"The Staircase" 911 Call Analyzed

Netflix did  a series "The Staircase" in which they are viewing the evidence in the murder case where Michael Peterson was found guilty in the death of his wife, Katherine. This is a short analysis of the 911 call and of later statement made by Peterson, denying the murder. 

Peterson credits Netflix in getting his conviction over turned. The editor of the series, Sophie Bruenet, had a 15 year affair with Michael Peterson. As to its heavy editing, he said, "I wouldn't say that my relationship with Sophie, or its end, influenced any decisions as to what was included or excluded in any way positively or negatively." 

Did he reliably report what happened?

Michael Peterson called 911,  2:40 am on 9 December, 2001

911: Durham 9-1-1. Where is your emergency?

Peterson:… Uuuuh, eighteen ten Cedar Street. Please!

It is interesting to note that the subject began with a pause, making the question of his address "sensitive" to him. 

Since he would require no pre-thought for his address, what might have caused the pause in needing to choose his words?

Consider that 911 calls are, in a sense, "excited utterance."  Being emotionally upset is presupposed. 

Was it that the subject was considering that he was going to answer "What is your emergency?" rather than the address?

Scripting

911: What’s wrong?

This is similar to "What happened?, What is your emergency?" and so on. We expect him to report what happened, to whom it happened and to ask for help for the victim. We sometimes find within "guilty caller status" the subject asking for help for himself. This is appropriate if he is asking for specific guidance for CPR or first aid. Otherwise, it is often noted as a form of leakage where the caller recognizes that he, himself, needs help. 

Peterson: My wife had an accident, she is still breathing

The subject begins with a classification of what happened: she had an accident. This is his priority over her current condition where he might ask for help for her, or for himself to help her in first aid.

It is not that the authorities/police/medical assistance know what is wrong, or what happened, but that what happened to her was not by intention; but an accident. 

a. Those who can help do not know what happened to her

b. They do not know what injuries she has so they cannot given  directives for first aid or CPR may be given because we do not what know is wrong. 

We do not always expect a complete social introduction in the opening response to "what happened?" or "what is wrong?" due to urgency. Therefore, we cannot conclude here that the absence of her name  is indicative of a poor relationship. It very well may be, but due to the urgency of an emergency call, we note it yet without putting too much emphasis upon it.

Lastly we note something  unusual in his priority. 

This is where he chose to begin the information: 

a. what happened to her was not intentional--no one can be blamed

b. Without telling 911 what happened or what need is present

c. "still"

The word "still" is a word from the element of time. It is found in a sentence where time is elapsing. 

He does not wait to be asked, "Is she breathing?" after saying, "my wife fell down the stairs" but wants police to know she is "still breathing,"

He does not offer, "she is barely breathing" or something similar.  

This indicates a monitoring of her breathing during the passage of time. Remember he began with intention ("accident" to make a conclusion) and here, the law of economy is reversed in order to give a single, small additional and unnecessary word:  "still" to tell us:

Did he have an expectation that she would no longer be breathing?  How much time has passed?

"My wife fell down the stairs and is barely breathing..." or something similar is to go directly to what happened, without the need for classification. 

She is "still" breathing indicates that time has elapsed, leading us to question how much time passed  before calling 91l. 

When taken with the "conclusion of the matter"; (accident) that she died as a result of no person's cause, the priority is established and by the simple word, "still", he has raised the question of time. 

He should now ask or demand for help for her, or help for him to administer emergency first aid. 

911: What kind of accident?

Peterson: She fell down the stairs, she is still breathing! Please come!

This is where scripted language becomes a possible concern. 

He now tells police that she fell down the stairs. This is more detail and it is significant. He does not, however, ask for help for her, nor does he report her status beyond "still" (repeated, further emphasizing the passage of time). 

 Her status would be about blood or how to help her via first aid. "Please come" using politeness (possible Ingratiation)  "come" but he does not say to assist the victim. 

911: Is she conscious?

Peterson: What?

911: Is she conscious?

Peterson: No, she is not conscious,  please!

Ingratiation factor repeated increases importance. 

"please" in repetition shows an acute need to be "on the side of good", that is, police. This is the "Ingratiation Factor" we find in various settings, including in guilty statements, missing children, as well as a technique used in interviewing.  

Concern is that he is presenting as urgent while repeating the word "still" indicating time passage. 

911: How many stairs did she fall down?

The subject has not given any indication of her condition for which the operator can direct first aid. Since nothing is offered, the operator is searching for information. This is to indicate:

Every 911 call, like every interview, will give the Interviewer (operator) one of two impressions:

Either the subject is working with me to facilitate the flow of information, or he is not. 

Peterson: What? What?

911: How many stairs did...

Peterson: Stairs?

911: How many stairs?

Peterson:… Um, um, uh, (etc)

911: Calm down, sir, calm down.

Peterson: No, damned, sixteen, twenty. I don’t know. Please! Get somebody here, right away. Please!

This may not be a  question he anticipated and he would need just a second or two to quickly count the number of steps or estimate the measure of the fall. 

This would also focus him upon the victim which would then give information to the police on how to advise first aid. 

Did he not hear her? 

This is not likely as he is able to repeat her words. He is on hormonal "high alert"?

Or, is the repetition (sensitivity) due to stalling because he was not in close proximity to the victim?

This is something  concerning because it is expected that he would be right with his wife (describing the breathing) and able to follow directions. 

He shows scripted urgency. He does not ask for help for his wife, nor does he ask for help for himself to administer emergency aid to her. This is to make a "show" of concern, but linguistically: he is not concerned for the victim. 

911: Okay somebody’s dispatching the ambulance while I’m asking you questions.

Peterson: It’s, um… It’s Forest Hills! Okay? Please! Please!

It continues the same way but he does not ask for help for the victim, nor for himself to save the victim.  

911: Okay, sir? Somebody else is dispatching the ambulance. Is she awake now?

Peterson:… Uummh… uuh…

911: Hello? Hello?

Peterson:… Um, uh, uh, (etc). 

It may have been that he went to the stairs to give an answer to the question. Seeing his wife may have startled him, but in any case, this question, easy for someone with the victim, caused him great difficulty. This suggests that he may not have been with the victim. 

2:46 am Second call:

911: Durham 9-1-1: Where is your emergency?

Peterson: Where are they?! It’s eighteen ten Cedar. She’s not breathing! Please! Please, would you hurry up!

Here is an important change: she is not "still breathing" but now "not breathing." 

We note that he did not use her name in the call, nor did he address her. We now look back to the initial incomplete social introduction. 

He does not ask for help for the victim, nor for himself in administering CPR. 

911: Sir?

Peterson: Can you hear me?

911: Sir?

Peterson: Yes!

911: Sir, calm down. They’re on their way. Can you tell me for sure she’s not breathing? Sir? Hello? Hello?

911 Call Analysis Conclusion:

The subject prioritized and reported unnecessarily that this was an accident. 

The subject did not ask for help for the victim. 

The subject did not ask for guidance on how he should proceed with first aid.

The subject twice indicated a passage of time, which would cause investigators to learn if he purposely delayed calling 911. 

There is concern that some of the language may have been scripted, that is, prepared before the call. 

He avoided giving relevant information as to her condition, other than the breathing. 

Police should question not only if there was a significant delay in calling 911, but to learn if she was already deceased while he claimed she was "still" breathing. 

This news interview continued. 

"I don't know if it was murder. I don't know. When I called 911, I thought she had fallen down the stairs and as far as I know, that's what happened."

Yet the first thing he wanted police to know is that he, nor anyone else, could be at fault since it was an "accident." 

Here he refuses to commit in spite of "knowing" what happened and knowing what "did not" happen. The Rule of the Negative makes it the most important part of the sentence. 

He is withholding information about what happened. 

Michael Peterson's original conviction was correct.  

For training in deception detection, contact us at hyattanalysis@gmail.com after reviewing:

www.hyattanalysis.com training opportunities 

and some videos at youtube regarding training opportunities and some sample analysis. 

Video: Nathan Carmen Rescue Call with U.S. Coast Guard

 Analysis: Nathan Carmen Video

2022: Nathan Carmen Indicted for Murder of Mother

From 2016:  Nathan Carman: Mother Missing At Sea 

Nathan Carmen is now indicted May 2022, in the murder of his mother. Here is analysis from 2016:

Nathan Carman was found by the US Coast Guard after one week at sea in his life boat.  

His mother was not found and is presumed deceased.   

Analytical Question:

Does Nathan Carman truthfully report what happened?

Several years ago  Nathan Carman was Person of Interest in his grandfather's murder but was not arrested.  Grandfather left a reported $40 million dollars to his four daughters, one of whom was subject's mother.  

Subject:  Nathan Carman is reported to have Aspergers.  In language, this is similar to adult autism and will impact language, particularly in view of emotions.  A lack of emotional language should be considered acceptable.  Analysis looks for possible deception via withheld information.  With Asperger's, there is an intention to be understood in communication, meaning that with deception, there is an intention to deceive.  

Also with Asperger's we often find childhood history of violence, and/or a preoccupation with death, including animals.   Many males diagnosed with Asperger's are above average intelligence.  With analysis, communication is commonly noted in areas of emotion with those diagnosed with Asperger's.  Unlike other developmental delays in adults, Asperger's often reveals very strong intellects with critical thinking while often using avoidance language regarding their own emotions.  The language can 'appear' dry and 'matter of fact', which can belie the emotion beneath.  Statement Analysis is used whenever communication is presupposed by the subject 

This past fall, in  watching interviews of Nathan Carman while filming ABC's "20/20", he showed a strong command of facts and was clear in his motive.  

I.               Transcripts

II.             Transcripts with Analysis

III.           Conclusion 

I.               Transcripts  

NC:  Hello, this is Nathan Carman.  

CG:  Nathan, this is United States Coast Guard Boston

NC:  Hello” (pause due to echo)  “yes I hear you” 

CG:  Uh, yes sir, I, I need to understand uh, what happened.  Over.”

NC:  Mom and I, two people, myself and my mom, were fishing at Block Canyon.  And there was a funny noise in the engine compartment, I looked and saw a lot of water. I was bringing  the line had my mom bring in the reel I brought up the safety stuff forward and I was bringing one of the safety bags forward the boat’s (or just)  dropped out from under my feet.  Uh, when I saw the life raft I did not see my mom. Uh,  have you found her?

CG:  “No, we, uh, we haven’t been able to find her yet.  

NC:  So I got to the life raft after I got my bearings and I was whistling and calling and looking around and I didn’t see her. 

CG:  understood, ok

NC:  We were fishing around block canyon.  

CG:  And when did that happen?

NC:  I don’t have the exact coordinates.

CG:  (echo:  And when did that happen?) 

NC:   yes, It was a week ago today around mid day.

CG:   ok so last Sunday?

NC:   yeah.

II.            Transcripts with Analysis 

For those considering training:  please consider that his is a brief and basis statement analysis of the transcript for a single purpose of discerning truth or deception.  Content Analysis done upon the statement, along with the emerged psycho-linguistic profile is separate.  The analysis is done to answer the Analytical Question  

NC:  Hello, this is Nathan Carman.  

CG:  Nathan, this is United States Coast Guard Boston, Ok

NC:  Hello” (pause due to echo)  “yes I hear you” 

CG:  Uh, yes sir, I, I need to understand uh, what happened.  Over.”

This is our most important question, “What happened?”

We consider that with Asperger’s there may be a reduction in emotional language, but often within the language is logic; sometimes a very strong intellect propelled by logic.  We expect him to tell us immediately, what happened, with only a brief introduction, such as, "My mom and I went fishing, and we had an accident, and..." 

NC:  Mom and I, two people, myself and my mom, 

Here we have an emphasis upon being only two persons present for the event.  With the emphasis, we should consider the possibility of a third person on the mind of the subject.  This could be an eye witness, or someone who may known him well.  His need to emphasize is not due to Asperger’s, as there is no repetitive language following this.  

Note that it is unnecessary for him to clarify that the two “people” were “myself and my mom” here.  “Mom” is “my mom” while going out fishing which shows he viewed her positively at this time (while fishing).  “Mom”, repeated, increases the sensitivity.  

Regardless, he is, in the least, thinking of a third person, whether it be an eye witness, or someone important to him.  

The order changes which means change of priority.  “Mom and I” to “myself and my mom”, changing the order. 

were fishing at Block Canyon. 

He begins with the (1) people, (2) activity and (3) location rather than “My mom fell overboard…” or anything like it.  “We had an accident…” or any direct answer would have been expected, but is not here.  

The introduction is ‘slow’ in pace, which suggests that he does not want to get to ‘what happened’.  The overwhelming number of deceptive statements are heavily weighted in the introduction.  The deceptive part of the ‘story’ is stressful, therefore, the subject often avoids going directly to it.  We measure the ‘pace’ of an account and note that this one, in particularly, is very slow.  

 And there was a funny noise in the engine compartment,

“And” :  There was a pause between sentences.  “And” when at the beginning of a sentence indicates missing information.  The slow pace continues, avoiding getting to the direct information about what happened to the missing person.  This is often associated with psychological guilt; not always guilt meaning remorse, but fear of being caught.  

“There was a funny noise”  

This is reported in passive voice.  Passivity is used appropriately when one does not know the source, but it is also used to conceal responsibility.  What is concerning here is the combination of the passivity with the descriptive term:  “funny noise.”

He describes the noise as “funny” while using passivity.  This will cause us to ask if he caused this “funny” noise.  He does not report an emergency, nor something out of control.  The passivity would be expected with an explosion, not a “funny noise.”

He is likely telling the truth about hearing the noise, but he may have caused what happened to make the noise, while avoiding telling us the source of the noise, or what made it "funny" to him.  

 I looked and saw a lot of water. 

He does not say “I saw a lot of water”, but he “looked” first.  This is akin to story telling and it continues to slow down the pace.  He does not tell us where he looked, or what he looked at.  This, too, is akin to story telling and indicates he is withholding information.  He did not say “I looked at the noise”, but that he “looked” and saw “a lot of water”, not an engine issue.  

This is two separate actions in his description.  It also avoids telling us what caused him to see a lot of water (note the passivity previously).  This separate action (in writing) further suggests that he caused the “funny noise” to have happened.  If so, we should expect more passivity in his language, which would remove him from the responsibility.    

He does not say that the noise caused water to fill up.  A “lot of water” may be his mother overboard.  Why was the noise “funny”?  Was it the sound of ‘gurgling’ or drowning?

This appears to be when he was looking outside the boat, where there is a lot of water.  Did he watch her drown or struggle? 

I was bringing  the line had my mom bring in the reel 

Self censoring is when one stops himself, mid sentence.  The audio is difficult but he may have stopped himself here. 

He does not say “I brought”,  but “I was bringing” which shows ongoing action, (lengthening time)  rather than a single, ended action.   He soon will use the complete past tense, “I brought” below, so it is not his pattern or habit.  

Note “the reel” is not “a reel” and since he has not introduced a reel, it may be that they did not actually fish as this point, but something else took place.  

We may consider that his mother may have been impacted by the line; controlled by him, her neck, etc.  

I brought the safety stuff forward and I was bringing one of the safety bags forward the boat just dropped out from under my feet.

These are two separate actions. One is complete while the other is ‘on going’ or lengthening of time.  This is another indicator of missing information in his answer. 

“I brought the safety stuff forward” is a complete action.  This, while there was “a lot of water”; yet, he then goes to another activity in which there is no completion, but an elongation of time with “I was bringing…”  In this part of his statement, his mother is missing.  He does not mention her here, and it is likely that she was already in the water.  

The focus:  He only brought “one” of the safety bags.  This may show intention to save his own life knowing there was no intention on saving two lives; the “two people” he began his statement with.   He did not bring “safety bags” but only one

Regarding the “boat just dropped out from my feet” the audio is not clear, but it is, also, passive voice.  

  We must consider that he knew the cause of the event. 

 Uh, when I saw the life raft I did not see my mom.

Here, he speaks to time, not an event. He does not say “I saw the life raft” but “when”, which focuses upon time, not action.  This, too, suggests missing information.   

He reports not when he got to the life raft, but when he ‘saw’ it.  He reports what he did not see. 

Negation:  Truthful people tell us what happened, what they saw, what they heard, etc.  In an open statement, when one tells us what they did not see, we must be on alert for deception.  He does not say he looked for her, only that he did not see her.  

 Uh,  have you found her?

CG:  “No, we, uh, we haven’t been able to find her yet.  

He offers no concern for her safety.  Even with Asperger’s there should be an element of concern, perhaps with low emotional wording.  Instead, the focus is upon “I” and he continues about himself:  

NC:  So I got to the life raft after I got my bearings and I was whistling and calling and looking around and I didn’t see her.  

Here we have deception.  He addresses the element of time, which speaks to planning: “after” he got his “bearings.”  He wants us to believe he did not have his bearings, but this is not what he said.  “After I got my bearings” presupposes the loss thereof, but this is akin to story telling, not reliving a traumatic event from experiential memory. 

“Bearings” speaks to disorientation, and its location in the account is “logical”, which, in analysis, is likely to be artificial placement of emotions for the purpose of story telling.  It takes time to process emotions and here, even with Asperger’s, it appears to be edited into his account.  

He did not look for her.  He looked “around.”  Consider also the size of the boat with this expression.  

He wishes to be seen as someone who did “search” with “whistling, calling, and looking around” specifically, but it is not accurately stated.  

This, too, suggests that he has a need to be seen in a favorable light; something associated with guilt.  

CG:  understood, ok

NC:  We were fishing around block canyon.  

CG:  And when did that happen?

NC:  I don’t have the exact coordinates.

This indicates he has the coordinates, just not the “exact” coordinates. 

CG:  (echo:  And when did that happen?) 

NC:   yes, It was a week ago today around mid day.

CG:   ok so last Sunday?

NC:   yeah.

III.          Analysis Conclusion

                               Deception Indicated

Nathan Carman is deliberately withholding information about what happened to his mother.  

He does not truthfully report events, skips over time, and shows a focus upon himself, rather than his mother.  

His wording reveals specific delay, associated with guilty knowledge, and it reveals intent.  

The form of his answer shows a lengthy introduction, statistically linked with deception.  

In order to be categorized as "deception indicated", intent must be seen.  Simply being in error, or mixed up, due to dehydration, health, trauma, etc, will not reveal "intent to deceive" in language.  In order to deceive, one must intentionally seek to mislead the interviewer/audience.  It is within this intention that we discern truth from deception.  

If Mr. Carman is offered a polygraph and the polygraph is conducted using his own language, he is not likely to pass.  

The interview strategy should consist of his own wording, and focus upon the gaps of time; not heavily upon the relationship with his mother, due to Asperger's.  He should be asked only general questions about her but if permitted opportunity to speak, will likely address her.  The interviewer must carefully listen for subtle disparagement of his mother.  This is something that guilty parties use to justify their actions.  This may even include a subtle blaming of the mother for her death.  

Nathan Carman is judicially innocent in this case, and in the unsolved murder of his grandfather.   

Several years ago, his wealthy grandmother died of cancer.  Shortly after this, his grandfather was murdered, leaving an estimated $40,000,000 to his four daughters; one of whom is Nathan's now deceased mother.  

Nathan was suspected but not charged in his grandfather's murder.  

Was this classification justified?

Did Nathan Carman commit murder against his grandfather and now his mother? 

He spoke to media about his grandfather's death; denying involvement.  

For Statement Analysis:  What is the classification of his denial?

When one speaks publicly, there is a presupposition that the audience is free to believe him, or not to believe him.   

Up next:  Did Nathan Carman reliably deny killing his grandfather?

For training in detecting deception, contact us for

                           Detecting Deception here.   

We offer training for law enforcement, human resources, journalists, social workers and all those interested in detecting deception at a high level.  

It is, for investigators, a most necessary element that saves time and procures justice, while bringing traction to the law enforcement professional's career.