Sherri Papini: Husband's 911 Call with Q & A

This is the reported emergency call made by Keith Papini to report his wife missing.  

Transcript of the 911 call:

[CHP transfers Keith Papini to the 911 dispatcher.]

This is from Mercury News.  What we cannot tell with certainty, if this is where the subject (caller, Papini) began his account.  Did he give information initially, only to then be transferred?

This is very important because in an emergency call, where the subject begins is always important, and indicates a level of priority.

We now must consider: 

Is this a form of "contamination" in the statement?  

As a precaution to the possibility, we reduce the level of sensitivity assigned.  Note that he begins with "Yeah", which is often an "agreement", which may be in response to something the emergency operator already said. 

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

We cannot conclude that him just getting home from work is his priority, as this seems like a response to something else. 

The order:

1.  Himself:  Getting home

2.  Missing:  wife not "there" (indication that he may not be calling from the location)

Editorial:  "which is unusual" 

3.  Kids:  not picked up from day care 

Editorial:  "so I was like..." to report his thought process. 

Editorial:  "So I freaked out so..."

4.  Evidence:  Phone location:  due to emotion, he hit "Find My iPhone" service.  

Although it is difficult to discern if this is being freely offered or in response to an earlier explanation (before transfer), either way, he anticipates being asked,

"Why did you hit Find My iPhone?" before being asked this question.  

In an emergency call, subjects generally have no need to explain or even state their own emotions.  

Why not?

Because the emotions are evident in the call; they do not need to be stated, unless the subject feels a need to make sure the police (emergency) know his emotions.  

It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which an operator asked a question about his emotions or state of mind. 

What is not known is this:

Had he already said, "I am reporting my wife missing" and now is explaining this in step by step detail. 

He either stated this alone in an open statement (A) or he already reported it before the transfer (B). 

The analysis of (A) is very different, therefore, than it is in (B). 

This is an example of statement contamination.  

One (A) is very concerning, while the other (B) may have concerns alleviated by that which preceded his answer. 

The Need to Explain "Why" in an open statement. 

We highlight the need to explain "why" in an open statement as very sensitive information if this need is not self-evident.  We don't highlight every "so, since, therefore, because" as such.  When it is an unnecessary explanation offered, we recognize the subject is thinking, "they're going to ask me why I..." and seeks to preempt it.  By "self evident", I mean that the explanation is necessary due to context. 

It is such a powerful tool that it often solves crimes on its own before an investigation even begins.  There are a number of examples of the first call to police (emergency, 911) where we know what happened and "who done it" by the call, alone. 

When it appears to be used in a way that suggests that investigators have not likely even thought to ask this question, it should be considered the highest level of sensitivity in analysis. 

911: OK.

That the operator lets the subject continue suggests that initial vital formation was given before the transfer.  

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

He feels the need to assert his emotional state again.  This is not necessary.  A man who cannot find his wife and then finds her phone with apparent hair ripped out on it, is freaked out.  

I cannot tell if the need to explain why her phone and headphones were together ("running again") is an open need to explain before being asked, or if this is in response to something else stated before the transfer. 

[911 dispatcher gets his address and his name.]

911: Did you go pick up your children?

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

[911 cuts him off, gets his wife’s name and birthdate.]

911: Is her vehicle there, or does she not have a vehicle?

Papini: She has a vehicle, it was at the house. She’s running. Yes, I’m in it right now, driving, and I took a picture of her phone on the ground before I picked it up.

He had the wherewithal to note the phone as evidence (photo) and the wherewithal to report contaminating the evidence ("before I picked it up") but the need to report his emotional state.  

911: OK, how tall is she?

Papini: Five-three, five-four.

911: How much does she weigh?

Papini: Hundred pounds.

911: Eye color?

Papini: Uh, like a … bluish … blue.

911: Hair color?

Papini: Blond.

911: Do you know what she was wearing? Is there something she always wears …

Papini: No. I’m assuming she went running, so athletic-type clothing.

911: OK, so there’s not an outfit she usually wears or anything like that? Does she run with a dog, or by herself?

Papini: By herself.

911: What time were the kids supposed …

Papini [interrupting]: She just started running again, and we live in a sketchy … [trails off]. I’m sorry, I’m super [unintelligible].

We note the inclusion of "I'm sorry" in any 911 call. 

"I'm super" was cut off by the operator. He might have addressed his emotions again.  

911: When’s the last time you heard from her?

Papini: She sent me a text asking me if I was coming home for lunch. She’s got a whole bunch of missed —

He does not answer the question. This follows after several direct answers, which is good, but he now wants to give detail on the means of communication rather than the time.  

911: What time was that?

Even though the operator wants to know the time, it is very foolish to interrupt.  The subject has the information.  The operator cannot get it by speaking. 

Papini: Give me one second. … She sent me a text at 10:47 asking me if I was coming home for lunch, from work. And I said, “Sorry, long day.” And that was the last — I never spoke to her on the phone or had any other contact with her.

This is the second time "I'm sorry" has entered his language.  

Besides having a strong need to offer his emotions, he also has a need to report what he did not do: talk on the phone with her or have other contact.  This is to preempt being accused. 

Linguistic Profile:  Even if not involved in this, he gives indication that he is not likely someone of whom suspicion would be out of the question. 

911: What time were the kids supposed to be picked up?

Papini: Way before 5:30. She usually goes at like 4:45-ish, 4:30, 4:45.

911: Are you headed back to the house or — where are you at right now?

compound question. 

Papini: I’m at the end of the driveway, where, uh, I’m at the … Old Oregon Trail and Sunrise, where they meet, ’cause that’s right where I found her phone on the ground. [Unintelligible] telling me that something happened to her, is the way I’m looking at it. There’s like hair in the headphones. Like it got ripped off, like they grabbed —

911: Yeah, no, I, I understand, I understand.

Papini: OK. I’m sorry, I know you’re trying to keep me calm, but [crosstalk].

We now note the third time this is in his vocabulary.  

Let's assume, for this example, that he does not have any guilt involved in this case, if the case is a hoax for the purpose of intended exploitation of some kind.  

If he is not involved in it, his language tells us that being involved in some form of wrong doing/exploitation is not something foreign to him.  

When someone has guilt in general, even when not specifically involved in the reported event, we see this type of language of persuasion, including his need to make certain that police authority know his emotional state.  We see this type of language in those who exploit, including "fake hate" and "Go Fund Me" formats. 

911: OK. What kind of vehicle are you in?

Papini: I’m in a black Kia Optima.

[Sound of typing.]

Papini: Oh my God.  And I live down, I mean we live down kind of a sketchy street, so I definitely — I don’t know if I’m allowed to knock on everybody’s door but I will if I’m allowed to do that.

Noted inclusion of Deity. 

Noted his second reference to be seen as helpful.  He was previously going to knock on "every" door; but now he is backing away from that, seeking permission. 

911: Let’s just have the officers contact you, so they can start, you know, processing everything and figure out what’s going on, OK?

Papini: [Heavy exhale.]

911: I understand you’re freaking out a little bit. We wanna, we wanna make sure we get your kids, make sure they’re OK —

yes, he has said it enough. 

Papini: Yeah, I’m going to call my mom and have her — [crosstalk, then deleted portion where he gives his phone number]. Do you want me to wait right here for somebody?

911: If you want to head back to your residence, they can contact you there, and in case she does return.

Papini: OK.

911: OK. We’ll have them contact you at your residence. And call us back if anything changes, all right?

Analysis Conclusion:  Inconclusive 

The information appears to be incomplete.  That which preceded his statement may have caused possible contamination of the words. We see in  some short responses, including his use of the word "vehicle" that he does parrot words back.  

The subject passed a polygraph and has offered a second one.  We do not know what questions were asked. 

Even with missing information, there are some concerns within this call.  It is not known if the missing information would satisfy these concerns, or heighten them. 

1.  Even if the subject does not have a criminal record (convictions), his language reflects someone who others might suspect of wrongdoing, specifically in theft or exploitation. 

2.  He has a need to be seen as more than what he is presenting. 

3.  He has a need to be seen as one in a highly emotional state.  This is, in his language, a form of persuasion.  He repeatedly told or sought to tell the operator what  he does not need to be state:  his emotional state.   

4. He has a need to be seen as helpful.  This too, is unnecessary.  What husband of a missing wife would be anything but helpful? 

5.  Guilt 

He has a need to unburden his conscience.  "I'm sorry"is used three times in one call.  In one usage, he says he is "sorry" for his emotions, which he has described already. 

The use of "I'm sorry" indicates that he has something of regret or a reason to be "sorry."  By itself, the usage is not conclusive.  We flag it always, but often find it found in the language of "guilty callers" in a variety of crimes.  One example is the 911 call of Casey Anthony.  It is something we prioritize very low, as we must have strong indicators of deception above it.  

Question:  is there something else that could cause someone to so regularly cite his emotions?

Answer:  Yes.  Some who are in therapy or counseling will become "analyze" their own feelings often in inappropriate settings.  They can often come across as self-absorbed and immature.  

5.  He has carefully, while "freaking out", handled evidence. 

6.  He has preempted some questions regarding his actions. This could be guilty knowledge of a scam now, or it could relate back to the part of the profile that recognizes one who although not involved here, is not above suspicion due to past involvements in unethical and/or illegal matters. 

He has passed his polygraph and is not considered a suspect in her disappearance. 

He does, however, raise red flags about his own character.  

Question:  if Sherri Papini, herself, has been involved in past false claims, could this show up in sensitivity in his language, here?

Answer:  Yes.  He could go into this feeling the need to prove and justify where no such need or justification is warranted.  

With husbands and wives, there can be a form of shared guilt. 

Question:  could "sketchy" circumstances impact his language?

Answer:   Yes.

Deception, and even guilt ("I'm sorry") could enter the language in this scenario for other reasons, including possibly infidelity on his or even his wife's part.  

There was a media report that she was may have been texting another man, at one point, while there was another report that suggested that Sherri had a history of blaming hispanics. 

Question:  Could he show sensitivity and guilt if he was thinking of exploitation?

Answer:   Yes.  If you look at the statements of Davey Blackburn, his wife was not yet buried and he had already planned his own capitalization of her death with advertising.  In his case, it was extreme.  He showed no concern about his wife's killers coming after him or his son.  His linguistic priority?  How many people would attend his church, including attendance on line.  

In Blackburn's case, his deceptive responses could also include sexuality.  

There is a reason why Keith Panini's brain produced "I'm sorry" three times in a single call.  There is something he is "sorry" about.  

If there is a transcript of Keith Panini's initial call, before transfer, it would be useful in moving from "inconclusive" result to a substantial one. 

         We do not have strong indications of deception in this call.

We cannot conclude alibi building because of the call transfer indicating missing information.  

Question:  Do you trust the polygraph?

Answer:   Yes. 

I don't know the questions asked but when done with a subject's own words, it is almost impossible to beat a polygraph.  \

Question:  Have you ever had your analysis conflict with polygraph results?

Answer:  Yes.  It has happened only twice in the years I have analyzed.  

In one case, a young girl accused her mother's boyfriend of inappropriate touching of her.  Both the alleged victim and the perpetrator wrote out statements of what happened. 

The statements were in agreement regarding all detail of time and location. 

The subject passed his polygraph. 

I submitted the analysis which showed that the girl was truthful and the subject was deceptive, for review, to an expert.  He confirmed the analysis as correct, including when it happened and where it happened. 

The mother's boyfriend moved back into the house.  

Quite a bit of time later, I learned that he had reoffended.  

In discussing the case with the police investigator, it appeared that the suspect "tickled" the victim (his language) but the polygraph asked if he "molested" her. 

*********************************************************************

In the other case, a man came home and found his girlfriend and 7 year old son dead.  He passed his polygraph, was cooperative and the case closed by agreement between coroner and district attorney:  the despondent mother took her son's life and her own. To this, the forensic evidence appeared to agree. The case was closed.  

The only evidence I had was his 911 call. I concluded that he (the boyfriend) did, in fact, murder them, also citing within the call, his motive (greed), as well as a profile that was not supported by the record (Domestic Violence and child abuse). 

The DA would not reopen the case unless the Coroner changed his finding. 

The investigator believed the analysis, and the analysis conclusion was sent to the coroner so he would consider changing the cause of death to "homicide unknown."  The Analysis Report was a step by step explanation as to why the conclusion was guilt. 

The coroner changed the cause of death and the DA reopened the case and the suspect was arrested.  

Two years later, he was quickly convicted by a jury who learned not only of his violent background (affirmed in collateral interviews) but learned that he attempted to steal the woman's house from her. When she realized what he was doing, he killed her.  

These are the only times analysis and polygraph results have not matched. I hold the polygraph in very high regard and believe, if the subject's own wording is used, that it is fool-proof. 

The best example is:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" by President Clinton. 

This is a very strong denial. 

When we learn that he told Ms. Lewinsky that his personal subjective understanding of "sexual relations" is "intercourse", if asked this question in a polygraph, he would have passed.  He knew this and was an accomplished habitual liar.  

All the prosecutor needed to have done was to ask,

"What is 'sexual relations'?" 

False results are rare, but among them, most will be a failure to catch the liar.  It is most unlikely that a polygraph result will show deception where there is none. 

Statement Analysis recognizes that the words one speaks, more than anything else, including body language and facial expressions, tell the true story. 

With an average internal dictionary of 25,000 words, a human being will process this vocabulary into an answer in less than a millisecond of time. 

The need to deceive disrupts this process and it is where our accuracy comes from. 

If you or your department wishes training, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services. 

We have seminars for law enforcement and private corporations, and offer at-home training for individuals, both law enforcement and civilian.  

911 Call: Murder of Wife

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

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

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

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

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

Sensitivity in Allegations: Sexual Harassment Claim

New analysts initially struggle with sensitivity indicators found within allegations or accusatory questions. 

Human Resource professionals deal with many aspects of an investigation, including knowing that allegations could produce criminal and civil consequences, as well as impact the bottom line and reputation of their company.  They must get to the truth and they prosper in Statement Analysis Training.   

It helps to take a step back and trust in the principles of analysis to guide us. 

 Allegation:  Sexual Harassment 

It has become increasingly difficult to discern what constitutes "sexual harassment" in the workplace today.  One interesting trend has been predictable:  projection and virtue signaling. 

Those who "see" misogyny everywhere are being undraped and seen as actual sexual predators at worse, and sexual harassing perpetrators at best.   This is the same theme as those who see "racism" in any and every one who disagrees with them.  If you listen carefully, you will find the virtue signaling subject to be very likely a racist (or misogynist)  himself or herself.  

Misogyny in the criminal world is frightening.  This deep hatred of women was recently seen in the language and action of a same-sex adoption man who killed the little girl entrusted to his care.  His denigration of her was chilling and her death violent.  As politicians continue to reduce the definition of misogyny via false accusations, its understanding is lost.  

Sexual Harassment 

Workers routinely talk about sex, email about sex, text about sex, and so on, because they think about sex.  Some studies indicate that men think about sex several times per hour, while women think about sex once per day.  The brain chemistry is very different (physiological), beginning from near gestation and is very strong before cultural impact begins.  If male-female brains were the same in this area, our world would look very different, if it had not overpopulated itself to death.  In studies with different numbers ("males think of sex x times per minute" etc), but the consistency is found in the difference.  The MRI of the amygdala shows a 
deadening affect in female orgasm (where fear/anxiety is processed) which takes more time.  

This (and the many other differences) is found in the language differences between men and women and critical to analysis, particularly in profiling and Anonymous Author Identification. 

 The complementary nature of the two sexes is necessary for the species to survive and prosper (procreate), though the differences have now become subject to politicians's exploitation. 

Months ago, when Bill O'Reilly was accused of sexual harassment, his denial was deemed not only "unreliable" but in my conclusion:  he went well beyond inappropriate or unwelcome sexual banter and was deceptive.  He was not a victim, even if he was targeted by political enemies.  If O'Reilly is a victim, it is of his own doing.  We now learn that he paid out millions to keep victims silent.  This is not the action of innocence, nor is it as a result of inappropriate jokes.  His subsequent denials indicate deception and likely a history of inappropriate behavior that may have had further consequences.  He did not lose his job because he said, "hot chocolate mama" to a co-worker.  We seek to measure the intensity of the sensitivity but also the context of the sensitivity.  This week he said in response to the revelation of millions of dollars in payment: 

“It’s politically and financially motivated. I’m not going to sit here in a courtroom for a year and a half and let my kids get beaten up every single day of their lives by a tabloid press that would sit there, and you know it.”

These statements may be true, but when viewing his numerous denials, he goes beyond "not reliable" and his "unreliable", when measured in volume, led to my conclusion.  Regardless of the motive of accusers, his language and behavior was his own.  My  conclusion  includes viewing more specific allegations within more specific time frames by him. He has been consistently unreliable in each interview I've seen or heard.  American Thinker did a thoughtful article on him with the hope that he was taking a strong personal introspection and inventory of his behavior.  His statements do not reflect this.  

Consider "sexual harassment" the clearly communicated unwanted continuance of sexual discussion and/or sexualized behavior.  When it reaches the point of exploitation, the crime is evident: sex for promotion, sex as reward, sex as punishment, etc.  For our purpose, sexual harassment is not two workers joking, texting, emailing, when suddenly one wishes to file a claim.  Sexual harassment is the use of sex to harass, bully, intimidate, etc.  This excludes banter, discussion or mutual use of humor or flirting.  

Investigators, including HR professionals and Sex Crimes Units, must have very specific training to go well beyond "he said; she said" analysis.  Here is an example of the training. 

Case Sample 

A woman accused her supervisor of pulling down his pants during a meeting where several other employees were present to mock her. 

This is a very straight forward accusation.  It is not open to interpretation.  He either did it or he did not.   

His response: 

"Are you kidding me?  Is this a joke?"

This is a point of great sensitivity:  he heard, for the first time, the accusation, and he answered the question of the accusation (imperative) with not only a question, but two questions.  It is, therefore, very sensitive to him.

Please note:  absurdity can produce sensitivity, just as guilt can.  

The answering a question with a question indicates that the subject has to pause to consider his answer. 

This means it is sensitive. 

"Are you kidding me?  Is this a joke?"

He was then told that it was not a joke but an accusation that Human Resources was taking very seriously and may need to call in law enforcement. 

The analyst must listen. 

"This is ridiculous!"

HR Interviewer:  Is it?

Subject:  "Yes it is ridiculous.  She's nuts."

He has now still avoided a denial and now denigrates his accuser.  The level of sensitivity is even higher.

Subject:  "You realize that there were others in the room, right?"

HR:   "Hmm hmm."

Subject:  "Well?  Did you talk to them?"

HR:  "I wanted to hear it from you first."

Subject:  "What do you want me to say?  This is absurd."

HR:  "She made a formal complaint and stated that you pulled down your pants in the meeting, mocking her."

Subject:  "I did not.  Why don't you talk to the others?"

HR:  "We will.  I want to hear from you."

Subject:  (silence)  hands over head, hunched over. 

HR:  "You have the accusation.  How do you speak to it?

Subject:  "I did not pull my pants down.  I didn't even talk to her.  She's got a real wild temper so I avoid saying much to her and never meet alone with her.  She's got issues, man, and I've always been afraid of her.  You know, this is, hey, you realize, wait, where did she claim this happened?"

HR:  In the conference room.

Subject:  Yeah, it's video security camera there."

HR:  "Okay, so you said you did not pull your pants down.  Give me one reason why I should believe you."

Subject:  "Go check the video.  I'm telling you the truth, but talk to the others, go to the video.  This is ridiculous."

He finally made a denial.  The interviewer understood the nature of his avoidance, intuitively, and kept at it until the subject.  

What do we do with all that he added to this denial?  

The sensitivity indicators are one theme: he is shocked by the allegation.  As it dawned on him, anger entered his statement.  

The accusation was so bizarre that it produced a very sensitive but singular, reaction to him, initially:    shock.  Sensitivity does not make us rush to conclude deception.  This then led to anger.  

In the above, he was truthful.  The other witnesses reacted in a similar way, and the video, though grainy, showed that at no time did he stand up or be outside the view of the camera.  One expert said she was aware of her co worker's mental health but was afraid to speak out.  She said, "I knew that something like this would happen but I did not think she would make such a bold crazy allegation." 

The accuser had untreated mental health issues and her language showed childhood sexual abuse.  In her statement, the analyst was able to show perseveration.  This is part of advanced analysis where the analyst told HR that someone did, in fact, pull down his pants to insult her, but it was not her supervisor.  It happened many years ago and this is likely to come out should the company enlist a skilled therapist.  

The trained analyst must consider the sensitivity indicators within a statement and stay within his presupposition, and classify and categorize the indicators appropriately.  

For Sex Crimes Units, the ability to discern perseveration (where one repeats an accusation from history as if it is happening now) is indispensable. 

Learning the language of sex abuse victims, including disassociation within the language, is an investment in justice.  

For Sex Crimes Units, we offer Statement Analysis training with specific emphasis on the language of sexual abuse, but we also hold Advanced Seminars for those who have already reached a level of expertise in sex crimes.  The Advanced Seminar is for trained professionals and is two days of intensive work, with 12 months of follow up support.  It is complicated but it provides justice for both victims and for those falsely accused.  It is also for social workers, district attorneys and others interested in protecting a vulnerable population including adults with developmental disabilities.  Legally sound interviewing based upon the principles of statement analysis enhances those with solid social worker institute  training, Reid technique, and other schools where the discernment is necessary.  

Should Courtney Bell Be Charged?

Baby Caliyah's body was found and her father has been charged in her killing. 

It was the child's mother who called 911.  

This was recently on Nancy Grace's show in which Sheryl McCollum spoke about the call.  It is here.  Sheryl did a good job in communicating why we analyze. 


Question for Analysis:  Does the mother show guilty knowledge of the crime?

Should she be charged?  

Here is enhanced analysis of the 911 call.  



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.  Where one begins is a priority.  It is the first things processed by the brain.  

Note some studies show that females use up to 3 times more words, per day, than males.  

1.  I just woke up. 

Alibi Building. 

This is to indicate to police 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. 

That she begins with the pronoun "I" means we are likely to find reliable information within her statement (911 call) 

Not only does she want police to believe she was asleep but that the element of time is of concern to her:  "just" woke up.  This dependent word is used to compare the timing to something else.  

Note that at this point, she has not been accused of being awake during the crime. 

The caller indicates that she expects to be accused of being awake during whatever happened to Caliyah. Guilty people give away their guilt ("consciousness of guilt) in not only behavior, but words.  

For example, deleting emails, destroying evidence, lying, and so on, all are used to prove consciousness of guilt in court.  This is the same as "the need to lie" in analysis. 

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. Yet, she still does not state that she was asleep.  Sheryl addressed this point. 

 We want to hear directly from this mother what happened.  

Will she? 

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. 

This is a verbal indicator of both substance abuse and neglect.  

Neglectful parents often boast of their young child's "independence" and we sometimes even find children as young as this child in a "parentified" role over the neglectful.  

Some of these children will be able to operate ovens or toasters only to have their parents brag to others how "advanced" the neglected child is.  

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."

Liars sometimes feel a compulsion to give lots of details thinking that they will be believed if they pile them on.  Recall Casey Anthony's factiousness "Zanny the Nanny"?  Casey not only showed consciousness of guilt in this, but within the wording she gave a description beyond what police would need to identify her, including "perfect straight teeth."

The location is given here, unnecessarily.  We are waiting to learn why she is calling but the location is more important, priority wise, than getting to the missing child.  

One of the things that Nancy Grace said on the show was about her own maternal projection.  This is why we listen and believe, even when we know someone is deceptive, because in the deceptive, we still gain information. 

It is very likely that mother is awakened by her child.  This is what daily neglect looks like. 

The mother, just like Nancy Grace, projects her version of "normal" onto her audience.  Nancy gave her "expected" in both statement and behavior, something that is her normal.  Her normal is to have the children in bed and the mother up caring for them; not the other way around. 

Our caller is telling us what her "normal" looks like.  It comes through her language. 

Persuasion:  

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:  The 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. 

Note the order. 

If you had two children and one was missing, which would you mention first?

Note that no name is given. 

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. 

Nancy said that this is something she would recognize due to it being a possible sign of kidnapping:  the kidnapper grabbed the baby and left so quickly, so as not to get caught, that he/she/they dropped the pacifier.  

Yet, since this came already low on the list of priority, we may also consider that a newborn's items on the floor is something the mother is not only used to, but comfortable saying.  She is attempting to deceive while not directly lying:

She does have a two year old;
She does have a two week old;
She was on the couch...
The toddler woke her up (very likely her norm) 

She does not state, "I was asleep" here.  This would be an outright lie.  She  casts the responsibility for a lie upon her two year old child.  

It is very likely that the newborn's belongings were on the floor.  It takes effort and order to be a mother; both precludes neglect. 


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 "she's not in the sleeper" which is point 8. 

She has not yet told police that her child is missing.  

"She's she's not here" is point 9. 

She did not say she was missing, but just "not here."  

She does not say "she is missing; someone took her" and so on. 

The caller is deliberately avoiding a direct lie.  90% of lying is done in this manner.  

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. It is to state hopelessness, which is contrary to maternal instincts. 

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. This is not something a mother will admit.  It is a signal to police, before they even respond, that the mother knows the child is dead.  It is not the same as a past tense reference, but it is to contradict maternal instinct and natural denial. 

A woman's brain is distinctly female, flooded with specifically designed hormone levels, in earnest in the 8th week of life, 7 months prior to birth.  The hormones and their levels are what make a woman a woman, including powerful instincts to complement the biology of reproduction.  She is built, physically, emotionally and intellectually to give life and nurture it.  It is survival instinct that when challenged, gives powerful reactions.  This is why when a mother of a missing child references the child in the past tense, we ask, "Why does this mother believe her child is dead?" 

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

This is insightful into her norm.  Her newborn could be under clothes. 

They may have attempted to stifle the child's crying.  Let's listen for hints.  

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 to any sentence of her own to make this claim.  

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.  

The two year old child is responsible for making a false police report.  This is the verbalized perception of reality of this mother.  

She will not say "someone kidnapped my baby" for herself, in the free editing process.  This is where we see similarity to the McCanns.  Sheryl did a good job with this point.  




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

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

The mother did not say she was asleep.  The 911 operator has just confirmed the deception.  This is very similar to the Baby Lisa case where Deborah Bradley could not, in her own words, say "I was drunk."  The lawyer could say it for her, but she could not say it for herself. 

How many years of interviews have passed and the only people who will claim that Madeleine McCann was kidnapped are McCann supporters, but not the McCanns themselves? 

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

She avoids saying "I was sleeping" and stays on script.  She goes back, chronologically, to double up the deception. 

If anyone believed the mother was asleep when the child was critically injured, they no longer do.  

Her child is "missing", and she attempts to repeat something, not about the child, but about herself.  Training for 911 operators in Analytical Interviewing would help. 



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.  She knows that a newborn is not going to respond.  Listening to the Nancy Grace program, this was the first time I heard the audio.  She is loud and clear in this.  

This gives insight into the intellect of the subject:  she is not very smart.  

Yet, there is something even more important than just the foolishness of trying to fool the police into thinking she is a caring mother. 

This shows further insight into the neglect.  The mother's own expectations are more than just foolish:  this mother's normal is not your normal nor Nancy Grace's normal.  In this mother's world, children do actually take care of themselves.



PO: How old is she’ ma’am?

Isn't it interesting that it was this loud calling out to a newborn that caused the operator to ask this question?

The absurdity is not missed. 


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.  

"I. I" shows a halting on the pronoun "I" which indicates, at this moment, an increase in anxiety. 

What caused it?

Next, the increase of anxiety is met by a pause, which further increases sensitivity of the question. 

What caused it?

What caused the need for a pause to think of an answer?
What caused the increase of anxiety in the stutter on a word used millions of times by the subject?

What caused it?

The topic of someone else there. 

Remember:  she was on the couch.  Her two year old woke her.  

The couch was sensitive to her.  It was unnecessary information but she used it. 

She not only used it, but she used it to further buttress her story. 

The couch, therefore, is extremely important to her. 

So is the floor, where the pacify was. 

The question of another person's presence has triggered anxiety and an increase in sensitivity. 

Why?

Why is this happening?

She only reported herself, her two year old, and that her two week old was not there. 

Why was this question so sensitive that it produced a stutter by a non-stuttering person and the need to pause to think?

 I - I mean - as far as I know nobody would’ve came in my house. 

One can only tell what one knows. 
This mother's child is missing. 
Still, she qualifies her knowledge with "as far as I know."

This is a signal that she is attempting to limit not only knowledge but responsibility for knowledge. 

What triggered this?

The presence of someone else.  

She did not report anyone else there but herself, her two year old and the new born.  

What should she do?

She now reports who is not there:  



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. 

Not only does she tell us who is not there, but gives us a term of endearment ("Poppa" of whom she calls "my dad.")

But she does not so much report this but assigns the responsibility of language to her two year old child.  

Had she been given the opportunity forensically, she might have blamed the newborn's death on the two year old.  

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.  

The mother avoids answering the question:  


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

She does not say how long she has been asleep.  The question is simple, if you just woke up, how long were you asleep?

The 911 operator is likely thinking of drugs and neglect.  

By avoiding the question, we now know the question of how long she was asleep is very sensitive to her. 

This supports the analysis that she was awake when Caliyah was assaulted. 

Next:  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. 

This is another denial of maternal instinct. 

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."

She cannot say it.  

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. 

Victim Blaming

In child deaths and assaults, we often find that the guilty perpetrators (whether assailant or assistant) will find a subtle way to alleviate guilt by blaming the victim. 

Billie Jean Dunn talked about her daughter's "hormones."

Some that shake their babies to death will say, "she would not stop crying."

In a recent baby murder in England, the adoptive father ripped his little child's behavior.  

let's listen for the mother's linguistic disposition towards the victim. Do NOT forget:  the child is supposedly "missing" at this point: 

I didn’t mean to fall asleep on the couch…I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night…

a.  She reports what she did not intend to do.  She does not report falling asleep. 
b.  the location, again, is brought up.  This location may be where the altercation began, including the baby falling on to the floor. 

c.  The focus is not about the missing child, but self.  It is consistent with the priority of getting police to believe she was not awake when whatever happened took place.

d.  The mother explains why she "set down for a minute" which is the highest level of sensitivity in the statement.  

No one asked her, "Why did you sit down (or "set") for a minute?"

It is very likely that no one would have even thought to ask this question. Guilty people often give away their guilt by trying to answer allegations that are not even made yet! 


I didn’t mean to fall asleep on the couch…I set down for a minute after dealing with her all night…

Question:  Why did she sit (or set) down for a minute?
Answer:  Because she was dealing with her all night. 

Question:  Who is "her"?
Answer:    "her" has no name in the mother's internal dictionary.  She is not a person.  This is a subtle hint, along with the hopelessness of the search that suggests knowledge of the child's death. 

Victim Blaming:

This would not have happened if the mother did not have to "deal" with the victim all night.  

This is a decidedly negative word. (lesser context) 
It is to use a negative word when the child is missing. (Greater Context) 

What ever they did to her, it was her fault with "her" being the victim. 

If "her" does not have a name, she is not a person.  If she is not a person, but "depersonalized", mother can avoid guilt. 

This is the essence of distancing language.  



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.  

The reference to the pacifier is unnecessary and it is repetitive.  It is another indicator of one trying to stay to script.  The mother thinks she is believed by giving out truthful points and even repeating them.  

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. 

This perplexed Nancy Grace because of projection.  She did not consider that this child may have been, at some point, muffled under clothes, or in a totes bag for transport. 

It is the mother's norm.  It is the mother's reality.  We "enter" into her verbalized perception of reality by following her language and being aware of our own.  



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

This is like being on a fishing expedition for information.  The mother is going to stay to script.  

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?

We are still waiting for the mother to report her missing.  This may seem strange to new readers, but it is what innocent parents do and then they ask for help for the victim.  They use the victim's name because they are innocent and the child is their own.  


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? Recall the sensitive reaction she had, including the increase in anxiety where it did not exist elsewhere?

 It is on the caller's mind.  Note the return of halting on words.  Note the indicators of deception. 

Note the entire script that she kept to did not include the now charged father:  

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 his daughter in the trailer park!  

yet:  the guilty know the truth. The brain knows what it knows and she is fighting to keep this information from the operator.  

He was not out searching for his daughter.  That is NOT what she said.  Listen to her.  Let her words guide you.  

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 of the mother about the dad's involvement in the disappearance. 

This is to show that the mother 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,

Nancy Grace correctly identified this as not expected and casual.  She humorously said that this was something she might say to a business but not when reporting her daughter missing.  



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 

Phone records, including text messages, likely subpoenaed by police.  


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
You and the dad both were asleep, or he just came back home? 

The mother withheld this information at first.  This is to "materially deceive" via deliberately concealing this.  

Mother was not alone.  

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.  Look what the connection does to her language:  


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. 

The child is "missing" and we expect the mother to articulate this and to show concern.  What we get, instead, is the parentified child's reaction:  

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?

The two year old likely witnessed the assault upon Caliyah.  The mother likely abused the two year old at this point.  

The mother has the need to show that she was in charge and ordering the two year old (again, insight into her reality and norm) and the father. 

She is complicit, not only in deception detection but in content and connection.  

Note that she does not even quote the father saying "he said she was missing" or anything similar.  Instead, she chose "talking", as if conversational.  

This is an indication of the complicity of the mother in the planning of concealment and deception. 

Even if only the father inflicted blows, the mother indicates her own involvement. 

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. This means that the mother was present for the assault, may have contributed to the assault and that the mother needs an alibi. 

The mother has a need to alibi herself.  She is willing to blame anyone else. 

That she does not directly lie should be noted for the interview strategy.  

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.  His presence causes linguistic anxiety; the victim's disappearance does not.  

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

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

The mother indicates guilt in concert in the death of the child.  This includes her attempt to conceal the child's location as well as what happened to the child.  

The mother should face charges.  This comes down to what prosecutors can prove, rather than what prosecutors believe. 

If administered a polygraph using her own words, she is not likely to pass.  

She blames the child for what happened.  

This is insight into human nature itself.  

Guilt is something the brain works overtime at avoiding.  It is why childhood training in right from wrong is critical.  It is why subjectivity and moral relativism will continue to increase violence and the subsequent prison population.  

Babies are often killed like this by impulse; not planning.  The babies that die from Shaken Baby Syndrome lose their life in a moment of the loss of self control. 

When children, teens and young adults are taught that their emotions rule over them, the result is that, when tested, their emotions may, in deed, rule over them.  

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