Thursday, October 10, 2019

911 Call: 5 Year Old Dulce Maria Alavez Missing


Missing 5 year old child 


Operator: 911 what is your emergency?

Caller: I can’t find my daughter.



This is very likely to be reliable (90%) on its form. 


At the time of this call, the mother cannot find her.  We wait for her to ask for help and to facilitate the flow of information to find her. 

Operator: When was the last time you seen her?

Caller: We were, we were with her at the park and people say that somebody, probably somebody took her.


This is a very strong indicator of parental neglect. She offers that "somebody" (gender neutral) took her, qualified with "probably."  Here we may expect the mother to express concern for the victim and demand/plead that she be found in urgent terms. 

1. A mother of a missing child should speak for herself. (maternal instinct)

2. The need for plurality is associated with the need to lessen guilt by dilution (crowd).

3. "people say" is passive----- she distances herself from her own daughter ("with her" and "we") and from the possible action that caused her to be unable to find her daughter.  
Operator: Ok how old is she?

Caller: She’s five years old.

Operator: Ok and what park are you at?

Caller: Here in Bridgeton Park.

Operator: OK where in the Bridgeton Park are you?

Caller: Umm... The one with the basketball court where the high school is.

Operator: Ah OK so you’re at the basketball courts behind the high school?

Caller: Yes.


Mom is compliant with questions and no further.  She is not offering information. 
Operator: Ok, and what was she seen last wearing?

Caller: (pauses) …She was wearing um…, umm, give me a second (speaks to another person in Spanish). I don’t remember what clothes she was wearing, but she was wearing, I just remember her pants, she was wearing like a flower, flowery pants, and some heels, some white heels.


The neglect is affirmed.  The pauses are viewed in context of the urgent need to find a missing 5 year old, one incapable of self protection. 
Operator: Ok ma’am stay on the line I will transfer you over to the police.

Operator: And you said she was five correct?

Caller: Yes.

Police: Hello ma’am, did you she which direction your child went?

Caller: No we were in the car she, she came down with my son. They were running to the park and then me and my sister we came down. So whe, whe, when we got here at the park she wasn’t here. They said, they said that my son was just crying with his ice cream, because somebody spilled his ice cream on the floor and my daughter just ran away.


Mom is very likely willing to blame others --this should be a strategy in the interview. 

Police: OK hold on.


Analysis Conclusion:

The mother is withholding information from police while her daughter is missing. This information is in context to her own status. 

What is being withheld is her own responsibility/connection to the victim. 

The mother does not ask for help for the victim, nor does she express concern over what her daughter is currently experiencing.  

The mother is more concerned with her own status rather than the victim's. Being against maternal instinct, it does not bode well for the victim. 

Substance abuse should be explored. Mother's lack of personal responsibility consistent with self preservation and lack of parental capacity for protection.

To enroll in training, or to host a seminar, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Q: When was the last time you seen her?
A: We were, we were with her at the park and people say that somebody, probably somebody took her.


Points of sensitivity: "We", repetition/hesitation/stuttering.

Q: What was she seen last wearing?
A: (pauses) …She was wearing um…, umm, give me a second (speaks to another person).
I don’t remember what clothes she was wearing, but she was wearing, I just remember her pants, she was wearing like a flower, flowery pants, and some heels, some white heels.


Points of sensitivity: failure to remember followed by what she "just" remembers, broken sentences indicate concealed information, flower/y, heels.

Q: Did you she which direction your child went?
A: No we were in the car she, she came down with my son.
They were running to the park and then me and my sister we came down.
So whe, whe, when we got here at the park she wasn’t here.
They said, they said that my son was just crying with his ice cream, because somebody spilled his ice cream on the floor and my daughter just ran away.


Points of sensitivity: broken sentences, stuttering, temporal lacunae of "and then".


Her daughter was running in white heels?
Did the daughter have a deadly accident (last "seen") in the park?
Did the daughter suffer an injury to her upper body that the mother can't bear to remember (as she can "just" remember what was on her legs and feet)?
Was the daughter taken away covered in flowers and dressed in white heels (for burial)?
Is mom concealing her daughter's disappearance, which may reflect on her as neglectful, to protect her custody of her son?
Is it possible that mom can't find her daughter because she knows her daughter is dead - even if she knows where she may be laid to rest, she is no longer her daughter?

Anonymous said...

Im a novice here but a quote from the mother in the nypost says

“I love my daughter. I would never do nothing bad to her.”

This looks bad to me but they only provide quotes without any questions.

Any thoughts on the quote above ?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous said...
Im a novice here but a quote from the mother in the nypost says

“I love my daughter. I would never do nothing bad to her.”

yes this a bad sign. "I love my daughter." this is an unnecessary (unnecessary to the listener but necessary and important to the speaker) unnecessary language is heightened sensitivity. It also portrays the mothers need to appear "good". Who needs to be seen as "good" ... someone who isn't?

"I would never do nothing bad to her." This is presented in future conditional. "never" is not a reliable denial as it expands time to infinity. The listener should note that future condition is a method many deceptive people use to avoid lying outright. The speaker is hoping that the listener will apply the words to the past, yet the mother does not deny involvement or harming her daughter past tense.

Anonymous said...

The part about her past caught my ear and how her daughter is paying for it now. I feel that is the big clue that is being over looked right now.

frommindtomatter said...

I would never do nothing bad to her.”

I would (future conditional) never (at any time in the future as preceded by “would”) do nothing bad to her.

This can be a reliable statement, but it only speaks to what she would do (future) which does not cover anything which might have happened in the past. Also this only covers herself. If someone else had hurt her daughter or if her daughter had suffered an accident through neglect she would be truthful in her statement. She would have done “nothing bad to her” as someone else would have done the something bad or her daughter would have injured herself in an accident (in the mothers eyes).

Have any witnesses confirmed seeing her at the park that day?

This is my transcription of her opening statement:

“Today marks two weeks since the monsters that took my daughter. On that day my life changed for the worse. I have not been the same ever since, people are saying I had something to do with it.
This and, this and saying bad things about me please stop the rumours, please stop pointing fingers when you don’t know and we don’t know who took her. I want to, I want to thank the law enforcement for searching and investigating, all the media for covering my daughters case since day one. Also everybody that has taken time out of their schedule to go out and look for her, all the prayers for my family and I. We are greatly appreciate it all.
I beg you all please don’t give up on my daughter, let’s keep pushing to find her safe. Please continue to pass along her pictures on social media and passing out flyers. Don’t be afraid or call any tips if you were here in the park that day please, they will check your phone for pictures, and any little bit may help.”

“Today marks two weeks since [the] monsters [that] took my daughter.”

This sentence is incomplete. “the monsters that took my daughter” did what? The inclusion of the word “that” is out of place and unnecessary and makes the sentence stop short. She uses the word “that” four times in her statement and three out of the four are appropriate correct uses. What caused her to insert the extra one which does not work?

Adrian.

Chipmunk said...

She got pregnant with her daughter when she was fourteen. Her mother is raising her kids. I think she didn't know what her daughter was wearing because grandma dresses her. She's currently pregnant with her third at nineteen. I have been following this case since it happened. I know the father of the missing girl lives in Mexico and I believe he was talking about taking custody from what I've read. Something about wanting more time with his daughter. I don't know if she's involved in her daughter's disappearance or not. It's very confusing.

Chipmunk said...

Also she let her missing daughter and her son out of the car at the park and stayed in the car with her eight year old sister scratching lottery tickets. She couldn't see them from the car where she was parked.

~Mary Lennox~ said...

This case is confusing for me. The mother certainly seems guilty of neglect. As well I would say she has a very weak bond with Dulce; she does not relay any fear of what her daughter is experiencing. For the community at large it is preferable if Dulce was not kidnapped by a stranger, for that continues to pose a risk to everyone else.

In the video from the previous post, the mother mentions a few things of interest to me - she indicates that Dulce is an innocent victim paying the price for something, she mentions how quiet the house is now because Dulce was always 'screaming and playing', and she frequently speaks of her in past tense. What are people's thoughts on these? I would love more analysis, as my heart aches for Dulce and I check multiple times a day in the hope that she has been safely found.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Mary,

your heart aches more than the mother's.

In Statement Analysis, we must stick with principle rather than conjecture. Later, we may consider the various reasons...here, for example, mom's lack of concern is noted.

But why?

It is consistent with knowing her child is not coming back---is the most general point of consideration: the child is beyond her care.

Yet, if mom was a severe addict and without care (parental capacities), she could show the same way.

I have met moms who have sold their children into prostitution for drugs. Like zombies without any human empathy.

There's more to this story and I don't think it will end well.

Peter

Suzanne said...

Her statement certainly sounds fishy but some of her word choices and sentence structuremay be related to English not being her first language.

John Mc Gowan said...

TWO days after Dulce (note I used her name which was profoundly missing in all her interviews [unless scripted and read out], an the 911 call unless prompted) she spoke of Dulce in the past tense, the quickly corrected herself.

John Mc Gowan said...

There's more to the 911 call

Thanks to Adrian for the transcription

Police: OK hold on.

Police: Alright, you didn’t see anyone else around there that she could have possibly went with?

Caller: No not… not that I know of, cause we just don’t know. There’s just some other people that.., they are here that say that they saw her running. Running through um…,Through some houses in the back. And they, they said that they saw two pers… they saw two men. They saw a black guy and they saw a Mexican man with two kids.

Police: So who’s saying, who’s saying that, who’s saying they saw them?

Caller: There’s people here in the basketball court, that they saw her, they said that they saw her running.

Police: They’re saying that there’s people there at the basketball court, that they saw her running through some houses with two black males.

What colour top did she have on?

Caller: Um... I don’t remember.

Police: Are you at the basketball court?

Caller: Yes I`m right here right now.

Police: And do you have your son with you or is your son…

Caller: No, I have my son with me. They say he was crying when we found him. He was just standing there crying.

Police: he was standing there crying so who… you said that the black males took his ice cream?

Caller: No they threw it on the floor.

Police: So the two males took his ice cream and threw it on the floor, and then they left with your daughter?

Caller: Probably, cause I didn’t saw it. When we came in and look for her we were looking everywhere for her and we couldn’t find her.

Officer arrives on scene.

Mike Dammann said...

"We were, we were with her at the park"

This is in contrast to:

"No we were in the car she, she came down with my son. They were running to the park and then me and my sister we came down. So whe, whe, when we got here at the park she wasn’t here."

lynda said...

Why didn't she correct the cop when he changed her black man, and Mexican man with 2 kids, to two black males?

Anonymous said...

The mother, Noema Alavez Perez, is only 19. How much "mothering instincts" is she supposed to have developed by 19? Add to that she's split-up with the child's father, which would further make her social image life shakier. One may expect her to be more sensitive to people talking down about her on social media.
And how reliable is her English?

frommindtomatter said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=186&v=BK4223fhzY8

19m 09s

Reporter: Before we go would you just again, to anybody that has information or that may be holding your daughter, speak to them directly and tell them how your feeling and what you`d like them to do.

Mother: That [if] they could return my daughter, she`s just an [innocent] girl. She`s just five years old. She doesn’t know nothing, nothing of the world that we know, cause we`re already, we`re adult. She`s just a little girl, she`s [innocent], she`s just living her child life. [She has nothing to do with the problems [we] had in the past] or people we have trouble by her. Why does she have to pay the [consequences?] She`s just a small girl she doesn’t even know nothing…, that’s happening.

The mother mentions her daughter is innocent twice which shows it is something important to her and on her mind. If her daughter is innocent I could ask if there is someone who is guilty.

“She has nothing to do with [the] problems [we] had in the past or people we have trouble by her”.

She references “[the] problems [we] had in the past” which speaks to known “problems” with a known person/people who problems were had with. This would fit with her need to emphasis her daughters’ innocence. She is saying her daughter is not responsible for those problems. Even if she is using “we” instead of “I” to distance herself from taking full responsibility it still is an admission that she has had problems with others in the past. That she would introduce such language speaks to her believing it is someone who she knows or knew in the past who has taken her daughter.

She asks “Why does [she] have to pay the [consequences?]”

Consequences come as a result of actions and we see the mother asks why her daughter must pay the consequences. If her daughter is innocent in relation to “the” problems “we” had in the past then why should she pay the “consequences”.

It points to her having knowledge of who took her daughter.

Adrian

M said...

About Dulce, in Spanish.
https://www.telemundo.com/noticias/2019/09/30/la-familia-de-dulce-maria-alavez-publica-videos-caseros-de-la-menor-para-ayudar

"La dejó marchar sola hacia un área de juegos, con un helado en la mano.

Unos 10 minutos más tarde, según su relato, se encontró a su hijo llorando, con el helado en el suelo, y sin ningún rastro de Dulce María.

“Pensé que nada más estaba jugando a las escondidas, que estaba jugando en el bosque”, explicó. Pero, al no hallarla, media hora después telefoneó a la policía."

---

Here the mom says she thought Dulce was just playing hide and seek in the woods, that she was playing in the woods, but that upon not finding her, after a half hour she called the police.

It would be interesting to know who the "they" were that the mom refers to on the call that supposedly told her what had happened.

Anonymous said...

https://6abc.com/sketch-released-of-possible-witness-in-case-of-dulce-maria-alavez/5620590/

Anonymous said...

Recent Nancy Grace radio show on Dulce

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/268-crime-stories-with-nancy-g-27910486/episode/where-is-dulce-alavez-family-50735956/

The experts point out lots of red flags in this case.
Chikd was reportedly 90 feet away, mother was in her car, scratching lottery tickets with her 8 year old sister.
Did not know what child was wearing.
Did not call police for a long time, she called her brother first.

They say the red van is ruled out-

"no clues to suggest she was abducted"

Nancy mentions that the mom says that the men threw her son's ice cream to the "floor" when it should have been "ground" if they were outside, and Nancy wonders if they were in fact inside.

Saying "floor" shows the mom's first language is Spanish, she is thinking in Spanish, where the ground outside and in may have same name.

Anonymous said...

I know several English-speaking (as a first language) folks who use the word floor for ground, and vice-versa, whether they are outside or inside.

frommindtomatter said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=186&v=BK4223fhzY8

3 mins point in clip.

Reporter: Everyone’s very curious about Dulce`s father, can you tell us what you know as far as what’s been going on the last two weeks since your daughter disappeared as far as him? Has he come to the US, have you spoken to him, what can you tell us about him?

Mother: I haven’t talked to him [since…, that], [um...] but I did, I talked to him, but then we stopped talking.

Two reporters ask questions at the same moment.

Other Reporter: Is that prior to her disappearance?

Reporter: Do you have a good or bad relationship with him?

Mother: [Umm...] [we don’t, we don’t] [usually] talk... [that much].

Reporter: Do you think he`s involved this?

Mother: [Um..]. [I don’t think so], [cause] he`s in Mexico

Reporter: Is he still there?

Mother: Yes

Reporter: he hasn’t come here?

Mother: No, he can’t [cause] he doesn’t have the money… to come.

The mother seems sensitive to being asked questions about the father. Her speed of transmission is slow meaning she is working hard to filter her words. When asked if she thinks if he is involved in this she has to pause to think.

“Um... I don’t think so, cause he`s in Mexico”

She has to think before answering, and then shows weakness by stating “I don’t think so”. She then justifies her weak assertion by saying “cause he`s in Mexico”.

This shows in her own perception of reality she thinks it a possibility the father could have taken her if he wasn’t in Mexico. We expect her to give a yes or no to the question.

Mother: “I haven’t talked to him [since…, that], um... but I did, I talked to him, but then we stopped talking.”

She self-censors about the last time she talked with him “[since…, that], um”. There has been an incident which has caused them to stop speaking. It could be regarding their daughters’ disappearance, but she shows sensitivity to it by her self-censoring. It could be something which happened earlier which has caused bad blood between them; she has to think “um” before stating she did talk to him but “then we stopped talking”.

I assume the Police will have made sure the father is not connected in any way to this incident.

Adrian.

Autumn said...

Mother: "No not… not that I know of, cause we just don’t know. There’s just some other people that.., they are here that say that they saw her running. Running through um…,Through some houses in the back. And they, they said that they saw two pers… they saw two men. They saw a black guy and they saw a Mexican man with two kids."

"Mexican" -> how would those "other people" know that one of the men was, specifically, from Mexico? I would expect them to say "hispanic" or "latino". DID those "other people" even say "Mexican"? Or was that the mother's interpretation? If so: why? Or were there no "other people"?

Why is one of the men a "guy" ("black guy") and the other a "man" ("Mexican man")?

By adding "and they saw" in the last sentence it is as if she links the two kids only to the Mexican man (these words separate the "black guy" from the Mexican man with two kids).

"cause we just don't know" Why does she add "just" here? Is she comparing it to something else (i.e. she actually knows who took her daughter)? In fact: why does she add this phrase at all? She had already said "No not... not that I know of". That was enough.

Why does she add "just" in the second sentence? Were there more people that saw what happened to her daughter? Did she herself see it? Or is "just" simply a word that she uses often?

John Mc Gowan said...

Update:

Italics and bold by me. The context (was she responding, is she using her own language/ words) i don't know.

I Know She’s Suffering’: Today Marks One Month Since 5-Year-Old Dulce Maria Alavez Disappeared From Bridgeton Park

BRIDGETON, N.J. (CBS) — Today marks one month since 5-year-old Dulce Maria Alavez went missing from Bridgeton City Park. Her mom is pleading for whoever took her little girl to bring her home.

The girl’s disappearance sent shock waves throughout Cumberland County.

Since Dulce disappeared, there have been very few clues surrounding what happened.

Dulce’s mother, 19-year-old Noema Alavez Perez, says that every day is a challenge to get out of bed, but she does it in hopes her little girl will return home.

To be honest, it’s really hard for our family,” she said.

This sentence alone, be it a response or not, is troubling.

Alavez Perez can hardly believe it’s been a month since she’s seen her daughter. It was Sept. 16 when she took her kids to Bridgeton City Park on a sunny afternoon.

Dulce and her 3-year-old brother raced to a playground while their mother was still in the car. Dulce hasn’t been seen since.

She’s too young to be going through all this,” Alavez Perez said. “And I know she’s suffering that she misses us a lot.”

The day her daughter vanished, Alavez Perez made an emotional call to 911.

“We were here at the park and people said that somebody probably somebody took her,” she said in the 911 call.

Alavez Perez described why she thought that someone took her daughter.

“Because I couldn’t find her, there was no sign of her,” she said. “I went looking for her everywhere, that’s why.”

New Jersey State Police, along with family and friends of Dulce, and even complete strangers searched for the little girl all over the area for days, which turned into weeks.

There was a break in the case Tuesday when police released a composite sketch of a man officials call a witness. Police think he may know what had happened to Dulce before she disappeared. Officers now need help identifying him.

Dulce’s mom does not know who the man is but wants him to come forward.

“If he saw something to please say something, so police can find a clue or where my daughter could be,” Alavez Perez said.

There is now a $52,000 reward for information leading to Dulce’s whereabouts.

Anyone with information about this individual or the case is asked to contact the Bridgeton Police Department at 856-451-0033.

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2019/10/16/i-know-shes-suffering-today-marks-one-month-since-5-year-old-dulce-maria-alavez-disappeared-from-bridgeton-park/

John Mc Gowan said...

And, i'm still yet to hear Dulce's mum, freely, not in a prepared statement or without prompt, use her name, that i'm aware of. It's, she or her. Mum has said "my daughter"+, but unless you was aware of whom her daughter is/was it's redundant.

The lack of maternal connection is alarming. We then have to ask. Given the maternal disassociation, does Mum know any better, has mum, growing up not had love, care, guidance and protection, is mum domestically threatened etc.. Watching VT of Dulce's mum, saddens me, not just for Dulce, but her mum, too.

Anonymous said...

O.T.

Is Matt Lauer telling the truth here (his statement at the bottom):

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/09/media/matt-lauer-allegations-ronan-farrow/index.html

John Mc Gowan said...

OT:

‘He didn’t want to go alone’: Boy found hanging in basement with sister didn’t want to die alone, mother tells 911 [LISTEN]

call sheds a few new details on a horrifying incident that left two Pennsylvania children dead, although officials still have not released the children’s cause/manner of death.

The call revealed a 911 dispatcher informing an officer en route to 2442 Route 143 in Albany Township, that two children were hanging inside the basement of the residence.
“Cardiac arrest, pediatrics,” a female officer said over dispatch.
Lisa R. Snyder apparently called 911 after finding her children, Conner, 8, and Brinley, 4, hanging from a dog leash line. Snyder said her son had threatened suicide in the past and was a victim of bullying, according to the 911 dispatcher.
“She mentioned that the 8-year-old has been bullied and has made threats of doing this, but didn’t want to go alone,” the dispatcher said. “At this time, it should just be the mother and the two children on the scene.”
Snyder made the 911 call on September 23 at around 4:33 p.m. She was home alone with the children when she made the call.
As CrimeOnline previously reported, authorities found the children unconscious inside the residence. Both children were rushed to the Lehigh Valley Hospital-Cedar Crest but were pronounced dead four days later, and only minutes apart.
Investigators confirmed that the children were found hanging from the opposite ends of a plastic-covered dog leash line that someone had wrapped around the basement’s main support beam. Both children had the leash line wrapped around their necks, Reading Eagle reports.

Authorities found two dining room table chairs in the basement. Both chairs were tipped over around three feet away from each other.

https://www.crimeonline.com/2019/10/16/he-didnt-want-to-go-alone-boy-found-hanging-in-basement-with-sister-didnt-want-to-die-alone-mother-tells-911-listen/

John Mc Gowan said...

Mother of children found mysteriously hanging by dog leash in basement had two hidden cellphones, latest search warrant says

Authorities continue to investigate an incident that left two Pennsylvania children dead. A fifth search warrant was issued earlier this month, which uncovered cellphones not previously reported.

As CrimeOnline previously reported, authorities arrived at an Albany Township home, off of 2442 Route 143, on September 23, to find 8-year-old Conner Snyder and 4-year-old Brinley Snyder unconscious inside the residence. Both children were rushed to the Lehigh Valley Hospital-Cedar Crest but were pronounced dead four days later, and only minutes apart.

According to investigators, the children were found hanging from the opposite ends of a plastic-covered dog leash line that someone had wrapped around the basement’s main support beam. Both children had the leash line wrapped around their necks, Reading Eagle reports.

Investigators found two dining room table chairs in the basement. Both chairs were tipped over around three feet away from each other.

The Morning Call reports that the children’s mother, Lisa Snyder, is the one who contacted 911 about the incident, at around 4:30 p.m.

Investigators learned about Snyder’s additional cellphones after an interview with her oldest son, 17-year-old Owen Snyder, according to The Morning Call. Further, authorities noted that the 911 call was not placed from the first cellphone police seized from the mother.

After the fifth search warrant was issued, investigators uncovered that Lisa Snyder did indeed have two additional cellphones that she allegedly didn’t report.

“Normally, people only have one cellphone and now we have three,” Berks County District Attorney John Adams said.

The incident is currently being treated as a “criminal homicide,” according to Adams, who said that doesn’t necessarily mean that the case will end up as a homicide. Authorities are waiting on the Lehigh County coroner’s office to give an official cause/manner of death.

Earlier this month, authorities seized numerous items from the family home, including Conner’s Xbox. The boy’s mother told police that he frequently used the Xbox to play video games and to go online. Authorities also seized two iPads and a laptop.

“The eight-year-old victim is known to play video games and view various internet websites utilizing the X-Box gaming console,” the warrant read.

https://www.crimeonline.com/2019/10/16/mother-of-children-found-mysteriously-hanging-by-dog-leash-in-basement-had-two-hidden-cellphones-latest-search-warrant-says/?fbclid=IwAR0Y2bhZjB4UlIjh7KkkIBmuv1SjN8KaB7tNkdB-EzI-V7QS-ebApzXkFrs

Anonymous said...

The two children found hanging were reportedly under child protective services.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

O/T: Reading over a statement recently from a questionable death, the wife was alleging past marital rape/repeated rapes, using "he" and "I" pronouns separately. The couple was known by family, friends, and neighbors to have a rocky relationship (she frequently threatened to leave throughout the marriage, she threatened to have him cremated as he was dying, etc.). One page later in her statement, she related more recent events in her/their life, using the pronouns "[accused's name] and I", along with several "we" usages.

Reading over Peter's posts on rape and pronoun usage, is there ever a time when a rape victim would verbally "couple" themselves with their rapist? Do the same pronoun "rules" apply in marital rape situations? Or to rape within a marriage context, if the couple are older adults (cultural context-you stay married 'til death do you part, no matter what)? The wife came from a domestic abuse household (her father abused her mother and some of her siblings). Would that affect/alter her pronoun usage in a marital rape situation? If, so in what way?

Nadine Lumley said...

Offside

Yo yo, I solved my first crime case using SA. Whooooooo hooooooo 😮

I was watching Forensic Files Burning Desire when I heard the jailed husband say very clearly:

I did not kill Sandy.

19:35 min part
https://youtu.be/QpvubxywH_M

I believe he's still in jail. He's an Arson Police Officer, or was.

How can we get him sprung out? He has three sons.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-question-of-murder

https://murderpedia.org/male.M/m/maloney-john.htm

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/6pd91g/sandy_maloney_murder_or_accident_unexplained_death

.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Re two children found hanging.

Lisa R. Snyder apparently called 911 after finding her children, Conner, 8, and Brinley, 4, hanging from a dog leash line. Snyder said her son had threatened suicide in the past and was a victim of bullying, according to the 911 dispatcher.
She mentioned that the 8-year-old has been bullied and has made threats of doing this, but didn’t want to go alone,” the dispatcher said. “At this time, it should just be the mother and the two children on the scene.”
Snyder made the 911 call on September 23 at around 4:33 p.m. She was home alone with the children when she made the call.


I would like to hear the full exchange between the Mum and the 911 dispatch to find out what produced this statement. Was she she asked why would he (her son) do something like this or did she offer this information up freely (without prompt) to establish a possible alibi. (Lisa R. Snyder he said her son "had threatened suicide in the past and was a victim of bullying")

More information needed

Anonymous said...

Fools,

Link to statement?

frommindtomatter said...

OT John Maloney

https://youtu.be/QpvubxywH_M

19m 25s

I was [very much] [sort of] shocked by the outcome of my trial, [cause] [I thought] that there was more than enough [reasonable doubt.]

I did not have anything to do with Sandy’s death, I did not kill Sandy. I`m scared of maybe spending the rest of my life in, in Prison for something, [a crime that I was convicted of] [an, and] didn’t do.

Note he wasn’t shocked by the outcome of his trial but “very much [sort of] shocked”. We expect an innocent person to be “shocked” by being convicted of something they haven’t done. He is only “sort of shocked” which tells us he had an idea it would happen.

He based his hopes on there being enough reasonable doubt. Again his statement is weak, “I thought that there was more than enough reasonable doubt”. By him saying “I thought” he allows for others to think differently.

I don’t know how long after his conviction the programme/interview was made but we must consider that he was a police officer and will know what he needs to say to appear reliable in his denial. Whether he made such statements initially after the crime I don’t know.

He tells us he is scared of spending the rest of his life in prison for “a crime that I was convicted of” which is not something I would expect to hear from an innocent person. I would expect “a crime I did not commit”. He adds “an.. and didn’t do” and I note the stutter signifying stress. He doesn’t pronoun “didn’t do”.

It is also worth noting how a person perceives another person in their own mind. I watched an interview (first 48 TV show) where a suspect said outright “I did not kill my girlfriend; I would never kill my girlfriend”. Later his blood mixed with her blood was found on DNA samples taken from a car he should not have been in relevant to her murder. His interview showed deception and sensitivity but he still made the strong denial near the end of it. This intrigued me and later the penny dropped in my mind and I realised how he managed to say those words.

She had been cheating on him and most likely in his mind she was not his girlfriend anymore, but something else. Then I understood what he meant. He would not kill his girlfriend and he would never kill his girlfriend, but if he didn’t class her as his girlfriend in his own perception of reality due to her cheating on him then that enables him to make such a denial.

John Maloney said:

“I did not have anything to do with Sandy’s death, I did not kill Sandy”

Was the Sandy he married the same person in his eyes when she later became dependent on drugs and an alcoholic, or was she someone else?

I don’t know but it’s worth considering.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

Fifteen minutes passed between the 911 call and arrival of emergency services. The children were still hanging when help arrived?

____

If someone says that another “mentioned” something, is that more likely to refer to the volunteering of information, rather than to a response to a question? Sometimes people mention something to pre-empt the other person. It’s interesting the dispatcher chose that word. Did he or she maybe not get a sense of urgency from the mother?

Is the mother possibly alibi building in (mentioning) offering a motive for why her eight year old son might be responsible for his and his sister’s deaths?

Would it be negative linguistic disposition towards her son to describe him as having “made threats” or to have “threatened” to do this? She could have chosen to put it differently - maybe something like “he’d said he would”, or that she was worried he might.

Victim blaming, in putting him forward as the one most likely responsible, even while he’s still hanging?



——

Not releasing him and his sister from the ligatures or calling or running to neighbours for help before emergency services arrived is unexpected?

—-

I think the 911 call, if/when released, will raise the same questions.

Autumn said...

If the children were still hanging 15 minutes after the mother called 911, how can it be that they were not dead (they both survived for several days)? Can anybody survive 15 minutes of hanging? Maybe if it was a clumsy/botched hanging. That might be an indication that it was carried out by a child. However, in that case, what a coincidence that they both survived initially and then both died a few days later. If the mother didn't take the children down and they nevertheless survived 15 minutes of hanging (?), surely she could have saved them if she had released them immediately? Not doing so would equal murder in that case i.m.o. However, the fact that the mother called 911 (and 15 minutes later they were still alive) seems an indication that she didn't want them to die. But in that case: why not release them? That would seem the instinctive thing to do. Could it be a case of Munchhausen by proxy (gone wrong)?

Isn't suggesting that Conner "sadly" may have been "the aggressor" also victim blaming? And "sadly" sounds like "too bad" (had she already accepted it?). He/they "didn't want to go alone" -> somehow sounds like normalizing this incomprehensible, horrible act. As if it was a trip to the grocery store/swimming pool. I'm playing devil's advocate here -> if this is even what the mother said -> hard to form an opinion based on "second hand" statements.

Anonymous said...

https://www.nj.com/cumberland/2019/10/family-of-missing-5-year-old-girl-dulce-alavez-plans-new-search-remains-hopeful-shell-be-found.html

Hey Jude said...

Hanging was something of a science as capital punishment - the weight of the prisoner and the length of the drop were calculated to ensure a swift execution - a weighted sack was sometimes used for a test run. If weight and drop weren’t calculated correctly there might be a lingering death.

Yes, people can survive fifteen minutes and longer of hanging - I know of incidences in which people who were found hanged lingered for days on life support, more half strangled than hanged.

As their organs were donated, it’s most likely the children’s life support was switched off by agreement around the same time, rather than a coincidence.

It’s very curious as to why she did not try to save them, if that really is so.

Yes, plus, if the mother has spoken of her son as “the aggressor” , it could be an attempt to preclude other possibilities, such as an accident, or a game gone wrong, or that someone else did that to them, or caused them to do it.

And if she knew “he didn’t want to go alone” - she’s as much as saying he had discussed death with her to that extent. It is concerning - but did he really say that, and whose idea was it that his sister should “go” with him?

Well, we don’t know if the mother knew it would take fifteen minutes for help to arrive - she may have known it would take a while. Even if she didn’t, it would have seemed like forever within a couple of minutes, so it is strange if she just did nothing but wait while her children hanged. No neighbours to call on, no-one who might live near? The two chairs were still overturned when help arrived. That might suggest she did not attempt to get them down or, if the tie could not be undone, to even take the weight of one of them. There could have been other chairs, though - she might have tried. Or maybe she is disabled, and couldn’t.

There’s not much information - I’m not too convinced that eight year olds have much awareness about suicide, much less the capability to plan and execute such an elaborate double death. Maybe it will turn out to be the most bizarre and dreadful accident, though it all seems more than a little suspicious thus far - no less for the missing dog.

Autumn said...

That makes sense: a "successful" hanging depends on the weight of the prisoner and length of the drop. What a horrible ordeal. Not realizing this I thought their initially survival automatically meant that their feet could touch the ground but that they were (for example) passed out and still hanging in a more or less sitting position. In that case, it seemed coincidental that both didn't make it. I thought in that case the taller child (Conner) could have survived (depending on length of rope/line of course).

I'm very skeptical about this story. I think even an adult would have had difficulty carrying it out. I googled a bit about suicide by children, though, and to my surprise found that suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death in young people between the ages of 10 and 24. But 8 seems very young. And the little girl just went willingly along with this plan? In the 911 call the operator says that according to the mother "they" didn't want to go alone. Did the girl have a death wish as well? Unbelievable. We need the 911 call of the mother.

The mother doesn't seem disabled and there are houses on either side (but maybe nobody was home?). See this video from around 00:25 - 00:31 and around 01:28 :

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10167510/boy-hanged-sister-basement-bullied/

Autumn said...

^^ "initially survival" = "initial survival"

Maddie said...

I had a LOT of mothering instinct near that age and none of my kids ever went missing. I dressed them daily. I supervised them. Being young doesn’t excuse poor parenting.