From The Death of Expertise
by Tom Nichols
A ProPublica article by investigative journalist Brett Murphy discusses some bizarre junk science that the journalist calls “911 call analysis.” This supposedly science based “technology” sometimes subverts justice and the criminal justice system. Sometimes it gets innocent people wrongly convicted of crimes where actual reliable evidence would not be sufficient to establish criminal liability to a jury. The article points to a shocking kind corruption in the American criminal justice system.
It also exemplifies a much more serious problem in American society. Namely, far too many adult Americans distrust science and experts. Crackpots, grifters, demagogues and other talented liars have become far more trusted than one would think possible in an educated, modern society.
Murphy stumbled across this story by accident, initially not believing it was a real thing. He was wrong. That said, 911 call analysis probably does not apply to rich, powerful or elite people or corporations because they have the attorney firepower to pry this bullshit from the claws of corrupted prosecutors. Poor people probably usually do not have the resources to defend themselves from this horror. Not sure how this impacts the middle class.
Tracy Harpster, a deputy police chief from suburban Dayton, Ohio, was hunting for praise. 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.
Harpster tells police and prosecutors around the country that they can do the same. Such linguistic detection is possible, he claims, if you know how to analyze callers’ speech patterns — their tone of voice, their pauses, their word choice, even their grammar. Stripped of its context, a misplaced word as innocuous as “hi” or “please” or “somebody” can reveal a murderer on the phone.
So far, researchers who have tried to corroborate Harpster’s claims have failed. The experts most familiar with his work warn that it shouldn’t be used to lock people up.
Prosecutors know it’s junk science too. But that hasn’t stopped some from promoting his methods and even deploying 911 call analysis in court to win convictions.
“Of course this line of research is not ‘recognized’ as a science in our state,” Askey wrote, explaining that she had sidestepped hearings that would have been required to assess the method’s legitimacy. She said she disguised 911 call analysis in court by “getting creative … without calling it ‘science.’”
“I was confident that if a jury could hear this information and this research,” she added, “they would be as convinced as I was of the defendant's guilt.”
What Askey didn’t say in her endorsement was this: She had once tried using Harpster’s methods against Russ Faria, a man wrongfully convicted of killing his wife. At trial, Askey played a recording of Faria’s frantic 911 call for the jury and put a dispatch supervisor on the stand to testify that it sounded staged. Lawyers objected but the judge let the testimony in. Faria was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
After he successfully appealed, Askey prosecuted him again — and again called the supervisor to testify about all the reasons she thought Faria was guilty based on his word choice and demeanor during the 911 call. It was Harpster’s “analytical class,” the supervisor said, that taught her “to evaluate a call to see what the outcome would be.”
This judge wouldn’t allow her to continue and cut the testimony short. Faria was acquitted. He’d spent three and a half years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit.
None of this bothered Harpster, who needed fresh kudos to repackage as marketing material and for a chapter in an upcoming book. “We don’t have to say it was overturned,” he told Askey when soliciting the endorsement. “Hook me up. … Make it sing!”Once again, deceit and customer ignorance arethe best friends of a grifter
I first stumbled on 911 call analysis while reporting on a police department in northern Louisiana. At the time, it didn’t sound plausible even as a one-off gambit, let alone something pervasive that law enforcement nationwide had embraced as legitimate.
I was wrong. People who call 911 don’t know it, but detectives and prosecutors are listening in, ready to assign guilt based on the words they hear. For the past decade, Harpster has traveled the country quietly sowing his methods into the justice system case by case, city by city, charging up to $3,500 for his eight-hour class, which is typically paid for with tax dollars. Hundreds in law enforcement have bought into the obscure program and I had a rare opportunity to track, in real time, how the chief architect was selling it.
The program has little online presence. Searches for 911 call analysis in national court dockets come up virtually empty too. A public defender in Virginia said, “I have never heard of any of that claptrap in my jurisdiction.” Dozens of other defense attorneys had similar reactions. One thought the premise sounded as arbitrary as medieval trials by fire, when those suspected of crimes were judged by how well they could walk over burning coals or hold hot irons.
Could it be true that Harpster, a man with no scientific background and next to no previous homicide investigation experience, had successfully sold the modern equivalent [of a medieval trial by fire] to law enforcement across the U.S. almost without notice?
First, I put together a list of agencies that had recently hosted him. In the months that followed, I sent more than 80 open records requests and interviewed some 120 people. Thousands of emails, police reports and other documents led to a web of thousands more in new states. When agencies refused to turn over public records, ProPublica’s lawyers threatened litigation and in one case sued.
After he left the FBI Academy that winter, Harpster enrolled at the University of Cincinnati to pursue a graduate degree in criminal justice. For his master’s thesis, he collected 100 recordings of 911 calls — half of the callers had been found guilty of something and the other half hadn’t. Harpster believed he could analyze these calls for clues.
Based on patterns he heard in the tapes, Harpster said he was able to identify certain indicators that correlated with guilt and others with innocence. For instance, “Huh?” in response to a dispatcher’s question is an indicator of guilt in Harpster’s system. So is an isolated “please.” He identified 20 such indicators and then counted how often they appeared in his sample of guilty calls.
Using that same sample of recordings, Harpster, Adams and an FBI behavioral scientist named John Jarvis set out to publish a study in 2008. But even before their work was published in a peer-reviewed journal as an “exploratory analysis” — a common qualifier meant to invite more research — police departments around the country learned about it.
That’s because the FBI sent a version of the study directly to them in a bulletin, which was not labeled exploratory. It included contact information for Harpster and Adams. The publication, which the bureau says typically has a readership of 200,000 but is not supposed to be an endorsement, had immediate impact. “It was required reading by our detective and communications personnel,” a police chief in Illinois told Harpster.
The article is long and goes into many details about this bizarre stupidity and the shocking gullibility of police and prosecutors. What the FBI was thinking, if anything, is anyone’s guess. This is the kind of crap that happens when people are ignorant and/or distrustful about science and prone to mental corruption. The corruption here is the intense bias that law enforcement and prosecutors have to lock people up. They latch onto anything that gets the conviction.
Apparently, in law enforcement, there are less incentive for getting justice right, than for just locking them up, guilty or not. At least that is how this information makes it look. Both police and prosecutors are guilty of this outrageous travesty. Even TV is biased the same way. Shows like Law & Order puts the cops and prosecutors on a pedestal, while ignoring defense attorneys or making them look sleazy and/or corrupt.
This mental rot in law enforcement mirrors the bigger problem in American society. Specifically, far too many Americans reject and/or attack sound science and the messengers when the science or message (fact and attendant truth) is inconvenient.
Shucks, one can’t trust law enforcement or the FBI to be honest, competent or rational. What a mess.
From The Death of Expertise
by Tom Nichols
Actually, for politics too many people hold convenient truths to be
true and patriotic, while inconvenient ones are evil
Democratic Party, liberal and/or socialist lies
No comments:
Post a Comment