Louise Woodward Part One: The 911 call
Guilty knowledge?
Following the release of a new documentary about the Louise Woodward case, over the next series of posts, I’m going to take a look at the words used at the time. The aim is to see if there’s any more we can learn about what happened.
I’ll spend some time looking at how Louise herself described the events, but I want to start with her 911 call.
Repeated studies around 911 calls show that the presence of certain markers can indicate that the call has come from someone with guilty knowledge of what has happened.
They are:
- Extraneous information
- Being overly polite to the operator
- Evasion when answering questions
- Conflicting facts
- Repetitive information
- A lack of a plea for help
In my work looking at 911 calls, I have noticed that people with guilty knowledge will use two of these features together. They will have repetition of extraneous information. This appears to be an attempt to set up an alibi narrative from an early point.
Calls from people with no guilty knowledge, typically lacked any of the above features but would include a plea for help in the most serious situations.
The call
The events in the Louise Woodward case happened in 1997, in the days before the world documented every single happening online. The entire 911 call is not available, but I’ve drawn on several sources to pull together some words used.
This transcript will not be complete (for example, she is never asked for the address) and may be slightly out of order.
Operator: 911, what’s your emergency?
Louise: Help - There’s erm.. a baby, he’s barely breathing. I think he choked on his vomit.
Louise: What can I do? Help!
Operator: Ok, can you turn him over on his side?
Louise: Help! He’s not breathing, he’s barely breathing. He’s not focusing with his eyes.
Operator: OK, we’re on our way ma’am… we’re on our way
Operator: Is he breathing or not breathing?
Louise: Barely.
Operator: Just make sure he keeps breathing there, Ma’am.
Louise: Oh my god. He’s stopped breathing again. He’s making…oh my god.
Operator: Is he still breathing?
Louise: I just opened the door for the guy...
Operator: OK they’re there. Alright, we need to hang up now. They’re there.
Louise: In here, in here, in here. Oh my God I think he choked on his vomit. He’s barely breathing.
Let’s run through the checklists
Extraneous information? There isn’t any here. We should bear in mind that this is not the full call but, looking at the words available, they are all relevant.
Overly polite? This is not the case in this call.
Evasion? There does appear to be a couple of times where she does not directly answer questions, but there are also many times she directly answers. The appearance of no direct answer could come from the fact this is not a complete transcript.
Conflicting facts? There are none here.
Repetitive information? She says many times that he is “barely” breathing. She says twice that she thinks the baby has choked on vomit, but the second time it is to the paramedics who have arrived at the home during the call. Although repetitive, they do seem pertinent information.
A lack of pleas for help? She asks for help several times and never tries to downplay the seriousness of the situation.
Conclusion:
This call is missing almost every single indicator of a 911 call from someone with guilty knowledge. There’s almost nothing to suggest that the call was made with anything besides an attempt to get the child the help that was needed.
The only small warning sign is the repetition of the suspicion he was choking on vomit. That may become more important as we analyse other words in the next posts on this case.
Subscribe now to get them direct to your inbox.
I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your police work, there, Lou. Channeling Marge Gunderson....
Louise: Help - There’s erm.. a baby, he’s barely breathing. I think he choked on his vomit.
She starts with help. She has already dialed 911, this is the best way to get help. What is the most important thing? Not asking for help. They know that people need help when you call them. The most important thing is - where is the emergency, and what is the nature of the emergency. Ok, I'll give her a pass on the first help. But then - there's erm ... a baby. It could not be more distancing language. There is - no, no baby just appeared out of nowhere. This is also not "a baby". This is the baby she was supposed to watch. The distancing language is completely inappropriate. The language would fit if she went for a walk and found a baby lying in the bushes. Next: I think he choked on his vomit. She is already explaining. Unnecessary. She does not say that she KNOWS what happened. She thinks this is what happened. Why the need to say it?
Help! He’s not breathing, he’s barely breathing. He’s not focusing with his eyes.
The next help. Now I don't give her a pass any longer. We are entering storytelling now. Rehearsed, following a script. This is how a person who has seen too many movies thinks 911 call should sound. In reality, they don't. Innocent people are laser-focused on the person that needs help. This is a free-floating "help".
Oh my god. He’s stopped breathing again. He’s making…oh my god.
So he stopped breathing before? Probably some time passed before she decided to call 911.
I just opened the door for the guy...
Ok. Now police has arrived. Help has arrived. The person(s) who can save the baby. Who is that person? The guy. Not the police, not them, the guy. Distancing.
In here, in here, in here. Oh my God I think he choked on his vomit. He’s barely breathing.
She repeats her "explanation". No reason to do that. Help is here. They know what to do. Guessing what might have happened is not helpful. She is deflecting from what she knows has happened, which was not choking on vomit.
I see more red flags than I can count.