Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Analysis of Adoptive Parents of Missing Toddlers




Transcription by John


AM: adoptive mom

AD: adoptive dad 


Journalist:  Ok guys, whenever you're ready.


this is now the opening statement of the interview.  2 toddlers are missing. 


What is the mother's priority? 

AM: Erm, we just want to thank everybody in the community for all the support we've seen, we've felt so helpless and seeing everybody out here really looking and helping out really means alot.


1. thanks to the community. Context: The case is unresolved; the boys are still missing.  


2. She expresses their emotion: feeling "helpless" and what it means to them to receive "everybody out here really looking and helping out..." 


She does not express, at this time, concern for what the toddlers are currently experiencing. This is expected from a biological mother or a nurturing caretaker. 


Its absence is noted that is consistent with Neglect. 


Neglect its the easiest form of child abuse as it takes little or no effort.  It can become habitual and young children learn to adapt to it. They may be able to get their own food, including some that will heat or even cook for themselves. This age inappropriate and risky action  is often praised by neglectful parents. 

Interviewer: So, tell us what happened the night the kids went missing?


Great question 

AD: Ok -- AM: oh my God


Here, the use of Deity by the mother is expected as innocent parents may feel  hopeless that they call upon God. 


The dad now speaks: 

AD: It was cold I was going to make a fire, theres a lot of wood in this, this are right here next to our house I opened up that gate I'm throwing wood bringing it inside the house. 


His priority includes an indication of neglect: "opened up the gate" is not necessary.  


He could have said, "I left the gate open and my boys are now missing..." as a priority, but instead:


1. It was cold 

2. "I was going to make a fire" is to tell us his intention; not his action. 

3. Unnecessary details found in his priority--- "there's lots of wood right here next to our house"---  the audience (recipients of the statement) do not care where there is wood located, but the subject does.  


4. He switches to present tense language: "I opened the gate" (past tense, strong commitment), "I'm throwing wood, bringing it inside the house.."


It is interesting to note that "It was cold" is to state the reason he went into his intention to make a fire and the present tense collecting of wood. 


What is he seeking to justify?


Is it leaving the gate open?


Is it something more with location, wood and "throwing"? 


 My wife's inside she was actually wrapping gifts 


"my wife" indicates unity with her. 


She must be a good mom because she was wrapping gifts (this was before Christmas) 


He compare her action of wrapping gifts ("actually") with something else.  What is it?


so we thought it was a good idea that they, are youngest two outside and play with chalk on the back patio. 


The audience would not likely believe he is talking about other children who are not introduced yet. The audience is listening (media) because the two toddlers are missing. The emphasis that they are the "youngest" is noted. 


Why the need to separate, in his language, the two victims from the other unnamed and unreferenced children? 



Do not let them go on the dirt in the backyard keep them close. 


We do not know from whom this imperative came, though in context, it may be that he wishes us to believe it came from his wife.  Would the adoptive father need to be told this admonition? 


Consider that Child Neglect is at play in the language.  Otherwise, there is no need for such an admonition.  


This need to remind one (who?) to "keep them close" is an unnecessary addition to the language.  He does not ascribe the admonition to anyone---we cannot state with certainty that either said it. 



Playing with chalk, came in the house saw them there, went in the house came back out I didn't see them there. 


Neglect indicated.  Should these children end up being kidnapped by a stranger, Neglect is indicated.  


"playing with chalk" removes the boys from the sentence.  Who was playing with chalk?  He does not tell us.  


Location:  


"playing with chalk" would be outside but then he says "came in the house saw them there" which appears out of sequence. 


This has led some analysts to question if something happened to the boys in the house. 


If we assume---


The boys are playing with chalk while he is watching them though gathering wood for a fire because it is cold. 


He went inside and saw the boys there, and then he went outside and did not see the boys there. 


The awkward sense of communication is coming from someone who communicates smoothly in other areas. 


This likely did not come from experiential memory. 




I immediately went back in asked my wife did you see the boys? She said no they should be outside playing with chalk, I said (inaudible) I didn't see em so I came back outside and I started searching my backyard, I searched the whole thing I realized that I left the gate open and I panicked came inside the house searched the house, me and my wife.


He is outside (in order to go back inside) and asked his wife if she saw the boys. 


He then feels it necessary to explain why he came back outside. 


Not seeing them originally outside and not finding them inside, he has no reason to explain why he would go outside again., 


Location is very important to him, even as he may be losing his way in the statement. 


He next said he "searched the whole thing"--- is this a very large lot that would warrant such a statement, as in acres?  If not, the subject is in need of portraying himself as a "good guy", suggesting to the contrary. 


The gate re-enters his language.  


This is a very strong indicator (unnecessary and repetitive) of Child Neglect, regardless of how this comes out. 


We not only have the question of whether he is attempting to build an alibi, (open gate, accidental, open gate, let in a kidnapper, etc) but we also wonder if he, himself, took the boys through this gate.  It is not known at this point. 



Once that.. hadn't pan out I got in the van I looked down the street 


he is in the van at this point of his statement.  "Looked" may be driven, but he did not state it to be so. 




both directions 


He wants his audience to know he was thorough in searching, similar to checking his yard. 


This is also a need to portray himself in the best possible light.  Would anyone expect a father or caretaker of missing toddlers to look in only one direction?


He is very concerned with his appearance. 


Why?


Is it due to past guilty behavior?

Neglect?


Or is it something far more serious? 




it was getting dark getting cold 


for whom? 


How might the dark and cold impact him (he earlier reported it was cold and he had to go to the wooded area for firewood) and now returns to the theme of cold.


Here is where we expect him to tell us how the cold and the darkness may be impacting his sons. It is the natural response of empathy. 




and I got in the van 


He was in the van earlier and now he got in the van



and hit a bunch of corners, 


this may be a common expression or--- he drove erratically and hit side walk corners, or...


it is something that slipped into his language due to an earlier activity. 


It is not known. We do not, however, like to hear the language of physicality in such a setting.



I went down this street  I  turned my light on


Was this the headlights from the van or did he get out and get a flashlight, which would explain the second entrance into the van?



I searched I searched,  called their names talked to a gentleman on the other side over there and he didn't see (inaudible) so then I came home I told my wife you need to call the cops.  I, it's getting dark and I need help (inaudible) so I called the cops the cops came. 


The 911 emergency call would be of value to the analysis 


The need to portray himself in a positive manner continues. 


First thing they did was tell us to stay in the house so that they can get holds of us 


He attributes this to the Police.  We would generally consider the cell phone the way Police can get a hold of him and his wife, but he reports this as the "first thing" they did. 


It is very likely that the responding officers had their doubts about the parents. 



Next, he attributes to the police the body posture and restriction---


and they had us just sitting there and we want to keep searching. But everybody came out in droves and I wanted to thank you guys , that night when we couldn't go outside.


If he is anxious to get outside and search, "sitting" would enter his language as an increase of his tension.  This also goes for the addition of "we couldn't go outside."


Note that this is before and after his "thank you" to the recipients (media, public), though the boys are not yet found. 


We should consider that the subject has a need to ingratiation himself, psychologically, to the audience, while portraying himself in a positive light. 


That they "couldn't" go outside----- was this a request by police or was it given in a more forceful manner? 




AM: The cops told us the best are out here...


AD..The best are out here searching and we appreciate it and nobody ever could tell, could never talk to anybody (Inaudible)


He, again, expresses his appreciation to the searchers, though they have not found his sons. 


Was he then saying that the police told them not to talk to anyone?  

AM: We just want to thank everybody...


for what?  Not finding the boys?


AD: We really thank you guys..


Ingratiation can be appropriate (imagine a car salesman being rude to you before trying to close a deal?  Imagine a journalist taking a hostile stance but then expecting answers?)


The need to ingratiate themselves to the public via media is noted. 


AM: Please if anybody has seen them, please call..let somebody know.


AD: If if, call the cops..call.. telephone (Inaudible) city Police department. Call them and let know what you've seen if you see anything. Our boys, they, they are going to be ...Rambunctious, ok, they are going to be here in this area and I really would like to go in the houses , but it's not because I want to invade peoples privacy, I just want to know if...


To describe the toddlers as "rambunctious" while they went missing in the cold and dark is not a positive linguistic disposition.  This is a signal of guilt where blame is subtly shifted to the victims.


They would not be "rambunctious" but cold, hungry and terrified.  


AM: Make sure. 


AD: Make sure thats it. Because.  

Adoptive Dad nods towards the journalist and says "go ahead i'm sorry, you got any questions."

Journalist: Oh no your good, was just gunna say this is the first time we're hearing from you guys and i can't imagine..what you're going through i can't evn fathom it. ermm..For you guys, for people who are thinking, ahh, that there is some kind of foul play involved ermm you know we just spoke to the biological mother she said she had a conversation with you guys, ermm, and that she thinks theres some kind of foul play involved, she think you guys did something. What your response to that?

AD: That's understandable,


He is accused of foul play and finds it "understandable." 



 I would think the same thing. If we can find our our babies guess what thats enough and that's all I want is to find our babies that's it. 


And I talked to her this morning and I really wanted to tell her that I'm completely sorry because we were entrusted with the children, and it came to us and it became our children, 


"it" is likely the case, which would include a lengthy process from visitation to possible court action.  


we named them and they they are our children, so, we want em back. So please if, get back on your, what you guys are doing, we we should be able to get a hold of somebody but they took all of our tech, 


Is "tech" more than just phones?



they want to, I guess rule us out which would make sense in the investigation. So, that's pretty much it.  

Journalist: Have you guys, erm, you talked to the police all last night?

AM: Yeah

Journalist:  Erm. What, so you guys wilfully gave them you technology


better is: what did you give them? 


AD: Yes. 


Journalist: The car?


AD: Yes.  


Journalist: Did they get, how did they get a search warrant? Did you guys..


AD: I, I don't see why they got one, but they got one, we would've  let them take anything, we would've tell them take everything, we got em come and search with us, we we asked them come do that.


The need to portray himself and his wife as diligent, helpful and cooperative often belies the opposite. 

Journalist: What did they take?

AD: Just tech..and that's it.  Like our phones.  



AM: We need to be out here. Err, again, we were cold, upset, told to stay put, they have more questions.
Literally talk with us the whole time in there.


We now may understand that this was more than just a request, but a directive from police. 

(inaudible)

AD: They had us sitting down, (inaudible) sitting down


This is in response to "they have more questions" 



(Inaudible)

Journalist: What time did you guys notice the kids were missing? And at what time were they reported missing to the Police?

AD: It's about, I believe, I think it was about 4:30..5ish. Thats when everything played out.  

Journalist: And then when did you guys call the Police to report them missing?

AM: Actually we searched a little bit around here, it was dark so we were definitely, where we got worried.

The need to portray the emotions is noted. The need to emphasize ("definitely") the emotions heightens the concern that the couple may be artificially editing into their statements what emotions one would expect to be experienced.  We also did not hear what emotions the toddlers would be presently experiencing. 


Analysis Conclusion:


Child Neglect is indicated in the language.  Wherever neglect is indicated, substance abuse should be explored. 


The adoptive father should be considered a suspect and administered a polygraph.  



The adoptive mother also indicates neglect and should be considered a suspect, though it may be after the fact. She should be administer a polygraph. 


The polygraphs must be employed with their own language; not the language of the examiner.  


The lack of concern for the victims is placed against concern for themselves. 


The father does not rebuke the bio mom's allegation of foul play, but allows it to stand. 


Neglect comes in many forms and can lead to outright physical abuse. 


Neglect becomes a norm and the parent (s) who neglects can become irritated when the child(ren) indicate a need to which the parent does not wish to respond. This can lead to unplanned homicide---one losing one's temper.  


Describing the boys as "rambunctious" in the context of them missing, particularly in the cold and dark, is an example of subtle victim blaming.  


In the inherent neglect associated with drugs, the user/seller risks introducing violence, retaliation and kidnapping for profit, into the lives of the children.  


This short interview raised suspicion upon the adoptive parents, rather than give helpful information into what may have happened to the boys. 




It is unknown if the guilt found in this interview is due solely to neglect, or it is due to their own criminal activity leading to the disappearance of the boys and possible cover up. 






If you wish to study deception detection, or to host a seminar for police, military, or business, see HyattAnalysis.com 


Cal city missing toddlers adoptive parents interview

Tuesday, December 1, 2020

Deception Detection Training Opportunity 2021

 


For those who wish to enroll in our Complete Statement Analysis Course, please note our price increase is for 1 January, 2021.  


Those who enroll before this date will be honored at last year's tuition cost @1200 US$  with 12 months of e support.  

https://www.hyattanalysis.com/services/training-services/