"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.