Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Statement Analysis: Officer Darren Wilson

upcoming...


Questions for Analysis:

Was he truthful in his answers?

If deceptive, which questions elicited deceptive responses?

Did he fire in self defense?

Did he fear for his life?

What impact, if any, did the victim's taunts have upon the subject?

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

thank you for analysing this

Anonymous said...

he's honest about what he was wearing that day.

once he starts talking about Mike Brown it's "well" "um" …… muddled LIES.

he never feared for his life all that is constructed after the fact as a way to justify his actios.

he did not shoot in self defense.

he was greatly angered that Mike Brown did not obey him from the start.

Anonymous said...

it is a travesty that this is not being brought to trial.

Anonymous said...

saying well or um does not mean he is lying..of course he could say what he was wearing that day...since he had not been through the events which made him pause.... have you ever been in a fight? Describe it step by step without saying umm, or thinking..you can't...

Sus said...

LE knows what they're wearing, where everything is on their body for instantaneous decisions like this shooting. As I said on the other post, Darren Wilson was better trained than I thought. I should have guessed it since Ferguson is part of St Louis.

Anonymous said...

did you just say well and um in your response to me? no because you believed what you were saying to be truthful, so you spoke directly.

. well and um are spoken when you are first deciding in your mind what you are going to say before you speak, so while they are not proof of lying

"well" and "um" are indications of self editing. which is often an indication of deception.

if i was going to decribe a fight I'd say -- he hit me. ti was awful. ii was scared to death, he had me against the wall, the door was locked. it was terrifyig i couldnt think. but I did get a swing in at the end. and he deserved it it felt great.

no ums. no well.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to have to disagree; people say say um and well when they're nervous or shaken up. Shooting and killing somebody will definitely shake somebody up, and being questioned about it would definitely make anybody extremely nervous. I'm not saying you're wrong about him lying, but the "ums" and "wells" aren't a good indication.

Anonymous said...

I say "um" when I want to be certain I have not left anything out, my thoughts can fly by faster than my mouth. For me communication is important and I want to say things in the clearest way. "um" is unrehearsed thinking things through for me. Glad you are not in charge of analyzing my words.

Fearing for your life, and having to think quick on your feet is what LE and military men have to do....it was a moment by moment play. When police are shot dead, no perps are made to go on TV to explain themselves.

I noticed on an interview, he said he wants to go about his life as normal as possible....his head was shaking left to right....NO. I imagine that is because he realizes though he would like to, that will be impossible because of media hacks.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like the officer was reliving the fight in the interrogation. He was right to get out of his truck and pursue this person who just assaulted him in his car. Mike Brown was a threat!

Apple said...

I read Wlison's version on tuesday. The events at/ in his police vehicle contained a lot of switching from past to present tenses. There was even a, "like i said" somewhere. His account during the shooting had more consistent past tense accoubts but it is a very long transcript and with added PTSD i was thinking that a well trained SA investigator could go into much detail. It was rich for SA. On that note, i am excited to read it in detail again and see how i do.

Anonymous said...

Even if the officer was not deceptive in his testimony or interviews, it is disturbing how the prosecutor has behaved. He did more to help the defendant than to indict, and, since when are grand jury documents supposed to be made public?

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Even if the officer was not deceptive in his testimony or interviews, it is disturbing how the prosecutor has behaved. He did more to help the defendant than to indict, and, since when are grand jury documents supposed to be made public?


Getting to the truth of what happened is the most important element of justice.

Peter

Anonymous said...

I've been reading that false some testimony was proven false - namely that people claimed to witness Brown shot in the back but that the autopsy did not confirm this. --- and so the jury chose not to charge Wilson because the autopsy showed some witnesses in oposition to him were giving false testimony.

who wouldn't expect some false testimony in such a public interest case? maybe some witnesses did lie. but that in no way proves Wilson is not also lying. sad sad.

in other news -- Happy Thanks giving!! I forgot snow can happen. 80% here. nice to have a reminder.

Anonymous said...

Not necessarily so, Squeeky. Some people utter the 'umm' thingie out of pure habit. That would be no different than all those people who use the 'huh..' thingie, "huh this and huh that" with every third word. Very irritating, but for many, they are insecure when they speak as they haven't been taught the proper usage of the English language.

Anonymous said...

Then all grand jury indictments should be made public not just those cherry picked by prosecutors backed into a corner wanting to put on a show.

Anonymous said...

I'm trying to get to further along to the shooting, but the beginning has parts that stand out for me. His car door opens and shuts a lot. It sounds like children playing. It is very serious the first time Brown even touches his car. I don’t understand how Brown even got past that point without being arrested or for him to call for help right then. Then the Detective asked him “And, where are you at this point?” and whether the door is open he says “It’s shut. He has his body against the door preventing me from opening it.” This is passive language?

When he discusses how Brown entered his car it’s like he’s disassembled body parts. The detective did ask him how Brown entered and introduced the body parts in his question, but still it is strange. Wilson says, “he had to duck his head to come into my vehicle and entered my vehicle with his hands, arms, and his head…assaulting me.” It’s not the person assaulting him, but hands, arms and head? The Detective asked “How is he assaulting you?” and Wilson said “The first time he had struck me somewhere in this area but it was like a glancing blow ‘cause I was able to defend a little bit.” It's like he minimizes the glancing blow almost like it’s acceptable to hit a police officer if it's just a glancing blow? It’s so nonchalant. Wasn’t that enough to handcuff him and arrest him? Why did this continue?

Anonymous said...

In the ABC interview when he says "Punches were thrown," from that point on we can see that he is not quite telling the truth.

I don't know to what extent he is lying, but he's not being 100% truthful. Lots of language cues that he's avoiding direct recollection of events because he's afraid it will implicate him.

Doty said...

Grand jury transcripts, etc, can only be released if there is no true bill, ie no indictment. Because most often grand juries to vote to indict few transcripts are released.
Most unusual in this case is that the "accused" testified before the jury. This is a benefit to the accused as the accused can offer their defense without being cross examined by the opposing party.

Anonymous said...

I think it is deception indicated because the story is choppy and seems to miss pieces, I think he was taking things out and switching certain events around.

As someone above pointed out, I also get stuck at the beginning of the story, of how Michael got his body into the vehicle to assault the officer.

Mike's friend says the officer reversed his car and kind of cut them off, which is also what the officer said also. But then it changes....his friend says the officer threw the door open and then it bounced off Mikes leg making it go back towards the officer. I think at this point Wilson thought Mike had closed the door on him but he really didn't. At this point the friend says Wilson grabbed Mike, kinda choking him, but Mike was trying to push off and get away. This sounds more likely to be true than what the officer said. The officer says Mike entered the vehicle...hit him a few times...said he was going to shoot him...pause....I think the officer told Mike this... and then mike really started struggling so he doesn't get killed.

The officer would have had to take out the weapon because it was in his holster....at that point there might have been a struggle over the gun, fearing for your life, which then makes the situation worse, which gives the officer more justification in using deadly force at that moment because Mike was struggling with a police officer over the gun, although he was in fear for HIS life.

Now shots are fired, they are both stunned Mike and his friend take off running, the officer gets out to chase him.

As he is running he is firing his gun, I think at this point Mike was hit in the back of the arm. He stops and turns towards the officer as in giving up, so he doesn't keep shooting him. He gets shot 6 times. I don't believe he was charging the officer because he was already running away from the bullets, why charge at someone who is continuing to shoot at you??

The last few shots were excessive police brutality.

Wilson was angry that Mike struggled with him, and he was playing off emotions instead of just the situation.

My opinion only.

Anonymous said...

He was asked questions in present tense form (AnonymousNovember 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM pointed one out, the few I heard on his tv interview were in present tense - I didn't get to watch the entire interview yet or read the one posted here.). Does this change things in regards to SA and recounting events in present tense?

Anonymous said...

I think if he could've simply handcuffed and arrested him at that point, he would've.

Anonymous said...

People generally don't "um" and "well" when typing, unless they're being sort of sarcastic. Speaking and typing are totally different.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't to put on a show, it was to try to stop a "show", but the criminal looters and arsonists can't or don't want to understand how the justice system and a grand jury of PEERS works. Peers who saw every piece of evidence and heard all testimony of all witnesses - the truthful ones and the ones who continually changed their stories. What has become of this, defending a criminal, is ridiculous, in my opinion. Michael Brown was a criminal. It's not racist to call someone what they are or were. That is why he is no longer living. It has nothing to do with race. He's not a hero. He's not a good "candidate" for a civil rights uproar.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was interesting, when he was asked if he felt remorseful, that he replied "everyone feels remorse when a life is lost." Seemed disingenuous to me.

Anonymous said...

It probably is disingenuous. Is he required to feel remorse for protecting himself, his life, and protecting the community, just because that's what people want to hear?

trustmeigetit said...

Mike was not shot in the back. All shots entered from the front.
That's a fact.

trustmeigetit said...

I agree Anon @ 7:45.

My husband is a big man at 5' 11 and 260 pounds. He is intimidating and very strong. I can use all my body weight and can't budge one arm if he's trying to hold it still.

Michael Brown is taller and bigger even.

At that size, it would have likely taken several cops to restrain him. One cop NEVER.

The officer was not going to win against him.

His sheer size is like a weapon.

People keep saying what he should have done but you come face to face with a large man like that who has that much power in his weight and then let's see how you do.

Anonymous said...

Something the media has left out on the conversation since the Grand Jury decision is that MB had Mj in his system - perhaps, more?

This is something I questioned early on after watching the video of MB's treatment of the Indian store owner and the brazen theft of cigarillos. He didn't even try to hid his identity. Reports are some mj is extremely potent and can cause paranoia with certain people. Very little has been said about it, what type it was, was the mj laced with another drug?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I thought it was interesting, when he was asked if he felt remorseful, that he replied "everyone feels remorse when a life is lost." Seemed disingenuous to me.

November 29, 2014 at 10:41 PM

I noticed this too, he avoided answering the question and made a general statement instead of speaking to his own feelings. Very odd, if 'everyone feels remorse' why can't he say "yes"? It may be because he is deceptive, or it may be because he feels that if he hadn't killed Mike Brown then Mike Brown would have killed him & he cannot bring himself to say he has remorse for defending himself.

I'm still on the fence about this whole thing, looking forward to further analysis on Wilson & other witnesses statements.

GetThem said...

I thought we'd be reading the update on Thanksgiving. I can't wait to see it!!! It must be a really big analysis.

Anonymous said...

I finished rereading it. I noticed on 1 occasion, Officer Wilson used "we" about him and Brown and "our self" and wonder how these would apply to this type of situation because in SA it is important when an alleged victim uses we.

Page 12, He said "I didn't run as far as him. I stopped and I gave our self at least a 20-foot-gap between me and him."

Page 15 He said "I mean the majority of it . Once we got out, I mean, I didn't run very far or very long, um, and that's when the shooting started."

This seems like a major point? "I didn't never at any point didn't have control of him. I mean he-he manipulated me while I was in the vehicle completely."

Anonymous said...

Wilson was on his own dealing with a thug. His testimony has both truth and deception.

The question is why was he giving testimony to a grand jury at all? Remember, this is the same state where Ryan Ferguson was railroaded by prosecutors.

Anonymous said...

Adding confusion - or clarity - to the mix are three separate autopsy reports that attempt to answer the question.

One, an autopsy performed by the county, showed that the sixth gunshot that struck Brown took a trajectory that did not suggest Brown had his hands in the air in a surrender position. The shot entered the forearm from the back and traveled into the inner arm from there, "inconsistent with Brown having his arms in the air, palms facing outward, in an attempt to surrender," reported the National Review.

Bill Garr said...

An Open and Shut Case

OW: I back up ten feet, I go to open my door, [DOOR OPEN] say "Hey, come here." He said, "What the f*** are you gonna do?" And, he shut my door on me. [DOOR SHUT] The door was only open maybe a foot. I didn't have a chance to get my leg out.

I shut the door [? DOOR ALREADY SHUT] and he came up and approached the door. [? BROWN WAS ALREADY AT THE DOOR]

I opened the door again, trying to push him back, tell him to get back. [DOOR OPEN]

Um, he said something. I'm not sure exactly what it was, and then started swinging and punching at me from outside the vehicle.

Q: Okay. So he's outside the vehicle?
OW: Correct.
Q: And, where are you at this point?
OW: Sitting in the driver's seat.
Q: Okay, and the door is, is open . . .
OW: Shut.
Q: . . . Closed? And, how'd it shut?
OW: It's shut. He has his body against the door preventing me from opening it. [? DOOR NEVER OPENED?]