysis:

Does the mother show guilty knowledge of the call?

Analysis of 911 call is not unique, nor is it a "specialty" with different sets of rules or applications.  It is simply an interview with authority in which the priority is to obtain assistance or intervention.  


Transcript 911 call - missing infant Caliyah McNabb.  

Hat tip:  "Hey Jude" 


PO: What is the emergency?


CB:I just woke up, my daughter woke me up on the couch, um, I have a two year old and I have a two week old - and m- my two week old is not in her sleeper, and her paci is on the floor 


She has a missing child to report, but does not.  Here is what she reports:

1.  I just woke up. 

This is to indicate to police (911 is representative of police/authority) that the caller's priority is that she could not be involved nor possess any knowledge about what happened to the victim because she "just" (time) woke up. 

Note the need to presuppose that she was asleep. She does not say "I was asleep" instead focusing upon her point of waking up. 

2.  "my daughter woke me up."

Second is the one who caused her to wake up.  This would be to double down on the fact that in order for her to be awakened, she had to be asleep. 

If her own words were not believed, she now introduces an eye witness:  her two year old daughter. 

Note the element of neglect in which the mother is awakened by her two year old. 

3.  If you still don't believe she was sleeping and don't believe the eye witness testimony of the two year old (the second person introduced in this interview), she now gives the location of where she was awakened. 

"...on the couch."

This is as to say "you have to believe me but if you don't you have to believe the 2 year old, but if you still don't, here is an unnecessary specific detail that only a truthful person would give...I was on the couch,

This is all to overwhelm the listener with persuasion that the caller was asleep. 

This need to persuade tells us:  Caller was awake. 

The priority for the caller is that she could not possibly be accused of anything because she was sleeping and can "prove" it. 

Will she report her child as missing?

4.   I have a two year old 

She further revisits that she must be truthful about sleeping because not only did her two year old wake her (on the couch) but this two year old, does, in fact, exist and his hers. 





5.  and I have a two week old 

The victim is her fifth point, but she has not yet reported her missing. This sounds like an afterthought; not the purpose of the call.  

One should consider why this addition is made.  It may be because she knows she "does not have" a two week old; suggestive of knowing the child is dead. 

Analysis Question:  What is the purpose of this call?

This assertion of having both is unnecessary information.  It suggests to the listener the need to persuade that she has two children.  

This should lead us to question,

At the time of this call, does the caller know she has but one child?

She now gets to her 6th point:

6.  and m- my two week old is not in her sleeper,

She does not report the child missing.  She reports where the child is not. 

This is an example of deception while being 100% technically truthful.  

It is true that the two week old is not in her sleeper. 

Where else is her two week old not?

7.  her pacifier is on the floor. 

Regarding what happened, the priority of the call is that the caller was not awake. 

She has not reported her missing.  This is not lost on the 911 operator who repeats back the words in the form of a question: 


PO: She’s not in her sleeper?


CB: She’s not in her sleeper- sh-she’s not here, I’ve looked everywhere, I’ve looked under clothes and everything


She repeats back the 911 operator's words.  This indicates one who is using unintended recipient (audience) and is limiting her words.  This is consistent with scripting rather than excited utterance. 

Only after repeating that she is not in her sleeper does she report where else the victim is not:

"she's not here" is also to report in the negative, another location where she is not. 

This is language we sometimes see when the subject knows the location of the child, but wishes to only focus on "safe" locations; where the child is not. 

She does not say, "my baby is missing" but reports two locations where the child is not:

"in her sleeper" and "here."

She then breaks with maternal instinct:

"I’ve looked everywhere, 

There is no need for police to search for her because the caller has searched "everywhere."

This is another indicator of guilty knowledge:  she does not want the child found. 

This is often in the language of those with guilty knowledge of not only location, but also what condition the body is going to be found in.  

Since "everywhere" has been searched, there is no possible hope of finding her. 

She then expands on what "everywhere" is in her subjective understanding and uses further language of neglect of a household: 

I’ve looked under clothes and everything





PO: What’s your address, ma’am?
CB:12145 highway 36, lot 31
CB:Yes, lot 31


PO: Do you think somebody took her, ma’am?


This question is forced because the caller will not commit.  

Recall the language of the McCanns in what they refused to linguistically commit to. 

Her answer gives further insight into neglect and the caller's personality: 

CB:My child said - m-m-m-my two year old said she’s gone…a-a-and I’ve looked everywhere in the house, so I - and I don’t know another possibility 


This is the same "child" who, at age 2, woke up the caller (on the couch) and made the report. 

This caller will, in self survival, blame anyone, including those closest to her.  This is critical information for the interview and interrogation.  

She will not say "someone kidnapped my baby" for herself, in the free editing process.  This is where we see similarity to the McCanns. 




PO: What lot number are you at?
CB: 31 


PO: Okay. And you said you were asleep, woke up and she was gone?


CB: Yes. Ma-ma-ma two year old came and woke me up 


She avoids saying "I was sleeping" and stays on script.  



PO: Okay
CB: That’s [inaudible] on the couch. 


CB: Caliyah!! [calling loudly to missing baby]


This is an example of unintended recipient or audience.  She is playing to the recording.  



PO: How old is she’ ma’am?
CB: Two weeks old.


PO: Okay. Who else would have come in your house?


The operator gave her these words; she did not produce them for herself and the operator follows up on the operator's own wording. This is to indicate that the caller is not working with police to facilitate the flow of information necessary to recover her child. 


CB: I - I mean - as far as I know nobody would’ve came in my house. My two year old says Poppa but I called my dad, and I called my grandparents, and they don’t have her. My dad’s on the way here now. 


She now further names those she would consider blaming to save herself.  

PO: Okay


[CB shouts something inaudible - a name?]


PO: Alright, how long have you been asleep?


Remember: this is an assumption that the deceptive and manipulative caller led her to.  It is not what the caller said.  


CB: Um, the last time I woke up with her was around - I guess five, maybe 


a.  note the child is without a name
b.  note the word "with" between herself and the child indicates distance. 

The refusal to use the child's name is psychological distancing language.  Review the "Baby Lisa" case here at the blog for further understanding of how guilt will drive distance into language. 

PO: Okay. So you were asleep till five o clock?


Simple question repeating back the words. This is a "yes or no" question and the answer is important: 

CB: [lengthy pause] I didn’t mean to fall asleep on the couch…I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night


What did she avoid saying besides "yes" or "no"?

Answer:  "I was asleep."

The avoidance of this indicates not only the need for an alibi, but demonstrates how difficult a direct lie in an open statement is to tell.  

The revisitation of the location is to stay to script and persuade that with such a detail, it can't possibly be a lie. 



PO: Can you tell if someone’s been there - is her blanket there or gone? 


As a mother, which would be more important to you?  If someone came into your house, or the blanket?

This allows her to choose which to answer: 

CB: Ur - her blanket’s gone, her paci’s here on the floor - her blanket’s not with us, I don’t know where - I mean - I g- I don’t know, I guess it’s with her 


Although compound questions are to be avoided, a child with her blanket is often the work of a parent.  Perhaps the 911 operator knew this instinctively.  

Can you think of a case where the victim was found in a blanket and the parent or parents lied about the case?

PO: Okay.


CB: And I have clothes in totes, but i’ve looked all in ‘em and she’s not here


A two week old child in a tote, under clothes, tells you insight about the mother. 



PO: Is there anything else missing, like a baby bag, that she would have, or anything -


CB: No. Her bottle’s here - on top of my shelf - 
PO: Okay, what about


CB: Ah - my roo-In my bathroom on my vanity…
PO: Ma’am.
CB: Huh?


PO: What about anything else that could possibly have gone like, could be hers, that could’ve gone with her?


CB: Um - no. Nothing else. Just her and her blanket 


This is likely true, but without an inventory of the house, how would she know otherwise?


PO: Okay, so the only thing that’s missing is her and her blanket? You didn’t talk to the dad, or her grandma, or anybody else?


Remember the question about someone being there?  It is on the caller's mind:  

CB: Her dad was here, and her dad just left- an-an he’s walking around the park looking for her - because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not


She now addresses who was there.  Before she offered others, from the testimony of the 2 year old (who woke her up on the couch). 

"her dad" is now very important. 

What do we know about "her dad"?

1. Her dad was here, 

This is not what she offered before.  Instead, she offered names of those who were not there. 

2.  and her dad just left- 

Here is a signal of withheld information.  Rather than tell us where he was ("walking around the park") she reports his departure.  She is not "moving forward" linguistically.  He cannot be at the park unless he left there. This is unnecessary deliberately withheld information.  


an-an he’s walking around the park looking for her

Why is he walking around the park?

She anticipates being asked this question.  
No one would ask this question.  Of course he is out looking for her. 

He was not. 

He was "walking around the park." 

She anticipates being asked, "Why is her dad walking around the park?" unnecessarily and this is how she, herself, is caught.  She wants to preempt the asking of this question. 

Note how she gives the reason why as it is highlighted in blue?  This is called a "hina clause" and it is longer than just a single word.  

These two points of sensitivity, so close together, tell us that she is deceptively withholding information about the child's dad.  

The dad's location is so sensitive to her that she is not done yet, explaining why:  


because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not

Deception Indicated about the dad's involvement in the disappearance. 


PO: Have you looked through everything, ot under the bed? 
CB: Yes ma’am.
PO: The bathroom?
CB: Yes ma’am. 
PO: Okay


CB: Caliyah!
PO: Alright, what’s your name, ma’am?


CB: Courtney Bell C-O-U-R-T-N-E-Y B-E-L-L
PO: Just to let you know, Courtney, they've been on their way out, I’m just giving them this information to update them, okay?
CB: Thank you so much,
PO: What’s your phone number?
CB: Um, i’m not sure of this number, I - uh, my phone busted the other day, um this is my grandmother’s phone she’s been letting me use 
PO: Alright, so you and the dad both were - i’m just trying to get to understand so I can let them know cause of the questions that they’re asking me
PO: You and the dad both were asleep, or he just came back home? 


Note the need to link the two of them together.  This is information she withheld.  She gives it because she has to (she's been asked) but then returns to script: 


CB: No, w-we woke up together - she woke us up together 




PO: Okay. The two year old woke y’all up and told y’all that the baby was gone?
Yeah. 
PO: Okay. 


CB: Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?



PO: Okay. So the police should be in the area now
CB: Thank you
PO: I’ll go ahead and let you go, okay.
CB: Thanks.
PO: Uh huh


The politeness is the "Ingratiating Factor" where the guilty caller has a need to align herself with police.  She linguistically "ingratiates" herself into their good graces.  This is another signal of guilt.  

Who needs to be seen as the  "good guy" with police?
Answer:  a "bad guy." 

This is similar to DeOrr Kunz spending a great deal of time and energy thanking police and authorities for not finding his missing little boy.  


Analysis Conclusion:

This mother has guilty knowledge of what happened to the baby. 
Note the mother addresses the child as an afterthought and does not ask that she be found.  

This mother knows what happened to her child and that the father is directly involved.  

As of this writing, only the father has been charged. 

By this call, alone, the case is all but solved. 

For training in detecting deception, visit:  www.hyattanalysis.com

93 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, thank you HeyJude! It's so much easier to read it then listen to the recording.

Interesting analysis. These analysis always break my heart for the baby.

A few comments. First, the blanket bothered me too. It was hard not to compare it being "gone" with other missing babies.

The dad. Many concerns. Why didn't she mention him from the start? She was hiding him. "Walking around the park" bothered me too. How leisurely? A mother would be freaking out on him for such a stupid task during a crisis time. Why the park as opposed to anywhere else?

It also makes me a little sick that she felt the need to try to defend herself by implying she was a great mom when she "loved on" the 2 year old. I just know something awful happened when I read it.

You know what I hate to forget? When someone "left." I can't believe I forgot that again.

The only slight gratification was the way dispatch was dismissive with the caller at the end of the call. She knew the baby was "gone." I can't even say it, it's too horrific.

GetThem

soulsurfer said...

"I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night..". blaming the victim? " I didn’t mean to fall asleep" introducing the word falling, maybe leackage? "Her blanket's not with us" unusual way of phrasing that a blanket is missing! Not with us ( anymore?) could refer to her baby ?

Peter Hyatt said...

soulsurfer:


yes.

In some bizarre way, she blames the victim.

Catch up on the case online now that you've added a good point here.

Peter

Anonymous said...

It seems like mom detailed all the facts in that call. The baby was found in a duffel bag, similar to the "tote" she looked in, as well as wrapped in her blanket.

tania cadogan said...

CB: Her dad was here, and her dad just left- an-an he’s walking around the park looking for her - because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not

Why would she not believe her two year if she said yes when asked if someone came in and took her.

This smacks of concealing knowledge and information.

If the two year old came in and said poppa took the child why would you then not tell the operator?
Why would you not be demanding the father to say what he did with the child if you were innocent?

To leak what she did, she had to know what had happened to her days old baby, who was all or partly responsible, who removed her from the home.

It is also worth noting the leakage when she referred to:
CB: And I have clothes in totes, but i’ve looked all in ‘em and she’s not here
The baby was found in a bag.

The calling out of the missing child's name is also telling since it would imply the baby would recognize her own name and respond accordingly.
Given also she speaks of the two year waking her, she does not say why the older girl woke her, She reports the younger child as being not there rather than abducted or missing without saying how she noticed or when she learned via report perhaps.

This leads me to wonder about parentification of the two year old and also of the 2 week old, with expectations far beyond what would normally be expected of the relevant ages.
Was being woken by the two year old normal?
This then leads me to wonder about substance and alcohol abuse.
Was the missing child tested at birth for drugs or alcohol?
What about the older child?
Were they known to CPS?
Were they known to LE?

The mother knows and is involved in some way shape or form.
The cause of death will likely reveal much about the family dynamics.
I sincerely hope the surviving child is removed from all family members and placed somewhere safe with a loving family.

Anonymous said...

It have me away when she woke up in too many ways. On the couch, woke up together, the two year old in the corner. That was the different ways in which she was awaken.

Patricia Davis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patricia Davis said...

From what I was told she had 6 or 7 other children who have been removed from her home. This was the message that was removed because I couldn't edit it. Why would she be allowed to keep the two she had with her?

Hey Jude said...

Peter - sorry - looking at more news reports, I see the name is spelled Cortney, not Courtney. I used the more usual way of spelling the name, the UK way, then. Mortified. :-/

Anonymous said...


The baby died of blunt force trauma.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/baby-found-stuffed-bag-under-124400295.html


"I pray to God that she had nothing to do with it," the mother's father, Tim Bell, told reporters.

Yikes.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Why would the father be walking around the park (of all places) looking for her? How would a two week old magically get to the park...Especially if someone didn't "come in her house", as Cortney kept carefully avoiding saying someone came in her house. People often go somewhere (like a park) to walk to clear their head after a disturbing encounter/scene though.

I love that the Dispatcher asked: "What about anything else that could possibly have gone like, could be hers, that could’ve gone with her?"- She knew the baby couldn't have gone anywhere on her own and that no one had come into the house. So someone already in the house "took" the baby and purposefully only her blanket, no food, clothing, diapers, or toys (care or comfort items because the baby was beyond needing those items).

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Interesting change in language:

PO: Okay, so the only thing that’s missing is her and her blanket? You didn’t talk to the dad, or her grandma, or anybody else?

CB: Her dad was here, and her dad just left- an-an he’s walking around the park looking for her - because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not

---She's trying to persuade he's a good, loving, caring dad "looking for the baby". But if it's just Cortney, dad, 2-yr old, and baby- no one came in- how does he alone know where to search for baby Caliyah? He doesn't even get a mention until she's forced by the dispatcher to acknowledge him, but he's such a great, involved dad? Talk about extreme distancing and NTP!

THEN BECOMES:

PO: Okay. The two year old woke y’all up and told y’all that the
baby was gone?
CB: Yeah. 
PO: Okay. 

CB: Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?

---Does she [Caliyah] not belong to her dad also? Courtney takes sole possession of her here with my baby’s dad when the baby is "not here". Is it because she knows the dad is no longer her dad at this point because she’s dead?


Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter- Thank you for breaking this transcript down piece by piece. It is fascinating how the human mind works.

Trudy said...

Hey J, thanks for transcribing and Peter thanks for analysing. This is heartbreaking. The manipulative use of the two year old is horrible.

Yes. She has guilty knowledge.

"because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not."

Here Cortney (whoever named her Cortney should be mortified, not you, Hey J) tells the 911 operator that the child responded "yeah" to the question "did somebody come in and take her"? And in the very next breath invites the operator to share her doubts as to the truthfulness of the 2 year old. Cortney also alleges that the child said that "Poppy" had taken the baby, but having rung Poppy, the veracity of the two year old is called into question again. She's basically saying all she knows about the baby missing comes from her two year old. But her two year old is a liar.

If the baby is not in her crib, it stands to reason that somebody took her out of it. If Cortney doubts that some one came in, who does she think moved the baby? I wonder if she had some idea of blaming the death of the baby on the two year old.
-------
Cortney self censors when she says that the baby's bottle is "in my roo..." And changes the location of the bottle to "bathroom". Her room is sensitive. That may be where the baby was killed. So sad.
-----------
Re: blanket - in the DeOrr kunz case, the only thing missing beside little DeOrr, was his blanket.

Anonymous said...

This entire call is deception. The mother is hoping to establish a narrative in this call. She is 'unaware of what happened' since she was asleep. She directs all responsibility towards the '2 yr old'
She is fully aware of what took place.
She is protecting someone.
Possibly the person who harmed her 15 day old child.
Possibly protecting the 2yr old child who witnessed the harming of the 15 day old missing child.

Anonymous said...

It seems kinda strange because ive lived in a trailer before and you can hear everything that goes on. How did she not hear the baby crying at all. How is it that there was five hours in between the feedibg and time she woke up. Babies have to eat every three hours. I think the 2 yr old witnessed something in the house happening to the baby. And as for him if she were missing you wouldnt be outside walking around looking for her unless you have a guilty feeling inside you. Im not saying she is guilty but there are things that dont add up.

Peter Hyatt said...

If mom is not charged it is likely due to not having enough to charge her.

This 911 call shows her priority is not finding the child.

She knew.

Peter

Anonymous said...

The mother had (as reported from family) 1 stillborn, the two year old and thectwo week old. The maternal grandmother has 6 or 7 children that were all removed ( said by family). Both mother and father are reported to bith be as reported by family avid drug users. Most likely Meth.

Anonymous said...

Did she think the two week old would have crawled out? Sounds like a trailer park with the lot number given.

If she was a meth user at the time, wouldn't they be able to detect that at the time of birth?

He's creepy looking what with the three tear drops in earlier photos and then the full face/neck tattoos. Reminds me of that Indian couple that abused and burned a child a few years back.

I agree, she had knowledge. Did they agree he'd dump the body and while he was away (he left) she decides to call the police and he'd get caught with the body?

Hopefully, the two year old finds a better home and doesn't end up the same way.

Hey Jude said...

She was looking under clothes and in tote bags where there were also clothes - poor baby was found with a t-shirt and blanket in a drawstring bag in the woods. Interesting she said that was where she was not, in a tote - she looked all in 'em.

Trudy, she doesn't say the baby was in a crib - she was not in her sleeper. I looked up sleeper - it's a chair which can be set to rock all night - alternatively it could be an infant sleeping bag, but if she meant that, she would be more likely to say she was not in her crib - unless she had put the baby to sleep on the floor. As such, she could blame the two-year old, if the baby had been at her level rather than a crib. She says she didn't mean to sleep on the couch - is that to say she had not put the baby in a crib, the baby was with her on the couch, or beside the couch in a sleeper, or on the floor, when she fell to sleep.

Why is the dad looking in the park, as if they believe the baby might somehow be there - a kidnapper would not leave the baby in the nearby park - a two year old probably likes and knows the park. I agree, they were thinking it might be believed that the two year old had carried her out from the house, maybe to the park.

Why would she say she looked in tote bags, unless to suggest the two year old might have put the baby inside one while the parents slept? - the baby could not move anywhere herself, and as far as she knows someone didn't come into the house. She can't think of any other possibility - maybe she was hoping the operater might suggest the two year.

It's so strange how she calls out the baby's name - she must know that the operator knows she knows a two week old can't respond.

I read today that the father is believed to have premeditated the baby's murder.

Hey Jude said...

Oh, trailer park - she more likely meant he was looking round outside near the home, rather than in a nearby actual park.

Hey Jude said...

CB:My child said - m-m-m-my two year old said she’s gone...

Makes me think - Really? And is there any other information your two year old might be able to provide for us on your behalf?

---

CB: Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?


Is this where the baby was killed - did the two year old witness it, or see the baby's body? She was kinda freaked out - was she frightened, maybe hiding. 'Just' standing - not only, or maybe not standing. She 'loved on her' - maybe she did, if she was freaked out. A two year old would not be 'freaked out' merely by the absence of her two week old baby sister - at that age, if she noticed, she would be aware she was not there, She would not understand she was 'missing', or that 'not there' was something to be freaked out over. She might have seen something which 'kinda' freaked her out. One is either freaked out, or not - I think 'kinda' there is minimising.

Or, did none of that happen, and she made it up to make it appear only the two year old knew what happened, or if someone had come in, or where the baby was?

She told her baby's dad to 'go check on Caliyah' - 'go' - another room? A newborn is not usually in another room, but taking from 'go' that she was not in the same room, he doesn't say, 'She's not there! Where is she?', which I think would be more expected if he went to another room and had found she was not there. He also doesn't panic, or freak out, which would be expected - rather she says 'he is talking about she's not here. she's not here'. Talking - he is only 'talking' about the baby not being here.

She's rummaging around in tote bags - helpful in the circumstances, two week olds get everywhere. Well, that would not be helpful, unless she felt it was - the baby was found in a drawstring bag. She has clothes in totes - she keeps clothes in laundry type totes, in addition to on the floor, or maybe she emptied one out, and she is looking at clothes on the floor, so, she says she 'was looking under clothes'.









Ed Nolan said...

A sleeper is not a chair. It's a one-piece pajama.

Luke said...

When they say park, they are meaning trailer park where they lived.

Anonymous said...

A bassinet or small crib is also called a sleeper.

Anonymous said...

They lived in a Trailor Park that's why she said "park"

Anonymous said...

So she and the dad were BOTH sleeping "accidentally" on the sofa, where the 2 y.o. woke them up "together"??

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
So she and the dad were BOTH sleeping "accidentally" on the sofa, where the 2 y.o. woke them up "together"??
October 13, 2017 at 2:09 PM

uh, yeah.

They were both sleeping, no wait, only she was, but then 911 asked and he magically appeared.

Then, they searched for the newborn UNDER clothes.

Anonymous said...

Ed Nolan and Hey Jude:

http://fisher-price.mattel.com/shop/en-us/fp/baby-sleepers#facet:&productBeginIndex:0&orderBy:&pageView:grid&minPrice:&maxPrice:&pageSize:&contentPageSize:&

A sleeper is apparently a small crib, like a bassinet. I also thought it was one-piece pajama. Some people call the one-piece pajama suit a "onesie" even though a onesie is actually a baby bodysuit without legs.

Peter:

When Cortney said she woke up with the baby, and you indicated that "with" indicates distance, I wonder if it is different in this situation because the child is a baby... Lots of people I know will say they were "up with the baby" "all night", or "5 times last night", or "at 2am."

Hey Jude (again):

http://www.globalindustrial.com/p/storage/bins-totes-containers/nest-stack/clear-tote-14-gallom-gray-269994?infoParam.campaignId=T9F&%7Blpurl%7D&vt-pti=269994&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI4rLqqZzu1gIVQR6GCh03vgIuEAQYBSABEgKIxPD_BwE

I think this is the type of tote she was referencing when she said that she had clothing stored in a "tote". Lots of people use these storage boxes to save baby clothes for subsequent children.

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to voice my analogy at this point actor being so upset after reading the analyst report, I will only say one thing at this point and this one thing is definitely in my opinion 100% factual. The very first thing that should have came out of that woman's mouth when she called 911 would have been screaming my baby's missing my baby's missing hurry hurry hurry! If you could have even understood a mother in real distress which sometimes is really hard to do, but not in this case. This is so heartbreaking

Anonymous said...

I think I will go ahead and add something to this. I think the analysis on this was fantastic, I have been known to analyze things I think my whole life some people don't like it, but I have to say I thought of almost everything the analyst has mentioned. I listen to that 911 call 5 times, my very first thought was oh my god when is she going to say my baby is missing, the fact that she was asleep and just woke up was irrelevant the fact that her two-year-old woke her up was irrelevant I mean maybe it may be relevant but not urgent at that moment and the idea of The Pacifier on the floor totally not relevant, the baby bottle being here or there not relevant, and then the mentioning of looking and bags of clothes red flag, how did the two year old get from waking her up to in the corner at the end of the couch, the child told her someone took the baby being Papa but okay she's not going to believe her because she's a two year old. And how in the world does she know the only thing missing was the baby and the blanket. A distress mother probably wouldn't even remember her own address if woken up and her child was gone. There's more holes in this story than a spaghetti strainer. Oh and let me put my makeup on before I call the police!

Anonymous said...

And one more very shocking and disturbing thing she said. Calling out the baby's name as if a 15 day old newborn was going to answer her. Another huge red flag

Anonymous said...

Peter Hyatt
I am so grateful to hear this case is...all but solved.
God bless

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

CB: [lengthy pause] I didn’t mean to fall asleep on the couch…I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night…

Is this victim blaming?


CB: Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?

I loved on her.

There appears to be a lot of contradictory emotion: “kinda” freaked out, “just” standing there, "told" her two year old and “baby dad” what to do (come here/to go)

Nic said...

I just read soul surfer's comment. Good catch!

BOSTON LADY said...

Another heart breaking case. The mother was trying to portray a concerned mother but looking for her baby UNDER clothes? I'm picturing a big mess in the trailer with a mountain of clothing on the floor. Pacifier on the floor. So many red flags

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
And one more very shocking and disturbing thing she said. Calling out the baby's name as if a 15 day old newborn was going to answer her. Another huge red flag


This is another valid point. The objection would be that the mother is beside herself....

I don't agree and can show enough in more in-depth analysis to prove it is alternative recipient ---she is playing to the recording.

There are a few other good comments here, including subjective understanding of "sleeper" (here, that is a "onesie") as well as going for a walk in the '"park" being trailer park.

"Walking in the park", had it been "walking in the trailer park" would not likely change any minds regarding the use of "walking."

Still, the comments here show that readers are listening and asking lots of questions, and it is encouraging to read.

Mother should be arrested.

Peter

Bobcat said...

"Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?
I loved on her."

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

The two year old sounds like she saw something terrible happen, or did the two year old DO something terrible ... and the parents are covering it up?

Hey Jude said...

Well, as a tote can be a box, and more likely is a box in the US, and a sleeper can be a chair, a travel cot, or an item of clothing, I conclude there is not much to be gained by trying to work out what might have been meant by either word - it is easy to get sidetracked by not so relevant details.

I think the sleeper was something low to the floor, from which the mother would like the operator to believe the two year old took the baby, leaving behind the pacifier. And that it was most likely beside the couch, as that is where she said she set down for a moment, not intending to sleep - it is as if she is apologising for sleeping because the baby was still awake when she sat down. Her baby's dad would not need to 'go' check on the baby, if she had been in a sleeper beside the couch - they could already see she was not there.

Yes, it was probably a squalid environment, with them all, at other times. sleeping on the couch, the two year old free to wander, and with the newborn baby beside them...maybe even on a pile of clothes - well, she seemed to have thought it was something which might have been possible and believable to the police operator, that her baby could have got lost under clothes.

---

Peter - what is the significance of 'under' clothes - are you pointing only to the state of the dwelling there - or is it also leakage, that the baby might be found under something, or buried? I know she was found in a bag in the woods, but have not so far read if she was hidden in the open, or buried, or concealed under something.


Hey Jude said...

'I don't agree and can show enough in more in-depth analysis to prove it is alternative recipient ---she is playing to the recording. '

Peter - will you consider writing more on the term 'alternative recipient'? That is a new SA term to me. I think here it means she called out for the baby for the benefit of the operator, to try to demonstrate that she is frantic, not for the baby, who can't respond.

More generally, is 'alternative recipient' when someone says or writes something seemingly intended for one audience or person, when really it is intended for a different audience, or for a different person? If that is what it means, I think that happens a lot on-line, lots of people do it, I do it, sometimes. I don't know whapy anyone does it when there are much better ways to communicate. I think it is easier to spot when the person speaking or writing is known to you, otherwise it can go over your head, as It does not relate to you personally.



Bobcat said...

In another transcript, the mom says "I'm sorry."

http://www.11alive.com/news/crime/transcript-of-911-call-reporting-little-caliyah-mcnabb-missing/482549652

Nic said...

"Hey Jude said:
Well, as a tote can be a box, and more likely is a box in the US, and a sleeper can be a chair, a travel cot, or an item of clothing, I conclude there is not much to be gained by trying to work out what might have been meant by either word - it is easy to get sidetracked by not so relevant details. "


I think if you take it within the cultural context (from whence the call originates) you could definitely provide insight to what is meant.

Hey Jude said...

Well, I thought she meant drawstring bags rather than boxes, because to my understanding a tote is a bag. I thought that she emptied one, in which later the baby's body was found. The baby was found in a drawstring bag - that's a tote to me.

She has clothes in totes.

In the US, a tote is a box. Is it not alternatively a drawstring laundry bag, anyone?

---

Bobcat - I just listened again, it is not clear enough to be sure that is what she said - if I guessed, I would say 'I'm sorry'., and it might be a good guess. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who didn't listen properly to the bit where she spelled her name. There is another one too, on a news type site, which also has that mistake. Leaving something out is one thing, adding something in, which was not ever heard because it is not there, is no good. At least it was only a spelling error, but still it is not what she said.

Anonymous said...

Most babies have more than one paci and more than one blanket. If the baby is somewhere with a blanket and without a paci she would not be able to tell unless she KNEW!

Nic said...

Hey Jude said:

In the US, a tote is a box. Is it not alternatively a drawstring laundry bag, anyone?


In Canada, a tote means something in which we carry something. Like a bag.

If you google "tote" (image) you'll see a fancy purse; but, in reality, it is something in which we carry something. It doesn't have to be fashionable.

Thank you, Hey Jude.

Nic said...

As an aside, there is Thule 'box'. It travels on top of a car in which to store stuff. Typically sports and camping equipment.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Oh my God, this just made me laugh so hard I am crying!!!!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0u3jXFM0k

Anonymous said...

Sorry, this is the funny link--hysterical!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3GLeprOXvLk

Anonymous said...

I'm guessing there were clothes all over the couch and floor - a general mess. Totes in this case means open plastic tubs as in Rubbermaid brand type without the lids on them. Since the baby was found in a t-shirt, she was not wearing her sleeper (a footed button-front pajama for an infant), in other words, "... she was not in her sleeper." The sleeper was probably lying on the sofa without the baby in it.

The mother asking a two year old if anyone came in is indicative of someone who is too drugged or drunk to know when someone enters the house. The way she talks in the interview sounds as though she's struggling to gain coherency - still in a drug fog. I imagine the two year looked a bit freaked out a lot with those two for parents.

The baby was found on property not far from the trailer park. When the mom says the dad is out looking for her around the park, he was probably at that time hiding the infant's body. The baby was found inside a duffle bag under a log.

Scenario was probably something like the two parents took meth late in the evening. The baby's crying triggers a drug crazed incident where the baby is struck in the head (autopsy report) to shut her up. The parents eventually start waking up from being passed out in the den. The two year old is awake and asking about the baby because she knows that she's hurt. They conclude in their fogginess that something terrible has happened and that they are responsible. The dad takes the infant's body and places it in the duffle bag. Early that morning before a lot of people are out he walks with the duffle bag into the woods and hides it, probably not intending to return home for awhile. The mother, in her haziness, figures that she needs to call 9-11 because that is what a mother would normally do.

Bobcat said...

Will a bloodstained footed sleeper be found? Poor baby.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever done meth? It does not cause you to go into crazed rages of anger. It actually will make you more giving and loving of people around you.

Kalee Kensil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Have you ever done meth? It does not cause you to go into crazed rages of anger. It actually will make you more giving and loving of people around you.
October 14, 2017 at 6:41 AM


When the drug wear off, the child's danger increases exponentially.


Peter

deejay said...

In addition to these excellent points above- I noticed her use of 'my' where I would have said 'the'. Where did you look? the bedroom, the bathroom. Is this a leak that these common family spaces no longer belong to the baby? Example, I would say 'the car is gone' if I thought a family member moved it, but 'my car was stolen' in a police report.
Also, in response to a police question, I would also say 'the baby's dad went' rather than 'my baby's dad went'. This script reminds me of an Agatha Christie plot where the audience is meant to reach a quick conclusion: Mother enters, the blanket is gone, the passy is on the floor, the mother looks in a box and under the couch- the mother looks horrified at the audience and says "Oh no! the baby is gone!"

John mcgowan said...

A small observation.

Subjective internal dictionary.

and her paci is on the floor"

i would've had to ask her what a "paci" is if i was the operator. I know now it is a pacifier only after reading the analysis, but that is not what she says.
In the UK a "pacifier" (paci) is known as a "Dummy" and this is where i would want clarification.

Anonymous said...

If the two year old is standing in the corner what's to imply how she's freaking out? What would make the mother believe the toddler is "freaking out"? Just by simply standing there obvious sign the mother knows something has happened to the baby and the situation would warrant a panicked response so she is implying that the toddler was panicked but the child standing in the corner doesn't give me that impression. Also why wpuld the toddler be freaking out but the mother was not to see the baby gone. If the toddler woke the parents why would she then be standing by the corner? Also if she woke both parents together were they both on the couch? From the explanation it sounds like the toddler woke only mom but then Courtney tries to imply the child woke them both up together an added detail later in the conversation.

In the background the toddler is also having a conversation with someone. It sounds like she mentions papa and she says stop. But the mother states the grandpa is on his way but is not there. I also don't understand the rationale of why the mother would look inside totes for a newborn infant who is not mobile? (presumption fact of detail mother claims) would why she not immediately think the baby was taken the need to look implies a cover up for the fact the child is not there and knows the child is not. I as a mother if I suddenly woke up and found my baby missing I wouldn't search the house I would first ask my children if they knew where the baby was just in case one of them picked up the baby and put her somewhere and then ask the father but immediately waking and finding my newborn missing I would be hysterically crying, panicked, and frazzled she was extremely calm, she was able to immediately realize the only missing item was the blanket a normal response would be I don't know if anything else is missing because my first concern of a frazzled, panicked mother would be where is my baby? why is someone asking about other items missing? This is not my priority at this moment and unless a mother did a inventory check, counting diapers, checking for missing baby wipes, formula etc. She wouldn't be assertive in this response which makes me believe it was a scripted response. I am shocked by the calmness in her voice and of course what mother would have her make up all done when police arrive? I would love for the police to give her a lie detector test to see if she passes or fails.

Bobcat said...

If the toddler woke the parents why would she then be standing by the corner?

--------

When my kids were young, they misbehaved - I can't even remember what they did - but they realized they had been naughty, so they sent themselves to their own rooms. It was cute and a little funny at the time.

I am still wondering if the toddler did something to the baby, and was panicked, knowing she'd done something wrong, and put herself in the corner. Did the toddler put the baby under clothes in a tote? Could the sensitivity in the mother's language due to knowledge that the father took Caliyah away to hide her body?

Or the toddler was panicked because of what she witnessed the father/mother do to Caliyah...

Anonymous said...

"If the toddler woke the parents why would she then be standing by the corner?"

If you have ever been in a narrow single wide trailer you would see that the two year old could easily be beside the couch and in the corner at the same time. The mother was not saying the child was "in the corner" such as one would expect from punishment.

I would imagine that the child was standing beside the couch distraught (afraid and crying) because her baby sister was in bad shape. The mother probably did try to comfort her once she was lucid. I don't think the two year old hurt the baby at all. I also think the mother was speaking from the visuals around her, as in looking in the totes and under clothes, etc.

I'm imagining that the father murdered the child but the mother was not in a state to care at the time - thus equally guilty - or vice versa. Neither one of them probably were fit to care for a helpless baby, which was a source of major stress at best. When they self-medicated with drugs to alieve the stress, it may have vastly increased the irritation over the stress when the high was leaving (as Peter mentioned). The mother states that she went to sleep on the couch "...after dealing with..." the infant all day.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
deejay said...

Peter - I enjoy reading your SA case studies like this one. I learn a lot from your observations and from those people add as comments. Could you please remove the (ugly, cussing, off-topic) political posts from them? (unless it is a political post to start)

Anonymous said...

A paci on the floor accentuates the idea that the baby was fussing and the mother, or both, was unable to get her to stop crying. The baby's body was found wearing only a t-shirt which also means that someone might have tried changing her diaper to get her quieted. Nothing was working, and out of frustration, the baby was forced to stop crying.

Peter Hyatt said...

PS: OT is allowed. It often leads to good discussion, links, new analysis, etc.

taunts, Insults, cursing, etc... they are removed.

Also when someone posts obviously errant material posing as Statement Analysis is either addressed or deleted.

Personally, I like to see latitude. I also know that leftists target this site--Mods have a large volume of daily deletions. (Once we acknowledge that Bruce Jenner is a sexy co ed, they will stop).

Other than that, I like to hear opinions different from my own. It makes me pause, consider and learn. The deliberate illogic will continue to be deleted, however. They don't add to learning.

The good news for leftists is that there is 95% or more out there that belongs to them already. They have all of Hollywood, most all the media, and the highest moral high ground known to mankind, as they elevate to deity status in the language.

This is just a site for truth and lots and lots of questions. Small and insignificant, they eventually move on and let people discuss things freely.

I know this all to be true. Snopes said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Anonymous said...

The mother comforting the toddler can be considered an ally move - and important to the mother. She may be conceding to her little girl that the father is the monster, and saying by action, "I'm so sorry you had to witness this horrific ordeal."

The news reports that as soon as the father learns that the baby's body has been found, he jumps out of the vehicle he's riding in and runs away. (I don't know if someone called him or the driver to share the news, or that he heard it from the radio.) Also, when he is in a Food Mart/gas station grocer near his house later, he's is verbally proclaiming his innocence to bystanders, followed by being arrested. (I don't know how much time passed between the two events.) It is clear that he is torn between being on the run and trying to fake innocence.

His actions point to him being the one who struck the blow that ended the baby's life. If this is found to be true, I still believe they should both be sentenced equally by association. Since they wouldn't get help for irresponsible drug addiction, they should be taken off the streets and also punished to pay for the baby's life.

Hey Jude said...

John, you maybe show your age. :) Health visitors say dummies are better described as 'soothers', because 'dummy' suggests dumb - maybe they think the babies will be offended - the word implies that a baby with a dummy is 'dumb'. 'Dumb' as a word has been out of favour for a long time - as a disability, it became 'deaf-mute' rather than 'deaf and dumb' - the word 'dummy' has followed it out of favour, too. 'Pacifier' is American, but if you tried in the U.K. to buy a dummy labelled 'Dummy' you would not find one - they are 'Soothers' or 'Pacifiers', and have been for years. 'Dummy' is still often said by grandmothers - young mothers might say dummy, soother or pacifier.

--

Anon. I do not know DeeJay. I am not DeeJay. I only post as Hey Jude.

Hey Jude said...

Also, dummies are a no-no but if you absolutely have to have one, it should be called a soother. So say the health visitors. :) Who knew babies were so easily offended?

John mcgowan said...

Hey Jude said...

"John, you maybe show your age. :)"

Ooops lol

tania cadogan said...

I think it also depends on where you are from as well as age.
Where i live i hear dummy, pacifier, soother, bitty, binky, dummy tit, dum-dum along with names for it (weird when i heard someone asking where Billy is and seeing a woman talking to her son and learning billy was what she called his pacifier.

As an aside it bugs the heck out of me when i see toddlers using pacifiers.
Pacifiers are for very young babies, not 4 and 5 year olds let alone a 7 year old.

I will admit my 10 year old had a pacifier for a few days but then she was a woof and found it in the park.
She galloped over to me with this darn pacifier in her mouth looking proud as punch. I threw a frisbee she came back with said pacifier.


Anonymous said...

Hey Jude said

Anon. I do not know DeeJay. I am not DeeJay. I only post as Hey Jude."

A lot of repetition in your denial, also denying things you werent accused of like "knowing Deejay". Reliable denial? Um, no.

deejay said...

I am a real person who used to come often to this site to learn. My posts go way back to Hailey, Ayla, and Tiffany. I veered away a bit the last year because I prefer the 911 calls and interviews to national politics (which is depressing). I run a bit too centrist for some of Peter's friends - wink- but he tolerated me because I tried to add helpful comments. Cheers. Deejay

Anonymous said...

Cheers deejay! You sound like a really swell guy! I hear you--politics are SOOOO depressing, like I'm TOTALLY not into discussing politics. I like pina coladas and getting caught in the rain! What about you?!

Anonymous said...

It is interesting as well that she makes a negative comment about the baby, having had to stay up with her all night, hence her exhaustion. I believe we see this in other cases as well. Madeleine, Hailey, Caylee...

Anonymous said...

Updates if you're not privy to the info:
https://www.covnews.com/news/crime/breaking-ncso-investigating-missing-baby/

Benjamin said...

I think I've solved this case.

Anonymous said...

anonymous thanks for the privy info. the dad did what planned parenthood does, but 2 weeks late

New England Water Blog said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Have you ever done meth? It does not cause you to go into crazed rages of anger. It actually will make you more giving and loving of people around you.

October 14, 2017 at 6:41 AM "

The idea that trailer park meth freaks banging , snorting or smoking this powerful drug full of impurities are more giving and loving is laughable on its face. Yes a novice user with clean dope might have a few nice experiences but we are talking about poor , hardened types repeatedly doing the worst homebrew shit imaginable. Newflash: these aren't the daring folks from your yoga class these are some nasty dope fiends.

anon said...

People in my yoga class dont do meth. They occassionally do crack cocaine, and its always irked me because they dont hold the poses well after doing the crack, especially in my goat yoga class...

Hey Jude said...

Anon, you asked if Deejay and I knew each other - I do not know DeeJay - thus 'I do not know Deejay'. I am not DeeJay. I only post as Hey Jude. I am sorrry if you are unable to deem this reliable, but it is.

---

These days, when a health visitor is due, a young mother might do a 'dummy sweep' to hide the evidence, and hope her baby doesn't start crying for his or her dummy during the visit, because then she might suspect the mother to be a closet dummyist, who is dumbing down her baby, and possibly enjoying motherhood, rather than experiencing all the joys of sleepless nights and train-wreck days.

If a young mother says 'dummy' she might look round the room apologetically, as she remembers she is meant to say 'soother', and then look again, even more apologetically because she dares to give her baby a dummy, which, to some, is as taboo as not breast feeding, or not giving birth in a field...I might be exaggerating a bit there, but I am glad I did not have those pressures when my kids were babies - the first of whom did have a dummy.

I say the baby does not care if it is called a dummy or a soother, and if it helps the baby settle, a dummy has got to be worth any disapproving looks.

Also, I think it's taking all that PC virtue signalling stuff too far when a dummy can't be called a dummy, and an expectant mother can't be called an expectant mother but now should be referred to as 'a pregnant person', just on the off-chance that a gender-confused person with exceptional hearing might be in the waiting room, or have an ear pressed to the consulting room door during 'a pregnant person's' appointment, and be offended.

The other day I heard 'people menstruate'. I'm sure, traditionally, that menstruation has always been exclusive to women, and girls.



Anonymous said...

Can you just call it a pacifier? Noone calls it a "dummy".

Anonymous said...

Exactly my thoughts on that one!!!!

Hey Jude said...

Maybe there's a conspiracy to corrupt pronoun useage 'cause 'they' are fed up, or afraid, of being Statement Analysed.

Anonymous said...

@Hey Jude, Yeah thinking about him is driving me crazy. I didnt think about hin for 2 straight years till he reappeared on facebook and msgs exchanged and then some more msgs recently. It went from NO THOUGHT to being tormented bc I dont get why he does that shit! Like taking down pic of him and wife, turning it to blackness, defriending her, like why??? Thats not the first time he's done something like that. And I know it is not worth the thought, I dont get why my head gets stuck on it, I cannot stand it. The only way I can describe how my brain got this way is that years ago, when he lived here, as far as my impression of the situation, I felt that he and I were falling in love with each other (it had gotten sexual but this was coming out if a friendship & Im talking about what the heart was feeling). I loved being around him, and someone even tokd me the ither day "You 2 really enjoyed each others company". So, when he was going to move away & he was acting really weird & we got into that argument, it was like he jusr wanted to end the relationship out of nowhere when he had been kind and caring earlier that evening & had asked me to come over & my heart was like wtf is going on?! Like in my heart I knew he did not want to end the relationship so why was he?! And I can see now he was ordered away from me by his Dad, he was scared of someone coming for me and/or him. That very night he thiught someone was coming after us but he had tokd me weeks before he was scared someone was going to get into his apt and I was like "Huh?" like I didnt know what he meant. But it never made sense to my heart. And then just like nothing ever frickin does with him--the things that happened when we reconnected, and how mich I wanted to be with him & my heart felt he wanted to be w me but then the areanged marriage had to happen. I just have always felt so confused & felt like my heart was gas-lighted...like my heart felt love & the Islamic father commanding him away, etc and it left my heart so confused & then when he does weird stuff its like wait wtf does he still have feelings for me or something? And then my minds like "No no he doesnt" but nothing ever makes sense in my brain for sone reason.
To whoever wrote that I need an ego boost, I dont really know what you mean? As far as him looking for an ego boost from me, he probably is...my sense is he is just checking "Are you still there? Are you happy without me?" because his wife is money-hungry narcopath, nothings ever enough, house isnt big enough, she has a wicked streak and they were arranged.. Why would he miss me? Love. He knew I loved him for him. I made him feel needed...he knew I was a strong person who never looked to guys for emotional support but I did with him. I told him I liked that his feet were more on the ground than mine. WHATEVER!!!! I dont even care. I needed someone like him, he had a way of getting through to me. He made me feel safe & loved & attractive. That all changed the day he said there was no point, he will go to areanged marriage and listed all bad things Ive done when he always knew that stuff but also told me how women of Islam from his country are better people than me bc they didnt do all the bad stuff I did and they are so "cultured and I knew all the stuff I did was wrong but I still did it and Islamic women dont do stuff like that they are wonderful & perfect. My feeling in my heart was "you love me why are you doing this" but he did and it made me feel awful I have to say yeah it actually did.
Its stupid. He had to do arranged marriage. I need to not take it so personally & understand we shouldnt be friends cause he is married and I feel too sad he said Im not as good as Muslim women. Ot hurt me so much cuz he was my friend for over 10 yrs at that point. It literally felt like a slap in the face. I dont know why.

Anonymous said...

"He's creepy looking what with the three tear drops in earlier photos and then the full face/neck tattoos. Reminds me of that Indian couple that abused and burned a child a few years back."

From what I've heard watching crime scene programs, the tattooed tear is supposed to be a gang-related symbol to represent the number of people the person has killed. I think I saw three tear tattoos, so is he a poser or a previous killer who has never been convicted for it? Has he killed children before?

elf said...

Not true. And coming down is horrible, being around someone who is coming down can be very dangerous.

Anonymous said...

One odd thing I heard when listening but that I did not notice when I read it first. The first two mentions of the pacifier are "m- my two week old is not in her sleeper, and her paci is on the floor" and "Ur - her blanket’s gone, her paci’s here on the floor".

She says the pacifier is "here on the floor" like she is looking at it laying there while speaking to 911. Would an innocent mother not say something like "I found her paci on the floor" implying that she would have picked it up already, quickly, as one would do to clean/boil before, possibly, giving to a baby that you still believe to be alive?

Instead the mother just left it lying on the floor, looking at it, because she knew the baby would never need it again and there was no point it getting it up off the floor. What a sad image... poor, poor baby.

Anyway, I'm late to the party but there's been so much talk of the pacifier I thought I would mention that. :)

df

Anonymous said...

I read the transcript first and then listened. The call is awful to hear when you already know the fate of the little one. You can hear the lies and the weird, fake, unnatural emotion in the very sound of the mother's voice.

df

Anonymous said...

Imagine having to go through life with"face up or lace up" tattooed across your receding hairline.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Imagine having to go through life with"face up or lace up" tattooed across your receding hairline.


Imagine being in HR and knowing you cannot hire this frightening face.

Those who deliberate get tattoos know that HR does not want to hire them. They use it in suits and they use it to justify that society "owes" them money.

Imagine the need to draw attention to oneself and use disfiguring or frightening elements to accomplish it.

It is very sad.

Peter

Habundia said...

When i heard this call i wondered....does she have GUILTY KNOWLEDGE?
My mind says yes.....does her words reveil this thinking? I think it does, based on her 911 call
Two week old babies don't respond on their names being called out and they can't carry themselves around either. (they can't even turn themselves around, most of them that is), so for her to call out this baby twice during the call, while not once mentioning her name to the operator, seems not expected from a mother calling in on her missing baby.
Even the operator herself never asked for her name (which i found odd, although the call is about a missing two week old baby, so i don't understand why the operator never askes what the baby was wearing or for her name, but then again, the mother herself didn't used the babies name either, so you can't blame the operator)
"CB:I just woke up, my daughter woke me up on the couch"
She woke up on her own or by her daughter.......it can't be both TRUE (alibi building)
The word "just" is used when comparing two or more things, so what was she comparing 'waking up' with? What else is she thinking of?
"PO: Do you think somebody took her, ma’am?
CB:My child said - m-m-m-my two year old said she’s gone…a-a-and I’ve looked everywhere in the house, so I - and I don’t know another possibility"
Doesn't she know 'another possibility' of were to look? or has she been taken by someone?
She's asked what she thinks....anwsered with telling what her 2 year old said (alibi building, with the use of a 2 year old)
"PO: Okay. Who else would have come in your house?
CB: I - I mean - as far as I know nobody would’ve came in my house. My two year old says Poppa but I called my dad, and I called my grandparents, and they don’t have her. My dad’s on the way here now.
PO: Okay"
What about the father of the babies father? Could he have been 'Poppa' too? Or would she only call the father of her mother 'Poppa'?

So she JUST woke up, managed to 'look everywhere in the house' (she didnt say she searched, so we cant say it for her), call her father and her grandparents, then call 911 (while the biological father is looking in the woods for the baby)
"PO: Alright, how long have you been asleep?
CB: Um, the last time I woke up with her was around - I guess five, maybe"

Habundia said...

Avoiding anwsering by telling the last time she woke up (with the baby), not how long she has been asleep. She wasn't asked what time she had woke up (with the baby), she was asked how long she had been sleeping (before finding out the baby was gone)
"PO: Okay. So you were asleep till five o clock?
CB: [lengthy pause] I didn’t mean to fall asleep on the couch…I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night…" (I guess the operator didn't listen well and thought she was talking about the time she woke up (and finding out her baby was gone) blaming the baby for her to fall asleep at the couch; after dealing with her all night)
"I didn't mean"...it wasn't her fault, but the baby's
Why was she up all night with her? Was it normal for this baby to have difficulty sleeping through the night? Wouldn't the baby not had to be fed during the night? *the bottle was still at 'my shelves. In my bathroom on my vanity', she didn't say she had fed her during the night, so we cant say it for her * And if she was sitting on the couch, where was this baby at that point? Back fallen to sleep in her sleeper? Where did this sleeper stand? By the couch? In a seperate room? Parents room? Did she put her (back) into it before 'sitting down for a minute'? Was this close to where the baby's sleeper stood?
"PO: Can you tell if someone’s been there - is her blanket there or gone?
CB: Ur - her blanket’s gone, her paci’s here on the floor - her blanket’s not with us, I don’t know where - I mean - I g- I don’t know, I guess it’s with her"
Change of pronouns. Don't want to stand alone (first the two year old, now 'us')
"PO: What about anything else that could possibly have gone like, could be hers, that could’ve gone with her?
CB: Um - no. Nothing else. Just her and her blanket"
'Just'......that's no word for a mother who found out her 2 week old baby is missing! For a mother it wouldn't be 'just her', it would be her soul and heart that is being tortured when noticing their baby is gone.
"PO: Okay, so the only thing that’s missing is her and her blanket? You didn’t talk to the dad, or her grandma, or anybody else?
CB: Her dad was here, and her dad just left- an-an he’s walking around the park looking for her - because my two year old says - I asked her - did somebody come in and take her, and she said - yeah, but I don’t - she’s two - so I don’t know whether I can believe that or not"
This is the first time she mentions the baby's dad was present (only just left – missing information)
No panicing father will 'walk around the park looking' for their kid....they will be frantic probably running around searching.

Habundia said...

Earlier she stated the 2 year old told her 'Poppa' took the baby, now she only says the 2 year old said 'yeah' when asked if somebody came in and took her, but she's not sure to believe her child (why wouldn't she? Is it because she knows what happened, is it to discredit her 2 year old, who probably is more honest then these adults are.
"PO: Just to let you know, Courtney, they've been on their way out, I’m just giving them this information to update them, okay?
CB: Thank you so much"
"Thank you so much" are not the words of a frantic mother realising her child (baby) is missing.
"PO: Alright, so you and the dad both were - i’m just trying to get to understand so I can let them know cause of the questions that they’re asking me
PO: You and the dad both were asleep, or he just came back home?
CB: No, w-we woke up together - she woke us up together"
All of a sudden she didn't woke up alone, the dad and she woke up together - the two year old woke them up together. Did they both sleep on the couch? If so, why would it than have been a problem to fall asleep on that couch if the dad already was on it sleeping. She is defending it by blaming the baby and that she didn't meant to....so that doesn't seem like she was already sleeping on that couch 'together' before she was 'dealing with her all night'
Here she uses 'us' again, so would the first 'us' used earlier in her call reference to 'the dad and her'? Because she only uses 'us' in her sentences when talking about 'the dad', not when she talks about the two year old, she keeps her separate from herself, for 'the dad' she does not, though he's not close either. He's the dad of, or the father of, he's never her boyfriend or husband
"CB: Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?"
'She was kinda freaked out' - 'she was just standing there' (someone who's 'kinda freaking out' isnt 'just standing there')
'I told her' = stronger than 'I said to her' would have, it's more of an order than 'I said' would have.
'I loved on her' ,although English isn’t my first language, to me this sentence sounds odd. Never heard it used like this before. How do you 'love on' someone? Would that be the same as hugging someone? Or could it also mean telling someone they love them without physical contact?

Unknown said...

CB: Sh - ah - she was kinda freaked out - I mean, h - uh - I, I don’t know - cuz she was just standing there beside the couch in the corner, and I told her come here, and I loved on her, n’then I told my baby's dad to go check on Caliyah, and then he's talking about she’s not here, she’s not in here?
In this statement, I felt she was trying to put the thought in the operators head that it was possible the 2 year old had done something to the baby, what a sorry excuse for a mother!!!!!