Sunday, October 29, 2017

Sergio Celis: Father of Murdered Isabel Emergency Call

The remains of Isabel Celis, 6, have been found and with the passage of time, the cause of death is unknown. 

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."

For formal training go to for law enforcement seminars and at home training for officers. 

In some locales, the caller will give information, only to have the operator transfer the call to a different locale.  This will impact the anlaysis. 

Voice Inflection 

Statement Analysis is the science of deception detection.  "Experts" claim, after the fact, to "know" someone is lying by the voice inflection.  This is not science, nor is it sustainable.  We have criminal analysts analyze, that is, break down to small parts, the words of an emergency call without hearing the audio. This helps to avoid bias. 

Having said this, once the analysis is complete, listening to voice inflection, or using subordinated disciplines including handwriting analysis and body language analysis.  These are used as additions and can often help dictate tactics within strategy.  When "Reid" is taught in unbalance, we have a law enforcement professional sitting too close, concentrating so heavily on body posture that he may miss an embedded confession. Yet, police often are intuitively good in body language analysis due to sheer volume of contact, beginning in patrol.  

Adding formal training to the 100% accuracy of analyzing a statement is to take the professional to new levels of excellence. 

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

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 innocence.  Sergio Celis is judicially innocent in the death of his daughter, Isabel.  

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.  

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.  "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.  

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.  

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

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…"

Deception indicated

1.  Please note that "I have no idea" is a shocking response.  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" buys 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?  
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 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.
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 want 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.  

Lie Detection Training 

For training for your law enforcement department, business, or individual, visit Hyatt Analysis Services and follow the links to "training."

Our Complete Statement Analysis Course is done at your home, at your pace and comes with 12 months of e support.  The end result is 100% accuracy in detecting liars.  For training


Anonymous said...

I thought his answer of "I have no idea" was in reference to "why do you think she was abducted?" Perhaps he misunderstood the dispatcher. Also, sometimes the word "just" means "barely" so if he was "just out in the garage" it could mean "he's not far away, he's just in the garage."
I also feel like opening a call with "hello" is often automatic, almost like "hello, is anyone there?"

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
I thought his answer of "I have no idea" was in reference to "why do you think she was abducted?" Perhaps he misunderstood the dispatcher. Also, sometimes the word "just" means "barely" so if he was "just out in the garage" it could mean "he's not far away, he's just in the garage."
I also feel like opening a call with "hello" is often automatic, almost like "hello, is anyone there?"

Why was she abducted..."I have no idea" was his reply.

As to "hello", I added in the note that this was in response to transfer; it is different than a missing child emergency call beginning with 911.

Anonymous said...

I thought he was answering the question "why do you think someone would abduct her?"

Anonymous said...

...or "Why do you think she HAS been abducted?"

Anonymous said...

Question should have been worded: "What makes you think she was abducted?"

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic and scary as heck

A west London couple are looking for a nanny who will raise their young children as gender neutral.

The 42-year-old mother posted a job advert on explaining that prospective candidates must refer to their children only by their names and refrain from using “she” or “he” pronouns.

“If you are out with them and they need to go to the bathroom, they need to choose which one to use,” she added.

The job description also states that the children - aged six and two - must not be given gender-specific toys to play with.

“We have a selection of pre-approved books, toys, TV shows and films for the children to enjoy, please do not deviate from this list.

“Characters like Action Man and Barbie only serve to enforce gender stereotypes, for example.”

The mother admits that she wasn’t initially sure whether or not to specify that her children were gender neutral in the ad, however, she added that she and her husband want “to attract the right sort of person for this job.”

She also revealed that they have hired nannies in the past who haven’t respected the fact that her children are gender neutral, explaining that some have tried to influence their decision to identify as either male or female.

“We do not want this to happen again,” she writes.

While the salary is not specified in the job description, the mother says that they are willing to “pay well” for the suitable candidate, who will work part-time for the couple.

The position has not yet been filled.

I fear for our future generations and our future world.

These children will be confused as well as self centered and entitled.
What if they decide on a gender and their parents disagree?

What if they choose tomorrow to act in a gender specific way and demand to be teated as that gender?
what if they choose to play with gender specific toys?
What about schools?
Friends of the same age who call them boy or girl?
what about sleepovers, parties etc?

Will the parents be suing left right and centre?

Our future leaders are todays children, how will they cope when it comes to making a decision?
What if another country disagrees with their decision?
What if all the leaders are egocentric snowflakes who need a safe space if someone denies them?

Will we be at greater risk of war or will there be peace as every leader is in their safe space being comforted and therapied and praised because they managed to get dressed on their own today.

I don't think we will ever colonize other planets since everything would need to be set up for the colonists before hand and ample coffee shops, gyms and hairdressers and consultants and therapists all there beforehand so they don't feel threatened or have to make a decision.

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy at the end had it right

Chris said...

What is your reason to assume she has been abducted?
not - Why do you think someone abducted her?
1st question is regarding the circumstances to make Sergio think an abduction took place;
2nd question seems to question Sergio about abductor's motives.

Paul Flanagan said...


Kevin Spacey's response to allegations.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Cindy and George Anthony say they believe their daughter, Casey, is mentally unstable in an interview that airs nationally Monday on “Crime Watch Daily,” and they use the chat to send a message.

“Casey, be true to yourself, start being honest with yourself, and own everything. Quit putting blame on everybody else,” Cindy Anthony says.

“I think Casey is mentally ill,” she tells interviewer Chris Hansen.

Cindy says Casey has seizures and doesn’t remember what happens during them.

The Anthony saga, one of Orlando’s most notorious stories, continues to absorb the national media. In 2011, Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee, who disappeared in 2008. The 2-year-old’s remains were found later in 2008.

In a release, “Crime Watch Daily” calls George and Cindy Anthony “the parents of America’s most hated mother.”

George Anthony tells Casey via the program: “Stay away. Stay away from me. If she wants a relationship again with her mom, she's got a lot of explaining to do, but I don't want to hear it no more. I don’t want to see her.”

George Anthony says he has seen Caylee in the family home and compares those experiences to the interview he’s having with Hansen.

“I’ve seen Caylee on a couple of occasions…I’ve seen her. I’ve seen her in the flesh…One time, she woke me up in the morning just tapping on [my head] with her little finger like she used to,” George Anthony tells the show.

“Crime Watch Daily” airs at 9 a.m. weekdays locally on WKMG-Channel 6.

George and Cindy Anthony say they will sue Casey if she sells her story or does a reality show. That comment comes in response to a question about the rumor that Casey might do a program with O.J. Simpson.

A preview shows Cindy turning to George and asking: “Do you think she intentionally wanted to kill Caylee?”

Cindy says Casey may have had a seizure when Caylee died.

The Anthonys also discuss the defense theory of how Caylee died and elaborate on George’s suicide attempt. and 407-420-5756.

John Mc Gowan said...

Jamie Brooks said

The point about the screen "laying" is a good one.

Hi Jamie,

you may find this helpfull

Anthropomorphic Language


Statement Analysis Blog said...

The sensitivity is with the Dispatcher. The assertion was not what was expected from a dad.

The link between sexual abuse and father is evident.

My guess? Isabel might have threatened to tell.

He could have been drugging her as well.

This is a basic example of detecting deception in an emergency call. I've added in some detail for more advanced students.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


These are child abusers destroying lives with the applause of politicians and the elite.

It's heartbreaking but I agree: it's frightening.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

When analysis is overwhelming, it cannot help but persuade the reader.

If one believes this to be a truthful report of an abduction or even of an unknown missing person, they should publish it.

It would allow for examination of each principle used to prove the assertion. We then take the principles used and apply them to other cases where the outcome is known.

It would be interesting to see what the techniques produce.

This is a blog for instruction; not ignorance.

New England Water Blog said...

“I was hacked,” Ernie Lunardelli said. “I’m not a racist. My best friend is black. He lives in the condo I own in North Brunswick. I don’t know, somebody put my picture on there, I have no idea. I don’t know where this has come from. I don’t know what to tell you. I never did anything.”

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE: Tania @8:28PM October 29, 2017- The Genderless Nanny Job Ad

It's difficult to believe that anyone with a grain of intelligence could perpetrate such an abuse on their child. So, these types of "progressive" parents allow their child(ren) to choose a gender or fluctuate between the two as their biologically immature brain and emotions choose. Said parents, along with "progressive" educators engineer an artificial environment wherein said child's choice will not be challenged and anyone honest and brave enough to speak truth to said child, will be severely punished and socially shamed (i.e. targeted, organized bullying encouraged and supported by the school administration).

Said child, now at increased risk for depression and a host of both physical and psychological disorders, will grow up believing that because he/she/it wants something to be different, it will be so because he/she/it declares it so. He/she/it also feels entitled to getting his/her/its way and has been taught to bully, demean, and demonize any and all opposition.

The reality is that the child is absolutely going to encounter others at some point in their life that they cannot control and force to acquiesce to their foolish demand to be addressed as something they are not. Then what??? Either the child is going to face a significant identity mental health crisis or they're going to physically assault whoever disagrees with them because they cannot "make" that person comply.

The lie is destructive to the child, their peers, their schoolmates, the school employees, anyone the child encounters, and society at large...all because someone thought it a great idea to empower children whose brains are not fully mature until 24-25 years old with the ability to make major life-altering decisions. They can't decide what to wear half the time or have enough life experience to discern who actually is good friend material and who isn't. They live in the moment, for the moment, with little to no concept of long-term consequences (hence the suicide rate). Being emotionally driven due to hormonal changes puberty through late adolescence, they're very vulnerable to both manic highs and depressive lows, as well as emotional manipulation and physical abuse by others. Allowing a child to "try on" a different gender is like giving the keys to your car to your two year old, so they can "try on" driving on an interstate.

Hey Jude said...

'Doctors fear being sued after the NHS signed a ‘memorandum of understanding’ banning staff from challenging patients who believe they are born the wrong sex;'

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Doctors not allowed to question children who either genuinely believe they are in the wrong body, or who have been encouraged, or groomed, by their attention-seeking parents to believe such.

It is frightening - a four year old may now not even have it suggested to him or her, by a doctor, that he or she is actually a boy, or a girl, if the child claims otherwise.

I don't know when or how such stupid restrictions on common sense were allowed into being.

The nanny-seeking parents are irresponsible to not want to teach their children what sex they are - it is to deny them a full identity from earliest years. How can they form strong characters if they aren't allowed a pronoun? I hope they turn out to be the most socially conventional kids ever, who will like to insist upon being whatever gender they are, and who spurn and frustrate their parents' fashionable idiocy at every turn.

Hey Jude said...

I think Isabel is not really smiling in that photograph - iit is only the appearance of a smile, whereas n other photographs she appears genuinely happy.

C5H11ONO said...

Kevin Spacecraft 'a statement regarding child molestation. Hint, he doesn't deny it. He claims he doesn't remember and also claims he was drunk when it happened (so he remembers?) Interestingly enough he takes the time to announce he is gay, combining child molestation with homosexuality.

C5H11ONO said...

Apologies for the typo, but my auto corrector actually made a correct assumption. Indeed he is Kevin's n Spacecraft! LOL

Anonymous said...

Casey Anthony is their most notorious story? Hard to believe when most of that story they made up themselves since miss casey gave little to no information.

Anonymous said...

Now you can analyze the Strongville Ohio teacher murder.They've arrested the future son-in-law.

It was odd how someone could be close enough to set off a car alarm and only he saw the two giant would be intruders his pit bull chased off.

In the 911 call when the dispatcher asked if anyone had been harassing the deceased he said "No." They had reported vandalism and attempted break-ins 6-7 times in the year leading up to the murder.

The work of a sick mind.

Anonymous said...

Voice inflection gave him away when asked if they'd been harassed or anything his voice changed when he claimed , no,no!

He uses passive voice alot and claims the house is his.

This is a good one, Peter.
It's difficult when the hear the call of the husband of the deceased, though.

It's a tough one. He is 20 and they already have a child and are planning marriage.Maybe it was forced? The girl is lucky it wasn't her and her infant.

Lilstr said...

Does anyone else feel that the phrase:
"He lives in the condo I own..."
gives off a slight, subtle hint of superiority (I own- he rents), or worse a slight, subtle hint if inferiority towards his "black best friend" ?

Anonymous said...

Here's part of the Strongville teachers son-in-law/murder's 911 call:

Scullin: “Somebody’s been attacked in my house.”

Dispatcher: They attacked who? Who was attacked?

Scullin: “Mel Pleskovic. Mel Pleskovic was attacked.”

Dispatcher: She was attacked by whom? Do you know?

Scullin: “No. We just came home. She’s on the kitchen floor. I took her son and my daughter outside. Her husband is inside with her now.”

Dispatcher: So the husband attacked her?

Scullin: “No. No. No. We just came home. We just came home.”

Dispatcher You came home and found her injured on the floor?

Scullin: “We found her in the kitchen. She’s not moving. I took the kids and I walked outside.”

Dispatcher: Did she look like she was beaten, or what?

Scullin: “She has blood all around her. I didn’t look. I just grabbed the child and left.”

The call continued…

Scullin: “There’s a lot of blood.”

Dispatcher: How do you know this woman?

Scullin: “I live here. I live here. She’s my fiancee's mother.”

Dispatcher: Has she like had anybody trying to harm her? Harass her? Anything like that?

Scullin: “No. No.”

Dispatcher: Do you have a dog that lives at that house?

Scullin: “We have two. We have two dogs.”

Dispatcher: Are the dogs there, or you don’t know?

Scullin: “I don’t know. We just walked in the front door and we left.”

Dispatcher: We got a phone call from somebody who found a dog that belongs at your residence. That’s why I’m thinking the dogs got out, OK? Do you see any like forced entry or anything to the house?

Scullin: “I’m outside. The door was locked.”

The first thing he says is SOMEBODY (not his fiancee's mother)has been (passive)attacked in MY HOUSE.

Criminey!He even calls the dispatcher 'sweetie' nearing the end of the call.
You have to hear his voice raise when asked if they'd been harassed recently and he claims "no,no,NO!" WE JUST came home. WE JUST came home.

It's interesting to hear the husband's 911 call as he had no idea they were being gas-lighted from within. Or, did he?

Anonymous said...

I just saw on dailymail that Kevin Spacey grabbed someone's entire package...oh my f&ckin God thanks for putting another repulsive image in my head (as if the picture of mangled bicycles run over by the latest nutjob Islamist wasn't enough)...nothing more disgusting and annoying than the constant barage of notifications of who the latest perv is, who they grabbed, and where, when I'm trying to catch up on the news. As if I'm not f&ckin irritated enough by the steady drip of annoyance from the worthless clamor of humanity I deal with everyday.

Anonymous said...

Peter, I don't know if you saw over on jihadwatch, they have video of cnn praising the phrase "Allahu akhbar" saying it is said in beautiful circumstances (after it was just yelled earlier today by the Islamic truck murderer in NYC). I find it concerning that liberals seem to be cozying up closer each day to this horrific ideology, almost glorifying it.

Tania Cadogan said...

Presumably when the shot hits the fan, the libtards are hoping they will be spared as long as they continue to pay jizyah

Anonymous said...

Pleskovic was found shot and stabbed to death at her Blazing Star Drive home just over a week ago.

Jeffrey Scullin, Jr., who was engaged to be married to Strongsville teacher Melinda Pleskovic's daughter, has been arrested for his future mother-in-law's murder.
Strongsville Police Chief Mark Fender held a press conference Tuesday afternoon to provide up8dates on the investigation into the case. He did not take any questions.

Scullin, 20, is charged with aggravated murder. He's being held on $1 million bond.
Pleskovic, a sixth grade teacher, was found dead at her Blazing Star Drive home just over a week ago. The Cuyahoga Medical Examiner ruled she died from gunshot and stab wounds.

Bruce Pleskovic, Melinda’s husband, called 911 last Monday evening, claiming he and Scullin found Melinda on the floor inside the home.
“I think my wife is dead,” Bruce Pleskovic told dispatch. He went on to say the couple had been experiencing break-ins at their home recently. At one point, he angrily told the dispatcher that the city “dropped the ball.”
Scullin, who lived at the home with the Pleskovics, also called 911, claiming he and Bruce found Melinda dead in the kitchen.
Here is a portion of the 911 call transcribed, which you can listen to in the video below the transcription:
Scullin: “Somebody’s been attacked in my house.”

Dispatcher: They attacked who? Who was attacked?
Scullin: “Mel Pleskovic. Mel Pleskovic was attacked.”

Dispatcher: She was attacked by whom? Do you know?
Scullin: “No. We just came home. She’s on the kitchen floor. I took her son and my daughter outside. Her husband is inside with her now.”

Dispatcher: So the husband attacked her?
Scullin: “No. No. No. We just came home. We just came home.”

Dispatcher You came home and found her injured on the floor?
Scullin: “We found her in the kitchen. She’s not moving. I took the kids and I walked outside.”

Dispatcher: Did she look like she was beaten, or what?
Scullin: “She has blood all around her. I didn’t look. I just grabbed the child and left.”

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Peter, what do you know about this case?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
Peter, what do you know about this case?

November 1, 2017 at 10:30 AM

yes it smells fishy, for this blog you need a statement or quotes from the individual you wish to do an analysis on. the link doesn't give any quotes or statement from the aaaahem women.

rob said...

Lilstr said...
Does anyone else feel that the phrase:
"He lives in the condo I own..."
gives off a slight, subtle hint of superiority (I own- he rents), or worse a slight, subtle hint if inferiority towards his "black best friend" ?

October 31, 2017 at 7:51 PM

"how do you know him?" answer "he lives in the condo I own"
I didn't know renting a condo makes you inferior.
He's owning the guy as his best friend, the friend possibly gets the condo at a reduced price. Win/win for everyone.

Anonymous said...

He lives in the condo I own..."
gives off a slight, subtle hint of superiority (I own- he rents), or worse a slight, subtle hint if inferiority towards his "black best friend" ?

What's the setting/context?

Anonymous said...

Why is it so important to call a couple of women who claimed to be lost at sea liars when it isn't even proven what was reported in the news was in fact the truth?
To sell prepper products? Sail boat manuals? Or, beat them out of copyrights should they decide to write a book?

Couldn't they write a book about being lost at sea without leaving home?

Anonymous said...


"This isn't about islam. It's not about what mosque attends"

- NY deputy commissioner intelligence < (haha) conterterrorism.

John Mc Gowan said...

^that was me, my friend changes the settings when he posts using my account.

Anonymous said...

Check out Sam Harris on Islam; he says how he gets emails from people in Pakistan & Afghanistan, etc saying if its so hard for Sam Harris to speak out against Islam bc of the libtards, imagine how hard it is for them to speak out against Islam while in these Islamic countries where they fear being killed by their whole village if they criticize Islam. Libtards truly are so despicable.

Anonymous said...

Criminey!He even calls the dispatcher 'sweetie' nearing the end of the call.

Did you miss the part where he says his 18-month old daughter is with him?

Anonymous said...

Yes, I listened and thought he was talking to the dispatcher. I could not make out any dialogue with the 18 month old to lead me to believe otherwise.In fact, I recall him saying he took the "child."

If they have evidence against him (I assume they do since he's been arrested), then he is really a cold blooded person to leave the "child" alone with someone who isn't capable of communicating or seeking help like the 18 year old with Downs. How long was the "child" left alone? (4:30-8:30)One door is unlocked I'd assume (probably the patio door with the cheap plastic bat to restrain 6'1 intruders?) Where's the pit bull? Only the Lab was found elsewhere.

I doubt this is his first time terrorizing someone if he got past a school teacher and a banker.He most likely spent high school with his buddies doing the same thing.

John Mc Gowan said...


New Jersey mom plans to move after receiving racist letter, death threat

LEBANON, New Jersey (WABC) -- A mom in New Jersey says she is planning to move after receiving a racist letter that included a death threat.

Brittany Thompson says a message was placed on her car outside her home in Lebanon Heights.

At the end, the writer threatens to stab her and kill her.

"This is KKK [symbol]

[Redacted profanity] don't bring you're [redacted] out This Time Tonight Cause You Don't Know Who You [redacted] With
You Gunna Get Stabbed We Gunna Kill You"

Image of note in link provided.
As of yet i can't find any quotes from the mom who recieved it.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger John mcgowan said...

another link on threat letter.

too much is blanked out but I suspect it isn't the kkk. language seems to indicate others. one report said it was left on her car and the one I linked to was said to left in front of her door.

the need to say "this is the kkk" is the first red flag to a fake hate. there is no reason for the kkk to identify themselves. if you wanted people to think it was the kkk when it wasn't then you would put that there.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger John mcgowan said...

New Jersey mom plans to move after receiving racist letter, death threat

I wonder if she has an eviction notice or landlord doesn't want to renew contract as the link I sent indicated she has been there "almost" a year.

the mother "encouraged" her to report it to the police. why would she need to do that and why is the media involved?

Anonymous said...

This is KKK [symbol]

[Redacted profanity] don't bring you're [redacted] out This Time Tonight Cause You Don't Know Who You [redacted] With
You Gunna Get Stabbed We Gunna Kill You"

General P. Malaise said...

I think the redacted pieces are....

....Mother F..ker don't bring your dark skinned black a$$ out this time tonight cause you don't know who you f..king with you gonna get stabbed we gonna kill you.

all the words begin with capital letters, written in ebonic slang with cute drawings.

I think this was written by a woman with at best high school education (hard to tell these days as a college degree seems to be slipping in quality), thinks highly of herself (too high, but most people fit this category as public schools turn out bullies and victims with little in between). the video of her has her applying both categories in IMHO (bully and victim).
her priority is bringing attention to her place of residence.

is the klan into stabbing these days? I doubt it.

John Mc Gowan said...

In the vt she says:

"When i looked down to the (sounds like corner or floor) and there was the letter standing there"

This is anthropomorphic language in statement analysis and it often points to the guilty party. It is something every analyst should learn well in writing, to the point where it is heard naturally during a live interview (discourse analysis) and can be an excellent tool as a short cut.

Inanimate objects do not stand or sit on their own, nor do they lay down.

Generally, someone (human) must cause this event to happen and the subject (speaker/writer) who distinctly uses anthropomorphic language, is giving linguistic indication of a close connection between self (subject) and the object. It is, in a sense, to 'humanize' the object, often from the contact of the subject, himself.

In statement analysis, we recognize that a connection may exist between the inanimate object and the subject (speaker or writer), prompting our investigation or interview in this direction. It is not definitive, but it has a statistical weight to it and should always be followed up. It can be a great time saver and even a crime solver

Anonymous said...

When i proceeded to pick it up, i was devestated what i saw

What interupted her

Anonymous said...

Real or False racism?

“This morning I woke up to three missed calls from RCPD asking me to come outside to find such hateful things written all over my car,” he wrote. “I don’t know whether to feel disgusted, mad or sad. I was raised to never judge a book by its cover nor discriminate because of race, gender, political views, etc. I haven’t personally dealt with racism first hand but this is heart breaking and disturbing knowing that (there) are people out there with such hatred in there hearts.

“I wish I was closer to my family because I don’t know how to handle something like this. But to those who did this to my vehicle you won’t see me retaliating nor will you see down I’ll just help educate to get rid of such hatred.”

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Real or False racism?

False, deception indicated

Anderson Cooper is the Devil's Spawn said...

CNN please go live in ISIS-occupied territory since you want to give the terrorists love & cuddles.

Anderson Cooper 666 He Worships Beezlebub said...

CNN you put a man-baby on who said swift justice for terrorists disrespects the victims.

Anonymous said...



Typically when someone writes DIE several times, I believe they mean it. Rather it is real or not, it is vandalism and a threat.

Anonymous said...

OT on New Jersey mom death threats:

My opinion, and like azzholes everyone has one, is it should be taken seriously since a 26 year old mother was beaten to death house sitting and her five year old sat by her corpse for hours.

Regardless of KKK symbols or what have you, it could also be a male(s) looking to terrorize women and kill them.And, he may very well be black.

IT'S one thing to sit online and stalk people's Facebook and hunt down their kin in case they are needed to force people into performing like stage puppets for the media and call everyone a liar because it's most convenient-for you that is-than it is to prevent a murder that you will surely profit from.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Amanda Knox penned a moving essay on Wednesday to mark the 10-year anniversary of the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher who she calls 'her closest friend'.

On November 1, 2007, Kercher was found beaten and stabbed to death in the apartment she shared with Knox in Perugia, Italy, where they were both studying abroad.

Knox and her then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were initially convicted of Kercher's murder - in what was painted as a sex-game gone wrong.

But they were acquitted and released from prison three years later when their defense team proved that there was never enough evidence connecting them to the crime. Another man, Rudy Guede, was also tried in a separate trial and found guilty of Kercher's murder. He remains imprisoned.

In an essay for Westside Seattle, Knox recalled her fond memories of Kercher, saying she was never really able to mourn her because everyone thought she had something to do with it.

Today, a decade after the tragedy, Knox says she remembers the small pleasures she shared with Kercher in their few weeks living together in Italy - like grocery shopping, drinking espresso, and sunbathing on their terrace.

'I remember that I loved her accent. I remember the time I wanted to get dressed up and she happily loaned me a pair of her tights, like a big sister. And I remember the last time I saw her, ten years ago today, slinging her purse over her shoulder and waving goodbye to me on her way out to meet up with her British friends,' Knox wrote.

These memories, Knox writes, are now tainted by the years of suffering that followed them when she was wrongly imprisoned of Kercher's murder.

Among other things, Knox's memories of Kercher are 'buried beneath the horrific photos and crime scene footage I saw, the slurs I was called' and 'the death threats I received (and still receive)'.

'But despite all this, these memories still feel very close, in part because Meredith was my closest friend in a new and exciting time in our lives,' Knox says.

Knox goes on to say that she's 'never been allowed to mourn' Kercher.

'There are some people who believe I have no right to mourn Meredith. They believe that I had something to do with her murder - I didn’t - or that Meredith has been forgotten in the wake of my own struggle for justice - she hasn’t.

'Either way, they feel that Meredith and I are inextricably linked, so it’s simply not fair that I haven’t lost everything, as she has. They are wrong,' Knox writes.

Knox says that the anniversary of Kercher's death 'belongs to everyone whose lives' she touched, including herself- though she admits there are many people who knew and loved Kercher more than she did.

The anniversary of her death is also a reminder of another thing they share - the they both have become reminders that 'sometimes innocent people suffer, that their lives can be taken away from them in an instant'.

'I hate it that my memories of her are buried beneath the years of suffering Raffaele and I endured in the wake of her murder. And it’s depressing to know that mourning her comes at the price of being criticized for anything I say or don’t say today. But most depressing of all is that Meredith isn’t here, when she deserves to be. She is painfully missed by everyone who loved her. I miss her, and I’m grateful for the memories of our time together,' Knox said.

General P. Malaise said...

Blogger tania cadogan said...
Off topic

some things never change.

"... was never really able to mourn her..." not about Kercher, rather about herself, Knox.

" own struggle for justice.." not about Kercher, rather about herself, Knox.

"...crime scene footage I saw, the slurs I was called' and 'the death threats I received ..."
again not about Kercher, rather about herself, Knox.

'I hate it that my memories of her are buried beneath the years of suffering Raffaele and I endured ..." again not about Kercher, rather about herself, Knox.

'Either way, they feel that Meredith and I are inextricably linked, so it’s simply not fair that I haven’t lost everything, as she has. They are wrong,'
again not about Kercher, rather about herself, Knox.

knox is only about herself and she uses this anniversary to talk about herself.

Anonymous said...

Caylee Anthony's Grandfather Says He Still Sees 2-Year-Old After Her Death

“I’ve seen her in the fleshin my house," George Anthony said of his deceased granddaughter.

elf said...

While I agree with everything you said, I disagree with the 'he/she/it' part. There is no 'it', there is only he or she (he/she).

ima.grandma said...

Hobs, John and General ~

I have learned much from your contributions. Thank you for your participation in Peter's blog.

Habundia said...

It still amazes me how much information one can find in the words of another. As ima.grandma said, i've learned a lot the past year about SA, thanks to Peter and those who have tributed to this blog with interesting insights.

When i read 'Why do you think she abducted?', i was thinking of the reason she was abducted for, not what had caused me to think 'she was abducted' (open window, screen on the floor), but after reading the sentence a dozen times, i think it could be interepted both ways. During this kind of stressing moments i am not sure everybody would interept every question correctly, would they?

The difference between abducted and kidnapped......i am not sure if i have understood it correctly. The word abduction i mostly have seen when one was talking about aliens .....'Abducted by Aliens', while kidnapped is more used when one is taken by a stranger, cq known person without permission and/or against their will....'Kidnapped by a Stranger'.
Does this make 'abduction' more 'storytelling', then kidnapped would be? Or is there an other explanation for the difference between those words, which makes sense? lol

Anonymous said...

I enjoy learning from your analysis. This father creeps me out. One thing of note? Sometimes in the middle of a 911 call they will transfer you to someone else, and when they're doing that, sometimes it's just 2nd nature to say, "hello?" to get a response from the next operator so you know they're listening now.

ima.grandma said...

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.
Dispatcher: What's the address?
Sergio: 57 or 5602 E. 12th Street.
Dispatcher: Okay. Stay on the line for Tucson Police.
Sergio: I will.
Dispatcher: Tucson Police Department, Gabhart
Sergio: Hello, I need to report a uh, missing child. I believe she was abducted from my house.

Change of language:
Wants and needs are defined by different meanings. Another way to analyze Sergio's words is to examine the 'want' vs 'need' perspective.

Wants are the things we don’t have and we want to get for satisfying ourselves and comes from a sense of vanity and temptation. Wants are the things we have out of our need for control. Wants give us the maximum satisfaction, defined as the desire to pursue. A want is a choice: a desire which a person may or may not be able to get. Life will continue if a person doesn’t get what they want. A want is cause and effect. A want is unstable. 

Needs are the things are necessary for us. We have to get them for survival or to reach our purposes. Without it, that person will suffer either physically or mentally. A need is a strategy. A need is balanced and produces lasting results. 

A want is something that Sergio expresses at the beginning of his story. His use of the word 'want' is a tactic. It’s the catalyst. He thinks that what he wants is the only goal.

 In fact, it’s when Sergio realizes his need (reality!) to report that he begins his strategic vision (scripting) required to bring his psyche toward safety and survival. He is driven to focus on elements (his wife) external to himself.

Because he is aware of what drives himself, he turns to 'need' as a source of motivation to get himself through his story. Act by act he builds up reasons to justify his actions and words during this moment of crisis.

Anonymous said...

So, what's your analysis now that a completely unrelated sex offender has been arrested for her murder?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Stay tuned!

Unknown said...

Stay tuned? Are you waiting to see the child offender convicted before you answer...or looking into some possible link between him and the father?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I have three teams’ worth of notes to edit for publication.

It takes time.

The scrutiny was deep, intense and of great value.


Nadine Lumley said...

Read their book. Islam is a very peaceful religion. You wouldn't equate KKK with Christianity would you?

Nadine Lumley said...

I am very interested to read any updates on this case. Whoever is in charge of that police station sounds like they are incompetent and/or corrupt.

Documents reveal chilling details into Isabel Celis, Maribel Gonzales investigation

Christopher Clements has been accused of killing the girls, dumping their bodies in the desert