Police Chief shoots wife.
This is a publicly released transcript.
The following is a deeper analysis, including input from trained professionals from the Mesa, Arizona area. During this training (Advanced Analysis: Psycholinguistic profiling and Handwriting Analysis), the team worked through it with the same results as other teams, howbeit, increased depth.
In Statement Analysis, we view the Expected versus the Unexpected in 911 calls.
Linguistic Disposition in Statement Analysis
The linguistic disposition in a statement is critical to "getting inside" the mind of the subject (speaker) and to grasp his or her verbalized perception of reality. We use this in many applications, including threatening anonymous letter author's identification.
We are able to see how the author perceives the recipient, law enforcement and anyone else addressed in the letter.
Domestic Shootings
In a domestic shooting, how the caller relates to the victim is critically important. He will either show a good relationship in the call, or he will show a troubled relationship.
Presuppositional Thinking in Statement Analysis means going word by word, first, presuming innocence (de facto innocence, not judicial), seeing if the language "fits" or is appropriate.
Then, re-do the analysis presupposing that the caller has had a domestic dispute with his wife and see if the language is fitting with this presupposition.
The Expected Versus The Unexpected.
We set up what we expect to hear from an innocent caller, who's wife has now accidentally been shot. What do we expect to hear, in such a case as this?
It is expected that the caller will:
a. ask for help for the victim, specifically for the victim; not in general, and not for himself.
b. show concern for the victim not for the caller himself. His wife is, perhaps, mortally wounded, and we expect to hear him care only for her.
c. use direct language befitting an emergency not staged language for the recording. This should sound like "excited utterance" and be helpful.
Given that he is law enforcement, we expect him to not only answer the questions, but to offer relevant information to the operator.
Remember, this is an Interview. The 911 operator is asking questions because she needs information.
In every interview, there is an impression:
Either the subject is working with the Interviewer to get the information, or the subject is showing resistance or reluctance, to impede the flow of information. This also can be where the subject impedes information by using tangents or avoidance. A 911 call is an interview in which we expect the caller to work with the operator to facilitate information to save the victim.
Professional Training
Law enforcement is trained and trained repeatedly. This is for the purpose of overcoming natural instinctive reactions, including self preservation. If a law enforcement officer were to go on his or her own instincts, rather than training, every traffic stop would be conducted with a firearm unholstered. The danger is acute.
By approaching a vehicle with gun drawn, professionals know that this increases the tension on both the officer and the civilian. Following this protocol of passively approaching the vehicle is part of training which increases the risk to the officer, while reducing the tension of the civilian. The civilian is already agitated at the prospect of a ticket. The best and brightest diffuse and deescalate situations.
When we speak, we reveal ourselves:
1. Our Backgrounds, sex, age, etc.
2. Our Experiences, such as police training in this caller
3. Our Priority: here, to get the victim immediate medical intervention
4. Our dominant personality traits.
The longer the statement the more of these four basic elements is revealed.
It is expected that a police chief will be impacted by his decades of training and experience in this call.
Passive Language: passivity is used to conceal identity or responsibility. We note passivity (or "passive voice" in lengthier communication) as either appropriate or inappropriate.
In an accidental shooting, it would be expected about the gun going off, but nothing else. If there is passivity, it must be noted. The passivity should not be coupled with distancing language, since passivity already shows distance.
Police Officers' Wives and Family
The social introduction is key to understanding the relationship at the time of the statement. Even in the same statement, it can change. It gives us insight into what the subject (caller) is thinking. It is his "linguistic disposition" towards his wife, in this call, in the specific context of the sentence.
If he and his wife fought, and this caused him to threaten her, perhaps, and the "gun went off", we may see him distance himself from his wife by avoiding her name, coupled with her title: "my wife______"
I expect him to say anything similar to this: "This is William McCollom, I just shot my wife, Margaret by accident. She needs help." and give the address. Then he will offer her medical condition and what he has done thus far to preserve her life.
Police Chief William McCollom's 911 call analyzed.
- 911: Fayette county 911, what’s the address of youremergency?
Chief: 103 Autumn Leaf.Here we note that the caller answers the question. This maybe as a result of his training. Thus far, in posing thisquestion to male married police officers, all have stated thatthey would blurt out what happened, as getting to the detailof his wife's status is critical.Yet, we will not flag this for withholding information, butwill wait for the caller to identify what is wrong with hiswife. We trust that he has a great deal of First Aid training
quickly get the information to the Operator:
a. What happened
b. What his wife's current medical state is, with both
being told immediately as a priority of urgency. We do
not listen for urgency in his voice. Many professionals
rise to an occasion while deceptive people may attempt to
persuade audibly how much they "care" for the victim.
"I shot my wife by accident, she is bleeding from..." remains
the expectation of priority.
The caller does not offer to the Operator why he is calling,
therefore, she asks:
911: What’s going on there?
Chief: Uh, gunshot wound…accidental. Need medical asap.
What does he report?He reports that there is a gunshot wound.He reports the word "accidental."He reports a need for medical as soon as possible.Note the order shows priority.1. Gunshot wound is the wound, itself.2. Accidental is second3. Help is third.It leaves us with more questions.Who is shot?Who is the shooter?
The caller's experience indicates he knows dispatch has
begun.
It is challenging at first, but we train investigators to not
interpret one's words; but to listen.
We need to hear him give information rather than for him
to raise more questions.
Gunshot Wound is first, and not his wife.Accidental --alibi setMedical is asked for after responsibility for shooting.
The priority is not the victim here.
Please note:Here is where we expect him to say he shot his wife, If it is
his gun, using her name, and asking for help for her.
If she owned a gun, and slept with it, it may be appropriate.
If this is his gun, we expect him to take responsibility
because his concern is not being blamed or not being
blamed, but his wife, Margaret's, condition.
Instead, he speaks in short, broken sentences:
1. "Uh" is a pause to think. This pause is noted as sensitive.
"Excited utterance" is expected in a 911 call in which
someone is bleeding to death and is in need of immediate
medical intervention. What has caused a pause?
Ask yourself: if you had accidentally shot your wife, would
you need time to think of what you are going to say when
asked, "What happened?"
The pause is to indicate that this question, "What
happened?" is sensitive to the caller. It should not require
a pause, whether trained or untrained.
2. "gunshot wound" avoids saying "I shot my wife" or "my
wife needs help!"
He does not say who has the gunshot wound, or how she got
it. He does not even say who has the gunshot wound.2. "accidental" is not to say "I shot her by accident" Please
note that people do not generally lie outright, but are
deceptive through missing information, including dropped
pronouns. We note what sentences are missing pronouns,
and what sentences produce pronouns .3. "Need medical asap" is without a pronoun. He does not
say who is in need of medical help.
expected. This early in the call we looked for a complete
social introduction which would tell us that it is a good
relationship.
Statement Analysis deals with not only what one says, but
what one does not say:
Note that "I just shot my wife, Margaret, by accident, she
needs medical assistance asap!" would:
1. Use the pronoun "I"
2. Give the complete social introduction "my" showing
ownership, "wife" is her title, and "Margaret" her name. A
complete social introduction indicates a good relationship.
In this opening, he has indicated that there is a problem in
their relationship.
Their history will have to be explored by investigators if
they wish to learn what happened.
911: OK. Where are you shot at?
has to ask where he has been shot. It is not clear to her
what has happened. This is coming from a man who has
likely spent many years in this specific field of information.
His wording appears careful and cautious. We now look to
see if he will give indication of a good relationship, and care
for her life and get the flow of information to the operator.
Statement Analysis does not deal with voice inflection, but
the 911 operator does. It may be that his inflection, with
staid emotions, is causing her to ask questions.
Listeners may question why he sounds calm and collected
and will consider his training as a possible explanation. The
911 operator, however, must gather information and it is
expected that someone with his training will freely help her
in this manner.
Chief: What’s that?
He is on extreme guard to withhold information.
911: Where is the person shot at?
not know who has been shot nor who the shooter is, nor
any detail of the case from a trained and decades long
experienced lawman.
Chief: In the back.
The subject gives the location of the wound.
He does not say "in her back" with a pronoun to identify the
victim. This is a subtle distancing language which distances
himself from the victim, but it also distances the wound
from the victim.
This is not expected.
Linguistic Dispostion:
Thus far, the victim is not a person.
We cannot make her into a person for him.
We believe him as we enter into his thinking, at this time, in
an emergency setting.
He gives short answers. Because he has yet to give a social
introduction, he forces the operator to ask:911: Is it a male or female?
The 911 operator had to ask this. This is a ridiculous
question.
She should not have had to ask.
Here is a refusal to yield information. We must now
to pause and reflect on what to answer when asked what had
happened.
At this point, the caller is not working with the 911 Operator
to facilitate the flow of information to save his wife, the
victim.
Chief: Female.
This is all he says.
This is a signal that he is not cooperating with the police.
Here is where he often hear the phrase "fully cooperating"
making "cooperation" sensitive, and in need of description.
there is another type of cooperation in mind: that is, less
than complete.
He is cooperating with police, by answering the 911
Operator's questions, but he is limiting his words carefully.
It is right here, at this point, that the expectation is not
"female" but "my wife" or "Maggie" or anything that "ups
the level" of information.
Here is where we expect him to now use the introduction
since he has not used it yet.
He continues to avoid saying, "my wife, Margaret"We need him to use the instinctive "my" with the victim.Consider this point in human nature:It is not that he has avoided using the possessive pronoun"my";
This is another place where he could identify that it is hiswife in need of assistance.
language indicating a poor relationship and/or a need to
distance himself from her.
This is not expected when there is a good relationship and
the married couple are "one", in their minds and in their
language.
In a close, married relationship, the couple often feel like
"one", so that when one suffers, they both suffer.
Here, in the midst of a life or death trauma, he will not even
use her name.
At this point, it is not just "bad relationship" but something
much more intense:
The victim has been de-personalized.
This is not conclusive as we continue to wait for him to tell
the Operator of his connection to the victim ("my wife")
which is instinctive in human relations. It is to this point:
the victim continues to be, in his linguistic perception or
"his perception of reality", not a human being.
Change of Language
Recall how we sometimes see in murders (singular or mass)
a de-personalizing or de-humanizing of victims specifically
in the language.
The Nazi party of Germany used this with children;
teaching them that Jews and eastern races were "sub
human"; that is to make the linguistic change allowing
for murder. They "harvested" (note the language) from
their victims, as if the victims' property and life had
been planted for such a yield.
Planned Parenthood calls children "fetus" rather than a
child, for profit.
In rallying women to their business, they employed
the same argument advanced for slavery ("my property") prior to 1865 in the United States.
Islamic terrorists teach children that Jews descended from
"pigs and apes." When you see a mother strapped with
bombs, sitting in a park with women and children, she
is not "killing women and children" but in her verbalized
perception of reality: sacrificing herself to her god by
removing "pigs and apes" (Jews) or "infidels" (including
Muslims who resist their demands) who are an insult to her
god. This is a powerful overcoming of parental and maternal
instinct to preserve life.
The writers for "Silence of the Lambs" highlighted this
when they showed FBI Behavioral Analysis coaching
the mother of a kidnapped adult daughter to repeatedly
use her daughter's name. The killer, needing to first
starve his victim while preserving her skin, used the
chilling line, "it puts the lotion in the basket." It is
an unforgettably chilling line.
What do all these examples have in common?
1. They seek to justify.
2. They attempt to use a faux moral high ground to justify
action.
Even in "ethnic cleansing" we see the morally charged
word, "cleanse" within it. This is an attempt to justify.
We look for it in language of criminal behavior.
3. They change language from its natural meaning.
This is why we do not ask thieves in employment theft,
"Did you steal?" because oftentimes the thief did not
"steal" but "took" (morally neutral)
911: How old is she? How old is she?
Chief: 58
He offers nothing more.
He does not use her name.
He answers the question in the shortest possible way.What else might he have said?
distancing language.
He might have mentioned something about her condition, as
well, at this point.
He does not.
Statement Analysis: According to the subject's own
language we now know:
the victim is not a
person.
He did not shoot a person.
He did not shoot his wife.
In fact, from his own language, he did not shoot.
*911: She’s shot in the back and in the side?
we do not know why the 911 operator made this
assumption. This is to be shot in either two locations, or
that the bullet entered and exited (back to side).
Chief: Yes…and numb in back. Come on. Let’s get them
here.
assumed two shots possibly. (see note above).He does not ask for help specifically for her. He has not
used her name.
but not for the victim specifically. Some will even say "help
me!" in the call.
Ingratiation Factor in Analysis
"Let's get them here" is as if he is part of the team, as in "LetHe is not part of the team. "Us" represents law
us..."
enforcement, or "authority" or "the good guys."
His wife is bleeding near death
beside him, because of his action. This may be an attempt
to portray himself as part of the help, not the cause.
This is called "Ingratiation."
The need to "ingratiate" oneself into the company of another
is to show us:
he needs to be seen as "the good guy."
The "good guy" principle tells us the opposite.
It is similar to a parent of a missing child who literally
praises searchers for not finding his or her child. This
need to be seen aligned with law enforcement reveals
his awareness that what he has done it "outside" the law
and outside those he represents.
We continue to note that he does not ask for help for the victim of whom he has not identified.
The word "Let's" is an abbreviation (casual)
911: Somebody else is dispatching help. I need to get some
more information from you. You said it was an accident?
something the subject likely already knew. This makes
"Let's get them here" possibly sound artificial.
Chief: Yes.
questions. This is an example of one staying to script where
he knows, after decades of enforcing the law, working with
prosecutors and witnesses: say as little as possible.
Emotion
Recall that in Statement Analysis, we do not judge voice
inflection to learn of his emotion. Some will say, "he sounds so cold and indifferent" yet it could be training. Instead, we look for the linguistics of emotion: simply put:
What topic will produce a word of emotion?
Human Empathy
As World War II progressed, we learned of German army draftees committing suicide after carrying out orders of atrocities against civilians.
Even those who do not wish for abortion to be made illegal have recoiled at Planned Parenthood's selling of babies' body parts for profit, its race-based geography and its refusal to use anesthesia.
History and life both teach the analyst about human nature.
Depersonalization eliminates need for Human Empathy
We do not see human empathy, that is, "human" if the victim was not "human."
Therefore, the language changes to justify the inhumane action.
We see this in criminal statements of all type as human nature uses this self defense mechanism in its need to justify action. A common example that is popular is the "Virtue Signaling."
This is particularly noteworthy for analysts when the virtue stand is unnecessary.
It creates competition to see who will condemn the loudest or the most extreme. From this we often find the guilt projected outwardly.
#MeToo quickly joined with "my" truth as if truth is in the eye of the beholder, or more accurately, matches the feeling of the beholder. This need to "belong", when deceptive, leaves actual victims vulnerable to further doubts and even suspicion.
We expect the language of human empathy to appear in some form. This is not the "terms of endearment" that signal very bad relationships. This is actual wording that does not "express" human empathy, but engages it.
For example:
a. Offer to describe the wound. This would be a linguistic example of empathy for the victim, by the subject, which would allow the 911 operator to thus inform.
b. Describe her suffering
We listen for the actual wording which shows that the victim is not only a real person, but has a connection to him, which, in turn, his human empathy drives him to expedite help for her, via information.
911: She was shot twice accidental?
That she was shot "twice" is affirmed by the operator.
The gun went off twice? This is not something expected ina shooting where a trigger is pulled accidentally, by, forexample, someone rolling over on it in bed and somehow a
Chief: Yes.
The word "yes" is a strong response, but we do not know if
he is saying "yes" to the "shot twice" part of the question, or
"accidental" part. This is why compound questions must
always be avoided.
context between "yep" and "yes."
Due to the limited information he has given her, she must
now ask: Who shot her?
The profile emerging is one of self protection and self
importance. He is not carefully listening to the 911 Operator, but instead staying to
script. "yes" is the shortest simplest answer in which he
adds no detail. This becomes heightened when we hear
him attempt to sound "helpful" rather than disinterested. The disinterest is in the victim's status: survival.
The overcoming of instinct along with the distinct absence of human empathy and need to control all suggest that our caller likely has as history of domestic violence.
A trained law enforcement official with more than 30 years experience, and one who has gained rank, has used a single word answer to allow error to be part of the narrative of this case.
911: Who shot her?
Chief: Me.
No explanation beyond this point.
This is also not expected.
Note that he does not say "Me, I shot her" or "I did, but by
accident."He takes ownership of shooting her with "me" rather than
saying "the gun went off."
investigation.
The priority remains self first, and he will resist, even
against both instinct (man, husband) and training (high rank
law enforcement official) to fulfill his priority:
Protect himself by yielding only enough information to
avoid consequence.
Thus far, he has not used a single word of human empathy.
Please consider that this is "congruent" with his linguistic
disposition towards the victim: his wife, Maggie is not
a person.
Since he has given no explanation, she must
now ask:
911: How did you shoot her?
Note that the 911 operator did not say "why did you shoother?" because she has clearly heard him say "accident", as itwas a priority for him, coming even before the need formedical intervention in his order of speech.
I have to date, not encountered a statement in which no
possessive pronoun was used. I would like to ask her about
her impressions and how she was "pulling teeth" to get a
single point of data from him.
What we have next is finally the account of "what
happened" and it is here that we obtain our information.
Chief: I was…the gun was in the bed. I went to move it…uh,
put it to the side and then it went off.
There is a great deal of information contained here; more
that what a blog entry will show. Here are some basics of
Statement Analysis for consideration. Those formally
trained will recognize some of the data that is missing as
well as the profile that emerges.
a. "I was" is broken off: this is self-censoring. It is anIf the gun went off inadvertently, passive language is
indication of missing information, deliberately withheld
by the subject.
Suppressed Information
Generally, this phrase is used to describe memories in which
a subject cannot verbalize. It is signaled by the phrase, "I
remember..." in open statements.
"I remember as a boy going to..." indicates that the subject
is accessing a point of time within experiential memory
where he recognizes that there is more there, in this
memory, than he can recall.
We can only report what we "remember", therefore, the
phrase, "I remember" (in an open statement) is unnecessary
wording. This is the general sense of how we use the
wording "suppressed memory" in Statement Analysis.
The 911 caller is making an effort not to disclose information.
This is challenging.
He is on his guard, so much so, that he is not listening carefully to the questions and is giving short responses only. He is hindering information.
This takes effort.
In his case, the effort is two-fold.
It is not only against human nature ("my" as in "my wife" and "my gun", which is addressed below) but also against his professional training.
He should be spouting off information, both as a human (husband) and a law enforcement highly trained and advanced official.
We have the 'suppression' of both instinct and training.
This is to exert his will.
It is to reveal one of a very strong will.
Even in this most critical of time in life, whether viewed as an innocent man desperate to save his wife, or a guilty caller who had hoped to forever silence his wife, he shows remarkable control and a stunning lack of human empathy for the victim.
He has overcome both instinct and training to preserve himself.
Those who know him will recognize this trait within him.
"I was" began with the pronoun "I", psychologically placing
himself strongly into this sentence. Whatever he was about
to say was very likely to contain reliable information.
He then stopped.
This "self censoring" in the pronoun "I" further highlights:
a. his priority to save himself
b. his self control exercised in a context where it would
appear to be the exact opposite.
In a domestic, words spoken can impact the heart rate,
perspiration and hormonal response. Control lost, for but
a moment, can forever destroy lives.
Consider "Shaken Baby Syndrome" statements. In just a
moment of time, the crying baby was given a short violent
shake and stopped crying.
And the baby was forever destroyed, as gray matter leaks from the ears and the child's cry is never heard again.
What do such statements contain?
"I was trying to feed her and she would not stop crying..."
Justification.
It is as if to say:
'If the baby would have stopped crying, I would not have had to shake her. It is her fault.'
This is common in many crime settings.
What was he going to say?
Whatever it was, he knew enough to stop himself.
"I was asleep"?
"I was cleaning it..."?
"I was moving it...?
With the pronoun "I" we would have seen some
responsibility. Instead, in the self censoring, he suppresses
whatever he was going to say.
b. "the gun" is not "my gun"
Note "the gun" and not "a" gun as first introduced, and,
since he is chief of police, he does not say it is "my gun"
which would take ownership of the gun.
This means that there is something sensitive about
ownership of the gun. He is psychologically distancing
himself from the gun.
What is the point of this?
The point of this is found in the need to distance himself
from possessive ownership of the gun.
Avoidance of personal responsibility is sometimes seen in
the absurdity of blaming an inanimate object.
The gun did not shoot his wife Maggie.
The gun did not get up, walk over to the bed, climb in, point at his wife and pull its own trigger.
c. Passivity and the gun.
Passivity in language conceals identity or responsibility.
When an identity is not known, for example, passive
language is appropriate.
Guns do not go off by themselves: one must pull the trigger.
Guns do not go to bed. Someone must put it there.
In an accidental shooting, for example, where someone
rolled over the gun while sleeping and caused it to go off,
passive language would be appropriate.
appropriate because one does not know how it went off,
therefore, no responsibility is assigned.
This is especially true if it is her gun, and she generally
sleeps with it. He does not say "my wife's gun" nor does he
say "my gun."
This is distancing language from the gun.
Next, we note that he says
"the gun was in the bed" , which employs passive language.
This conceals or refuses to identify how the gun got into the
bed.
This is important.
If one of them rolled over and caused the gun to go off, the
passivity of
"the gun went off" is appropriate. No one deliberately
pulled the trigger making passive language appropriate.
However, here, we find "the gun was in the bed"
deliberately avoids saying who is responsible for putting
the gun in the bed.
This is a deliberate use of passive language which provokes
the natural question:
"Who put the gun in the bed?" since guns do not go to bed
by themselves
Because it is the subject, himself, making this statement, it
is an indication that he brought the gun to the bed, but does
not want this to be known.
Ownership of guns by Law Enforcement.
We are possessive creatures and due to the nature of life
saving, preservation of life, and many hours of practice, it
is expected that a law enforcement officer will say "my" gun
(just as he would say "my wife.")
In law enforcement, officers often report a close relationship
(evidenced by language) with their gun. This is no surprise
since the gun may save his life, the life of others, and he
spends a large number of hours in training and practicing
with it.
Psychologically, the gun is a balance that mitigates (not
neutralizes) hormonal response to incessant and unexpected
danger. It is the single element of which most compromised
immune systems, psychological trauma and substance
abuse stem from in law enforcement. It is why I repeatedly
call for increases in pay for law enforcement and the
immediate cessation of all political influence upon hiring:
hire the best and brightest and pay commensurate.
The job requires day to day elevation of situational
awareness that taxes the human body and mind. Even
in rural areas where there is low crime adds the increase
of the element of surprise.
This is why the gun has "special" place in the language
of law enforcement. They "live with" the firearm. (we see
this commonly in the language of K-9 officers).
The possessive pronoun, "my", therefore, is not
only expected, but highly expected, by someone in law
enforcement, if the gun is his. If it is not, it is appropriate to
have it absent from the language.
As police chief, if it is his gun, we expect him to take
ownership of it.
d. Intentions
Please note: "I went to move it" tells us what he intended to
do. We let his words guide us. Deceptive people often tell
us about intentions, hoping that we will interpret the
meaning as completed. Yet, we believe what the words tell
us and follow the subject closely.
Please also note what is missing from this response: the
pronoun "we"; that is, the instinctive pronoun that is used to
describe unity and cooperation.
Question: Did he say he moved the gun and it went off?
Answer: No
He only "went to" move it. He does not say he moved it.
Thus, he further distances himself from the gun. It is within
this need to distance himself (no possessive pronoun and
passive voice) that we find an answer.
A single two-letter word holds the key to understanding.
It must be understood within the reliable start of "I"
which indicated he was "psychologically" in this start
of a sentence, but stopped himself from yielding critical
information.
Where was the gun?
"Went": this word is important. "I went to move it" means
that he knew it was there. This indicates intention, but not
action.
Where was he when he "went" to move it?
Was he in the bed with her?
Was he in a different room, realizing that it was left in the
bed where she was sleeping?
Why did he need to move it? What was it doing in the bed
in the first place?
And...
why does he deliberately conceal the identity of the one who
brought it to bed?
If his wife did it, it would not cause stress to say so, since it
was an "accident"; but if he brought it to bed, he knows he
is naturally going to have to explain why he brought it to
bed.
He knows that investigators will wonder: Did he bring it to
bed in a threatening manner?
Our answer comes to us as we consider the factors together,
synthesizing the information and asking the question,
"Where was the gun?"
911: Is she awake?
Chief: No. Everybody was sleeping.
The question is "is she awake?" to which he says, "no", yet
the 911 operator could hear her crying.
What about his verb tense?
Is he thinking about when the shots happened?
If so, there are new questions to be answered.
Please note "everybody" is not defined.
He has not used his wife's name; this is distancing langue.
We must now learn who "everybody" is.
We must learn who is in the home as this is an indication
that there are more people in the home than just he and his
wife, and this is in the past tense.
At the time of this call, it appears to be just the caller and
the victim. Yet, he went to the past tense, perhaps back to
the time of the shooting.
What caused him to say "everybody was sleeping"?
a. If it was just the two of them, it may suggest
editorializing (story telling)
b. Was he thinking of someone else?
c. Was someone else there previously?
d. Had he plans to leave to meet someone else, a love
interest, who was sleeping?
e. Did they have a visitor earlier that night?
f. Did one of them have plans to have someone over that
night?
Clearly, "everybody was sleeping" is not to say "we" were
sleeping. "We" shows unity and cooperation.
There is no "we" in his statement, which affirms just how
bad the relationship is in the statement.
Investigators need to learn if he was unfaithful to her, or if
she was unfaithful to him, and if either was threatening to
have an affair.
This is very strange and not something expected from one
who is alone with his critically bleeding wife.
911: No, is she awake now?
The operator intuitively heard the verb tense. She also
heard the plurality of "Everybody" and seeks clarification.
Chief: Huh?
The subject is distracted.
911: Is she awake now?
Chief: Yes.
He answers with the strong "yes"
Please note that we are comparing his use of "yes", with the
casual, "yep" which is something that is often found when
one 'agrees' with another.
911: Is she breathing?
Dispatch is asking questions because the subject is only
answering specific questions and not giving any additional
details. In a marriage, this is most unexpected.
Chief: Yes.
This is a strong response.
911: And…103 Autumn Leaf. What’s your nearest
intersection or street?
Chief: Uh we’re in Center Green
This is the first use of "we" and the context is the location
and not personal.
After giving the 911 operator the location where they are at,
she asks about the location of the gun:
**At 1:32…911: Where’s the gun at?
Chief: Uhhh, geez I don’t know. I threw it to the side. It
might be in the bed here. I don’t know.
The location of the gun is important for the safety of the
responders.
the presence of mind to "throw it"; why the need to throw it?
Also, if he threw it, was this in anger? staging?
"Uh, geez": the meaning of geez is surprise or annoyance. Which is it?
It does not make sense that it would be surprise, since this is a question that has to do with responders' safety.
I feel it's the latter, since he is annoyed that he's being asked about the location of the gun. He does not like being questioned. He may feel that he is "above" such a question since he is the chief of police.
Chief: You having trouble breathing, Dear?
learn if this was a usual term used by him, or something for
the call. It is spoken clearly into the phone and comes
across well in the recording. This will be compared to other
things he says, including the volume of which the voice
transmits.
Please note that terms of endearment, in Statement Analysis,
are often signals of a very bad relationship, as they are used
to persuade. This, however, is about written statements
where someone might write, "I said "I love you" to her and
kissed her goodnight and she went to sleep." That the
subject had the need to include "I love you" (similar to term
of endearment) is flagged for possible bad relationship, as it
may underscore the need to persuade the audience.
Is the subject, here, using the term, "dear" to play to the audio?
Since she is lying in agony and "of course" she is having
trouble breathing, this does not sound genuine, but may be
an attempt to persuade the listener (police) of a tender and
caring subject; yet that is not what the call reveals.
He does not ask for help for her, specifically, something we
flag in 911 calls where domestic violence is in question.
He avoids using her name and her title of "wife", which is
distancing language. (at this point)
He does, however, show concern for himself.
This taken collectively may indicate that "dear" is indicative
of a bad relationship, particularly due to context.
911: Alright, I want you to…you are with her now?
Instruction was about to be given, but then the operator
changes course to ask this question.
Please note that the 911 operator did not assume that the
caller was with his wife, which is unusual. He did not even
use her name or title (wife) which, even without training,
the 911 operator will have a 'feel' for distancing language.
She may have even been surprised that he was so close to
her to talk to her.
The question is: "You are with her now?" Note his
response. He may have felt insulted by her question:
Chief: "What’s that? I’m the Chief of Police. It’s a…the bed,
the gun is on the dresser.
1. He answers her question with a question. He is the one
who sounded so distant from the victim, but when asked
about it, he shows the sensitivity by answering a question
with a question.
If he did not hear her question, the response, "What's that?"
is appropriate. Yet, he then chooses to go on instead of
waiting for her to repeat the question.
He gives her an assertion that produces the pronoun, "I" in a
call of which the pronoun "I" is not strongly used.
2. His affirmation:
This is an arrogant statement. We now know more about
him than we do the victim; the one in need of help.
He identifies himself, not as a police officer, but as the
"chief of police", which is not what she asked.
Remember in statement analysis: when one goes beyond
the boundary of the question every word is important.
That he is the "Chief of Police" is very important to him.
Please note:
he does not show verbal concern over his wife's condition.
He does, however, show concern over his own career.
That his response is high minded must be noted. This
should cause investigators to consider past Domestic
Violence. High-minded and controlling are issues
associated with D/V. This is a call in which a wife has been
shot by her husband, who, in the call, refuses to identify her
by name or by the fact that she is his wife.
He refuses to give her a title of "wife" but he gives himself
the title " the Chief of Police."
This is far more emphasis than she was given, though she is
near death.
That he has a history of D/V should be learned, and will not
be surprising if verified.
He gets a title, but the one lying bleeding to death, does not.
This is not lost on the 911 operator who can hear the
victim's moaning:
911: OK. You’re the Chief of Police in Peachtree City?
Chief: Yeah, unfortunately. Yes.
"Unfortunate" is the condition of the 58 year old woman lying beside him, bleeding to death.
yet for him, "unfortunate" is himself, due to the job he currently holds at the time of this call.
This is extremely calloused.
In his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, "unfortunate" is his job status, but not his wife's precarious status of life and death.
This is not expected.
Here, we have the subject showing concern for himself.
This is not expected. This may have prompted the next
question:
911: Alright, is this your wife?
It is strange for the operator to have to ask this question but
it is necessary. She is hearing a depersonalization of a
victim. It is not something generally heard with frequency
and it is against human nature, itself. Her own awareness
is seen in the "agreement" words, "okay" and "yes" and a
general attempt to placate him.
Chief: Yes.
911: OK sir. Um, I do want to ask you some more questions
about her health right now. Somebody else has already
dispatched help so we’re not delaying that OK?
Chief: OK.
911: Is that her crying?
operator shows concern or "human empathy." . Also, did
operator feel need to
identify who it was that was crying, thinking that someone
else might have been there, based upon his language?
Chief: Yes, she’s having trouble breathing now.
She is having trouble breathing "now"; did she have trouble
breathing earlier? Due to the seriousness of the injury, she
likely did.
Please note: he knew that she had internal bleeding (below)
911: OK.
**At 2:35…(you hear moaning/crying in background)
911: OK. (more moaning) This just occurred now right
before you called?
Operator is suspicious of a possible delay.
Chief: Yep..yep went off in the middle of the night.
Note "yep" instead of formal "yes."
Some people use "yep" when they are agreeing with
someone else.
We will note where he uses "yep" versus where he uses "yes."
I am concerned that this call was not made immediately
after the shooting, based upon his response:
"yep" is repeated, as if 'agreeing' with the 911 operator
then taken with "in the middle of the night" rather than "just
now" in his language.
This suggests a delay in calling.
This may be difficult to understand on the audio but the call
should be right after the shooting. "went off in the middle
of the night" sounds more like editorializing, or story
telling.
Note that he even drops the pronoun "it"
This is more distancing language.
The passivity over a gun going off is expected if the subject
does not know how it went off, but the dropped pronoun is
not expected. Let's say that one rolled over and the gun
discharged, it would be passive, since the caller did not
know which of them caused it, but might say, "it went off"
with the pronoun, "it." He wants to distance himself from
the gun.
"in the middle of the night" is not necessary because it just
happened. This is something that sounds more like story
telling.
Element of Time in Timing
"Middle of the night" could cover a great deal of time. The
expected answer is "just now" and nothing else. Even a
slight delay for trying to stop the bleeding would still be an
immediate response. His need to editorialize may have
confirmed the intuitive suspicion of the 911 operator.
911: Is there any serious bleeding?
Chief: Well, it’s internal but yes there is.
She is in critical condition, shot in the back. The only
answer to this question is "yes"
He uses "yes" after the word "but"; note it is not "yep"
The word "but" refutes or minimizes that which preceded it.
This may indicate that he knew there was internal
bleeding. Investigators should learn if there was a time
delay in calling 911.
"Well" is a pause to think. This is not expected as he
compares it (the word "but"), while recognizing it as
internal.
911: OK, is she completely alert?
Chief: Yes
"Yes" rather than "yep"
911: OK
Chief: And you already told me it was the back.
Chief: She’s starting to have trouble breathing now so it
must be internal.
It would be important to ask him about her breathing earlier
(not in this call, but the investigative interview).
911: OK. Is she on her back?
Chief: She’s laying on her stomach.
911: She’s laying on her stomach. OK. If you see any
external bleeding, we’re going to apply direct pressure to
that OK? Is she bleeding where you can see it?
Note the intuitive use of "we" which is always wise. The
word "we" reduces the tension that may exist between
police and caller. This operator does a good job.
Chief: Yes.
The expectation is that with his background, he had already
begun basic emergency care applying pressure to the
wound.
This is also "yes" and not "yep"
911: OK, I want you to get a dry clean cloth and I want you to apply direct pressure to the wound.
Chief: OK.
(sound of moaning) Chief: Ok
911: Ok I want you to hold the cloth there. Do not lift it to
look at it. Just keep applying pressure …
This would seem unnecessary but the operator, rather than asking if he has applied immediate care, instinctively instructs him to. Remember: he has not given indication
that the victim is a human being nor has he offered
relevant information.
Chief: (hard to understand)
would not one of his background have already put pressure on the wound?
911: Ok. You want them to enter through the front door?
Chief: I don’t care if they come in the side door. It’s fine, I
don’t care.
He should give the answer in which the victim is accessed
in the quickest route. That he does not care may be an
attempt to sound cooperative, as if coming through a
different door does not inconvenience him.
He should have told them to come in the most direct route.
He indicates a need to persuade that he is a caring person
who is so focused upon his wife, Maggie, that he would
not care how they entered.
This is not what is in his language.
This is, however, insight into his personality. Image
consciousness is part of this call. The only word indicating
human empathy is employed regarding his own professional
status.
Chief: aLright, come on guys…get here.
This is still not to ask for specific help for the victim, who
continues her status as non human.
Chief: Yeah, I got the door open for them.
Here we see use of more wording than he afforded his
victim.
Chief: Oh my God.
Note the use of Divinity:
He does not ask God to help or save his wife.
911: What’s your name sir?
Chief: How did this happen?
Note the open question by the subject being asked out loud.
Only he can answer this question yet he asks it, anyway.
This is another red flag.
Unintended Recipient Principle
We recognize that that subjects often speak to an "unintended" recipient. The "intended recipient" is the 911 operator. The "unintended" is law enforcement and the legal memorial of this recording.
911: What’s your name sir?
Chief: Will McCollum
**At 4:15…911: Were you asleep also sir when it
happened?
Chief: Yep, are you alright dear? I know you are not alright.
I mean, are you still breathing? Still alert for me?
"Yep" is not "yes" but more casual. "Yep" is often used
when one finds an answer within the question, to agree to.
Please note: he affirms that he was asleep when it
happened, making it an accident where one rolls over in his
sleep, yet only uses the weak "yep", rather than stronger
"yes", which must be compared with:
"I went to..." contradicts being asleep.
Regarding speaking to his wife:
She may have answered him harshly. This may indicate that
an argument took place before the shooting.
911: Is there anybody else there with you guys?
That he said "everybody was sleeping" has likely prompted
this question. Since "everybody" was sleeping, who else is
there?
Chief: No.
Did he say "everybody" was asleep earlier? This is
concerning. It could point to the attempt to build 'a crowd
of support' due to guilt and the need to share guilt.
Guilty parties often feel that if others are around, they can
spread the guilt out. We see this in school children. Yet,
there was no one there but the caller and the victim, who's
name is avoided.
Chief: Come on. Hurry, hurry, hurry.
Please note that he knows how the system works; dispatch
while he is speaking.
This is scripted or "staged", just as his other phrases,
including
"God" and "How did this happen?"" do.
911: I hear them in the background. They are coming as fast
as they can. Ok?
Chief: I can hear them.
911: Do we have that dry clean cloth on her wound?
This is intuitive. She uses the word "we", as cooperation,
instead of saying "Do you have that dry clean cloth on her
wound?" revealing her own suspicion.
To use "we" indicates a need for cooperation. She does not
sense he is cooperative and she has her doubts that he has
tended to her wounds.
Chief: Alright come on guys.
He is not engaged with the 911 operator.
911: You see them sir?
**At 5:30 Chief: Right there on the dresser is the gun.
911: Is there an officer there?
Chief: Jamie is here, yeah.
Please note that he used the officer's name while avoiding
his wife's name in the entire call.
"Jamie" is a human being; the victim is not. This is to stay
within our principle of having confidence in the subject to
lead us to the truth.
911: Ok, Chief I’m going to let you go…
There are enough red flags in this call for police to consider
the chief a suspect and seek to learn about the marital
relationship's discord. From this call alone,
I conclude that their relationship is not good;
that he uses distancing language from her;
he uses distancing language from the gun;
he inappropriately uses passivity in language, avoiding the
responsibility of how the gun got in the bed.
He expresses concern for himself, but not for her, who's
name he was unable to use in the entire call.
If I did not write the word "Margaret", you would not have
known her name.
If the 911 operator had not specifically asked, she would not
have been identified as his wife.
How does he get through the entire call without calling her
his "wife", nor use her name?
He should be a suspect in this shooting. The sensitivity
indicates the foundation in the relationship in the specific
context of shooting.
Presuppositional Statement Analysis:
1. Presume innocence. Ask yourself, "What would I say?"
Could you make it through an entire 911 call without using
the word "wife", in his shoes?
Could you make it through the entire 911 call without once
using your wife's name? (or nickname)
Walk yourself through the call, putting yourself in his shoes.
You have law enforcement background and may even use
"cop speak", with such things as "ASAP"
Ask yourself what you might say if your wife was laying in
the bed, internally bleeding from not one, but two gun shot
wounds, and may not survive. Loving her, would you care
about yourself, or your job, or reputation? Would you need
to "not care" which door paramedics enter through?
If you are married, work it through with your spouse.
2. Now, Presume a poor relationship, an argument, and a
guilty caller. Presume guilt.
Work through the statement again, presupposing that this
was a domestic dispute in which he shot her twice.
Follow the same as above, even working it through with
your spouse.
With presupposed guilt, does the language now "fit"?
Analysis Conclusion:
Regarding the shooting of his wife by accident: Deception
Indicated.
The caller is deceptive. The shooting was not "accidental"
nor was he asleep when he shot her.
His words show concern about himself and his career, and
not for the victim.
The relationship is dehumanizing.
His distancing language is something we normally would
call "acute", yet, how it technically is described is this:
The caller's victim is not human. This is to "depersonalize"
his victim in an extreme manner.
It is not just that he was unable to use her name nor did he
even use the word "wife" in the call, but it is against
natural human instinct.
His disdain is so deep, in this context, that he has changed
her from a human being who is related to him by marriage
to an entity that even depersonalizes her body. He did not
shoot "her" in the back: she does not "have" a back, in his
language.
It is critical to accept the language given and not to project
our own thinking, via transplanted language or
interpretation. We must listen and submit to his verbalized
perception of reality at the time of this call.
He did not help the operator gain information but
deliberately work against her.
What appeared to be suppression of natural human instinct
continued to the point of admission: the victim, in the eyes
of the shooter, was not a person.
The Two-Letter Word
Critical to understanding this is the location of the gun
in context to both his words and his training and the type
of gun used.
The gun was "in" and not "on" the bed.
This is rare.
Even in a rape statement where the victim did not leave,
we find that she did not sleep "in" the bed (with the rapist)
but in her language, she was "on" the bed. It is found in cases, for example, where the rape victim is young, frightened and literally disassociates (it is found in the language) in order to survive.
The claim that "she was not raped; otherwise she would have not stayed with him" is not universally applicable. The rape victim did not sleep "in" the bed, that is, with the rapist, but "on", temporary, and not of the essential survival nature of sleep. It is, in this context, also to fulfill our Principle on "location of sleep" in analysis.
Our caller put the gun (seen the the passivity employed) in the bed, deliberately, and shot his wife. In what he began with "I" he had to self censor. He was on his guard through out the statement and this point of great sensitivity is coupled with an inanimate object being given "life."
The one who gives inanimate object "life", is the human connection.
The element of time within his statements tell us of delay: he expected her to die. This is why he waited to call 911.
He deliberately shot her from the position of the gun being
"in" the bed, (not "on" the bed), that is, in a specific place in
which he could
best make this appear to be an accidental shooting.
It was not.
As analyst, instructor and detective (ret) Steve Johnson
pointed out, this gun was not "on" the bed, but "in" the
bed in a place where the need for pressure (5-7 lbs) would
be necessary for firing right at the victim. This yielded
much information from the professionals. It must be
taken in context of both deception and Linguistic
Disposition:
The victim is not a person.
This is the linguistic revelation from the shooter himself.
At no time in this call is the victim his wife, Maggie, or
even a person.
He did not shoot a person.
He shot "a" non human. Not in "her" back,
but in its back.
It is not a surprise that the caller screened
phone calls to the victim and exercised control over the flow of information, just as he did in this call. It is within the psycho-linguistic profile as well as likely evident in a
history of Domestic Violence (likely via threat) and narcissistic self protection.
The analyst must consider the points of analysis as separate
and distinct. In the conclusion, they must now all be put
back together for one portrait.
The human connection of inanimate object being given human body posture and the entrance of passive voice (consistent) cannot be separated. The overall deception must be seen in unity with deliberate working against the 911 operator to hinder information.
Thus these points then come under the single heading within deception: the depersonalization of a victim in justification.
It is a startling glimpse into the mind of an attempted murderer's own understanding of justification in human nature.
Statement Analysis Training Opportunities
For training in deception detection as well as profiling and anonymous author identification, please contact Hyatt Analysis Services.
We offer seminars, including advanced seminars, and joint seminars (with Det. Johnson and Hand Writing Analysis), as well as specific training for Sex Crimes Units and social services.
Our course, the "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is done at home, at your pace and comes with 12 months of e support to check progress, homework and testing.
Those who enroll are eligible for ongoing monthly training. Successful completion of the Complete Statement Analysis Course is the prerequisite for the Advanced Course.
Tuition payment plans available for Law Enforcement and Military.
21 comments:
*911: She’s shot in the back and in the side?
Chief: Yes…and numb in back. Come on. Let’s get them here.
How does he know she is numb in her back? She is the only one that can verify she has no feeling there. Doctors have systematic methods to assess neurological damage by testing reflexes even when the victim is unconscious. Did he perform some sort of trauma triage before calling 911? How does he assess her condition with certainty? She must have been alert enough at one point to tell him this but now she isn't able to speak, only crying and moaning.
Hypothetically: What if the gun really was 'in' the bed? If Chief and Maggie had a long night of heavy drinking and aggressive arguing, there is a possibility that Maggie was afraid as she knew his patterns of violence and abuse. Perhaps Chief had made suicidal threats that night or in the past. What if Chief had fallen asleep (passed out) in a separate room before her and she took the gun to keep it out of his reach until he sobered up. She now felt safe to fall sleep herself and placed the gun beside her, under the covers, for safe keeping. Chief wakes up and notices his gun is missing. He doesn't see the gun in plain sight in the room she was sleeping in. He frantically tries to locate the gun under the covers, feels it blindly and trying to retrieve it, the gun accidentally fires.
Addendum: she wakes up as he is feeling around, she moves, Chief is startled and grabs gun In a familiar way and fires.
Off Topic: Could someone please look at this short clip of Ted Bundy proclaiming his innocence, & going entirely on his words (not who he is, not his body language, not his odd laughter), what do people think about his denial of guilt based only on linguistics?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tf1II4uRLXE
Anonymous said...
Off Topic:
it isn't a clean statement as well as short so not enough to do much with. the video is too edited to work with.
he does not give a reliable denial. the fact that he doesn't address any of the claims directly is not good. what little is there has indicators of deception.
Thank you for looking at it. I understand what you are saying. The most "reliable" denial he gives is "I didnt do these things".
Here is a less edited video where he gives other denials. This may be irrelevant to SA, but I dont think Bundy is "charming" or a "chameleon"...I believe what we see in these interviews is his real personality which is awkward & kind of socially retarded. Please look at the video.
Also, if anyone knows about criminal psychology/profiling etc, would Ted Bundy completely lack empathy? Would Ted Bundy, for example, once he had become a violent killer, have been capable of for example, SAVING someone from being attacked like the way he saved a boy from drowning when he was much younger & the way he chased down a purse stealer as a young adult? Would Ted Bundy, once he became a violent killer, have ever SAVED someone from being attacked?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AEWsxCrMM1U
Also, the "confessions" he made shortly before his execution to try to "buy himself time" are unreliable linguistically & when he gave investigators step by step maps to locate remains from his alleged killings, they would dig up the whole area & find nothing.
Please someone check this out: Listen to one of Ted's "confessions" that he gave 7 days before his execution. He calls it a "story". At 11:45, after he has confessed to one of the killings he says that the day after the killimg, he went nack to check out the site, and says "I half-expected that she might not even be there. That somehow that I HADNT EVEN KILLED HER."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wgLOt4CbrB0
Fascinating analysis, chilling indeed. The gall and inappropriateness of him asking his wife
"Are you alright Dear " after he just shot her twice is shocking. Almost as if he is mocking her or taunting her. And this police chief has been trusted with lots of power and authority over others. Scary stuff.
upcoming...
sheriff Israel
I can't believe that not once did he say her name and how long it took him to say it is his wife.That had to raise some red flags with the Operator.
Yes. I've been wondering when Peter would go there. Sheriff Israel's deliberate words and actions have drawn visible and vocal reactions from all segments of society. Are we finally paying attention? This issue will likely become a dominant topic of discussion in many arenas.
Peter wrote, "#MeToo quickly joined with "my" truth as if truth is in the eye of the beholder, or more accurately, matches the feeling of the beholder. This need to "belong", when deceptive, leaves actual victims vulnerable to further doubts and even suspicion."
This is what raised doubts for me in Ariana Kukors' sex abuse allegations. She writes:
"To those in the swimming community, if you've heard the rumors about me, you may have been wondering if and when I’d find the courage to speak my truth.
This is the truth."
Had she written simply '... find the courage to speak.' I would not have been so alerted to look for deception.
In the current discussion, I couldn't help but notice all the time the chief is wasting while the operator is trying to pull information from him, while he's apparently NOT doing anything to try to stop the bleeding.
It seems even law enforcement personnel have trouble "fooling" a 911 call, like the SWAT team member a couple weeks back who'd been "messing around with the laser".
"everybody was sleeping"
could it be that he didn't want to say "we" or "my wife and I", more distancing?
former chief married 4 times, twice to the now paralyzed victim, now ex, and he got one
year of probation. In Georgia.
There is a large story behind Isreal and previous problems with/in his department.
And the bho and holder and federal money made available if schools didn't report
problems at school committed by non-whites.
How are school children protected in Israel?
Ya ya. But what did the trained professionals from Mesa say about Davey Blackburn?
"And the bho and holder and federal money made available if schools didn't report
problems at school committed by non-whites."
Stoneman Douglas is pretty white, low poverty, and relatively successful academically. Doubtful it gets much federal money to lose. And most relevant, Cruz was expelled from the school, so school admin did officially discipline him and it would count in their stats.
He misbehaved and they kicked him out.
The Police though. POLICE were called to his house 39 times yet Cruz was still all clear to buy an assault rifle.
Thanks for sharing this great and extended lesson.
"Uh" is a pause to think."
You asked if one would have need to pauze to think what they were going to say if their wife (husband) was being shot. I could think that the stress and panic (if indeed accidental, even if not but that could it be for other reasons too, fear to get caught) one could feel when finding their spous being shot accidental that could cause one to use 'uh' to start their scream for help. Because they can't think clearly at that moment and need a pause (uh) to be giving clear information so help can be send fast.
That is not why this chief is using 'uh' for though (i think)
@ima_grandma.....if it really would have been an accidental shooting in the way you described it, why would he then show zero concern for the victim, who was his wife. Why would he give as little information as he did and hide (by not saying) that the victim who was shot by accident, was his wife. If it indeed was being done accidentally, then there would be guilty feelings, some guilty conscious about the terrible 'accident'that happened (a loved one was shot accidentally by oneself)and you would be doing whatever you could to 'make up what went wrong' (by getting help as soon as possible)
The victim layed on her stomach
We also know that he didn't provided medical help to his wife. When the dispatcher told him to press a clean cloth on the wound he told her he was doing that........but then he told her that he 'had opened the door' (after she had asked him how the paramedics needed to enter the house).....i think the operator understood this and that's she asked him again.
Another example of LE that isn't who he pretends to be...........there are so many of them (unfortunately they ruin the reputation of those who are real and do have the 'right' (within the law) morals and principles........this one obviously has not!
Thus is one of the scariest and most fascinating cases I've read thus far. Chilling.
.
Post a Comment