Can 911 Call Analysis be Trusted?

Let’s say you’re out and about when the unthinkable happens—you discover someone who appears to be dead. It might be someone you know, or a total stranger. You automatically pick up the phone and dial 911 to report it, which is the sensible and responsible thing to do, right? But before you know it, you are a suspect in the death, which has been ruled a murder. It seems unfathomable, but one key piece of evidence against you is the very 911 call you placed.

911 Call Analysis 

One trendy new training program deluging police departments across the country relates to the analysis of 911 calls. The theory, developed by Tracy Harpster, is that 20 different variables in a 911 call can help police to determine whether the caller is actually the perpetrator of a crime. Analysts have a checklist that addresses a speaker’s cadence, grammar, sense of urgency, and the overall manner used to describe events in order to determine that person’s guilt. The theory is backed up by a couple of tiny studies of 100 calls each, and came to the following sometimes bizarre conclusions:

• A caller who comments on the eyes of the victim is probably guilty;
• Asking whether they should touch the body is an indication of guilt;
• Callers who refer to bleeding are generally innocent, while those who refer to blood are likely guilty;
• Most callers—80 percent—who say they need help are innocent;
• Most innocent callers can’t accept the fact that a death has occurred, while guilty callers immediately acknowledge someone has died;
• Callers who talk about conversations they’ve had previously with the victim are generally guilty.

Does This Seem Legit? 

Questions abound about this ‘” research.” First of all, why would practice across the country be based on studies involving only about 200 cases? Secondly, a close look at Harpster’s work shows that there was no transparency relating to a number of issues:

• Were calls randomly selected?
• Did analysts know the outcome of cases prior to listening to calls?
• Why were only English speakers included in the study?

Furthermore, there seems to be a big hole in the study’s rationale—namely, the lack of guidelines to address issues such as anxiety, education level, cultural factors, speech impediments, and mental health issues. And here’s a huge issue:  no one has been able to replicate Harpster’s findings. Finally—while no one begrudges someone making an honest buck—Harpster is raking in thousands of dollars by providing his 8-hour training course to police departments across the country. Does it really make any sense that the intricacies of human thought and response in a crisis situation could all boil down to a mini-training—or is this just junk science?

Advocating for You 

The experienced Miami criminal defense attorneys at The Law Office of Julia Kefalinos take no shortcuts in defending our clients. If you want aggressive, thorough representation, give us a call in our Miami office today.

Source:

mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/caller-killer-911-call-analysis-cant-give-you-right-answer