Archivi categoria: 911 calls

Alex Murdaugh’s 911 call

Posted on by

Paul, 22, Maggie, 52, and Alex Murdaugh

On June 7, 2021, around 10 p.m., R. Alexander “Alex” Murdaugh, a high-profile attorney of one of South Carolina’s most influential legal dynasties, called 911 to report that his “wife and son were just shot badly”. On July 2022, Alex Murdaugh, 54, has been charged with the murder of his wife and son, both were shot multiple times.

Alex Murdaugh: (sobbing)

911 operator: (inaudible) 911, where is your emergency?

Note that the operator asks for the location of the emergency.

Alex Murdaugh: (sobbing) This is Alex Murdaugh at 4147 Moselle Road. I need the police and an ambulance immediately. My wife and son were just shot badly.

Note that Murdaugh, before answering the operator, before giving the address of the emergency, introduces himself. This is his priority and is unexpected. His self introduction is expecially unexpected in the light of his own word “immediately”. Why is he losing precious seconds introducing himself? R. Alexander “Alex” Murdaugh comes from a South Caroline prominent family, is he spending his last name to ingratiate himself with the 911 operator? Why?

Note that he didn’t ask for help for his wife and son.

Note “just”, how does he know they “were just shot”? Was he there?

911 operator: Okay, you said “4147 Moselle Road in Islandton”?

Alex Murdaugh: Sir?

911 operator: You said “4147 Moselle Road in Islandton”?

Alex Murdaugh: Yes, sir, 4147 Moselle Road, please, help me, hurry.

Note “sir” and “please”. This is unexpected politeness. Does he need to ingratiate himself with the operator?

Note “help me, hurry”. He is asking for help for himself not for his wife and son nor for himself to help them.

911 operator: Yes, sir, stay on the line with me, okay?

Alex Murdaugh: (sobbing) Hello?

911 operator: I’m still here, sir, stay on the line, I’m still here, okay?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: County of Colleton communication for?

911 operator: Colleton, I have Alex Murdaugh on the line calling from 4147 Moselle Road. He’s advising us that his wife and child was shot. Mr Murdaugh go ahead and talk to Colleton.

Note the 911 operator’s words “He’s advising us that his wife and child was shot”, the operator is right, Murdaugh is advising them, he is not asking for help for his wife and son.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, and, sir, give me the address again.

Alex Murdaugh: Please, 4147 Moselle Road, I’ve been up to it now, it’s bad.

Note that Murdaugh is not even close to the victims. Usually, when people call 911 they stay very close to the victims to give the operator information about their condition and to be able to help following the suggestions the operator may give them, like how to perform CPR.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay… Okay, and are they breathing?

Alex Murdaugh: No, ma’am.

Note “ma’am”, is he trying to ingratiate himself with the operator?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, and you said it’s your wife and your son?

Alex Murdaugh: It’s my wife and my son.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Are they in a vehicle?

Alex Murdaugh: No, ma’am, they’re on the ground out at my kennels (inaudible).

Note his second “ma’am”. Note also “at my kennels” not “at the kennels”.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, did you see anyone? Okay, is he breathing at all?

Alex Murdaugh: No, no, (inaudible).

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Is she? Okay, did you see anything? Do you see anyone in the area?

Alex Murdaugh: No, ma’am. No, ma’am.

Note his third and fourth “ma’am”.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: What colour is your house on the outside? What colour is your house on the outside?

Alex Murdaugh: Uh, it’s white, you can see it from the road.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, is it a house or a mobile home?

Alex Murdaugh: It’s a house.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, and what is your name?

Alex Murdaugh: My name is Alex… Murdaugh.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, did you hear anything or did you come home and find them?

Alex Murdaugh: No, ma’am, I have been gone, I… I just came back (inaudible).

Note his fifth “ma’am”.

Note the stuttering “I” of anxiety.

Remember his first words: “My wife and son were just shot badly”, how does he know they were “just” shot if he just came back and didn’t hear anything?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: And was anyone else supposed to be at your house?

Alex Murdaugh: No, ma’am…. please, hurry.

Note his sixth “ma’am” and note also “please, hurry”.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: We’re getting somebody out there to you.

Alex Murdaugh: (sobbing)

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, what is her name?

Alex Murdaugh: … Mag… Maggie and Paul.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Maggie is her name?

Alex Murdaugh: (clearing his trhoat) Yes, ma’am.

Note his seventh “ma’am”.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay.

Alex Murdaugh: And please, hurry up.

Note “please”, does he has the need to ingratiate himself with the operator?

Note that he hasn’t yet asked for help for his wife and son but he used words as “immediately”, “hurry”, “hurry up”, does he has the need to align himself with the “good guys”?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: We’re getting somebody out there to you me asking you these questions don’t slow them down, okay? And are you sure they are not breathing? Is he moving at all, your son? I know you said that she was shot but what about your son?

Alex Murdaugh: (coughing) Nobody, there are not, neither one of them is moving.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: What’s your phone number? And does anything look out of place?

Alex Murdaugh: … Ma’am, (inaudible) not… not particularly, really, no, ma’am.

Note his eight and ninth “ma’am”.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay… Okay.

Alex Murdaugh: I’m going back down there…

Alex Murdaugh: Are they close, ma’am?

Note his tenth “ma’am”.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Yeah, they’re. They’ve been around with you ever since you’ve got on the phone with me, I have multiple people coming out there to you.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, can you do me a favor Mr Murdaugh and turn on the flashers on your car so that they can see where the kennels are?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Do you have your flashes on for me? Mr Murdaugh?

Alex Murdaugh: Yeah.

Please note “Yeah” not “Yes.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay. I don’t want you to touch them at all, okay? I don’t… I don’t know if you’ve already touched them but I… I don’t want you to touch them just in case they can get any kind of evidence, okay?

Alex Murdaugh: I… I… I already touched them trying to get… uhm to see if they were breathing.

The question is sensitive. Note the stuttering “I” of anxiety, the self censoring and the pause to think. What was he “trying to get”?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, well, I… I just don’t want you to move anything just in case they can get any kind of evidence, okay?

Alex Murdaugh: : (inaudible)

Alex Murdaugh: : (sobbing)

Alex Murdaugh: Ma’am, I wanna call, I need to call some of my family (inaudible).

Note his eleventh “ma’am”.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, well, you would do a favour for me when you see the officer or the medic because there are all coming to you.

Alex Murdaugh: Absolutely.

Note “Absolutely” not “Yes”. Is he trying to ingratiate himself with the operator?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, but we have them coming, turn on the flash on on your vehicle so they can see you, okay?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: You got the flashers on for me?

Alex Murdaugh: I do.

Note “I do” not “I did”. This is unexpected as few exchanges before to the following question of  the Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser “Do you have your flashes on for me? Mr Murdaugh?”, he answered “Yeah”. Was he falsifying?

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, all right, listen, whenever you see them.

Alex Murdaugh: Okay.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: How old is your son?

Alex Murdaugh: Twentytwo.

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: Okay, all right, we’re getting them out there to you, okay?

Alex Murdaugh: (Inaudible)

Colleton County dispatcher Angel Fraser: All right.

ANALYSIS CONCLUSION

Deception Indicated.

Murdaugh never asked for help for his wife and son, he showed a need to ingratiate himself with the operator and to be seen on the side of the “good guys”.

Michael Peterson and Alex Murdaugh: when an adverb is the key word to solve a case

Posted on by

Michael Iver Peterson

Case #1: the murder of Kathleen Hunt Atwater Peterson
911 operator: What’s wrong?
Michael Peterson: My wife had an accident, she is still breathing!
Note “she is still breathing!”. This is something that Peterson said spontaneously. Moreover, note “still”, a key word in this phone call. Why does he feel the need to add “still”? Is he expecting her to stop breathing? Is Michael Peterson falsifying? Is she already dead? Is he trying to postpone the time of her death?

Paul, Maggie and Alex Murdaugh

Case #2: the murder of Maggie e Paul Murdaugh
Alex Murdaugh: (sobbing)
911 operator: (inaudible) where is your emergency?
Alex Murdaugh: (sobbing) This is Alex Murdaugh at 4147 Moselle Road. I need the police and an ambulance immediately. My wife and son were just shot badly.
Note that Murdaugh, before answering the operator, before giving the address of the emergency, introduces himself. This is his priority and is unexpected. His self introduction is expecially unexpected in the light of his own word “immediately”. Why is he losing precious time introducing himself? R. Alexander “Alex” Murdaugh comes from a South Caroline prominent family, is he spending his last name to ingratiate himself with the 911 operator? Why?
Note that he didn’t ask for help for his wife and son or for himself to help them.
Note his first “just”, a key word.
(…)
911 operator: Okay, did you hear anything or did you come home and find them?
Alex Murdaugh: No, ma’am, I have been gone, I… I just came back (inaudible).

Remember his first answer to the 911 operator: “My wife and son were just shot badly”. One wonders how he knows that his wife and son had been wounded by gunshots if he hadn’t heard anything.

Also note his first “just” in his first answer to the 911 operator: “My wife and son were just shot badly”. Only if Alex Murdaugh had shoot them he would have used “just” as he had “been gone”, “just came back” and didn’t hear anything. The first “just” is paired with the second “just” present in “I… I just came back” and coincides with the time of the double murder.

The murder of Katrina Smith: analysis of her husband Todd Smith’s emergency call

Posted on by

Katrina and Todd Smith

In Statement Analysis, we assume that the speaker is “de facto innocent” and that he speaks to be understood. Therefore, we don’t expect to find in the language of a “de facto innocent” characteristic indicators of the statements of those who do not speak the truth. We begin every analysis expecting truth, and it is the unexpected that confronts us with possibly deception. The context is the key to understand if behind one or more sensitivity indicators there is guilty knowledge. Basically we analyze the words that we don’t expect to hear or read (The Expected Versus The Unexpected).

Machesney Park, Winnebago County, Illinois.

On October 23, 2012, Todd Smith made the following emergency call:

Dispatcher: Sheriff communications, can I help you?

Expected: I’m not able to reach my wife Katrina on the phone.

Todd Smith: My wife is house … sitting for some … somebody who is out of town and … I haven’t be able to reach her on the phone.

Note that Todd Smith’s priority is to tell the dispatcher that his wife is house sitting. He is pre empting a possible question by the dispatcher. Is this “Alibi building”?

In Statement Analysis, the Social Introduction, in context, can give insight into the quality of a relationship. A Complete Social Introduction is a sign of a good relatioship. “My wife” is an Incomplete Social Introduction, it has only two of the three components we look for: the possessive pronoun “my”, the title “wife”, not the name “Katrina”. Usually, an Incomplete Social Introduction is a signal of a poor relationship. We assume that during an emergency call the reason for an Incomplete Social Introduction could be the urgency but we still note it to see if it matches with other sensitivity indicators.

The pauses here “My wife is house … sitting” and here “and … I” and the stuttering “some … somebody” are noted as sensitive.

Please also note that the word “somebody” is distancing language. Why is he unwilling to say “a friend”?

Note that he says “I haven’t been able to reach her on the phone” (in the past) not “I’m not able to reach her on the phone” (in the present). One should wonder if, instead, he did reach her physically.

Dispatcher: You haven’t been able to reach your wife?

Note that the dispatcher had to ask Todd Smith who he wasn’t able to reach, that’s because he didn’t say “I’m not able to reach my wife Katrina” as expected.

Todd Smith: Right.

Dispatcher: What’s your wife name?

Note that the dispatcher had to ask him his wife’s name.

Todd Smith: Katrina.

ANALYSIS CONCLUSION

Deception Indicated

Katrina’s body was found in the Rock River near Byron (Illinois) on November 9, 2012. On November 24, 2012, Todd was charged with first degree murder, aggravated battery, aggravated domestic battery, and concealment of a homicidal death.

On April 4, 2017 Todd Smith was sentenced to 59 year years in prison. According with the investigation, after Todd battered Katrina to death with a baseball bat, he sent her a message: “Sweet dreams, I love you.”

According to Court records, in 1985, when he was 17 years old, Todd Smith was sentenced to 30 months probation after being convicted of arson after setting his family’s Machesney Park home on fire. His parents and brother, who were inside, narrowly escaped. The home was destroyed. Smith — whose name at the time was Todd C. Raprager — told police he did it because he was having problems with his parents. In 1992, he legally changed his given name of Todd C. Raprager to Todd Smith.

During his allocution statement in court, Todd Smith said: “I’m sorry for failing in my role as husband and protector. In closing, although I am not guilty of the acts the state portrayed, I harbor no ill will towards anyone”

“I’m sorry” is an indicator of a form of regret that usually enters the language of the guilty. 

“I’m not guilty of the acts the state portrayed” is not a reliable denial.

Saying “I harbor no ill will towards anyone”, Todd Smith shows a desire to represents himself as a “Good Guy” because he is not.

Todd Smith, not to lie, never issued a reliable denial. He was unable to say these few words “I didn’t kill my wife Katrina. I’m telling the truth”, therefore, we are not allowed to say so for him.

The murder of Jon Garner: analysis of Sandra Garner’s 911 call

Posted on by

Maypearl, Ellis County, Texas. On January 2, 2018, Sandra Garner called 911 after her husband Jon, 42, was mortally wounded. The couple had just celebrated their wedding anniversary.

Sandra Louise and  Jon Garner

DISPATCHER: 911, what is your emergency?

We hold to the expectation that Sandra Garner will ask for help for her husband.

SANDRA GARNER: I need somebody to come … I need … the police. I need an ambulance. My husband’s been shot.

Guilty callers often ask for help for themselves not for the victim. Note that Sandra does not ask for help for her husband. Note instead her priority: “somebody”, “the police” and “an ambulance” for herself.

Note that “My husband’s been shot” is passive language. Passivity shows distance and is often used to conceal identity or responsibility.

In Statement Analysis, the Social Introduction, in context, can give insight into the quality of a relationship. 

A Complete Social Introduction is a sign of a good relatioship. “my husband” is an Incomplete Social Introduction, it has only two of the three components we look for: the possessive pronoun “my”, the title “husband”, not the name “Jon”. Usually, an Incomplete Social Introduction is a signal of a poor relationship. We assume that during an emergency call the reason for an Incomplete Social Introduction could be the urgency. 

DISPATCHER: Okay, what happened there?

SANDRA GARNER: There was a man in here … uh … uh … and he shot him and he told me not to call the police.

Note “There was a man in here”:

  1. it sounds like the beginning of a fairy tale;
  2. it goes against the economy of words; there is no urgency here;
  3. it helps her slow down the pace. Guilty callers often seek to mitigate their stress by delay.

Note the pause “… uh … uh …”. She has the need to pause and think of her answer. It shoes that the question is sensitive to her. 

The first “and” is an unnecessary word, it represents a bridge between two periods of time. Is she withholding information?

DISPATCHER: And do you know where the male subject went?

SANDRA GARNER: No. I was in the bathroom and … he told me to sit down and count to a hundred and … not to call the police until I got to a hundred. He said that if I call y’all before I reached a hundred, he’d come back and kill me … Please hurry, I think he’s still alive, he’s making noises. Please. What can I do for him?

Note that she doesn’t just answer the question but she pre empt a question adding to her “No” 64 words in order to justify the delay with which she called 911. She doesn’t show urgency, she takes precious time to give the operator unnecessary information.

“Please hurry” and “Please” show a need to ingratiate herself with the operator and to align herself with the good guys. This is the Ingratiation Factor, a form of manipulation. 

Note that she didn’t ask “What can I do for him?“ as a priority in her first answer but only at the end of her narrative.

It’s unexpected that in her narrative she never used her husband name and the pronoun “we” that shows unity and cooperation.

DISPATCHER: You want to try to do CPR?

SANDRA GARNER: Yes, yes.

Note that “Yes” is repeated. Does she has a need to ingratiate herself with the operator and to convince him that her desire is to help her husband?

DISPATCHER: I need you to lay him flat on his back on the ground and remove any pillows.

SANDRA GARNER: On the ground? You want me to get him off the bed?

DISPATCHER: Yes ma’am, if possible, we need to try to do some compressions

SANDRA GARNER: Okay, okay. He’s on the floor.

Note that “Okay” is repeated. Does she has a need to ingratiate herself with the operator and to convince him that her desire is to help her husband? If so, why?

DISPATCHER: One, two, three, four.

SANDRA GARNER: One, two, three, four … One, two, three, four … should they be here?

DISPATCHER: They’re on their way, ma’am.

ANALYSIS CONCLUSION:

Deception Indicated.

She has guilty knowledge of what happened to her husband Jon.

Investigators found the murder weapon, a rusty gun, under the front seat of Sandra Garner’s car. She was arrested and charged with murder. In 2019, she was found not guilty of murder after a four-week trial.

Martin “Marty” Tankleff killed his adoptive parents

Posted on by

Martin H. “Marty” Tankleff

Belle Terre, Suffolk County, New York. On September 7, 1988, about 6 a.m., 17-year-old Marty Tankleff called 911. When the police arrived at his home, they found his father Seymour, 62, unconscious on the floor of his office and his mother Arlene, 53, dead in her bedroom. Seymour Tankleff died on October 6, 1988 without ever regaining consciousness.

On June 28, 1990, Tankleff was convicted of murdering his parents, Seymour and Arlene Tankleff.

Marty Tankleff at his first trial

On October 23, 1990, Marty Tankleff was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison.

Arlene, Marty and Seymour Tankleff

On December 18, 2007, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in Brooklyn overturned the convictions. Tankleff was released on December 27, 2007. The charges were dismissed on July 22, 2008.

In March 2009, Tankleff filed a federal civil wrongful conviction lawsuit against the State of New York and the Suffolk County police department and several officers, including detective K. James McCready. In January 2014, the State of New York settled for $3.375 million.

On May 25, 2014, Marty Tankleff graduated from the Touro Law Center. On April 2017, he passed the New York State bar exam.

Statement Analysis get to the truth, let’s examine Marty Tankleff’s emergency call and some of his statements.

Here is Marty Tankleff’s 911 call with my notes:

In a case, the emergency call represents the first interview.

911: Police emergency.

This two words allows Marty Tankleff to choose his own words and to begin his response according to his own priority. Order speaks to priority.

Marty Tankleff: This is Marty Tankleff, 33 Seaside Drive in Belle Terre. I need an ambulance. Emergency.

The expectation as an innocent caller is: “My father is bleeding. We are at 33 Seaside Drive in Belle Terre” or anything close to this. Note that, instead, Tankleff identifies himself first, gave his family home’s address and asked for an ambulance for himself. He didn’t tell the operator what the ambulance is needed for nor who is the victim in need. He told 911 that he, himself, needs an ambulance. To asks for help for himself is appropriate if the help is about how to perform CPR or First Aid. In this case, Tankleff, didn’t say “I need help” but “I need an ambulance”, showing us that the context is not CPR or First Aid for the victim. Guilty callers often ask for help for themselves not for the victim, because they are the ones in need of help.

“Emergency” is something unnecessary to say in an emergency call. 

911: All right, hold on and I’ll connect you.

Marty Tankleff: Emergency.

Note that the words “Emergency” is repeated here. Every repetition is double important for an analyst. Does Tankleff has a need to align himself with the good guys? 

911: I’m connecting you with the ambulance.

911: Fire Rescue Centre.

911: 763.

Marty Tankleff: I’m at 33 Seaside Drive in Belle Terre.

See, again, Marty Tankleff speaks about himself. He didn’t yet tell the operator the reason for calling.

Operator: Wo… wo… wo… I can’t hear you, what is it?

Marty Tankleff: 33 Seaside Drive in Belle Terre.

Operator: 33 Seaside?

Marty Tankleff: 33 Seaside Drive in Belle Terre. It’s off Crooked Oak Road, Belle Terre. Please, my father…

Note that Tankleff introduces his father but is interrupted by the operator.

Note the word “please”. We always note the use of politeness in an emergency call, “please” could uncover a need to ingratiate himself with the operator and to align himself with the good guys.

Operator: Wo… wo… wo… hold on, I can’t write that fast.

Marty Tankleff: Thirty…

Operator: What corner street?

Marty Tankleff: Three. It’s off Crooked Oak Road.

Operator: Crooked Oak?

Marty Tankleff: Yes, yes, hurry up.

Note that Tankleff didn’t yet tell the operator the reason for calling. Note “hurry up”, it could also uncover a need to align himself with the good guys.

Operator: No, no, no, answer my question.

Marty Tankleff: What? 

Operator: What’s your name?

Marty Tankleff: Marty Tankleff. I’m his son. He’s gushing blood from the back of his neck, he’s got a cut.

Note “I’m his son. He’s gushing blood from the back of his neck, he’s got a cut” not “my father is gushing blood from the back of his neck” as expected. People speak in economy of words. Why does he need to introduce himself as “his son”? 

Note that ”he’s got a cut” is passive. Passivity could either be appropriate or inappropriate. It is often used to conceal identity or responsibility.

911: What happened to him?

Marty Tankleff: I don’t know, I just woke up and he is in the office, he’s gushing blood, please.

“I just woke up” is unnecessary to say and sounds alibi building. 

Note the word “please”. We always note the use of politeness in an emergency call because it could uncover the need of a guilty caller to ingratiate himself with the operator and to align himself with the good guys.

Operator: All right, listen to me, is this a private house?

Marty Tankleff: Yes, it is.

“It is” are unnecessary words.

Operator: Alright, now listen.

Marty Tankleff: It’s a red driveway.

Operator: Listen to me. I’m sending you an ambulance. I want you to take a clean towel.

Note that the operator “wants” him to take a clean towel while Marty Tankleff never asked the operator on how to perform First Aid to his father.

Marty Tankleff: Yes.

Operator: Wrap wherever he’s gushing blood from.

Marty Tankleff: Okay.

Operator: Hold pressure on it.

Marty Tankleff: Okay.

Operator: Lay him down if possible.

Marty Tankleff: Okay.

Operator: Get his feet elevated and we’ll have someone down there for you.

Marty Tankleff: Okay.

ANALYSIS CONCLUSION

Deception Indicated

Analysis of some excerpts from some interviews Marty Tankleff released in the years:

What we look for in the following statements is for Marty Tankleff to issue a reliable denial.

A reliable denial is found in the free editing process, not in the parroted language and has 3 components:

1. the pronoun “I”

2. past tense verb “did not” or “didn’t”

3. accusation answered

If a denial has more than 3 or less than 3 components, it is no longer reliable.

“I did not kill my parents” followed by “I told the truth” while addressing the denial, it is more than 99% likely to be true. This would be the “wall of truth”. 

The “wall of truth” is an impenetrable psychological barrier that often leads innocent people to few words, as the subject has no need to persuade anyone of anything.

We begin every statement analysis expecting truth, and it is the unexpected that confronts us as possibly deceptive.

A deceptive person will alter his denial to avoid a direct lie.

On October 1988, after he was released on bail before his trial, Tankleff said:

“Someone has taken my parents away from me in a brutal manner and I unjustly have been charged with their murders. I can’t wait to all the truth (inaudible) out. Thank you.”

Note that Tankleff didn’t issue a reliable denial as expected from someone that “didn’t do it” but chose to use 32 words to try to persuade his audience that he didn’t kill his parents. Tankleff is unable or unwilling to say the following few words “I didn’t kill my parents. I told the truth”. 

Note that Tankleff chose to say “Someone has taken my parents away from me” not “Someone killed my parents”. This is minimization. Minimization is a distancing measure, it’s a way to avoid of dealing with negative emotions by reducing the importance and impact of events that give rise to those emotions, it’s a common strategy used by guilty people to deal with feelings of guilt.

An ex Judge, Stuart Namm, interviewed Marty Tankleff for a TV show, “A Question of Guilt”:

Stuart Namm: Could I take you back now, Marty, to September 7, 1988? Could you tell us your best recollection of what time you woke up and what you did when you first woke up that morning?

Marty Tankleff: Uhm… waking up in the morning, uhm… shortly before six, uhm… and I’m…

“Uhm” is a pause to think, an indicator that Tankleff needs to focus on what to say because the question is sensitive to him. Note the locations of the three pauses.

Note that he says: “Uhm… waking up in the morning” not “I woke up in the morning” as expected.

“Uhm… waking up in the morning” does not have a pronoun. A dropped pronoun means no commitment. Pronouns are instinctive for us as we use them from the earliest days of speech.  When someone drops a pronoun, the person is removing himself from the sentence. Tankleff removes himself from his answer because lying is stressful. 

Note “I’m” not “I was” as expected. Remember “Uhm… waking up in the morning” not “I woke up in the morning”. Tankleff speaks at the present tense when asked about a past event. This is unreliable. He speaks at the present tense because he is not fishing in his experiential memory. 

During the same interview, Marty Tankleff said to Judge Stuart Namm: I’m a victim of circumstances, I’m a victim… of the system of this country uhm… of the way people research brutality to solve financial problems, but I’m innocent, you know, and… there is somebody out there or some people who know the truth, you know, for my sake, for my parent sake, for my family sake, it’s all I want, I want the truth to be told.

Note that Tankleff used 67 words to try to persuade his audience that he didn’t kill his parents but was unable to issue a reliable denial. He was unable to say the following few words “I didn’t kill my parents. I told the truth”.

Note “but”. The word “but” disproves what preceded it. Here is a nonsense to say “I’m a victim (…) but I’m innocent”. A red flag for deception.

Note “you know”, a signal that Marty Tankleff is acutely aware of the interviewer’s presence at this point of the interview or that he needs to take time to think about what to say.

Note that Tankleff says “there is somebody out there or some people who know the truth”, not “somebody out there killed my parents” as expected. Tankleff allows for the possibility that the truth is that he killed his parents.

During another interview, Marty Tankleff said: I kept saying, “It wasn’t me”, and they kept saying, “We don’t care. Just tell us what we want to hear. We want to know it’s you”. You get to a point where you start doubting yourself… you just want to escape that environment. I was brought up that cops don’t lie. When the cops turned around and said: “Your father said you did it”, I started to doubt myself because I knew my father would never lie. But I knew in my heart and my soul that I wasn’t responsible for this.

Note that, during his first interview with police, Tankleff was unable to issue a reliable denial, he was unable to say ”I didn’t kill my parents”. “It wasn’t me” is an unreliable denial, that’s why the cops didn’t believe him.

Note that Tankleff says “You get to a point where you start doubting yourself… you just want to escape that environment” not “I got to a point where I started doubting myself… I just wanted to escape that environment” as expected. The use of “you” is distancing language that indicates a form of deception. In other words: he is unable to use the pronoun “I” because he would lie and, to avoid the stress of lying, he distances himself from the reality using “you” instead of “I”. 

“I wasn’t responsible for this” is an unreliable denial, moreover he qualifies his unreliable denial with “I knew” and “in my heart and my soul”. Note also “this”, a word that indicates closeness.

“I knew in my heart and my soul that I wasn’t responsible for this” allows for the possibility that “in his mind (head, intellect)” he knows differently. 

“I knew my father would never lie” are his words.

During another interview released from prison, Marty Tankleff said: 

“I never should be convicted. I never should be charged. The system has incarcerated an innocent man for fifteen years. I loved my parents, I had nothing to do with their murders. It didn’t kill them, they were my best friends, they were… my teachers, my instructors.

Everyday you wake up, you know that you don’t belong there and… every hour of that day is striving to get out of jail. I have a great family support system and I have great upbringing so, you know, I always knew that I had to believe in things and strive for what I believe in. Detectives say the way I look, the way I acted. It could never hurt that. It can never hurt any of my family members. I had absolutely nothing to do with their deaths.”

Tankleff is unable to issue a reliable denial, he is unable to say “I didn’t kill my parents. I told the truth”. Guilty people usually don’t lie but make statements which only sound like a denial, this is the case.

“I never should be convicted” is not a reliable denial.

“I never should be charged” is not a reliable denial.

When he says “The system has incarcerated an innocent man for fifteen years” Tankleff doesn’t speaks for himself. Who is he talking about?

Saying “I loved my parents”, “they were my best friends, they were… my teachers, my instructors” he shows a desire to be seen in a positive light.

“I had nothing to do with their murders” is another unreliable denial. 

“It didn’t kill them” is quite interesting. Look at the pronoun “It” here. This is very manipulative. Marty Tankleff is unable to use the personal pronoun “I”, he is unable to take ownership of what he is saying. He is unable to say “I didn’t kill them” because he would lie.

Let’s analyse the second part of this statement:

Note that he says: “Everyday you wake up, you know that you don’t belong there”, not “Everyday I wake up, I know that I don’t belong here”, as expected. The use of “you” is distancing language that indicates a form of deception. In other words: He is unable to use the pronoun “I” because he would lie and, to avoid the stress of lying, he distances himself from the reality using “you” instead of “I”. 

Note again the use of “It” instead of “I” in the following sentence: “It could never hurt that. It can never hurt any of my family members”. In any case, “I could never hurt that. I can never hurt any of my family members” are not reliable denial either. 

The word “Never” is often used by liars to avoid a specific time frame.

Note “hurt” instead of “kill”, this is an attempt to minimize to reduce the stress.

“I had absolutely nothing to do with their deaths” is another unreliable denial.

Marty Tankleff: I don’t think anybody can really understand what be convicted of a crime you didn’t commit is like. There is no word that it really describes that. The system has incarcerated an innocent man, something is not right with the system.

Note that Tankleff is not speaking for himself when he says “a crime you didn’t commit”. He is unable to take ownership of this sentence using the personal pronoun “I” because he did commit the crime.

“There is no word that it really describes that”, it’s true, especially for someone like him that did commit the crime, was charged and convicted for.

When Tankleff says “The system has incarcerated an innocent man”, he doesn’t specify who this “innocent man” is, therefore we assume that he is not speaking for himself.

“something is not right with the system” is certainly true but doesn’t imply that the system “is not right” in Marty Tankleff’s case.

Marty Tankleff: I knew I should never have been there but there was also everyday that little sense of hope that innocent people don’t get convicted.

Note that he doesn’t speak for himself but about “innocent people”. 

On June 7 1990, during his first trial, Marty Tankleff testified. Here some exchanges between him and the prosecutor John B. Collins:

John B. Collins: Why did you kill your father?

Marty Tankleff: Absolutely not.

Note that Tankleff is unable to say “I didn’t kill my father”, neither parroting the DA’s words. The absence of a denial, it is a concern. “Absolutely not” is an evasive answer. Moreover, he adds emphasis to his answer through the word “Absolutely” showing a need to persuade.

John B. Collins: (after finding your father) What did you do? 

Marty Tankleff: Ran up (inaudible) screaming “Dad, dad, dad”, and when I get off I saw his slit throat (inaudible) I called 911.

“Ran up” does not have a pronoun. A dropped pronoun means no commitment. Pronouns are instinctive. People drop the pronoun “I” to remove themself from the sentence. He removes himself from his answer because he is unwilling to tell a outright lie.

John B. Collins: Did you kill your mother?

A “Yes or No” question.

Marty Tankleff: No, I didn’t.

A reliable denial is found in the free editing process and has 3 components: the pronoun “I”, the past tense verb “did not” or “didn’t” and the accusation answered.

“I didn’t” is not a reliable denial as the denial is parroted and incomplete, the third component is in fact missing. 

John B. Collins: Did you kill your father?

A “Yes or No” question.

Marty Tankleff: No. I loved my parents. I had nothing to do with this.

“No” is a good answer, but when “No” is not alone, we count each word that follows weakening the response. 

Saying “I loved my parents” Tankleff shows a desire to be seen in a positive light.

“I had nothing to do with this” is another unreliable denial. 

ANALYSIS CONCLUSION

Deception Indicated.

Marty Tankleff killed his parents.

He never issued at any time a reliable denial, he never said “I didn’t kill my parents. I told the truth”, and he showed multiple times a need to persuade. Tankleff accepted what the de facto innocent doesn’t accept: he allowed people to believe he is involved. There is no “Wall of Truth” within him. The “Wall of truth” is an impenetrable psychological barrier that commonly leads an innocent de facto to few words as he/she has no need to convince anyone of anything.

Tankleff was not wrongfully convicted. A criminal injustice was to set him free.

I agree with Marty Tankleff, if it could happen to a patricide, like he is, it could happen 2 anyone. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Martin Tankleff- National Registry of Exonerations

Martin Tankleff- Murderpedia

Martin Tankleff- Wikipedia

Coerced Confession

A Question of Guilt

Miscarriage of justice- Marty Tankleff Case- Bad Confession

Un criminolog analizează apelurile Alexandrei la 112. „O fată de 15 ani, răpită, violată şi bătută, e tratată cu o răceală dezarmantă”

Posted on by

Un criminolog din Italia a analizat apelurile Alexandrei la 112: „Fetei i-a fost frică din primul moment că nu va fi ajutată” Citeşte întreaga ştire: Un criminolog din Italia a analizat apelurile Alexandrei la 112: „Fetei i-a fost frică din primul moment că nu va fi ajutată”

Posted on by

Jurnaliștii de la HotNews au apelat la un criminolog din Italia pentru analiza apelurilor date de Alexandra Măceșanu la 112 pe 25 iulie, la o zi după ce s-a urcat în mașina lui Gheorghe Dincă și a dispărut.

Libertatea, De Andreea Radu, Joi, 01 august 2019, 22:01

Ursula Franco, medic și criminolog din Italia, care a lucrat în Statele Unite şi în Italia şi a studiat cu doctorul Peter Hyatt, unul dintre cei mai importanți experți din lume în „Analiza declarațiilor” – Statement Analysis, o tehnică israeliană de analiză a limbajului, a analizat pentru HotNews dialogul Alexandrei Măceșanu cu dispeceratul de la 112.

Iată câteva fragmente din analiza făcută de criminologul Ursula Franco:

Op. 112 (1): Cum te cheamă?

A.M.: Măceșanu Alexandra, vă rog veniți repede, nu știu unde sunt….

Op. 112 (1): Cum adică nu știi unde ești? În ce localitate te afli?

A.M.: În Dobro … Aaa.. În Caracal, m-a dus în Caracal, dar nu știu unde exact…

Op. 112 (1) (ton ironic): Păi dă-mi un punct de reper unde te afli în Caracal, cum crezi că te găsim? …

Aloo?  Păi dă-mi un punct de reper unde te afli în Caracal, cum crezi că te găsim? … Aloo? Este o cerere neaşteptată pentru că o persoană răpită ar putea să nu ştie locul unde a fost dusă, dar, mai ales, operatoarea de la 112 nu o întreabă pe Alexandra dacă reuşeşte să dea un punct de reper, ci îi dă un ordin : « dă-mi un punct de reper », în loc să o liniştească, adaugă dezarmant : «cum crezi că te găsim ? » care, în mod natural, va creşte disperarea fetei, spune criminologul.

A.M.: Da, stați, nu plecați vă rog…

«Nu plecaţi vă rog » este neaşteptat. Alexandra se tema că cererea ei de ajutor nu a convins-o pe operatoare şi se vede constrânsă să o invite să nu închidă. Mai mult, Alexandra simte nevoia să intre în graţiile ei, cu “vă rog”. Alexandra e o victimă şi operatoarea are datoria să o ajute. În acest caz fetei i-a fost frică din primul moment că nu va fi ajutată, notează Ursula Franco.

Op. 112 (2): Bun, ai telefonul la tine, da?

A.M.: Da, dar e la el! Eu acuma sun de pe alt număr…

Op. 112 (2): Nu contează, de unde ai tu numărul ăsta?

A.M.: Care număr?

Op. 112 (2): Ăsta de pe care mă suni. De unde?

A.M.: E telefonul lui, l-am găsit aici..

Op. 112 (2): Telefonul lui?

A.M.: Da!

Op. 112 (2): Este telefonul lui, da, bun. Ia …

A.M.: Da doamnă vă rog trimiteți-mi pe cineva că mi-e frică..

Alexandra continuă să spună „vă rog”, în ciuda faptului că a fi ajutată este un drept al ei, afirmă expertul.

A.M.: Vă rog, veniți cât mai repede…

Polițist (1): Unde să venim domnișoară? Ia spuneți-ne …

A.M.: Poftim?

Polițist (1): Unde, unde?

A.M.: Nu știu exact, Am trecut pe lângă dig, dar acum cred că sunt în Bold, că altundeva nu putea să fie…

Polițist (1): Unde, în? Unde sunteți?

A.M.: În Bold…

Polițist (1): În Bold? Aaa… În județul Olt?

A.M.: Da uitați, uitați, stați un pic… Am găsit o adresă, bld. Antonius Caracalla nr. 9, B1, D.A. … (nu se înțelege)

Polițist (1): Acolo rămâneți! Rămâneți acolo. Antonius Caracalla nr. 9, da?

A.M.: Veniți repede că mi-e frică, vă rog, vă rog! De ce “acolo rămâneţi”?

De ce poliţistul, care a înţeles că Alexandra nu poate să îi ajute cu localizarea din interiorul camerei, nu o invită să încerce să forţeze uşa pentru a ieşi din casă, sau cel puţin pe fereastră, în aşa fel încât să poată descrie locul unde se găseşte şi să se ascundă în altă parte, a mai spus criminologul.

Citește întreaga analiză pe HotNews.ro.
Citeşte întreaga ştire: Un criminolog din Italia a analizat apelurile Alexandrei la 112: „Fetei i-a fost frică din primul moment că nu va fi ajutată”

Criminolog italian: Alexandra Măceşanu a fost tratată cu o răceală dezarmantă de operatorul de la 112 și polițist (VIDEO)

Posted on by

b1 TV, 2 agosto 2019

Alexandra Măceşanu a fost tratată cu o răceală dezarmantă şi i-a fost frică din primul moment că nu va fi ajutată. Este concluzia unui medic şi criminolog prestigios din Italia, care a făcut o analiză a apelurilor date de Alexandra la 112. Ursula Franco susţine că fata nu a primit niciun cuvant liniștitor, în ciuda faptului că părea disperată. Ba mai mult, adolescenta nu a fost întrebată dacă sângerează şi nici nu i s-a cerut să-l descrie pe răpitor.

Criminlogul italian a analizat apelurile Alexandrei Măceşanu la 112 pentru HotNews.ro, iar concluzia a fost că fata a fost tratată cu o răceală dezarmantă. Pratic, spune expertul Ursula Franco, conform aceleiaşi surse, fetei i-ar fi fost teamă încă din primul moment că nu va fi ajutată.

”Dă-mi un punct de reper unde te afli în Caracal, cum crezi că te găsim? … Aloo?”, i-a spus operatoarea de la 112 Alexandrei.

Potrivit Ursula Franco, cererea operatoarei de la 112 a fost una neaşteptată pentru că o persoană răpită ar putea să nu ştie locul unde a fost dusă. În plus, operatoarea nu a  întreabat-o pe Alexandra dacă reuşeşte să dea un punct de reper, ci i-a dat un ordin: «dă-mi un punct de reper », în loc să o liniştească, dupa care a adăugat dezarmant: « cum crezi că te găsim? » un mod de exprimare care, ar fi putut creşte disperarea fetei. Ba mai mult, femeia nu a verificat în ce condiţie fizică era Alexandra, nu a întreabat-o dacă sângerează şi nici nu i-a cerut să îl descrie pe răpitor.

Discuția dintre Alexandra și operatoarea de la 112 a continuat:
Op. 112 (1): Ai fost violată?
A.M.: (plângând) Da, am fost violată!
Op. 112 (1): Da, rămâi la rămâi la telefon, dar încearcă să-mi dai un punct de reper ca să știm exact ce … cum te putem găsi!

Operatoarea ar fi trebuit să-i ceară Alexandrei Măceşanu să îl descrie pe sechestrator, cel puţin pentru a exclude că ar fi vorba despre Popescu Lucian Gabriel.

Copila continuă să spună “vă rog”, în ciuda faptului că a fi ajutată este un drept al ei. Alexandra nu primeşte nicio vorbă de liniştire, deşi vocea era cea a unei minore disperate. Nu numai că adultul nu o linişteşte, ci dă dovadă de iritare. Este neaşteptat ca poliţistul să spună “Aaa, nu ştii nici asta”, făcând-o responsabilă pe Alexandra, mai spune prestigiosul criminolog din Italia.

Ursula Franco a făcut o comparaţie între sistemul unic de urgenţă din România şi cel din Statele Unite ale Americii. Potrivit specialistului, peste Ocean, operatorii de la 911 sunt instruiţi după reguli de protocol stricte, reguli care le permit să facă diferenţa între un apel cu o cerere de ajutor serioasă şi o glumă. Mai mult, în cazuri de omucidere, chiar şi un apel de ajutor de câteva secunde, dacă are loc între autorul crimei şi un operator bine pregătit, poate deveni probă decisivă prin multitudinea de informaţii date de cel care sună ca să fie salvat.

Screen Shot 2019-08-02 at 18.42.35

Hotnews. Criminolog italian despre apelurile Alexandrei la 112: I-a fost frică că nu e crezută

Posted on by
DE NEWSWEEK ROMÂNIA | Actualizat: 01.08.2019 – 14:59
Foto Inquam Photos/Octav Ganea
ACTUALITATEEVENIMENTANALIZĂ112ALEXANDRA CARACALCRIMINOLOG

Ursula Franco, medic și criminolog din Italia, a făcut pentru HotNews.ro o analiză a apelurilor făcute de Alexandra Măceşanu la 112.

Ursula Franco a lucrat în Statele Unite şi în Italia şi a studiat cu doctorul Peter Hyatt, unul dintre cei mai importanți experți din lume în „Analiza declarațiilor” – Statement Analysis, o tehnică israeliană de analiză a limbajului.

În Italia, dr. Franco a fost consultant în domeniul apărării în cazuri importante de omucidere cu impact în mass-media.S-a ocupat şi de cazul Mariei Oana Ungureanu, o fată de naționalitate română găsită înecată în regiunea Campania. Criminologul Ursula Franco este cunoscut pentru abilitatea ei de a reconstrui dinamica în numeroase cazuri de omucideri (SUA şi Italia) și pentru analizele apelurilor telefonice de urgență și ale interogatoriilor, pe care le publică pe blogul MALKE CRIME NOTES.

A oferit expertiză pentru emisiuni radio şi tv din Statele Unite şi Italia (spre exemplu, în documentarul The Missing Pieces, The Staircase difuzat de canalul Investigation Discovery etc). Criminologul italian a studiat sute de apeluri la numerele de urgenţă, în special la 911 (SUA).

Citește articolul integral în Hotnews.

Traduzione:

HotNews. La criminologa italiana sulle chiamate di Alexandra al 112: aveva paura che non le si credesse

Ursula Franco, un medico e criminologa italiana, ha fatto per HotNews.ro un’analisi delle chiamate di Alexandra Măceşanu al 112.

Ursula Franco ha lavorato negli Stati Uniti e in Italia e ha studiato con il Dr. Peter Hyatt, uno dei maggiori esperti mondiali di “Statement Analysis”, una tecnica israeliana di analisi del linguaggio. 

In Italia, la Dottoressa Franco è stata consulente per la difesa in importanti casi di omicidio con impatto sui mass media. 

Ha anche affrontato il caso di Maria Oana Ungureanu, una ragazza di nazionalità rumena trovata annegata nella regione Campania. La criminologa Ursula Franco è nota per la sua capacità di ricostruire le dinamiche omicidiarie (USA e Italia) e di analizzare telefonate di emergenza e interrogatori, che pubblica sul blog MALKE CRIME NOTES. E’ stata consulente di programmi radiofonici e televisivi negli Stati Uniti e in Italia (ad esempio, nel documentario The Missing Pieces, The Staircase trasmesso da Investigation Discovery, ecc.). La criminologa italiana ha studiato centinaia di chiamate ai numeri di emergenza, in particolare al 911 (USA).

Leggi l’articolo completo su Hotnews.

RAPIMENTO DI ALEXANDRA MACESANU, LA CRIMINOLOGA URSULA FRANCO ANALIZZA LE SUE TELEFONATE AL 112

Posted on by

Alexandra Măceşanu

La giornalista Miruna Cajvaneanu, che lavora per la testata HotNews.ro, ha chiesto alla criminologa Ursula Franco di analizzare le telefonate di soccorso relative ad un recente caso giudiziario che ha scosso l’intera Romania: il rapimento e la scomparsa, forse l’omicidio, di una 15enne, Alexandra Măceşanu, e l’ingiustificabile ritardo dei soccorsi hanno condotto alle dimissioni del capo della polizia, Ioan Buda, e del ministro degli interni romeno, Nicolae Moga, e svelato le molte falle nel sistema. Alexandra Macesanu ha fatto l’autostop per tornare a casa ma è stata rapita e violentata. Una volta trovato un telefono nella casa del suo aggressore ha chiamato più volte il 112 ma le forze dell’ordine sono entrate in azione quando ormai era troppo tardi. Molti cittadini sono scesi in strada a Bucarest e chiedono le dimissioni del governo che ritengono abbia indebolito il sistema giudiziario nazionale a causa della corruzione. 

Le Cronache Lucane, 1 agosto 2019

La dottoressa Franco è allieva di Peter Hyatt, uno dei massimi esperti mondiali di Statement Analysis, la tecnica israeliana usata nella seguente analisi.

Chiamata I – 25/07/2019, ora: 11:05:08

Op. 112 (1): 112, qual è la sua emergenza? Pronto?

A.M.: Buongiorno. 

Si noti il “Buongiorno” iniziale. 

Op. 112 (1): Buongiorno.

A.M.: Vorrei un collegamento con polizia!

Op. 112 (1): Sì. Cosa è successo, signora? Come si chiama?

A.M .: Sono signorina, ho 15 anni e ieri sono stata sequestrata da un signore…

Op. 112 (1): Come ti chiami?

A.M .: Mi chiamo Măceșanu Alexandra, per favore, venite presto, non so dove sono…

Op. 112 (1): Che vuol dire non sai dove sei? In quale località ti trovi?

L’operatrice non fa niente per calmare e rassicurare Alexandra prima di chiederle dove si trovi, nonostante la ragazza le abbia appena detto che ha solo 15 anni.

A.M .: A Dobro… Aaa.. A Caracal, mi ha portato a Caracal, ma non so dove esattamente…

Op. 112 (1): Beh, allora dammi un punto di riferimento in cui ti trovi a Caracal, come pensi che ti troviamo?… Prontooo?

“Beh, allora dammi un punto di riferimento in cui ti trovi a Caracal, come pensi che ti troviamo?” è una richiesta inaspettata perché un soggetto che è stato rapito potrebbe non conoscere i  luoghi dove è stato condotto, ma, soprattutto, l’operatrice del 112 non chiede ad Alexandra se sia in grado di fornirgli un punto di riferimento ma le ordina “dammi un punto di riferimento” e, invece di rassicurarla, aggiunge un disarmante “come pensi che ti troviamo?” che, naturalmente, aumenterà la disperazione della ragazza. 

A.M .: Sì, non riattacchi, per favore…

“non riattacchi per favore” è inaspettato. Alexandra teme che la propria richiesta d’aiuto non abbia fatto presa sull’operatrice e si vede costretta ad invitarla a non riattaccare, non solo, Alexandra sente il bisogno di ingraziarsela con “per favore”. Alexandra è una vittima e l’operatrice ha il dovere di aiutarla, la ragazza teme da subito di non essere soccorsa. Probabilmente, per lo stesso motivo ha esordito con un “Buongiorno”, lo ha fatto per ingraziarsi l’operatrice del 112.

Quando vengono raggiunti da una telefonata di questo tipo gli operatori americani del 911 invitano il soggetto che chiama a non riattaccare e lo rassicurano che tutto andrà per il meglio.

Op. 112 (1): Sei stata violentata?

A.M .: Sì, sono stata violentata! (piangendo)

Op. 112 (1): Sì, resta al telefono, ma prova a darmi un punto di riferimento per sapere esattamente cosa… come possiamo trovarti!

L’operatrice non si accerta delle condizioni fisiche di Alexandra, non le chiede se perda sangue, né di descriverle il rapitore.

A.M .: È arrivato, è arrivato, è arrivato, è arrivato… Presto, per favore!!! 

Fine della chiamata

Op. 112 (1): Beh, veniamo, ma dove, amico mio, in Caracal?… Beh che diavolo posso fare per lei, è a Caracal, l’ha rapita e l’ha portata a Caracal, ma lei non sa dove… e la polizia sta parlando… Fai il collegamento.

Un altro operatore si sente in sottofondo: 11:06:57

Op. 112 (2): Dove sei in Caracal? Bene, ora dove sei, puoi guardare? Guarda… guarda… guarda verso… Ma tu, da dove lo conosci? Dimmi un po’…

Op. 112 (1) alla polizia: La collega vi chiamerà, perché ce l’abbiamo al telefono su un’altra linea. Vi chiamerà subito la collega che prova ad avere altri dati. E’ stata rapita, violentata, portata a Caracal. 

Polizioto 1: Rapita?

Op. 112 (1) sì, e la collega cerca altri dati per sapere dove si troverebbe.  

Poliziotto (1): a..

Op. 112 (1) Sì, subito, subito vi chiama. 

Poliziotto (1). Sì

Chiamata II – 25/07/2019, 11:06:25

Op. 112 (2): 112, qual è la sua emergenza? Pronto?

A.M .: Sono sempre io!

Op. 112 (2): Dove sei in Caracal?

A.M .: Abbiamo passato… quando ho visto per la prima volta… mi ha legato agli occhi ed ero vicino alla diga, il signore si chiama Popescu Lucian Gabriel.

Alexandra fornisce un punto di riferimento, la diga, ed il nome di un possibile sospetto o, comunque, quello di un conoscente del rapitore.

Op. 112 (2): Oltre alla diga, Popescu Lucian … e ora da quale parte sei? Puoi guardare?

A.M .: Non posso, sono chiusa in una stanza, vedo solo… una porta.

Alexandra ha fornito alcune indicazioni relative ai luoghi, ha parlato di una diga, di Caracal e ha riferito di essere stata bendata dopo aver passato la diga, di essere chiusa in una stanza e di non essere in grado di vedere all’esterno della stessa. 

Alexandra ha fornito agli inquirenti un nome, che, se anche si è rivelato non essere quello del suo rapitore, è il nome di un soggetto che avrebbero dovuto interrogare immediatamente. 

L’operatrice avrebbe dovuto chiedere ad Alexandra di descriverle il rapitore quantomeno per escludere che potesse trattarsi di Popescu Lucian Gabriel.

Op. 112 (2): Guarda, guarda verso… beh, e da dove lo conosci te? Dimmi un po’…

A.M .: Vi dico: ieri sono uscita per trovare un passaggio per andare in città, e il signore mi ha offerto un passaggio. Mi ha chiusa nella macchina, ha chiuso la macchina, dopo mi ha detto che mi porta da lui…

Op. 112 (2): Ti ha dato un passaggio? 

A.M.: Sì.

Op. 112 (2): Il numero della targa… ricordi qualcosa del numero della targa?

A.M .: No, no…

Op. 112 (2): Che macchina, di che colore almeno?

A.M .: L’auto era grigia e aveva il muso ammaccato.

Op. 112 (2): Con un muso ammaccato?

A.M .: Sì.

Op. 112 (2): Questo è quello che ti ricordi… Ma ora sei chiusa…  Sei passata lungo la diga?

A.M .: Sì, quando ho guardato per la prima volta, ma ora non lo so, penso di essere a Bold o qualcosa, non lo so.

Op. 112 (2): Bene, hai il telefono con te, giusto?

A.M .: Sì, ma ce l’ha lui! Io ora chiamo da un altro numero.

Op. 112 (2): Non importa, ma tu da dove hai questo numero?

A.M .: Quale numero?

Op. 112 (2): Questo da cui mi chiami. Da dove…?

A.M .: È il suo telefono, l’ho trovato qui.

Op. 112 (2): Il suo telefono?

A.M .: Sì!

Op. 112 (2): E’ il suo telefono, sì, bene…ecco.

Non si comprende come non si sia cercato di identificare l’intestatario del telefono dal quale chiamava Alexandra per poi diramare un mandato d’arresto, posto che, in quel momento, l’uomo non si trovava in casa con Alexandra. 

A.M .: Sì, signora, per favore, mandatemi qualcuno, ho paura.

Alexandra continua a chiedere “per favore”, nonostante essere soccorsa sia un suo diritto. 

Op. 112 (2): Ok, basta, aspetti un po’, ti credo, ti ho capita, aspetta un po’ al telefono se puoi.

“basta” è inaspettato. 

A.M .: (piange) Ho paura, ho paura…

Alexandra non riceve alcuna rassicurazione, nonostante appaia disperata.

25/07/2019, 11:07:53 – chiamata presa dalla polizia.

Poliziotto (1): Pronto?.. Sì

Op. 112 (2): Pronto, la polizia?

Poliziotto (1) Sono passati vicino alla diga..

Op. 112 (2): E’ passato vicino alla diga da quello che ho capito, Da ieri è stata rapita, questo è il telefono di lui.

A.M .: Per favore, venite presto.

Poliziotto (1): Venire dove, signorina, ce lo dica…

A.M .: Scusi?

Poliziotto (1): Dove, dove?

A.M .: Non so esattamente, sono passata vicino alla diga, ma ora penso di essere a Bold, che altrove non potrebbe essere…

Poliziotto (1): Dove vi trovate? A …?

A.M .: A Bold!

Poliziotto (1): A Bold? Aaa … Nella contea di Olt?

A.M .: Sì, aspetti, aspetti…Ho trovato, ho trovato un indirizzo, bld. Antonius Caracalla n. 9, B1, D.A…. (incompensibile) 

Poliziotto (1): Rimanga lì! Resti lì. Antonius Caracalla n. 9, sì?

Perché “Resti lì”? Perché il poliziotto, che ha capito che Alexandra non può aiutarli a localizzarla dall’interno della stanza, non la invita a provare a rompere la serratura della porta della stanza per uscire dalla casa, quantomeno da una finestra, così che possa descrivere il luogo dove si trova e nascondersi altrove.

A.M .: Venite presto, ho paura, per favore…

Op. 112 (2): Continuate con questo indirizzo, sembra essere un palazzo.

A.M .: Per favore, vieni presto, ho paura!

Poliziotto (1): Che palazzo è lì, ha detto che è un palazzo

A.M: Non è un palazzo. Non è un palazzo, è una casa, un cortile…

Poliziotto (1): Una casa, bene, resta lì, arriva un equipaggio di polizia, bene?

Op. 112 (2) (ironicamente parlando): è chiusa…

A.M .: Per favore, vieni presto, ho paura di lui, mi ha picchiata.

Poliziotto (1): (in tono imperativo) Va bene, va bene, rimanga lì!

Non una parola di rassicurazione, né una domanda sulle sue condizioni fisiche. Alexandra, una ragazza di 15 anni, rapita, violentata e picchiata è stata trattata con una freddezza disarmante.

A.M.: Rimango qui, non posso uscire, prego, venite (grido di disperazione) 

Poliziotto (1): E’ con qualcuno? E’ sola? Come è arrivata…?

A.M.: Noooo, sono sola, sono sola, vi prego… 

Poliziotto (1): E’ sola, ho capito, rimanga lì 

A.M.: Ho paura…

Poliziotto (1) alla radio della centrale: Pronto, la volante… Antonius Caracalla numero 9, c’è una ragazza picchiata e violata, sì?

A.M.: ( piange) Prego, venite, venite, ho paura!

Poliziotto (1): Signorina, spenga la chiamata, sarà contattata e la polizia arriva lì, d’accordo?

Il poliziotto invita Alexandra a chiudere la telefonata, è inaspettato, come ho detto prima, gli operatori del servizio 911 americano monitorano la situazione fino all’arrivo dei soccorsi e cercano di sostenere da un punto di vista psicologico chi chiama. 

A.M.: Prego, venite subito!

Poliziotto (1): Sì, va bene, va bene… 

A.M.: Signore, signore, c’è una macchina grande nel cortile.. 

Poliziotto (1): Bene, rimanga lì, al numero 9, esattamente lì.

Chiamata III – 25/07/2019, 11:12:36

Op. 112 (1): 112, qual è la sua emergenza?

A.M .: Signora, ha mandato qualcuno? Che penso che stia tornando e ho paura che mi picchia…

Op. 112 (1): Sì, hai parlato con la polizia, sì?

A.M .: Sì, con lei!

Op. 112 (1): Cosa ti ha detto la polizia?

L’operatrice chiede informazioni alla vittima sul colloquio intercorso tra lei e la polizia, è paradossale.

A.M .: Mi ha detto che avrebbe mandato un equipaggio, per favore, venite!

Poliziotto (2): Pronto?

Op. 112 (1): La polizia? E’ tornata la ragazza…

Poliziotto (2): Sì … dica, signora, signorina

A.M .: Per favore, avete mandato qualcuno qui?

Poliziotto (2): abbiamo mandato, resti lì che non… in 2 minuti non può volare,  signorina. Rimanga lì, sì?

Non solo il poliziotto non rassicura la giovane Alexandra, ma, inaspettatamente, si mostra irritato.

A.M .: (piange) Venite, per favore, venite, ho paura …

Poliziotto (2): Beh, di chi ha paura?… Pronto… di chi ha paura?

Il poliziotto mostra di non conoscere il caso. E’ disarmante. Alexandra, ancora una volta, deve ripetere i fatti. Si noti che nessuno dei 4 soggetti con cui Alexandra ha parlato le ha chiesto come stesse fisicamente o ha tentato di consolarla.

A.M .:(piange) Di lui… mi ha picchiata…

Poliziotto (2): di lui, chi è la persona?

A.M .: Si chiama Popescu Lucian Gabriel!

Poliziotto (2): Popescu Lucian. E dove sta questo lì?

A.M .: Ho detto che… Bold, Antonius Caracalla numero 9…

Poliziotto (2): Questo Lucian Popescu sta al numero 9?

A.M .: Non lo so, ho solo  trovato un biglietto da visita e ho pensato che forse fosse suo.

Poliziotto (2): Beh, il biglietto da visita è suo?

A.M .: Non lo so …

Poliziotto (2): Aaa, non sai neanche questo! Ok, aspetti lì ora … aspetti lì, l’equipaggio arriverà tra due o tre minuti, aspetti, ok?.

E’ inaspettato che il poliziotto dica “Aaa, non sai neanche questo!”, scaricando le responsabilità su Alexandra.

A.M .: Per favore, resti con me al telefono, ho paura.

E’ inaspettato che, non solo Alexandra non venga rassicurata e che nessuno le chieda come stia fisicamente, ma anche che si veda costretta ad ingraziarsi il poliziotto con un “per favore”. 

Poliziotto (2): Non posso stare al telefono, signorina, abbiamo altre telefonate, restate lì quando arriva l’equipaggio di polizia, senza dubbio arriverà, sì, due o tre minuti, che diavolo? (sullo sfondo si sente piangere Alexandra)

E’ inaspettato che il poliziotto dica “Non posso stare al telefono, signorina, abbiamo altre telefonate”. Possibile che il 112 abbia una linea sola? 

A.M .: (piange) Bene…

Poliziotto (2): Sì? Stia calma, si calmi un po’, sì?

A.M .: (piange) Ho paura…!

Poliziotto (2): Cerchi di calmarsi, beh… sì? Si calmi e arriverà l’equipaggio, sta arrivando…

A.M .: Bene, per favore…

Si noti che Alexandra si vede ancora costretta ad aggiungere un “per favore”.

Poliziotto (2): Lasci il telefono libero, perché se siamo al telefono a parlare, l’equipaggio non può parlare con lei.

A.M .: (piange) Va bene, va bene, sì.

Poliziotto (2): Bene.