Sleuth Syndicate

Christian Andreacchio 911 Call Red Flags

Sleuth Syndicate > News > Christian Andreacchio > Christian Andreacchio 911 Call Red Flags

Christian Andreacchio 911 Call Red Flags

  • Posted by: Sleuth Syndicate
  • Category: Christian Andreacchio

911 Call

Phone Ringing, you can hear Dylan say “Christian” Whitley is squeeking in the background.

Operator: 911 Where is your Emergency?

Dylan: Ma’am we got a suicide.

Operator: You have a suicide?

Dylan: yes ma’am

Operator: Ok whats your address?

Dylan: The Woodland Apartments.

Operator: The woodland Apartments? What apartment number?

Dylan: Um, 801.

Operator: Alright 801?

Dylan: Yes ma’am you’ll see a BMW and a Z71.

Operator: Alright. Who is it sir?

Dylan: Christian Andreacchio

Operator: Christian Andreacchio?

Dylan: Yeah

Operator: Ok and you said he committed suicide?

Dylan: Yes ma’am. He’s laying across the bathroom tub and he got blood everywhere

Operator: ok you said there is blood everywhere? Across the bathroom?

Dylan: Yes ma’am Dylan breathing heavy

Operator: ok and he’s not breathing? (Whitley starts in again)

Dylan: No ma’am. Breathing heavy

Dylan: it..

Operator: ok what is your name?

Dylan: Dylan Swearingen

Operator: what was your first name?

Dylan: Dylan

Operator: Dylan?

Dylan: Yes Ma’am

Operator: ok Dylan stay on the phone with me ok?

Dylan: ok

Operator: Your phone number *******?

Dylan: Ma’am?

Operator: Is your phone number *******?

Dylan: Yes ma’am.

Operator: ok

Dylan: Please get somebody up here.

Operator: Alright I have several officers on the way. Ok Just stay on the phone with me.

Dylan: I really need to call somebody in the family.

Operator: Ok hold on.

Operator: You don’t know how…there’s no weapons or anything?

Dylan: I think he shot himself.

Operator: So you think he shot himself?

Dylan: Yes ma’am. I left to go to the store and he uh he went to the bathroom I thought he was taking a shower.

Operator: ok. Did he say that he was going to do this? Or?

Dylan: No ma’am

Operator: ok Whitley “crying:

Operator: ok who is that in the background?

Dylan: That’s his girlfriend.

Operator: His girlfriends there too?

Dylan: Yes ma’am. **phone ringing in the background**

Operator: Whats her name?

Dylan: Whitley Goodman

Operator: Whitley Goodman?

Dylan: Whitley, Yes ma’am.

Operator: ok shes not, ok just try not to touch anything ok.

Dylan: Whitley, Whitley. (Operator talks over “is she..Inaudible) Come down here they don’t want you to touch anything. Come on. Come here Whitley. **Whitley screams louder** Com her, come here.

Operator: What’s whitleys last name?

Dylan: Ma’am?

Operator: What is whitleys last name?

Dylan: His last name?

Operator: Her last name.

Dylan: Goodman.Goodman. G-o-o-d-m-a-n. **whitley moaning in the background**

Operator: ok we do have several officers on the way and we do have the ambulance on the way too ok? At this point you can hear Whitley say “Its not my fault”

Dylan: Whitley, come here. Come here Whitley. Ma’am I really need to call uh family member is that ok?

Operator: ok hold…

Dylan: can I put you on hold…..

Operator: ok hold on one second ok

Dylan: Come here Whitley

Whitley: WHAT?

Dylan: I know you cant….calm down please. Please.

Whitley: Really…Inaudiable ….my family.

Dylan: We’re going to.

Operator: Ok Dylan…

Dylan: Ma’am?

Operator: Ok so we do have everyone on the way so if you need to let me go you can, ok?

Dylan: Yes ma’am I really need to call some family members.

Operator: Ok Just make sure you are looking out for the officers ok?

Dylan: ok

Operator: they will be there…

Dylan: Tell them I will have the door open

Operator: Doors open?

Dylan: yes ma’am and youll see a silver BMW in the driveway.

Operator: ok we have a couple of officers that should be there In a minuet ok? Dylan: ok Operator: Alright Phone call ends.

*This was a 3min45sec call.

911 COPS Scale

Join the discussion:

Murder of Christian Andreacchio

Subscribe to our Youtube:

Dissecting the Details – Christian Andreacchio

Join our main discussion group:

Sleuth Syndicate

Like our fan page:

Sleuth Syndicate





Red Flags

An unpublished study by Dr. Robert Keppel estimated that 19% of all homicide reports are actually phoned in by the offender posing as an innocent individual.


1. Plea for Help. In the case of a call where someone has been seriously injured, the focus of the innocent 911 caller should be to report the emergency and to summon help. A guilty caller, on the other hand, might be more likely to focus on providing information designed to mislead investigators. This variable is defined as the caller’s specific request for assistance for the victim from the police, firefighters or paramedics, as evidenced by such words or phrases as “help,” “get here,” or “send an ambulance”

Hypothesis 1: The presence of a Plea for Help is predicted to be associated with innocence of the caller, particularly if the plea is immediate and urgent/demanding.

Dylan waited until 1 minute 23 seconds before asking to “Please get somebody up here”

2. Extraneous Information: If the purpose of the 911 call is to report the emergency and to summon help, the verbiage of the call should be entirely related to that purpose; the caller should not use valuable time to provide information outside the context of that purpose. Innocent callers should have no other purpose for the call, whereas guilty callers may instead be focused on misleading the police. This variable is defined as the spontaneous, unrequested provision of information that is outside the context of the call, which is to report an emergency and to obtain assistance.

Hypothesis 2: The presence of Extraneous Information in the call is predicted to be associated with the guilt of the caller.

Dylan gave his alibi during the 911 call.

3. Conflicting Facts: Innocent callers are likely to provide information exactly as they know it to be correct. A guilty caller who is fabricating information may not be able to keep his/her story straight, and may forget what s/he has previously told the dispatcher.

This variable is defined as an instance of a caller providing information that is in conflict with specific details that the caller previously provided.

Hypothesis 3: The presence of Conflicting Facts in the call will predict guilt.

Dylan told the operator that Christian wasn’t breathing and was in fact dead. How would Dylan know this if he never entered the bathroom and checked to see if Christian was breathing or had a pulse?

4. Non-Responsive Remark: The variable is present if an articulate caller fails to answer or gives a non-responsive answer to a question that is relevant to the events that took place, where giving an honest answer to such a question might portray the caller in a negative light.

Hypothesis 4: The presence of a Non-Responsive Remark is hypothesized to predict guilt.

Only thing that stands out on this one is when asked “so you think he shot himself?” the response should have been a yes or no answer but Dylan over shares inserting his alibi.

5. Acceptance of Death when a Close Personal Relationship Exists: The caller who has a close personal relationship with the victim typically maintains some level of hope that quick medical attention might result in the survival of the victim, even when injuries are severe. Therefore, it is expected that the caller should not declare the mortality of the victim to the dispatcher. If a close personal relationship exists between the caller and the victim, and the caller accepts or reports the death of the victim, the variable is coded as present, even if a reasonable person might agree that based on the condition of the victim, the victim is certainly dead.

Hypothesis 5: The presence of the variable Acceptance of Death when a Close Personal Relationship exists will be associated with the guilt of the caller.

Dylan accepts that Christian is dead without going into the bathroom and checking to be sure. He also waits to ask for help.

6. Inappropriate Politeness: This is defined as unexpected gracious or noticeably polite language spoken by the caller during the 911 call. It is expected that the maintenance of conventions of civility and etiquette is not a natural pattern of communication in an emergency, especially if a relationship exists between the caller and the victim. Innocent callers should be focused entirely on quickly getting help for the victim, rather than taking the time to observe traditional patterns of polite conversation. Guilty callers, on the other hand, may be focused on presenting what they perceive to be a “normal” communication pattern.

Hypothesis 6: It is predicted that the presence of Inappropriate Politeness on the part of the caller will be associated with the guilt of the caller.

Dylan says Ma’am over 15 times during the call. Some would say this is how he was raised, if you’ve read any of his fb posts, tweets, or comments he is not typically polite.

7. Possession of the Problem: In an emergency call to report an injury or death, the victim is considered to be the possessor of the problem. Sometimes, however, a 911 caller focuses on himself/herself as having a problem, for example, s/he might report: “I have a problem here,” or “I need some help.” In such an instance, this variable would be coded as present.

Hypothesis 7: Possession of the Problem by the caller is predicted to be associated with the guilt of the caller.

Dylan: “Ma’am we got a suicide.” – “I really need to call somebody in the family” (his own family not Christian’s)

8. Thinking Pause: This variable is present when a 911 caller unexpectedly responds to a dispatcher’s relevant question with a deflection or a filler word, such as by saying, “huh?”, “what?”, or “do what?”  A relevant question refers to a question that would be designed to elicit information that is relevant to an understanding of what the caller purports has happened to cause the emergency or that would elicit information about the caller’s involvement in the emergency. The innocent caller should respond to the dispatcher’s relevant questions quickly, without needing much time to formulate an answer, since the innocent caller should simply be reporting what s/he knows to have happened. For a guilty caller, however, additional time might be required to decide what s/he wishes to say in response to the relevant question, in order to maximize the chances that suspicion will be deflected from him/her.

Hypothesis 8: The presence of a Thinking Pause is predicted to be associated with the guilt of the caller.

No glaring signs of this.

9. Minimizing “Just” in Initial Communication: This variable is defined here as any statement, the essence of which conveys “I just got here,” as if to imply “I couldn’t have done it.” Innocent callers are expected to be focused on getting help, not on taking the time to spontaneously make statements to make it clear that they could not have been involved in creating the emergency since they just arrived on the scene. Guilty callers, on the other hand, may be more focused on establishing their innocence.

Hypothesis 9: It is predicted that the presence of a Minimizing Just in the call will be associated with the guilt of the caller.

Again Dylan gives his alibi when asked “so you think he shot himself”

10. Unexplained Knowledge: This variable is defined as any report of information consisting of knowledge that the caller could not have reasonably known under the circumstances, if their report of the events is truthful. An innocent person should only have the degree of knowledge that is consistent with his/her self-reported role in the event. A guilty caller almost certainly has knowledge about the event that only the perpetrator would have. During the 911 call, some of this “guilty knowledge” may unthinkingly be revealed.

Hypothesis 10: It is predicted that the presence of Unexplained Knowledge in the call will be associated with the guilt of the caller.

Dylan didn’t go inside the bathroom, didn’t see the gun, how did he know he shot himself? He was gone for all he knows Whitley could have shot him or an intruder. He claimed when asked “did he say he was going to do this?” Dylan “No ma’am”

11. Narrative “With:” This variable is present if the 911 caller uses the word “with” to describe engaging in a benign, purposeful social activity (such as eating, playing, watching TV or a sporting event, going to the movies, accompanying someone to an activity, etc.) with someone with whom he has a close personal relationship, as in “I was watching TV with my wife.” The use of the word “with” is thought to imply distance in a relationship (Sapir, 1987). For example, it is preferable to say, “My brother and I watched the football game on TV,” as opposed to, “I watched the football game on TV with my brother.”

Hypothesis 11: It is predicted that the presence of a narrative “with” in a call where there is a close personal relationship between the caller and the victim will be associated with guilt of the caller.

No indication on this one

12. Lack of Fear: Innocent individuals who discover a seriously injured or murdered person may find themselves in situations where a perpetrator could still be present and may cause them harm. In those situations, it would be reasonable for the caller to express some fear for his/her safety. Guilty callers, on the other hand, know that they have no reason to be afraid, and they should not spontaneously express fear. This variable should be coded as present in those situations in which the caller should reasonably fear that the killer(s) might still be at or near the scene, but the caller does not express any evidence of fear, either directly or indirectly.

Hypothesis 12: It is predicted that the Lack of Fear where it is warranted will be associated with the guilt of the caller, and conversely, that an expression of fear will be associated with an innocent caller.

If Dylan was gone and came back to find his “friend” dead and he claimed he (Christian) never said he was going to kill himself why wasn’t Dylan worried that there might be a killer still in the apartment?

13. Incorrect Order: The order in which individuals speak about things is suggestive of their priorities. An innocent caller who is focused on getting help for a victim should report the most serious aspect of the emergency first. A guilty caller might be experiencing some ambivalence about making the call, and might present less serious aspects of the emergency first, before finally reporting the actual injury or death of the victim. This variable is defined as any instance of mentioning property damage or non- lethal injuries (or focusing on any other aspect of the emergency) prior to mentioning the most serious aspect of the emergency.

Hypothesis 13: It is predicted that the presence of Incorrect Order of reporting aspects of the event will be associated with guilt of the caller.

No indication on this one as he staged the scene with calling in a “suicide”

14. Weapon Touch: Most people have a passing familiarity with investigative strategies because of the wide variety of “cop shows” on TV, which suggests that most people are aware that a crime scene should be left undisturbed to the extent that it is possible. It is that very familiarity with investigative strategies that might lead guilty people to realize that they may have left fingerprints or DNA on the weapon and that they need to provide a plausible explanation for this. A spontaneous report from a caller that s/he has touched the weapon might be offered to provide that explanation. An innocent person would have very little reason to touch the weapon unless it occurred during the provision of medical attention to the victim, and even then they might not think to mention that they had done so. This variable is considered to be present when a caller who purports not to have injured or killed the victim makes a spontaneous, unsolicited remark about touching a weapon that is reasonably presumed to have been used to inflict the injuries.

Hypothesis 14: It is predicted that the presences of the Weapon Touch variable will be associated with the guilt of the caller.

No indication of this one during the 911 call

More information on the study of 911 calls


Author: Sleuth Syndicate