Monday, September 17, 2018

Judge Kavanagh Accuser Letter for Analysis

The following is the letter that an accuser sent to Sen. Diane Feinstein.  Analysis follows. 

Analytical Question:  Is she telling the truth?  Was she sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh? 

July 30 2018
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.


July 30 2018
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;

Appropriate introduction. Sense of writing etiquette associated with education.  
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.


We always note where an author begins after the greeting. This is often the priority and the actual reason for the author's writing. 


We let the priority unfold, word by word, for us. 

Note the purpose: the author writes "with", not "about" and calls the information "relevant."

We generally see "with" between people as a signal of distance. "I went shopping with Heather" instead of "Heather and I went shopping." 

The former may indicate distance due to disinterest or disagreement, while the latter shows unity. 

It is interesting to note that the author appears to be distancing herself from the "information" ("with") which is coupled with the unnecessary emphasis on the information being "relevant."

Q. Would a victim of sexual assault distance herself from the information of the assault, itself?


This is unnecessary information. If the author is writing about a sexual assault, she should have no need to call her own information "relevant" unless...she has a need to. 

Note that she also explains why the information is "relevant", as it is in "evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

"current nominee" is the first person to enter the statement after the recipient (Feinstein) and the author. 

"Current nominee" is not "the nominee"; but "current." Here the word "current" is dependent; that is, it requires, like a "numeric", the element of time.

This tells us as her priority, distancing herself from information, there is an expectation of a future nominee. 

Consider that the author's priority is having the "nominee" replaced with another.  
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

After the initial priority of being both "with" information and claiming the information is "relevant", the author goes back to herself with "as a constituent."

This use of identifying herself is consistent with her priority of having a successive nominee. 

Did you notice how she did not write, "until you and I have further opportunity"? She wrote "we."

The author has just told us that she is united with Diane Feinstein in her priority: getting a nominee who is not "current."

The author is united with the recipient in this context. 

She now gets to the accusation.  We seek a linguistic commitment, even with the passage of time, that includes processing. 
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. 

a. "current nominee" is now "Brett Kavanaugh." This is without his title of judge, and it is an incomplete social introduction. 
b. Linguistic Disposition: the incomplete social introduction is, in context, a negative linguistic disposition.  Given the context of "nominee to the Supreme Court", the lack of title is noted. 

Next, note the assault:  "physically" comes before "sexually", which in the context of a sexual assault is unusual.  

Note the element of time is present: "during" and "in the early 80's."

Expectation: Sexual assault is trauma producing and it is strongly in the memory of the victim (age appropriate) and we do not expect to see "physical" written before "sexual", and we not expect a life changing event to be generalized by a decade.

Thus far we have:

a.  motive
b.  weak commitment ("relevant")
c. Distance  ("with") 

We now add unexpected order of event and the lack of commitment to a specific date.

Being a victim of sexual assault and of many years to process, the date is expected to be "memorialized" as a life changing event.  It is not an estimate within a decade

He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.

a. "conducted" is not the language of assault. It is the language of an ongoing, methodical process.  This leads us to ask, "did the subject have consensual sexual contact with the accused?"
b. "these acts" Incongruent with a sexual assault. 
c.  "with" between people indicates distance. Why would the author not wish to put the two assailants together? 

Consider the question:  

Why would the author minimize sexual assault?

Was there some form of contact and possible humiliation perceived on the part of the author?

Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

In the author's account, we do not have one assaulted but an author perceiving herself as exploited; being that they "both" were "one to two years older than me."

A sexual assault of peers (teen or adult) rather than of a child, is not likely to include the ages.  This inclusion should cause further consideration of the author being personally insulted or even humiliated.  
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

Note the unnecessary emphasis upon self.  If she was assaulted, she would have to have been at the locale.  That it included "four others" would provide corroboration of her account.  

It is interesting that she did not give the location of the sexual assault but the location as "suburban Maryland area" which is not only an estimate, but unnecessary information. 

The author is not making a "linguistic commitment" to a sexual assault. 
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom 

The word "physical" is unnecessary; therefore, very important. We should ask,

"Did the author feel "pushed" in a way other than physical?" This would support the language of "older than me."

Note additional emphasis upon self. 

When someone offers that the account can be corroborated, we  note the "need" for it, which reduces linguistic commitment. Sexual assault is unique, personal, up close and trauma producing. 

It is not in the language. The wording "physically pushed" causes us to ask, "Is there another type of pushing other than physical to the author?"  Did the author experience emotional "pushing" to something she did not want to do?

as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. 

Although the author refuses to date beyond a decade, and refuses to identify a location, yet here she tells us where she was "headed" while he "physically pushed" her. 

This is narrative building language; what cops often call "story telling."  Subjects who engage in this often believe they will be seen as credible for giving such detail. Casey Anthony invented a "nanny" to conceal her murder of her daughter and told police, "she has perfect teeth." 

Narrative building, or "story telling" includes commentary: 

They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

We have the language that avoids saying, "I screamed "no" but they played loud music" in her sentence.  

Q.  Could this be from the years of processing?

A.  It could. 

Note, however, the need to use the word "attempt" and "successful" as a possible hina clause; or an explanation as to "why" she did not scream or yell. 

In this scenario, the sentence would look like this: 

They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

It is as if to preempt, "why didn't you yell?" Yet, in such a claim, we would not have asked this, but listened to her. Anticipation of a question or objection is the highest level of sensitivity in a statement. 

We now see both passive voice and the potential humiliation: 
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. 

Note that she places him "on top" of "me" (over emphasis upon self; minimization on the assault is incongruent with sexual assault victims) 

Passive voice is a psychological term of weak commitment. 

a. He physically pushed me
b. He was on top of me

She did not say how he got on top of her (passivity conceals responsibility ). 

Why would the author conceal the responsibility of why he was on top of her. 

Note the inclusion of "while laughing" which is not "laughed", but an ongoing issue for the author. 

This "while laughing" came "with" the redacted accused.  (consider the LD of the author towards the redacted accused; the distancing language within the accusation of sexual assault). 

"While laughing" is a linguistic signal of humiliation.  This is, in context, while not making a reliable accusation of sexual assault. 

We find this humiliation in many false accusations.  

They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. 

"laugh" is repeated.  The analyst should carefully consider that the author is driven by humiliation, while not giving a reliable statement. This may be part of the motivation or the "trigger" for sending the letter. 

"tried" means attempted but failed.  Ex: "I tried to tell the truth" (President Clinton) 

"disrobe" is minimalist language; not the language of a sexual assault.  To "disrobe" is a slowing down of a pace and of will.  Sexual assault includes much stronger language; even after decades of processing, because it was an assault.  Sexual assailants do not "disrobe" their victims.  

"Their highly inebriated state" is not to say "they were drunk."  They were in a "state" in the author's verbalized perception of reality.  One should consider why the author employs this language when reporting of a personal sexual assault. 

With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

She does not say how he got his hand over her mouth. She skips over time and she wants us to interpret this as something he did.  Truthful victims of sexual assault tell us what happened.  

Note the additional unnecessary word, "inadvertently" tells us that the author is not only commenting, but is refusing to commit to her charge. She speaks to Kavanagh's intention, and if the assailant of a sexual assault was "trying to disrobe" her, he would not mean to kill her. 

This is an example of a weak commitment to an inflated statement. The author knows otherwise. 

Next, we have communicative language. She has not told us that she told him "no" or screamed.  She preempted this question from being asked. 

We now allow the communicative language to guide us. 

"My boss said to be here at 8am" uses the two way and softer communicative word, "said."

"My boss told me to be here..." uses the stronger, "told"

In sexual assault, we do not expect soft communicative language to be associated with the word, "no." 

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."

She uses the word "said" associated with "stop"; which is incongruent. 

This may explain why she distanced herself from the 2nd accused. 

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. 

After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. 

The author does not commit to trying to get away.  The passivity of such means she wishes to be interpreted as trying to get away, without committing to it. This is a tool used commonly in deception as direct fabrication or lying causes internal stress. 

Note "I was able to take" is not, "I ran..."

Note: "...and run across" using the verb "run" reducing commitment. 

"opportune moment" is consistent with both long term processing and narrative building. 

Which is it?

The analyst must consider it in context, thereby combining the lack of commitment with this point. 

I locked the bathroom door behind me.

This sentence would be reliable if she had not added "behind me" which points back to the accused unnecessarily.  This is something done when being chased or when one is involved in the scene. 

 Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. 

Note the revisiting of potential eye witnesses is given the gender neutral pronoun  "persons" here. This also is given the distancing language of "with" separating the two accused with the non-gender "persons."

They are not "people" but "persons" in the author's language. 

I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

She didn't run out, but she "exited" and then "ran." This change of language should be considered in context with "laugh" and "laughing" as humiliation. 

The Rule of the Negative: 

We expect the author to tell us what happened, what she said and what she saw.  We do not expect her to tell us what she did not do: 
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault

a,.  Why the need to elevate not seeing him?
b.  Did she see him but not "knowingly"? 

c.  "the assault" is not "since he attacked me" or "since he assaulted me." 

Sexual assault is deeply personal and invasive.  This is lacking from the statement. 

I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

She interprets redacted's body language and reports no communication. 
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. 

 Note the imperfect commitment to the medical treatment. She does not tell us what was injured nor what treatment (medical) was needed. 

On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. 

It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

That "discussing" sexual assault as "upsetting" is unnecessary information. This unnecessary information should be considered as artificial placement and ingratiation to genuine victims.  It is interesting to note this language given her profession. 

"I feel guilty" is to be seen in context of:

a. weak commitment
b. avoidance 
c.  minimization 
d. distancing language. 

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.

She is "available" and given the unnecessary emphasis upon "self", we should believe her.  

Analysis Conclusion

Deception Indicated 

If the subject is describing an event between her and two teenagers, it is not a sexual assault but of something deeply embarrassing to her. 

Her motive is political. 

Her trigger is that they laughed at her. 

She was not sexually assaulted and is manipulative. This is why she avoids giving a date, time and witnesses.  Her attorney has now said it is not her responsibility to corroborate her account. 

Her secondary motive is recognition.  

For training in deception detection:  Hyatt Analysis Services 

Suspect Indicted in Death of Isabel Celis

A suspect has been indicted in the homicide of Isabel Celis. 

Is the analysis of his 911 call wrong?

Will a conviction mean:

a. the accused did it?
b. the father had no connection to the accused?
c. Dept of Children and Family (DCF) did not have concerns or evidence of sexual abuse by the father?

Let' look at the 911 call again. 

It is best to start an investigation at the first moment where one speaks and tells police, "What happened."

This is an Emergency Phone call.  In the United States, it is the number "911."

When Isabel Celis went missing, what did her father, Sergio Celis, tell us about what happened? 

This is the most important thing about the case as it is the first information given. 

How did the father (caller) describe his daughter?  This is called "Linguistic Disposition"

Analysis of an emergency call is the same as analyzing an interview in which the subject is asked, "What happened?" knowing that the subject has not already been interviewed.  

We begin with the presupposition of innocence. 

 This is a "de facto" innocence; not judicial.  In the United States, we have a presumption of judicial innocence.  

Sergio Celis is judicially innocent in the death of his daughter, Isabel.  He remains so at this time, with a sex offender under indictment. 

This is the same approach to all. It is done in order to facilitate deception detection.  We believe and hold to the expectation that the caller does not possess guilty knowledge of that which is to be reported and his motive is to facilitate information for a successful conclusion. 

This is also important since 90% or more of deception comes from deliberately withheld or concealed information, rather than outright lying. 

Therefore, even with 100% technically truthful statements where there is deception, line by line, we are very likely to obtain reliable information as to what happened.  In other words:

Everything the person said was true.  They simply left out that they did the crime.  

"I heard a gun shot and found my wife on the floor, bleeding from the head..." may be 100% technically truthful. 

He did hear a gun shot. 
He did "find" her on the floor.
Her head was bleeding. 

There is but one problem:  he left out the fact that he shot her. 

Deception detection would find out this missing info, but Content Analysis would tell the investigator what happened, why, when and how, and the forensics are likely to match.  

Question:  What does Sergio Celis tell us what happened to Isabel? 

Here is the entire 911 call made by Sergio Celis regarding his missing 7 year old daughter, Isabel. 

 Emphasis by underlining, italics and color added.  

Please note that the color blue is given for the highest level of sensitivity.  

We expect a biological father to report his daughter missing.  

Dispatcher:911 what's your emergency?

Sergio Celis: I want to report a missing person, my little girl who's six years old, I believe she was abducted from our house.
Please note that additional or extra words give us additional information.   The added word "want" actually reduces commitment.  
Please note that he is reporting a missing "person"; it is not expected that a father would refer to his child as a "person" 
Note the order:
1.  He wants to report a missing person. This is to remove the identity of Isabel and make her, in his verbalized perception of reality, a "person"; in fact, a "missing person" just like the thousands of missing persons reported every year.  This is "distancing language" and it indicates a psychological need for blending Isabel in with many others.  It is the opposite of a biological father's instinct. 

The first identity of the victim is as a "missing person." 

Next in the order of priority she is: 

2.  "My little girl

We will continue to view the names, titles and connections for the victim to himself.  

As a "missing person", she is his "little girl."  She does not yet have a name.  

3.  What happened?

He "believes" she was "abducted" from "our" house.  

Note the assertion of abduction is only "believed" which is weak.  If he believes that she has been abducted, he should have a reason for his belief which would make the weak assertion appropriate.  If he is just guessing, the weakness is appropriate. 

"What makes you think she was abducted?" is a natural question and if your 6 year old little girl was missing, you'd likely have a reason to assert as much. 

Why did he think she was "abducted"?

Next, let's consider the word "abducted" rather than kidnapped.


Because I am concerned about Narrative reporting.  

Narrative reporting is what investigators  street cops, child protective services, insurance professionals, etc,  call "story telling."  

It is "scripted language" which indicates pre thought.  

Why is "abducted" possibly scripted language?  

Why not "kidnapped", the more active taking of a child for unknown reasons?

  An abduction is conclusionary and does not hold the same meaning as "kidnapped" where ransom and contact may be expected.  

An abduction is that which is used when motive has been determined. 

That a father of a missing child could jump to this conclusion should alert investigators to withheld information

It is interesting to look back upon the interviews they did on TV about their "abducted" child. 

They made it through an entire interview without using the following words:


Next now note also that he does not call it "my house."  This is significant. It is not like someone on an emergency call is going to pause and stop to think, "Hmm, which word should I use?  My house?  Our house?"

It is instinctive.  

This is elevated in an emergency, and sometimes referred to in court as "excited utterance."

The speed of processing for the brain is very fast and gives us our reliability. 

When someone calls their home "our" house, it shows a desire to share ownership.  This is often seen in divorces, or can enter the language of those who rent a room in the home, or live with others.  That he feels a need to share the home while reporting a child missing should not be missed.  We find that the pronouns "we" and "our" come from parents who wish to share guilt especially since parenting a child is a highly personal ("I" and "my") relationship.  It can be something as minor as a bad report card to something found in the context here:

a murdered child. 

We now look back upon this 911 call knowing that Isabel was a victim of homicide. 

This is not a huge point but it is noted and it is an "affirming point" about the analysis of a "missing person":  the psychology of "crowd" much like the kindergartener who says, "yeah, but everyone was doing it.

Dispatcher: What's the address?
Sergio: 57 or 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: Okay. Stay on the line for Tucson Police.
Sergio: I will.

Here we see the transfer which will now cause a repetition of "what happened."  The first was part of the free editing process where the version is most "pure."  The second is now added to the first, and we may reduce some sensitivity indicators, such as repetition, because it is necessary to repeat information. 

Is he working from script?  versus Is he working from experiential memory?
Dispatcher: Tucson Police Department, Gabhart
Sergio: Hello, I need to report a uh, missing child. I believe she was abducted from my house.
Please note that his call to the police who will be investigating the "abduction" begins with the greeting, "Hello."  
People in a hurry to report an emergency may not think to be polite, unless there is a reason to 'befriend' the operator. 

Let's consider this, but also keep in mind that "hello" is part of a segway in the transfer. 

We do not like to hear a greeting in the beginning of an emergency police call.  

Ingratiating Factor 

 Police are "the good guys." 

When one has guilt, one may not wish to be seen on the opposing side of police.  That would mean "bad guy" status. 

We call this the "Ingratiating Factor" in analysis.  Here's an example:

When DeOrr Kunz jr went missing, his father made a lengthy emotional statement praising police and searchers, in great detail, for failure to find his son.  He was deceptive in his interviews about what happened to his son and this may have been the psychological need to be seen as "the good guy" because he was "the bad guy."

Context is key. 

In a missing child case, failure to find the child is failure. 

Billie Jean Dunn initially praised police for not finding Hailey, but when they turned and focused on her failure to tell the truth (including failing her polygraph) she attacked them openly including the polygraph examiner.  Still, she refused to say, "I told the truth."  That would have been an outright lie; something most liars will avoid. 

 There is a psychological reason for the Ingratiating Factor:  some guilty parents will seek to "make friends" or be "at peace" with those who might later suspect them.  This is why guilty parents will often "thank" police for their work in searching for the missing child, rather than show impatience and frustration.  They are, literally, "thankful" for the police failure to locate the "missing" child.  This shows itself early in an investigation, and then turns to rage (or disappears) as time passes and the public is aware that the police now suspect the same parents who once thanked them.  
This should be seen as a red flag for guilty caller, and an attempt to portray him as "friendly" with the police.  Urgency on the part of the innocent parent is expected; not a casual greeting. 
Please note the change of language.  When language changes, it should reflect a change in reality.  If not, it may be an indication of deception as the subject does not speak from memory and is not keeping track of his words:
"missing person" and "my little girl" and "our house" is now:
"missing child" from "my" house.  
There does not appear to be any justification for the change in the context, therefore, it may be that it is not coming from experiential memory.  
Note how he refers to Isaabel:
To him, Isabel is not "Isabel" but a "person" and a "little girl" and a "child."

Here is a change: 
Person:  gender neutral
"little girl" specific gender
"child" is often used when at risk.  While "missing" she is a "person" (non specific) and "child"

Reporting a "missing child" is something that many people do in the United States every week.  The victim is still one of many.  

This is not expected.  

This is most unexpected by a biological father.  This "distancing language" is heard by the police operator.  

What changed?

She was "my little girl" abducted from "our" house; but 
a "child" when from "my" (closer, personal) house. 

Dispatcher: Okay. How old?
Sergio: Six years old.
Dispatcher: Okay is it your daughter or?

What made the Dispatcher ask this question is the formal, distancing language of reporting a "missing child."  It is unnatural and warranted clarification. Dispatch had to ask this question.  
Sergio: Yes
Dispatcher: Why do you think she abducted?
That the subject said he thought his daughter was "abducted" was not expected by the 911 operator.  An "abduction" is a conclusion, therefore, the subject must have very good and strong reasons to say such a thing.  He reports her "abducted" rather than "missing."

He "believes" it.  

She has confirmed that she is speaking to the child's father, so to go all the way to a conclusion, the father needs to now tell police why he believes this.  

Dispatch now awaits details that point to an abduction, including broken windows, doors, ransom note, former threats from gangs, disputes, or anything else, even remotely related.  Otherwise, it may sound like a "script" of

1.  Missing Person
2.  Missing Child  
3.  Abduction 

He must have a reason for this.  He is the father and the victim is his daughter.  
Sergio:  I have no idea

We woke up this morning and went to go get her up, start her baseball game and she's gone. 

I woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. We've looked all around the house, my son…"

There is a wealth of information here.  

Let's look at it again:

Here is why he thinks he should report an "abduction" of a missing "person" and "child":  

I have no idea

We woke up this morning and went to go get her up, start her baseball game and she's gone

woke up my, my sons, I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. 

We've looked all around the house, my son…"

Deception indicated

1.  Please note that "I have no idea" is a shocking response given the context of not only a missing child, but of an "abduction" that he believes took place.  

This is not only "not expected" by a parent who has twice used the word "abducted" but indicates that he was not expecting to have to explain his reasoning. 

"I have no idea" gives him time to think, as well. 

  He asserted what he thought but now claims to have "no idea" what caused him to say so?  This is not credible.  That she is "missing" would show an "idea" why.  A child is missing and a parent says that they have "no idea"?  We saw the same deception from Justin DiPietro, father of Ayla Reynolds, who's blood was found in his basement. 

It is not only untrue, but it shows a need to pause and think.  
2.  Please note that he reports that "we" woke up; not "I" woke up.  This is an indication of deception. This is coming from the biological father who has instincts within him of the "three P's of masculinity"


These are instincts which are reflected in language.  Please remember that the Dispatcher needed to ask,

'Is this your daughter we're talking about?

Pronouns are instinctive.  They are "pre thought."  He, as father, making the report of his own daughter, should tell us what he did.  This is the "crowd" element of guilt in language.  

 Note that he does not say who the "we" are here. 

 Pronouns are instinctive and guilty people seek to share responsibility with the word "we", no different than a guilty teenager runs away from commitment in hopes of sharing guilt with the word "we."
3.  Note the highest level of sensitivity is found in two specific parts of language:
A.  "Left" (departed) when used as an unnecessary connecting verb
B.   Reason Why:  "to, therefore, so, since, because..." and so on.  This means that the subject, when reporting what happened, has a need to explain why he did something. 
These two parts of language are given the highest level of sensitivity in Analysis, and are color coded with blue to highlight specific areas of extreme sensitivity.  When more than one is found, we know we are at a highly sensitive 
He tells the reason why he went to get Isabel, of whom he avoids using her name (distancing language). 

This need to tell us "why" he went to get her up is unnecessary information.  As he works through his account, he anticipates police asking him,

"Why did you go into her bedroom?"

This is not a question any of us would feel the need to pose. 

This is where formal training and tremendous exposure to volume of statements, over many months, comes together for the analyst. 

Why did Sergio Celis have a need to preempt a question about why he went into his daughter's bedroom?

This is an example of one staying to the script.  

None of us would even think to ask "why" in such a setting.  Only one who is not speaking from experiential memory would be concerned with making the pieces fit together.  
This is a very important point and it is labeled with our highest recognition of sensitivity in language.  It is how liars are often caught in their own web. 
4.  Pronouns are well practiced by humans since the earliest days of speech and are completely reliable.  When someone cannot keep track of pronouns, deception is present.  
Note:  "I, we looked everywhere"indicates deception.  

This may indicate that he orchestrated the search.  

I, we looked everywhere in the house and my oldest son noticed her window was wide open and the screen was laying the backyard. 

The word "noticed" is to indicate something seen that was not looked for.  It is happenstance or an incidental. 

When one has the need to use the word itself in an open statement, it is often an indication of deliberate action and expectation. 

We are now concerned that his "oldest" (specific, most 'reliable' due to age) did not "find" it, but only "noticed" it.  This is an indication that the caller led him to find it. This would have been a very important question to pose to him in the interview. 

This is a missing child case. He should have said that the screen is off her window, not:

his son
his oldest son
and only "noticed" it.  This slows down the pace with additional and unnecessary information.  

There is more, however, in just this point to suggest Serigo orchestrated this. 

Question:  Is there anything to affirm that Sergio led his oldest son to "notice"?

Answer:  Yes. 

The body posture of the screen is given.  

When an inanimate object is given human body posture, it is an indication of human connection from the speaker. 

Screens do not sit nor do they lay down.  People cause them to. 

"...the screen was laying..."

When taken with "noticed", it indicates that Sergio put it there and directed his son to find it. 

Dispatcher: Okay, hang on.
Sergio:…are running, yeah, my sons are running around the house looking for her.
Presentation Versus Truth. 

This is similar to the "good mother" in analysis or the "good guy" designation. 

Of course everyone is running around looking...we would not think to the contrary.  

Q.  What calls our attention to searching?
A.  the caller's own words. 

We would not have had a doubt about it if he had not introduced it.  

This should not have been needed to be said and is an attempt to portray the family as united and searching.  There is no need for him to say that the house has been searched unless...
Unless he has a need to persuade police that they searched the house.  Who would not search the house?  This was expected before calling 911.  
Dispatcher: the screen was on the ground outside?

The Dispatcher does not include the inanimate object's body posture in the question. 
Sergio: Yes
His daughter was not in her bed, and the screen was on the ground outside, yet he had "no idea" why he thought she was abducted?  This does not make sense, unless it is a false report:  as a false report, that is, not coming from experiential memory, it makes sense. 
Dispatcher: What's her address?
Sergio: 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: What's your name sir?
Sergio: My name is Sergio, S-E-R-G-I-O, middle initial D, last name is C-E-L-I-S,
Dispatcher: I-S as in Sam?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay, what's her name?
Sergio: Isabel, I-S-B-E-L, uh, I-S-A-B-E-L, M as in man is the middle initial
Here is when her name enters his language, but only in response to a direct question. 
Dispatcher: Okay, same last name?

This may be more than just cultural.  The operator showed sensitivity about his language which led to the need to affirm the relationship status.  We see further hints of this in the language 
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay what's her actual birth date?
Sergio: Is (removed by TPD), of uh, (removed by TPD). I'm sorry. (removed by TPD) and she's going to seven this year, so uh, (removed by TPD)

We always take note of the words, used for any reason, of

"I'm sorry" in an emergency call.  


By themselves, they do not indicate guilt, but they are suggestive of it, and they often enter the language of those with guilt, sometimes in unintended deaths. He may really be "sorry." 
Dispatcher: Okay. Is mom there also?
This is a yes or no question.  Anything beyond "yes" or "no" is sensitive.  
Sergio: Uh, she had just left for work, I just called her and I told her to get her butt home. (giggle)

It is impossible not to notice the "giggle" he uses here on an emergency phone call to report his child has been abducted. 

Let's first examine the language and then the "giggle." 

It is important to learn:  What produced the giggle?
Here he established his wife's alibi.  Whatever happened to Isabel, instead of answering "yes or no" there was a need to explain that it happened while his wife was not home.  
If he had "no idea" what happened to her, how is it that she had "just" left for work?  

"just" is a dependent word in analysis, meaning it relies upon another thought.  It is to denote timing. 
Please note the word "told."
The word "told" is used in authoritative sentences.  "My boss said to be at work at 9" is one way of saying it, while, "My boss told me..." is stronger.  Here, he portrays the sentence as if he had to exercise authority to "tell" her or "instruct" her to come home. 
Is this reasonable?
A mother of a missing 6 year old would not have to be "told" to come home from work:  she would leave immediately.  Here, the subject wants us to believe that he had to impose authority over her, as indicated by the word "told" in his language.  

He has the need to portray himself as "taking charge" for the good of his daughter. 

This is the "good guy" principle which belies the status of "bad guy."

Next, this is buttressed by his wording "get your butt home." 

He has a need to be seen as the good guy.  This is not good. 

Now, what about him giggling?

He did not give a nervous laugh anywhere else in the call.  

Even if it was a nervous laugh, like a habit of speech, we note what produces it and what does not produce it. 
By his language:   He is portraying her reluctance to come home.  Is this how he wanted it?  Is this how Becky wanted it?
Please note that he is heard chuckling on the call made to report his missing child. This is strange enough but consider the words that produced this:


Investigators listening this for the very first time should have immediately been concerned with possible sexual abuse of the victim. 

The portrayal is of one so chaste that even "butt" is extreme language.  

It is very similar to the projection we often see in language of virtue signalers today. 

Ashley Judd is an actress who went to extremes over an inappropriate joke.  She went full force into inappropriate language, costumes and presentation, tears, cursing, and even a hat formed to female genitalia to "protest" what?

To protest the use of inappropriate words. 

Everyone has either said something inappropriate, or has heard something inappropriate and was able to control their reaction.  

Ashley Judd went into "action" over it, with raging anger.  


She is not a politician. 

She is not in need of money. 

She does not appear to be running for office. 

Question:  What would cause such an unmeasured and extreme reaction?

Answer:  guilt 

A year later we learned that she had protected a rapist and took out her emotion upon another.  

She raged against a single joke, but was silent for many years, over an assault.  

She sought to "prove" how deep her virtue ran because she had a need to appear to have virtue. 

This is the point in Statement Analysis.  

          Verbalized Perception of Reality versus Realty 

The "great mother" is often found to have child protective history. 
The "caring husband" is often found to have been abusive. 
The man who "sees" racism everywhere seethes with racism in his own heart, which comes out in the language.  

It is the need of presentation.  

The mother who expressed concern and wearing down of self, looking for her missing daughter, actually made sure that she did not miss her favorite afternoon soap opera. 

The father of a "missing" child gave a great performance demanding, publicly, that Nancy Grace come to Waterville, Maine and "walk in his shoes" as she "suffered."

When Nancy Grace producers showed up at his house, he hid in the bathroom and refused to come out.  

It is presentation versus reality. 

Sergio Celis had a need to portray himself as so sexually moral that even the use of the word "butt" produced "embarrassment" for one so "righteous."

We later learned that child abuse investigators made a deal with him that he would leave the house while they investigated concerns of sexual abuse.  

He giggled while reporting his daughter missing, while he is being deceptive.  The context of giggling was telling his wife to get her "butt" home, which tells us of the lack of urgency.  

This is what "following the script" looks like, rather than experiential knowledge. 

Question:  Besides this giggle and the word "child", Is there anything else in the language that suggests police investigate possible sexual abuse?

Answer:  we continue to listen...

Dispatcher: Okay, mother.

Now his wife is appearing to be "bad" or reluctant to get home quickly and help locate the missing person or missing child.  He then had a need to refute this: 
Sergio: But she was…
Dispatcher: What kind of vehicle is she going to be en route back in?
Sergio: Uh, in our Lexus RX300, and it's red.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio: And she's coming from TMC, so she should just be coming straight down Craycroft.

offering help to police, but not about Isabel.  Consider "ingratiation factor." 
Dispatcher: Okay. How tall is she?
Sergio: She is five two.
This indicates where his mind is:  he is concentrating on "pleasing" the operator and not about his missing daughter.  

His language reveals that Isabel is not a priority.  He thought of his wife in the "get your butt home" comment and his mind is still on his wife, not daughter, who, if truly "missing" or "abducted" would be all he cared about.  This is a parental instinct to care only for the missing child.  He is more concerned with image and alibi than he is with his missing daughter. 
Dispatcher: No the, I'm sorry, you're daughter
Sergio: Oh my daughter. Um…forty inches. Thirty, yeah 36 to 40 inches.
If your child was missing, would a 911 operator need to redirect your attention back to your daughter? This is the reason in an interview, we do not "redirect" anything:  we listen. 
Dispatcher: Okay. Is she black, white, or Hispanic?
Sergio: She's a fair skinned Hispanic with uh, clear eyes and light brown hair.

What color are "clear" eyes?
Dispatcher: And what do you mean by clear eyes? Like…
Sergio: Uh, well they're a little bit green…
Dispatcher: Are they hazel or?
Sergio:…green, green, hazel, sure.
Dispatcher: Hazel, okay. And you said she's about 40 inches tall.
Sergio: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Do you remember what she was wearing last night when you saw her?
The expectation is "yes" followed by what she was wearing.  It is a yes or no question, but it has the expectation of commentary for the purpose of helping locate her.  His answer reveals that he saw her two times.  
Please note this. 
In Sergio Celis' answer, he dilineates different times he saw what she was wearing.  He should simply report what pajamas the six year old had on.  This is where extra words give away the information needed:  
Sergio: Uh, before she went to bed I believe she was wearing little navy blue shorts and, and a pink uh, a pink like little uh, tank top type of a shirt.
When I first analyzed this, readers wrote about being "creeped out" by the language here.  They noted that his "little" girl wore "little" shorts and a "little" tank top as if anything else would fit a 6 year old.  

It indicates focus where we do not expect to hear focus.  

He reports what she wore, not to bed, but "before she went to bed" indicating that this may not be what she was wearing when she went to bed, or when she went missing. 
Also note that besides not reporting what pajamas she had on, he describes her shirt and shorts as "little":  
She is six years old. 
Not only does she have on "little shorts" and a "tank top" but a "little tank top" type of shirt.   Since she is six years old, we would expect that her shorts would not be large.  That he uses this language is concerning and the analyst should be on the alert for possible signals of sexual abuse, especially after "child" and the 'righteous giggling' over "butt." 
The dispatcher reflects back the language, without the additional and "unimportant" information of the size of the clothing:  
Dispatcher: Pink tank top? Okay. Navy blue shorts. Has she ever tried to sneak out of a window or anything?

Note that "little" is not part of the vocabulary of the Dispatch in spite of it being easier (and normal) to parrot when seeking confirmation. 
Sergio: Oh no.
Dispatcher: Have you guys…
Sergio: Hu-uh
Dispatcher: …been having any weird phone calls, anything like that, somebody hanging around?

Remember:  he reported "abduction" so it is on the mind of the Dispatcher.  

Sergio: No. We got home late from uh, my son's baseball game.

Note that "we got home" is plural, with "my" son being singular.  This is expected with biological parents.  Yet, when speaking of the missing child, she is "our" daughter.  This is different. 
"Our" is the language of 'sharing', that is:
step parenting,
foster parenting,
adoption, or something related to having someone else involved in the child's life other than the biological parents. 

This is, therefore, sometimes in the language of biological parents who have discussed divorce. 

It is also found in the language of biological parents where there is a need to share guilt.  
Dispatcher: Uh-hm
Sergio: You know, about 10:30 last night. (clears throat) Everyone took their showers and they all went to bed. I even was in the living room watching uh, the Diamondbacks game at midnight.

He could tell us anything he wishes.  He cannot tell us everything or it would never end.  

He reports what is most important to him.  This is another indicator of concern over sexual abuse. 

In sexual abuse cases, we find words such as "door", "window" and "blanket" (coverings) as well as "lights" and references to water, in any form. 
"Water", in particular, enters the language of sexual homicides.  That he felt the need to mention "showers" should cause investigators to explore the possibility of sexual abuse in the caller's history, including checking with CPS, school teachers, and the pediatrician.  
When someone reports what happened, they cannot say everything, therefore, they edit out what they do not feel is important and keep in what they feel is needed.  Next, they must choose which words to use, and what order to put them in. 

All of this happens in less than a millisecond in time. 

Dispatcher: Uh-hm.
Sergio: And I feel asleep and I never heard anything weirdSo I was like just on the…

Alibi establishment. 

He heard something but they were not "weird."

We have a need to "normalize" the night which tells us that this was anything but normal to him. 

Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…other side of the wall from her.
Dispatcher: How, how many siblings does she have?
Sergio: Two.
Dispatcher: Okay, and those are brothers you said?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: How old are they?
Sergio: 14 and 10.
Dispatcher: And you said they're out looking or they were looking all over the house?
Sergio: Oh no, they, they just, they just went right now, my oldest son, the 14 year old, he went running around just to make sure um, but I, she's nowhere

The need to explain why, again the older son, went running outside is not something police would have ever thought of asking.  

This is a signal of deliberately concealing information.  

This is to affirm that he orchestrated which son would find the screen.

Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…to be seen
Dispatcher: Outside or inside?
Sergio: He's outside our property wall.
Dispatcher: Okay. And where is the ten year old?

The Dispatcher is concerned about the children. 
Sergio: He's in the garage. He's just out in the garage just waiting for…

The dependent word "just" is used to compare with something else. This is an indication that Sergio directed him there.  
Dispatcher: Okay.
Sergio:…my wife.
Dispatcher: Okay and what's mom's name?
Sergio: Becky.
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's your birth date sir?
Sergio: (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. And what's mom's?
Sergio: Uh, (removed by TPD)
Dispatcher: Okay. Any you're both natural parents of the child?
Sergio: Yes.
Dispatcher: Okay. So no, no step-parents, any, any problems with any grandparents?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. So you're not having any family issues, anything like that?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. And you haven't noticed anybody hanging out in front of your house?
Sergio: No.
Dispatcher: Okay. You're son that's 14, what's his name?
Sergio: (inaudible yelling in background) Uh, I'm sorry, my wife just walked in and, and she's speaking to somebody. I don't know if she's speaking to the police also. She might have been calling on her way. You asked me about my son, what did you ask me?

In a 911 calls of domestic homicide, the words "I'm sorry" entering for any reason, were flagged for possible guilt. Here is his second use. 

Dispatcher: Yeah the, the 14 year old that's out looking for her?

His answer to this question shows that he is very concerned about any inquiry of his "oldest" son:  
Sergio: Yes. What about him?
Dispatcher: Um, well hang on a second. Okay, actually I think one of your sons is trying to call. Um, I'm sorry, what was your 14 year old's name?
Sergio: redacted
Sergio: My wife just got home and she's kind of hysterical and freaking out, so...
Dispatcher: I, okay. Tell her we are on the way, we've got a…
Sergio: Okay.
Dispatcher:…bunch of officers on the way, I want you guys to stay there in the house.
Sergio: We will.
Dispatcher: Okay.

What does Sergio Celis tell us about what happened to Isabel?
Analysis conclusion:

Sergio Celis is deceptive about what happened to Isabel. 

He works from scripted language rather than experiential memory.  

He gives linguistic indicators of sexual abuse. 

Isabel was not "abducted."  

This is a deceptive call regarding an "abduction" that did not take place, made by a subject with willful and guilty knowledge.  Specifically, the caller is deceptive about what happened to Isabel Celis, of whom he distances himself, and is deceptive about his own actions.  

When first analyzed I wrote, "It is likely that Isabel Celis has been a victim of sexual abuse and is not alive. "  

The concerns of sexual abuse are here, but regarding the death:  This was due to not only the deception, but the distancing language.  

Sergio tells us that he has a need to alibi himself and is not an accomplished liar.  This is evident in the awkwardness of his wording.  

In interviews, including on television, deception continued.  For one "abducted" he offered nothing to the "abductor" or "kidnappers", did not say "ransom", "payment" or anything related to his belief system. 

What did Sergio Celis know or believe? 

Could he have failed polygraph due to child molestation?

Or, is the analysis completely wrong? 

On only two cases did I disagree with investigators. Both involved passed polygraphs and investigators' testimony of innocence. 

One is now in prison for murdering his girlfriend and her son;

the other reoffended on a child. 

One case I thought I was wrong on:  the father of a missing child was "deception indicated" when asked what happened. 

The child was killed by a sex offender. 

What went wrong with the analysis?

I later learned that the father lied in the interview because he was under the influence when his child wandered off.  

Here, in the Isabel case, not only is there deception, but indicators of sexual abuse of the child.  

Stay tuned to the case.