San Diego Criminal Lawyers Blog
What would you do if you came upon a dead body? Call 911, of course! As much as that is the proper thing to do (what else would you do, after all), it’s a bit alarming to know that police departments across the country have been participating in training classes designed to help them determine the innocence or guilt of a 911 caller, simply by listening to the 911 call. People are going to prison based largely on the analysis of these calls. This is even though many consider the science behind 911 call analysis to be shoddy, at best.
The Assertions
Tracy Harpster, the creator of the theory that a 911 analysis can detect guilt in a caller, claims that by studying 20 variables in a 911 call, one can determine a caller’s involvement in a homicide. That is right; simply by going through a checklist related to the manner in which a caller relays events, their speaking cadence, their grammar, the degree of urgency in the call, and more, analysts can determine guilt. After studying 200 calls, some of the conclusions include:
- Callers who comment on the victim’s eyes are generally guilty;
- When a caller asks if they should touch the body, it is an indication of guilt;
- Callers who say, “huh?” are more likely to be guilty;
- Guilty callers refer to blood, while callers who are innocent will refer to bleeding;
- About eight in ten callers who ask for help immediately are innocent;
- Guilty callers acknowledge that someone has died, while innocent callers cannot accept that fact;
- Discussing an earlier conversation between oneself and the victim with the dispatcher indicates guilt.
Questions About the Science
There are several issues related to Harpster’s study. Harpster documented 100 calls that had been analyzed (and later another 100), though he provided no transparency relating to whether those calls were selected randomly. Also unknown is whether analyzers were aware of the outcome of the cases prior to conducting the analysis. Additionally, only calls by sober English speakers were included in the study. There were no guidelines to address issues related to a host of potential caller characteristics, including anxiety, cognitive issues, education level, speech impediments, and those for whom English is a second language, for example.
Study Replications
Attempts have been made to replicate Harpster’s study, but none of the follow-up studies involved significant numbers, and some were related to other areas of the law, including cases of missing children and cases of military law enforcement. Not a single study has topped 200 participants in a study sample—and at least one study conducted by the FBO found major contradictions in their conclusions. They stated that using the analysis could lead to major bias in conducting an investigation.
One More Thing…
Harpster is making plenty of cash on his little theory—charging thousands of dollars for each 8-hour training class for over a decade. Then, those involved in the training are permitted to show up in court and testify as expert witnesses. This, despite the fact that the intricacies of human thought and behavior are boiled down to 20 markers in a decidedly charged situation, makes little sense to begin with.
Defending Against Junk Science
If you are facing charges based on junk science, you need an aggressive, dedicated criminal defense attorney fighting on your behalf. The creative, hard-hitting San Diego defense attorneys at Boertje & Associates will not let ridiculous “expert” testimony go unchallenged. To discuss your circumstances, schedule a confidential consultation today.