911 Call Analysis Looks Like Junk Science

Imagine the inconceivable happens—you discover someone who appears to be dead. It might be a total stranger; it might be someone you know. Automatically, you grab your phone and dial 911 to report it, which is the logical and responsible thing to do, right!  But in an unfathomable twist of events, you wind up being a suspect in the death, which has been ruled a murder. It seems crazy, but one key piece of evidence against you is the very 911 call you placed.

The Latest Trend: 911 Call Analysis 

One chic new training program flooding police departments across the country is based on the analysis of 911 calls that come in to dispatch. The theory, developed by Tracy Harpster, is that a batch of 20 different variables in a 911 call can assist authorities in determining if the caller is actually the perpetrator of a crime. A checklist is provided to analysts, which directs them to consider a speaker’s grammar, cadence, sense of urgency, and the overall manner used to describe events as a way to determine that person’s guilt in the crime. Harpster’s theories are supported by just two of miniscule studies of 100 calls each, and arrive at some pretty curious conclusions:

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

Is This Legit? 

Some have doubts about this ”research.” For starters, why would criminal justice practice across the United States be influenced by studies involving only about 200 cases that took place in one section of the country? Secondly, a close look at Harpster’s work shows that there was zero transparency relating to a number of issues:

• We don’t know if calls randomly selected;
• It’s unclear if analysts know the outcome of cases prior to listening to calls;
• Why were only English speakers included in the study?

Additionally, there seems to be a big gap in the study’s rationale—namely, the lack of guidelines to address issues such as education level, mental health issues, anxiety, speech impediments, and cultural factors.  Another colossal issue:  no one has been able to replicate Harpster’s findings! And sure—no one begrudges someone making an honest buck—but 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 complexities 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 La Plata & Waldorf criminal defense attorneys at The Law Office of Hammad S. Matin, P.A. take no shortcuts in defending our clients. If you want aggressive, thorough representation, give us a call today.

Source:

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