1) Agree with others saying it was simply to specify that he was not there so could not be more specific with the details. And again, easily verifiable as an alibi hopefully.So I’m going to jump on here. Have many of you listened to the 911 call from Dr Valrose? So many things threw me off in such a short statement:
"I'm on vacation, but this individual, Spencer, works with me, and he did not show up to work this morning. And we cannot get a hold of him or his family," Valrose told dispatchers, according to audio of a 911 call reviewed by ABC News. "He's been reliable, and we cannot get in touch with him, his wife, his family, anybody that lives in that house."
1) Why are you automatically alibiing yourself from the situation “I’m on vacation” (which I’m sure can be verified, still odd)
2) Although he corrects himself and says “Spencer” his initial instinct was to refer to him as an “individual” - which we know many murderers subconsciously do to remove the connection to the victim. This was someone who for all we know were very good friends / colleagues. Again, odd.
3) Although not related to the Dr, why did he say “we cannot get in touch with…anybody that lives in that house” - was this just an exaggeration of phrasing for urgency, or did they have guests / family staying there?
4) Lastly, some of us have listened to more 911 calls in our lives more than we care to admit, and I’d like to think I have a pretty good finger on when someone sounds genuinely *concerned* vs *appearing concerned* and something about his tone, his cadence, and his breathiness is sending up flags for me. Listen and let me know what you think. Obviously, I hope I’m wrong though…
2) Yes, the choice of words seems a bit off. I don't know if I would call it suspicious as I am also known for sounding awkward especially on the phone and especially in high stakes/emotional situations.
3) The reference to the house is also a bit weird...he could have been in a car crash on the way to work and the wife was asleep or on the way to the hospital, so the reference to no one in the house being reachable could have a simple explanation that would not prompt a wellness check.
I guess the fact that they were so reliable must have meant to the co-workers. that something was not right (if this is the case, thank god for it!).
4) I love statement analysis and 911 calls are always very interesting in this regard, however I would not trust it as evidence.
I would guess that they were trying to call them for a little while after he missed the first appointment, then they let the owner know, in the meantime someone could have started driving. When the first 911 call is made they may have already been half way.The reporting about the friend seeing Spencer has been confusing. I did see one article that stated the friend was able to gain entry into the house and found Spencer, but who knows at this point.
I agree with you about the coworkers’ travel time from the dental office to the house. I calculated the travel time at about an hour and 12 minutes.![]()
Also, how is traffic at this time of the year? Did the 1hr 12min take into consideration traffic? And was the drive against or with traffic? In my area this can make a lot of difference.
