Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Statement Analysis: Charlie Rogers 911 Call

The following is Statement Analysis of the 911 call made regarding the Charlie Roger's fake hate crime with transcription by Equinox.  Statement Analysis is in bold type. 

Operator: 911. Where is your emergency?

Rappl: [beeped out]

Operator: Phone number you're calling me from?

Rappl: [beeped out]

Operator: what's going on?

Rappl: umm.. My neighbor just came over and knocked on the door. She said her house is on f..fire and  umm.. She's not got any clothes on. She's handcuffed.

Note priority of response.  The order in which someone speaks tells us about priority.  In the first response, we see the doubt expressed:
1.  Neighbor came over
2.  Knocked on my door
3.  Neighbor "said"her house is on fire
4.  She doesn't have clothes on
5.  She's handcuffed.

The neighbor did not report Rogers' house on fire but only reported that she said it was on fire, reducing commitment.  The commitment reduction is also seen by the fact that it was the 4th thing said by the caller, not the first or second.  She appears, at this point, to show doubt about the story.  We soon see why.
The fact that she mentions "knocked on my door" is because it is in the caller's mind:  this is quite a disturbance for her and the "knock" was something that may have emotionally upset her enough to tell the 911 operator about a "knock" on the door.  It is unnecessary information meaning that to the subject herself, it is doubly important, as it is to analysis.  This hoax impacted the neighbor. 

Operator: she's handcuffed?

The caller just reported a house on fire and the operator's response is to ask about the handcuffs.  
Rappl : Yes! Umm.. She's not got on..

Operator: Do you see flames or smoke?
The operator regains bearing and now goes to the fire. 
Rappl: no I don't. She lives right across the street. She lives at [beeped out]

The caller's doubt is now explained.  She did not see flames nor smoke.  She mentions for the first time the close proximity:  "right across..."
operator: she lives at.. Where?

Rappl: [beeped out] and I live on the corner of [beeped out] and she lives right across the street from me on the east, to the east of me.

The closeness of proximity is sensitive to the caller, as it is repeated.  Even the position where they were standing was sensitive to the caller.
Operator: Okay. And you don't see any flames or anything?

That someone lives "right across the street from me" caused the 911 operator to question again about the fire. 
Rappl: no. [beeped out]

Rappl to Charlie Rogers: you say your house is on fire?

It is that the caller, herself, now seeks affirmation.  Rogers, in the hoax, was careful not to damage her home.  Police said that with the pouring of gasoline and lighting it on fire, it only caused $200 worth of damage.  Rogers was careful not to damage her home, just as she was careful not to damage her body.  The forensic expert said that the cutting was not only superficial in the skin, but was in straight lines and carefully avoided sensitive parts of the body.  She protected her body and her home in the hoax that put her front and center, just as her Face Book writing said:  "Watch me."
Rogers: yeahs

Rappl: she says yeah but I don't see any smoke or anything.

It is often said that the word "but" is the most important in a sentence as it refutes that which came before it.  Here, the neighbor shows her doubt.  Will this theme of distancing herself from the neighbor continue?  We saw that she has mentioned how close Rogers is to her home.

Note "she says"
Operator: Okay well we're startin' everybody.

Rappl: Okay. I appreciate that.

Operator: Why is she wearing handcuffs can you ask her that?

Rappl: I… I don't know.  umm.. Anyway, we're standing out, We have a, I have a ramp on the east side of my house, we're standing out there and umm..
The caller had already repeated how close Rogers lived to her and the sensitivity continues.  Here, she begins with "we", as there is unity, but uses the word "standing" which tells body posture.  Body posture inclusion is a signal of increased tension.  The oft-used example:

"My boss said for me to be at work at 9AM" is one way of saying it, but a stronger way, indicating memory in play is: 
"My boss stood and told me to be at work at 9AM" showing the body posture (tension) and change of "said" to the more firmer "told."  We note whenever body posture enters a statement. 
Note the change of "we" to "I" making the "I" part of the sentence, very important:
"I have a ramp on the east side of my house" which shows "my" house; taking ownership and "east side" is something repeated several times. 
When the pronoun "we" changes to "I", there is an increase of importance for the speaker.  Here we see that she is asserting the ownership of her "ramp" and in it, there is no "we"; but after, the "we" returns.  This shows that she is clearly setting a boundary.

It would appear that the neighbor feels intruded upon by Rogers, (see "knock") and her dogs, as she is sensitive of just how close Rogers lives to her. 
Note that "we" indicates unity. It is likely that the caller, howbeit intruded upon or disrupted (scary event), feels a certain unity or kindness towards Rogers.   

Note also about the body posture of "standing":  She did not invite her bleeding neighbor into her home. 

Operator: Okay. Is there anybody else in the house?

Rappl to Charlie Rogers: [come here, here puppy]… Charlie, is there anybody else in the house?

Rodgers: no. nobody's in the house.Reflective language:  repeating back what was said.  This is not part of the free editing process.  

Rappl:  no, nobody's in the house. [Come here.] I'm trying to keep her dogs, there too. She's worried about her dogs.

Note that someone brutally attacked, carved into, bleeding, stunned from the horror, is acting in such a way that the neighbor can tell that she is worried about her dogs.  This impacted the neighbor enough to offer it as an observation.  The caller does not tell us that Rogers is tending to her wounds, or holding her stomach as she is doubled over in pain, or anything expected. 
This is observation of Behavioral Analysis that is important enough not only to enter the caller's language, but it does so without being asked. 

Within the next 30 minutes, Lincoln Police would use Behavioral Analysis to begin to assess the scene and conclude that Rogers created this hoax, as they observed her behavior, and the logistics of what she reported.  See affidavit. 
Operator: so she lives alone there?

Rappl: uh-humm, yeah.

The neighbor knows this without asking Rogers. 
Rogers: sorry

In Statement Analysis, we flag the word "sorry" or "I'm sorry" any time and in any place it appears, for whatever reason.  We note that it often appears in the language of the guilty.  Recall Casey Anthony's 911 call.  
Operator: So who put her in the handcuffs then?

It is almost as if the 911 operator's curiosity got the best of him. 

Charlie Rogers said that she accepted that people would have a hard time accepting the story.  Victims of violence do not allow for any doubting of their story:  they respond with anger at the slightest doubt.  This is because truth is merged with physical pain:  there is no acceptance of doubt.  To accept one to doubt is to seek to appease while persuading.  It is a strong signal of deception. 
If someone has ever been violently attacked, they can, even after years, vividly recall certain aspects of it, usually sensory connection, and will not accept any room for doubt. The 911 operator is repeatedly expressing doubt, as seen through the sensitivity of repetition.  
Rappl: I don't know you want to talk to her?

Operator: yeah

Rappl: okay, go, just a minute.

Rogers: h. h. h. h. h. Hello,

For Charlie Rogers, the call begins with a greeting. 
Regarding Stuttering:   Please see the "stuttering I" research.  
We take note that a traumatic event can cause stuttering:  therefore, we note what words are stuttered and what words are not stuttered.  This is the same with the phrase, "you know" (which shows acute awareness of the interviewer's presence:  where it appears as a habit of speech, and where it does not appear)
operator: hello, are you okay?

Rogers: no n.no No

The yes or no question, "Are you okay?" is answered with a stuttering or repeated "no", making the answer "sensitive" to the subject. 
Operator: Okay what's going on? Why are you wearing handcuffs?

Compound questions are to be avoided, but the 911 operator cannot help but go back and ask about the handcuffs.  Note that "what's going on?" is the best question. 
Note that the operator does not ask about the fire.  Her house is supposed to be on fire right now. 
Rodgers: somebody broke into my house.

Here is a signal of deception by Charlie Rogers even before police arrive at her home.  "Somebody" is singular, not plural.  Rogers said "three masked men" broke into her home.  When asked 'what is going on?' and "Why are you in handcuffs?" Rogers does not say that her house is on fire, nor that 3 men put her in handcuffs, instead, she said that "somebody", singular, broke into her home.  She avoided the question about the handcuffs entirely.  Of all the things that she could have said, she chose to say that "somebody" broke in.  She could have reported the assault, the house burning, or even the handcuffing, or how terrorized she is.  
Operator: Somebody broke into your house?  Is it on fire?

Compound questions are to be avoided because they allow the subject to pick and choose which question to answer.  

Rodgers: yes, yesI saw them, I saw them light it on fire, and they cut me.

Repetition indicates sensitivity.  We repeat something because it is important, or sensitive to us.  It may be sensitive due to impact, or it may be sensitive because it is deceptive.  The analyst simply notes the repetition:
a.  What things are repeated?
b.  What things are not repeated?

The analyst takes these sensitivity indicators, notes them, and continues through the statement, seeking to learn if a conclusion will suggest itself. 

That Charlie Rogers "saw" them is something that is sensitive to her.  
Note that she has changed from singular ("somebody") to plural, "them" 
Note "they cut me" is mentioned.  She chose "cut" and not "carve":  To cut someone could be in any number of ways, but to "carve" is sadistic, deliberate, slower, cruel and to make a point such as "carving" hate language into the flesh.  "Cut" is softer than "carve."
Operator: Okay.

Rogers: and I can't find my dogs.

Someone who has just been the victim of a vicious, cruel, sadistic attack, who should have too much pain to function, shows concern about her dogs. The operator appears to struggle to accept any of this and asks for clarification: 
operator: someone broke in, handcuffed you and cut you?

Rogers: yes, Sir! [sobbing]

Additional, "sir" is for emphasis.  We note any emphasis and ask, "Why is emphasis needed in a truthful report or statement?" We note it is polite.  Politeness in 911 calls is unexpected. 
operator: okay, we're going to get an ambulance there too Okay? Are you okay?

This was asked before of which Rogers said, "no" with stuttering and repetition.  Here she gives a different answer. 
Rogers: I I I I don't need.. I mean..  yeah. [sobbing]

Please note the stuttering "I" in Statement Analysis is a scale of anxiety with 2-3 showing an increase of anxiety.  (7 or more is ususually found in a domestic homicide where the stutterer is guilty of a personal, upclose murder, and about to have a nervous breakdown and be hospitalized) 
4 = Acute increase in anxiety.  
We note that she used it four times here and we note the context:
"I don't need..." is an incomplete sentence.  This is self censoring on her part.  What was it that she did not need.  The first thing that comes to mind is with a 911 operator sending an ambulance. 

Was she going to say "I don't need an ambulance"?  Note that she then says "I mean" without the stuttering.   This is why we note where the stuttering appears and where it does not, in context. She was able to say "I mean" without stuttering. 
Operator: How long ago did they leave?

Rogers: just a few minutes ago. I I I couldn't see them.

In truthful statements, someone should tell us what they saw, what they heard, and so on.  When someone offers what they did not hear, or what they did not see, not in response to a direct question, deception is present.  Here she was asked "how long ago did they leave?" and she answered it appropriately, but the additional information she offers indicates deception.  If she couldn't see them "just a few minutes ago" how did she know they left?  Were they very quiet, suddenly, after being loud?  If so, why not express what she did hear, rather than what she did not see?  
By offering what she did not see, she is setting the stage to resist questions.

She knows she is going to be asked to identify the three attackers.   Before even being asked what they looked like, she seeks to put up a road block to investigators regarding gaining the identity of the three men. 

Alibi building. 

We also note that in this 'negation' (reporting in the negative) she stuttered again, particularly after not stuttering with "I mean."

We have the "Stuttering I" regarding what she does not need and what she did not see. 
This is a strong indicator of deception about:
a.  her wounds
b.  her attackers

If she did not need an ambulance, something 911 sends out regularly, it is because her "cut" is not in need of medical attention.  
It is important to her that the police (or authorities) know that she did not see them.  This is not lost on the operator:  

Operator: you couldn't see them?

Rogers: no they were in my basement. I think.

Here she introduces "basement" to the language, making "basement" important to her. Please see affidavit regarding graffiti in the basement. 
"I think" is a weak assertion allowing for herself or others to "think" differently. 
Operator: were they wearing masks?

Rogers: I was sleeping. Yes, Sir.

Alibi building.  The question is:  "Were they wearing masks?" and she answered that she was sleeping first, and then affirmed the question.  This means that it is important to the subject, who just reported what she could not see, that the police believe she was sleeping.  This raises the question:  Why would it be important to the subject to be known to be asleep?  See 911 call of Misty Croslin in alibi building. 
Operator: Okay, how many men?

Rogers: Three..three..three

Three is the liar's number; that is, when someone is going to fabricate a number, other than when pulled over and asked, "How many drinks have you had?"  ("uh, only two, officer") they often cling to three.  This does not mean that three men could not have attacked on 3rd street at 3PM, but it does mean we will flag "three" for possible deception.  "Just had three boats chasing us" (Tiffany Hartley) It is a psychological response first noted in the research of Mark McClish. My own work has since verified it. 
Operator: did you see them leave in a vehicle or anything?

Rogers: I didn't see anything. I just…

This is not a pure 'negation' as it comes in direct response to a question.  "Did you see?" can be answered truthfully with "I didn't see".  
Yet, she went beyond the question of "vehicle" but this may be because the operator asked "anything" as well.  
Had she said "I didn't see anything" by itself, it would have been flagged, but because she entered the 911 operator's language, it cannot be.  It is only in hindsight that we know this answer could be deceptive, making it outside the realm of analysis. 

Operator: okay, I know I know it's hard. I'm sorry and I am just trying to get some information, I'm sorry. Try to calm down if you can. I know it's not easy. Okay?

Rogers: [sobbing]

Operator: There's nobody else in your house?

Rogers: Nobody's.. I live by myself with my dogs.

Operator: what is your name, ma'am?

Rogers: my name is Charlie Rogers. Sir, [sobbing]

This is a very direct question:  What is your name?  She answered it but went outside of the bounds of the question:  Sir, they did it because I'm g.g.gay. They kept saying

We noted that she used "sir" above, giving emphasis and being polite.  Here we see it repeated.  One of the things we notice in truthful 911 calls is the absence of politeness.  
Politeness in a 911 call is a signal that the caller is deceptive, as the caller is trying to 'win over' or persuade the operator.  911 calls are notoriously impolite.  It is in domestic homicide calls where the caller is the killer, that we often find the call to begin with a greeting.  Generally, the caller is far too upset and too much in a hurry to give a polite greeting.  Here, we have the word "sir" repeated, making it sensitive.  By itself, it will not cause any conclusions, but when taken in concert with other indicators of deception, we question its use as an attempt to persaude rather than report. 

Note that when a person feels the need to explain "why" something happened, instead of truthfully reporting "what" happened, it is very sensitive and it is noted by the sensitivity color scale (blue).  That she is "g-g-gay" is sensitive to the subject.  We note that it provoked stuttering. 

Operator: they did this, they told you they did this because you are gay?

Rogers: yes. I performed with a little kid last weekend… at Pride… and they they… they… They said, they told me stay away from kids.[sobbing]

Now we have communication with the three masked men, whom she didn't see leave.  She answers the question about being "told" this in the affirmative, "yes."
Note that the sentence "I performed with a little kid last weekend" is First Person Singular, past tense verb, and uses "with" between people (distance) and is likely a truthful sentence.  
Since it is constructed in a truthful manner:  notice that it has no stuttering "I" in it. 
But, when she spoke of the three masked men, she used the pronoun "they" and repeated it five times.

Yet there is another indicator of deception.  Did you see it?  I did not highlight it. 

The operator said, "they told you they did this...?" and used the communicative word "told" appropriately:  it is stronger and more authoritative  (see the above regarding body posture and the boss) 

"Said" is softer than "told" as "told" is more authoritative.  The 911 operator pictures these three men tying her up, cutting her and setting the house on fire.  This means that there is a level of coercion and authority:  they "told" you. 

She repeats back to him but it is in her change of language that deception is indicated. 

She began with the reflected language (she entered into the 911 operator's language) with "told" but then as she spoke further, she changed "told" to the softer "said".

Deception indicated. 

We highlight all communicative language in a statement.  We note any changes or inconsistencies.  

Here, we have deception indicated.  They "told" her it was because she was gay, or they "said" it was because she was gay.  

We liken this to the fake robbery scam where the "victim" says, "the gentleman asked me for the cash" rather than "the ****** told me to give him the money"

Note:  The change from "told" to "said", by itself, indicates deception. 
Note:  The use of "said" instead of "told" under the brutal conditions, itself, indicates deception

Rogers to her dogs: Tye.. No.. Tye.. No..[Dog's barking)

Rogers to arriving police: Nobody's inside.

Operator: is that a police officer?

Rogers: Yeah yeah.

Operator: hopefully they can get the handcuffs off of you.

Rogers: Okay okay it's a zip tie.

This is the first correction that she used regarding the "handcuffs"
Operator: Oh it's a zip tie handcuff, Okay. well, they'll be able to get that off.

Rogers to arriving police: No one else's inside.

[Dog's barking]

Rogers: is that all?

Operator: Do you see an officer there? Charlie, Talk to him.

Rogers: Okay, bye.

Operator: all right. B'bye.

Rogers bye

For Misty Croslin's 911 call click  here.  See also Patsy Ramsey's 911 call for indicators of deception. 

For more understanding, search on the blog for "911 calls"

1 comment:

Marz said...

I had to call 911 a few years back after I got in a car wreck. One of the things I remember was them asking me where I was; and I couldn't answer. I knew I was on highway 101 by the elementary school, but for some reason I couldn't articulate that? I had to look around for a street sign to read off to them.
Are there qualifiers for speech in 911 calls that account for certain traumatic situations? I was bleeding all over myself at the time (air bag scuffed my chin, chipped my teeth, and bloodied my nose), but I don't remember mentioning that to the 911 operator-- so how would an someone analyzing my 911 call be able to tell if I was saying, "uh... I...I..." because I was faking or because my brain just wasn't working?