Speech patterns are hard to capture in writing, but they can become powerful pieces of "evidence" all their own. What does this snippet from the interrogation of Rabbi Fred Neulander reveal? The context: His wife has been brutally murdered, bludgeoned to death inside the couple's home. Rabbi Neulander found his wife's bloody body and called 911. This fragment comes from his interrogation (see more in my previous post).
A. I couldn't tell you. Because when I got home I dialed 911 and I, I just kept saying what do I do? Should I cover her should, I asked the question should I touch her. And I and the woman on the other end of the line said just wait for the officer, wait for the officer, wait for the officer. So I didn't touch her. But I did move out to the foyer and quite frankly I, I, I, I couldn't go into the room. I, I looked once, and ah, I was, it was so horrible I just couldn't stay in the room so I stayed in the foyer and then I opened the door and then went outside I was, and I was on the portable phone and I you know, I, I don't know which officer it was but he told me, who would do this? Isolating the outside so I didn't look for anything.
The first thing I notice is how he starts and stalls, often stuttering and repeating.
The repetitions are especially interesting:
"I,I"
"I, I, I, I"
"wait for the officer, wait for the officer, wait for the officer"
"I was, and I was"
Neulander can explain the repetitions, in part, by nerves. Who wouldn't feel squeamish during a police interrogation? Also, this interrogation took place at 3:20 AM. Mr. Neulander is exhausted and an emotional wreck. Presumably, anyway. (A jury eventually convicted him of hiring two men to murder his wife, so it is impossible to know how he actually felt about her death. Even still, I imagine the feelings were unbearable - guilt, regret, sadness at the loss he caused. Or worse - happiness at what he had done. Relief that is was over.)
What else do the repetitions show? I find it interesting that he repeats "I" so many times throughout this answer and others. Mr. Neulander consistently brings the focus back to himself and his actions - as if he is the center of the story. Unsure how to characterize his actions, he hesitates to describe what he did. He never describes what he saw - at least not in any detail. Only that he could not stand to look, and that it was "horrible."
In this sense, his speech patterns reveal just as much as - if not more than - his actual words. The most vivid images for Mr. Neulander are of himself. It is as if he consciously frames his actions a particular way. Police need to sniff out crucial details and clues about the crime scene, but Mr. Neulander has nothing to give. Except himself.
Which may tip his hand. Does Mr. Neulander believe he is the subject of the interrogation? If so, why? This does not necessarily betray guilt, since any reasonable person could feel like he's under attack during an interrogation. And in husband-wife murder cases, police always suspect the spouse. (Sadly, most female murder victims are killed by a partner or spouse. The statistics are different for men, but of course, police watch spouses closely during investigations.)
Maybe it simply shows how self-centered he is. Which, when you think about it, reveals more than just his character. Even in the face of his wife's brutal bludgeoning, he turns the spotlight on himself. It was as if he was unmoved - unshaken.
Here is another fact, not entirely clear in the interrogation: Mr. Neulander never touched his dead wife. He never embraced her, kissed her, held her, or checked to see if she was still alive. Mr. Neulander's own son noticed this and found it disgusting. Most - though not all - husbands would do anything to save their wives - CPR, or desperate pleas to please not die. They would rush to her side. Stroke her hair, hold her hand, lean over her and whisper loving words. Especially if she were suffering the unbearable pains of a beating.
But Mr. Neulander simply called 911 and asked if he should touch her. He never asked how he might adminster CPR or check for a pulse. Perhaps he worried about spattering blood onto his clothes. Or perhaps he did not want to save her at all. Some even believed he had scripted his 911 call, just so he could craft an excuse. But they told me not to touch her.
Also remember: This man is a rabbi. Surely, he has comforted many members of his synagogue, as they faced death - either their own demise, or that of a loved one. He has handled funerals. He has been present at the time of death - never pretty. Would a religious leader respond this way to death?
wait for the officer, wait for the officer, wait for the officer
Here is a repetition that focuses on someone else - but even this is self-referential. Mr. Neulander reiterates what he was told to do. I am not certain whether the 911 dispatcher actually repeated this phrase, but I suspect not. This seems to be something Mr. Neulander needs to emphasize. If he can make it clear he was just doing what he was told, then his actions seem justified somehow.
Of course, an interrogation is not the normal way to write dialogue. Most characters engage in everyday conversation. But the best dialogue becomes a kind of interrogation - advancing the plot, revealing hidden motivations, rounding out character. Consider how speech patterns can infuse your dialogue with all of these things - how the way words are spoken transforms their meanings.