Saturday, May 2, 2015

Statement Analysis of Marilyn Mosby Announcement

The following is a complete transcript of the announcement by prosecutor Marilyn Mosby regarding the charges filed against 6 Baltimore police officers in the death of Freddy Gray. 

 We must note pronoun usage, and we must note the volume of content dedicated to each topic, and where the subject chooses to begin her statement as showing priority.  We need to listen to the words the subject chooses to use, and the volume of words dedicated to each topic and person.  Statement Analysis notes pronouns, connections, specific language, verb tenses, introductions of persons, etc.  

In Statement Analysis, we put up "expected" language, first, which then allows us to view or be 'confronted' by language we did not expect to hear. 

This is an announcement of charges against police officers in the death of Freddie Gray.  Therefore:

We expect to hear the announcement of charges to be first and foremost from a prosecutor, and from the pronoun "I", taking responsibility for the decision.  We then expect to hear the reason or evidence of the charges to be second.  


1.  Announcement of Charges including "criminal, neglect, failure, willful, intentional"
2.  Reason for Charges:  summary of evidence for each suspect charged; 
3.  Address the context with words such as "riot, damages, looting, destroy, destruction, thugs, criminals, crime, punishment, justice," and so on.  

We then will view that which is "Unexpected" in any statement, causing us to pause and ask questions as to why certain wording or topics are presented. 

We seek the use of the pronoun "I" to show responsibility, at first, and then move to specific charges and evidence.  

 Excessive "I" can turn the topic (prosecution of a criminal case) into "front and center" for the prosecutor, instead.  Context is key. 

 Where one begins a statement is often the reason for the statement and always important.  Statement Analysis is in bold type, with emphasis added within the statement.  


"I need to express my publicly sympathies of the loved ones of Freddie Gray. 
Where one begins a statement is an indication of importance and priority.  Here, the subject began with a public sympathy, with the pronoun, "I", given to the loved ones of Freddie Gray.  For the subject, it is a "need." It is her "need" to express "my", that is, her sympathies in a "public" way.  It is important that her need is met, and it is met in a "public" way.  
This is noted.  It is a strong statement. It begins with "I need" which, in using the pronoun "I" shows intuitive use of the first person, singular, pronoun.  
Each of us has a personal, subjective internal dictionary.  Pronouns are exempt from this, as they are instinctive, that is, without pre thought or contemplation.  This is why they are reliable in analysis. 

Beginning the statement with her own need puts the subject, herself, front and center. as the most important element of the opening of her statement.   Since this is where she chose to begin the statement, we should be careful in listening to see if the rest of the statement supports this premise, that it is "about" her, or if the rest of the statement deals strictly with the criminal case.  Pronouns will guide us.  Her need is immediately connected to "public" in her wording.  

I had the opportunity to meet with Gray’s family to discuss some of the details of the case and the procedural steps going forward. I assured his family that no one is above the law and that I would pursue justice on their behalf.

Note here he is "Gray" and not "Freddie Gray" nor "Mr. Gray" in relation to the opportunity. Note distancing language and the word "with."

The next sentence is about her, also, specifically about "her opportunity."  This leads to questions: 
Why would one call a  protocol meeting an "opportunity"? 
 What makes something an "opportunity" is that potential exists for positive advancement.  
For whom?
In meeting with Gray's family, she calls it an "opportunity."  One should question why this word is used, or why it would take an "opportunity" to meet with a victim of a crime's family rather than a matter of routine.  

Next, a  question is:

Who's "opportune" is this?  

The answer is from herself:  "I had the opportunity" not,
"my team" nor even "my investigators met with..."as a matter of routine protocol. 

This tells us that the import of the sentence is the subject, Marilyn Mosby, herself, and she considers the meeting an "opportunity" for herself, and not for the investigation into a crime. 

This may not have been lost on the family:   Note that the word "with" exists between the pronoun "I" and the "Gray's family", indicating distance.   Note that it was just to "discuss" and this only "some" of the details.  For one that began with her need to publicly express sympathies to the family, her meeting with the family was an "opportunity" in which she distanced herself from the family, as she saw it as an "opportunity" for herself, rather than reassurance of justice for them. 
Note also that assurance was given to the family that she would pursue justice "on their behalf."  This is "public" and compares with discussing "just some" of the aspects of the case with them privately. 
There is a comparison in importance or weightiness of the matter with her speaking publicly about the family taking precedence, linguistically  over the private meeting.  Publicly, it was her "need" but privately there was distancing language. 

Please note that this is not to say she would find out what happened, but to pursue justice on their behalf instead.  This indicates a belief in the guilt of the officers.  
"Opportunity" is a positive where one seeks to gain for oneself.  For the subject simply meeting with the victim's family has provided her an opportunity, not for justice, but for herself.  It was not an opportunity for the family.  It was not an opportunity for her team, or for the justice system to work to uncover truth.  It was an opportunity for her, and she has chosen to express this in her own wording, and pronoun use.  
Remember: pronoun use is reliable because it is instinctive. 

The first address is about Gray's family; next is to others: 

To the thousands of city residents, community organizers and faith leaders and political leaders that chose to march peacefully throughout Baltimore. I commend your courage to stand for justice. 

This is an announcement of criminal charges.  Instead, she places herself in a superior position, to "commend" the "thousands of city residents."  The expected is the announcement of charges and a summary of evidence.  

The import of this portion of her statement is her commendation. 

The next recipients are given in a list.  Order indicates priority. 
1.  thousands of city residents
2.  community organizers
3.  faith leaders
4. political leaders
who chose to march peacefully and she admires their "stand" for justice.   
To these she "commends their courage."  To them is dedicated 2 lines.  She has not gotten to the criminal charges yet. 

I also commend the brave men and women both in uniform and out who have stepped up Monday Night to protect our community from those who wish to destroy it.

We seek to affirm or cast aside the opening statement's import:  This also is about her:  her commendation of police.  It is a different commendation, however. 

Please note that the "brave men and women both in uniform and out" are 5th in the list. 

Commendation is given  for police here (uniformed and not), who are described as "brave."  This should be considered a downgrade, and is consistent with the order showing her priority because it follows the first four.  Police and those out of uniform are last, and while both are given commendation, "courage" is ascribed to the actions of the first 4 groups, while bravery is applied to men and women in and out of uniform in a general context.  
Context:  Riots and approximately 100 officers were injured, but there is no reference to their work, nor the officers who came from outside Baltimore.  
Regarding law enforcement, the subject uses 2 lines.  
Those who "wish" to destroy it is present tense and does not specify those who did the violence and destruction.  This should be seen as an avoidance of the past tense event by the subject.  

As the city’s chief deputy prosecutor I've been sworn to uphold justice and to treat every individual within the jurisdiction of the Baltimore city equally and fairly under the law.

There is still no announcement of the charges.  Instead she:
1.  Gives the public her title of "city's chief duty prosecutor"
2.  That she, herself, has sworn to this position, referring to a past event;
3.  Her position is given specifics:  That she has the position to "uphold justice and treat every individual..."

This is about her, her position, her swearing in to her position, and her job duty.  
We continue to wait for the charges to be announced: 

I take this oath seriously 

The essence is her, with "I" regarding how she perceives her oath
and I want the public to know my administration is committed to creating a fair and equitable justice system for all. 

She did not want to express her sympathies to the family of Freddie Gray privately, but began with her need of doing it publicly.  Here, she addresses "the public" again, about commitment to justice. 
Please note that she wants the "public" to know this, not those charged, and not the family of the victim.  Sometimes prosecutors warn the suspects with a direct statement that they will not "get away with it" or that "justice will be served", since they are the object of justice, along with the family.  Here, the pubic, instead is addressed. 
That her administration is committed to "creating" a fair and equitable justice system suggests that the subject does not feel that the system currently in place is fair nor equitable.  The reader should consider that the speaker may seek to change existing laws, rules and/or practices in creation of a fair and equitable system. 

Please note that she has not announced charges yet. 

No matter what your occupation, your age, your race, your color or your creed. 
Note that for the speaker, the order of importance for whom the system may not be fair and equitable includes:
1. Occupation
2. Age
3. Race
4. Color
5. Creed

The speaker lists occupation as the most important group for which a fair and equitable system needs to be created.  . In context, the occupation that is in question is police.  For the speaker, the system in place for police is neither fair nor equitable and needs to be changed.  The speaker is talking about a system, and not specifically about "Mr. Gray" or his family.  Also note that race is third on the list, and not the most important classification for which the system is unfair or inequitable.   

 The speaker has yet to announce criminal charges. 

It is my job to examine and investigate the evidence of each case and apply those facts to the elements of a crime in order to make a determination as to whether individuals should be prosecuted. 

She returns back to her job, of which she brought us back to when she was sworn in, and how seriously she takes her job.  She now explains, again, what her job is.  
Please note that this is about her, and she has not:
1.  Announced criminal charges
2.  Announced why these charges were filed 

Also note that her process is first to examine and second to investigate evidence. 

This is a tremendous responsibility, but one I saw and accepted when the citizens of Baltimore city elected me as the state’s attorney and it is precisely what I did in the case of Freddie Gray.

This is to now praise herself as one who saw the "tremendous responsibility" and she then reminds the public that they elected "me" as the "state's attorney", which is to remind, again, the public of what her job is. 
She foresaw "this" tremendous responsibility, with "this" being 'close' to the context:  officers charged.  
Next, she says what she did in her job was "precise" to the job description. 
The emphasis of her statement to this point has been self promotion.  The extra word "precisely" weakness her assertion that it is what she did.

 It is 8 lines in length and it is about herself.  

Once alerted about this incident on April 13, investigators from my police integrity unit were deployed to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Gray’s apprehension. 

Note that she calls them "my police" but "were deployed" is passive language; it does not tell us that "she deployed her police", yet, in context, she associates it with herself since they are "my police integrity unit."
The focal point continues to be upon Mosby, herself. 

Also note: "once alerted" speaks to time.  Time, in this statement, is sensitive and will play out. 

Over the course of our independent investigation, in the untimely death of Mr. Gray, my team worked around the clock; 12 and 14 hour days to canvas and interview dozens of witnesses;
Everyone has their own personal subjective dictionary.  For the subject, "working around the clock" is a 12-14 hour day.  This may not be something shared with others. 
She has not announced criminal charges, but speaks of the hours she and her team ("my team") worked instead.   The subject does not state that her team canvased and interviewed dozens of witnesses, but rather states that was the intention of working 12 and 14 hour days.

 view numerous hours of video footage; repeatedly reviewed and listened to hours of police video tape statements; surveyed the route, reviewed voluminous medical records; and we leveraged the information made available by the police department, the community and family of Mr. Gray.
Instead of announcing charges, she gives details of their "12 to 14" hour days of her team.  Note that as she describes each, none is commented upon for understanding.  This is a list of the 12-14 hour working "around the clock" days.  Also note the verb tense change within this section.

"Leveraged" is an unexpected word in this statement, and it means the use of "influence or power used to achieve a desired result." [Merriam Webster dictionary]. 
The findings of our comprehensive, thorough and independent investigation, coupled with the medical examiner's determination that Mr. Gray’s death was a homicide that we received today, has led us to believe that we have probable cause to file criminal charges.
Please take note of the word "independent" regarding the investigation.  
Repetion indicates sensitivity.  That the findings are "comprehensive, thorough and independent" is noted, with "independent" coming last.   We note the repetition of such to come. 
Note the import of the ruling of the medical examiner is given without the medical examiner's name, and she specifically states that "we received" it; which may cause some to ask if there is anyone else who ever receives the report that she would feel the need to emphasize herself again. 

The statement of probable cause is as follows:
On April, 12 2015 between 8:45 and 9:15 a.m., near the corner of North Avenue and Mount Street. Lt. Rice of the Baltimore Police Department while on bike patrol with Officer Garrett Miller and Edward Nero made eye contact with Freddie Carlos Gray Jr.
Having made eye contact with Mr. Gray, Mr. Gray subsequently ran from Lt. Rice. Lt. Rice then dispatched over departmental radio that he was involved in a foot pursuit at which time bike patrol officers and Nero began to pursue Mr. Gray. Having come in contact with pursuing officers, Mr. Gray surrendered to Officers Miller and Nero in the vicinity in the 1700 block of Presbury Street.

Note she addresses the issue of the officers being charged, beginning with the arrest.  Note the word "surrendered" is to give over freedom and will to "Officers", that is, an arrest.  At this point, chronologically, Mr. Gray is under arrest, no longer free to act upon his will.  

We now look for the charges to be announced and the evidence preceding the charges. 
Officer Miller and Nero then handcuffed Mr. Gray and moved him to a location a few feet away from his surrendering location Mr. Gray was then placed in a prone position with his arms handcuffed behind his back. It was at this time that Mr. Gray indicated he could not breathe and requested an inhaler to no avail. 

"to no avail" is passive:  it is not to say "officers refused" or "officers ignored", etc.  She does not tell us by what means "no avail" took place, nor any police response.  Note there is no charge of negligence at this point.  

Officer Miller and Nero then placed Mr. Gray in a seated position and substantially found a knife clipped to the inside of his pants pocket. The blade of the knife was folded into the handle. The knife was not a switchblade and is lawful under Maryland law. These officers then removed the knife and placed it on the sidewalk.
"placed" is soft language; not the language of violence. 
What one says in the negative is always important.  That is was not a "switchblade" is important because this was commonly reported in media.  Please note the additional, unnecessary legal status is in response to the "switchblade."
Note that the presence of a knife of one who has run from police, yet under arrest. 

Mr. Gray was then placed back down on his stomach at which time Mr. Gray began to flail his legs and scream as Officer Miller placed Mr. Gray in a restraining technique known as a leg lace. While Officer Nero physically held him down against him will while a BPD wagon arrived to transport Mr. Gray.
Please note first that "then placed" is also soft language; with no accusation of rough or inappropriate handling. 
Note also that while under arrest, the words "against his will" are unnecessary, making them very important to the subject.  The arrest, itself, is a transfer of will from one to another.  That he was "against his will" is unnecessary since she has already shown him to be under arrest.  The need to emphasize this is noted.   

Lt. Rice, Officer Miller and Officer Nero failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray’s arrest as no crime had been committed by Mr. Gray. Accordingly Lt. Rice Officer MIller and Office Nero illegally arrested Mr. Gray. 

The only report is that "eye contact" was made and that Mr. Gray ran.  This is an element which will likely become publicly debated:  can you legally run from police in Baltimore? If they catch you, is this an illegal activity? 
The defense attorneys for the six officers will likely be taking careful note of the prosecutor's lengthy statement and volume of words dedicated to self promotion.  

Upon arrival of the transport wagon driven by Officer Caesar Goodson. Lt. Rice Officer Miller and Officer Nero loaded Mr. Gray into the wagon and at no point was he secured by a seatbelt while in the wagon contrary to a BPD general order

note the violation or neglect of order by police is stated.  Note that "at no point" regarding being secured by seatbelt is also important. 

Lt. Rice then directed the BPD wagon to stop at Baker Street. At Baker Street, Lt. Rice, Officer Nero and Officer Miller removed Mr. Gray from the wagon, placed flexi-cuffs on his wrists, placed leg shackles on his ankles and completed required paperwork.
Officer Miller, Officer Nero and Lt. Rice then loaded Mr. Gray back into the wagon, placing him on his stomach, head first onto the floor of the wagon. Once again Mr. Gray was not secured by a seatbelt in the wagon contrary to a BPD general order.
Lt. Rice then directed Officer Goodson to transport Mr. Gray to the Central Booking & Intake Facility. 
We know that "at no point" was he seat belted. 
Following transport from Baker Street, Mr. Gray suffered a severe and critical neck injury as a result of being handcuffed, shackled by his feet and unrestrained inside of the BPD wagon.

The "severe and critical neck injury"  is, by the subject, said to be "as a result" of the following conditions:
1.  handcuffed
2.  shackled by his feet
3.  unrestrained 

Note it is not clear if "unrestrained" indicates the failure to put a seatbelt on as the language is different.  What has caused this change? 
Please note that to this point, no officer is accused of afflicting injury only negligence in seatbelt, following "illegal" arrest. 

From Baker Street, Officer Goodson proceeded to the vicinity of Mosher Street and Fremont Avenue where he subsequently parked the wagon and proceeded to the back of the wagon to observe Mr. Gray. Despite stopping for the purpose of checking on Mr. Gray’s condition, at no point did he seek nor did he render any medical assistance for Mr. Gray. 

Please note what is missing:  what did Officer Goodson find when he checked on Mr. Gray that he id not seek nor render medical assistance.  It is given in the negative, with "at no point", but no motive nor reasoning is given at this point.  This is in context with the fact that Officer Goodson is charged with second degree depraved murder.  
Note the repletion of "at not point" in the negative. Please note that we are not given a statement that says that the officers refused, or any reasoning to this.  

Officer Goodson returned to his driver’s seat and proceed toward the Central Booking & Intake facility with Mr. Gray still unsecured by a seatbelt contrary to a BPD general order.

Please note the repetition, as she stated that Mr. Gray was not seat belted at any time in the trip.  Here it is repeated. 

Several blocks later, Officer Goodson called into dispatch that he needed to check on the status of his prisoner and requested additional units at Dolphin Street and Druid Hill Avenue. Officer William Porter arrived on the scene at Dolphin Street and Druid HIll Avenue. Both Officer Goodson and porter proceeded to the back of the wagon to check on the status of Mr. Gray’s condition. Mr. Gray at that time requested help and indicated that he could not breathe. Officer Porter asked Mr. Gray if he needed a medic at which time Mr. Gray indicated at least twice that he was in need of a medic. Officer Porter then physically assisted Mr. Gray from the floor of the van to the bench however despite Mr. Gray’s appeal for a medic, both officers assessed Mr. Gray’s condition and at no point did either of them restrain Mr. Gray per BPD general order nor did they render or request medical assistance.
Note "physically assisted" has no description nor accusation of abusive action or activity. 
Negligence of seat belt nor honoring request for medical assistance. 
Note the general orders of BPD were not followed.  

While discussing the transportation of Mr. Gray for medical attention, a request for additional units was made for an arrest at the 1600 West North Avenue. Officer Porter left the scene of Druid Hill Avenue to assist in the arrest of another prisoner at North Avenue. Despite Mr. Gray’s obvious and recognized need for medical assistance, Officer Goodson in a grossly negligent manner chose to respond to the 1600 block of West North Avenue with Mr. Gray still unsecured by a seatbelt in the wagon without rendering to or summoning medical assistance for Mr. Gray.

Note "obvious" and "recognized" is used but we are not told what response was given by officers.  Did they ignore?  Did they refuse?  We do not know because we have not been told.
When one uses the word "obvious" it means to accept without question.  Yet she has not told us what reaction was given, therefore, leaving the reader/listener without explanation as to if this was "obvious" to the officers.  
When criminal charges are announced, the charges are given and the reasons for the charges, in general, are given. 
Instead, we have a narrative that employs editorializing.  
Note "Officer Goodson in a grossly negligent manner chose to respond..." does not tell us what Goodson did or said in regard to the seatbelt, or why it would be "grossly" negligent, instead of "negligent."  If he was, for example, told that Mr. Gray was unsecured and being thrown out of his seat, and refused to intervene, this would make the negligence heightened.  She does not tell us.  

Officer Goodson arrived at North Avenue to transport the individual arrested at the location of North Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue at which time he was again met by Officer Nero, Miller and Porter. Once the wagon arrived, Officer Goodson walked to the back of the wagon and again opened the doors to the wagon to make observations of Mr. Gray.
Here Statement Analysis deals with what is missing:
Why did he stop to check on Mr. Gray?
What did he find?
What did he say?
What did he do?
What did he refuse to do?

Sgt. Alicia White, Officer Porter and Officer Goodson observed Mr. Gray unresponsive on the floor of the wagon. Sgt. White who is responsible for investigating two citizen complaints pertaining to Mr. Gray’s illegal arrest spoke to the back of Mr. Gray’s head. When he did not respond, she did nothing further despite the fact that she was advised that he needed a medic. She made no effort to look or assess or determine his condition.

Here, we are told that Officer Alicia White did speak "to the back of Mr. Gray's head" and that she "was advised" (passive; not revealing who advised), and "she made no effort", which is to show negligence.  This gives detail.  
Despite Mr. Gray’s seriously deteriorating medical condition, no medical assistance was rendered or summoned for Mr. Gray at that time by any officer.
After completing the North Avenue arrest and loading the additional prisoner into the opposite side of the wagon containing Mr. Gray, Officer Goodson then proceeded to the Western District Station where contrary to the BPD general order, he again failed to restrain Mr. Gray in the wagon for at least the fifth time.
"Restrain" and not secure seatbelt is used.  This is, "at least the fifth time"; which then leads to the questions:
Was seat belting him something discussed?
Did all agree to not seatbelt him?
If so, what did they conclude?
With murder, manslaughter, gross negligence, etc, this are basic elements that are missing from the narrative.  Given the import of context, it raises questions that need answers. 
At the Western District Police Station the defendant arrested at North Avenue was unloaded, escorted and secured inside of the police station prior to attending to Mr. Gray.

If "secured" here is the same as fastened seat belt, this shows that the officers likely had a reason to not seat belt Gray, while seat belting others.  This is missing from the narrative. 

By the time Officer Zachary Novak and Sgt. White attempted to remove Mr. Gray from the wagon, Mr. Gray was no longer breathing at all. 

"At all" suggests struggle breathing prior. 
Note also that "at all" will allow the defense to address time period between the attempt to remove him and when a medic arrived. 

A medic was finally called to the scene where upon arrival, the medic determined Mr. Gray was now in cardiac arrest and was critically and severely injured. 

Note the unnecessary word "finally" in narrative form.   Note the element of time in the statement, throughout.  

Mr. Gray was rushed to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma where he underwent surgery. On April 19, 2015, Mr. Gray succumbed to his injuries and was pronounced dead. The manner of death deemed homicide by the Maryland Medical Examiner is believed to be the result of a fatal injury that occurred while Mr. Gray was unrestrained by a seatbelt in custody of the Baltimore Police Department wagon.
All events occurred in Baltimore City State of Maryland. While each of these officer are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Note this is an incomplete sentence.  "While" suggests passage of time, or comparison.  
We have brought the following charges (The charges as detailed by the Daily News have been condensed for clarity.):
Officer Caesar Goodson Jr., 45: Second-degree depraved murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, two counts of vehicular manslaughter charges and misconduct in office.

Please note the severe charge of "Second degree depraved murder" in light of the passivity and the soft language described may not "fit", which could lead some to consider whether or not this weightier charge is deliberately done to seek a plea bargain in order to get this officer to testify against others.  No description was given to justify this charge, yet she did mention that other evidence exists. We do not know from her statement what was said to Mr. Gray's request, nor if any other interaction exists between Goodson and Mr. Gray. 

Officer William Porter, 25: Involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office.
Lt. Brian Rice, 41: Involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and false imprisonment.
Officer Edward Nero, 29: Two counts of second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and false imprisonment.
Officer Garrett Miller, 26: Two counts of second-degree assault, two counts of misconduct in office and one false imprisonment charge.
Sgt. Alicia White, 30: Involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office. 

Edward Nero, one of the Baltimore cops charged for his involvement in the Freddie Gray arrest and subsequent death, shaking hands with the Baltimore Police Commissioner. 

While I am committed to transparency, what I have revealed here today is now a matter of public 
Note that she does not say she is transparent, but only "committed" to transparency.  

record. However, the evidence we have collected and continue to collect cannot ethically be released to the public and I strongly condemn anyone in law enforcement with access to trial evidence who has leaked information prior resolution of this case. You are only damaging our ability to conduct a fair and impartial process for all parties involved.

No condemnation for anyone outside of law enforcement who might have leaked information.  This is a specifically negative reference reserved for law enforcement. 

I hope that as we move forward with this case everyone will respect due process and refrain from doing anything that would jeopardize our ability to seek justice.

She now addresses the people of Baltimore again with the words:  "people of Baltimore" and the "demonstrators across America" shows an awareness of her specific audience being beyond the city she is sworn to serve, and is addressing "America"

To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America: I heard your call for ‘No justice, no peace.’ Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man."
To those that are angry, hurt or have their own experiences of injustice at the hands of police officers I urge you to channel that energy peacefully as we prosecute this case I have heard your calls for ‘No justice, no peace,’ however your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of Freddie Gray.
Note that she has "heard their calls for no justice no peace' which is included in her statement about her criminal charges, in context.  "I have heard your calls" is repeated, making it sensitive.  This suggests influence. 

To the rank and file officers of the Baltimore Police Department, please know that these accusations of these six officers are not an indictment on the entire force.

I come from five generations of law enforcement. 
Note the return to talk about herself and her lineage. 

My father was an officer, my mother was an officer, several of my aunts and uncles, my recently departed and beloved grandfather was one of the founding members of the first black police organization in Massachusetts. 

Note that after she talks about herself, she now talks about her father, her mother, several of her aunts and uncles, and her grandfather, who is "recently departed and beloved", as one of the founding members of the first black police organization in Massachusetts, as she continues to make herself front and center in the announcement of criminal charges. 

I can tell you that the actions of these officers will not and should not, in any way, damage the important working relationships between police and prosecutors as we continue to fight together to reduce crime in Baltimore. Thank you for your courage, committee and sacrifice for the betterment of the community.

Lastly, I’d like to thank my team for working around the clock since the day that we learned of this tragic incident. 

This should be the "last" of her statement.  "Lastly" indicates logic, if it is, indeed, last, rather than emotion. 
Note the self congratulatory theme continues with "around the clock" which we have already seen, twice, as 12 to 14 hour days.   This is an element of time that is throughout the statement.  Continue to note it. 

Note with charges of murder, she calls it a "tragic incident" and not a "tragic crime", which may cause some to question her commitment to it as a "crime" or "incident."

We have conducted a thorough and independent investigation of this case. This independent investigation was led by my deputy state attorneys, Janice Bledsoe and Michael Schatzow, my investigators Wayne Williams, Avon Mackle and the hardworking investigative team that were here and still are very much committed to pursuing justice.
The continual repetition of "thorough" and "independent" is such that the reader should question if there is missing information and if a "dependent" element entered the investigation, including at the federal level which the President of the United States stated had been in "constant" contact.  
That she has called the investigation "independent" this many times suggests it is not. 

I’d also like the Baltimore City Police department particularly Major Branford of the homicide unit and Rodney Hill of the Internal Affairs Division for providing us with a hard copy of the investigative material yesterday, information we already had. And lastly. I’d like to thank Baltimore City Sheriff’s Department in assisting with us as an independent law enforcement agency with police powers.
Note that "lastly" has been ignored.  This is an indication of exit of logic. 
Note when she received it is important to her:  "yesterday", as it speaks to the element of time, once again.  This is a very sensitive topic to the subject, as noted through repetition. 
To the governor to this great state of Maryland, thank you for expediting the autopsy report which enabled us to do our job.
The autopsy report is so vital that she noted the time she received it (yesterday) and now says that it was something that was "enabling" to do their job. 
Last but certainly not least, to the youth of the city. I will seek justice on your behalf. This is a moment. This is your moment. Let’s insure we have peaceful and productive rallies that will develop structural and systemic changes for generations to come. You’re at the forefront of this cause and as young people, our time is now."

"Last" is yet again, showing lack of restraint, regarding the political sermonizing.  It is not about the charges, nor the evidence.  This shows us the infusion of emotion, taking precedent over logic (numerics) in the statement. 

"Governor" has no name.  In statement analysis, this is an incomplete social introduction. 
The repetition of "last" shows a disengagement of logic:  she cannot stop herself from speaking.  Numerical wording indicates logic, except where it is either not followed, or when it is not followed carefully.  The subject is very comfortable speaking about herself, and each time she was going to conclude with "lastly", she went back to the pronoun, "I", having moved far past strength of commitment, on to a more narcissistic self promotion.  By thanking others specifically, she now ties herself to the public spotlight, including the governor's office, as if the governor was needed (though not named, indicating incomplete social introduction) to get the medical examiner to finally release the report.  The ME is also not named indicated a poor relationship.  
Not naming the governor is a technique used in political debates when one does not want to give an equal status to "my opponent" rather than repeating the opponent's name.  One should consider that a successful prosecution in this one case may cause the subject to seek higher political office. 

We believe people's words unless given reason not to.  That "this is a movement" rather than only a prosecution, should be believed.  
The import of this statement is heavily weighed upon the self promotion of the subject.  She tells us her needs, her opportunity, her job title, her swearing in, her job description, her goals, her hours, and then finally gets to the charges, which include 2nd degree murder.  This was not an announcement of charges so much as it was for an "opportunity" to help meet the "needs" of the subject, herself.  Her language reveals sensitivity specifically about the independence of the investigation, inviting us to question the outside influences, including the politics, protestors, while she self promotes.  
The praise she gives others is muted when it comes to police. 

"To the youth" 
This should be considered in light of the rioting, burning, looting, and destruction being attributed first to "thugs" which is later changed to "misguided youth."  
Note the context:
This is a prosecutor who was supposed to announce charges against those who have committed crimes. 
She is, instead, using it as a platform for self-congratulatory exercise, politicking, and using this role, elevating it to the point of addressing all manner of society.
It was supposed to be a law enforcement announcement.  She turned it into a speech of which the most content was focused upon herself.  She, herself, is central to the announcement, including her feelings, needs, election, swearing in, lineage, qualities, family, extended family, and so on.  
She reveals her motive as not only justice seeking, but coupled with satisfying her own needs, and the needs of protestors and others, which is part of her language, when viewing her motive. That she used "leverage" along with "opportunity" and added, as the first element of equity the vocation, suggests that the subject may have ulterior motives in seeking the criminal convictions of the police officers who did not secure Mr. Gray in his seatbelt, therefore, leaving him open to not only falling, but also while in partial restraints; that is, unable to brace himself in the fall. 

Had the spinal injury been pre-existing, this would leave him even more vulnerable to neglect where in a van that is not fastened by seatbelt, and unable to lift his hands or move his legs freely to brace himself for the fall, he would be prone to the serious injury. 

We do not know the reason why he was not seat belted in, specifically in context where another prisoner was.  He should have been secured, and had he been, he likely would be alive today; regardless of his drug record.  If he had prior surgery, did he inform them of a vulnerable medical condition?  If so, did they heed his words?  Statement Analysis teaches specifically to listen to what one says.  Dismissing "all as liars" is lazy-minded ignorance that misses critical information.  We need to know why they did not secure him. 

This is why I expected "negligence" to be charged, perhaps even departmentally as violation of protocol or "best practice" for Baltimore police. It is a negligence with fatal consequences and a life lost that should not have been, and, perhaps, 100 injuries, millions of dollars of damage, increased racial tensions, and six more lives that may be ruined.  

As to intent to inflict injury, serious harm, or death, the subject does not give us indication.  This is something that the public will demand to know.  

That she does not call it criminal while filing criminal charges may reveal what she knows to be true. 

That she began her statement with her own need, and this need was specifically "public" shows her personal priority.  Meeting with the victim's family was an "opportunity" for her.  She addresses, not the criminally charged, nor the family, but the entire nation.  

To those who would say it is unrealistic, given the circumstances, for her to not address the nation, or the public at large, I agree.  

It is her own language, however, that reveals not only the import of this address, but to the degree she self promotes while giving linguistic indicators of weakness in the case, suggests that her own motive is ambition.   We would also need for her to describe what "leveraged" means in her personal, subjective dictionary.  Successful prosecution of the six officers leading to political seeking of higher offices would confirm the wording used here.  

For those who believe that these six officers are specifically targeted and "sacrificed"  for political purposes, the transcripts will strengthen this view.  This should be taken in light of how quickly a decision was made once the information was given to her.  Would such weighty charges need less than 24 hours to make such a conclusion?  This is why "time", as an element, and the need to persuade come together.  

This will lead some to ask:
Was the final outcome decided before the evidence, to charge the officers criminally, making the evidence something that must now fit an agenda?
Would such weighty matters warrant more time?
Was the federal influence (or outside influence) seen in the repetition of "independent" and was there a forgone conclusion that officers would be criminally charged with such high crimes (Murder, manslaughter) over Negligence, and the various charges stemming from failure to secure Mr. Gray while in the van?

The elements of negligence are present, as well.  Bringing this to a level of murder charges, however, may be strategic more than elementary.  

That a man who may have had an acute medical condition was in need of professional intervention is not in question; he died as a result of actions that began, first with himself running from police, and then from police failing to properly secure him in the van.  

When police charged speak, we will likely learn why they did not secure him, while securing another prisoner, and why they did not seek medical intervention in a more expedient manner . 

The change in occupation may be federal involvement.  That she repeatedly had the need to use "independent" is to the point of extreme sensitivity is a strong indication that this was not an independent investigation.   

For those who state that this was a written speech, that was likely viewed by others, which reduces the reliability:  
We analyze the statement, not the person.
If it was carefully reviewed, it went through this process with the word "leveraged" making it though any censoring process, and, those who may have been involved, either agree with, or were overruled with the heavy tangent topics outside the boundary of criminal charges and evidence of a crime.  

That the subject calls this a tragic event is something I agree with.  As to intent, which is something the public will want to know, especially since race relations are so strained, is ignored.  The officers are both black and white, male and female.  

We will wait to see if there are changes in the charges, and how defense attorneys respond.  We sill analyze any public statements made.  

If we are guided by her words, we learn:

She investigated the evidence.  


Anonymous said...

Thank you!

I hope they release the police officers' point of view beginning with why did they arrest Freddie? If running means he is guilty, why not call in for a warrant check? Are they not overwhelmed with work so why add to their workload with additional paperwork?

The police department should re-evaluate processes/procedures and train/re-train all police officers on those with associate consequences.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

The analysis is likely to provoke some racial comments, some emotional comments, and some that, like me, express a desire for more information.

Statement Analysis often brings certainty to topics.

I have certainty regarding Mosby's ambitions. She made this clear.

I have certainty that justice is not paramount in this situation.

That the officers failed to secure him, I have a lot of questions and no certainty.

I do not have certainty about the care Gray received.

That the officers are not all white will be a factor.

This death and the subsequent riot have been saturated in deception, beginning with our president, down to the local politicians, and now to the prosecutor.

I wonder if funded "community organizers" incited the riot to bring about change.

What change do they seek?

The city receives more money per child than most all of the country.

The city has been run by their political party, for a half century

The blame game continued, just the same, rather than seeking of justice.

Will those who assaulted police, civilians, and burned and looted be held accountable for the crimes they committed, or will there be but a token few charged?

That this mayor gave a stand down order is certain.

That the government attempting to involve itself in social engineering and fails is no surprise.

Many Democrats today feel shame over this nonsense. This is not what they wanted to accomplish socially.


Anonymous said...

Officer Caesar Goodson Jr. is the oldest person involved and has been with the police department since 1999.

If they are trying to get him to enter into a plea bargain, I think they thought - (1) he should have known better due to his age and time in the police department and (2) he has invested 16 years into his retirement and it would be a financial devastation to lose it.

John Mc Gowan said...

Nonverbal Communication Analysis No. 3173: Maryland State Attorney Marilyn Mosby - Freddie Gray's Death Ruled Homicide - charges to be pressed against police (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

Today Ms. Marilyn Mosby, the Maryland State Attorney for Baltimore City, stunned many when after she disclosed that Freddie Gray's death has been rule a homicide, she also announced that she will prosecute six officers in the death of Mr. Gray. What follows is a partial nonverbal analysis of Ms. Mosby's announcement.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


the "obama chin"?

Arrogance. This is where "looking down your nose" expression came from.

The one thing that should not be missed was the clear narcissistic enjoyment of the subject as front and center.

At times, she could barely contain herself, and even linguistically, this follows by "lastly" and "lastly" and "lastly"....

This should have been a somber moment stemming from the death of a citizen, rather than the show it became for a young woman's own personal ambition.


Tania Cadogan said...

It struck me the look on her face in the photo.
I see anger and disdain.

This got me to wondering what she is getting out of this.
Is it election year or coming up soon?

Her priority is her, she is using this to fit her own agenda, whatever her agenda is.

I also suspect she is pissed because there are three black officers involved so she can't play the race card, nor can the rioters and general sh1t stirrers who will use it for their own agendas, i am talking to you sharpton and jackson.

It's hard to play the race card when black and white officers were allegedly involved, and, there is nothing for the hispanics to throw their lot in with either.

This is all going to be police brutality and the big bad copper claims.

She is black and she will play the black victimhood card, I is wiv you brothers and sisters, we shall be avenged etc.

I know the type.

Woe betide though she actually has to come in contact with them or worse touch them unless it is campaign time.
Then it will be quick handshake smile and out with the hand sanitizer and the sarky comments once out of sight and earshot of her public

No mention of course will be made about all the officers injured doing their duty, we don't see blacks protesting when a white cop is murdered by a black guy, come to think of it, we don't see whites protesting when a white guy is killed by a black cop or a white guy murdered by a black guy.

It seems to me. especially under obama that the black chip on their shoulder has grown into a forest.

All i see is a huge sense of entitlment and ego and feeling hard done by.
Why study at school when you can becone a rapper or a sportsman or a pimp.

Why study when you can sleep with a celeb and sell your story or go on some reality tv show and get 15 mins of fame or sell a sex tape(worked for he kardashians)

Why bother when the gov't will be there to bail you out, make exceptions to the rule, to practice postive discrimination (racism) so you don't need to have such good grades to get into college.

Sod that for a game of soldiers.

I am all for making everyone equal, you don't study?
Well tough, you get a low paid job and no benefits, you study and get good grades you get a better job and maybe some benfits.

Want to riot, sure just bear in mind looting is a crime and you will be shot regardless of race, age, gender or color.

You burn down all the businesses in your area, well assuming to didn't get shot, go straight to jail for say 50 yrs plus you have to pay compensation to all the businesses and, if they decide not to return oh well you will have to go without.
Oh, and whilst i'm at it. anyone involved in the riots and looting lose all 911 privileges, no cops, no fire dept, no hospital treatment.

Why should the state provide them just so you can trash them, destroy them and bad mouth them.

If they are as bad as you claim then you sure as heck won't want them to come to your aid in an emergency.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
Officer Caesar Goodson Jr. is the oldest person involved and has been with the police department since 1999.

If they are trying to get him to enter into a plea bargain, I think they thought - (1) he should have known better due to his age and time in the police department and (2) he has invested 16 years into his retirement and it would be a financial devastation to lose it.
May 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM

Interesting point.

I hear...

lots of police are considering early retirement, or employment outside of Baltimore.

John Mc Gowan said...

Peter Hyatt said...

the "obama chin"?

I couldn't have summed it up any better Peter. :)

Anonymous said...

bho has been meddling here and everybody suffers.
This prosecutor, and the mayor are totally incompetent in their present jobs,
they are both superb at telling us how good they are.
When they move on to the higher positions they deserve, they will leave a damaged city.
Same routine their highly placed hero is performing.
Does it ever end ?

I'ma let you finish said...

Are press conferences considered part of the free-editing process?

I think this is the problem some of us have with these political posts, in a nutshell. Elected officials usually employ a speech-writer, so even though they speak in the first person, they're not actually speaking their own words, and their not choosing what to say off-the-cuff.

I would love to read an analysis of the initial statements given by each of the six cops accused of murder, though.

Apple said...

"The attorney who is representing Gray's family is Billy Murphy and he has a connection with Mosby.

According to AP, Murphy was one of Mosby's biggest campaign contributors in 2014 , donating the maximum allowed of $4,000. He was also on her transition team according to The Associated Press."
Fox news report. Interesting.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Here is an example when someone does not read an article, but feels the need to "point out" something, via a question. Most of the time we delete ignorance but sometimes will leave one up for an example. This one might be helpful to the 'casual' or 'lazy' reader.

I am often a casual or lazy reader but when I am, I reserve comment. This is when I am skimming news articles.

If I intend on commenting, or even analyzing, I read the entire article.


I'ma let you finish said...
Are press conferences considered part of the free-editing process?

I think this is the problem some of us have with these political posts, in a nutshell. Elected officials usually employ a speech-writer, so even though they speak in the first person, they're not actually speaking their own words, and their not choosing what to say off-the-cuff.

I would love to read an analysis of the initial statements given by each of the six cops accused of murder, though.
May 2, 2015 at 9:10 PM >>>>

The article contains specific information about the likely editing and co-authoring of the speech. Read it.

Next, you would love to read analysis of the initial statements given by the police.

This, too, is in the article.

Do you have the initial statements given for analysis?

I wrote that when we analyze their statements, we will know the truth of the very questions I raised in the article about their negligence that led to his death.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

My concern is not just the blame game, but deliberate social engineering, including the sacrificing of innocent lives and businesses, in an concerted effort to facilitate "change."

That the White House said they were in "constant" contact with Baltimore leads me to question if the WH instituted the "stand down" order...
If the WH used paid "community organizers" to rile up the people.

That three of the six officers are black will cause huge problems for political prosecution.

The burning buildings last night echoed the chant,

"No justice, no peace, no racist police" which shows that the mob of thugs does not understand:

This was not about race.

I believe that the WH wants it to be about race.

He has done a great deal of work to not only weaken our nation, and burden cities with illegals from specific terroristic nations, but has divided us, by race, more than anything in my life time.

I feel for hard working, independent black families who get 'lumped in' to a culture that shows hatred of women, employs victim status, and is awash in violence against itself.

A race that survived slavery should be much stronger than it is. I blame government policies that have handcuffed them to this status as victims.

Holding up heroes like Floyd Mayweather only affirms the shame that many blacks feel about the culture.

These are the ones we do not hear from because media holds no attachments for them.

I wonder if the black churches in Baltimore are emphasizing "Thou Shalt Not Steal" this morning, or are they still playing into the trap of victim status.


Dee said...

^^^ Like. Good observation.

Anonymous said...

Tania:"All i see is a huge sense of entitlment and ego and feeling hard done by.
Why study at school when you can becone a rapper or a sportsman or a pimp.

Why study when you can sleep with a celeb and sell your story or go on some reality tv show and get 15 mins of fame or sell a sex tape(worked for he kardashians)

Why bother when the gov't will be there to bail you out, make exceptions to the rule, to practice postive discrimination (racism) so you don't need to have such good grades to get into college."

I hope you realize that these are all STEREOTYPES.

Anonymous said...

Long time reader-Long time Anon poster …. I love this blog because it’s like a quality college level class. The professor expects you to pay attention to everything covered in class. The content is difficult to comprehend, but your knowledge builds over time and it becomes easier. You have to read every sentence if you want to get the most out of this course. Do I find it tedious? Yes! Does the professor repeat himself within the lessons? Yes! Have I turned into a human lie detector yet? NO! But! I find myself paying a LOT more attention to what people say and what people write. I’ve shared this blog with some close friends at work, and when we get an important email I’ll often chat with them and call out certain parts citing STATEMENT ANALSIS SAYS….. Peter, thank you for your blog. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Thanks for continuing to allow anonymous posting!

One thing that might help some new readers…..a condensed list of SA rules, like the number 3 and the many others. Maybe there is one out there.

Apple said...

I am heartbroken for this police officer and his family. His death mentioned after the announcement of the name of an English baby. A white officer in his patrol car murdered by a black man, but its not news worthy? He's too white to protest his death?? I am heartbroken.

Unknown said...

It's so terrible, and senseless Apple.

Anonymous said...

With regard to regional colloquialisms, I have noticed that you often employ a phrase I have never heard used quite this way elsewhere, specifically "of which"
It appears in many of your SA posts in the following context: "She returns back to her job, of which she brought us back to when she was sworn in..." (Stephanie Rawlings Blake) or "This is a pragmatic liar which is one of which does not struggle to lie, as self-deception (moral superiority) is at her core." (Sarah Silverman) and "the evidence that police worked so long and hard on presenting, handed down an indictment against the Ramseys, of which Hunter not only refused to sign" (Alex Hunter re: Jonbenet)
This is not to say that "of which" is, on its own, an unusual phrase, but one I am generally more used to seeing used as you did in your remark "When I said, "I read Churchill" I was specifically thinking of the 6 volume set of which I read cover to cover, hence, the strength of my answer. When I mentioned John Calvin, I was thinking of his 22 volume commentary set of which I have read portions from over many years, but not cover to cover. Hence, "I have read Calvin" shows a weakness." or "That type of threat is based on a movie called “The Purge,” the plot of which involves rampant lawlessness."
Since you mention the use of regional terms or of personal dictionaries from time to time, I wondered if this had been pointed out to you before.

Anonymous said...

"As sheriff, he has now signaled to all those in his area of whom experiences arrest: Do not cooperate with his law enforcement department." (re Victor Hill)

There's that odd usage of the phrase "of whom"... Why not say "who"?

Anonymous said...

"We would learn that in the course of the questioning, he did not kill his wife, nor did he say anything that caused her to kill herself, nor did he give her the gun of which she killed herself."

Of which? That phrase sounds so awkward, and you use this phrasing ("of which", "of whom") often. Is this a regional thing?

Anonymous said...

"It causes sides to be chosen based upon an element of which no control may be exerted over. "

Grammatically, this reads better without the "of" in the sentence.

Anonymous said...

"Therefore, be protective of the vulnerable, but know the element of which you are dealing with, should your loved one fall prey to one of these, online, or in person".

In this case, I'd have left "of which" out entirely.