Soros-funded left-wing media outlet launches attack on respected law enforcement professionals - gets humiliated

One year ago, ProPublica, an anti-law enforcement media outlet sponsored by George Soros, published a series of intentionally misleading articles on the use of 911 homicide call analysis, a valuable law enforcement tool.

Investigators know the critical value of a murder suspect’s voluntary statement made inside the interview room. Yet, another voluntary statement is often available–the 911 call. This statement is, first, the least contaminated and just as important as the follow-up statement made by the same individual.

A careful analysis of the 911 call can reveal critical evidence used to obtain justice for the victims and their families.  

99.9% of murdered babies are killed by the person responsible for their care

Their intimate partner kills 58% of murdered women

A woman is killed by someone in her family every 11 minutes (UNODC, 2020)

             
Deputy Chief Tracy Harpster (ret.) and Dr. Susan Adams (FBI ret.) spent the last two decades researching equivocal death cases by analyzing 911 calls made by offenders and innocent individuals. The researchers analyzed over 2,500 suspicious death cases, examining both audio and transcripts.  The pro-bono research assisted over 2,000 investigators in their homicide cases. 

Described by the FBI as a “landmark study,” this research surpassed subsequent studies by examining both 911 audios AND transcripts and focusing solely on homicide cases. Following each analysis, Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams share their insight with each detective and follow case developments through adjudication. In 2013, the researchers were invited to join the prestigious Vidocq Society to assist the organization in investigating cold case homicides.

Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams co-authored the only book on 911 Homicide Call Analysis and have presented their research at over 300 homicide conferences throughout the United States and Canada. Dr. Adams describes a 911 caller's words as “pure gold; they reveal a wealth of information far beyond what callers may have intended.” She added, “The words give us valuable insight and critical clues to uncover the truth.” Their research has assisted in developing cases against guilty individuals and helped exonerate innocent subjects. 

Despite Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams’ credentials and accomplishments, ProPublica ran a series of deceptive articles omitting the credentials and leading the reader to believe that the 911 Homicide Call research caused the wrongful conviction of innocent subjects.  ProPublica misrepresented the research to attempt to deceive its readers by claiming, “In reality, people have been wrongfully accused and convicted of murder after someone misinterpreted their call for help.”

ProPublica claimed it obtained hundreds of homicide case records in which Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams assisted. However, ProPublica could not provide even one case where the research contributed to the conviction of an innocent person. Instead, ProPublica listed five homicide cases and mischaracterized and omitted information on each of the cases to lead its readers to conclude that innocent individuals were wrongly convicted.

Additionally, ProPublica obtained over 100 cases (through FOIA) where the research was successfully used as a tool to assist in exonerations and convictions. However, ProPublica did not include any of those examples in their articles.  

ProPublica badgered the researchers, who declined cooperating with the anti-law enforcement media site. Undeterred, a ProPublica reporter attempted an ambush interview with Deputy Chief Harpster while on vacation. Attacking Harpster seemed personal to the reporter, who resorted to calling homicide conference hosts to criticize the research to block Harpster from speaking at the events.  

When asked about ProPublica’s conduct, Deputy Chief Harpster stated, “In our homicide research, the biggest form of deception is omission. ProPublica used the same deceptive technique (omission) in their articles. They purposely omitted positive information regarding the research, the murder cases we successfully assisted, and our credentials.” 

ProPublica’s reporter FOIA’d Deputy Chief Harpster’s personnel file and learned that the retired officer was a member of a Homicide Task Force, the Vidocq Society, a graduate of the FBI National Academy, and obtained a Graduate Degree that focused on 911 Homicide Call Analysis. However, ProPublica conveniently omitted that information from their articles.

ProPublica reported that Dr. Adams “left the FBI.”  Again, it failed to note that Dr. Adams retired from the FBI after serving over 20 years as an FBI Agent and 10 more years as an FBI Academy Interviewing instructor.  Additionally, Dr. Adams received the prestigious University of Virginia’s Jefferson Award for excellence in research for her study on Indicators of Veracity and Deception. ProPublica intentionally left out any information addressing the impeccable credentials of both Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams. 

Sharing those facts with its readers would have been counterproductive to ProPublica’s anti-law enforcement agenda. ProPublica has an anti-cop agenda, and they didn’t let the facts get in the way of their story. 

The most outrageous part of the ProPublica attack on the 911 Homicide Call research occurred when the reporter contacted a Pennsylvania investigator regarding the assistance the officer received from Harpster and Adams on his cold homicide case. 

The reporter altered the detective’s complimentary quote to give the false impression that the investigator was “surprised” at the results of ProPublicas’ “expose.” In fact, the investigator (now a judge) told the reporter he was “surprised” the reporter could not understand the value of the research.

In 2018, ProPublica published a similar “attack” article criticizing blood stain analysis, claiming that innocent individuals have been convicted due to that investigative tool. ProPublica’s misleading articles on 911 Homicide Call Analysis continued their tradition of misreporting to forward their anti-law enforcement agenda.  

Overcoming the Unfounded Media Attack

After the attack articles were published, Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams wrote to ProPublica. They challenged their assertion that innocent individuals have been wrongly convicted based on the 911 Homicide Call Analysis research.  In response, ProPublica retracted its allegation in writing by commenting:

“We never reported that 911 call analysis caused the conviction of innocent persons.”

ProPublica used three articles to mislead its audience and then retracted its entire premise with the one-line retraction sent to Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams.  It should be noted that ProPublica did not include the retraction with their articles, which the media outlet is still tweeting. 

During the past year, the author of the ProPublica articles has been further discredited after writing a similar “hit piece” against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. A recent article in PJ Media exposed the left-wing funding for ProPublica and labeled them as “the attack arm of the Democrat Party—a role it was arguably created to serve.” (Jeff Reynolds, PJ Media).  

Due to ProPublica’s mischaracterizations, Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams have been subjected to threats from far-left radicals whom the articles have deceived. After publishing the media attack, the ProPublica author attempted to hinder homicide conferences from hosting Deputy Chief Harpster by calling conference hosts and criticizing the research.  

Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams corrected the record report (link here), which outlined ProPublica’s misleading articles, and submitted it to future hosts, law enforcement, and the academic community. The informational report detailed the numerous mischaracterizations and omissions in the ProPublica articles. Once the future hosts received and read the report, not one host canceled an invitation to have the research presented at their 11.    

Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams realize that 911 analysis is a critical tool, “the first piece of the puzzle,” when investigating equivocal death cases. Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams continue to research 911 homicide calls (they are currently conducting a 911 infant victim study) and have learned that infant cases are much different than adult victim cases. A recent Australian study on 911 calls found support for some of the key indicators in the Harpster and Adams research.

The FBI continues to use Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams’ research materials to educate police officers at the FBI Academy. Numerous departments and investigators throughout the country and Canada are using Copscale©. 

Despite ProPublica’s anti-law enforcement efforts, the Copscale© is still recognized by investigators and prosecutors as a critical tool to help find the truth in equivocal death investigations. Several police departments are including the review of the 911 call in all equivocal death cases, and the State of Virginia has included the 911 Homicide Call Analysis in their Child Death Investigation Protocol.  

When asked what the 911 Homicide Call Analysis research has meant to law enforcement, Deputy Chief Harpster commented, “We live amongst monsters….our research is another tool for investigators and prosecutors to catch the monsters.”

Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams welcome follow-up research and accept constructive criticism to forward the discipline. They continue to present the research at homicide, prosecutor, coroner, and dispatcher conferences nationwide.

The researchers continue to assist law enforcement (pro bono) by analyzing at least two calls a week, often receiving calls for assistance from a cold case investigator or a detective standing in the middle of a crime scene. If your department wants assistance with a 911 equivocal death call analysis, you may contact the researchers at tracy.harpster@gmail.com. There is no charge for the consult.

In 2015, Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams contributed to Commander Vernon Geberth’s (NYPD ret.) seminal book Practical Homicide Investigations: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques.  In the book, the importance of obtaining and analyzing the 911 call, the FIRST statement made to law enforcement is prioritized. 

Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams explain: 

“911 calls from homicide and alleged suicide or accidental death scenes contain critical information. Investigators who listen to 911 calls en route to the crime scenes arrive at the scenes with a huge advantage. From the callers’ words and tone of voice, alert investigators can gain insight to actions that preceded the homicide as well as the current emotions of the callers.  In some cases, the person speaking on the phone may have just finished committing murder. Listening to the call can result in immediate investigative insight and interviewing strategies.   

"911 calls in homicide cases are the purest statements in the investigation, untainted by friends’ or attorneys’ advice or by leading questions by responding officers.  The 911 calls are voluntary statements which answer the dispatchers’ key question, “What happened?” Information provided during the call might never be repeated to the investigators, and it can provide crucial leads in the case.  Investigators can analyze the call in depth later, with the aid of a transcript, but hearing the content of the call in the caller’s own voice en route to the scene can pay immediate dividends.”

Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams maintain that both innocent and guilty callers are under stress but for different reasons. Innocent callers are under stress due to concern for the critically injured victim. Guilty callers are under stress due to the stressful nature of killing another human being or aiding in a homicide.

Numerous characteristics, or “indicators,” can help differentiate a guilty caller from an innocent one.  For example, one indicator of a “guilty” caller is the “Unexplained Knowledge Indicator.”  The researchers explained that some guilty callers comment about the victim or scene, which they could not have known then.  The researchers cited this example when a 911 caller reported the death of his wife and stated: 

Dispatcher: “911, what is your emergency?”

Caller: “Oh my God, my wife has been stabbed 14 times!”

Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams explained, “If the responding investigator had listened to the 911 call on the way to the scene, the caller’s comment would have aroused suspicion. It would be impossible for anyone to know how many times the victim was stabbed unless they were the offender or a witness and had counted the assaults as they happened.” 

The researchers added, “Even trained investigators often do not know if a clothed, bloody victim was stabbed or shot.  Until the body is washed and dissected at the coroner’s office, it would be impossible to tell if one stab caused two punctures in adjoining tissue or if one puncture was the result of two stabbing motions in the same wound.” 

Another example cited in the research of an indicator that helps distinguish “Guilty” and “Innocent” callers is the “Lack of Fear” Indicator.  Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams explain that responding investigators should always pay close attention to the 911 callers’ focus and tone as they arrive on the scene, especially when the crime allegedly involves a violent suspect who has beaten, stabbed, or shot the victim. In these events, the 911 callers should focus on getting help for the victim AND show concern for their own safety.  

When callers show no fear for their own personal safety despite calling from a homicide scene where the “killer” could be nearby, it should alert the investigator that the caller is likely involved in the crime. The researchers cited a case where a husband allegedly came home and found his wife nude, throat slit, and stabbed multiple times.  The husband called 911, calmly reported the incident, and stayed on the line with the dispatcher until officers arrived six minutes later.  Although the killer could have been in the home or close by, the caller never expressed any concern for his safety.  In this case, the caller had no reason to fear a deranged killer because he was the offender.

These indicators, along with numerous others, are the foundation for the CopScale©, which helps law enforcement track both guilty and innocent indicators:

Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams have co-authored an article titled “911 Homicide Calls: Is the Caller the Killer?” which has been published in the Law Enforcement Bulletin (June 2008), “Analyzing 911 Homicide Calls for Indicators of Guilt or Innocence:  An Exploratory Analysis” published in Homicide Studies (February 2009) and “Is the Caller the Killer? Analyzing 911 Homicide Calls” (June, 2010) published in the book Truth, Lies, and Deception.

In 2015, Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams contributed to Vernon Geberth’s seminal work, “Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures and Forensic Techniques, 5 Edition.” In 2016, Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Adams published “Is the Caller the Killer? Behavior, Truth, and Deception: Applying Profiling and Analysis to the Interview Process, in Napier’s Second Addition. Lastly, in 2016, Deputy Chief Harpster and Dr. Susan Adams co-authored the first book regarding the research, “Analyzing 911 Homicide Calls: Practical Aspects and Applications (CRC Press).”