Monday, January 22, 2018

Missing 3 Year Child Emergency Police Call Analyzed




Ever wonder how much information a person gives away in just 2 minutes?


This is analysis posted in 2012 with the Analysis Conclusion:


Lena Lunsford is being deceptive by withholding information, and the searching, timeline and topic of her husband should all be considered  sensitive areas for her. 

5 years later, Lena Lunsford was indicted in the murder of her daughter. 

Due to the passage of time without an arrest, some readers questioned the analysis' accuracy. 

Words do not lie.   

Criminal Analysis of deception  shouldn't be subjective, or "iffy" when the language is definitive. If there are concerns without a concrete conclusion, it is best to either state this plainly, or to refrain from a conclusion, stating "more sample needed."

In this call, however, the mother's own words brought us to the conclusion.  I have added some short elements of psycho-linguistic profiling as an example of what one may expect in formal training. 



In just a short few minutes of time, carefully note the great deal of personal information this caller gives, while avoiding telling any direct lies. 


911 What is your emergency?
My baby’s missing. 

Note that this is the first thing mentioned. It speaks to priority and it is what we expect to hear. 

In each interview, whether it be a 911 or 999 call in an emergency or in an employment interview, the Interviewer will generally have one of two impressions:

1.  Either the subject (caller) is working with me to facilitate the flow of information; or
2.  The subject is not. 

This is a good start the to call.  

With a child missing, we would not want to hear a polite greeting, nor would we want to hear someone establish an alibi first, such as:

"Uh, yes, hello, I was asleep, and when I woke up the door was open and our step daughter is missing."

Here we note that in the context of an emergency, the caller began with a pause, which means the question, "What is the emergency?" requires more thought. 

Then we note the greeting which is not expected in the urgent contact. (2)

Then we note the order of information:

1. I was sleeping
2. The door was open 
3.  child missing

Order speaks to priority.  Here, the caller's focus is upon self first.  

It is to say, "Hey, police!  Make sure that when you investigate this child's disappearance, you know that I could not possibly be involved because I was sleeping and sleeping people can't do what you are going to say was done to this child..."
What is your address?
(address given)   I was out looking for her for over an hour.

In 911 calls, it is common to find over-talking, so it may be that one interrupts the other. 

Good Guys versus Bad Guys 

Here, we have the caller portraying herself in a positive light, adding in the time she has invested.  

In DAB cases (drug affected baby), we routinely find that mothers of babies who suffered acute withdrawal symptoms will portray themselves as "good" or even "great" mothers. 

It is the need of portrayal that often links them to official child abuse/neglect investigations in their history. 

Note that after answering the question that she provides additional information.  When an answer goes beyond the scope of the question, every word is critical.  

What is it that is a priority to the caller that she goes beyond the address alone? It began well with "my baby's missing" but without listening, she has a message for police. 

The subject wants police to know that she has been out looking for over an hour. 

She has now made not only a presentation of "Good Guy" for herself, but she has, in deeper analysis, given an indication of Neglect, within her psycho-linguistic profile.  

It is an indication; not conclusion.  

If a single hour seems long to a mother in this context, one may question what else is taxing to the mother.

Objection:  the hour must feel like an eternity to a mother's pain.

Answer:  Agreed.  This is why one may only "question" and not conclude. 

Remember, the profile must emerge naturally.  Therefore, the analyst is aware of the possibility of chronic Neglect (the "easiest" and most popular form of child abuse since it requires little effort) in the language to come. 

If the subject does not give indication of such, it is put aside.  We let the subject guide us to:

a.  Affirm Neglect
b.  Deny Neglect 
c.  Not address Neglect 

Please note that she does not say "I was looking for her" but "out" looking for her for "over an hour".  This is important as it is a reference to time; as all time references are significant. 

Did she look within the house? 

For latter consideration by child abuse investigators: Where does the mother spend most of her time?

Operator:  How old?  I need you to calm down.
Mother:  I’m sorry she’s she’s only three.
Please note "I'm sorry"has entered into the subject's language.  This is always noted regardless of why the subject is using these words (see Casey Anthony's 911 call) 

We red flag it because it enters the language of the guilty.  

It does not conclude guilt (we do not make conclusions on a single indicator) but is part of an overall view.  
We wonder if there is guilt within the caller that causes the words, "I'm sorry" to enter the language.  

After expressing "sorry" with the pronoun "I", we note that she stutters or repeats the pronoun "she."

Linguistic Disposition Towards Victim 

Her call began with "my baby's missing", so we know that, while missing, the victim is her "baby", but we seek to establish the linguistic disposition of the caller to the victim. 

This tells us what the caller thinks of the victim within the context of this call.  

She is now "she, she" as we await for her to use the victim's name. 

The analyst should consider that the victim is "only" three.  The word "only" is flagged as a dependent word meaning it only is appropriately used when the subject is comparing this thought ("only three") to another thought. 

She was out for "over" an hour and the victim, her "baby" is "only" three years of age. 

We do not know why, at this time, she used these words but we know that one who is "only three" is to compare her to another age.  

Being three, one is incapable of self protection.  

In neglectful households, neglectful parents often boast of the accomplishments of very young children, which sometimes include dangerously operating toasters or ovens.  

What else do we know about neglectful parents?





911:  When was the last time you saw him?

It’s a girl.  This morning. Real early.  I went in and checked on her because she’s been sick with the flu. 

"It's a girl" is the language of a new born, which is consistent with "my baby's missing" of the opening words. 

Neglectful parents often sleep late. Her child is missing and this is what is in her mind:

"This morning" answers the question, yet the caller feels the need to go beyond what "this morning" means and now emphasizes to the police (authority) that it was "real early."  

This is something that warrants a reference point. In her subjective dictionary, what is "early" and what is "real" early?

Next we have words that are 3 "red flags" of warning in the context of a missing child: 

1.  Anticipation of questioning by police 
2.  Further linguistic disposition 
3.  The "good mother" theme 

I went in and checked on her because she’s been sick with the flu. 


1.  Note that "because" tells us why, rather than simply answering the question.  This goes beyond the realm of the question of what happened and goes to why something happened.  Here she says that she checked on her "real early" because she was sick.  Note that she "went in" and checked on her.  

Lena (the subject) anticipated being asked, "why did you check on her?" when in reality, it is most unlikely that an investigator would have even thought to ask this question. 

This is why the explanation, in the absence of a question, is deemed "very sensitive" or, "of the highest level of sensitivity in analysis." 

In other words, she feels the need to pre-empt the question and "beat them to it" so that she has to explain why she did something that no mother would have to explain. 

It is another indicator of possible Neglect, which is building in the profile. 

2. Linguistic Disposition: Victim has been sick. 

Question for Analyst:  Does the victim have a name?

Answer:  No, but "she's been" sick with the flu.

Question:  Does she have the flu now?

Answer:  No.  

She does not say "she has the flu." 

A three year old with the flu is an event that is escalated in importance in most minds, but especially for a parent. Remember, she is "only" three years old. 

Mother had to take care of victim, who, without name, has had the flu. 

When was the last time you saw her?  "This morning" would have sufficed, especially with the time.  

3. Mother, in attempting to portray herself as caring and attentive is convincing us of the opposite by her choice of words, emphasis and upon her focus, which is herself. 

This furthers the affirmation of Neglect in the profile. The nameless victim forced the mother to search for "over" an hour and get up early, that is, "real early" because she is not sick but "has been" sick. 

Note that sick with the flu is now mentioned.  The caller feels the need to explain why she checked on a little girl, making her checking on the child very sensitive to the caller.  It is norm for a parent to check on a child, yet here, it is beyond the norm. 
Okay is it a male or female?
It’s a Girl
Note that "it's" is reflective language; entering into the language of the operator.  We might expect, "she's a girl!" or the use of Aliayah's name here, but we only find her using the 911 operator's language.  

A girl?
Yes.

No name given to the victim, while missing, by biological parent.  The mother has a psychological need to distance herself from the victim. 

911:  Ok you saw her this morning around 6:30?

Beyond the scope here, but we literally are given insight into the 911 Operator's psycho-linguistic profile of Lena Lunsford, the mother. 

The operator assumes that "6:30" in the morning is "early, real early" for the mother of a 3 year old.  
Yes
911:  That’s the last time you saw her was at 6:30 this morning?
Lena:  Yes and then she laid back down and went back to sleep.  And we went back to bed.

Note that she "laid back down" would indicate that she would have to be up in order to go back down.  

Q.  Did the mother comfort and lay the victim back down?

A.  No, the victim (who continues to be nameless by a biological mother) is credited with the action. 

Q.  Who got up to check on her because she has been sick with the flu?

A.  "We"


Note that when a sentence begins with "And" the subject has missing information here.  This information is about the time Aliayah got up, and laid down again.  Note that the child laid back down, not that the mother put helped her back to bed.  Given her age, and the fact that Aliayah was apparently awake (laid "back" down), the normal or expected is that she would be up and she would be hungry.  Children have "stomach clocks" that once they go off, they stay on until fed.  We must consider this in light of the "blue" indicator above:  The mother felt the need to explain why she was up checking on her.  This is a critical period of time in the case. 

Note that "we" went back to bed.  Who is "we"?  Is it she and Aliayah?  Since "we" indicates unity or cooperation, was it she and her husband who went back to bed?  She and another child? Who is the other part of the "we"?  
911:  Ok was the doors open or anything?

No the doors weren’t open. 
Note that she uses reflective language (the language of the operator).  She offers no information to help facilitate the flow of information to find the unnamed victim.  

We know that she must be exhausted having been up at 6:30 and searching more than an hour, but what about the victim?

Without a name, she is without familiar status as a human. 

911:  Were they locked?
Lena:  Yes I think. 
911:  (Inuaudible) the residence?

It was difficult to hear the question but it sounded like who lives in the residence, of which the answer is important. as the operator likely heard "we" in her statement. 

Me and my other kids.  

This affirms to us what the question was.  Her answer, however, is very troublesome. 

1.  She lists herself first.  This is an unnecessary statement. 
2.  She uses the dependent word, "other" which now separates the nameless victim from the children in the home. 

We now must ask, "So who was it that got up with you, checked on nameless victim and laid back down again?"

She does not mention husband, boyfriend or step father.  

This is not lost on the 911 operator who then asks: 
911:  Ok do you live with her father?



No.   

At this point, if there is a male present, regardless of his relationship to the nameless victim, a mother of a missing child is going to offer the information. 

We are able to conclude to this point:

The mother is not helpful or working together with the police to find the victim. 

Note that other questions she answers but then adds information.  Note here regarding who else resides there that she does not give additional information and is not bringing up her husband's name.   We note all names that enter the language, especially the victim's name.  

Lena forces the operator to inquire: 
Q.  Who is her father?

Her father is a guy named Eric Harris.  He doesn’t even know that she exists.  

Note that she references the father (male) as a "guy" and gives his full name. 

Compare this to your knowledge:

Who is the victim? 

Your answer, when solely based upon Lena's words,  is the Linguistic Disposition the mother of a missing toddler has towards the victim. 
911:  Ok and you’ve been looking for her for the past hour?

Yes I’ve looked everywhere (inaudible) 

This is alarming. 

1.  The emphasis is upon her effort, again. But more importantly:

2.  There is no hope, according to the mother. 

The nameless victim is not sick.  She "has been" but she is not. 

The victim is not a person.  People have names.  Even pets have names.  

The biological father, who does not know the victim exists, even has a name, to this mother, but not the victim

First, "I've looked" is first person singular, but then she says,
"everywhere".  When someone says that they have looked "everywhere" they have no other places to search.  This is akin to saying, "I've told you everything" therefore, there is nothing more to say.  When someone says "I have looked everywhere" they are saying that there are no more places to look, a strong indication that she has no places to search; hence, out of hope. 
911:  What was she wearing when you put her back in bed?

Lena:  She had a little pair of purple Dora pj’s.  We went up all these streets.  We went up all these streets.  

1.  She answers the question appropriately.  But, as deceptive people are often found to do:  she went further. 

She has an acute need of being portrayed in a positive light.  The deeper the need, the deeper the guilt. 

This is akin to the modern "virtue signaling" that belies guilt beneath the surface. 

2.  She continues the theme of "no hope" for the victim. 

3.  She introduces the pronoun "we" where she early said that she was looking. 



Note:  "we" often shows the desire to share guilt or responsibility.
The pronoun is changed to plural, "we"; which is repeated.  If she is now speaking of herself and her children, please note that it is repeated:

this is sensitive.  

She did not say that they searched or looked for her; only that "we went up" these streets.  We seek to believe what people tell us. 

If she does not tell us that they went up searching, we cannot say that they were searching.  


Also, that she went "up" ; something that is repeated.  Does this mean that she went up, and that she did not find Aliayah, that Aliayah is "down" somewhere?
911:  Have you been outside checking the area?

Please note that she checked "everywhere" but the operator asks this question anyway. 

Lena:  Yes I’ve drove up all the streets around here looking thinking that maybe she went outside or something.  And don’t think my mom would have came and got her because she’d have woke me up and stuff 

Lena has the need to tell the police why she drove up all the streets. 

This tells us:  Lena had a different reason for driving up the streets. 

In hindsight, the reason was clear:  to appear to be searching for the child indicated that she knew where the child was.  

1.  Please note that she uses for the third time the word "up" where Aliayah is not found.  This may indicate that Aliayah will be found "down" somewhere; down in water, buried in a grave, et.c.

2.  "all" the streets; with the same meaning at looking "everywhere".  All the streets "around here" have been looked so even though she has been thorough, she has not been located. 

3.  Note the inclusion of her thinking, even though it wasn't 'correct' thinking. 

4.  Note the inclusion of "or something" which strongly indicates that Aliayah went out "or something"; what is the choice?  It is she went outside "or" something else happened to her.  She is giving police a choice.  If she went out, we won't find her because she has searched "everywhere" and on all the "streets around here" where Aliayah, "only three"could have gone. But since she didn't, we then must conclude "or something" took place with Aliayah that Lena knows and is not sharing.  This sentence is an indiction that Lena Lunsford is deceptively withholding information and would like to limit the searching.  She does not want someone else to find Aliayah.  

5.  Lena introduces, with the word "And" to start the sentence (missing info) her "mom" to the operator.  Her mom is significant to Lena and her mother should be carefully interviewed.  Please also note that she tells us "because" which explains why something, rather than report what happened.  Her mother would have wakened her "and stuff"; what stuff?  Police should seek to learn if there has been any arguments, specifically about child care, between Lena and her own mother.  What other "stuff" would the mother have done, besides woken Lena up?
911:  Ok have you called your mother?

Lena: No I need to do that.  

Did the operator just give Lena the idea that she should have called her mother?  Now she "needs" to do it. 

Please note that she allegedly drove around for an hour and did not call her mother.  If she was searching for her child, would she not, after the first few minutes, called her mother?  Why would she think that her mother could have had Aliayah ?  Is this the type of family that takes a 3 year old without notice?  How could a three year old leave without it being known?

This appears contrived and false. 
Do you have a phone number for her?
Yes its (number).  
What is her name?
Joanne Evans.
Joanne Evans?
Yes
Do you want to just call her real quick and call me right back so I know what’s going on ok?

It is interesting to note that the man who fathered but never met the child has a name and her own mother has a name, but the only use of the victim's name, thus far, is this analyst. In looking back at the analysis from 2012, I noted that the child's name entered my vocabulary rather than the mother's. 

911's Suspicion in Request

This is unusual and may indicate that the 911 operator did not entirely trust the caller and wanted her to check with her mother.  Better would have been to keep Lena on the line, give pauses to allow Lena to choose her own words, while the police were en route to the home.  But it does not answer the question as to why she would need to call her mother when she was out searching "everywhere" (everywhere but...her mothers?  everywhere, but..."down" where Aliayah can be located?)

Ok
911 what is your emergency?
This is Lena Lunsford my mom doesn’t have her.  
ok
She doesn’t have her she’s coming now. Oh my God. 

We have the repetition (which is truthful) but the repetition itself suggests knowledge.  

Note the inclusion of Deity as a basic principle of analysis. 
911:  You don’t know of any place she would have went there in the community?  Is there a friend’s house nearby or somebody that she plays with?


No (crying)
911:  Ok.  Is there any place there in the community, a playground, or does she go to church anywhere there?


No. (crying)  Help me find her.  

The caller specifies her request for help:  "help me find her" yet she has looked "everywhere" (see above) so there is no other place to look.  
911:  I have an officer on the way mam, I need you to calm down ok.  You’ve looked everywhere in the  house

This is interesting:  as the child's name was used by me, so was searching in the house part of the thinking/vocabulary of the 911 operator.  This is the operator's view point  of Neglect by the mother. It is why she made up her own time line, which was a mistake. 
Lena:  Yes

the operator struggles to believe her, so she asks: 
911.  All the closets, under everything?  Under every beds
yes
911:  Do you have a basement?
Lena:  Yes
Its been checked too.

The passive language here suggests concealment.  It is likely that if police asked the children if they searched the basement, they would tell the police that they did not.  Passive language is used to conceal identity often, or when a subject does not want to own a statement with the pronoun, "I" such as "I checked the basement too" especially since she said "I" previously, but then also said "we" drove up the streets...
Ok how about the vehicles outside?

Its been checked that’s what I used to go look for her.

This is not the first time the young victim has gone missing from the mother.  

Neglect affirmed. 


911:  And you said that there’s other children in the residence?
Lena:  Yes.  (Noises)
911:  Is she old enough where she would be able to reach the door handle?

...and to the basement, as well. 



Lena:  Yes she is. 
Oh my God.  Here, please play with your brother for a minute. (talking to child)
What color is her hair?

She has brown hair and brown eyes.  

Here the subject gives the additional info of the color of her eyes which would have been asked next.  

I am curious to learn what was the last thing Lena remembered about the child before the child's death.  
911:  Do you know how much she weighs?

Lena:  She weighs approximately 32 to 35 pounds. 
Maybe a little more. 


911:  Ok.  Do you know how tall she is?
Lena:  Um I’m guessing around three feet I’m, I’m not for sure right now I’m sorry. 

Please note that this is the 2nd time she has said "I'm sorry" to a 911 operator. 
That’s ok.  Was there anybody else in the residence with you this morning, any other adults?
No, umm the only adult that
The tape cut out here.  


911:  Other children in the residence?
Lena:  Umm I have five kids. 
OK so there’s 4 others in the residence? 
There’s three right now. 
Ok. Where is the other one?
My son is at visitation with his father. 

Note:  he is not visiting with his father, but "at visitation" suggests court ordered or supervised. 
Ok.  So you got up at 6:30 this morning with her?

Yes she got sick.  Yes

This should be considered sensitive; via repetition and that the time frame is mentioned and she repeats about being sick.  That the child was sick may prove vital in the investigation. 

She went back to bed, went back to sleep and you laid down on 

Yes
How old are your other children that are in 
Ok did any of them see her this morning? What time did they get up?

The compound question is to be avoided. 

They came in here umm, I’m not sure maybe around 7, 7:30, came in my room with me. 

Please notice that the additional qualifiers are found when asked about timeframe.  
"I'm not sure" is a qualifier
"maybe" is a qualifer
"around" is a qualifier, equally three in one sentence to this point, but then she says "7, 7"30, 
which is the fourth.  Investigators assuming that this is sensitive and deceptive would be correct.  Overall, her time frames are sensitive and she does not appear truthful about them.  
Ok you said 11 year old 9year old and 8 mos?
Yes
Ok can you look outside and see the officer?
Yes Inaudible Oh God.  
In the front.  Oh my god.  Yes I see one out here. 

Please note that in these two calls, she appeared to avoid talking about her husband, Aliayah's step father.  Statement Analysis means not only looking at the words chosen, but what is missing. 

It can be assumed that the following are sensitive to Lena Lunsford:

1.  Time Frame
2.  Actual Searching
3.  "Up" versus "down"
4.   Her husband; Aliayah's step father

Hopelessness is contrary to maternal instinct. 

It appears that she does not want them looking for Aliayah, as she has already told them that she has searched "everywhere" and that being only 3, she could not have walked far, but "we" have been "up" all the streets in the area.  

It should be noted that twice she formed the words "I'm sorry" in this call.  This is often an indicator of a form of regret; for some, they are sorry for what they have done (or failed to do) and for others, they are sorry for being caught.  

It is likely that Lena Lunsford knows more than what she has said to police and may be directly involved, or may be covering up for someone else, including her husband.  Careful interviewing and polygraphs should be conducted also with the grandmother, and from other statements, the aunt. 

Others will weigh in on the crying; those trained in voice recognition, for example; though at times, to my untrained ear, the crying sounded contrived and forced. 

911 Call Analysis Conclusion:




Lena Lunsford is being deceptive by withholding information, and the searching, timeline and topic of her husband should all be considered  sensitive areas for her. 

The caller gives us indication that the child will not be found alive. 

The caller also gives us insight into her own:

a. background
b. experiences
c. priority
d.  personality 

Aliyah was a child who disrupted Lena, who likely lost her temper, harmed the child, but did not seek medical intervention lest she be caught, lose her freedom and the custody (with its welfare benefits) of the five "other" children.  Mother's psycho-linguistic portrayal is one who does not like to be disturbed and who has a strong priority, in spite of a large family, of her own comfort.  The victim did not fit into this life style of neglect. 

By separating Aliyah from the "other" children, in the context, Lena gave indication that Aliyah was dead. 

This is also found in the language of the theme,  "no hope", which is against a mother's natural instinct. Even the language of portraying the victim as sick with the flu furthers this status. This is seen in the mother's refusal to, linguistically commit, to the status, with

"My daughter, Aliyiah has the flu" which would have been the appropriate social introduction and a verbal commitment to the flu. 

She did not. 

At the time of this call, Aliyiah did not "have" the flu, nor any status. 

At no time did she tell us what Aliayah was going through, capable of, or even the use of the language of empathy.  This is similar to the McCann case.  

The mother, for example, was able to talk about her own suffering, but not what Madeleine would have been going through with strangers.  There was no "she needs her pink dolly" or her "blanket." 

The case was "solved" linguistically, in this short emergency call.  We obtained a strong profile of a neglectful mother who was inconvenienced by the child.  The mother went against maternal instinct to not only tell us that there was hope in finding the child, but she psychologically distanced herself and her children, from the deceased victim. 

If you or your department wishes for formal training in Statement Analysis, both home courses and seminars are offered. 

Law Enforcement is eligible for tuition payment plans. 

We offer specialized seminars for:

Child Abuse Investigations
Adults with Developmental Disabilities Investigations 
Sex Crimes Units

Advanced Analysis, including profile and a joint law enforcement seminar with Steve Johnson, of Veritas.  

Please visit Hyatt Analysis Services for more information.

Stay tuned for soon to be released You Tube video lessons in detecting deception and profiling. 

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://moonbattery.com/?p=91882

Muslima In Hijab Is Done Modeling Hair Care Products For L’Oréal

Remember Amena Khan, the Muslim who would not show her hair and yet, absurdly, was featured in a L’Oréal Paris UK commercial for hair care products? The same Islamicness that got her the gig with L’Oréal also put an end to it after her tweets spewing hatred at Israel became known:

L’Oreal told The Jerusalem Post that it had “recently been made aware” of Khan’s tweets. “We appreciate that Amena has since apologized for the content of these tweets and the offense they have caused,” said a representative for the company. “L’Oréal Paris is committed to tolerance and respect toward all people. We agree with her decision to step down from the campaign.”

As for the tweets,

In the deleted messages captured by screenshots and tweet-saving services, Khan called Israel a “sinister state,” an “illegal state,” and said the country is full of “child murderers” and expressed hope for its defeat. In other posts on social media that had not been deleted, Khan accused Israel of “Torture. Murder. Rape. Genocide” and falsely claimed that “Orthodox Jews themselves condemn the actions of Israel.”

PLO propaganda might fly at more woke companies, but not L’Oréal.

There is no little amount of irony involved in her cooperation with L’Oreal, which has operated a factory in Migdal Ha’emek for decades. The company has faced many boycott calls over the years from supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement over its extensive business ties with Israel.

P.C. corporations love diversity when is as shallow as slightly darker skin and a scarf on the head. But some still have the sense to be repulsed by the ideology that comes along.

But I am a robot! said...

Peter, what makes pronouns so powerful in our brains?

Calling your fake attacker a generic "he," with no physical description, has to be comparatively among the most minor and innocuous of the many destructive lies by omission, implication, half-truth, etc., that these liars tell.

It's half the population; most people assume violent murderers are male anyway; and "he" is even generally used in noncriminal situations when the gender is unknown.

Yet, the sociopathic, self-preserving, unremorseful Darlie Routier, in the midst of her ridiculous manipulation, blatant lies and attempts to destroy the evidence, repeatedly could not bring herself to utter the simple, generic, two-letter word "he" knowing guilty she is the correct pronoun.

The one or two she did slip, she quickly self-censored to "they" and other generics.

Even when they're repeatedly blatantly lying everywhere else without stuttering and pausing, the pronouns are so ingrained they trip them up.

Anonymous said...

I noticed the appeals to deity were not related to the recovery of her daughter but to the srrival of her mother and the police. The Oh God ad Oh my God were about getting through lying to mom and the cops and getting away with it.

Bobcat said...

911: That’s the last time you saw her was at 6:30 this morning?
Lena: Yes and then she laid back down and went back to sleep. And we went back to bed.

-----

It's too bad the 911 Operator threw out a time, because Lena's "and then" jumped out at me.

Anonymous said...

Peter, What do you think about the libtards being more concerned that an illegal immigrant child rapist get FREE legal aid while showing no concern for the 6 yr old victim in NJ?

Anonymous said...

The libtards have Eminem
Who sings about rape
Thank you women's movement
You guys are great!

Anonymous said...

That has got to be among the saddest of abused children faces I've ever seen.

Did they find her body?

The mother even appears sad. Almost a generational guarantee that something like that would occur.

Misty Croslin was a sad situation, too.

It's a shame American media is more concerned with making a buck off these people than helping them get out of that dilemma.

They like their cop shows, psychics, and prosecution too much.

It's destructive and mind bending.

tania cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tania cadogan said...

Off topic

The younger brother of a man serving life in prison for the murder of a Tennessee nursing student pleaded guilty Monday to facilitating her kidnapping and killing.

John Dylan Adams entered a so-called Alford plea, officially maintaining his innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors have enough evidence to convict him of facilitating first-degree murder and aggravated kidnapping in connection with the death of Holly Bobo. He cannot appeal his sentence.

"Our goal when this started was to punish this man as much as we could," Shelby County Assistant District Attorney Paul Hagerman told reporters. "And today, with a guilty plea, John Dylan Adams will serve a 35-year sentence without parole in the Tennessee Department of Correction for his role in this terrible crime."

Adams' brother, Zachary, was convicted this past September of kidnapping, raping and murdering Bobo, who disappeared near her home in rural Parsons, Tenn., in April 2011. Her remains weren't found until September 2014, when they were located by two ginseng hunters in woods not far from their home, about 100 miles southwest of Nashville.

Prosecutors relied on witness testimony to convict Adams after failing to recover useful DNA evidence from Bobo's remains.

Zachary Adams was sentenced to life in prison plus 50 years after reaching an agreement with prosecutors to avoid the death penalty. He is seeking a new trial.

Holly Bobo's mother, Karen, told reporters that John Dylan Adams' plea was "some justice" for her daughter's killing.

"But there is no closure," Karen Bobo added, "and she's still the last thing on my mind when I go to bed every night and the first thing when I wake up every morning."

A Tennessee Bureau of Investigation agent testified at Zachary Adams' trial that the agency made a mistake when it did not pursue leads only days after Bobo went missing that pointed to four men who lived in a dark underworld of crime and drug use: the Adams brothers and their friends Jason Autry and Shayne Austin.

Autry, also charged with Bobo's kidnapping, rape and murder, testified in expectations of getting a lenient sentence and is on a list of witnesses who have been offered immunity. He said the Zachary Adams told him in graphic detail how he, John and Austin raped Bobo. Autry also testified that he served as a lookout while Zachary Adams shot Bobo under a bridge spanning the Tennessee River. Austin committed suicide in Florida in February 2015.

A fellow jail inmate, Shawn Cooper, testified that Zachary Adams told him he was involved in the "Holly Bobo murder case" and wanted him to deliver a message to his younger brother: Stay quiet, or he would "put him in a hole beside her." At the time, Cooper was about to be transferred to the same jail where John Dylan Adams was being held.

Autry, meanwhile, testified that Zachary Adams asked him to kill his younger brother to silence him.

Prosecutors have not publicly revealed the details of John Dylan Adams' involvement, but Shelby County Assistant District Attorney Paul Hagerman did say Monday that he had less involvement than his older brother.

No hearing has been set to resolve Autry's charges, but his lawyer has told the judge that a trial does not need to be set, indicating that he has reached a deal with prosecutors.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/22/inmates-brother-gets-35-years-in-holly-bobo-death.html

tania cadogan said...

Once words are said, they can never be unsaid.
Once a crime is done, it can never be undone.

Anonymous said...

Tania, that is so Zen!

Anonymous said...

I've read through about half of the 911 call.

She is in water.

Also, the mother does not say she was wearing the purple PJs. She does not say that she "had them on". She just says she "had purple Dora PJs.

She is in water and, if found, will not be identifiable by what she is wearing because she is not wearing anything.

Hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

Excellent analysis, Peter. I just finished reading the whole thing.

I believe the emphasis on "she was ONLY three" (and as you pointed out, the "only" is comparative language comparing age THREE to an older age) is leakage that she was sexually abused and then killed or died from the sexual abuse itself.

We see similar linguistics with Justin DiPietro who emphasizes that Ayla was "only 2".
Ayla, in my opinion was sexually as well as physically abused.

Anonymous said...

ANOTHER FAKE HATE CASE IN MARYLAND!

http://pressbull.com/black-lies-matter-another-hate-crime-hoax-perpetrated-by-black-students-blamed-on-white-students-at-university-of-maryland/