Monday, October 7, 2019

Mother of Missing 5 Year Old Speaks

Note her priority

Note her positive linguistic disposition towards the police who have not found her child. 

Note her negative linguistic disposition towards those who doubt her. 

Note that she does not express concern for what the victim is experiencing in her open statement --- she must be asked. 

Note the question of what she would do differently. 


frommindtomatter said...

This is from the beginning of her 911 call:

Operator: 911 what is your emergency?

Caller: I can’t find my daughter.

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.

She struggles to commit to her words with her repeated “we were, we were” and shows distance by saying “were [with] her”. If they were all together we expect to hear “we were at the park”, but she cannot say that and adds the word “with” which reveals distance.

She shows more distance saying “people” (unidentified) say that “somebody” (unidentified person/s) “probably” took her. If we believe what she is telling us then we know that she was not witness to her daughters’ disappearance as she is having to relay what “people” are telling her. She tells us people say that “probably somebody took her”, which means the people didn’t see her being taken but are giving their opinion. When confronted by a mother asking if they have seen her child they can say that they saw her “being taken” and give details, or if they had not seen her they could say they hadn’t seen her and might add that “probably somebody took her” as an opinion.

She is withholding who the people are who are giving her information, and if someone had said to her “yes I saw her walk off with a tall white man in that direction” I expect her to relay that to the operator.

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.

This is strange as we expect the mother to know what clothes she dressed her daughter in. We expect she can remember the colours at least. She has to converse with her sister (I believe) in Spanish regarding what she was wearing, but even after that she is not sure. We now know her sister does not know what she was wearing either. More information gives the Police more chance of finding her quickly. The mother fails to give details like hair colour height etc… which I would expect.

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.

She and her sister were in the car and let her son and daughter run to the park. She tells us “then” we came down. We know “then” signifies missing time and we seek to know how long it was before she went to check on her children.

[So] whe, whe, when we got here at the park she wasn’t here.

Why does she put “so” at the beginning of her statement? I expect simply “when we got there” or her to add to her statement with “and when we got there”. She stutters on the words which follow “whe.. whe.. when we got there” which shows sensitivity. It is like she is justifying (“so”) that her daughter wasn’t there. Is it because in her mind she realises that by her leaving her daughter unsupervised for a period of time it has led to her not being there when she has arrived? Or does it signal something more sinister? Is this a matter of a mother failing to ensure her daughters safety or does the mother have knowledge of where her daughter is?


M said...

Mom's priority is herself and her own reputation.

Her life has changed, she says, she never mentions her daughter by name or shows concern for what Dulce María is going through.

In Spanish, she keeps repeating "la verdad", the truth, she says it about 8 times in just the first few minutes of the questioning in Spanish, almost every time she responds.
Could she be trying to convince someeone of her truthfulness?

M said...

She says she would not have done anything differently the day her daughter disappeared.
Since ahe left Dulce alone, and she disappeared, this is an unexpected answer.

(Mom is also 5 months pregnant with her third, I had missed that.)

M said...

Mom has almost the same response in both laguages as to why Dulce was in grandmother's custody,seems rehearsed, she was expecting the question, and says in both that Dulce was in good hands "buenas manos" with her grandmother.

One has to wonder if this was because Dulce was not in good hands with her mom.

Turtlebabble said...

Mum switches between present tense and past tense when talking about her daughter in English. In some parts, as the interview progresses, she uses mainly past tense. She seems to be quite fluent in English, and uses past tense appropriately when speaking of a past event, so it doesn't appear to be a grammatical error on her behalf.

She must know or believe that her daughter is dead. Is this because over two weeks has passed and her hope is fading? Have the police or someone else given her reason to think so? Why does she think this?

Angrew Vidad said...

I once investigated a case in which I had the defendant on video clearly stealing money from the company she worked for. When I got her in the interview room, she was nervous and stammering and reading from a prepared statement, reading it in this same cadence in fact. She did not know, of course, that her act was caught on video. This is clearly not a grieving mother, she knows exactly what has become of her child.

Lilstr said...

The difference between the mom speaking to the public and the maternal grandmother speaking to the public is astounding

Brad said...

Hi analyzers, Could you tell me if this is reliable advice for a guy like me looking to settle down? TIA

Kathead said...

(I probably can figure out why, haven't finished the video because the smiling at the beginning stuck out like a giant red flag)

Anonymous said...

Smiling can be a sign of nervousness or embarrassment. However, this statement by her struck me as indicating that she suspects (or knows) who might be involved:

“Stop making her family suffer so much,” she told

Note that she did not say "stop making MY family..."

Tom said...

Kathead I know what you mean. I looks like duping delight.

Anonymous said...

I only made it to the what would you do differently question. That smile on her face makes me sick inside. I never cry but this hit me hard, I teared up. How can a mother of a missing child read a statement, obviously not written by her, with no inflection. She sounds completely uninterested and emotionless. Like a robot. Sickening.

Maria said...

Interviewer: How often will they reach out I mean, how often are you in touch with the police or the FBI?

The mother: it depends cause they will just come to our house and look for [about to cry] and we’ll be at home [calms herself] and we’ll be at home and they will be talking to us and everything.

Why is she about to cry here? Is she afraid of getting caught? Afraid that the police/FBI will find evidence that points to her?

I would have made more sense if she had started to cry when she was talking about her daughter, how innocent she is and how she is just five years old.

Anonymous said...


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

Maria said...

Off the top of my head, I think he did it.

His silence has been a mistake. Not because he did not do it, but because old stories are being recycled and because a dangerous and defamatory new allegation is being made.

It is not a false allegation, but a dangerous and defamatory allegation.

One might ask, for who is this allegation dangerous and why?

He then states that the allegation is false, not because he did not do it, but because the allegation ignores facts and defies common sense.

That sounds like a weak denial to me.

To be he gives the impression of being a person that does what he wants regardless of other peoples feelings. He says that him having a sexual encounter at work showed terrible judgement, but he does not say that having an affair while he was married showed terrible judgement.

It’s also weird that he shows understanding for at women, he says is falsely accusing him of being a rapist as he writes that he understands how Brooke must have felt when he cut her off out of the blue.

Also, all his focus in this letter is on her: she came to his hotel room, she showed up at this work, she did all these thing and frankly, it just seems like he is trying to portray her as a needy and greedy women that wants revenge because he dumped her.

But not once does he state that he did not do it.

That would be the easiest and most simple thing to write, but instead we get this long letter with excessive detail on how he could not have done it because this and that.

In fact he starts his letter by saying that him staying quiet was "the most important full-time job I have ever had."
To me that is an embedded confession, right there.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

It is sometimes difficult to discern between criminal behavior (rape) and boorish bad behavior.

I think in this case it may be the latter. Yet, to cross the line for someone like this (predator) may not take much,. He was not used to hearing the word "no" from anyone, over anything.

There are too many allegations for a RD, and there are continual contacts with this particular alleged victim to make a conclusion on the denial.