Caller: Hello.
Dispatcher: Hi.
Caller: Can you hear me?
the greeting "hello" is contextually appropriate if the caller was uncertain about the communication as suggested by the question, "Can you hear me?"
Generally, we do not expect an emergency call to begin with a greeting.
Dispatcher: I can.
Caller: Hello.
Dispatcher: 9-1-1. This is Ally. How can I help you?
Caller: Ally. This...well...Ally, I’m the Attorney General. And I am...I don’t know...I hit something.
1. Note the use of the name, "Ally"
Note its use twice.
This is an attention getter and not likely something we expect in a call to police emergency. That he repeats her name may indicate a need to be seen as "friendly" with her. This may indicate a form of ingratiation as to appear to be "the good guy" in the call.
The need to be perceived as "good" or friendly, often indicates to the contrary.
2. "I'm the attorney general" is a priority for him. His status matters in this call to police, which is very important to the analysis of what he reports.
3. "I hit something" is reliably stated and likely to be true. However, he does not say,
"I hit something; maybe a deer..."
Dispatcher: You hit something?
Caller: By Highmore. Highmore. And it was in the middle of the road.
Dispatcher: Okay. Give me one second here. Let me get you mapped. Do you know where you’re at?
Caller: I believe I’m by Highmore. I can...I’m right...I can see the town.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Caller: I think that’s Highmore.
Dispatcher: East or west?
Caller: I just went through it. I am...west of Highmore...
The caller is helpful regarding his location.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Caller: Ah...about a mile, if that.
Dispatcher: Okay. And this is Scott?
Caller: Uh, say again?
He may have trouble hearing which is another reason why we do not flag the greeting above.
Dispatcher: What was your name?
Caller: Jason...
no last name as if he and Ally are on first name basis. He already identified his job title.
Dispatcher: Jason...
Caller: ...Ravnsborg
Dispatcher: ...Ravnsborg. Perfect. Okay.
(Typing)
Dispatcher: Are you injured at all, Jason?
Caller: I am not, but my car sure as hell is.
He answers the question, but then goes further to report his car. He does not report on the status of what or whom he hit; only his car.
Dispatcher: Uh oh. Are you out of the roadway?
Caller: I am out of the roadway. I was able to get over, but...
Dispatcher: Okay.
(Typing)
Now, he changes his account from "I hit something" to:
Caller: It sure hit me...smashed my windshield...
He shifts the blame to "it" and specifically mentions his windshield.
Dispatcher: Oh no. Okay, do you think it was a deer or something?
A natural question that is only necessary because the subject has not offered it.
Caller: I have no idea...
This is not expected. The subject hit something, it ruined his car and it smashed his windshield. Was there blood? Evidence? Would he have "no idea" what it was?
Dispatcher: Okay...
Caller: Yeah...It could be...I mean...it was right in the roadway and...
Whatever "it" was that hit him (his perception), he now blames "it" for being "right in the roadway."
Dispatcher: ...(typing)...K...and were you traveling westbound then?
Caller: Yes, westbound...back to Pierre.
Dispatcher: Okay...(typing)...alrighty, well I will go head and let the...ah...sheriff know. He’s the one that’s on call right now. He’ll be responding from home and I’ll have him come out and talk to you and take the report. Can I just...
Caller: Okay.
Dispatcher: ... get the license plate off your vehicle, Jason?
Caller: Yes...G...zero, zero, zero, two, seven.
Dispatcher: Okay. Government plate?
Caller: Well, it’s a bronze star plate.
Dispatcher: K...
Caller: It’s my personal car...
Dispatcher: K...alright...I will get him headed that way for you, Jason.
Caller: Alright. Thank you.
Dispatcher: You’re welcome, sir. Bye-bye.
Caller: Bye.
Analysis Conclusion:
The subject is deceptively concealing knowledge of what happened.
1. "I have no idea" by itself, does not indicate deception. Yet in context we learned:
2. He did not offer any possible explanation. This is to leave something a mystery that isn't natural. To speculate based upon impact is expected. "I hit a deer" or "I hit a moose", or something along these lines. "Deer" was the most likely and the operator may have been surprised that the "Attorney General" did not even offer a guess.
3. He changed language.
Language does not change on its own, but represents a change of perceived reality (or a liar has lost track).
In this change, we go from the reliable, "I hit something" (he did) to shifting the blame to the victim ("it") and then to double down on blaming the victim for the location in the road.
Had he said, "a deer ran out in to the road", there would have been no mystery, but it is in his avoidance that he gains our attention (and the operator's).
4. Did you notice that he offered no information as to what happened to the victim? Was the deer, or large animal blocking the road?
5. He specifically referenced the windshield. This is where impact would be most for him---it is what he would see.
He was not truthful about not knowing who he hit.
External information:
Q. In hindsight, was the original greeting to 911 an example of ingratiation?
Response: It may have been, but in analysis we attempt to clear sensitivity indicators due to context. This way, if we conclude deception, it is of a greater certainty.
He was later confronted by police:
South Dakota’s attorney general — who said he hit a deer after fatally striking a pedestrian last year — allegedly had the victim’s glasses inside his car, according to newly-released interviews.
The state’s Department of Public Safety on Tuesday released recordings of investigators questioning Jason Ravnsborg about the Sept. 12 crash that left 55-year-old Joseph Boever dead.
The footage shows how, during a Sept. 14 interview, detectives told Ravnsborg that they had discovered a pair of broken glasses on the front passenger floorboard of his vehicle.
During a second sit-down on Sept. 30, interviewers asked about the glasses again, telling Ravnsborg that they had belonged to the victim.
“They’re Joe’s glasses,” an agent says, referring to Boever. “So that means his face came through your windshield.”
Upon hearing that, Ravnsborg looked down and sighed deeply, before shaking his head, the footage shows.
If you wish to study deception detection or host a seminar, please visit Hyatt Analysis
