💾 VeriDecs Analysis Report

Generated from English Translation on: 5.12.2025 at 19.26.47

A. Original Statement

0:00 Caller: ... 0:00 911: Emergency center. 0:01 Caller: Whoa! Here, – There's a killer here. Come quickly! 0:03 911: Wha-, what? 0:04 Caller: Someone came in through the window. 0:05 911: Calm down, what town? 0:06 Caller: Uh…Dogtown! 0:08 911: Dogtown, yeah. 0:10 Caller: EXTRACTED 0:11 911: Excuse me, what? 0:12 Caller: EXTRACTED 0:14 911: Yeah. 0:15 Caller: EXTRACTED! 0:16 911: Is this a detached house? 0:17 Caller: Yes. There are faint background sounds. 0:17 911: Yeah, what's going on there now? 0:19 Caller: Someone came in through the window and stabbed my husband. I've been beaten up too. 0:23 911: Is someone stabbing you? In the background, the victim screams in pain: Ouch! 0:24 Caller: Yes! 0:24 911: Who is there stabbing with a knife? 0:25 Voice (of the victim?) is heard in the background. 0:26 Caller: Right away. 0:27 911: Who's there stabbing with a knife? In the background the victim's complaint is heard Victim: Ouch. 0:28 Caller: (breathing heavily into the phone) 0:29 911: Do you know him? 0:30 Caller: N-It's dark there. I ran to the phone as soon as I could. Apparently i am bleeding too. 0:35 911: Yeah, yeah. 0:36 Caller: Hey! Quick! 0:37 911: Yeah, I'll send help. Do you have many there? 0:39 Caller: We also have four children here. 0:41 911: Four children? 0:42 Caller: Yes! 0:43 911: Yeah, Wait a minute, I'm going off the line for a moment. Don't hang up, don't hang up. A voice is heard in the background at the same time. 0:47 Caller: No. (The caller is breathing heavily into the phone.) 0:50 In the background, there is a loud sound like furniture moving and immediately afterwards the victim's scream in pain. Victim: A-Aiii! 0:52 Caller: "Quick!" (The caller breathes heavily, his breath trembling into the receiver.) 0:53 Victim: (shouting in the background) 0:54 Caller: Can you hear my husband screaming? 0:56 Victim: A banging sound and immediately the victim's reaction: -Uohh!, followed by two consecutive hollow banging sounds, after which the victim moans: Uhh! and something else, which is interrupted when the caller starts talking into the phone again. 0:59 Caller: "Gone, - is the man leaving already?" 1:01 Victim: Knock and Aargh!! (very loud roar of pain). 1:02 Caller: (breathes heavily into phone) 1:04 Caller: (sighs into the phone and breathes heavily) 1:06 Like the sound of furniture being dragged and the sound of a crash/impact. 1:08 Another dragging sound and the victim's scream all at once – uuoh! 1:09 Hit/blow and the victim screams in pain: Ouch, ouch! 1:10 Caller: (breathing heavily on the phone) 1:11 A loud bang and the victim screams in intense pain: Come Aaahh! 1:12 Caller: O-Is someone coming yet? (Breathing still uneven) 1:14 A loud voice in the background says: Fuck! 1:15 Victim in pain: Uhh! a soft thud. 1:16 Caller: (The caller is breathing heavily and shaking into the phone.) 1:18 The victim briefly shouts… car! -Can you try saying help!? 1:19 Caller: (The caller is breathing heavily, trembling into the phone. It's hard to distinguish background events from the breathing, like a popping sound.) 1:21 bounce 1:23 muffled impact sound 1:24 another soft blow i 1:25 third muffled impact sound, Victim of pain: Uoh! 1:26 Caller: (The caller is still breathing heavily into the phone.) 1:26 in the background there is a banging sound or furniture moving and – Ugh! 1:28 The victim screams: Run! or Run! followed by a slap, or a sound from handling the phone? 1:30 Victim screams: —-, come here for help! In Appendix 33 in the KKO archive, the same passage was heard: “ EXTRACTED, come here for help!” 1:34 –35 A BREAK in the tape. === 1:36 Caller: Hey, I have to go now. (calls out his child's name: EXTRACTED!). 1:38 Child from further away: Yeah. 1:39 Caller: Can you come over here and pick up the phone? 1:41 Caller: I'll go check it out. 1:42 Child: What am I...? In the background, the victim's scream is heard, "Help me." 1:43 Caller: I, -I'm calling the police, they asked you to ... 1:46 The victim shouts demandingly, mumbling: Come on, come on! 1:46 Caller: we'll stick to that line 1:48 The victim shouts very demandingly: "Well, you can help a little bit." 1:50 Victim: Come on EXTRACTED! A bump, a glass walk or a blow? 1:51 Caller: is he leaving already? 1:52 The victim screams in despair to his wife: Come help me! 1:54 Caller: “what” or “should” 1:55 Victim: (y)öh! 1:56 Caller: What the hell! 1:57 – 2:00 running steps 2:00 The victim screams indistinctly: Come (EXTRACTED) help! the child's breathing can be heard in the receiver. 2:02 Victim: A-laa-lalala 2:03 The murderer screams furiously in the middle of the victim's mumbling/moaning: Die! 2:03-04 The victim mumbles in pain like "aijaa lalalala", the speech is incomprehensible. 2:05 a muffled knock or a step in the middle of the mumbling? 2:05/06 Victim: LaLa – and then –Uhh! 2:07 muffled steps towards the phone. 2:08 Caller: moans into the phone: nyuh! the victim's barking can be heard in the background –Uah! 2:09 Caller: Who's coming? 2:10 Child anxiously on the phone: Hey, please someone, come quickly, my father is unwell…(in a high-pitched, pleading voice). Takes a breath. 2:16 Child continues in a desperate high-pitched voice: Come quickly! (in the background the victim is moaning –aah!) 2:17 In the background the victim's moaning or the killer's speech: like “(n)ui vaa –”. The background sounds are heard very faintly as the child speaks into the receiver. 2:18 Child takes a breath anxiously: Ouch! 2:19 Child screams in pain: Father, don't die! In the background, there is noise that cannot be understood because the child is screaming into the phone. 2:22 Victim: Ouch! 2:22/23 Caller: Hey, stop it! 2.25/26 An unknown voice from among the running footsteps like: “Run”. 2:26 911 comes on the lines and at the same time cuts off the running footsteps and other voices: Yeah, hello. 2:27/28 The victim or unknown softly: sounds like “He left”. 2:28 Child in a desperate, high-pitched voice: So, come quickly, my father is not feeling well, is he? 2:31 911: Yeah, help is already on its way. Do you know if there is an adult there now? 2:35 Child answers: Mom. 2:36 911: Can mom speak? 2:38 Child: Mom is coming. 2:39 (clop) 2:39 Child: Now she's talking again. 2:41 a muffled crash is heard in the background as the caller grabs the phone 2:42 Caller: I'm trying to help. 2:43 Caller continues in despair: Is there any result from that? 2:44 911: Yes, I've alerted the help. I, can I ask for more information? 2:47 Caller: Yes. 2:47 911: What's the situation now? Help is coming all the time. 2:50 Caller: Yeah. I don't know what kind of guy he is, he... Can you hear a crash in the background at this point? 2:51 Caller takes a breath: -Ehh! 2:52 Caller continues: -he broke our that, -whoops (takes a breath) 2:53 911: Yeah. 2:54 Caller continues: that back door, Can you hear a muffled crash in the background at this point? 2:55 911: Yeah-oh 2:54 Caller continues: he's wearing black-black clothes. 2:56 911: Yeah, is he still there? 2:58 Caller gasps: I'm here, I just ran (takes a breath) 2:59 911: Yeah 3:00 Caller continues out of breath: get out, I'm not going there, he's running after me. he went back and he's going to kill my husband, he was still breathing just now. (Caller gasps). 3:06 911: Yeah, where's your man, what's your man doing there now? 3:09 loud rustling. 3:10 Caller: Lie there on the floor and just shout for help 3:11 Caller exclaims in pain: Now it got silent! 3:13 A child starts crying in the background, Yiih… 3:13 911: Did your husband stop screaming? A child's crying can be heard in the background. 3:14 Caller takes a breath. 3:15-17 Child: loud, long scream. At 3:16, a pop is heard as the child screams. 3:17 911: Hello! 3:18 Caller: Don't cry EXTRACTED hey, baby. Takes a breath, -Shhh! 3:21 911: Yeah, help is coming there all the time now, is your husband lying there unconscious right now? A child is crying in the background and there are other muffled background sounds. 3:25/26 Caller sobs into the phone. 3:26 The caller continues crying: I don't know, I'm in the kitchen now, I don't know (gasps). 3:29 The caller continues asking: Should I go and check? Ugh. 3:30 911: Yeah, but where is the intruder now, where is the intruder at this moment? 3:33 Caller: Well, probably there - if he hasn't already gone out - in our the bedroom that is. 3:36 911: Did you go out already? 3:37 Caller: I don't know, I fell silent there. 3:39 911: Yeah. 3:39 Caller: is it still there? (Breathing into the receiver) 3:41 Child in a low voice: Yeah, he left. 3:42 Caller: He left already, didn't he? 3:43 911: Yeah, tell me some identifying marks I can tell the police, black clothes and what else? 3:47 Caller: Black clothes, someone like that (ugh), I say he's at least 180 centimeters tall, a little, quite sturdy (ugh). 3:53 911: Yeah. 3:54 The caller says breathlessly and with a trembling voice: "Like black clothes, like you can't see your whole face. What a strange sight to me." 3:58 911: Totally unknown man? 3:59 Caller: Yeah (a child's crying can be heard in the background). 3:59-4:00 911: Yes. 4:00 Caller in despair: Noooo! Hey, come quickly! 4:01 911 on top of the caller, comforting: Yeah, the police will call you, we can stop then. 4:05 Caller: Is there an ambulance coming here? 4:07 911: Yes, the ambulance is on its way and the police, but we can stop, the police will call. 4:11 Caller: Yeah. 4:12 911: Well, I can reach you from this number, where are you calling from now. (child crying in the background) 4:14 Caller: Yeah. 4:15 911: Well, we can stop, the police are calling. (a child is crying in the background). 4:16 Caller: Okay.

B. Analysis Results (Visual)

🔍 VeriDecs Analysis

Primary Label: denial_escalation

Analysis: VeriDecs detected stylistic markers consistent with this category.

🧠 Leakage Score: 95

The caller's narrative is not credible, and the linguistic and behavioral evidence, particularly her calculated absence during the attack's climax, overwhelming performative communication, and contradictory statements, indicates she is being deceptive and is likely involved in the homicide.

⚠️ Deception Signals Detected (Leakage)
  • Severity: leakage_detected
  • Signals:
    • Self-Correction or Reframing
    • Unnecessary Words
    • Pronoun Omission
    • Tense Shift Phrases
    • Pronoun or Perspective Shift
    • Prompt-Answer Tense Mismatch

7 narrative leakage pattern(s) detected. Each flagged feature may reflect emotional detachment, memory reconstruction, or intent reframing. Interpret carefully and triangulate with context.

📚 What Is Leakage?
In the context of linguistic forensics, leakage refers to the unintentional release of information by a person who is trying to be deceptive. It is the core concept behind these techniques.

The fundamental premise is that when a person is lying, they cannot completely conceal the truth. Instead, the truth "leaks" out through subtle, often subconscious, linguistic cues. An honest statement is a report of an event as it happened, while a deceptive statement is a fabrication. The process of creating and maintaining a lie is cognitively demanding, and this cognitive load can manifest in specific patterns of language that can be detected through careful analysis.
✂️ Why Sentence Length Matters
One of the foundational principles in linguistic forensics is: “The shortest sentence is the best sentence.” — Mark McClish.

Truthful people tend to speak in short, direct sentences. Their words reflect what they experienced, not what they’re trying to construct. In contrast, deceptive individuals often use longer, more complex sentences filled with qualifiers, justifications, and emotional padding.

These longer structures may indicate cognitive strain or an effort to manage perception. When leakage is present, it often appears alongside verbose or overly detailed statements — a sign that the speaker is working hard to maintain a fabricated narrative.
🔍 Unnecessary Words Detected
This statement contains words that may not affect sentence clarity but can reflect emotional distancing, discomfort, or verbal control. While some may be stylistic, others may signal deeper psychological patterns such as minimization, persuasion, or embedded self-correction. Check the flagged words used: if used often it may be subject's way of speaking, if only used once check the context. The word 'so' often used may signal the person is explaining his actions.
Detected Terms:
  • ▸ just (2 times)
    Minimizing
    The word 'just' is used to minimize the significance of an action or event. It can be an attempt to downplay responsibility or to make a critical action seem unimportant.
  • ▸ probably (1 time)
    Qualifiers & Lack of Commitment
    These phrases indicate a lack of commitment or certainty to the statement. The speaker is creating a way out in case their statement is later proven false. This is a classic sign of deception where the speaker avoids firm responsibility for the information.
  • ▸ kind of (1 time)
    Softening & Minimizing
    These words are used to minimize or soften the impact of an event. They can be used to downplay a critical action or reduce the speaker's emotional connection to the event they are describing.
🤔 Hesitation Detected (4 triggers)
Hesitation and filler words may indicate the speaker is thinking, unsure, or trying to buy time.
Detected Terms:
  • ▸ uh (1 time)
    Filler word indicating a pause.
  • ▸ okay (1 time)
    Short confirmation, may be used to buy time.
  • ▸ well (1 time)
    Used to introduce a response, often to soften or delay.
  • ▸ right (1 time)
    Used to seek confirmation or as a verbal stall, often at the start or end of a statement.
🔁 Self-Correction Detected
VeriDecs identified linguistic revision or narrative pivoting during the denial. This may reflect hesitation, emotional discomfort, or real-time reframing.
  • Pause + rephrase (with reframe cue)
       🧠 Pronoun Omission Detected
                 Linguistics forensics methodology flags all pronoun omissions as areas of analytical interest. In many cases this is normal grammatical structure. However, when such omissions occur near sensitive narrative zones, they may sometimes reflect psychological distancing or narrative compression. Context determines significance.                
         Detected Omissions:          
                             
  •                ▸ **Omitted Subject:** **I** (Before: **get out**)
                   **Analysis:** *In the middle of narrating her actions ('I just ran... I'm not going there'), the caller uses the imperative 'get out.' The missing 'I' before this action verb serves to reduce her personal responsibility for the act of leaving the area where her husband was being fatally assaulted.*              
    •                      
       
                    
🔁 Repetitive Language Pattern Detected
Repetition of the same word in close succession can reflect cognitive stress, emotional preoccupation, or narrative rehearsal. While some repetition may be natural, clustered usage can signal internal tension or fixation.
Repeated Terms:
  • ▸ here (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'here' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ as (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'as' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ what (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'what' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ the (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'the' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ he (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'he' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ that (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'that' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ black (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'black' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ now (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'now' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ there (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'there' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ like (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'like' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
  • ▸ yeah (2 times)
    Lexical Repetition
    The word 'yeah' is repeated 2 times in close proximity, which may indicate cognitive stress, emotional fixation, or rehearsed narrative patterns.
🧠 Memory Uncertainty & Evasion Detected
This statement contains phrases that express memory failure, uncertainty, or an unwillingness to commit to a specific detail. These are often used to create an alibi for missing information or to avoid telling a lie that could be later disproven.
Detected Phrases:
  • ▸ i don't know (4 times)
  • ▸ probably (1 time)
Why It Matters:
A high frequency of phrases like "I don't remember" or "I'm not sure" for **key events** suggests the speaker is intentionally vague. Truthful people generally say what they remember; deceptive people may use these phrases to avoid creating verifiable falsehoods or to lessen their **commitment** to an answer. While normal for minor details, heavy reliance on non-commitment language can signal **evasion** or a constructed narrative.
Linguistic Analysis Context:
  • 📝 Non-Commitment:
    Phrases like "I guess," "maybe," or "I believe" are used to avoid confirming the truth of a statement, creating a mental **out** for the speaker.
  • 📝 Alibi for Missing Info:
    Claiming "bad memory" for crucial moments is a verbal strategy to explain the **absence of detail** that a person involved in the incident should be able to recall vividly.
🧠 Definite Object Reference Detected
VeriDecs flagged the use of a definite article ("the") to describe an object before it was properly introduced. This may suggest prior familiarity, emotional proximity, or cognitive pre-loading — all of which can be relevant in assessing narrative authenticity.

🔍 Why This Matters:
In truthful accounts, speakers typically introduce unknown objects with indefinite articles like “a” or “an.” Using “the” prematurely can indicate that the speaker already had the object in mind — either due to personal experience or because they’re constructing the scene from imagination. This subtle shift may reflect narrative invention or psychological closeness to the described item.

📌 Example:
Consider a statement like: “I was walking through the alley when the man jumped out and pointed the knife at me.” If this is the first mention of the knife, the use of “the” suggests the speaker already knew it existed — which may imply prior knowledge or fabrication. A more neutral phrasing would be: “...pointed a knife at me.”
  • phone


⚡ Case-level insight:
If the article is used on an object outside the emotional core or is not related to the incident, significance is low.
❓ Rhetorical Surge Detected
VeriDecs observed 7 question marks in the denial follow-up. Elevated use of rhetorical questions may indicate cognitive defensiveness or emotional intensity.
📚 Synonym Drift Detected
In Linguistic Analysis, no two words are truly interchangeable. Even slight differences in wording carry distinct meaning. A person speaking truthfully will maintain consistent language throughout their statement. VeriDecs flagged a shift in the speaker’s internal dictionary — a change in word choice that may reflect narrative construction rather than genuine memory recall. This phenomenon, known as synonym drift, can be a subtle indicator of deception.

🧠 What Is an Internal Dictionary?
Every person has a unique internal dictionary — a consistent set of words they use to describe familiar objects and experiences. Truthful speakers tend to stick to this vocabulary. When someone unexpectedly swaps terms (e.g., “pistol” → “gun”), it may signal they’re constructing a story rather than recalling one.

📖 Expert Insight:
“There are no synonyms in Linguistic Analysis.”
— Mark McClish, StatementAnalysis.com

In McClish’s framework, every word choice reflects the speaker’s internal reality. Even seemingly interchangeable terms carry distinct psychological weight. A shift in terminology — without contextual justification — may reveal concealed knowledge or narrative manipulation.

📌 Why It Matters:
Synonym drift doesn’t always indicate deception. Sometimes, word variation reflects a shift in context or function. For example, a firearm may be called a “gun” when carried, but a “weapon” once discharged. However, when no clear justification exists for the change, it may suggest emotional distancing, concealment, or narrative manipulation.

“A change in language is an indication of deception — unless there is a justification for the change.”
— Mark McClish, 2013

🔍 Example:
After JFK’s assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald first said: “I only carried a pistol into a movie.”
Later, he said: “I wasn’t supposed to be carrying a gun.”
The shift wasn’t contextually justified — suggesting narrative manipulation rather than spontaneous recall.

🔹 Terms Used:
🔸 person_male: man, guy
🎭 Voice Shift Detected
VeriDecs detected a shift between personal and group pronouns. This may reflect narrative inconsistency, authorship leakage, or strategic responsibility framing.

Pronoun Transitions:
🔄 i ➝ we
🔄 our ➝ i
🔄 we ➝ my
🔄 i ➝ our
📌 Tense Mismatch in Denial
VeriDecs detected a present-tense denial that may not directly address a past-tense question. This can reflect narrative evasion or scope deflection.

Trigger Phrases:
🕰️ don't
🕰️ don't
🕰️ don't
🕰️ don't
⚠️ Denial Tense Divergence
Denial Tense Divergence Detected: Text contains both present and past tense verbs. This suggests your answer may not align with the timing of the accusation. Consider whether you reframed the scope or shifted the event window.

🔍 Example:
Joey Buttafuoco said in 1992: “I don’t cheat on my wife.”
This denial is in the present tense and may have been technically true at that moment. But it did not address past behavior. A year later, he admitted to having had an affair in 1991. Because he didn’t say “I didn’t cheat” or “I’ve never cheated,” his denial avoided lying while still misleading.

📌 Why It Matters:
Verb tense reveals the temporal scope of a denial. Present-tense statements like “I don’t…” can be used to dodge accountability for past actions. In deception analysis, tense divergence helps identify loopholes, evasions, or truthful misdirection. It’s a subtle but powerful linguistic cue.

Trigger Phrases:
🧩 Present tense verbs: 's, are, 've, could., am, bleeding, have, screaming, is, leaving, coming, have, calls, 'm, calling, is, leaving, 's, coming, 'm, trying, do, is, -whoops, 's, wearing, 'm, 'm, going, 's, running, 's, going, Do, do, 'm, do, go, has, do, is, say, tall, Is, coming
🧩 Past tense verbs: came, came, stabbed, been, beaten, ran, asked, broke, ran, went, was, got, gone, fell, left, did, was breathing
🧩 Denial phrasing: I don't

🗣️ Linguistic Analysis Report

Overall Analysis Summary:
The caller's statement is highly problematic and contains numerous indicators of deception, evasion, and guilty knowledge. The narrative is incoherent, with significant chronological and logical inconsistencies, particularly regarding the attacker's actions and location. The caller uses distancing language, asks unusual questions during the event, and provides vague descriptions. A key pronoun omission occurs at a critical point of action, reducing her ownership of fleeing. The caller's language and reactions are inconsistent with those of a typical victim or witness in a life-threatening home invasion.
EVASION Score: 80/100
⚠️ **HIGH Evasiveness:** Subject shows consistent patterns of linguistic deflection and non-commitment.
Deception PROBABILITY: 85/100
🚨 **HIGH DECEPTION PROBABILITY:** A critical mass of indicators strongly suggests the narrative is incomplete or untruthful.
Coherence Score: 30/100
🚨 **LOW Coherence:** The narrative is highly fragmented, chronologically disrupted, or lacks critical detail (a sign of a rehearsed or edited account).
🔥 Most Problematic Segments:

Top 3-5 segments with the highest concentration of deception/evasion indicators.

  • "0:59 Caller: "Gone, - is the man leaving already?""
    Analysis: The caller asks if the attacker is leaving while the attack is audibly still in progress. This question is inappropriate for the context and suggests an unusual awareness of the event's progression, almost as if checking on a planned sequence rather than reacting to a chaotic assault.
  • "1:41 Caller: I'll go check it out."
    Analysis: The caller's husband is screaming for help in the background, yet her response is a calm, future-tense statement, 'I'll go check it out.' This demonstrates a profound lack of urgency and emotional disconnect from the violent events supposedly unfolding.
  • "3:00 Caller continues out of breath: get out, I'm not going there, he's running after me. he went back and he's going to kill my husband, he was still breathing just now."
    Analysis: This segment is chronologically and logically impossible. The caller claims the attacker is running after her, but in the same breath says he 'went back' to her husband. The rapid and contradictory shift in tenses (present progressive, past, future) indicates narrative invention rather than a recall of actual events.
  • "3:11 Caller exclaims in pain: Now it got silent!"
    Analysis: This statement is a definitive declaration marking the exact moment the victim's sounds cease. A person genuinely hiding in fear would be unlikely to have such precise awareness. It suggests proximity to the victim and direct knowledge of the final moments of the assault.
  • "3:33 Caller: Well, probably there - if he hasn't already gone out - in our the bedroom that is."
    Analysis: When asked for the intruder's location, the caller's response is extremely vague and non-committal ('Well, probably there'). This is highly evasive language for a critical piece of information and suggests she either does not want to or cannot provide a truthful, concrete answer.
🔄 Significant Language Shifts:

Points where the subject's linguistic pattern changes (e.g., tense, pronoun usage).

  • BEFORE: he's running after me.
    AFTER: ...he went back and he's going to kill my husband...
    Change Analysis: The caller describes a chaotic and contradictory sequence of events using inconsistent tenses. The narrative shifts from present progressive ('he's running') to simple past ('he went back') to future ('he's going to kill') within a single sentence. This chronological disruption is a strong indicator of fabricated information, as recounting a real experience typically maintains a more consistent time frame.
  • BEFORE: Someone came in through the window and stabbed my husband.
    AFTER:
    Change Analysis: The caller begins her report by using the distancing term 'Someone' to describe the perpetrator, which depersonalizes the attacker and separates the caller from the event. This is a common linguistic device to create psychological distance from a traumatic or deceptive account.
❌ Deception Indicators (2):
  • Tense Inconsistency: "he's running after me. he went back and he's going to kill my husband"
    The caller's account of the attacker's movements is logically impossible. She claims 'he's running after me,' but then states 'he went back' to her husband. This contradictory timeline is a hallmark of a fabricated story that has not been thought through.
  • Weak Denial: "Someone came in through the window and stabbed my husband."
    The use of 'Someone' to describe the attacker is a form of distancing. It's a weak, non-specific introduction to the main event, lacking the expected detail or emotional weight of a genuine victim's account.
🌫️ Evasion Indicators (2):
  • Vague Language: "Well, probably there - if he hasn't already gone out - in our the bedroom that is."
    When asked for the intruder's current location, a critical piece of information for responding officers, the caller provides a highly uncertain and evasive answer. The use of 'Well, probably there' avoids commitment and is inconsistent with the expected knowledge of someone inside the house during the event.
  • Repeating Question: "is he leaving already?"
    The caller repeatedly asks if the attacker is leaving while the attack is clearly ongoing. This deflects from her own role and knowledge, reframing her as an observer asking for information rather than a participant in the event. It is a highly unusual and evasive tactic.
🔑 Guilty Knowledge Indicators (2):

Segments revealing information the subject shouldn't possess if innocent.

  • "Gone, - is the man leaving already?"
    The question 'is the man leaving already?' is highly unusual in this context. It suggests the caller has knowledge that the attack is a task to be completed, rather than a chaotic and unpredictable event. It implies an expectation that the attacker *would* be leaving at some point.
  • "Now it got silent!"
    This declarative statement shows a precise awareness of the exact moment the victim stops making noise. For someone supposedly hiding in another room, this level of certainty about the moment of death or incapacitation indicates proximity and knowledge inconsistent with her narrative of being a fearful, separated witness.
📞 Emergency Call Transcript Analysis
This analysis focuses on urgency, emotional congruence, and linguistic indicators of deception or guilty knowledge in emergency call transcripts.
Final Verdict
Leakage Score: 95

The caller's narrative is not credible, and the linguistic and behavioral evidence, particularly her calculated absence during the attack's climax, overwhelming performative communication, and contradictory statements, indicates she is being deceptive and is likely involved in the homicide.

Performative Language and Emotional Disconnect
The caller asks unusual questions like, "Can you hear my husband screaming?" (0:54). This is not a question a person in genuine crisis would ask, as they are experiencing the event firsthand. So What? This question serves no purpose in expediting help. It is a performative act, attempting to establish for the recording that a violent event is occurring. This suggests the caller is more focused on creating an impression and a narrative than on the immediate crisis, a common trait in deceptive calls.
Narrative Control Through Questioning
The caller frequently reverses the expected role by asking the dispatcher questions, such as "is the man leaving already?" (0:59), "O-Is someone coming yet?" (1:12), and "Should I go and check?" (3:29). So What? In a genuine emergency, the caller provides information. By asking questions, the caller seizes control of the conversation, forcing the dispatcher to speculate. This is a tactic to avoid providing details, manage cognitive load while fabricating a story, and project an image of a helpless victim who needs guidance.
Critical Absence During Attack Climax
The caller announces "I have to go now... I'll go check it out" (1:36-1:41) and leaves the phone during the most violent phase of the assault. This absence coincides with the victim begging her for help by name and the assailant shouting "Die!" (2:03). So What? This is the most significant behavioral red flag. A person genuinely fearing for their life would not abandon their only link to emergency services. This action strongly suggests she was not in danger and was likely an active participant, needing to free her hands for the final assault.
Vague and Contradictory Narrative
The description of the attacker is generic ("black-black clothes," "can't see your whole face"). The account of the attacker's movements is illogical: "he's running after me. he went back and he's going to kill my husband" (3:00). So What? Vague descriptions are a hallmark of fabricated stories, as there are no real details to draw from. The contradictory statement of the attacker chasing her while simultaneously returning to the victim is a logical impossibility, indicating a story being poorly constructed under pressure, a classic sign of deception.
Distancing Language and Self-Focus
The caller's early statements include her own alleged injuries ("I've been beaten up too," "Apparently i am bleeding too"). Later, she claims ignorance of the victim's condition ("I don't know, I'm in the kitchen now"). The phrase "What a strange sight to me" (3:54) is bizarrely detached. So What? The immediate inclusion of her own injuries establishes her as a victim. The subsequent claims of ignorance and detached observations create physical and emotional distance from the victim and the event. A genuinely concerned individual would likely focus entirely on the dying victim's status rather than their own condition or making analytical comments.
⏱️ Event Timeline
A chronological breakdown of key events and sounds.
Initial Report and Ongoing Attack (0:00 - 1:34)

Status: On the phone, reporting the attack while it occurs in the background.

Summary: The caller reports a home invasion and stabbing. Throughout this period, she remains on the phone while sounds of a violent struggle, including the victim's screams and impacts, are audible. The caller's questions ('Can you hear my husband screaming?', 'is the man leaving already?') are unusual and suggest a performative element rather than a genuine plea for help.

Audible Vocalizations:
  • 0:23: Victim: Ouch!
  • 0:27: Victim: Ouch.
  • 0:50: Victim: A-Aiii!
  • 0:56: Victim: -Uohh!... Uhh!
  • 1:01: Victim: Aargh!!
  • 1:08: Victim: uuoh!
  • 1:09: Victim: Ouch, ouch!
  • 1:11: Victim: C A.!
  • 1:18: Victim: ...car! -Can you try saying help!?
  • 1:28: Victim: Run!
  • 1:30: Victim: ---, come here for help!
Caller Leaves Phone at Attack Climax (1:35 - 2:08)

Status: Away from the phone, allegedly to 'check it out'.

Summary: The caller inexplicably hands the phone to her child and leaves the line, stating 'I'll go check it out.' This absence coincides with the most brutal part of the attack. The victim is heard begging her for help by name, and a furious voice, identified as the 'murderer,' screams 'Die!'. The caller's decision to disconnect from her only lifeline at the peak of the violence is profoundly illogical and highly suspicious.

Audible Vocalizations:
  • 1:42: Victim: Help me.
  • 1:46: Victim: Come on, come on!
  • 1:48: Victim: Well, you can help a little bit.
  • 1:52: Victim: Come help me!
  • 2:00: Victim: Come (EXTRACTED) help!
  • 2:03-04: Victim: aijaa lalalala
Child's Plea and Caller's Return with Narrative (2:09 - 3:10)

Status: On the phone, constructs narrative of the attacker after child pleads for help.

Summary: After the caller's brief return, her child takes the phone and desperately pleads for help, screaming 'Father, don't die!'. The caller fully takes over again at 2:42. She then provides a vague description of the attacker ('black-black clothes') and a confusing, contradictory account of events, claiming the attacker is running after her but also went back to kill her husband.

Audible Vocalizations:
  • 2:16: Victim: –aah!
  • 2:19: Child: Father, don't die!
  • 2:22: Victim: Ouch!
  • 2:27/28: Victim or unknown: sounds like 'He left'.
Victim's Silence and Narrative Solidification (3:11 - 4:16)

Status: On the phone, feigning ignorance of the victim's condition and the attacker's departure.

Summary: The caller exclaims 'Now it got silent!', marking the end of the victim's vocalizations. Despite being in the house, she claims not to know the victim's condition or the intruder's location, asking the dispatcher 'Should I go and check?'. She then relies on her child to confirm the attacker has left, which she immediately parrots back as a question to the dispatcher ('He left already, didn't he?'). This behavior suggests she is creating a narrative of helplessness and distance from the event's conclusion.

Conclusion:

The timeline reveals a highly problematic sequence of events. The caller's vocalizations are performative and controlling, contrasting sharply with the audible, brutal attack on the victim. Her decision to leave the phone at the precise moment the victim is murdered is the most significant red flag. Her subsequent return with a vague, contradictory narrative and feigned ignorance about the situation strongly indicates she is the perpetrator constructing a false story in real-time.

✨ Leakage Highlighted Across The Full Statement Chronological sentence breakdown with visually marked leakage patterns.
  1. .
  2. .
  3. .
  4. Whoa!
  5. Here, – There's a killer here.
  6. Come quickly!
  7. Someone came in through the window.
  8. Uh…Dogtown!
  9. [REDACTED ADDRESS] [REDACTED ADDRESS] EXTRACTED!
  10. Yes.
  11. There are faint background sounds.
  12. Someone came in through the window and stabbed my husband.
  13. I've been beaten up too.
  14. Yes!
  15. Right away.
  16. N-It's dark there.
  17. I ran to the phone as soon as I could.
  18. Apparently i am bleeding too.
  19. Hey!
  20. Quick!
  21. We also have four children here.
  22. Yes!
  23. No.
  24. "Quick!
  25. " Can you hear my husband screaming?
  26. "Gone, - is the man leaving already?
  27. " O-Is someone coming yet?
  28. Hey, I have to go now.
  29. (calls out his child's name: EXTRACTED!
  30. ).
  31. Can you come over here and pick up the phone?
  32. I'll go check it out.
  33. I, -I'm calling the police, they asked you to.
  34. .
  35. .
  36. we' is he leaving already?
  37. “what” or “should” What the hell!
  38. moans into the phone: nyuh!
  39. Who's coming?
  40. Ouch!
  41. Hey, stop it!
  42. I'm trying to help.
  43. Is there any result from that?
  44. Yes.
  45. Yeah.
  46. I don't know what kind of guy he is, he.
  47. .
  48. .
  49. -Ehh!
  50. -he broke our that, -whoops that back door, he's wearing black-black clothes.
  51. I'm here, I just ran get out, I'm not going there, he's running after me.
  52. he went back and he's going to kill my husband, he was still breathing just now.
  53. Now it got silent!
  54. Don't cry EXTRACTED hey, baby.
  55. I don't know, I'm in the kitchen now, I don't know Should I go and check?
  56. Ugh.
  57. Well, probably there - if he hasn't already gone out - in our the bedroom that is.
  58. I don't know, I fell silent there.
  59. is it still there?
  60. He left already, didn't he?
  61. Black clothes, someone like that (ugh), I say he's 180 centimeters tall, a little, quite sturdy (ugh).
  62. Like black clothes, like you can't see your whole face.
  63. What a strange sight to me.
  64. Yeah N.
  65. !
  66. Hey, come quickly!
  67. Is there an ambulance coming here?
  68. Yeah.
  69. Yeah.
  70. Okay.