comment: >
  
  Absolutely disgusting and an abuse of public trust,  which is just par for the course for US law enforcement. 
  I was a 9-1-1 dispatcher for years. I'll tell you one thing right now: the way the caller talks to you has NOTHING to do with the situation.
  Little kid calling in literally eye to eye with a guy trying to break in? 
  Cool as a cucumber.
  Twenty somethings convicted someone was lurking outside? Hysterical.
  Found your kid unresponsive? Terse. Sobbing. Panicked. Calm. Every type of call you care to imagine with every emotional response you care to name, no matter how outlandish. 
  What pieces of utter garbage.
context: He had a business to promote: a miracle method to determine when 911 callers are actually guilty of the crimes they are reporting. “I know what a guilty father, mother or boyfriend sounds like,” he once said.
  
  that might be the most erroneous batshit dangerous thing i've seen a person say in some time >
  
  He isn't even a linguist. He qualifications are, trust me bro. 
  This "science" is meant to rule suspects out. Not proof of their guilt. >
  
  It isn't even effective for that. This is effectively as reliable as consulting a psychic to solve crimes. >
  
  Shawn Spencer has entered the chat >
  
  Except Shawn was actually a good detective. >
  
  Well yeah, that's the fictional part of the show. >
  
  I’ve heard it both ways. >
  
  
  “Witnesses to a crime scene should be able to report their observations clearly,” Harpster and Adams wrote.
  
  A decade or so ago a guy I know lost his wife to a home invasion gone wrong. She walked in on the burglar and he ended up slitting her throat so deeply that it almost severed the spinal cord.
  The guy i know was out of town when the murder happened. His father in law (her father) found her nearly decapitated body in a huge pool of blood when he came to the house looking for her.
  I defy ANYBODY who found their child like that to be able to report the observations clearly and with the proper grammar when calling 911 to report it. There's no way in hell any sane person would be composed enough to do that. >
  
  Seriously. There's no proper way to call 911, especially if reporting on a traumatic scene. Some people might be borderline hysterical and unable to put together coherent sentences, never mind accurately describe the scene in front of them. Some people might go into shock and sound abnormally calm or detached. You would also need to know an individuals regular speech patterns, education, cultural background, and tons of other information if you were to even begin to judge whether or not they sound "normal" on a 911 call. But this guy literally claims that anyone who says "please," "hi," or "huh?" at any time is showing indicators of guilt. 
  It's one thing for a moron like this to come up with this "system" as a way to grift money from law enforcement agencies and state prosecutors, but the fact that a lot of people with great power in our criminal justice system apparently believe in it is fucking terrifying. >
  
  I was a police dispatcher for 5 years and heard it all.  Calm, panic, shyness, fear, whispers, screams... I've heard it all.  Ask a seasoned dispatcher if "guilt" can be determined by a 911 call and they'll tell you hell no. I was also an LEO for three years and I can't imagine a ridiculous program like this ever passing muster by the higher-ups. Continuing Education Request denied, lol. >
  
  From reading the article, it seems like a big part of this scam was that it continues to be an approved training course for police and prosecutors alike. The Ohio State Supreme Court approved the course as part of it's continuing education programs that prosecutors are required to take, which helped to give the course an air of legitimacy for police departments who want to bring him in. Unsurprisingly, while he claims his training is based on scientific evidence, he goes to great lengths to make sure the data he uses, and the specifics of the course itself, remain a secret. He bans journalists and pretty much anyone who isn't a police officer from taking the course, he refuses to share his data with anyone who requests it, and he wouldn't even teach the course online for fear that it might leak out. Those are obviously huge red flags for anyone who might be concerned that this "science" is a bunch of made up bullshit, but apparently many police officers and prosecutors are still big fans. >
  
  That's quite concerning, and indicative of lazy police work IMO. >
  
  As a defense attorney, my blood boils whenever I see prosecutors bending rules or using junk science. It's garbage, and innocent people pay the price. >
  
  As an occasional defendant I'm happy to see a defense attorney that won't put up with the prosecution doing this. >
  
  I've had occasion to call out prosecutors in court right to the judge, once even my friend and mentor.  It needs to be done, or the system stays broken. >
  
  Glad to hear it, You may not make a lot of friends in the system but you'll keep your soul. >
  
  This shit needs to be actionable.  This is absolutely misfeasance, and you should not be indemnified by your job.  For one thing, the liability to the public is phenomenal, here.  Just voting people out at the next election is not a sufficient remedy. >
  
  
  The widow said the word “blood,” for example, and that’s a guilty indicator. (“Bleeding,” however, is not.) She said “somebody” at different points, which shows a lack of commitment. “Witnesses to a crime scene should be able to report their observations clearly,” Harpster and Adams wrote.
  
  next let's get some "body language expert" youtubers to solve cases. >
  
  how do you know she's a witch?
  she looks like one >
  
  she sounds like one >
  
  It's always the smell.  A witch gives off the scent of sulfur before the devil bone's her with his tail. >
  
  That’s all bullshit. Everybody knows the easiest way to tell if she’s a witch or not is by the broom she’s flying around on. >
  
  Nope, it's the smell.  So don't use matches especially in the bathroom or people will think you're a witch who just got red hot tail boned in the bathroom. >
  
  My takeaway from this article is to definitively never call 911 if someone needs help because I might be too polite and end up charged and convicted of a crime I didn’t commit. >
  
  But don't swear. I recall a case where the 911 operator refused to send help to a teenager whose father was having a heart attack because she was upset and swore. So don't be too polite, but don't be too rude. Best write a few scripts out ahead of time, just in case. >
  
  This is exactly why police should have bachelor's degrees, understand science, and understand how research works. >
  
  Remember neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson disregarded the entire science of archeology because it contradicted his biblical worldview. He even thought the pyramids were grain silos. >
  
  He’s made himself immune to cross examination by not testifying.
  But I’m pretty sure he has instead opened himself up to lawsuits from anyone falsely convicted.
  Organizations like the ACLU should consider opening a class action against him. >
  
  
  He’s made himself immune to cross examination by not testifying.
  
  Didn't the Supreme Court rule that evidence against the defendant must be cross-examinable, since it would otherwise break the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause? >
  
  Technically, unfortunately, he’s not providing evidence. Instead, he’s providing training that lets the prosecution pretend someone else is an expert witness. That “expert witness” then provides the evidence/testimony. The “expert witness” is then the one subject to cross examination. The “expert witness” points to their training as a sign of expertise. They didn’t fabricate the methodology, so can provide convincing testimony without lying their asses off under oath, the way the inventor of this hokum would have to if he testified. >
  
  Well said. >
  
  This is garbage for the same reason that trying to watch facial cues is garbage.  Everyone handles high stress situations differently.  There are so many factors that go into how we respond that it becomes ridiculously difficult to try and narrow it all down to something usable. >
  
  my friend’s baby got covid and passed and the cops treated her as a suspect until the ME results came in bc she was “too emotional” when she was hysterical at the ER >
  
  Fuck. That's horrible. I'd like to know what they think justifies being hysterical if losing a baby isn't it. >
  
  my thoughts exactly >
  
  This is an excellent article. Worth the read. 
  Basically, when calling 911, cops will listen to the recording and apply a checklist system^TM (developed by a cop with a singular study of 100 calls who also refuses to release the data with results that can’t be replicated) to determine if the person calling is “dirty” or “clean”. 
  What’s on the C.O.P.S.^TM checklist? (a small sample, not a complete list)
  - If you say hi, please, or thank you, you’re dirty. (Politeness is a calm only guilty people have.) 
  - If you interrupt yourself or ask a question such as “huh?” you’re dirty. (If you actually wanted immediate help you wouldn’t delay or dodge.) 
  - If you give extraneous information such as, “it was an accident” OR talk about yourself like “I need help” or “my god my life is over”, then you’re dirty. (the call should be about help not justifying your actions or be “me” focused.) 
  - If you use the word blood, you’re dirty. (Bleeding is what an innocent person would say)
  - If you aren’t “appropriately shocked or upset” (no mention of a standard for what’s appropriate upset and neither medical shock nor autism exist in their reality) 
  And yes, there are already over 24 states implementing this BS and multiple people have done serious time in prison for nothing more than calling 911 for help. >
  
  Which 24 states have implemented this? >
  
  I cannot believe what I just read. This article has ruined my day. >
  
  Horrifying >
  
  That really does sound like some garbage science.
  Might as well solve crimes with homeopathy.