“911 What’s Your Emergency?”: Deception in 911 Homicide and Homicide Staged as Suicide Calls

• Date: 01 August 2021
• Published date: 01 August 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767920948242
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767920948242

Homicide Studies

2021, Vol. 25(3) 256 –272

© 2020 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1088767920948242

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

“911 What’s Your

Emergency?”: Deception in

911 Homicide and Homicide

Staged as Suicide Calls

Michelle L. Miller1, Melissa A. Merola2,

Leonard Opanashuk3, Cari J. Robins3,

Arthur S. Chancellor1, and Sarah W. Craun3

Abstract

Emergency 911 calls are often the first indication a homicide occurred and serve as

initial witness statements in an investigation. The current study explores deception

among homicide and homicide staged as suicide 911 calls. One hundred suicides,

18 homicide staged as suicide calls, 31 homicides with uninvolved callers, and 26

homicide offender calls were compared. Little overlap was found in deception

indicators between the current findings and previous studies. Caution is warranted

when extrapolating from studies using only 911 homicide calls to equivocal death

cases, where investigators consider if the manner of death is a suicide or a staged

homicide.

Keywords

911 calls, homicide investigations, homicides staged as suicides, homicide offenders,

suicides

While the number of research articles on 911 calls in homicide investigations is rela-

tively small, it has increased over time. The genesis of the knowledge base, the growth

and its relation to investigative importance, can be attributed to the original research

1U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Quantico, VA, USA

2Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Huntsville, AL, USA

3Behavioral Analysis Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Quantico, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Michelle L. Miller, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, 27130 Telegraph Rd, Quantico,

VA 22134, USA.

Email: michelle.l.miller232.mil@mail.mil

948242HSXXXX10.1177/1088767920948242Homicide StudiesMiller et al.

research-article2020

Miller et al. 257

conducted by Harpster et al. (2009). Harpster and colleagues (2009) hypothesized

there were several key features of 911 calls that make them potentially valuable as

evidence in death investigations. First, they noted that 911 calls are generally not

rehearsed and take place after the caller has discovered or committed a violent act. In

either case, the caller is influenced by their emotions and therefore if they have com-

mitted the crime may make unintended mistakes or respond inappropriately. Second,

911 calls are recorded and can be repeatedly examined. They noted recorded calls can

help identify voice modulation, ascertain any hesitation or pauses, and detect any

background noise or activity. Burns and Moffitt (2014) also argued that it requires

extra effort to lie when face to face or to a live 911 operator and is far different than an

attempt to lie in a written statement. In preparing a written statement, the offender has

a chance to consider his words carefully and may be able to edit the statement at any

time. This is obviously not the case in a 911 call. These are real time and recorded

exchanges, so there is no doubt about the caller’s statements or whether he or she

backtracked or inadvertently refuted previous statements.

Harpster et al. (2009) developed their original study for the purpose of analyzing

911 calls from individuals reporting homicides. They measured the differences

between two groups—one group was innocent callers whereas the other group con-

sisted of guilty callers (i.e., offenders). During their analysis, they considered the total-

ity of the call, including not only what was said by the caller, such as whether the caller

asked for assistance or was merely reporting a crime and the quality of the caller’s

language, but also included how the information was relayed by the caller (i.e., emo-

tions, voice modulation, and any delays in speech or answering questions). Further,

they assessed the reason for the call. For example, did the call focus the attention on

the victim and their need for assistance or did the caller focus mainly on himself?

Harpster et al. (2009) found distinct differences in the call characteristics for guilty

versus innocent callers. Innocent callers were more likely to focus on getting help for

the victim and did not provide extraneous information. They were able to provide

accurate details on the victim’s status, answer questions, and follow directions from

the 911 operator. Innocent callers were consistent regarding the facts of the event and

were more likely to correct erroneous information if new details were learned during

the call as opposed to guilty callers who were more likely to provide conflicting infor-

mation and seldom self-corrected.

Harpster and colleagues (2009) also found guilty callers tended to provide rambling

and unclear explanations and did not fully cooperate with 911 operator instructions,

such as performing CPR on the victim. They also tended to repeat demands or phrases,

such as “Oh my God, oh my God,” which was seen as an effort to avoid answering

questions. Further, guilty callers were more likely to provide extraneous information

and unneeded details of events, rather than a clear and concise report of relevant infor-

mation. Providing extraneous information was one of the strongest indicators of guilt

within their study. Guilty callers also tended to delay answering questions or had

noticeable pauses in the conversation referred to as the “huh factor.” This was under-

stood as the caller being caught off guard with an unexpected question and was

reflected through the callers use of “what?” or “huh?” in response to the 911 operator.