Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Analysis: 911: Shirley Carter Murder



Jason Carter was found Not Guilty in his murder trial where he was accused of killing his 67 year old mother, Shirley Carter. 

Does his 911 call affirm this verdict?



Previously, he had been found responsible for her death in a civil suit. 

Here is his 911 call with notes from a team of analysts. 

911 or Emergency Calls use the same methodology of Statement Analysis. In essence, they are the "first interviews" of a case and vital for investigators. 

The expectation remains the same: a form of 'excited utterance' in which the subject (caller) facilities the flow of information in order to gain assistance. 

Like all interviews, the interviewer (here, the 911 operator) will be given a sense that the subject is either working with police to facilitate the flow of information, or the subject is not. 

Trauma in Language. 

Trauma and natural denial (familiar assault/death) are expected within the language. Trauma will hinder the processing of information, as revealed in language.  Processing takes place within time, therefore a natural (family) resistance and/or denial is often seen within the language of emergency calls. 

Sensitivity: 

What do sensitivity indicators reveal in an emergency call?

Sensitivity indicators reveal the thought process, including disruption, importance, anxiety, clarity, effort, and so on, in the rapid processing of information from the brain to the tongue. 

The legal phrase, 'excited utterance' speaks to the expectation that there is no pre thought necessary when reporting an emergency. A truthful person will blurt out what he discovers.  The truthful person will tell us what he found, what happened, what he saw, what was said, etc. 

This is why we highlight, as very sensitive, the "rule of the Negative" in which a person tells us what did not happen, what was not seen, what was not known, etc, in an open statement.  Pre-emption of a question not asked, is acutely sensitive information. 

Objection: of course this is sensitive; he just found his mother dead or dying.

Answer: The sensitivity indicators do not identify the topic; but identify the specific words that cause sensitivity. 

The expectation is:

"My mother is bleeding" or "My mother has been shot", or anything close to this, as the priority and theme of the call. 

When help is asked, we seek to learn context. 

If a subject asks for help for himself, this is appropriate if the subject is conducting first aid to the victim. 

Linguistic Disposition: 

This is a form of advanced analysis that is used in psycho-linguistic profiling and in identifying the author of anonymous threatening letters. 

It seeks to learn what the subject's disposition is towards:

a. the victim
b. others in the statement
c. the assailant, whether identified or not as it is presupposed
d. the recipient; both intended and unintended 



Check Lists, while useful for attention to potential sensitivity indicators for the untrained, do not yield consistent success in application.  

These are the notes from the team analysis. 

This is a public case with public information used, including the transcript. 

For training in deception detection, or to host a seminar, view Hyatt Analysis Services 

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

D: 911 what is your emergency?  


JC: Yeah heh…I…I need uh…I need…I need a ambulance fast. 



D: Okay what...to what address?

JC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a 132 Perry Street. It’s BILL CARTER 



and  I…I’m his son



 and my mom, 


my mom’s laying here on the floor, 



blood…there’s blood everywhere and she’s dead and I don’t know what happened. 



D: Okay how old’s your mother?  

JC: What?



D: How old is your mother BILL?  


JC: I think she’s sixty-seven.  

D: Okay is she inside the house or outside?  

JC: She was…she’s laying here on the kitchen floor. 



D: Okay and this is… 

.

JC: There’s blood all over the floor (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I don’t know what hap… 


D: Okay BILL I’m sending an ambulance to ya. Let me double check the address that’s 132 Perry Street in Pleasantville correct?  

JC: It’s Lacona, Iowa.


D: It’s in Lacona?  

JC: 132 Perry Street, Lacona. 

D: Okay…okay BILL what’s your…  

JC: It looks like you’ve been laying here (UNINTELLIGIBLE) uh…two hours, heh…what happened…



there’s a hole through the floor and  into the refrigerator, 



I don’t know if she was trying to…I don’t get what happened. 



D: You said there’s a hole through the floor and the refrigerator?  

JC: Yes.  

D: Okay.  

JC: And she’s laying (sobbing) in a pool of blood.



 It was…she’s still  (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I don’t get it. I dropped in…  




D: Okay, okay, uh…I’m gonna ahead and send the officers and deputies and the ambulance to the house there so we can help you okay?  

JC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) …okay…  

D: They’re already on the way okay, it’ll be just a…just moment here okay?  

JC: Okay.  

D: All right BILL I’m gonna go ahead and let you go.  

JC: Bye. 

D: Mm bye.  



The Analysis Notes


D: 911 what is your emergency?  

This is the best question to ask. An open ended question is legally sound and it allows the subject to choose his own words and begin where he thinks he should. 


JC: Yeah hey…I…I need uh…I need…I need a ambulance fast.


a.    yeah” is agreement. We should consider the possibility of Ingratiation. If this is the case, the caller (subject) has a need to ingratiate or “agree” with the 911 operator (police, authority) where no agreement or unity is needed. By itself, it is not an indicator of guilt, yet it could point to possible guilt and the need to portray oneself as the “good guy”, working with police. The need to make such a portrayal as helpful, unified or “good” to police often indicates to the contrary. 

b.    yeah”is also a pause. This indicates he needs time to slow down to consider what he is going to say. It is “sensitive”to him. What causes this sensitivity? Trauma may produce this. Deception may produce this. 

c.    Question: is the caller on the autism spectrum? 

d.    “hey” or “heh” – is this similar to a greeting? Any greeting is sensitive and is consistent with Ingratiation.  

e.    “heh” is not a greeting, is still a pause after a pause. (increase of sensitivity) 

f.     After two pauses (sensitivity) the subject stutters on the pronoun “I” leading us to ask, “Is he a stutterer?” If he is not a stutterer, consider the halting on the pronoun “I” often indicates anxiety.  For the subject, reporting what happened, has increased tension and/or anxiety. 

g.    “I need” tells us that the subject has a need. 

h.    Whatever is repeated, is an increase in importance (sensitive).  We note –not the topic of repetition, but the words. 

i.     “I”is used four times, with “I need” used three times. 

j.     Incomplete sentences often indicate self censoring. 

k.    Why is he in need of an ambulance? Has he performed emergency first aid?  If he did not use emergency first aid, his “need” is different than the victim’s need for medical intervention. 

l.     uh”In the midst of his “need”, he has another pause with “uh

m.  The additional pause indicates increased sensitivity over what words to choose.

n.    The sensitivity is regarding his “need.” As he repeats about self (“I”) he repeats about what he “needs”, which indicates high sensitivity, he still has a need to pause.  

o.    What does he need?  “A ambulance”

p.    Note that he does not say that the victim is in need of the ambulance. ("fast" noted) 

q.    In the extreme quickness of brain processing, the subject has told us that he is in need. If he has administered first aid and continues to do so, his “need” is contextually appropriate. 

r.     If he has not called 911 immediately, his “need” is for himself; not the victim.  In statement analysis, we trust the subject to guide us to the truth. He, himself, is in "need"; not the victim, in spite of the incongruence of "fast" when reporting the victim  as dead. 

s.    This leads us to questions, including: What does he need? Does the caller (subject) consider himself as a “victim” in his verbalized perception of reality? 

t.     As to the possibility that the caller sees himself as a “victim”, we look to see if the words he chooses address this. 

u.     “fast” is natural human urgency – it is appropriate in context of an emergency call. If he is running out of time in his attempt to save her life, “fast” is contextually appropriate. 

v.    fast” – There is no expectation that police would delay; therefore, we ask what might have produced this unnecessary word.  Did the subject delay or not move “fast” for the victim?  (Outside information: Please note that the media reported that he did not call 911 “fast” or immediately, but called his sister first). “Fast”is a response that it the opposite of what he did. 

w.  Incongruence: the imperative of  “fast” does not fit with the need to pause – was this an artificial edit? Was this a projection of guilt from having not gone “fast” in making an immediate call for help for the victim? 

x.    Focus of the caller to this point is himself; not the victim, which is causing the increase in anxiety (if he is not a stutterer)



D: Okay what...to what address?

a.    The operator gives indication of the awkwardness of the caller’s imperative for “fast” as he has not told the operator what the ambulance is needed for, nor who is the victim in need. He has told 911 what he, himself, needs. If urgency exists, why not help facilitate the flow of information?  Example: “My mom is bleeding on the floor, help!” or something similar? 






JC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) a 132 Perry Street. It’s BILL CARTER

a.    Pause? (“a”) 
b.    Address appropriately given
c.    It’s Bill Carter” 

Is “It’s Bill Carter” the identity of the caller? 

This introduction of “it’s” is similar to one in which the recipient (911 operator) would know or recognize who “Bill Carter” is. 

*Is the caller, “Bill Carter”known enough that the operator would recognize his name, with subsequent recognition of the location?

*Did the caller think that by naming his father it would help expedite the ambulance to the proper location?


If so, “Bill Carter” as the caller, it would be appropriate. 

We allow the subject’s words, including the order, to guide us. 

We recognize from the context of the transcript, that Bill Carter is not the caller.  


Is “It’s Bill Carter” the identity of the victim? 

Is “It’s Bill Carter” the identity of the perpetrator? 

Is the caller seeking to implicate his father, Bill Carter?

Why the pronoun “it” here? Location expectation known?

What caused the subject to name “Bill Carter” on this call?

What caused the subject to name “Bill Carter” on a call that warranted pause and stutter? 

Whoever “Bill Carter” is, we note the quality of the introduction is “incomplete” – this may be due to the operator recognizing the name. 

d.    In Statement Analysis, we note the order of people named in a statement, whether written or verbal, as indicative of priority.  The order thus far is Self (Caller) and now “Bill Carter.”

He identifies himself first, then “Bill Carter”, yet from whom in the introduction, there is no relationship; yet: 


and  I…I’m his son


A second stutter on the pronoun “I” is noted;

The caller makes his connection with his father; not the victim, as a priority.  The “mom” enters lower on the priority, as if an afterthought. 

Father: 

The order in a 911 call speaks to priority. The first words his brain produced are noted. He has a need. 
Next, he was asked a direct question and he answered it appropriately. Yet, he went “outside the boundary” of the question (address) making this information very important to him. 

Q. What was so important to him that he addressed it in an unrelated question?

Q. What was it that caused him to offer this information before he address the victim’s need?

Q. Is the subject attempting to blame his father? 

A.  We look for this answer in the statement, and if not answered here, than in the investigatory process. 

“I…I’m his son”

The caller identifies himself, not as the victim’s son, nor by his own name, but by the father’s name. 

Expected: the caller would be, as biological child, most associated with the victim. 



 and my mom, 

The victim is his mom; the focus remains upon himself; not the victim, her status, suffering, condition.  “Mom” is not yet a victim; nothing is wrong. “Mom” does not need an ambulance; the caller does. 

Mom is also “ISI” (incomplete social introduction explored)




We now follow what the caller tells us about the victim, in his order, using his language –

She is 

1.    my mom
2.    She is “laying hereon the floor”


my mom’s laying here on the floor, 

This is what we know so far from him. 


1.    my mom
2.    She is “laying hereon the floor”
3.    blood…there’s blood everywhere”

He does not say “my mom is bleeding” nor does he say whose blood it is. 

What is the emergency?
a.    His need
b.    His need for an ambulance 
c.    My mom
d.    Laying here on the floor
e.    Blood, there’s blood everywhere

Note fixation on blood can be associated with experiential knowledge -specifically with the blood, itself. Note the depersonalizing via passivity. 

Priority and priorities: 

He has not gotten to the emergency—the question itself, thus far, has been avoided. 

We expected

“What is your emergency?” to be answered by “my mom is bleeding!” in any form. 


blood…there’s blood everywhere

blood” and then “there’s blood everywhere” is a continuum of time.  

This leads us to ask

“Did the caller witness his mother bleed to death?” 

This presupposes the passage of time, which has been noted in the pace and specific language. 


Compare“here” to the blood“everywhere” leading to the question, Did the subject move the body? 
Was the subject present for the attack that caused the blood to be “everywhere” while “mom” is “here” (close)? 





 and she’s dead 

This is what we know so far from him. 


1.    my mom
2.    She is “laying here on the floor” (location)
3.    blood…there’s blood everywhere” (blood before status)
4.    and she’s dead” is the fourth point of his priority yet he is not finished: 


and I don’t know what happened

Please note that he was not asked this question. This is, in a sense, the "hina clause" of the highest sensitivity. 


In his priority, he needs them to know what he does not know: “I don’t know what happened” is very important to him. 

Watch the pattern of self:

“I need” is repeated and with anxiety – his need. 
She is “my mom” with emphasis upon self, at the point where she is not identified as a victim.

Mom’s body posture is given using psychological and/or physical closeness 

“I don't know what happened”  is unnecessary and preemptive language. It is about him, not about “mom”, nor his father.  

In Statement Analysis, “pre-emptive” indicates the subject anticipates being asked and is stressed by it, so he offers it first, which reduces his own internal stress.  

The call began with linguistic focus of concern about self, and he needed it “fast” (urgency) yet “she’s dead” 

The subject has a need to tell police that he does not know what happened.  This is not expected. 

Expected: 

1.    Express the emergency (“Mom is bleeding”)
2.    Expression relationship and situational denial:  not acceptance of death which takes either time or a sensory “overload” such as the smell of decomposition or physical sight of rigor mortis 

We hold to the expectation that a truthful person can only tell us what they know; what they see. Those who have a need to tell us, without being questioned, what did not happen, what they did not see, hear, experience, or know, are going beyond the boundaries of the interview (call). Since he does know what happened, he takes us back to the word "fast." He'd like us to embrace the narrative or portrayal of an emergency, hence the use of the word “fast”, which directs attention away from himself. Yet, he cannot help but focus upon self; 

“I need”;

 “I’m his son” 

my mom”

This is a divertive technique to portray an emergency. The caller has  has gone beyond familiar and expected denial that a son will exhibit and has shown the conclusion of the matter.  He has processed her death in his mind, allowing him to verbalize the finality.  

This may occur under the following conditions:

1.     Guilty knowledge—the subject knows of the death, including pre meditation, pre planning or actual cause 
2.     Some time has passed to allow the brain to process and accept her death. A delay between seeing her in this state and making this call may have taken place. 
3.     Undeniable Sensory Overload where the subject  experiences something that disallows or nullifies natural human denial. This may include Decomposition, Rigor Mortis, Dismemberment or major injury.  

Natural denial is expected where even blood flow is attempted to be stopped. 


D: Okay how old’s your mother?  

JC: What?

*Did he hear her?

Guilty callers are often caught off guard by questions they were unprepared for – if the caller has taken the time to rehearse or pre think (note pauses above), he may not have anticipated this question. 





D: How oldisyour mother BILL?  

Note the present tense language used by the operator after being told that the victim was dead.  This is an example of natural human denial, even while not being a relative. 


JC: thinkshe’s sixty-seven.  

D: Okay is she inside the house or outside?  

JC: She was…she’s laying hereon the kitchen floor

Self editing where he changes after starting “She was…” which is past tense, and moves to present “she’s laying” and location which is close “here”; which could be psychological, physical (geographical) or both. 

Question: The self editing (censoring) causes us to ask Where was she earlier, before she was “here”?” 

This leads to What happened prior to the time she ended up on laying on the floor? 

Was there an argument?

He stopped himself indicating to us that there is missing information. 

The repetition of “laying” (3x) may suggest that he moved her or caused her to be there. 
Consider this with the unnecessary addition of “I don’t know what happened…” 



D: Okay and this is…



JC: There’s blood all over the floor(UNINTELLIGIBLE) I don’t know what hap…

The repetition speaks to his need to persuade or establish innocence.  This is consistent with “staying to script” –affirmed by the need to consider (pause) earlier. 



D:Okay BILL I’m sending an ambulance to ya. Let me double check the address that’s 132 Perry Street in Pleasantville correct?  

JC:It’s Lacona, Iowa.


D: It’s in Lacona?  

JC: 132 Perry Street, Lacona. 

D: Okay…okay BILL what’s your…  

Please note that the caller does not correct the operator addressing him by his father’s name.  Please consider that the father’s name was the first name he used in this emergency call. 

JC:It looks like you’vebeen laying here(UNINTELLIGIBLE) uh…two hours, heh…what happened…

Is he talking to the victim? 
Even if the victim is still alive, the neutral disposition of the language, in context, should be considered indifferent, cold, calloused.  

Note the time frame:  “two hours” is unexpected. Due to “unintelligible” wording, it is not known what produced it, yet it is consistent with analysis of the “pace” of the statement in which the subject slows it down and accepts her death.  The analysis indicates that a passing of time has taken place for the subject.  


there’s a hole through the floor and  into the refrigerator

Note the careful observations here would have taken timeto make and to process. 

This may also be consistent with some form of movement (see “here”) above by the victim. 

Consider that he had the need to report three times that he did not know what happened while now he is giving a possible insightful description of what happened. 


I don’t know if she was tryingtoI don’t get what happened

It is likely that something took place prior to her “laying here” on the floor that the subject is aware of, and here, telling us what she may have been /:trying” to do is to affirm this point of analysis. 
The third statement that he does not know what happened is noted.  Investigators: if he has not been accused of knowing by the time of this call, this is unnecessary repetitive language that suggests guilty knowledge. 


expected: there's a hole inthe floor; there’s a hole inthe refrigerator. The words "through" and "into" lean to experiential or sensory language—does the subject care more about material items than his mother?

The items have holes in them. 
The mother’s blood did not pour or spill.  It was not “her” blood.  He used the passive, “there’s blood” but not her blood. 

Is the subject materialistic? Jealous of father’s success?  Did mother bring argument? 

Earlier question:  Was the subject using the language of trauma?
Answer:  No. He is giving details of what happened while asserting to not know what happened. 

Note: the subject may be concerned about the forensics of the investigation and may be offering these details (“I don’t know what happened”) in order to be seen as “helpful”, which is consistent with “ingratiation” into the investigation.  

D: You said there’s a hole through the floor and the refrigerator?  

JC:Yes. 

D: Okay.  

JC:And she’s laying(sobbing) in a pool of blood.


 It was…she’s still  (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I don’t get it. I dropped in…  

“It was” is censored and tells us something else happened prior that he is aware of. 
Note the continued (and unnecessary) claims of ignorance. 
Note that he may be referencing time “I dropped in…” or the need to explain why he was at the home. 

We do not know what to make of “two hours” other than to note the passing of time is consistent in the language and in the pace of information.  Time has passed and the time has been significant enough for him to process (accept) her death.  

The emphasis upon “blood” shows a disconnect from his mother (two separate entities) which is  unexpected and a possible indicator of having caused the bloodshed. 

D:Okay, okay, uh…I’m gonna ahead and send the officers and deputies and the ambulance to the house there so we can help you okay?  

JC: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) …okay…  

D:They’re already on the way okay, it’ll be just a…just moment here okay?  

JC: Okay.  

D:All right BILL I’m gonna go ahead and let you go.  

JC: Bye. 

D: Mm bye.  


Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated 

Question: Did police have appropriate reason, based solely upon this call,  to suspect him in the shooting death of his mother?

Answer:  Yes

Question:  Is the subject telling all he knows about what happened to his mother?

Answer:  No 

This is 90% or more of deception: deliberately withheld information rather than outright fabrication of reality. 


The subject is not likely to pass a polygraph if administered with his own wording. 

26 comments:

Bobcat said...

Thank you Peter. Your comments about blood bring to mind Davey Blackburn repeatedly telling about finding Amanda in a "pool of blood".

Mike Dammann said...

Which is a reverse prime example of why police tell you to give as little information as possible to the police. Though the call indicates deception, there also isn't anything to use against him in the court of law. Which is why he is now free.

Kimberly Bow said...

Can you comment on Serenity Dennard missing child if you get time, Peter? Also on the new Netflix McCann piece?

Kimberly Bow said...

The passing the polygraph in the person’s own words is so important.

Anonymous said...

Dateline episode on this case (in six parts):

https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/full-episode-the-farm-1153939011760

Autumn

Anonymous said...

From what I understand Jason was in debt (over USD 500,000.-). Bill and Shirley, his parents, had made a will and Jason would get all the farmland (worth around USD 8,000,000.-) if they died. They had told Jason about this. Shirley had found out that Jason was cheating on his wife. Bill only found out after Shirley was killed. The cheating would certainly have been a reason for Bill - a puritan and strongly opposed to adultery - to disinherit Jason. In the Dateline episode it was speculated that Jason had intended to shoot Bill as well (expecting him to be at home together with Shirley). Maybe by saying "It's BILL CARTER" Jason indeed wanted to pin the murder on Bill. With Shirley dead and Bill in prison, the land would have probably fallen into his lap.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

"I don't know what happened" isn't the same as "I don't get what happened" The former speaks to knowledge, the latter to understanding. He doesn't ask "I don't know why this happened" because he doesn't have to and, if scripted, would sound disingenuous even to him if he said it to the 911 operator. Not understanding what happened means he had an expectation that wasn't met, one that wasn't planned. It's saying essentially "I knew this was going to happen but not this way and I don't 'get' how it didn't go down the way I expected"

Anonymous said...

More possible indications that Jason wanted to frame his father for the murder in the following snippets from an online article of the Des Moins Register (March 14, 2019):

Responding to questions from Branstad on Thursday, Bill Carter said Jason Carter and his wife were upset that crime scene technicians did not collect the gun safe.
Note: Shirley was likely killed with a rifle missing from the gun safe

Jason Carter, the youngest of the children, followed in his parents’ footsteps and started a farming business, renting land from his father. But in late 2014, Jason Carter asked his father why he did not own any of his own acres. That was because Jason Carter enjoyed buying expensive equipment, Bill Carter testified. Bill Carter offered to let his son purchase a section of their property, but it was an area where deer ate the land. Jason Carter declined; Bill Carter said he thought that showed selfishness. Months later, he began to worry his son would struggle to pay off his debts.

Bill Carter told the jury that he wasn't home when his wife was killed but learned of her death when his daughter called. "Dad, Mom is dead," Bill Carter recalled. "Jason found her, and he won't call 911. You've got to call 911."

From another online article (KCCI Des Moines):

State attorneys also highlighted a potential weak point in Jason Carter's relationship with his mother. Farm equipment dealer Brandon Smith, a friend of the Carter family, said he remembered an errant comment from Jason Carter. "I asked why he didn't farm together with his dad, and his response was, 'I can't because my mom is a bitch,'" Smith said.

Anonymous (at 5:09PM), maybe "I don't get what happened" is also a subconscious reference to a/the motive: "I don't get what I want"?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

"I…I’m his son" and "I don't know if she was trying to..." and "I don't get what's happening"

The reason for killing Shirley must have been at the forefront of the killer's mind in the lead up to the murder and in the hours thereafter. Maybe out of an abundance of the mind (not: heart) the mouth spoke, for instance:
- I'm his son, why don't I just get what's going to be mine anyway (instead of having to buy the land); and/or
- I'm his son and I don't know if she was trying to [tell dad about my adultery/make him change the will].

Autumn

Anonymous said...

"I...I'm his son and my mom, my mom is l(a)ying [in the way]"

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

The Rifle and the shell casing were not at the crime scene. If he did shoot his mother then he would have to dispose of them. Where would he hide them? Would he have initially put them in his vehicle prior to the Police arriving? That would be pretty confident behavior. I am sure he would be very worried Police may look in his vehicle or even do search of the immediate land around the house.

The weapon is the only real hard evidence that could connect him to the shooting. He was a farmer and I am guessing he would bury it somewhere on his land. He would not want to put it somewhere where someone may eventually stumble upon it. People are creatures of habit and it is possible he would have put it somewhere he knew well.

If a Police operation was setup where somehow information could be leaked to him that a gun had been found of a similar make then it could trigger him to make his way to where he buried the gun (that's if he did shoot his mother). Something like that plays on a persons mind and he may go to check on it just so he can sleep better if you know what I mean.

Th legality of such an operation is something I don't have clue about but that's what
I would do. A simple signal and response situation, Pavlovs Dogs so to speak.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

To add to my previous comment.

If a rumour was started that the Police were going to do a large scale search of his land and property in the near future it would be the trigger for him to go and move the hidden rifle. The Police would not never have to do the search but instead just watch and see how he reacts. Would be a very cheap and low manpower operation to run.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

The below video is from the Jason carter trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PlnjCMSjHs
Jason Carter Trial Day 6 Part 3 Dep Brian Bigaouette Testifies 03/15/19

If you go to the 28 minutes 32 seconds mark in the video there is a clip of a past police interview shown. Carter is asked about the missing rifle.

Police - And on the 19th did you know that your dad owned a .270?
Carter – Yes
Police - and where did he get it from?
Carter - my brother
Police - that’s a Christmas present we`ve heard, tell us about it?
Carter - I saw, I seen it at Christmas and that’s the one and only time I seen that gun. For the life of me I don’t know why the hell he bought it for him.
Police - did you handle it that day, Christmas?
Carter - No, never touched that rifle.

Even in this short exchange there is some interesting stuff.

"I saw, I seen it at Christmas" (self-censors/corrects himself)

"that’s the one and only time I seen that gun" (Just by saying that’s the only time would have been enough, but Carter adds in the word "one". It is unnecessary in the sentence but it is obvious Carter has a need to convince with his words.

"No, never touched that rifle." (Missing the pronoun "I", which is a big tell and also the use of “never” instead of did not or didn`t.

It is also worth noting that Carter changes his personal dictionary when he first talks of “only time I seen that gun” to “never touched that rifle”. When he uses gun it is in his need to convince denial so his dictionary relates to gun as a murder weapon. He tells us he never touched the rifle which we assume he associates with hunting. The problem there is we cant even believe that because he will not put the pronoun "I" with his statement.

Adrian.

Mike Dammann said...

D: Okay is she inside the house or outside?

JC: She was…she’s laying here on the kitchen floor.

almost revealing a previous location is highly sensitive

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

Jussie Smollett's lawyer has finally offered an explanation for why he told police he thought his Nigerian attackers were white: they could have been wearing make-up.

In an interview on Today, Tina Glandian claimed that Smollett did not recognize the Abel and Ola Osundairo when they attacked him on January 29 and that it still has not been proven that it was them, despite the fact that Smollett identified a photograph of the pair as his attackers before he was ever arrested and even though they had just been on the phone with him.

When he learned it was them once they were in custody, Glandian said, Smollett 'found it hard to believe' because he had told that he could make out one had 'pale or white skin' around his eyes beneath the ski mask he was wearing.

It was not a lie, she insisted, adding that the reason for it could have been that the brothers were in 'disguise'.

'He did tell police that from what he saw, he thought it was white or pale skin, that's what he initially said.

'Obviously, you can disguise that. You can put make-up on,' she said.

She went on to point to a 2016 YouTube video of Abel Osundairo, the brother in question, where he is wearing white make-up to perform a Joker monologue as potential proof of her theory.

'There's a video, it took me all of five minutes when I was looking into the brothers, to of one of the brothers in whiteface doing the Joker monologue,' she said.

Glandian, who works for celebrity favorite Mark Geragos and has assisted him on cases involving Chris Brown and Kesha, said she had her own 'theory' about why the brothers attacked Smollett but would not share it, saying it was 'speculation'.

The brothers told police that Smollett paid them to carry out the attack after being held in custody without charges for 47 hours.

Their interviews took place in a hotel - which police paid for - and were conducted after they had returned from Nigeria on a two-week family trip.

But Smollett's lawyers have a different explanation for why they were in contact on the night of the attack, other than to plot it.

The reason they were on the phone an hour before Smollett was attacked, Glandian said, was because they were planning his personal training schedule and nutrition plan.

She even said that it was Abel who told him to go out for food - a new claim which Smollett left out of his many police and media statements.

Even with all her possible explanations in mind, she questioned if it even was the pair who attacked Smollett in the first place.

'When you say it's undisputed, we've actually, there's been more info leaked than we have actually received from the prosecution in this case which is a little absurd.

'When you say we know, we believe that but a lot of the information that the CPD has put out there has turned out not to be evidence so we do have to question it,' she said.

tania cadogan said...

cont.

Smollett's other lawyer confirmed in court on Tuesday that it was the men who jumped him, and the actor himself identified them unknowingly last month during na appearance on Good Morning America by saying it was 'absolutely' the men who attacked him when shown a surveillance image of them.

He did not know at the time that police had the brothers in custody and they were confessing to the hoax plot.

On Thursday, Glandian made even more previously unheard claims including that it was Abel, one of the brothers, who told Smollett to go out at 2am and get food.

Smollett claimed on television and in police records that he went to Subway for a tuna salad because he was hungry and there was no food at home.

But Glandian said on Thursday he had been told by Abel to eat 'four eggs', as part of his nutrition plan, and had none in the house.

'He had to eat four eggs so he said I don't think I have any. I'll have to run out and get some,' she said.

In his Good Morning America interview, Smollett said he'd first tried to go to Walgreens but proceeded on to Subway when it was closed.

Glandian also denied prosecutors' claims that Smollett got off scot-free in exchange for community service and forfeiting a $10,000 bond and said he chose to do both because that's the kind of person he is.

'He had to do nothing. There were no obligations, no conditions. These are the things that he chose to do because this is his character,' she said.

On Tuesday, the Cook County State's Attorney's office said in a statement that the charges 'would not have been dropped' had he not complied with the terms of their agreement.

'The charges were dropped in return for Mr. Smollet's agreement to do community service and forfeit his $10,000 bond to the City of Chicago.

'Without the completion of these terms, the charges would not have been dropped,' their statement said.

Now, the entire office is facing a Department of Justice probe into why the case was handled the way it was.

President Trump decried it as an 'embarrassment to the nation' and the Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, amounted it to a 'whitewash of justice' that proved Smollett was treated gently by the system because he is a celebrity and a prominent figure in the city.

Despite insisting in multiple interviews on Tuesday that 'thousands' of other cases were handled in exactly the same way, Kim Foxx was scrambling to find examples at the same time to back up her case.

In an internal email to staff that was leaked, she asked ASA's to come up with other cases which showed how they used their 'discretion as prosecutors'.

She recused herself from the investigation in February after exchanging text messages with a member of Smollett's family but never appointed a special prosecutor, a move which police unions and lawyers' associations have called into question.

tania cadogan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Adrian that would be 100% legal provided you articulated probable cause for a warrant of you need to be on his private property to surveil him. If not, you don't need any legal authorization to do this type of ruse at all. Just good ol' creative cop work!

tania cadogan said...

cont.

But on Thursday, Glandian denied that her client got special treatment and said there were no backroom discussions with Foxx or anyone else after he was charged.

'Nothing improper was done.

'I can't speak to what other people did, not to my knowledge, not at our direction that had nothing to do with why prosecutors dismissed the case,' she said.

She added that even though Smollett was telling the truth and had been genuinely attacked, the incident was not 'that brutal' and he would not be pushing for the brothers' to face charges.

'The attack pales in comparison to the attack on him by the mayor, the city and the press.

'What he's been through has really been much harsher than the attack. At this point, he has been victimized a lot more than what happened that night,' she said.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6860095/Jussie-Smolletts-lawyer-says-thought-brothers-white-wearing-make-up.html

A real shit storm has kicked off because he has effectively gotten away with several felonies.

He appears to have bought his way out of prosecution and a criminal record.
I will bet that others will now use him as an excuse as to why they shouldn't be prosecuted.

Elsewhere An lllinois state representative is proposing a bill to cut Empire's 30 percent tax credit if it keeps Jussie Smollett on its payroll.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6861981/Illinois-state-rep-proposes-bill-CUT-Empires-tax-credit-keeps-Jussie-Smollett.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6860957/Chicago-mayor-tells-Trump-sit-one-amid-Jussie-Smollett-fallout.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6861115/Charles-Barkley-says-everybody-lost-Jussie-Smollett-case.html

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

O/T

Thinking about the Statement Analysis principle that a change in language signals a change in reality/perceived reality, I'm wondering about this...

Background: A relative of mine recently died and the family is suspicious about the death because of a family member's writings leading up to the death, statements made both before and after the death, and other unexpected behaviors. The family member was the primary caregiver and apparently, deeply resentful although she would not allow anyone else to care for the relative. She verbalized to another family member that she expected the deceased to be completely incapacitated by his illness within 1-2 weeks, necessitating total care...the relative died less than 12 hours after that that comment.
When Sue called one son to inform him that his father died, she said, "I think your father is dead."

The Squad arrived and pronounced the father dead. When the second son arrived, Sue told him, "He's [his father] already gone."

Then Sue called the funeral home and said, "Bob has died..."

In calling the rest of their family, she said, "Good morning. How are you? Bob is dead..."
_______________________________________

Why the change in language ("I think your father's dead"/ "gone"/ "dead)?

The relative had a DNR order, so there would have been no medical intervention. The caregiver previously worked for years in a medical setting and was familiar with death, impending death, and the dying process. When the sons arrived, it was obvious that their father had been deceased for quite some time before the family member had called. There should have been no need to delay calling them. Because their father had a terminal illness and there were no signs of trauma, there was no autopsy. Now, the family is wondering if maybe they need an autopsy.

Hey Jude said...

Fools, could the change be due to how the family member anticipated each son would take the news? Or maybe as the one son was informed before the squad arrived and the death officially pronounced, she did not feel able to say he was dead, thus, “I think”, . After the squad arrived the death would be recorded and official, after which she could plainly state he was gone/has died?

She might have found it a good morning as the relative had passed before he reached a state of complete incapacitation?

It sounds as if she and Bob already knew the undertaker.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Hey Jude- When I heard that the language changed, I thought about what Peter says in instances like this. I was thinking it likely had to do with someone in authority actually pronouncing the father as dead, even though Sue had to know he was dead (given her experience). Several family members witnessed her verbally and emotionally abusing Bob. The family was concerned because Sue also kept telling various family members in the weeks leading up to his death, how ineffective CPR actually is-according to her, "only 6% of people fully recover without needing ongoing medical support/assistance/intervention and they usually only live a few years anyway". Some family members were concerned that she had possibly been telegraphing her intentions. As she controlled his medications, they were worried she may have overdosed him and because he had an escalating terminal illness, there was no autopsy (and she likely knew that there wouldn't be).

Hey Jude said...


Fools, as you say, if there was a DNR, CPR wouldn't have been an option even if he had been found in time. I'd be worried that family relations would be ruined forever if an autopsy was performed, and if it did turn out that the death was due to his terminal illness. There is no diplomatic way of arranging a belated autopsy, and an exhumation would be very distressing to everyone involved.

It could be that he died naturally, and that for whatever reason, several hours passed before that was known to the caregiver.

I think, though I can only speak from my own experience, that if you know someone is dead, you won't feel able to say that to
family members until you have heard the official pronouncement of death and the time it was recorded, regardless of whether it's obvious the death occurred hours earlier. You know it, but it's not proper for you to say it to others, until it has been confirmed.

I think the family would most likely inquire as to the possibility of an autopsy if doubts are persistent and sufficient to warrant it, though peace of mind could come at a heavy cost. They'd have to consider that even if the death were due to an overdose, it could be deemed to have been accidental.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Hey Jude- Those are some very good points. The family members have emphatically stated to me that they have no intention of continuing a relationship with the caregiver (and i believe them). I did think an exhumation and an autopsy would be very traumatic for them though.

Hey Jude said...

Costly, too- and they would probably feel as terrible as relieved if their suspicions were unfounded. Haunted by a possibility if they don’t do anything. Investing in an analysis would be less costly than an exhumation and private autopsy, which would have to be in at least the mid thousands of dollars, or euros or pounds. They do have worrying writings...if they still do, I don’t know if that type of thing is analysable - because how could discretion be assured, and libel suits not become a thing. That’s an interesting one. That’s probably why ‘deception indicated’, and not enough sample can work whilst ‘Granny Slayer’ is not a recognised SA conclusion. I’ll be thinking about that all day now. I hope they all can find some peace of mind - it would be interesting to hear the caregiver’s side of the story. You can almost guarantee it wouldn’t cast the others in a good light, and worse if there was a disputed inheritance involved.
.

Hey Jude said...

Or disagreement over where the deceased should be buried. ^