Sunday, January 7, 2018

Baby Caliyah: Courtney Bell Indicted




update:  7 January, 2018. Mother indicated.  


Analysis from 12 October 2017. 


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.  




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] 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

We offer seminar and at home study to learn deception detection.  

22 comments:

Buckley said...

Good!

Anonymous said...

This is a good one to teach from.

Hope you've already got your money from the crew on the last post; they are too smart to ever be a 911 operator...or anything else for that matter.

tania cadogan said...

About bloody time

NEWTON COUNTY, Ga. - Police have arrested a mother in connection with the death of her 2-week-old daughter.

The baby, Caliyah McNabb, was reported missing from her Newton County home in October.

She was later found dead in a duffel bag in the woods near the home.

Caliyah's father, Christopher McNabb, was arrested and charged with murder.

A medical examiner's report shows the baby died from blunt force trauma to the head

The baby's mother, Cortney Bell, was arrested Saturday in connection with her death.

Bell was arrested in a Home Depot parking lot in Conyers. She has been charged with murder in the second degree, cruelty to children and deprivation of a minor.

A 911 call obtained by Channel 2 Action News reveals a 2-year old child was the first person to notice her newborn sister disappeared.

"My 2-year old says she's gone. I've looked everywhere in the house and I don't know another possibility," said Bell to a Newton County 911 operator.

Bell told the operator she fell asleep on the couch inside her home. Bell said she had last seen Caliyah five hours before she called 911.

The baby's mother, Cortney Bell, was arrested Saturday in connection with her death.

Bell was arrested in a Home Depot parking lot in Conyers. She has been charged with murder in the second degree, cruelty to children and deprivation of a minor.

A 911 call obtained by Channel 2 Action News reveals a 2-year old child was the first person to notice her newborn sister disappeared.

"My 2-year old says she's gone. I've looked everywhere in the house and I don't know another possibility," said Bell to a Newton County 911 operator.

Bell told the operator she fell asleep on the couch inside her home. Bell said she had last seen Caliyah five hours before she called 911.

The baby's mother, Cortney Bell, was arrested Saturday in connection with her death.

Bell was arrested in a Home Depot parking lot in Conyers. She has been charged with murder in the second degree, cruelty to children and deprivation of a minor.

A 911 call obtained by Channel 2 Action News reveals a 2-year old child was the first person to notice her newborn sister disappeared.

"My 2-year old says she's gone. I've looked everywhere in the house and I don't know another possibility," said Bell to a Newton County 911 operator.

Bell told the operator she fell asleep on the couch inside her home. Bell said she had last seen Caliyah five hours before she called 911.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/mother-arrested-in-connection-with-2-week-old-babys-death/678116535

Habundia Awareness said...

Wonder if her blanket was with her too (in the duffel bag)

Eventhough the case has not been solved with the call alone.......i am sure the call helped officers to get an arrest for Bell.

Was the two year old really the one who noticed her missing or was this just part of her story to avoid responsibility?

Anonymous said...

"after dealing with her all night…"

Fussy baby who met a tragic end.

Peter Hyatt said...

What I wish for readers to understand is that the language is the best guide for truth.

Whether or not this mother was charged would not change the analysis.

In training, you learn many disciplines and in particular, not going beyond what the science reveals, even if it is frustrating. Here, the analysis was not challenging and if mother was never charged or indicted, there may have been other reasons behind the scenes.

Regardless, she indicated guilty knowledge of the crime, in her own words, with the application of basic analysis.

The journey in training is very exciting and those who want 100% accuracy learn to build a solid foundation, and then on to techniques and principles beyond the scope of a blog.

The 12 months of support are vital.

I know of no analyst who works alone, myself included. It is both the nature of this work and our own natures that necessitate team work.

Its a great time, in the New Year, to obtain new skills.

Peter

www.hyattanalysis.com.

Anonymous said...

How bout Orpah's speech at awards yesterday?

Hollywood has never produced anything good for the world. Nothing. Ever. Lets stop supporting it.

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

I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night

I set down for a minute
Body posture. To "sit" denotes tension.

For a minute
"A minute" is sensitive. It comes before "after" (all night).
After a minute is unknown. Withholding information.

Having to “deal with” someone usually means confrontation, anger, frustration. Disparagement of missing baby. Having to deal with someone is typically because of a consequence of somebody else's doing. Victim blaming.

"with"
distancing, the interaction was reluctant, i.e., we went shopping versus, I went shopping with Peter and Heather.

Nic said...

The mother doesn't use either the baby's name or the two year old's name.


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?


911 asks about "a" baby bag and the mother responds with "her" bottle.

Self censoring "my roo-- In my bathroom on my vanity"

"Here" is "in my bathroom on my vanity". But she woke up on the couch, presumably in the living room. IMO the bathroom vanity is an odd place to leave a baby bottle after you're finish tending to your two week old baby. Expected would be on the counter in the kitchen. Or on the nightstand in the nursery (if you were rocking her and were too tired to take the bottle back to the kitchen).

Changing from "my roo" to "my bathroom" makes "my roo" sensitive

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that the "just" in the 1st sentence "I just woke up." is not an indicator of immediacy but rather an attempt to direct our focus to one of several things that were in the mind of Courtney; but she "just" wants us to conclude she was asleep? Contextually it makes sense that she "just" woke up (as in moments ago), as she follows with identifying her two year old as the one who woke her up. But does the language support the use of "just" in this sentence as her intending us to focus on this one thing out of the several things that may have been on her mind at the time? Later in the transcript she provides additional detail that refers back to the time she stated she "Just woke up"; namely "loving" on her daughter, and prior to that, being up "with" her 2 week old until 5am. She claims to have "just" awakened prior to calling 911, but following her statement, she did/experienced the following between waking up and calling 911:

1. her 2 year old told her the 2 week old was gone and she loved on the 2 year old
2. she observed victim wasn't in the sleeper (which she could only determine if she was up and moving around before calling 911)
3. she searched everywhere including under piles of clothes, bins containing clothes,etc (which she could only do if she was up and moving and awake)
4. She had a conversation about with the 2 year old about whether baby daddy was there
5. She contacted "Poppa" and determined 2 week old wasn't with him
6. She had to have some level of interaction with baby daddy that entailed communicating 2 week old wasn't there, I've looked around, then baby daddy leaves to the park ostensibly to search for 2 week old

If we believe what she's told us, all of these things happened between "just woke up" and the 911 call; they appear later in the call and are out of sequence, which makes them especially sensitive statements. That tells me the "just" refers to Courtney wanting us to focus "just" on the fact she recently awoke, opposed to waking up "moments ago".

But I am a robot! said...

Cortney's statements all read as what a 5-year-old with no realistic concepts of childcare would come up with while believing she did something bad.

How would a two-week-old infant get under piles of clothing, inside of totes?

What reasonable, rational adult would be off searching a park for a two-week-old infant?

As mentioned, how would she know without looking around that nothing else is missing?

According to her statement to the 911 dispatcher, she immediately accepted her 2-year-old's report that the baby is missing, but doubts her reliability when she says somebody came in and took her?

But I am a robot! said...

Anybody from Georgia in here? I'm reading "malice murder" among the charges, which I infer means intentionally inflicted pain and suffering to cause her death.

I would have thought a deceased two-week-old with a head injury indicates a frustrated parent who lost it one sleepless, crying night -- obviously also a horrific crime, but the word malice indicates that at least the pain and suffering were calculated and intentional, if not the killing.

And nothing to do with SA of course, but she looks absolutely evil in this photo!

ima.grandma said...

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" ... (does this have similar connotation as "I have no idea"?)

Buckley said...

I'd think "malice" implies intent but not necessarily premeditation or calculation.

Buckley said...

For example, in the heat of the moment, hitting someone with an object and force that a reasonable person knows could cause death. The intent is there, but not the planning of it.

Hey Jude said...

From Wikipedia:

Malice murder is a criminal offence in the US state of Georgia, committed when a homicide is done with express or implied malice.

Definition Edit

Express malice is "that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof." Malice is implied when "no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart."[1]

Examples Edit

Justin Ross Harris of Marietta, Georgia was convicted in November 2016 of malice murder in the June 2014 death of his 22-month-old son, Cooper. Prosecutors argued that Mr. Harris was unhappily married and wanted an escape from family life, and intentionally killed his son by leaving him for about seven hours in the back seat of his vehicle outside the suburban Atlanta office where Mr. Harris worked. Temperatures in the Atlanta area that day reached at least into the high 80s. Investigators found evidence that Mr. Harris was engaging in online flirtations and in-person affairs with numerous women other than his wife, including a prostitute and an underage teenager. Mr. Harris was found guilty of all eight counts against him. In addition to malice murder and felony murder charges, Mr. Harris was also found guilty of sending sexual text messages to a teenage girl and sending her nude photos.[2]

Kelly Gissendaner was found guilty of malice murder in 1998 and executed in 2015,[3] and members of the FEAR terrorist group were charged with it in 2012.[4] One of the murderers of Richard T. Davis was convicted of malice murder in 2004,[5] as was Melissa Leslie Burgeson, an associate of Timothy Carr.[6] Stephen Anthony Mobley was guilty of both malice murder and felony murder.[7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_murder

Anonymous said...

If he can't say it for us we can't say it for him....

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/sports/football/richie-incognito-racist-slurs-yannick-ngakoue.html?referer=http://drudgereport.com/

Buckley said...

"abandoned and malignant heart"

*shivers*

Anonymous said...

Off topic but would looove to know everyone's analysis.

Wonder Woman actress Gal Gadot has been accused of victim-shaming a rape victim in an anonymous letter.

http://www.imasurvivor.xyz

Nic said...

@ Anonymous at 2:52

I see what you mean. If Courtney had said, "I just woke up. My daughter just woke me up...." then the action of being woken up would "sound" immediate. However, the way the statement reads, "I just woke up, my daughter woke me up on the couch," does sound like two separate events. The way it reads, it is conceivable to think that while Courtney was sleeping on the couch, the two week old woke her up (by crying).

In the context of the opening statement, she only identifies her daughters' ages to say which one is missing, not which one woke her up, how or why (does a two year old have the capacity to realize that a missing two year old is "wrong"?). More immediately, Courtney is framing the scene and persuading 911 of what she was doing (alibi), where she was doing it (couch, so implying "away" from the baby/distancing,) and that she even has a witness, all *before* she reports the reason why she is calling.

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

But I am a robot! said...

Hey Jude, thanks for the insight and info! My unclear wording indicated I thought premeditation is a factor, I was trying to express the cruelty.

If someone asked an ecample, Justin Ross Harris is exactly who first comes to mind -- not so much that he planned it as the fact he knew all day his innocent, helpless child was suffering horribly and he'd even checked the boy's miserable progress throughout the day.

Further reading that this poor baby's skull was so smashed in certainly qualifies as malice even if it wasn't planned.

I just hope this evil feces stain doesn't get the usual female discount that mothers often get in these cases.

Even if she was supposedly afraid of him, why create another life with him, and why leave both children in such a horrible situation?
Obviously he wasn't Ward Cleaver before the second child came along!