Wednesday, August 22, 2007
at 4:17 PM
I take a close look at this case reviewing what little information I can find and I share it with you.
You will find my post over at CrimeBlog.US today.
CrimeBlog.US has now changed to and is being redirected to TrueCrimeWeblog.com and not all post are loading up so with that, I will repost this post for you below:
Attacked from Behind
Posted by Eyes for Lies on Aug 22 2007
The last thing Tracy Hacker remembered was sitting in her backyard with her husband on a Friday night in October. Three weeks later, she woke from a coma after a traumatic brain injury.Read more
Part of Tracy’s skull had to be removed in an effort to save her life. Doctors feared she may not survive, but she did — and today she is thriving. Looking at her now, you’d never know the ordeal she went through just ten months ago…
On that fateful day last October, Hacker’s husband called
To date, no one has been arrested in this case and police are now saying that they only have circumstantial evidence – not enough to arrest anyone – but they do not believe the guy in the police sketch is the one who committed this vicious attack. They have their eyes on someone else.
So then, who did this? Someone random or perhaps someone close to Hacker?
When Hacker is asked who did this to her, she responds, “I’ll never know because I was hit from behind.” However, since the attack, Hacker has divorced her husband and has not gone back to the house where the attack occurred.
That certainly is odd.
In looking at this case, I found very little information but I did find the
Hacker’s husband is only referred to as “C” for (male) caller in the transcripts.In reviewing “C’s” responses, I find them odd and strangely inappropriate for this situation.My eyebrows are raised immediately and throughout much of the transcript.
“C” doesn’t answer many of the questions he is asked, nor does he give details.
I find this odd and interesting.Was he anticipating the next question to be “Who is this ambulance for?” Or does he not have anything else to say?
Most people in this situation would go rambling off in hysterical detail about what they just witnessed. The shock and terror of it all would cause most people to say as much as they possibly could – just to get it off their chest. It’s a normal emotional response.
Yet why isn’t “C” doing this? Instead, he seems to be controlling his words.Why?
When the dispatcher continues and says I need you to take a breath, and tell me what is going on, all “C” can say is “baseball bat, baseball bat.He hit her in the head with a baseball bat”.
Notice the details that are lacking? “C” doesn’t give any details. Most victims of a crime have searing memories that they repeat over and over again.They give the details that are fresh in their head.They give descriptions. They give everything they know as fast as they can to help catch the assailants and to get help for the victims.Why isn’t “C” doing this? This just isn’t normal.
The dispatcher then asks “Who hit her?”, and “C” responds, “I don’t know. I am at home. Please God.”
What does being at home have to do with this? When people are dishonest, they say weird and illogical things. Is “C” being dishonest here? You have to wonder.
As the transcript progresses, I find it really odd how “C” is talking to his wife telling her to lay down. He also says “no, no, no, not on that side” when telling her to lay down, but when he is asked immediately after he is heard saying it — if his wife is conscious, “C” responds “I don’t think so.”
This is a big inconsistency. His actions are not supporting the facts he is giving. You don’t tell an unconscious person to lie down. You just don’t do it. If, however, you were being deceptive and attempting to play the part of a caring husband, you might just slip up. Is that what is happening here? I sure do wonder.
The dispatcher then asks for clarification if Hacker is going in and out of consciousness, and what does “C” say? He doesn’t answer the question. Instead he says, “There is blood in her ears.”
Further down, the dispatcher asks, “Do you know who did this?” Again, I find “C’s” description troubling. “C” says, “Two little guys, possibly Asians. Ran out of my back yard. They hit my wife. I tacked one, I got the bat, I hit one.”
His speech is odd and weird. He is speaking in sentence fragments. Normally people don’t talk like this – even people in distress. People in distress usually do the opposite: they ramble frantically using lots and lots of words. Also, where are the details again?
I find the word “possibly” (in possibly Asians) odd as well. I can understand someone saying something like: I think they were Asian, but I am not sure with the struggle. But you don’t say, “possibly Asians”. The word selection and word order here are not how people recollect information.
When we create stories, however, we add on descriptive details as afterthoughts. People also usually speak in the order of which things occurred. They don’t mix them up as we see “C” doing here. This is more supportive of someone who is creating a story. He talks about the assailants running out of his backyard and then of attacking them. This isn’t logical.
Furthermore, why would two men start hitting his wife with a baseball bat first? Wouldn’t the man, who is normally bigger and stronger than the woman, likely be the main threat in most scenarios? Or was the wife the main target?
I also find the word “little” interesting. People don’t usually use the word “little” when describing people unless they are really small, like a dwarf. And to have two small assailants — that is really odd.
When the dispatcher asks, “Which way did they go?” why isn’t “C” giving us details? They went west, past the fence and behind the bushes. They ran towards the Jones’s house! They ran east towards
Then he stutters and stammers for words when he answers. That’s another red flag.“Ah… ah…. ah… towards… parallel… across the way.” This answer, in the end, isn’t even logical. Who talks like that? This is classic thinking-on-your-feet speech.
Next the dispatcher asks if “C” can describe what either assailant was wearing. “C” says, “Ah…one was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt…. ah… he is the one I tackled. Jeans, both baggy… ah… I don’t know. I think one was Asian for sure, the one I tackled.”
Now both men are little Asians and both are also wearing jeans, that are baggy. Notice, too, how the description of the jeans comes as an afterthought again. I don’t like the hesitations here, either.
Also, notice how “C” is saying that “one was Asian for sure.” This is inconsistent again as he just said shortly before they were “possibly Asians”. Now all of the sudden he is sure that one was Asian?
When we witness a crime, we usually can state the basics. Why is “C” having trouble here?
When the police arrived, they asked “C” who did this. Now all of the sudden, he says the assailants were trying to rob them.
Wouldn’t that be the first thing you would say? My wife and I were sitting out back, when two men approached and tried to rob us.Then they started to beat me and my wife. Why is this important detail not mentioned until now? This is another big red flag.
I also find it odd when “C” says,“I threw my wallet, he didn’t take it. That was after…I don’t know.” He threw his wallet and the robber didn’t take it? That’s odd and so is his speech.He isn’t making sense.He is truly thinking-on-his-feet here again, if you want my opinion.
“C” spoke very little in a short amount of time, but I believe what he said and how he said it is very telling. Unless I find out “C” is an addict of sorts and was out-of-his-mind this day, I don’t believe “C’s” story at all.
It appears the home where this vicious attack took place is currently for sale: