Wednesday, October 21, 2015

911 Call and Lawyer Statement DJ Creato

Brendan Link Creato
From:  Inquirer 

The father of a 3-year-old boy whose body was found in the woods in Haddon Township last week is not a suspect, and spoke to investigators without a lawyer present, the attorney for D.J. Creato said in an interview Wednesday.

"The police have told me unequivocally that there are no suspects, that my client is not a suspect, and that they're trying to piece together what happened here," said Richard J. Fuschino Jr., a Philadelphia attorney. "And in truth my client and his family are trying to do the exact same thing."

It is interesting to note that the lawyer felt the need to add the unnecessary word, "unequivocally" to his sentence. 

Also note the order of his sentences.  

"The police told me that my client is not a suspect" would be a very strong statement. 

Yet, it is not what he said. 

"The police have told me..." instead of "the police told me", which, even in this small change in the verb status, tells us of a 'lengthening of time', which suggests that it took some time to get this information. 

What does that mean?

It may be that it took quite a bit of time to get a police officer to say this. 
Or, it may have taken time and more than one police officer to say this.  

In any case, it is a subtle weakness which is then further weakened by that which is not necessary: 

"unequivocally" means, clear, having only one meaning.  

Was this part of a much more elaborate conversation?

I am now wondering:  during a lengthy conversation or even multiple conversations, did, at some point, police say that his client was not a suspect in a specific allegation within the investigation?

Since, "police said my client is not a suspect" is "clear, and having only one meaning", the importing of the word "unequivocally" means that there must have been a complexity of information within the communication to which the lawyer wishes to 'boil down to a simple conclusion.'

It is not a strong statement as would have been this:

"Police said my client is not a suspect." He has indicated to us that there is more to this than his simple conclusion. 

Creato, 22, reported his son, Brendan, missing in a 911 call around 6 a.m. on Oct. 13, causing residents to scour their Westmont neighborhood after police sent out an automated call to the community about the disappearance.

Three hours later, Brendan's body was discovered in the woods near South Park Drive and Cooper Street, about half a mile from his father's apartment.

An autopsy last week was unable to determine a cause of death, and authorities have stayed mostly silent about their investigation. The Camden County Prosecutor's Office said earlier this week that the state medical examiner's office has assisted.

A Creato family friend advised D.J. to hire an attorney to help him navigate through the unfamiliar legal process, not because he has anything to hide, Fuschino said.

"In any situation where you have something this complicated and involved, it is smart and good advice to have a lawyer," Fuschino said.

It sounds pretty simple.  A toddler got out while his father was sleeping and was found dead, hence, "my client is not a suspect."  

It is not simple, but it is complex and it is involved.  

How did the boy die?
How did the boy get out?
Why did the father need to communicate, first, that he just woke up?
What is the father's history?
Has child protective services been involved?
Was the father drug tested?
Did the father polygraph?
What does the house look like?
Was the door locked as claimed?   

Toddler don't "leave."

Upon discovering Brendan was missing, Creato called his mother, who lives a block away, and then 911, Fuschino said. The calls happened within minutes, he said.

In the background of the 911 call, Creato's mother, Lisa, can be heard yelling Brendan's name.

"I just woke up and he wasn't in my apartment. I don't know if he wandered out or what happened. I don't know where he is. The door was locked, I guess he unlocked it and left."

The analysis of a 911 call has no special "rules" nor any different set of applications.  It simply has the same "expected versus unexpected" setting, with the reference point of the larger context:  

The initial report to police about a missing child.  

The is the larger, or external context, and is our reference point.  We speak that which is most important to us. 

For the subject, the first thing he wanted police to know is not that his child is missing, but that he just woke up, which establishes his 'innocence.'

What caused this?

It could be many different things, including a shady background where he felt that this report was clearly going to be looked at as his fault. 

One thing it does not show, however, is the priority of his missing child.  

Ask yourself, what would you say first?

I asked several new parents recently, from this case, without referencing it. 

"Hey, role play with me, for a minute.  It is 6 o'clock in the morning, you just woke up, got out of bed, and found ***** (toddler) gone.  Here we go:

911, what is your emergency?"

Each parent used similar wording and each parent reported the child first.  It was natural. 

Granted, it is not real, therefore, there is an absence of hormonal rush, but there are lots of 911 calls as a reference point for analysis. 

Recall when Haleigh Cummings, 5, went missing. 

Misty Croslin, baby-sitter soon to be step mother called 911:

911: “911, what’s your emergency”


1.  It is not expected that an emergency statement would begin with a greeting.  See several 911 calls here, including the one made by the Falcon Lake, Texas case of David Hartley by his wife, Tiffany, who re-told the story from the re-make of the re-make of the Hollywood movie, Titanic, to describe her husband's death.  

2.  Order speaks to priority:

a.  I just woke up
b.  our backdoor was wide open 
c.  I can't find our daughter 

3.  "our" daughter shows need to share, signaling that this is either not the biological mother (it wasn't) and/or the need to share is evidenced.  This need to share is not necessarily limited to biology, but is especially noteworthy when a biological parent uses it and has a profound need to share guilt and responsibility.  See Deborah Bradley for example.  

Would you have said, "...and he wasn't in my apartment"?

This is very unusual language. 

Even if he started with "I just woke up", what would be expected?

"My son is missing!" is the number answer. 
"I can't find my son!"

That he said he just woke up first, speaks to priority but to then say "he wasn't in my apartment" sounds very much like the avoidance of internal stress that comes from a direct lie:

"he wasn't in my apartment", by itself, (its form) it is very likely to prove reliable. 

In fact, we learned that it was a reliable sentence. 

He was not in the apartment, he was about a half mile away.  

This avoids saying what circumstances caused him to not be in the apartment and it brings the focus on to at what location the child is. 

It is supposed to be that the innocent caller does not know where he is. 

He knows where he is not, which thus hints to us with the natural, "Well, do you know where he is?" question. 

This is the language he chose to use in the call and it is not expected language.  

We consider what might sound reasonable, even in a panic. 

What if you had been heavily drinking and slept through his normal wake up, and felt guilty about it. What might that sound like?

"911, what is your emergency?"

"My son is missing!"

911:  What happened?  Where is your son?

Caller:  "I don't know!  I just woke up and can't find him.  I looked everywhere but I can't find him."

911:  Did you check outside the house?

Caller:  "hell yes!  I looked everywhere here.  Please hurry.  He is only 3 years old!  It is cold outside!  Last night I was drinking and overslept.  Oh please hurry and find him!"

This is just speculation, but it is what most would say.  

Addressing concerns that Creato sounded too calm in the call, Fuschino said the father believed Brendan was somewhere near the apartment.

By the time one calls 911, panic has set in and you, the caller know, he isn't near by.  

This happened to me, in 1991. 

I had 4 children, with my third, a monkey of a boy.  I could not find him and ran through the house searching, and calling his name.  I searched the front yard and backyard, next door, and finally, down the block in some local stores.  

I came to the shocking conclusion:  I must call 911. 

By then, we used cordless phones and I could not find it, but looked in my young daughter's room where her crib and changing table were. 

On top of her changing table, was my little boy, fast asleep.  

To climb up on top of the changing table was a feat of no small measure, but he was a superb athlete and had wanted his diaper changed.  He was always in a hurry, as to never miss out on playing with his brothers, so he went into the room, climbed up on the changing table (high enough for adults to comfortably change babies) but fell asleep waiting!  

The panic I felt, to this day, can come back to me in a flash.  By the time I knew to call 911, it was because he was gone.  

That this young man called 911 confident that his son was right around the area will likely cause people to roll their eyes.  It is quite a stretch. 

Yet, it is his need to justify his client's voice inflection that is of concern.  If he didn't cause, by negligence, for example, his son's disappearance, and police have simply said, "He is not a suspect", why the need to even explain away the criticism of his calm demeanor?

If I knew my client didn't do it, I would say "I don't know."  

Truth is like this.  It is strong, confident and often cares not for a need to explain.  

Voice inflection.

We do not use voice inflection in our analysis. I recognize that some people are good at such things, but in terms of "knowing" truth from deception, it is not something that can be scientifically applied, case by case.  

I prefer the extreme high percentages of Statement Analysis results, instead.

 We use the "speed of transmission" where the brain tells the tongue which words to use in a rapid fashion, and the interruption of such, through awkward or additional wording, to signal to us that more attention is needed, to guide us.  This is why "unnecessary" words are so valuable:  the subject could have said the sentence without, therefore, what was it that caused the brain to signal to the tongue to add in this unnecessary word?

We know that emotion is the number one impact upon change of language.

We know that the law of economy means that shorter sentences are best, and truth is often stated with brevity since it does not require layers of proof, while one is speaking. 

Sometimes employees that call out sick and are lying will not only make their voice sound sick, but give an overabundance of detail, thinking their words may be more convincing this way.  

Ignoring voice inflection is important for accuracy in analysis, however, after analysis is complete, this is something that can be looked at.  

For example, 7 year old Isabel Celis was reported "kidnapped" by her father, Sergio, who giggled in the 911 call and had no indication of nervousness.  

Lawyer statements are always fascinating.  They often reveal whether or not the lawyer believes in his client's innocence, or if he knows his client is guilty.  Lawyers will even issue reliable denials when they believe their client did not commit the crime accused of.  

"No one thinks at first the worst has happened," Fuschino said. "So I think it's certainly a level of concern you hear in his voice, but he's not hysterical.
"It would be rather astonishing to me," Fuschino added, "if he had any level of terror in his voice that suggested he knew more than he did."

When I was resigned to call 911, I thought that my son was missing.  Missing.  

Even as I type this, all these years later, with time passage and processing richly done, it still bothers me.  I was about to call police because I could not find him. 

D.J.'s parents, Lisa and David Creato, also have retained legal counsel to assist them during the investigative process, Philadelphia attorney William J. Brennan said.

"My clients are devastated," Brennan said in an interview. "They're in the process of attempting to bury their grandchild, and they are cooperating with law enforcement. We hope to have some answers as to how this tragedy occurred."
Funeral services for Brendan, which the family has said will be private, are scheduled Thursday at Blake-Doyle Funeral Home in Collingswood.


Lis said...

Could "The police have told me" also refer to police having said something at one point which they no longer are saying? i.e., they have said this but they are no longer saying it?

"I just woke up and he wasn't in my apartment" could this refer to an expectation that he would be in the apt but wasn't? i.e., in a case where he was not in the apt the night before but was expected to have been returned by morning, or some such thing?

The statements so far leave me wondering if Creato, himself, was there the night before? was there a babysitter or were others there with him at some point? What were the events leading up to "I just woke up"?

"We hope to have some answers as to how this tragedy occurred" is not a very demanding or confident statement.

lynda said...


I think most parents DO think the worst has happened when they can't find their child and he is MISSING.

Anonymous said...

No forced entry. No sexual assault.

Anonymous said...

"It's a complicated process and when you have a situation of a missing person that becomes a deceased person ... it's a complicated process. Not everyone's used to this," Fuschino said, noting that Creato had a lengthy interview with investigators immediately after the incident without a lawyer present."

Anonymous said...

"Up until now, a fine and good relationship," Fuschino said when asked about the terms the Creatos and the family of Denoto were on."

But not anymore????

Anonymous said...


Unknown said...

I agree, Lis! I think the attorney is referring to being told that Creato was not a suspect in the past, (and that things may have changed since then).

He even goes on to confirm that he is speaking about the day of the disappearance regarding being told Creato was not a suspect:

"(Investigators) told me that the day of the disappearance," Fuschino said, adding that Creato retained a lawyer last Tuesday, the day the child was found dead, at the suggestion of family and friends. "I've been in since day one."

Yeah, DUH Fuschino! Nobody was a suspect yet on the day it happened, the investigation had not even begun!

Unknown said...

I cropped this quote from the article at the link posted by Anon at 6:12.

Carnival Barker said...

The grandparents of a child that let himself out of his father's apartment have lawyered up??? Hmmm, talk about leakage. I guess Grandma and Grandpa already know Brendan didn't show himself out.

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ima.grandma said...

"I just woke up and he wasn't in my apartment" 

Even with giving him the benefit of the doubt as to just waking up????
I would have liked to hear:
 " I woke up and Brendan wasn't in his bed. I've looked everywhere, all through the apartment.  I can't find my son. He's gone. He's only three.  Please send someone to help find him. Please hurry! Hurry please!"

Another little one gone forever. So little value is placed on "teaching and learning" responsibility in our society, especially the young ones. We Reap What We Sow!

I used to hear it all the time, sometimes cringing, but now agree in all but the rarest and most complicated circumstances.

It's Always the Parents Fault! :)

Shannon In CA said...

I think the dad fell asleep because he was drinking or doing some kind of drug and Brendan was still awake and playing. He got into something...the drug, something under a sink, etc. and died. Or was given too much benedryl or something. Dad then moved the body, called mom at like 5:30 or whenever, then called 911. Could be wrong, but it's what feels like happened. I am sure dad didn't kill Brendan but I do think he knows way more than he's letting on. Look at Paul wayment's reaction after he left his son in the car and went hunting. His son got out and froze to death and that dad was in tears and accepted prosecution and then eventually killed himself out of guilt. Not saying people should kill themselves ever but the reactions are so different...and if my 5 year old was missing id be saying "my daughter is missing! She's only 5 and I can't find her! I've looked everywhere...she's not here in the house or outside!" This guy's statements just don't seem right to me.

Shannon In CA said...

Another thing....what are the grandparents cooperating with the police about? If they are not involved and know nothing...then they know nothing. Does the mom have an attorney? Is she "cooperating"? I don't think so...because she has nothing to hide. Maybe I'm readin too much into that statement by the attorney but it feels like they should be saying "we are devastated and we want answers!" Instead they are "cooperating."

Lis said...

Here is a thought of what could have happened. The little boy awoke during the night and was not in his own familiar home. He was confused and disoriented and wanted his mother- so he set off to find her. He was capable of opening the door, going down the stairs, opening the other door and going outside. Once outside, his fate was in the hands of whoever or whatever he ran into. Are there any people- homeless, bums, nightowls, teenagers- who hang around that park at night?

The father may have been befuddled, just awoken, did not realize the seriousness of the situation when he called. Maybe it was the woman with him that had grasped the situation and had him call and he had not really grasped it yet himself. For all we know he is doing a Paul Wayment right now.

Hopefully the autopsy sheds some light on things and there is some surveillance footage from nearby as well.

Anyways, just had to play the devil's advocate a bit on this one. At this point it's a complete mystery.

Anonymous said...

The little boy could have easily unlocked doors and wandered off by himself. Just recently little three year old Reinn wandered off on her own, who, thankfully was found in time; so the possibility of this child getting out by himself is not so far fetched. IMO, Lis above presents an excellent possibility as to what could have happened.

As for the father (and his parents) hiring an attorney, this is the very thing I would have done, including the grandmother who was there when 911 showed up. Your child is missing, she was there? You need a lawyer to speak for you! It's too easy even for innocent people to trap themselves with just one questionable word or wrong look. Attorneys know the correct legal jargon and you don't. Get one.

You get one if you have a moving traffic violation caused by a tail light missing that you had no idea how it went missing, and now you're subject to winding up in court, getting points against your license and paying a big fine, additionally your insurance rate will increase to the tune of approximately $600 per year for the next umpteen years and you don't have a lawyer? This would be ludicrous.

Only an idiot wouldn't get an attorney to represent them in any legal matter, especially one so serious as their child missing where they are quickly the first suspect and could be charged for the death of the child. Well duuh...

John Mc Gowan said...

In puzzling case of dead tot, sex assault ruled out


There were no indications the 3-year-old Haddon Township boy who was found dead was sexually assaulted, and no signs of forced entry at the apartment from where he was reported missing, authorities sad Wednesday.

SFig said...

I would like to ask a question regarding the hiring of a lawyer in cases such as this. Some think hiring a lawyer shows guilt while others think it is a smart move to protect yourself. I always think back to the case of Kevin Fox, whose daughter Riley disappeared while he was sleeping. The police targeted him and arrested him after he provided a false confession. It was later determined through DNA analysis that someone else committed the crime. Had Kevin Fox retained a lawyer he might have avoided what happened to him. But perhaps might have appeared guilty. I am bringing this up because I am very curious what others think as this is often something that arises in missing children cases. I would appreciate your thoughts.

Shannon In CA said...

Here's why I don't think he just wandered out: an autopsy should have been able to determine if he'd drowned (he didn't) or died of hypothermia (was it even cold enough for that back there...not sure of temp but they should have been able to tell hypothermia anyway).

He didn't die from blunt force trauma or any other trauma. He didn't walk himself to the spot where he was found. So what's left? He died from a substance of some kind and was "placed" there.

It's premature to say, yes. It's just what I feel like probably happened.

John Mc Gowan said...


Murder suspect claims self-defense in 911 call

I do not know if this is the full transcript, which may effect the analysis if there is missing information between what has be documented in this article and and the full transcript of the 911 call. Going by this. There is a lot of missing information in what he reports happened in the 911 call, to what actually happened. He is with holding information.

The man accused of murder in the fatal shooting outside the Bill Ellis Convention Center on Saturday claims he was first attacked by the man he shot, according to 911 calls the night of the shooting.

Stephen Louis Maddox Jr., 41, of Ember Drive, Durham, acknowledges he knew the man he shot and killed and could identify him by his first name.

"Yes I did shoot him sir,” Maddox said on the 911 call.

This is a strong statement.

Maddox first called 911 on Saturday night and hung up. But a 911 telecommunicator called the number back and Maddox answered.

"I just got attacked,” was the first thing Maddox said. "I’m at the Sheetz gas station .... This guy just attacked me and I had to shoot him.”

The word "Just" can be used to minimize and or compare. It can also be used (as i believe in this case) to tell us something that has "just" happened. Eg, I "just got a call 5 mins ago. The incident has not long happened.

"Attacked me"

This is passive language. What does he mean by "attacked". Passivity is often employed when one wants to conceal or hold back information.

"I had to shoot him.”

Why did he "have to shoot him".
The word "attacked" is repeated making it sensitive.
What happened?

The 911 operator calmly asks Maddox to tell him what happened.

"He attacked me in the bathroom. When I came outside he jumped on me again ... I know the guy.”

Again the word "attacked" appears, and again it is passive. What does he mean by this?

"When I came outside he jumped on me again"

The word "when" is a jump in time (Temporal lacunae) missing information. This supports the passivity in his language. What happened before he came outside?. Where did he come outside from? It is assumed it is from the "bathroom" but he doesn't say that. He doesn't say "when i came outside from the bathroom", so we are not permitted to say it for him.

"When I came outside he jumped on me again"

We see here there is a change in language from "attacked" to "jumped on me" and again the words "jumped on me" are passive also. What are his "personal, internal, subjective dictionary" definitions of these words? is the change in language justified? I believe it is. The word "attacked" enters his language when he talks about what happened in the bathroom. The words "jumped me" arise when he tells us he came "outside" (from wherever he was) he does not tell us where.

Numerous Wilson Police officers and investigators responded around 10:45 p.m. to the center at 2811 Chicken Drive SW, police said.

Officers located a victim, Kelly Wilkerson, 41, of Raleigh, suffering from several gunshots wounds, police said.

"I don’t know his whole name sir. His name is Kelly something,” Maddox said.

"We are notifying somebody for you ...” the telecommunicator said. "Where is he at sir ... where is he at now.”

"There is a big sign that says Bills,” Maddox said.

Maddox later says he is now standing in front of the large Bill’s sign and the shooting victim is near his motorcycle close to the drive-through.

Maddox confirms he is the one calling and the spelling of his name. There is also a reference to Wilkerson being shot three times.

Maddox tells the telecommunicator he’s afraid to go back to the scene of the shooting.


John Mc Gowan said...

The operator asks what type of weapon Maddox is carrying.

"I have a 44 revolver,” Maddox said.

"Is that weapon secure,” the operator asks.

"Absolutely, it’s in my hand,” Maddox said.

"Sir, when the officer arrives I need you to put it down. Do you understand me?” the operator said.

"I will,” Maddox said.

"Do not be brandishing it when they arrive on the scene,” the operator said. "Put it down, step away from it and do exactly what the officers tell you to do.”

"Yes sir,” Maddox said.

"I want to make sure we don’t get you hurt or anyone else hurt,” the telecommunicator said.

"The police just passed me,” Maddox would say.

"Put that weapon down. Put that weapon down right now,” the telecommunicator said. "Keep your hands away from it so they can see what’s going on. OK.”

You can also hear the telecommunicator apparently relaying call information to police.

"Sir, I would like you to put your hands out so they can see you. They understand you are not trying to argue with them. When the officer approaches you do exactly what the officer says. I’m still on the phone with them.”

"Is the weapon on the ground,” the telecommunicator asks.

"The gun is 50 feet away from me,” Maddox said.

It appears Maddox is taken into custody and the call ends.

Maddox was arrested and later charged with first-degree murder. He was placed in the Wilson County Jail under no bond.

Wilson County Emergency Medical Services provided medical assistance but was unable to revive Wilkerson, police said.

Numerous 911 calls were placed Saturday night.

"I’m at the Bill Ellis (Barbecue) in Wilson, I got a man shot,” one caller said. "I don’t know where he was shot at. I need a bus. I need police. I need something out here.”

The telecommunicator tells the caller that police are on the way and asks where the victim is located.

"He is laying up against the Bill Ellis building that says ‘Pay Here.’ I guess it’s a walk up.”

Police said the shooting occurred in the parking lot area. The outer facility of Bill’s Barbecue was roped off with crime scene tape as police investigated on Saturday night.

The Queens of Chrome Motorcycle Club had booked the convention center from 9 a.m. Saturday until 2 a.m. Sunday for a 10th anniversary celebration event.

Numerous motorcycle clubs were present during the event itself, officials said.

Police said both the suspect and the victim were attending the event.

The victim, Wilkerson, was the husband of one of the newest members of Queens of Chrome. Group members said he attended to support his wife.

A portion of Forest Hills Road was closed and traffic turned around during the investigation. A large crowd of attendees at the event was spotted outside the convention center as police were investigating.

The Wilson Police Department is encouraging anyone with information regarding this case to contact police at 252-399-2323 or Crime Stoppers at 252-243-2255.

Trigger said...

I listened to parts of Brooks Houck's interview with police about missing mother Crystal Rogers because it has been broadcasted on the media.

He implies that Crystal Rogers is an out of control woman who hangs with other women who are out of control when she is out of the home.

Crystal's sister then responds that the missing mother of five's behavior was not as Brooks' says.

He disparages the missing mother's character in his interview.

BallBounces said...

"Attacked me". This is passive language.

"Attacked me" is not passive language. "I was attacked" is passive language.

"I had to shoot him.” Why did he "have to shoot him".

To protect himself from the bodily harm that typically comes from being attacked.

John Mc Gowan said...

BallBounces said...

"To protect himself from the bodily harm that typically comes from being attacked".


Was it verbally or bodily. He doesn't say. People can be verbally attacked as well as bodily / physically. If it was the former, then, it doesn't warrant being shot. If it was the latter, how was he attacked?
Hit with something?
All 3?

This is why i said it is passive.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

SFig said...

Great question.

In the case cited, he had repeatedly issued a reliable denial.

He eventually understood that they were so poorly trained that they possessed no discernment. Had he been my son, and issued the denial the way he did, and they were too stupid to grasp it, I would have gotten a lawyer too.

The investigator and assist DA should never be in positions of authority over others ever again. They disgraced themselves in the most bizarre interview possible.

There was nothing Fox could do and really, from the point of view of the investigator and ADA, there was no point in the interview: just charge him.

What good is an interview if you are not going to listen?

Rarely do I support law suits. THAT was one that was needed.

The investigator and ADA both had serious issues. It was not poor training, or even no training. Something triggered them into rage and blindness. If it was personal ambition, it only reaffirms my belief: they should never be in a position of authority over the lives of citizens. This was not a mistake. It was really bad.

They made it all the more difficult for the public to trust police and prosecutors.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


do you have a link for that?


SFig said...

Mr. Hyatt,

Thank you for your response to my question. I appreciate your insight and look forward to reading your site each day.


Anonymous said...

There is also a huge difference between "He is not a suspect" and "He's been cleared," especially when the investigation just started, and when nobody is yet a suspect.

ima.grandma said...

Nice job John. I'm also impressed with the 911 operator, specifically: Tell me what happened. Operator (O) is recording caller's initial words after the incident which we know are key. While (O) keeps him talking (O) is performing critical communications to essential agencies. (O) mission isn't to interview requesting follow-up details. (O) seamlessly turns instructive with clear concise questions and directives re: the weapon. Props to (O)

Anonymous said...

You're right, BB, neither "He attacked me" nor "He jumped on me" are passive. And "he jumped on me" describes how the alleged attack started.

That doesn't clear him or incriminate him, of course. Self-defense is a valid response to why he felt he had to shoot; it will be interesting to follow how each side tries to show what likely happened.

One of his other responses shows just how vastly different are people's subjective dictionaries and how perspective and context will vary our current definition:

911: Sir, is the gun secure right now?"

Man reporting he just shot somebody multiple times: Absolutely; it's in my hand!

Yeah, I'm reasonably certain the dispatcher and LEOs en route wouldn't consider that secure

Shannon In CA said...

Just read up on this travesty. And again, a father acting like a grieving father. No idea what dj Creato is actually doing right now...but his call sure sounds a lot more like the misty croslin call than to one where the parent really leant know anything to me.

ima.grandma said...


911: Sir, is the gun secure right now?"

Yes I smiled reading that great line and commentary. A comedian needs to pick it up and run with it. Funny.:)

Anonymous said...

I wonder which party's attorney recommended DJ and his parents have separate counsel? And what information persuaded that party?

If my son's or daughter's young child is dead and I'm convinced they did nothing wrong, WE are facing this together, WE are cooperating with authorities, WE are facing the world, grieving, seeking closure.

It would take some harsh reality and clear signs of serious criminal behavior to convince me my hurting child's and my best interests could conflict -- presumably we both would want the same result, the truth, closure and all guilty locked up for life.

ima.grandma said...


Wow Foodie, where have you been? You wrote a strong and assertive statement without crossing over into the aggressive lane. It's refreshing to read to-the-point assertions void of ifs-&-buts. Welcome to Peter's (and our:) blog.

Lis said...

On the subject of lawyers, I would get one myself if I ended up in a predicament like this (God forbid and not very likely because I would never go to sleep if my door was easily opened by a toddler!)

I've read too many stories of innocent people speaking freely with police in good faith and then having their words twisted and being wrongly convicted. The innocence project is a real eye opener.

I don't think you can determine guilt or innocence only by whether a person has engaged a lawyer, but it is one piece of the puzzle. I'm not sure about having different lawyers, possibly the lawyers do not want to represent more than one person?

Speaking of puzzle, I hope they come out with more info soon on this case, it's really creeping me out.

Shannon, it does seem like drugs are most likely scenario, if that's not it then I'll really be stumped.

Lis said...

re: legal counsel, this is an oldie but goodie

Carnival Barker said...

The parent of a missing/deceased child immediately getting a lawyer never sounds right to me. DJ was questioned for however long without a lawyer, and then suddenly he has a lawyer. We've all seen the videos, when does someone who showed without a lawyer suddenly ask for a lawyer? We all know the answer.

The most telling thing to me (aside from the 911 call) is the grandparents retaining a lawyer to "help them during the investigative process." LOLOLOL. Sounds like this whole family is bracing themselves for what they know is coming.

Anonymous said...

Two outside experts were called in at the request of the county medical examiner to review the autopsy.

polo said...

No joke. If you did not do the crime . . . . get a lawyer! Make no mistake about it.

C5H11ONO said...
This is a link to a police interview where his brother called and told him to leave. You can see a different personality here.

elf said...

Where I grew up, if someone jumped on you or jumped you it meant that you were getting your @$$ kicked.

elf said...

If someone ever kidnapped or hurt my kids (God forbid) id try to hire a lawyer. Or beg one to help me find the answers. Lawyers have resources that I would need, not just legal help, like private investigators with real talent not charlatans after money and publicity, and they usually know judges and policemen and can fast-track stuff.
I often wonder if progress would have been made in my friend Tracy Pickett's case and she could have been found if her mom would've been able to hire a lawyer who would have helped to fight for answers and push the police to investigate Tracy's disappearance.

Anonymous said...

Irrelevant as to whether one is guilty or innocent; it is a very foolish person who would not obtain legal counsel in a legal situation, including in the area of making any statements where you are going to be held accountable and measured on every word you say and how you said it. Don't be foolish; protect yourselves.

Do you have a law degree in the specialty you are being questioned with or possibly charged within? Of course you don't. Remember, even lawyers hire lawyers to represent them. They know that it is a stupid person who shows themselves gullible in their own vulnerable behalf.

To not obtain legal counsel implies that you believe you understand every element of the law that pertains to your particular situation, that you can rely wholeheartedly on anything and everything you are being told by every member of law enforcement or other entity, and that all elements of the law are fair and balanced in your favor. You don't and they aren't.

Do not EVER rely solely on your own judgment in any legal situation, including in the execution of any legal documents or possible court matters. It is not about whether you would appear to be guilty, or dumb, if you seek the services of an attorney; it is about protecting your own interests. Do not ever assume that anyone else will be looking out for your interests. They aren't.

Further, it is illegal in some states for certain licensed professionals in certain types of business relationships (including certain kinds of counseling services) not to advise others (such as their clients) to seek legal counsel, or to advise them against seeking legal counsel prior to executing any legal documents or attempting to negotiate for themselves. You follow such bad advice and the chances are about 99% that you have just sunk yourself. Believe it, the individual who gave you this bad advice will not be there holding your hand.

It is wrong and in some states it is a violation of the law, to tell anyone that they don't need an attorney, or that they will appear guilty if they confer with an attorney. Fortunes have been made and lost due to the lack of or failure to obtain adequate legal counsel; as well, there are many sitting in prisons today and for years to come due to not having proper legal representation in both criminal and civil matters. Always protect your own interests, no one is going to do it for you.

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Creato is just trying to get through this one day at a time; this very bad tragedy, this funeral and living the rest of his life without his pride and joy", the attorney said

THIS funeral?

Lis said...

"when does someone who showed without a lawyer suddenly ask for a lawyer?"
There are 2 possible answers to this:
1. The person is guilty and they've realized they can't hide it
2. The person is innocent and they've encountered a hostile/dishonest police interviewer and realize they've made a big mistake trusting them and speaking freely

I don't know which it is in this case -holding off judgment- but I am confident that time will tell. Glad to hear the medical examiner is seeking further expertise.

Anonymous said...

Richard J. Fuschino Jr., the Philadelphia attorney representing D.J. Creato, said Friday the family is still seeking answers. Creato is not a suspect, Fuschino said authorities had told him. The Camden County Prosecutor's Office declined to comment.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Anonymous October 22 6:16 AM


It has not been definitively proven that Rainn Peterson let herself out of her grandparents' home or wandered off on her own. On the contrary, the Trumball County Sheriff's department is still actively investigating to determine how Rainn got out since she was unable to open the only unlocked door (the one to the garage).

Rainn's grandfather was downstairs with her two brothers, Rainn's grandmother was upstairs in the kitchen preparing the meal. As all the known family members whereabouts were accounted for, logically someone else had to have entered the home, opened the door and either let Rainn out or took her out through the door. LE could easily determine whether Rainn could open the door simply by unlocking it and asking Rainn (or having a grandparent ask Rainn) to open the door.

Brandi Peterson said, "The only door that wasn't [locked] was the house door and the garage door. Uhm, the house door was shut like always, but it was not locked-the garage door was, uhm, found popped open when my grandmother went to let my dog out after my daughter had been missing." (starting at 2:19 here

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Anonymous said... October 23, 2015 at 10:24 AM


THIS funeral?

Anonymous- Your comment quickly caught my attention as we lost a close friend this week. Your comment prompted me to compare the lawyer's statement with what I have said this week. I realized that when others have asked me about her surviving daughter, I've said "She's just trying to get through this, the death of her mom, the funeral, and all the legal paperwork."

1. I unconsciously said "this" is close because it's our close friends, it's currently happening, it's going to be an ongoing process for awhile, and it's a big deal.

2. I unconsciously said "the" because we are clarifying what "this" is that she's trying to get through. I found that I automatically listed the initial event, followed successively by the other events that normally occur after a death (i.e. I detailed the process).

The amazing thing to me is that it was all subconsciously spoken, in seconds...they asked, I answered. I can see why it would be hard to suppress guilty knowledge (interrupted speech, interrupted speed of communication, repeating questions to stall, carefully chosen words, answering ambiguously, etc.)...the truth does just roll out effortlessly. The effort necessary to suppress it is what Statement Analysis is founded upon.

Anonymous said...

I am the Anonymous who posted the "THIS Funeral" question, and appreciate your insight. I live in a NJ town near the Creato family, and I have never heard anything but "THE Funeral." Regional dialects may vary, but the subconscious does not.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Anonymous @ 11:12

Good catch! Thinking about your comment made me realize that of all the funerals I've attended (and it's been a lot), I've never once heard anyone refer to a funeral as "this" funeral. Then I realized why- No one ever wants to go to a funeral. It's a not a happy event and no one is comfortable. There's our own grief and the issue of handling other's grief (what to say, how can we comfort them, etc.)...not to mention the awkwardness if the family doesn't get along well or there are ex-es who may come. Strong emotions tend to inflame family drama. Additionally, there are usually people who are strangers to us, grieving as well.

As human beings,we tend to avoid that which makes us uncomfortable. None of us like to think about dying and we're confronted with it at funeral. To safely distance ourselves mentally, we say "the" funeral or "[insert person's name]'s" funeral.

Anonymous said...

snipped...On the morning 3-year-old Brendan Link Creato was found dead, a township resident said he saw an older man pushing a covered stroller at 7 a.m. toward the scene where the toddler's body was discovered.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

DJ Creato has a 17 year old girlfriend. Shades of Ron Cummings and Misty Croslin?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Father arrested:
Brendan Creato: