comment: >
  
  
  “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.
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.