The Day Before Sebastian Went Missing
Case Study:
Unnecessary Information,
The Day Before Sebastian Went Missing.
Please NOTE: The blog is for educational purposes. All parties are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. No analysis can be a substitute for a thorough investigation, but instead must be taken as a tool for investigative purposes.
***I am not associated with any investigation into the disappearance of Sebastian Rogers. My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of the TBI.***
In February of 2024, Sebastian Rogers, a 15-year-old autistic boy, was reported missing by his mother and step-father as a possible run-away. The parents have been in the media, giving interviews, and inspiring many to search for Sebastian. Almost a year later, we still don’t know where he is.
Below is an excerpt from an interview of Sebastian’s mother and stepfather posted on the YouTube channel, Chronicles of Olivia. The interview opens up with a good way to seek information in any investigation of this type, which is to ask an open-ended question that prompts the subject to speak about the time leading up to and surrounding the incident or crime.
THIS IS NOT A FULL ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEW. Here we will simply look at the very first question as it is Sebastian’s mother addressing the question in her free editing process with little contamination from the interviewer. The only caveat being that we don’t know if or what was discussed between the interviewer and the parents prior to the opening of this interview, so a degree of caution is still advised.
We will see if there’s information to be learned from her response that may be relevant to his disappearance and see what would present itself for a potential follow up.
Chronicles of Olivia interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yvO6zg79YI&t=9s
Interviewer: Can you recap the overall story of Sebastian’s disappearance? Kind of walk through that day.
Mother: Um, Sunday, the day before he went missing, um, we got up and, fun fact, I made breakfast that morning. Um, we had a good time. We were laughing. We were joking. Uh, he talked to family on the phone during breakfast to brag. Um, we went and picked up our niece...
Stepfather: (inaudible)
Mother: ... yeah, I got a call and um, asked if I could go and pick her up and I did, and so um, we went and did that and went to B.J.’s. Um, had a good time there, he ate a colossal popcorn. Um, came home, put groceries away because we bought snacks, because, you know, he’s 15 and snacks. Um, we went to the bowling alley. And then from there we went to dinner. Came home. Um, he took out the trash, because that’s his chore, he takes the can to the end of the driveway. Um, about 9 o’clock, told him to go to bed. He come out of his room where he was playing and he said, “Alright, goodnight mom, goodnight puppies, I love you” and went to bed. Um, he was doing something in his room because about an hour later I heard noise and I was like, “I don’t care what you’re doing in there but go to sleep.” And um, about midnight I got up and I went to bed. And um, 6’oclock I went to wake him up for school, Monday morning, and that’s when he wasn’t here.
ANALYSIS:
Interviewer: Can you recap the overall story of Sebastian’s disappearance? Kind of walk through that day.
This is a well-structured question. It is broad and allows Sebastian’s mother to decide what she believes is important to tell us and what is not important according to her perception of the incident. The interviewer did a good job of posing this question and then staying quiet while his mother speaks. Contamination is at a minimum.
Mother: Um, Sunday, the day before he went missing,...
It is important to note when and where a subject begins their account. It is not happenstance, but suggests that in their perception of reality, this time and these events are important to know when answering the question of what happened. Here there is a bit of contamination and influence by the question posed, which was to ask Sebastian’s mother to “walk through that day” so it would not be seen as critical for her to begin with the events of “that day” she discovered he was missing. However, what is important is that she doesn’t begin with “that day,” but instead with what we can approximate to be about 24 hours earlier, the morning of “Sunday, the day before...”
We are now alert to the fact that Sebastian’s mother likely believes that the entire day on the Sunday before is relevant to his disappearance. When we then consider the fact that she linguistically linked “Sunday” to him going “missing” by making them coexist under the umbrella of this single sentence, this suggestion is strengthened.
...um, we got up and, fun fact, I made breakfast that morning. Um, we had a good time. We were laughing. We were joking. Uh, he talked to family on the phone during breakfast to brag.
This is layered with unnecessary information. As one reads or listens to this, they must ask themselves, why does it exist in her account? What importance is it to Sebastian going missing?
Sebastian’s mother tells us they “got up.” This is unnecessary as if she simply began with, “I made breakfast” we would still have understood they “got up” beforehand.
Not only does her making “breakfast” not seem like it should be important to Sebastian’s disappearance, but her need to include that it was a “fun fact” for her to share it is interesting. Consider the following:
“Fun fact” linguistically tries to include an element of “fun” while speaking of her missing son. She is linguistically trying to bring ‘amusement’ to the discussion, why? It further should be seen as having an element of ingratiation to it. It suggests that she wants the interviewer to have “fun.” We don’t think his mother was literally trying to make it a game, but linguistically, we see what is subtly working behind the scenes of her psyche and wonder why in critical time, when discussing this critical topic, has her brain chose to include the concept of “fun.” I’d like you to consider that in the context of her missing son, she likely had a need to make things ‘light’ with the interviewer.
If it is a “fun fact” it is likely not considered a ‘normal fact’ for her to make breakfast. By further specifying that it was “that morning” she is likely comparing it to ‘other mornings’ where she didn’t make breakfast. Still further augmenting this point is that she repeats “breakfast,” making it elevated in sensitivity, while telling us Sebastian ‘bragged’ to “family” on a phone call.
She speaks of having a “good time,” “laughing” and “joking” in short concise sentences. It’s reliably formed information and suggests that we should believe her. However, in connection with the issue of “breakfast” these points suggest other needs on her part. To tell us she “made breakfast” and talk about the good time they had, she suggests a need to be seen that morning as having been a ‘good mother’ and getting along with Sebastian. When we see this need, we then have to ask questions about what is driving it. It suggests to us that somewhere on her mind, she has information lingering that has made her feel sensitive about the idea that she was a ‘bad mother’ and didn’t ‘get along’ with Sebastian.
Sebastian’s mother goes on to say that he “talked to family on the phone during breakfast to brag.” We have to look at this closer. She doesn’t explicitly say what he ‘bragged’ about, but she linguistically links it to “breakfast,” specifically “during” the time surrounding “breakfast.” Was he ‘bragging’ about having “breakfast?”
“To brag” tells us this was the reason he “talked to family on the phone...” It speaks to her perception of his intent to get on the phone with “family.” In other words, it suggests that Sebastian’s motivation to “talk to family” was merely so that he could “brag” about something, possibly being “breakfast.”
‘Bragging’ is not considered polite. Typically, when one ‘brags’ it is to emphasize what one has (or has done) that another does not or has not. Did she use this word consistently with how it ‘trends’ in society? If so, then we have to consider that Sebastian was not being ‘polite’ to “family” on the phone.
At this point, I would like you to consider, at the very least, Sebastian’s mother may have been known to ‘sleep in’ and that this may have caused or contributed to Sebastian, and possibly others, not eating “breakfast” most mornings; and that this would have likely caused some level of contention in the home, even if just made in jest.
Who did Sebastian “brag” to?
...Um, we went and picked up our niece...
Stepfather: (inaudible)
Mother: ... yeah, I got a call and um, asked if I could go and pick her up and I did, and so um, we went and did that and went to B.J.’s.
As we continue, we have to now keep in mind that we don’t know what Sebastian’s stepfather said to his mother here, so we can only take into account that her words are now likely going to have some level of contamination and we don’t know what that might be.
However, as we continue note that everyone who enters the account is deemed to be important to it. We already had Sebastian, his mother and “family” present within it. Now, we see that her “niece” has entered. We need to begin to ask questions as to why “family” and her “niece” have made it into her account, yet there’s another who has subtly snuck into it that creates more questions for us. It is likely going to be Sebastian’s stepfather.
When his mother introduced “our niece” she would appear to be speaking of sharing this “niece” with her husband. The pronoun “our” gives him, at minimum, an ambient presence to her account. In other words, linguistically, his presence is now perceived. Outside context is that he was reported to be out of town for work during this time and is not expected to be at the “breakfast” table with Sebastian and his mother.
Is he linguistically included because he sat beside her as she was speaking? We won’t dismiss the possibility out of hand, but we have to remember this language came before his interjection and consider that she is expected to be in her free editing process while speaking from experiential memory. This dictates that she is expected to speak of her perception of reality as it existed in those moments of her account.
Now I’d like you to consider this point with her language when she stated, “he talked to family.” Something is missing from her language here that she uses in connection to “our niece,” which is some form of a possessive pronoun to tell us whose “family” Sebastian talked to. She doesn’t say, so we can’t say it for her. There is distancing language used when Sebastian “talked to family on the phone to brag.” Please consider the following:
Sebastian’s stepfather was out of town working.
From other portions of interviews, we know that talking “on the phone” was something Sebastian’s mother and stepfather did while he was out of town.
“Family” is someone Sebastian felt like he could/should “brag” to, suggesting that he received, or was doing, something that might make “family” jealous.
We know this exists while his mother is perceiving his stepfather’s presence in the account.
“... yeah, I got a call and um, asked...” is passive language, which denies us the information about who made the call and “asked” her to pick up their niece. This augments the observation concerning “family.” She appears to be intentionally vague about who she spoke with on the phone, while her words let it slip out that her husband’s presence was being perceived.
We now have reason to explore if Sebastian's mother is suppressing information that Sebastian was ‘bragging’ to his stepfather. If accurate, we should also explore for the possibility that this could have created contention between the two.
“...and I did...so we went and did that...” is unnecessary emphasis, which she has doubled down on, indicating there is heightened sensitivity over this. Note the change from her use of the pronoun, “I” to “we.” Where “we” is in her norm to this point, there’s isolation in the phrase “and I did.” It was her linguistic responsibility to ‘get it done.’ Further note, they didn’t merely ‘do that’ but they “went and did that.” By adding “went” it adds linguistic effort. It appears this was a ‘chore’ or ‘errand’ according to her.
As we look at this, I’d also like you to consider that “our niece” doesn’t just sneak in the perceived presence of Sebastian’s stepfather, but it also suggests a need to share possession with him. We should ask, was this her “niece” by marriage? Did Sebastian’s stepfather ask her to pick up their “niece” and was there an argument or some conflict over picking her up? Did this interrupt the ‘plans’ she had with Sebastian that day?
Um, had a good time there, he ate a colossal popcorn. Um, came home, put groceries away because we bought snacks, because, you know, he’s 15 and snacks.
There’s dissociation entering her account. Who “had a good time there?” Who “came home?” Who “put groceries away?” We now have to ask what has motivated her language to dissociate and why now? Please note that this dissociation comes with hypersensitivity as Sebastian’s mother has a need to give two explanations as to why someone “put groceries away.” Keep this in mind as we continue.
Note that she has now repeated the need to express “a good time” and tell us how big of a popcorn Sebastian ate. She is augmenting the suggestion that she needs it to be known how good the day was, augmenting our need to explore for either conflict with Sebastian entering the account at some point and/or a sensitivity on her psyche that she believes she didn’t normally get along with Sebastian. Her need for us to see her as a ‘good mother’ who ‘got along’ with her son is glaring at this point. When we juxtapose this to the missing pronoun in “had a good time there” we have to wonder if they really did have a good time while “there.”
We now see that food is a sensitive issue as it pertains to Sebastian. Sebastian’s mother indicated this for “breakfast” but now we see it with “colossal popcorn” and “snacks.” When she sensitively explains about the groceries with “he’s 15 and snacks” there appears to be subtle degradation to her language. We have to begin to wonder if this is subtle victim blaming. Did something happen while at B.J.’s that created conflict, possibly over buying “snacks?”
Um, we went to the bowling alley. And then from there we went to dinner.
Consider a few points here. First, we see that when we compare this time to what came prior, there is a significant lack of details. When we consider how much time is expected to have transpired while at the bowling alley and dinner, this tells us that she has ‘rushed subjective time’ in her account. We have to ask why she gave so much detail prior to this time and be on alert to the fact that she will give details again after. Although she hasn’t marked time by the clock (objective time) to measure up to this point, there is enough here to suggest that she has significantly sped up her account.
We also see that she doesn’t say they ‘went bowling’ just that they “went to the bowling alley.” Did they bowl? If not, why not? Perhaps they did something other than bowl.
“And then from there...” not only solidifies that time has been omitted, but it also has unnecessarily elevated the “bowling alley” as a departure location in her account. If she had not told us they went to dinner “from there” we would still have understood it was “from there.” This phrase acts to include the latent concept of her going to dinner from other locations and we must wonder why. Is she concealing information? Were they supposed to go somewhere else in between the two locations, but didn’t?
Came home. Um, he took out the trash, because that’s his chore, he takes the can to the end of the driveway.
Who came home? She once again doesn’t tell us.
Sebastian’s mother has now demonstrated a sensitive need to explain why Sebastian “took out the trash.” When we see a need to explain, we have to take note that in the speed of transmission, when a subject gives out a detail, their brain is telling them that their audience will question it, causing the brain to feel the need to provide the audience with an answer before the question may be posed. In that fraction of a second, her brain didn’t just tell her to provide an answer to an unasked question, but it chose ten additional words to provide even more unnecessary information.
In the moment that her brain chose to explain why he “took out the trash” she also needed to expand on this explanation to add HOW he “takes”it out. Similar to the issue of “groceries” and “snacks,” something about this activity is hypersensitive for Sebastian’s mother.
Consider that by invoking the concept of Sebastian’s “chore” introduces the concepts of ‘discipline’ and ‘structure.’ This was done with sensitivity.
Um, about 9 o’clock, told him to go to bed. He came out of his room where he was playing and he said, “Alright, goodnight mom, goodnight puppies, I love you” and went to bed.
We now have the introduction of objective clock time. This is not established as her norm within this account, so we must note that this time is important to Sebastian’s mother. What happened at 9 o’clock? Someone “told him to go to bed,” but we don’t know for certain who, because once again, she doesn’t tell us.
When Sebastian’s mother told us, “He came out of his room where he was playing...” this was more unnecessary information. It elevates the importance of his location at a minimum. When we look at the first half of this detail, we have to consider that what the phrase, “he came out of his room” does is that it linguistically introduces the idea of effort. It suggests that where he was, was somewhere that ‘emerging from’ was important according to her perception. Was Sebastian known to be reclusive to his room? Was he sent to his room as punishment?
To tell us it was “where he was playing” only elevates this importance further. She doesn’t just have a need to tell us Sebastian ‘emerged from his room’ to say “goodnight” but she also has a need to tell us what he was doing in there. We must note that “playing” would be considered ‘fun’ for Sebastian. In other words, it suggests her need may be for us to know he was ‘having fun’ in his room.
“Alright” is to express that Sebastian was ‘compliant’ or ‘unargumentative.’
“Goodnight” and “I love you” are flagged in an analysis as a need to express a positive disposition within the relationship. This is often found in deceptive accounts when a subject wants to portray that they had a positive disposition towards a victim at the time a crime was committed. Much like when she told us they “had a good time” she is now suggesting a need to show that things were good between her and Sebastian at that moment in time. In the micro-context, we have to note, based on the words she chose to say and not to say, Sebastain told her “goodnight” and “I love you,” but she did not reciprocate these words back to him. What her words suggest is that Sebastian was the one with the positive disposition, but we can’t same the same for her.
Um, he was doing something in his room because about an hour later I heard some noise and I was like, “I don’t care what you’re doing in there but go to sleep.”
Consider that “something” is a linguistic place holder. Often times it’s use is to replace something known to the subject which is being suppressed in the language. It’s far from conclusive as it is just as easily holding the place of “something” unknown, but we should always be on alert for the possibility of suppressed information when its being used.
Did she know what he was doing? To attempt to answer this question, I’d like you to scrutinize her language even more here. Her syntax first tells us that he was “doing something” before introducing “an hour later (she) heard some noise” as her ‘reason’ she’s aware of it. How else could she have said it and what would have been the difference if she had?
She could have said, ‘About an hour later I could tell he was doing something because I heard some noise....’
We have to now consider that she may have been aware, to some degree or another, that what it was he was doing, he was ALSO doing prior to the noise. If accurate, then it further suggests that she would have at least some ideas what it could have been.
We then look at her words when she quotes herself as saying, “I don’t care what you’re doing in there...” Why has this entered into her perception of this account? Why didn’t she simply relay the information that she told him to “go to sleep.” By feeling the need to include, “I don’t care what you’re doing in there” it suggests that this was impactful enough in the moment to imprint itself on her recollection and retelling of this account. It furthers the need to explore if she had some idea of what he was doing as it suggests that she is thinking about “something” he could have been doing she may have ‘cared about.’ This would likely include things that either she would not have approved of or that she felt he would use as an excuse to not have gone “to sleep.”
And um, about midnight I got up and went to bed. And um, 6 o’clock I went to wake him up for school, Monday morning, and that’s when he wasn’t here.
Objective clock time has entered the account again.
We also see “got up” as unnecessary again. In this context, we must be on alert for the possibility of tension as it may be derived from body posturing. However, given that outside context includes details Sebastian’s mother has given in other interviews explaining that she fell asleep while on the phone with her husband, woke up and went to bed, we will not put too much stock into this.
This outside context should also be noted for the fact that she has not included the phone call with her husband at this point. He would be present (through the phone call) but she hasn’t chosen to share that in this account, why?
Let’s look at, “I got up and I went to bed” vs. ‘I got up and went to bed.’ What is the difference between how Sebastian’s mother said this and how she could have said it? Both are given reliably, suggesting we should believe her, however what she told us in how she said it is not the same as how she could have said it.
By including the unnecessary second use of the pronoun “I” in “...and I went to bed” Sebastian’s mother is elevating her presence in her language and taking a larger amount of personal responsibility for these activities. It’s more sensitive than the latter. Further, we should be on alert for the possibility that these two activities are not as tightly linked as one may assume. Linguistically, they are linked by the word “and” but they also standalone by the inclusion of the extra pronoun “I.” It’s another point that is far from conclusive and should not be given too much weight on its own, but we should be alert to it as it may be the case that we later discover that there is time and/or information missing here.
Sebastian’s mother ends her account with the phrase, “...and that’s when he wasn’t here.” We start by noting that she has marked time. The phrase, “and that’s when” suggests to us that in her psyche she was waiting to get to this point, which betrays the expectation that she is working from strict experiential memory.
It is also dependent, where it suggests that it is being compared to a latent concept on her mind, which is the concept of him not being “here” occurring at another time. The question of missing time should be raised again.
Furthering this point, we note that this is the critical part of her account. This is where Sebastian was discovered to be ‘gone.’ It’s what this whole thing should be about. Even if we give her some leeway for the context of how the question was framed, “kind of walk through that day,” we have to note that she stopped ‘walking’ right where we expect her emotions to be the highest, meaning we expect the most impactful details would be pressing on her brain, needing to come out.
In analyzing a statement, we can often check its balance in terms of percentages. We have expectations on how long an introduction to the account will be, how long the critical details will be and how long the conclusion or resolution of the account will be. The critical details, what the purpose is for giving the account, is to be the longest portion.
Here she gives a lengthy introduction, leading up to the critical detail that Sebastian is missing. She gives almost 24 hours' worth of details about everything that happened before he went missing, however once he’s missing in her account, she stopped. Where we expect it to be in the area of 50 percent, here her critical details come to approximately 3 percent of her account.
As we conclude the analysis, we have to take note of one more item from the account:
We never had an opportunity to answer the question of why “our niece” was important, particularly when we note that she is never mentioned again. What happened with her. Did she come home with Sebastian and his mother? Did they take her to the bowling alley? Did they take her back to her house? Where did they pick her up from? Why did she need to be picked up?
Note that with more information and more context, we can make better, more reliable conclusions, but based on the answer to this one question, we can assess a starting point for investigative purposes. A full analysis and possible subsequent analysis may reveal more additional and/or more accurate information. My assessments/opinions at this point are as follows:
The account of Sebastian’s disappearance is linked to the day's activities, the day before he went missing, according to the perception of his mother.
Sebastian’s mother is deceptively suppressing information about that day.
Sebastian’s mother is likely experiencing emotions associated with feelings of guilt, likely due to feeling that she was neglectful to Sebastian to one extent or another, which she contributes to his disappearance.
Food is a sensitive issue for Sebastian’s mother, particularly as it pertains to Sebastian and “snacks.”
Hypotheses:
Hypotheses are often more speculative in that some are less supported through patterns in the language and/or require deeper levels of critical thinking. They are included to merely continue to fuel the critical thinking process and give the investigation suggestions as to the areas that need further exploration.
One Should Explore for the Following:
Additional information as it pertains to “our niece” in the account.
The possibility that there is a link between Sebastian’s disappearance and food.
The possibility that Sebastian was on the phone ‘bragging’ to his step-father that morning, which may have created contention between the two.
The possibility that instructing his mother to pick up their niece interrupted the “good time” Sebastian and his mother had planned for the day.
The possibility that there was conflict between Sebastian and his mother that occurred as the day progressed and consider the possibility that this conflict reached its climax at or around the time, they went to the bowling alley.
The possibility that Sebastian was being ‘disciplined’ when he got home that evening and was sent to his room.
The possibility that Sebastian’s mother may have known he was missing much earlier but delayed reporting it, perhaps due to something as benign as the belief he wouldn’t stay away long.