What Happened to Braylon Noble?
Case Study:
Complex Analysis: Reverse Profiling,
What Happened to Braylon Noble?
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 death of Braylon Noble. My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of the Toledo Police Department.***
On September 4th, 2020, Braylon Noble, a 3-year-old autistic child, was reported missing from Toledo, Ohio in a 911 call to police made by his grandmother. Several days later, Braylon’s mother stood in front of news cameras and addressed the public about her missing son. She stated the following:
“Um, its been four days since my son is been missin and I just want whoever have him please take him somewhere safe. I know he’s scared and I know he’s crying and he has stomach pains and he’s not eating, he’s a picky eater. So if you wanna just drop him off somewhere, please drop him off to the police station, you can drop him off here. Call my phone. I know he’s crying. I know you can’t get him to stop crying. And he’s being picky, he’s not eating and if he’s scared, I won’t be mad, please just drop him off to me. I just want him home. That’s it.”
Sadly, days after this television appearance, Braylon’s body was found during a second search of a swimming pool located in the Toledo apartment complex where he lived and was reported missing from. This pool was thoroughly searched just a few days prior by police, who did not find Braylon to be in the pool at that time. The county coroner did not find any signs of foul play and the cause of death was undetermined, excluding drowning as a likely cause of death.
I originally flagged the statement made to the news by Braylon’s mother as problematic and concerning from just a basic analysis. It appeared that she was withholding guilty knowledge. Days later she, along with Braylon’s grandmother, were arrested and eventually pled guilty to respective charges of Child Endangering and Obstructing Official Business.
As of this time, I have not been able to find any reporting on just what the police learned in their investigation that led to their arrests and prosecutions. The 911 call was of such poor quality, that I have not opted to attempt to create a transcript and conduct any analysis of it, but undoubtedly it would likely hold additional relevant information and context.
This is a short statement that doesn’t address what occurred the day he went missing, but it is her words, chosen in her free editing process. With little information available, I decided to look closely at the statement made by Braylon’s mother to the news and see if we can find clues to what happened. The larger context of this statement is to include that I didn’t find any indication in news reports that what occurred was being considered a kidnapping or abduction when this statement was being made. However, her words are to largely address an implied abductor or abductors as she speaks to media.
As I looked closely at the words, it became apparent to me that not only will this analysis be a complex one, as there is much ‘static’ in the signals from her language, meaning that careful nuance is necessary; but that what we really need is to conduct some level of a ‘reverse profile’ of who the ‘perpetrator’ is through the contextual eyes of Braylon’s mother.
A profile is difficult, requires time and if done well will likely be in the area of 70% accurate. A complete reverse profile will be even more difficult as it requires some profile work of the subject who is speaking as well as of the person(s) they are speaking to. At best, it can only be based on the personal perception of the one’s whose words we are analyzing.
Here are some of my thoughts as I analyzed this statement.
Um, its been four days since my son is been missin and I just want whoever have him please take him somewhere safe.
As we begin, we look to see how Braylon’s mother started her statement. Where or how the subject begins a statement suggests to us her priority and underlying motivation for making the statement under a larger context. It should show us what or who the statement is going to be about. What we are looking for is the statement to be about Braylon. When his mother said, “it’s been four days since...” instead of beginning with ‘my son, Braylon’s been missing...’, we are put on alert that her linguistic priority is to speak about time.
The word “since” gives us another clue that only augments the suggestion that time is her priority. We take note that it suggests that what she is speaking about is NOT how long her son has been missing, but instead how much time has passed “since” he went missing. It’s nuanced, but the two are not the same. Further, "since” acts to compare the amount of time against something else. Here she is comparing time against Braylon going missing. In other words, the subject is speaking of her missing son more as if it was an ‘event in the past’ rather than an ‘ongoing situation.’
She is more linguistically concerned about how ‘time’ is relevant at the present moment than the status of her son.
The subject then ‘adds’ to this by connecting another thought through the word “and.” By connecting these two thoughts, it suggests to us that they are being strongly related to each other. The second thought is to tell us she has a "want" for “whoever have him please take him somewhere safe.” However, she doesn’t just tell us this is her “want” but she also has a need to minimize this "want” by the use of the word “just.” By minimizing it, she has now suggested that she is comparing it against the thought or idea that she could “want” more.
It would appear from her language, the duration of time which has passed has motivated her to ‘only’ “want” to ‘plea’ for “whoever have” Braylon to “take him somewhere safe.”
We also need to consider what she asked for. She didn’t ask “whoever have him” to ‘bring him home’ but instead to “take him somewhere.” This is troubling from what we expect from the subject. We want Braylon’s mother’s words to reflect a maternal need for her to be re-united with her son, but they don’t. She is either lacking this need, or there’s a greater need that is overshadowing it.
We also have to note that by substituting ‘home’ for “somewhere safe” we have to consider the possibility that ‘home’ is not “safe” under the perception of Braylon’s mother. Is it possibly not “safe” for Braylon or is it possibly not “safe” for “whoever have him,” perhaps due to police presence? As she continues on in her statement, she makes a reasonably strong case to exclude the latter.
I know he’s scared and I know he’s crying and he has stomach pains and he’s not eating, he’s a picky eater.
Braylon’s mother has now suggested she has empathy for him. This is a positive sign. It’s what we want and expect to see from the mother of a missing child. Here is where her words strongly suggest that she believes Braylon is alive and if not for the outside context of his death, we would consider that there was not any foul play on her part. However, just as critical as the empathy she shows for Braylon is how she subtly blames him for being a “picky eater.” When a subject places subtle blame upon a victim, it tells us there’s a need for this blame to enter the account. This need overshadows the expectation that one would not disparage a victim, particularly when the victim is your own child. This is commonly seen from guilty subjects who have a need to provide justification for the truth they are hiding about what occurred to their victims.
She has a need for it to be known that “he’s a picky eater.” Is she subtly justifying something that happened to Braylon?
How do we balance these two critical points that contradict each other? More time in the statement becomes critical for accuracy and a detailed analysis becomes necessary. The larger context of her statement suggests that she may be speaking to the person(s) who has Braylon and that it may be a need on her part for them to know that he is a “picky eater.”
If accurate, what this may suggest, more than a need for a subtle justification, is that she is providing information that may assist the ‘person(s)’ with caring for Braylon. This may be something a mother would share with a babysitter so the babysitter is prepared for the challenges the child will give him/her while they are providing care. If this is accurate, it suggests something else troubling. First, it doesn’t exclude the fact that she spoke of her son using a negative linguistic disposition. She could have still provided the ‘perpetrator’ with this information by saying something to the effect of, ‘I know he’s not eating. He only likes to eat certain things.’ In such an example, something like talking about what he ‘likes to eat’ speaks of him in a more positive light while still being constructive for the ‘perpetrator’ to properly care for him. By invoking what he ‘likes’ also would make her psyche more focused on making him comfortable, etc. It further sheds light on the fact that calling him a “picky eater” does little to help a ‘perpetrator’ know what Braylon will and will not eat. In this moment, she is allowed to speak, and is expected to be perceiving that she is speaking to someone who has Braylon. If she believes they are listening, here is where she could’ve provided some helpful information that would assure he does eat.
What this also suggests to us is that she has a contextually positive perception of the ‘perpetrator.’ It subtly suggests she has a positive linguistic disposition towards them as she is now suggesting that the ‘perpetrator’ would care for Braylon.
I’d also like to look at what words of empathy Braylon’s mother used. She introduced ‘knowledge’ of the following, in the following order:
Scared
Crying
Stomach Pains
Not eating
She further linguistically compartmentalized her knowledge of these into two areas. First being “scared” and the second included, “crying,” “stomach pains” and “not eating,” in that order. She did this by telling us these where two things she knows when she said “I know...AND I know...” “Scared” is her overall empathetic priority. This is good.
However, among the second ‘compartment,’ it is “crying.” The words “and I know...” are closer to “crying” than they are to “stomach pains” or “not eating.” Infact, just as the second compartment is ‘in addition to’ the first through the linguistic use of the word “and” so has “stomach pains” and “not eating” been made linguistically ‘added to’ “crying.” All three are related, as this suggests she is thinking of all three of them occurring symbiotically. However, “crying” is where her brain went first, not to “stomach pains” or “not eating.” Linguistically, it appears that “crying” may have created a 'train of thought’ that led her brain to the latter.
Why are “stomach pains” and “not eating” of lower priority than “scared” and “crying?” Particularly when we look at the term “stomach pains” and consider that this is not the same as saying, ‘stomach aches.’ The word “pains” is a strong word, suggesting a higher level of severity; and its use in the plural is to suggest that he has more than one.
Is this a re-occurring medical condition for Braylon? Does he have a medical condition that, when inflamed, causes him to not eat? If it is not in his medical background, then it would be critical to ask questions about poisoning.
So if you wanna just drop him off somewhere, please drop him off to the police station, you can drop him off here.
She began this sentence by allowing for the possibility for the ‘perpetrator’ to NOT drop Braylon off if they didn’t “wanna.” Again, she minimizes this by suggesting that there’s more that the ‘perpetrator’ could do with Braylon if they “wanna” by the word “just.”
Through this linguistic ‘train of thought’ what does she suggest may make the ‘perpetrator’ “wanna just drop him off somewhere?” The answer is his “crying,” “stomach pains” and “not eating.” In other words, her language now increases the suggestion that she is being empathetic towards the ‘perpetrator’ while speaking of her son with a negative linguistic disposition. She is suggesting that “crying” and “not eating” may be too much for them to handle, which further suggests that this enters her language through personal experience.
Braylon’s mother has now spoke of two new locations for Braylon to be taken:
“the police station”
“here”
Again, we see her linguistic priority at work. Just as we noted at the very beginning of her statement, where she did not ask for Braylon to be returned ‘home,’ we don’t see it here either. The closest we get is “here.” Contextually, she gave this statement while outside, presumably at her apartment complex. This means that “here” may include home, but it may also include anywhere at the complex. It is soft, vague language for the mother of a missing child. It is also the bottom of this micro list of linguistic priority. She first went to “the police station” before she linguistically came “here.”
We noted that the ‘perpetrator’ was given the option to “drop him off somewhere” if they “wanna.” We now note it appears that she is telling them they are ‘permitted’ to bring them “here.” Why would she believe they need to be ‘permitted’ to bring Braylon back “here?” Who does she believe she is speaking with? Why does she believe that this person might wait for permission? In the micro context, she ‘pled’ for them to “drop him off to the police station” but had to permit for them to “drop him off here.”
Consider, the “police station” would likely be considered one of those “safe” locations she spoke of in the beginning of her statement. The fact that the ‘perpetrator’ needs to be ‘permitted’ to drop off Braylon “here” may further the suggestion that “here” is not “safe,” but more specifically, it may be ‘unsafe’ under the contextual eyes of the ‘perpetrator’ which she has a need to address. It would be as if she were saying, ‘you can drop him off here, he’ll be safe.’
Call my phone.
How would the ‘perpetrator’ call her phone? Do they have her phone number? Should they know how to get it?
Who will answer this phone if they call? In the fraction of a second it takes for Braylon’s mother to formulate her thoughts and translate them into words, this is what her brain chose. She is strongly suggesting that she has good cause to believe that the ‘perpetrator’ has or can get her phone number, and at the same time, she is dissociating from any hypothetical phone calls she might receive from them. One must ask themselves, if someone took my child and was willing to call me, would it not be a personal mission to speak to the perpetrator and ask questions about the wellbeing of my child, find out where they have him, ask to speak to him and try to convince the perpetrator to return him? According to her words, for her, it is not.
I know he’s crying.
Where “crying” was part of her micro priority, here it is elevated in importance and sensitivity for Braylon’s mother. It again appears in close context with the words, “I know...” which also elevates her ‘knowledge’ of such a thing in her language.
I know you can’t get him to stop crying.
Where we noted multiple areas of subtle empathy for the ‘perpetrator’ and related it to Braylon’s “crying,” here it is not subtle at all. By telling the ‘perpetrator’ she knows “YOU can’t get HIM to stop crying” we have several more troubling points to discuss. The pronoun “you” when used in this context, is clear cut empathy. It is her focus to think about what the ‘perpetrator’ is experiencing and talk to them about that. The pronoun “I” being Braylon’s mother, is linguistically closer to the pronoun “you,” being the perpetrator, then it is to “him,” being Braylon. Linguistically, it suggests that she can relate to what it is she “knows” the ‘perpetrator’ is going through with Braylon’s “crying.” She does so to the point that she is even confident in her ‘knowledge’ that they would be attempting to stop Braylon’s crying.
Elevating the point of empathy also elevates the suggestion that Braylon’s mother has a positive linguistic disposition towards the ‘perpetrator.’
And he’s being picky, he’s not eating...
Not only does Braylon’s mother “know” the ‘perpetrator’ can’t get him to “stop crying” but she also knows “he’s being picky” and “not eating.” Where empathy for the ‘perpetrator’ exists, we once again see victim blaming for Braylon. What we now have to consider, is that through her words, Braylon’s mother is suggesting the following:
It is Braylon’s fault he is “not eating.” She is not indicting the ‘perpetrator’ with any responsibility for this in any way.
Braylon is causing ‘discomfort’ or ‘inconvenience’ for the ‘perpetrator,’ NOT the other way around.
Her words now strongly suggest to us that she empathizes with what it is that Braylon is putting the ‘perpetrator’ through.
Note the progressive present tense she uses when she says, “he’s being picky” and “he’s not eating.” She speaks of this under the perception that she has ‘knowledge’ that this is currently going on. According to her words, this is NOT something they MAY experience with him, but it is something they ARE experiencing with him.
Consider that through the suggestion of empathy and through the suggestion of her ‘knowledge’ of what Braylon’s experiencing and what he is or is not doing, Braylon’s mother has further suggested to us the need to explore for the idea that she has direct knowledge of who has Braylon and what is going on with him.
...and if he’s scared, I won’t be mad, please just drop him off to me.
She has now also repeated the concept of Braylon being “scared” but has done so in hypothetical terms. Where she previously asserted ‘knowledge’ she is now linguistically less certain.
Why does she believe the ‘perpetrator’ cares if she’s “mad?” Consider if a stranger abducted Braylon. What would the average person’s brain immediately go to as a belief of what kind of judgment the ‘perpetrator’ is most concerned about? The answer is most likely going to be judgment under the law; or the otherwise the fear of being arrested and thrown in prison.
When might the ‘perpetrator’ care if the ‘legal complainant’ is “mad?” The answer is most likely going to be when that person has the power to either ‘turn in’ or ‘press charges’ against the ‘perpetrator.’ In other words, when that person has control of the application of ‘judgement under the law.’
We also see that Braylon’s mother has finally asked for Braylon to be returned to her. This is what we have been looking for during her whole statement. Again, she minimizes when she said, “please JUST drop him off to me.” Why did it take so long for her to invoke this into her language? What more could the ‘perpetrator’ do than to “just drop him off to (her)?”
Consider she has once again felt the need to ‘plead.’ She has now used the word, “please” as follows:
...I just want whoever have him please take him somewhere safe.
... please drop him off to the police station
... please just drop him off to me
I just want him home.
Similar to the aforementioned point concerning Braylon’s mother invoking a personal reuniting with her son, we now also see her invoke the concept of having him “home,” albeit also late in her language. She again minimizes this “want” as well.
That’s it.”
This short phrase, suggests that she may be self-censoring information. She has a need to let it be known that there is ‘no more information’ she either has, or wants to provide. When it exists in the free editing process, it is more likely the latter.
As we conclude with the statement, we have to take note of a couple more points to take into consideration:
Braylon’s mother never attempts to call out to her son. When parents of missing children are given a media platform, it is expected that they will call out to their child and send them a message of hope or reassurance. She does not do this.
Braylon’s mother uses the phrase “drop him off” four times in her statement. Repetition in the free editing process suggests elevated importance and/or sensitivity. We note the phrase is casual under the context. We drop kids off at the movies or their grandparents' house. We want abducted kids to be ‘brought home’ or ‘returned,’ etc. We should also be on alert for the possibility of leakage, whereas we should ask if something happened to Braylon involving him being ‘dropped off’ of something. This would seem unlikely given what was reported from his autopsy, but we can leave it as an open question until more is known.
What do you think happened to Braylon?
We have to take into account that these words can only reflect his mother’s perception of the events at the time she spoke them and cannot account for anything that may have happened or she may have learned afterwards.
My assessment/opinions are as follows:
Braylon’s Mother:
Braylon’s mother was withholding guilty knowledge over the whereabouts of her son. This doesn’t necessarily mean she knew where Braylon was, just that she had information that she knew was important for the investigation, but chose not to share it.
Braylon’s mother likely knew who had Braylon at the time she made this statement and was suppressing this information.
At the time of this statement, Braylon was either alive or his mother didn’t have sufficient knowledge of his death. If it were the case that Braylon was already deceased as she made this statement, I am of the opinion that his mother was unaware of it.
Braylon’s mother likely didn’t cope well with the responsibilities of raising Braylon, which can be particularly more difficult when raising an autistic child. She was likely known to have a short temper with Braylon, easily becoming frustrated with the challenges she faced by his special needs.
There weren't any observed suggestions that the ‘person(s)’ who had Braylon might be or include herself and/or her mother, but we cannot rule out the possibility at this time.
The ‘Perpetrator(s)’:
There is no suggestion observed in the language as to whether Braylon’s mother perceived more than one ‘perpetrator.’ The number of ‘perpetrator(s)’ is not assessed by her language.
There is no strong suggestion observed in the language as to the age, sex or other physical attributes of the ‘perpetrator’ with one caveat, addressed below.
The ‘perpetrator’ likely did not have any malicious intent toward Braylon. This doesn’t exclude for the possibility of harm being actively done to Braylon through negligence or recklessness, which can include forms of abuse. It also doesn’t exclude for the possibility that harm was done to him before ‘he went missing.’ It simply means that he wasn’t taken for the purpose of harming him.
The ‘perpetrator’ was likely someone within the ‘inner circle’ of Braylon’s mother, meaning that not only did she know who this person was, but it was more than an acquaintance. It was likely someone she felt she could trust.
The ‘perpetrator’ likely didn’t believe Braylon was “safe” at home.
If the suggestion that the ‘perpetrator’ is perceived by Braylon’s mother as someone who intended to care for Braylon is correct, then one should consider for the possibility that this person may have been someone who had a parental instinct. This could include someone like Braylon’s father, or a female who holds a natural maternal instinct, perhaps someone who either has children of her own, or who has a background in child care. If the father can be excluded, then the likelihood that it is a woman increases. Women are more likely and capable to care for other’s children than men typically are.
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 a medical past that included chronic stomach issues for Braylon. If this is not in his past, consider for the possibility that Braylon may have ingested something the day he ‘went missing’ that created substantial discomfort or “pains” in his stomach, and for the further possibility that this may not have been the first time this occurred.
Consider that the duration of time that presents itself as Braylon’s mother’s overshadowing priority in this statement, could be due to something like:
Someone taking Braylon under the pretenses of getting him care, perhaps for the “pains” he had in his stomach, but when the expectation of how long they should have kept him expired, she (or more specifically his grandmother) became concerned he would not be returned and became concerned enough to get police involved.
Braylon’s mother perpetrating a false report of his disappearance and she is now reflecting on the amount of time that has passed since an incident occurred with Braylon which motivated this false report.
Braylon’s ‘disappearance’ is likely connected to an incident involving his “stomach pains.” One should explore for the possibility that this ‘incident’ involved Braylon’s mother becoming frustrated with Braylon’s continuous “crying.”
One should explore for the possibility of chronic abuse and/or neglect in the home.
With only these words to explore, little could be observed that could lead us to stronger conclusions as to what happened to Braylon. If a statement from his mother of the day's activities on the day Braylon went missing were available, this could likely give us better insight. However, as we see from this example, even when the subject isn’t speaking directly about an ‘incident’ or ‘event’ there is much we can learn from their words to give us an investigative direction.