There are a few indicators of drug abuse that we look for in Statement Analysis; some of which would not come as any surprise to readers, while some of the minor 'hints' may.
Context is key.
When the mother of a missing child has the wherewithal to mention a "toothache", it is a signal of narcotics.
Mentioning the ER on the weekend for "back pain" is another.
The "flu" is very commonly used due to the flu-like symptoms of narcotics withdrawal. When a celebrity is hospitalized and his or her PR team says "flu", it should be questioned if it is narcotic withdrawal or even detox.
Here we see sensitivity that is from the subject (caller) regarding what happened. Why the need for passivity in the language?
Dispatcher: 911, where is your emergency?
Unidentified Male: Hi there, um, what's the address, here? Yeah we need an ambulance right now.
UM:We have someone who is unconscious.
First note the caller uses the word "we"; an immediate signal that either more than one person is on the phone (not likely) or that there is a reason to be part of a larger group, not wishing to be alone.
Next note that "someone" is gender neutral and deliberately withholds the identity of the victim.
Thirdly, the state of the victim is "unconscious."
D: OK, what's the address?
UM: Um, we're at Prince's house.
The subject does not know the address, but continues to use the plural "we", and presupposes that simply saying "Prince's house" will mean identification to the dispatch.
This suggests to us or at least invites us to consider that the caller may be one of 'self importance' with the expectation of anyone simply knowing who the victim is, who, at this time in the call, is "unconscious."
D: OK, does anybody know the address? Is there any mail around that you could look at?
UM:Yeah, yeah, OK, hold on.
This may not have been something the 911 operator expected to hear. "hold on" may be an imperative to the authority, which is not expected. The voice inflection, though not part of Statement Analysis, may give understanding if the context does not.
D: OK, your cellphone's not going to tell me where you're at, so I need you to find me an address.
UM:Yeah, we have um, yeah, we have um, so, yeah, um, the person is dead here.
The victim was "someone" when he was unconscious, but now a "person" while being dead. This, too, is reported by the subject using "we" for himself or herself.
D: OK, get me the address please.
The 911 operator is now firm, yet remaining polite.
UM: OK, OK, I'm working on it.
The caller now takes ownership for the first time, in the topic of getting the address.
The 911 operator may have sensed a high-minded attitude of the plural caller:
D:Concentrate on that.
This is fascinating. The 911 operator feels the need to tell the caller what he must concentrate on. This is to suggest to us that the 911 operator likely has a very strong opinion about the caller and it is not positive.
The use of "we" in this call is very concerning.
UM:And the people are just distraught.
Here, it is very important to the caller that police know that "people" are "just distraught" over this.
Is it publicity mode? Or, is there something else going on that is not simply crass publicity but having to do with the "unconscious" and now "dead" person? ***please note that if the people are "distraught", they did not intend what happened; this is offered in an "open statement"; that is, with no direct question, nor even contextual leading. *This could be a signal of guilt. The portrayal of the people is unnecessary, therefore, very important to the subject (caller), show a need to persuade.
D: I understand they are distraught, but -
UM: I'm working on it, I'm working on it.
D: OK, do we know how the person died?
UM:I don't know, I don't know.
This produced the pronoun "I" and this question is what produced within the caller the need for emphasis.
One may consider:
The caller may have had knowledge of what caused the death and this knowledge, perhaps even facilitation, may have caused the use of the pronoun "we" early on.
Here, the caller feels the need to personally deny it, for himself, only, but with the sensitive repetition.
UM: Um, so we're, we're in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and we are at the home of Prince.
D: You're in Minneapolis?
UM: Yeah, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
D: You're sure you are in Minneapolis?
UM: That's correct.
D: OK, have you found an address yet?
UM: Yeah, um, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry I need, I need the address here?
Unidentified Female: 7801.
Unidentified Male: 7801.
D: 7801 what?
UM: Paisley Park, we are at Paisley Park.
D: You're at Paisley Park, OK, that's in Chanhassen. Are you with the person who's ...
UM: Yes, it's Prince.
The caller may be frustrated that the 911 operator does not know who the victim is.
D: Carver with the transfer for Paisley Park Studios, 78.
Ambulance dispatcher: Paisley Park Studios, OK.
D: 7801 Audubon Road.
Ambulance dispatcher: OK.
D: We have a person down, not breathing.
Ambulance dispatcher: Down, not breathing.
UM: He's, he's -
D: We're going to get everybody, go ahead with the transmittal sir.
(Carver County Dispatcher 2 comes on line)
Ambulance dispatcher: Yea, Kayley, this is Shirley at Ridgeview. You can cancel anybody going to Aubudon, confirmed DOA.
Dispatcher 2: OK, thank you.
Ambulance dispatcher: All right, thanks, bye.
Police should learn what the caller knew about drug abuse and/or any possible illegal activity. The caller's sensitivity may be due to egotistical projection, but it also may be due to possible involvement in obtaining narcotics for the victim and/or covering up for him. That he used "we", and was deceptive about the victim's state are two linguistic indications of guilt that need to be investigated.