Monday, January 30, 2017

The Determination of the Will


In the interview process, most all subjects want to tell us what happened. 


This is attributed not only to the difficulty of human nature in keeping silent.  The use of isolation can produce a complete psychological breakdown.  
Each one of us has an innate or created need to communicate.  It is here that trained listening will bring the greatest results. 

In guilty subjects, the will must determine "will I speak, or will I be silent?  If I speak, I will get caught, but if I don't speak..."

In analytical interviewing, the analyst often already knows what happened and in guilt, already knows that the subject did it.  

Therefore, the investigator can now learn and gauge where the subject's will is, regarding his personal need to justify his guilt.  (please review the article on Moral Narcissism and employment for further understanding this need that we all possess).  

                   Interview versus Interrogation 

The interview is different from the interrogation, even if held in the same session.  The interview begins with open ended legally sound, non-intrusive questions.  

The 'magic questions' are:

"What happened?"

followed by

"What happened, next?"

We listen. 

We analyze.  

We will soon get to "why?." 

Because the investigator took a statement before the interview, he knows to use the subject's own language rather than be deceived by subjective meaning.  Polygraph Examiners who do not contaminate tests and use strictly the subject's own language will reduce error and inconclusive results.  

The trained analyst/investigator  asks the subject to define terms in which the context does not.  However, when it comes to sexual assault, he does not project his own definition of any sexual term; he asks,

"what does _____ look like?" or

"what, actually is _______", no matter the term. 

Investigators who follow this rule (child protective social workers use it strictly) are almost aways surprised by what people mean by "sex" when the subject gives his explanation.  It is a wide open subjective field that can, at times, shock us.  

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" would have produced a passed polygraph results if the question was asked according to President Clinton's definition.  If he was asked, "What is 'sexual relations'? first, and his definition now employed, he would not pass a polygraph.  He stated, later, that he "technically told the truth" because of his internal subjective definition of "sexual relations" is limited to "intercourse."  He admitted he intended to deceive by its employ. 

This training is invaluable to Sex Crimes investigators as they not only have legally sound interviewing, but learn the linguistic signals of sexual abuse, sexual assault and sexual homicide.  See the language of Amanda Knox analyzed here in the blog for a primer.  Although the language shows she did not inflict the fatal blow, she possessed guilty knowledge of the sexual homicide 'in concert' which is why she initially lied in her attempt to put an innocent man in prison.  We act according to the dynamic measurement of our will. She had a choice to make and was willing to send an innocent man to prison.  This was the exercise of her will, and she has her reason.   In this case, statement analysis and behavioral analysis were in agreement.  

In our Law Enforcement Seminars, the officer's previous training (Reid, etc) is employed yet enhanced to include strong principles of detecting deception and how to obtain the information discerning the subject's will in revealing it.  Advanced or private seminars go even further.   For specific training, visit our website and email us at for details.  

                             Motive and Justification. 

Most guilty subjects will, at some point in the interview, (if the interviewer is listening) while in the free editing process, seek to justify his action.  This, too, is part of human nature.  Recall the recent "moral narcissism" in which we recognize that all humans have a need to feel "good" about themselves.  Those with unresolved guilt often produce an acute need, which is easily exploited by a politician.  This leads a subject to illogic and even self-abuse. (the victim defending the perpetrator in order to feel 'superior'...the embracing of enemies in the name of tolerance...etc). 

"I was giving her her bottle and she would not drink it..." 

In shaken baby syndrome, a moment of yielding to impulse can destroy lives.  Here, the guilt shows a need to justify the action by blaming the victim.  

This is also common in rape and murder cases. 

The perpetrator finds, even in subtle means, a way to justify the victim for being a victim.  Even while feigning innocence, the perpetrator will give himself away. 

"My mom had a gambling problem."  Nathan Carman.  This is a subtle complaint about his mother and now Carman, after the shooting death of his grandfather, and now the death of his mother, is the recipient of a reported 10 million dollars. 
filming 20/20 on Nathan Carman investigation 

"...Teenaged hormones..." Billie Jean Dunn

After the interview is completed, the investigator moves to the interrogation.  

The interrogation reverses the percentage of talking. 

In the interview, the subject does 80% (or more!) of the talking and we do the listening and analyzing.  

Now, the interrogation includes accusation of guilt.  The analysis has shown guilt, time, method and often even motive, but  guilty subjects have a powerful need to justify even the most barbaric of acts.  

The guilty subject has the same innate feeling of wanting to be seen as a "good" or "righteous" person as everyone else.  

Whether he wants to indict the victim or society in general (including humiliation), the subject had his reason and the subject possesses the desire to be heard and understood.

It is human nature to justify:  

The powerful or 'magical' question is no longer, "Tell me what happened" as before.  It is now:

                                      "Why did you do it?"

followed by, "I am not asking you if you did it.  I already know that.  You've told me repeatedly, so I want to know why.  Why did you do it?   Why?"

The following is a second entry from the 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards on the will of man. 

Remember, there is no such thing as truly "free" will in our interviewees. 

If you offered me a "free choice" between Maine lobster and liver, my "will", that is, the crossed of my intellect and emotions, goes into play. 

I choose lobster. 

Yet, I have never tasted liver. 

I did, however, grow up with seeing kids making funny faces when told "now finish your liver, Johnny!" but I have no experience with the tasting of liver. 

My 'will' was dramatically impacted towards lobster even though I don't know what liver tastes like.  

In a technial sense I was free to choose liver but in a most practical sense, my will was never free and independent of outside forces.  

This is something new parents, sooner or later, know, as they attempt to establish a strong reference point for their children in choosing right from wrong.  Those who abdicate this responsibility so to keep their child "free" find the consequences later in life most distressing.    

Learn the will, and learn how, based upon the analysis of the written statement, (or for advanced analysts, on the discourse analysis on the fly during the interview) and assist the guilty subject in fulfilling his desire to not only unburden himself, but to justify himself.

       "The will is always determined by the strongest motive or by the mental view that has the greatest tendency to arouse volition."

             The Determination of the Will
                                                 by Jonathan Edwards

If the phrase, ‘determining the will’ is to be used with any meaning, it must be causing it to be the case that the act of the will, or the
choice, should be thus and not otherwise: and the will is said to be ‘determined’ when some event or influence causes its choice to be directed to and fixed upon a particular end.

As when we speak of the ‘determination of motion’, meaning causing the motion of the body to be in this direction rather than that. The determination of the will involves an effect, which must have a cause. If the will is determined, some- thing must determine it. This is part of what ‘determination’ means, even for those who say that The will determines itself. If it does, then it is both determiner and determined; it is a cause that acts and has an effect on itself, and is the object of its own influence and action.
With respect to the great question ‘What determines the will?’, there is no need now to go into a tedious study of all the various answers that have been given to it; nor do I need here to go into details of the disputes about that other ·related· question ‘Does the will always follow the last dictate of the understanding?’ All I need to say for my purposes is this: What determines the will is the motive that the mind views as the strongest. But perhaps I should explain my meaning a little.

By ‘motive’ I mean the whole of whatever it is—whether it’s one thing or many things acting together as one complex motive—that moves, excites, or invites the mind to ·perform an act of· volition. . . .
Whatever is a ‘motive’ (in this sense) ·for a person· must be something that that person’s understanding or perceiving faculty has in its view. Nothing can encourage or invite the mind to will or act in any way except to the extent that it is perceived or is somehow in the mind’s view; for what is out of the mind’s view can’t affect the mind at all. . . .

And I don’t think it can be denied that anything that is properly called a ‘motive’—anything that induces or arouses a perceiving willing agent to act in some specific way—has some tendency to move or arouse the will on the way to the effect. [Edwards writes ‘. . . tendency or advantage to move . . . ’ etc. He seems to mean that the motive (a) tends to etc. or (b) is especially well placed to etc. In future occurrences of this sort, the word ‘advantage’ will be allowed to stand.] Instances of such tendency or advantage can differ from one another in kind and in degree. A motive’s tendency to move the will is what I call its ‘strength’: the strongest motive is the one that appears most inviting, and is viewed by the person’s mind in such a way as to have the
greatest degree of tendency to arouse and induce the choice; a weaker motive is one that has a lesser degree of previous advantage or tendency to move the will—i.e. that appears less inviting to the mind in question. Using the phrase in this sense, I take it that the will is always determined by the strongest motive.
Something that exists in the view of a mind gets its strength, tendency, or advantage to move or excite the will from many features of:

the nature and circumstances of the thing that is viewed,
the nature and circumstances of the viewing mind, and
the intensity of the view, and its type.

It would perhaps be hard to make a complete list of these. But there can’t be any controversy about this general fact: if something x has the nature and influence of a motive to volition or choice for some thinking and willing agent, x is considered or viewed
·by that agent· as good; and how much tendency x has to get the soul to choose to pursue it is proportional to how good x appears to the soul. If you deny this, you’ll have to accept that x’s appearance tends to invite or persuade the soul to desire x through some means other than appearing desirable to x. [Edwards puts this in terms of getting the soul to ‘elect’ x through something other than appearing ‘eligible’.] It must be true in some sense that the will is always as the greatest apparent good is. But if you are to understand this correctly, there are two things you must get clear about.

(1) You must know what I mean by ‘good’—namely, the same as ‘agreeable’. To ‘appear good to the mind’, as I use the phrase, is to appear agreeable to the mind or to seem pleasing to it. If something x is considered as evil or disagreeable, it won’t appear inviting and desirable to the mind, tending to get it to want and choose x; it won’t even appear to the mind as ‘indifferent’ ·in the sense of being· neither agreeable nor disagreeable. If x is to draw the inclination and move the will, it must be seen as something that suits the mind. Thus, the thing that is viewed by the mind as having the greatest tendency to attract and engage it is the thing that suits the mind best and pleases it most—and is in that sense the greatest apparent good. To deny that what draws the will is the greatest apparent good is near enough to an outright contradiction.

 The word ‘good’ in this sense also covers the removal or avoiding of evil or of whatever is disagreeable and unpleasing. It is agreeable and pleasing to avoid what is disagreeable and unpleasing and to have uneasiness removed. This brings in what Locke thinks determines the will. He says that what determines the will is ‘uneasiness’, by which he must mean that when anyone performs a volition or act of preference, his end or aim is to avoid or remove that uneasiness; which is the same as choosing and seeking what is more easy and agreeable.
(2) When I say that. . . .volition has always for its object the thing that appears most agreeable, take careful note—to avoid confusion and needless objections—that I’m speaking of the direct and immediate object of the act of volition, and not some indirect and remote upshot of the act of will. Many acts of volition lead eventually to something different from the thing that is most immediately willed and chosen. For example, when a drunkard has his liquor before him and has to choose whether or not to drink it, the immediate possible upshots that his will is taking account of are his own acts in drinking or not drinking the liquor, and he will certainly choose according to what presents itself to his mind as over-all the more agreeable. . . .
But there are also more remote upshots of this act of volition, pairs of possible outcomes that are less directly settled by this present choice, such as:
the present pleasure the man expects by drinking, and the future misery that he thinks will be the consequence of his drinking.
He may think that this future misery, when it comes, will be more disagreeable and unpleasant than refraining from drinking now would be. But in approaching this present act of volition, he is not choosing between these two things—

·near-future discomfort? or remote-future misery·? The act of will we are talking about involves a different choice:

drink now? or not drink now?

If he wills to drink, then
drinking is the proper object of the act of his will; something makes drinking now appear more agreeable to him and to suit him better than not drinking now. If he chooses to refrain, then not drinking is the immediate object of his will and is more pleasing to him ·than drinking·. If in his choice he prefers a present pleasure to a future advantage that he thinks would be greater when it came, then a lesser present pleasure appears more agreeable to him than a greater advantage further off. If on the contrary a future advantage is preferred, then that appears most agreeable and suits him best. And so still the present volition is as the greatest apparent good at present is.

There are two ways of expressing the thesis I have been defending. There’s the one I have used:

(a) The will always is as the greatest apparent good, or
he will always
is as what appears most agreeable.

And there is the one I have chosen not to use:
(b) The will is always
determined by the greatest apparent good, or
The will is always
determined by what appears most agreeable.

I have used (a) because appearing most agreeable to the mind and being preferred by the mind seem to be scarcely distinct (·and if x is almost the same thing as y, it is better to say ‘x is as y’ than to say ‘x is determined by y’·).... I like to say that volition itself is always determined by whatever it is in or about the mind’s view of the object that causes it to appear most agreeable. I say ‘in or about the mind’s view of the object’ because the influences that make an object agreeable are not confined to what appears in the object as viewed, but also include how it is viewed and the state and circumstances of the viewing mind. To enumerate all those influences in detail would be a hard task, and might require a book to itself. My present purpose doesn’t require this, so I shall confine myself to some general points.

(1) When someone is considering whether to choose to  pursue some state of affairs S, how agreeable S appears to him to be will depend on various properties that S has and various relations that it enters into. 

Here are three examples:

(a) Features that S appears to have just in itself, making it beautiful and pleasant or ugly and unpleasant to the mind.

(b) The amount of pleasure or unpleasure that appears to come with S or to result from it. Such accompaniments and consequences are viewed as relational properties [Edwards calls them ‘circumstances’] of the object, and should therefore count as belonging to it—as it were parts of it.

(c) How far off in time the pleasure or unpleasure appears to be. The mind finds the temporal nearness of a pleasure to be agreeable, and finds a pleasure’s temporal remoteness to be disagreeable; so that if upshots S and S* appear to the mind to be exactly alike in how much pleasure they involve, and alike in every other respect except that S is temporally closer than S*, the mind will find S to be the more agreeable of the two, and so will choose it. The two upshots are equally agreeable considered in themselves, but not with their relational properties taken into account, because S has the additional agreeableness of the relational property of being temporally nearer.

(2) Another thing that helps to make it the case that upshot S, as viewed by a particular mind, is agreeable is how that mind views S. If S appears to be connected with future pleasure, its agreeableness will be affected not only by the amount of pleasure ·and the apparent temporal nearness of that pleasure·, but also facts about how that future pleasure is registered in the mind in question—especially by the following two.
(a) As well as the question of how far in the future the mind thinks the pleasure is, there is the question of how sure it is that there will be such pleasure. It is more agreeable to have a certain happiness than an uncertain one; and a  pleasure viewed as more probable is, other things being equal, more agreeable than one viewed as less probable.
(b) Agreeableness is also affected by the liveliness or the strength of the present idea or thought [Edwards writes ‘idea or apprehension’] of the future pleasure. When we are thinking about things past, present or future, our ideas of them vary greatly in their clarity, liveliness and strength. The ideas of sense-perceptible things that we get from immediate sensation are usually much livelier than the ones we have in mere imagination or in thinking about them in their absence. My idea of the sun when I look at it is more vivid than when I only think of it. Our idea of an apple’s taste is usually stronger when we eat it than when we only imagine it. And if we think about something at several different times, the ideas we have at those times may differ in strength and clarity. . . . Well, the strength of the idea or the sense that men have of future good or evil has a great influence on what volitions they perform. Suppose someone has to choose between two kinds of ·possible· future pleasure S and S* which he regards as equally pleasurable and equally probable; if he has a livelier present sense of S he is much more likely to pursue it than to pursue S*. Going after the pleasure of which he has a strong and lively sense is more agreeable to his mind now than going after the pleasure of which he has only a faint idea. His view of S is accompanied by the stronger appetite, the ·thought of· not having S is accompanied by the stronger uneasiness; and it is agreeable to his mind to have its appetite gratified and its uneasiness removed. Suppose now that someone has to choose from among several ·possible· future pleasures, which differ among themselves in respect of
how great he thinks each pleasure will be, how lively his idea is of each pleasure, and how probable he thinks each pleasure is;  with none of the candidates being at the top in each respect. In such a case, the over-all agreeableness that determines his volition will be in some way compounded out of the above three factors, because all three jointly settle how agreeable a given objective is now, and that is how volition will be determined.
How agreeable or disagreeable a possible object of choice is to someone’s mind depends in part on the person’s over-all state of mind. This includes
·very durable· features that are part of his basic nature,
·fairly durable· features caused in him by education, example, custom, etc., and
temporary features that constitute his mood at this moment.
·Because of the third of these·, one object may differ in how agreeable a given person finds it at different times. ·And then there are inter-personal differences·. Some men find it most agreeable to follow their reason; others to follow their appetites. To some men it is more agreeable to deny a vicious inclination than to gratify it; for others it’s the other way around. People differ in how disagreeable they find it to oppose something that they used to support. In these and many other respects, different things will be most agreeable to different people, and even to one person at different times.
[In the next paragraph Edwards says that perhaps those frame-of-mind features affect volition only through affecting how the person’s mind views the nature and relational properties of S, and/or how lively the person’s idea of S is; and if that is so, it is needless and even wrong to mention ‘frame of mind’ as something additional to the preceding two. Then:] Anyway, this much is certain: volition always pursues the greatest apparent good, in the way I have explained. The mind’s choice always picks on the one of  the available options that appears to be over-all the most agreeable and pleasing. I am saying this about the direct and immediate objects of the will, ·not the remote or indirect ones·. If the immediate objects of the will are a man’s own actions, then he wills the actions that appear most agreeable to him. If right now what is most agreeable to him, all things considered, is to walk, then he now wills to walk. [Other examples are given. Then:]
When men act voluntarily, doing what they please, then they do what suits them best or what is most agreeable to them.
There is scarcely a plainer and more universal dictate of the sense and experience of mankind than that. To say that someone
does what he pleases, i.e. does what pleases him, and yet
does not do what is agreeable to him amounts to saying that he
does what he pleases but does not act his pleasure
[Edwards’s exact phrase],
and that amounts to saying that

he does what he pleases and yet doesn’t do what he
The upshot of all this is that in some sense the will always follows the last dictate of the understanding. In what sense? Well, the ‘understanding’ must be taken in a broad sense as including the whole faculty of
perception or thought, not merely ·the part of it· that is called reason or judgment. Suppose we take ‘the dictate of the understanding’ to mean ‘whatever reason declares to be best, or most conducive to the person’s happiness, over the long haul’, it’s not true that the will always follows the last dictate of the understanding. [Edwards goes on to say that when we are considering how to act, the dictates of reason will be one ingredient in the mix  
 of relevant considerations; but it doesn’t always outweigh all the others.]

I hope that what I have said in this section somewhat illustrates and confirms the thesis that I advanced near the start of the section, namely that the will is always determined by the strongest motive or by the mental view that has the greatest tendency to arouse volition. Even if I haven’t had the good fortune to explain what the strength of motives consists in, that won’t overthrow the thesis itself, which is fairly evident just on the face of it. It will be centrally important in the rest of this book; and I hope that its truth will show up very clearly by the time I have finished what I have to say on the subject of human liberty. 


Anonymous said...


This was posted on the "Hope for Haley" webpage for Haley Dunn...

Dearest Hope For Hailey Family,
Hailey was laid to rest surrounded by her family and loved ones. Both sides of the family were notified and those that were able to come were there. Some were unreachable by phone, but fortunately word was passed along though the the Justice of peace and or family lines and of course Facebook.
It was a lovely service, and an empty space in our family's life has been partially refilled knowing Hailey is truly home.
She lays under a beautiful tree in a garden. If butterflies were drawn to any area this would be it.
We sent notes, pictures, a stuffed animal, memorial jewelry and David, Hailey's brother, pinned our last Hope for Hailey ribbon to Hailey's spray of flowers upon her casket.
So many tears and yet we were also finally able to laugh and enjoy the precious memories of Hailey together with a lighter heart.
My God you are so loved my precious baby. I love you Hailey and our fight for Justice continues here while you fly with the angels...and butterflies
Thank you all for the love, prayers, flowers and endless support. Our girl finally has peace!
Billie and family


Statement Analysis Blog said...


I continue to hope for a prosecutor to have the courage to charge both Billie Jean Dunn and Shawn Adkins.

Had this been done years ago, I believe Adkins would have flipped.

I know few grasp this but national exposure can work against justice.


Anonymous said...


I agree about national exposure working against justice. Social media can be equal parts helpful and detrimental, depending on its use.

Any ideas why they are just now laying Hailey to rest?

Is there any significance in her body posture references on this post, or is it just the language, such as "she lays under..." I am very interested in your analysis of this post as compared to her early statements, considering she uses Hailey name so much now, and yet still includes "we" and "our"

Thanks for your response to my comment. It always brightens my day when I see you responding on your blog and interacting with posters.


GeekRad said...

I agree Peter, had this been done years ago Shawn would have flipped. I still can't believe they haven't charged him with so much evidence against him. Now that Hailey has been laid to rest Billie is vowing to find her killer. Maybe she will turn up the heat and provide some detials not provided before.

Anonymous said...

Peter, you once posed a philosophical idea to me... If free will exists, there is no God. I've thought about it many times and have tried to understand with these thoughts.

Life is a journey, a voyage on the River of Fate, and each of us is afloat on that river, carried on its currents towards our ultimate fate, whether we know it or not. When and how we will die is already laid out before us, but how we live our lives is our choosing. 

Like a river, we can change the course of our lives before we meet our final destination, but all rivers eventually lead to the sea, and so also all life eventually leads  to death (fate).  Some will have their lives steered for them, towards a future predestined by God (destiny).

We are like a canoe (free will) in a river. We are free to somewhat navigate the stream and are yet continually drawn to the eventual outcome. For free will (canoe) to exist, it must be free of any influence (river) 

Anonymous said...

Every moral action we take has a right and a wrong response and we take them constantly every day all throughout our lives.

Libertarian free will is the position that an unsaved sinner is still able to freely choose God in spite of his sinful nature (John 3:16; 3:36).

John said...

What's in a name?

This explains why, during the Obama years, we were not told the name of various murderers initially, giving time to build a false narrative that main stream media could carry.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Regarding a person's will and how to measure (it only takes 51%) it in a criminal investigation, when it comes to counter-terrorism, politicians like to name organizations and avoid ideology. This is a very good article:

I am curious to hear thoughts, especially in light of Nazism as an ideology was studied, and named, even though many (resistance) Germans did not adhere to it.


Anonymous said...

Facts Journalists Know, But Won't Report...

1. Trump did not create a law. His executive order carried out an existing law.

2. The text of Trump's executive order on immigration does not list any particular countries. That formula was in the existing law that his order is carrying out.

3. The law Trump is carrying out is the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, which was signed into effect by Barack Obama.

Obama banned Iraq migration for 6 months in 2011. Clinton and both Bushes banned immigrants by class. Carter banned Iranians during the hostage crisis, FDR interned Japanese, Italians and Germans during WWII. What were those bans? Forgotten?

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

LC said...

Geek -
Since Billie is Complicit in the death of Hailey, I doubt any true details of her involvement with Shawn will surface (through Her).
BJD views herself as saavy in the use of Social Media, and likely is just blowing smoke with that comment.
What Date was the post published?
Perhaps now that the publicity about this case has subsided, Shawn might just feel 'safe' enough to accidently allow something to Slip...?
I hope the ebb and flow of exposure might finally lead to justice.

Tania Cadogan said...

off topic

On a March morning nearly five years ago, a 15-year-old California high school cheerleader vanished as she walked from her home in Santa Clara County to her school bus stop.

Sierra LaMar's body has never been found, but authorities charged a 21-year-old man with her murder and kidnapping, allegations that could sentence him to death if he's convicted in a trial set to begin this week.

LaMar's disappearance sparked a massive search by air and land for the girl who came to be known as "Everyone’s Daughter" on T-shirts and posters. A sophomore at Sobrato High School, LaMar was last seen around 6 a.m. March 16, 2012, when she left her Morgan Hill home for the bus stop.

A day later, authorities found the teen's cellphone and her handbag -- with her clothes neatly folded inside -- along the side of the road near her home. The condition of the phone indicated it had likely been tossed from a vehicle.

Antolin García-Torres, a high school dropout, was arrested in May 2012 and charged with murder and attempting to kidnap three other women in 2009. Prosecutors said they had strong physical evidence linking him to LaMar -- including traces of her DNA found in the trunk of his car.

"We believe we have probable cause that he committed the kidnapping and murder of Sierra LaMar," County Sheriff Laurie Smith announced following the arrest of Garcia-Torres, who has pleaded not guilty.

District Attorney Jeff Rosen is seeking the death penalty -- despite no body being recovered -- and prosecutors must argue their case without an autopsy or murder weapon.

Defense attorneys, meanwhile, are expected to argue that LaMar may still be alive, Fox affiliate KTVU-TV reported.

If prosecutors fail to get a conviction, Garcia-Torres cannot be tried again even if new evidence is recovered in the case, according to the San Jose Mercury News.

The murder trial is set to begin Monday with the selection of alternate jurors and opening statements.

Anonymous said...

Remembering Ernst Janning.

He "didnt know it would come to this", and Spencer said: Herr Janning, it "came to that" the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent".

Gotta be careful. It can happen again. Herr Hanning appears to have been a decent, upstanding, outstanding man.

Anonymous said...

Ideology can be dangerous. Resisting it also can cross the line to an extreme recourse. The movie is important to remember, although a composite of the trials. Security of the state is vital. But look at the results. Like a powerful invisible influence invaded and 'came down with great wrath, knowing the time is short'.

Anonymous said...

Its so much easier to make a mess than it is to clean up a mess. Trumps trying to clean up a HUUUUGE mess. How did so many people go crazy? Someone encouraging riots at airports isnt arrested? Try that in Russia leftys!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Well, they arent trying to stop and deligitimize trump just to do it. They're afraid of a total trump affect swamp drain in Europe. Desperately trying to derail him now b4 the european elections. Wonder how canadians feel now that trudeau invited them into canada. Did he ask canadians if thats ok?

Anonymous said...

Mike Moore's at it agin. Agitating to riot(protest) Trumps supreme court announcement today.

Anonymous said...

When's he gonna be sued or arrested for incitement to riot?

Anonymous said...

Why is Amazon boss Bezos interfering in US national security? And I dont want to shop at Amazons grocery stores that track my every move via cell phone gps and facial recognition just so they can operate nearly without store employees. And I dont want a drone delivering an Amazon package to my house when the UPS and USPS does a good job already.

Anonymous said...

Moore lives in a corrupt state, so don't be too unkind. Perhaps all the states are now corrupt, idk.