Tuesday, December 29, 2020

Analysis of Adoptive Parents of Missing Toddlers




Transcription by John


AM: adoptive mom

AD: adoptive dad 


Journalist:  Ok guys, whenever you're ready.


this is now the opening statement of the interview.  2 toddlers are missing. 


What is the mother's priority? 

AM: Erm, we just want to thank everybody in the community for all the support we've seen, we've felt so helpless and seeing everybody out here really looking and helping out really means alot.


1. thanks to the community. Context: The case is unresolved; the boys are still missing.  


2. She expresses their emotion: feeling "helpless" and what it means to them to receive "everybody out here really looking and helping out..." 


She does not express, at this time, concern for what the toddlers are currently experiencing. This is expected from a biological mother or a nurturing caretaker. 


Its absence is noted that is consistent with Neglect. 


Neglect its the easiest form of child abuse as it takes little or no effort.  It can become habitual and young children learn to adapt to it. They may be able to get their own food, including some that will heat or even cook for themselves. This age inappropriate and risky action  is often praised by neglectful parents. 

Interviewer: So, tell us what happened the night the kids went missing?


Great question 

AD: Ok -- AM: oh my God


Here, the use of Deity by the mother is expected as innocent parents may feel  hopeless that they call upon God. 


The dad now speaks: 

AD: It was cold I was going to make a fire, theres a lot of wood in this, this are right here next to our house I opened up that gate I'm throwing wood bringing it inside the house. 


His priority includes an indication of neglect: "opened up the gate" is not necessary.  


He could have said, "I left the gate open and my boys are now missing..." as a priority, but instead:


1. It was cold 

2. "I was going to make a fire" is to tell us his intention; not his action. 

3. Unnecessary details found in his priority--- "there's lots of wood right here next to our house"---  the audience (recipients of the statement) do not care where there is wood located, but the subject does.  


4. He switches to present tense language: "I opened the gate" (past tense, strong commitment), "I'm throwing wood, bringing it inside the house.."


It is interesting to note that "It was cold" is to state the reason he went into his intention to make a fire and the present tense collecting of wood. 


What is he seeking to justify?


Is it leaving the gate open?


Is it something more with location, wood and "throwing"? 


 My wife's inside she was actually wrapping gifts 


"my wife" indicates unity with her. 


She must be a good mom because she was wrapping gifts (this was before Christmas) 


He compare her action of wrapping gifts ("actually") with something else.  What is it?


so we thought it was a good idea that they, are youngest two outside and play with chalk on the back patio. 


The audience would not likely believe he is talking about other children who are not introduced yet. The audience is listening (media) because the two toddlers are missing. The emphasis that they are the "youngest" is noted. 


Why the need to separate, in his language, the two victims from the other unnamed and unreferenced children? 



Do not let them go on the dirt in the backyard keep them close. 


We do not know from whom this imperative came, though in context, it may be that he wishes us to believe it came from his wife.  Would the adoptive father need to be told this admonition? 


Consider that Child Neglect is at play in the language.  Otherwise, there is no need for such an admonition.  


This need to remind one (who?) to "keep them close" is an unnecessary addition to the language.  He does not ascribe the admonition to anyone---we cannot state with certainty that either said it. 



Playing with chalk, came in the house saw them there, went in the house came back out I didn't see them there. 


Neglect indicated.  Should these children end up being kidnapped by a stranger, Neglect is indicated.  


"playing with chalk" removes the boys from the sentence.  Who was playing with chalk?  He does not tell us.  


Location:  


"playing with chalk" would be outside but then he says "came in the house saw them there" which appears out of sequence. 


This has led some analysts to question if something happened to the boys in the house. 


If we assume---


The boys are playing with chalk while he is watching them though gathering wood for a fire because it is cold. 


He went inside and saw the boys there, and then he went outside and did not see the boys there. 


The awkward sense of communication is coming from someone who communicates smoothly in other areas. 


This likely did not come from experiential memory. 




I immediately went back in asked my wife did you see the boys? She said no they should be outside playing with chalk, I said (inaudible) I didn't see em so I came back outside and I started searching my backyard, I searched the whole thing I realized that I left the gate open and I panicked came inside the house searched the house, me and my wife.


He is outside (in order to go back inside) and asked his wife if she saw the boys. 


He then feels it necessary to explain why he came back outside. 


Not seeing them originally outside and not finding them inside, he has no reason to explain why he would go outside again., 


Location is very important to him, even as he may be losing his way in the statement. 


He next said he "searched the whole thing"--- is this a very large lot that would warrant such a statement, as in acres?  If not, the subject is in need of portraying himself as a "good guy", suggesting to the contrary. 


The gate re-enters his language.  


This is a very strong indicator (unnecessary and repetitive) of Child Neglect, regardless of how this comes out. 


We not only have the question of whether he is attempting to build an alibi, (open gate, accidental, open gate, let in a kidnapper, etc) but we also wonder if he, himself, took the boys through this gate.  It is not known at this point. 



Once that.. hadn't pan out I got in the van I looked down the street 


he is in the van at this point of his statement.  "Looked" may be driven, but he did not state it to be so. 




both directions 


He wants his audience to know he was thorough in searching, similar to checking his yard. 


This is also a need to portray himself in the best possible light.  Would anyone expect a father or caretaker of missing toddlers to look in only one direction?


He is very concerned with his appearance. 


Why?


Is it due to past guilty behavior?

Neglect?


Or is it something far more serious? 




it was getting dark getting cold 


for whom? 


How might the dark and cold impact him (he earlier reported it was cold and he had to go to the wooded area for firewood) and now returns to the theme of cold.


Here is where we expect him to tell us how the cold and the darkness may be impacting his sons. It is the natural response of empathy. 




and I got in the van 


He was in the van earlier and now he got in the van



and hit a bunch of corners, 


this may be a common expression or--- he drove erratically and hit side walk corners, or...


it is something that slipped into his language due to an earlier activity. 


It is not known. We do not, however, like to hear the language of physicality in such a setting.



I went down this street  I  turned my light on


Was this the headlights from the van or did he get out and get a flashlight, which would explain the second entrance into the van?



I searched I searched,  called their names talked to a gentleman on the other side over there and he didn't see (inaudible) so then I came home I told my wife you need to call the cops.  I, it's getting dark and I need help (inaudible) so I called the cops the cops came. 


The 911 emergency call would be of value to the analysis 


The need to portray himself in a positive manner continues. 


First thing they did was tell us to stay in the house so that they can get holds of us 


He attributes this to the Police.  We would generally consider the cell phone the way Police can get a hold of him and his wife, but he reports this as the "first thing" they did. 


It is very likely that the responding officers had their doubts about the parents. 



Next, he attributes to the police the body posture and restriction---


and they had us just sitting there and we want to keep searching. But everybody came out in droves and I wanted to thank you guys , that night when we couldn't go outside.


If he is anxious to get outside and search, "sitting" would enter his language as an increase of his tension.  This also goes for the addition of "we couldn't go outside."


Note that this is before and after his "thank you" to the recipients (media, public), though the boys are not yet found. 


We should consider that the subject has a need to ingratiation himself, psychologically, to the audience, while portraying himself in a positive light. 


That they "couldn't" go outside----- was this a request by police or was it given in a more forceful manner? 




AM: The cops told us the best are out here...


AD..The best are out here searching and we appreciate it and nobody ever could tell, could never talk to anybody (Inaudible)


He, again, expresses his appreciation to the searchers, though they have not found his sons. 


Was he then saying that the police told them not to talk to anyone?  

AM: We just want to thank everybody...


for what?  Not finding the boys?


AD: We really thank you guys..


Ingratiation can be appropriate (imagine a car salesman being rude to you before trying to close a deal?  Imagine a journalist taking a hostile stance but then expecting answers?)


The need to ingratiate themselves to the public via media is noted. 


AM: Please if anybody has seen them, please call..let somebody know.


AD: If if, call the cops..call.. telephone (Inaudible) city Police department. Call them and let know what you've seen if you see anything. Our boys, they, they are going to be ...Rambunctious, ok, they are going to be here in this area and I really would like to go in the houses , but it's not because I want to invade peoples privacy, I just want to know if...


To describe the toddlers as "rambunctious" while they went missing in the cold and dark is not a positive linguistic disposition.  This is a signal of guilt where blame is subtly shifted to the victims.


They would not be "rambunctious" but cold, hungry and terrified.  


AM: Make sure. 


AD: Make sure thats it. Because.  

Adoptive Dad nods towards the journalist and says "go ahead i'm sorry, you got any questions."

Journalist: Oh no your good, was just gunna say this is the first time we're hearing from you guys and i can't imagine..what you're going through i can't evn fathom it. ermm..For you guys, for people who are thinking, ahh, that there is some kind of foul play involved ermm you know we just spoke to the biological mother she said she had a conversation with you guys, ermm, and that she thinks theres some kind of foul play involved, she think you guys did something. What your response to that?

AD: That's understandable,


He is accused of foul play and finds it "understandable." 



 I would think the same thing. If we can find our our babies guess what thats enough and that's all I want is to find our babies that's it. 


And I talked to her this morning and I really wanted to tell her that I'm completely sorry because we were entrusted with the children, and it came to us and it became our children, 


"it" is likely the case, which would include a lengthy process from visitation to possible court action.  


we named them and they they are our children, so, we want em back. So please if, get back on your, what you guys are doing, we we should be able to get a hold of somebody but they took all of our tech, 


Is "tech" more than just phones?



they want to, I guess rule us out which would make sense in the investigation. So, that's pretty much it.  

Journalist: Have you guys, erm, you talked to the police all last night?

AM: Yeah

Journalist:  Erm. What, so you guys wilfully gave them you technology


better is: what did you give them? 


AD: Yes. 


Journalist: The car?


AD: Yes.  


Journalist: Did they get, how did they get a search warrant? Did you guys..


AD: I, I don't see why they got one, but they got one, we would've  let them take anything, we would've tell them take everything, we got em come and search with us, we we asked them come do that.


The need to portray himself and his wife as diligent, helpful and cooperative often belies the opposite. 

Journalist: What did they take?

AD: Just tech..and that's it.  Like our phones.  



AM: We need to be out here. Err, again, we were cold, upset, told to stay put, they have more questions.
Literally talk with us the whole time in there.


We now may understand that this was more than just a request, but a directive from police. 

(inaudible)

AD: They had us sitting down, (inaudible) sitting down


This is in response to "they have more questions" 



(Inaudible)

Journalist: What time did you guys notice the kids were missing? And at what time were they reported missing to the Police?

AD: It's about, I believe, I think it was about 4:30..5ish. Thats when everything played out.  

Journalist: And then when did you guys call the Police to report them missing?

AM: Actually we searched a little bit around here, it was dark so we were definitely, where we got worried.

The need to portray the emotions is noted. The need to emphasize ("definitely") the emotions heightens the concern that the couple may be artificially editing into their statements what emotions one would expect to be experienced.  We also did not hear what emotions the toddlers would be presently experiencing. 


Analysis Conclusion:


Child Neglect is indicated in the language.  Wherever neglect is indicated, substance abuse should be explored. 


The adoptive father should be considered a suspect and administered a polygraph.  



The adoptive mother also indicates neglect and should be considered a suspect, though it may be after the fact. She should be administer a polygraph. 


The polygraphs must be employed with their own language; not the language of the examiner.  


The lack of concern for the victims is placed against concern for themselves. 


The father does not rebuke the bio mom's allegation of foul play, but allows it to stand. 


Neglect comes in many forms and can lead to outright physical abuse. 


Neglect becomes a norm and the parent (s) who neglects can become irritated when the child(ren) indicate a need to which the parent does not wish to respond. This can lead to unplanned homicide---one losing one's temper.  


Describing the boys as "rambunctious" in the context of them missing, particularly in the cold and dark, is an example of subtle victim blaming.  


In the inherent neglect associated with drugs, the user/seller risks introducing violence, retaliation and kidnapping for profit, into the lives of the children.  


This short interview raised suspicion upon the adoptive parents, rather than give helpful information into what may have happened to the boys. 




It is unknown if the guilt found in this interview is due solely to neglect, or it is due to their own criminal activity leading to the disappearance of the boys and possible cover up. 






If you wish to study deception detection, or to host a seminar for police, military, or business, see HyattAnalysis.com 


33 comments:

General P. Malaise said...

Playing with chalk, came in the house saw them there, went in the house came back out I didn't see them there.



Neglect indicated. Should these children end up being kidnapped by a stranger, Neglect is indicated.

If the subject believed the children were taken then we would expect him to plead for their safe return. That the subject doesn't, indicates he does not believe them to be taken. The questions he doesn't raise are indications he doesn't need to ask because he knows the answers to the unspoken questions.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Peter

i just listened to it again and there is a slight correction in my transcript.

Re taking the tech.

“How did they get a search warrant?” The father response: “I, I dont see why they got one.?” “But, but they got one but we would not let them take anything”. But then corrects himself. “ we would..told them take anything, we let them in search with us.”

Randie said...

Yes, I agree with everything. Here are points I picked out to add to the analysis:

**They NEVER use the boy's names.

** They say " I'm sorry" twice.

** At the end he says "that's it" so many times I lost count. Using "that's it" is wanting the flow of information stopped.

** He never uses his wife's name.

**"played out" are inappropriate words.

**He told her to call the cops, but then says he called them. Why didn't she?

**Uses the word left. He "left" gate open.

John Mc Gowan said...

I've just found this. My apologies. There is a lot more to this interview.

Picking up from where AM says, "we got worried"

Start @ 7mins

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=390820925484800&t=394

Hey Jude said...

I heard a few things differently, including that the father “had a bunch of cornets” - though “hit a bunch of corners” might make more sense - is there a T sound in there - corner/cornet? Wondered if maybe he had or kept sweets in his van as a means of enticing the rambunctious kids back home. Or if the kids got in the van, or were put in the van, with sweets, to keep them quiet. Had they gone missing before? Why do we need to know they are rambunctious - unruly? Corners or cornets - why does he find the need to include that? It seems unnecessary information, though necessary to him.

His starting place is that it was cold - that’s his priority. Later he says it was getting cold rather than it was cold, as he’d already said.

One thing which stood out was how neither parent took the opportunity to make a reliable denial in relation to the biological mother’s suspicion of foul play. Even if they did find it understandable that she might suspect them, would they not make a denial first, then go on to say her suspicion was understandable? “Guess what? That’s no.” is not a reliable denial - (maybe is passive aggressive?)

Given they were free to say what they wanted in opening - notable would be they give no introduction of the missing children, no photo, names, ages, appearance, no concern expressed about their well being, or fretting over what could have happened. Rambling story telling about fetching firewood while mother wrapped presents and babies chalked on the patio in the cold, near dark, before vanishing.

Chalking on the patio - in the cold, almost dark? Not an activity likely to engage them for long in those conditions. Are children generally encouraged to chalk on patios? - no-one knows the specific of the family’s rules, so the general is irrelevant.

The “argh” or “urgh” sound the father makes after saying they are going to be rambunctious - is he pained by memory? It’s concerning that he should name call missing toddlers at all rather than cry out for them. Is he worried the search parties won’t even be able to approach his toddlers due to their rambunctiousness - why the odd warning? It’s an interesting word choice as it avoids directly giving any of the behaviours it could encompass.


Hey Jude said...

That the father uses the terms “panned out” and “played out” invites the question of whether there is acting going on by the parents.

MsCabinFever said...

There was no need to tell us He was “throwing the wood”, or that he “hit a bunch of corners”.
He hit them, with the wood.

Also, when he says he looked both ways... I was thinking about how we tell our children to look both ways when crossing a street.

I won’t be surprised if the boys are found across the street. Is there an empty lot? Abandoned house?

John Mc Gowan said...

DEC 29, 2020
California City boys remain missing, no suspects identified, police chief says | KGET 17
... police on Tuesday said no suspects have been identified and asked the public to come forward with any information regarding the case.

California City Police Chief Jon Walker said “there are things in the works” but he declined to say what they were as he didn’t want to compromise the investigation. He said he does suspect foul play, but didn’t comment on whether he believed the boys were alive.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=677866299765472

Ladybug37 said...

I don’t understand the “sweets”. I’ll go back and listen again but right on with everything else.

Colin said...

The subjects understanding that “you guys did something” and that he would think the same thing coupled with the “if we find our babies” is extremely concerning.
Does he not want them to be found? This for me is pushing the boundaries of neglect.

John Mc Gowan said...

Since they moved there 3 months ago no one (neighbours, locals etc..) has ever seen the kids. It begs the question, were they ever there to start with?

Bayan Wang 23ABC
Authorities execute search warrant at adoptive parents home of missing Cal City boys
MISSING BOYS UPDATE: With guns drawn, authorities execute a search warrant at the home of the missing California City boys Tuesday, where their adoptive parents reported them missing on Dec 21. According to California City Police Chief Jon Walker, the parents other four children are being held in protective custody. Authorities have knocked on nearly

Vt

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=264211211741546

Anonymous said...

Full interview here; there's much more to it:

https://m.facebook.com/bayanwang23abc/videos/390820925484800/?refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&_rdr

Ther ability to appear unaffected no matter what is thrown at them is astounding.

frommindtomatter said...

I have just had a listen to some of the interview. From my ear the transcript is missing a few words. I have just transcribed the short section below.

“We do not let them go on the dirt in the back yard, we keep them close. They was playing with chalk, and… I came in the house. I saw them there, when I went in the house. I came back out… I didn’t see them now. I, immediately went back in, asked my wife did you see the boys, she said no they should be outside playing with chalk. I said well, I didn’t see em, so I came back outside and I started searching my backyard. I searched the whole thing. I realised that I`d left the gate open, and I panicked. Came inside the house, searched the house, me and my wife.”

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

"I realised that I`d left the gate open" so I .... ran into the house and searched it!?

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
"I realised that I`d left the gate open" so I .... ran into the house and searched it!?


Indeed, very strange language. story telling / fabrication.

Hey Jude said...

In several places the father takes the mother’s lead - it does sound rehearsed, and as if she is prompting him in what to say and how to respond.


Ladybug - to clarify, there’s nothing about sweets in any of the transcripts. It was a thought which arose from my hearing “cornets’ rather than “corners” - I thought maybe he was referring to those little cardboard cartons/cornets for confectionary - at least would seem more likely than his having a bunch of brass cornets in his van, or finding need to mention them, if he did. I can’t think of any other type of cornet of which he might have a bunch in his van. Also, glad it’s not only me who heard differently, as HappyUK also questions the words “hit a bunch of corners”, in his/her transcript, which is on the previous post.

—-
It is strangely lacking how he wants the children back because they are theirs. Maybe he found a need to articulate that because they are adopted, and because, as it turned out in the longer video, the biological family is assembling nearby, but why not also the need to say because he is frantic for them, loves them? It looks to me as if his statement of process/ownership was maybe made in the vain hope of reducing media interest in the biological family, whose distress were more evident. “We named them” he said- yet they did not trouble to share their new names. A less articulate person might just have said, “back off, fam.” I can’t see for what other reason his speech there might have been.

I think that they say the bio mother’s suspicion of them is understandable is understandable because there have been quite a few cases of missing/murdered children who were fostered or adopted at the time. Moreso as the biological mother did not know the adoptive parents, or anything about them. Plus they still can’t account for two toddlers who they say they put outside in the cold, near dark, , which just is suspicious. What isn’t understandable, if there is no foul play, is why neither parent prefaced their understanding of the bio mother’s suspicion with a denial. It’s SO missing from the expected place, that it makes them too understanding, given the heavy accusation.


Later, it turned out the other children were away at their grandparents while the presents were supposedly being wrapped. So why did he bother to specify that it was the youngest two they decided to put outside? If they were the only children there, would he not be more likely to have not specified which children - just said “the boys/kids”? Did he want to create the impression that all the children were at the home when the two youngest went missing? Was he thinking to a different earlier day, when they all were there, and the boys went missing? Is it maybe one of those cases in which something occurred on a earlier date than that reported?

Anonymous said...

Peter, you didn’t analyze the entire interview. There is a point where the adoptive father reiterates his search in the van and his encounter with the gentleman, he begins to say ‘my’ then stops himself and says ‘ little black kids’ that he’s pretending are missing. Then later Jacqueline Wesr tells the camera’s she certain the missing boys ‘are definitely not here’ because they don’t run around these patches or some such nonsense. Also in direct contrition to her husband who had just stated that the two boys were in the area. Such horrible liars and most likely child killers!

Oliver said...

I would love if you did statement analysis of the interviews of the prime suspect in a very high profile murder in Ireland for the past 24 years. In 1996 a French woman Sophie Toscan Du Plantier was murdered outside her holiday home in Ireland. Almost immediately the police suspected an English journalist Ian Bailey who lives near by. The police leaked to the media that they knew he was the killer, however they could never bring a case to court. I have always believed he didn't do it and the incompetent police tried to frame him. Apparently he became a suspect after he said to some people that he killed her, but he says he was just using dark humour, along the lines of "yes I killed her in order to get a story in my job as a journalist".

Anonymous said...

They need to be separated and interrogated. There is NO truth to there story now changed 3x. He speaks in past tense as he knows they boys are gone! I pray for them to be found and justice by charging them!

Asena said...

Could someone check me on this please? It's striking to me, and I'm wondering if I'm reading into the statement what is not there:

"So then I came home" and "everything played out" seem to occur at the same time, not in the statement but during the day in question.

- "then" is a temporal lacuna.
- "everything" is an absolute word, but the search and the investigation are not over yet. Much has yet to happen, so why did everything play out?

Is it not as though "everything" (everything significant to AD) might have happened within the space of time indicated by "then", roughly between 1630–1700 when it was getting dark (sunset in California is 1656 right now)?

There is another element within the language that supports this: "we've felt so helpless" is 'we have', which is past perfect, and an indication that the feeling of helplessness occurred and resolved at some point in the past.

Unknown said...

Parents say no names of children, they are not afraid about where they are now, what they might experience now (cold, no food, no drink) as if they were still alive, no pleading for safe return. Fake story about missing circumstances.

Anonymous said...

AD..The best are out here searching and we appreciate it and nobody ever could tell, could never talk to anybody (Inaudible)

He, again, expresses his appreciation to the searchers, though they have not found his sons.

Was he then saying that the police told them not to talk to anyone?

AM: We just want to thank everybody...

for what? Not finding the boys?


AD: We really thank you guys..

If it is a hoax kidnapping then they would be aware that their accomplices are watching the televised interview, and are their target audience. All of the ‘thank you guys’. They express their appreciation to some ambiguous ‘guys’ many times.

Anonymous said...

‘ nobody ever could tell, could never talk to anybody’ that’s an embedded message to the ‘guys’ who are appreciated for participating in the fake kidnapping.

Anonymous said...

AM: The cops told us the best are out here...
AD..The best are out here searching and we appreciate it and nobody ever could tell, could never talk to anybody (Inaudible)

AND NOBODY EVER COULD TELL, COULD NEVER TALK TO ANYBODY

Anonymous said...

anything. Our boys, they, they are going to be ...Rambunctious, ok, they are going to be here in this area and I really would like to go in the houses , but it's not because I want to invade peoples privacy, I just want to know if...

This sounds like a message to hoax kidnapper accomplices. Explaining that the boys will be loud and warning that the homes may be searched. Probably because the police were telling him what they had planned.

Also when the adoptive mother says she feels helpless, it’s almost a direct quote from the movie Home Alone when the mom character is stuck in Paris after forgetting her little boy.

Anonymous said...


Do not let them go on the dirt in the backyard keep them close.
We do not know from whom this imperative came, I think it came from the adoptive dad. Directed to the ‘guys’ who are fake kidnapping his ‘rambunctious ‘ boys.

DO NOT LET THEM GO ( on the dirt) IN THE BACKYARD KEEP THEM CLOSE.

Seriously, he’s waiting for the reward to be posted.

S said...

Quoting Asena:

"There is another element within the language that supports this: "we've felt so helpless" is 'we have', which is past perfect, and an indication that the feeling of helplessness occurred and resolved at some point in the past."

Actually,

"We have felt" or "we've felt" is present perfect, not past.

"We had felt" would be past perfect.






Habundia said...

Playing with chalk, came in the house saw them there, went in the house came back out I didn't see them there

Also something is missing. Unless 'came in the house, and went in the house are the same act then time is missing (I read the comment of adrian and he seem to refer to is as the same account.

"Came in the house saw them there", "went in the house came back out I didn't see them there'

So where did he went to between him seeing them there (came in the house) and him 'went in the house came back out' one cant go in twice without having left once unless it's about the same account (coming in the house)

Where is 'there' where he saw them, coming in.....yet when he WENT in he didn't see them coming back out.
Came in when he sees them but it becomes went in when he doesn't see them there. How big of a house it is? What about its layout? Could the children have taken another entrance than the father did 'come/went in the house'?

In the end of the video they say how 'a cop was standing guard and thats why they weren't looking', yet there didn't seem to be a cop to prevent them to go searching the area instead of fleeing inside at that time.

Their sentences are weird and dont follow logic.....story telling?!

Anonymous said...

D: It was cold I was going to make a fire, theres a lot of wood in this, this are right here next to our house I opened up that gate I'm throwing wood bringing it inside the house.
His priority includes an indication of neglect: "opened up the gate" is not necessary.

In order to park the van in the garage the gate needs to be opened whenever Trezell comes and goes.

What if the reason no one ever sees the six kids is because they used to open the gate and drive up the driveway that cuts across the backyard. It seems the practical way to load six kids into a van and also to unload them and groceries etc.

Maybe Trezell ran over Orson and Orrin when they were playing with chalk on the paved driveway.

Maybe Trezell and Jacqueline removed all the kids toys from the backyard to prevent another kid being hit or out of wishful thinking, or guilt.

Maybe that’s why the van was parked out in front of the house, also from guilt about what happened in the backyard.

Anonymous said...

Playing with chalk, came in the house saw them there, went in the house ( the garage got in his van and..) came back out ( as in backed out of the garage )I didn't see them there. ( playing with chalk on the driveway)

I immediately went back in asked my wife did you see the boys? ( He is repeating what he actually said)She said no they should be outside playing with chalk, ( he thought that she had seen him run over Orson and Orrin, and those are the words she said) I said (inaudible) I didn't see em SO ( here Trezell fails to tell the rest of what was said, the part where he tells Jacqueline that he ran over two of their kids) I came back outside ( of course because Orson and Orrin were in the driveway after being run over by Trezell’s van) and I started searching my backyard, I searched the whole thing ( probably for any blood, because for some reason both Trezell and Jacqueline didn’t want to call the police)I realized that I left the gate open and I panicked came inside the house searched the house, me and my wife.

Anonymous said...

I believe Trezell when he said he didn’t see them. That van doesn’t look like it has a camera it assist the driver when backing up. I believe it was an accident but that there were drugs or alcohol in his system.

Rose said...

None of the neighbors have see. The children since they moved in in September. Has ANYONE seen them? Coukd they be at their past residence?

Anonymous said...

Did they move to hide from their crime? We’re they left in a hot car and then their bodies hidden? Because of forensics and a buried child car seat, it seems the most plausible theory. I once thought that they were hit by he van b cause the falling her said he didn’t see them , but it seems that many patents accidentally forget about sleeping baby’s in their car seats and the little ones die in a hot car. Walmart even has a sign on its front door reminding parents to check to see if they’ve accidentally forgotten their little ones asleep in their car seats, right at the entrance of the store. It must happen often.