Context: This is a call in which a father reports his son being trapped beneath a truck.
Operator:
[inaudible 00:00:03] County.
Aaron Solomon:
I'm trying.
Operator: Where is your emergency?
Aaron Solomon: It's 1357 South Water Street. It's off 109. Please hurry.
The question of the location of the emergency is answered. The subject then says, "please hurry." In an emergency, it is expected that the caller is in earnest and will go beyond the boundary of the question.
Yet, the subject does not state what the emergency is, nor for whom emergency services needs to help.
In extremity, operators sometimes have to repeat the question about location.
Why?
Because the caller's priority is the current state of the victim.
Even when the question is answered, the current state of the victim is the expectation. It is front and center of the language because of the immediate need. It is also the priority of the language due to familiar relationship: the father's instincts to help his son.
Operator:
You said 57.
Aaron Solomon:
Please hurry.
Please hurry for what? For whom?
The subject now causes the operator to ask what is the emergency. This is not expected. The scene described by a father is one in which we expect to hear immediately.
Operator:
Okay. What's going on?
Aaron Solomon:
1357. My son's truck backed over him and it's rolled over him and drug him into the ditch and it's on top of him. He's trapped under the truck. Yeah. Somehow it drug him underneath it? Yes, my son is under it. I'm trying to ... No, I'm trying to call 911.
"My son's truck backed over him"
Did the subject witness this?
Note next that there is ongoing action: "my son's truck backed over him and it's rolled over him and drug him into the ditch..."
The truck:
a. backed over him
b. rolled over him
c. drug him into the ditch.
This is an ongoing (element of time) activity.
He then tells us that his son is trapped (emergency) after explaining what happened.
Expected is "my son is trapped!" as the first priority.
The language he has, thus far, used, is to give the details of what a person witnessed. He informed the operator that the truck backed over him, rolled over him and drug him into the ditch and is on top of him.
He then is heard saying, "yeah somehow it drug him underneath it"
Why now the expression of uncertainty?
As the audio continues:
Yes, my son is under it. I'm trying to ... No, I'm trying to call 911.
If the subject is addressing someone else (or others), what would cause the need to affirm that his son is "under it"?
This raises the question that if others are present, why not make the effort to extricate his son?
Operator:
Okay. What's your name?
Aaron Solomon:
Oh my God. My name is Aaron Solomon. Oh my God.
Operator:
And you said you're at 1357 South Water Avenue, right?
Aaron Solomon:
Yes.
Operator:
How old is the male?
Aaron Solomon:
He's 18. He just turned 18 about a month ago. It's my son. Oh my God. Oh my God. This is not good.
References to Deity repeated. The statement "this is not good" is unnecessary.
We wait for him to ask what to do for his son.
Operator:
Is he awake? Can he [inaudible 00:01:08]?
Aaron Solomon:
Oh, please hurry. I don't know. I don't think so. He's not alert, right? No, he is out and he's trapped. I got three guys here and he's trapped under the truck.
"please" has the polite demeanor continuing. What does his son need? What does he need to help his son?
The question is, "is he awake?"
"I don't know,. I don't think so. He's not alert, right?"
Has he checked his son?
Has he spoken to his son?
The expectation is to run to the son,
Where, in proximity to his son, is the subject located? Why isn't he next to his son for this call?
We then get the answer to whom he was speaking to:
I got three guys here and he's trapped under the truck.
He has "three guys here" on the scene, interrupts his 911 call to inform them, yet we hear of no attempt to free his son.
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
Oh my God.
Operator:
I understand, sir. Stay on the phone with me while we get somebody out there. What's your name?
Aaron Solomon:
Aaron Solomon.
Operator:
All right, Aaron.
Aaron Solomon:
Huh?
Operator:
What kind of vehicle is it?
Aaron Solomon:
It's a Toyota Tacoma. And he's underneath the vehicle.
Operator:
Okay. I've got that.
Aaron Solomon:
And-
Operator:
Okay. I've got that. What color is it?
Aaron Solomon:
It's a white truck. That's my son. Somehow it backed up. Yeah. Yeah. I'm on with 911 right now. Oh my God. Oh my God. Oh my God.
"Somehow..."
Does he know this? Did he witness it?
If he came upon a scene in which his son was under a truck, how would he know to even speculate how this happened?
This question is on the mind of the 911 Operator:
Operator:
Was your son working on it?
This is a logical question to a 911 call that is raising concerns for the operator.
Aaron Solomon:
No. No. He was just getting out of it. We're on an incline and I guess he didn't have it in park or something, or it wasn't engaged or ... Oh my gosh. Oh my God. I can't believe this.
The subject affirms to know what happened and the timing ("just") of what happened.
He still does not ask what he can do for his son, nor ask the 3 guys present to help him attempt to free his son.
Time is passing.
Operator:
And you said he's still not responding?
Aaron Solomon:
No. No.
Operator:
And he's still under the truck? No one can get him out from under it?
The operator appears aware of the passage of time in describing what happened.
Does the operator assume that the subject and the three guys made an effort to get him out? It is not something we have heard the subject state.
Aaron Solomon:
No.
He does not say, "no, we tried!" or any such description.
Operator:
We saw units en route to you. I'm just asking you questions so we can update them. Okay? Can you check and see if he's breathing?
Aaron Solomon:
Huh? Somebody's telling me that he's coming to-
Is he not with his son while making this call?
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
... maybe.
Operator:
He is waking up. Try to keep him still. So he is breathing?
Aaron Solomon:
Well, yeah, he can't move. I don't think he can move. I don't know.
The subject does not appear to be aware of his son's state.
Operator:
Okay, I understand.
Aaron Solomon:
No, he can't move. He's trapped.
Operator:
Okay. We got somebody en route. Now when he wakes up, he might be scared. Can somebody just sit down there and talk to him?
The operator recognizes that the father is not with his son.
Aaron Solomon:
Yeah, somebody talk to him.
Why would a father assign this to someone else?
Speaker 3:
[inaudible 00:03:19].
We do not know what the subject now responds to:
Aaron Solomon:
There's blood. Is he facing up or down? He's facing up. They said he may aspirate. We need to hurry. Oh my God.
Operator:
So does he have blood coming out of his mouth?
Aaron Solomon:
Yeah. Yeah. There's blood coming out. Yeah, somehow it drug him down I think. I don't know whether it wasn't in park or what, or if it didn't engage the brake or it drug him underneath somehow.
He offers more information about not knowing, than he offers about his son. His son's status is known because of the questions asked him and information coming from someone else ("they said he may aspirate")
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
They said he's facing up.
Again, we are led to understand that the caller, the teen's father, is not with his son. Apparently, strangers are.
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
But he's bleeding from his mouth. So, Grant, turn your face to the side if you can barely, but be careful.
Operator:
Don't move him. Okay?
Aaron Solomon:
We can't move him. We can't move him. [inaudible 00:04:09].
Operator:
All right. [inaudible 00:04:12] there. I'm going to let you go, okay?
Aaron Solomon:
Yeah. Okay.
Operator:
Okay.
Aaron Solomon:
All right.
Operator:
Uh-huh. Bye-Bye.
Analysis Conclusion: Concerning
Rather than facilitate the flow of information, the subject raises questions about what happened to his son.
The subject is the victim's father.
He does not ask for help or directions on how to help, his son.
He shows a priority of explaining how this happened, and then repeats it, rather than report immediately the state his son was in.
The subject appears to be physically distant from his son. This raises the question as to why a father would not be the closest to his son, not only there for his son, but reporting directly to the operator and receiving instruction on how to help him.
How is it that a father could overcome the natural instinct to be with his entrapped son? What history or background might lend itself to this distance?
The subject does not offer information in a manner that shows priority of saving his son, but causes the 911 operator to ask directly.
Time
I am concerned about the passing of time, as an element, within this call.
Without informing the operator of his son's condition, the caller offers an explanation on what happened in a step by step manner. This is, in the mind of the caller, the element of time passing. He even speculates (unnecessary information) on why it happened.
I am concerned that more time passed here than considered, which is vital to an investigation. It is the perceived passing of time in the caller's mind (revealed in chosen language) that should cause investigators to seek to learn if anything else took place during the passing of time, that the subject is not revealing, while he is thinking of it.
This call is concerning. There may be explanations for its content, but it is the caller, himself, who has raised questions about what happened to his son.
The priority within the language does not indicate the saving of his son, but rather to explain, in steps, how it happened.
45 comments:
"my son's truck backed over him and it's rolled over him and drug him into the ditch..."
Is this his local vernacular?
He does not say "dragged him"
Given he uses this word ("Drug") a few times it may not be a slip but rather his language.
Note next that there is ongoing action: "my son's truck backed over him and it's rolled over him and drug him into the ditch..."
It is all past tense, where is the ongoing action?
"somehow"
This word is repeated and unnecessary in what should be a quest for helping his trapped son.
The word also implies the caller has no knowledge of how the truck backed over him. Why would the caller need to distance himself from how it happened? Involvement would or could explain the need for distancing.
3 guys
OT:
People baffled after delivery driver leaves threatening note despite being tipped 20%
A fancy etiquette guide published by New York magazine The Cut suggests: "At coffee shops, coffee carts, cafés, and bodegas, tip at least 20 percent."
"Even though their pay isn’t as tip dependent as waiters’, the average salary for a barista in New York is just above minimum wage," it argued.
However, after tipping 20 percent on a delivery, you don't expect to receive a letter like this.
Taking to Reddit on Wednesday (13 December), one person shared an aggressive note they allegedly received from their Uber Eats driver.
The customer claimed: "My Uber Eats driver left me this note even after I tipped 20 percent.
"I ordered Uber Eats last night and this morning I found this note on my door. I checked my account and the payment went through along with his tip so I’m not sure why he felt the need to leave me this note."
The note in question was titled: "A**HOLE."
It read: "I'm your neighbour who you cheated last night from SAKE. You are a CREEP low f**king life leech.
"I will notify everyone in the complex of the low life you are.
"I've seen you from time to time, I know who you are.
"So will everyone else.
"'You will reap what you sow'.
"When cancer hits your rotten a**, remember me, creep."
https://www.ladbible.com/lifestyle/food-and-drink/how-are-crab-sticks-made-659065-20231206
Am I the only one who thinks the content on this web site has been deteriorating?
I think this analysis in particular is sloppy.
“My son's truck [backed over] him and it's [rolled over] him and drug him into the ditch”
The caller lists the actions of “backed over” and “rolled over” separately, signalling he sees them as different actions. This speaks to two different things happening. First he says his sons truck “backed over” him and we should ask can a truck back over something without an operator in control of it. Secondly he says it “rolled over” him, by him including that in his description it tells us he sees that action as different to the first. It is common for people to use the description of “rolling” in connection with vehicles. If you take a vehicles hand brake off on a hill it will start to roll down it. The action of rolling is something which happens when something capable of rolling is on an incline and there is nothing to stop it moving such as a brake or barrier etc…
There are no lies in the above from the caller, but there is likely an omission of who was in control of the truck when it did the first action of “backed over”. If the truck had run his son over on its own (driverless) the expected would be “My son's truck rolled over him” as it would be appropriate. That he split the actions into two parts points to there being two different events happening and most likely the “backing over” occurred when the vehicle was under power and under someone’s control.
The possibility of a freak accident should also be considered, perhaps where the son has leaned into the vehicle while it was running and knocked the transmission into drive. That could have caused the accident (if the vehicle design or a fault would allow that). Although in order for the second action “rolled” to occur someone would have had to disengage the transmission.
Adrian.
OT:
“People baffled after delivery driver leaves threatening note despite being tipped 20%”
What do you think about the note John? I am not clued up on how payment and tips work for such services as I don’t use them.
"I ordered Uber Eats last night and this morning I found this note on my door. I checked my account and the payment went through along [with] his tip [so] I’m [not sure] why he felt the need to leave me this note."
There is distance (with) between the payment and his tip which may be appropriate but I don’t know how the payment system works. He then justifies (so) and says “I`m not sure” which is weaker than saying “I don’t know” and allows he may have some incline to why this might have happened. Possibly there was some debating between him the driver over the tip when the delivery was made which lead to animosity. The note is pretty vicious.
Adrian.
What is the purpose of this analysis? Do you think the father drove the truck over his son? I genuinely want to know. The man has three others there helping out, he is distressed and probably scared.
Its just bizzare that you chose this case.
Hi, Adrian
"I ordered Uber Eats last night and this morning I found this note on my door. I checked my account and the payment went through along with his tip so I’m not sure why he felt the need to leave me this note."
"I ordered Uber Eats last night and this morning I found this note on my door.
There is strong first person pronoun (I) Psychologically placing themselves within the statement also taking ownership "My door", And not "the door".
I believe that on it's for alone, this to be a true statement. Along with the aggressive language within the note, i find this (the event) to be true.
It may even be a neighbour?
Yeah, I agree John. I was wondering the reason why the author left the note if the customer had given a tip. He said “My Uber Eats driver left me this note even [after] I tipped 20 percent.”
I don’t know how the system works as in the possible ways of paying, and who the payment goes through etc… Was the drivers payment delayed I don’t know.
I checked my account and the payment went through along [with] his tip [so] I’m [not sure] why he felt the need to leave me this note."
I was wondering where his uncertainty came from when he said “I’m [not sure] why” as opposed to “I don’t know why”. It allows he might have some idea regarding the reason. Looking at his original statement he said –
My Uber Eats driver left me this note even [after] I tipped 20 percent.”
He uses the word “after” which speaks to a later point of time. He could have said “though” (despite the fact) which would have been strong. Whatever happened one things for sure the deliver guy was very upset about it.
Adrian.
Merry Christmas Peter and to your Family! May God bless you and yours abundantly now and in the new year!
Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle and Madison Mogen were killed Sunday, November 13, 2022 off campus at the University of Idaho. She then saw a “figure clad in black clothing and a mask that covered the person's mouth and nose walking towards her,” the affidavit
I think the weirdo neighbor who gave all the interviews, participated in these murders.
The trail is still to come…
But if you replay all of the things that the neighbor said, it seems that he was apart of the murders.!
SO SAD the Idaho crime scene house was destroyed before the trial!
And what up with the Ramsey case being blamed on some innocent person? When John knows full well Patsy pushed open a door that crushed her precious babies skull, after she ( Jon Binet) had been strangled by her brother, with a string set Christmas gift, and laid unconscious, blocking Patsy’s urgent entry into the basement room where she lay. Her head blocking the door … that Patsy so frantically pushed on.. to find her baby
It’s because of the lengthy police interview. They knew.
The only reason he got involved in the zlHolliway case was because his son was on the island at the same time. How horrible of an an egistanse.
How horrible of an existence
OT Update:
Casey Anthony’s Parents Take Lie Detector Tests On-Camera Amid Rumors of Sexual Abuse
Includes VT trailer:
Following bombshell accusations of sexual abuse, Casey Anthony’s parents have agreed to take a lie detector test to squash the unsubstantiated rumors.
In the upcoming two-hour film, “Casey Anthony’s Parents: The Lie Detector Test,” George and Cindy Anthony speak out publicly against their daughter, who was once known as “one of the most hated women in America,” following the 2008 death of her 3-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony.
According to A&E, a camera will capture “real-time responses to the polygraph questions” in the documentary, “along with each spouse’s reaction to the other’s answers and the lie detector results.”
As CrimeOnline reported, Casey Anthony previously said her father may have staged Caylee’s death to cover up his alleged sexual abuse of the girl. She also claimed her father abused her while she was growing up.
“When I was 8 years old my father started to come into my room at night. I was physically hurt . . . scared because I can’t tell mommy what happened, she’ll get mad at me. That’s what I was told,” Anthony told Peacock, according to Daily Mail.
“He’d put a pillow over my face and smother me to knock me out. That happened several times. I’m sure there were times where I was incapacitated as a child where my body was limp and lifeless.”
Anthony alleged that her brother, Lee, also abused her.
“Then my brother started coming in shortly after I turned 12 and it stopped around the time I was 15. It wasn’t the same thing that happened with my father, my brother never raped me, but it was close enough where there was a pattern,” she said.
Subsequently, George Olivo, a retired FBI Special Agent with an extensive 22-year career, administered a polygraph test that both George and Cindy agreed to take amid the unsubstantiated rumors.
While serving as the Senior Polygraph Examiner for the Los Angeles Division of the FBI, he effectively managed the Polygraph program for the second-largest FBI office.
“Casey Anthony’s Parents: The Lie Detector Test” will be simulcast on A&E and Lifetime on Thursday, January 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT.
https://www.crimeonline.com/2024/01/01/casey-anthonys-parents-take-lie-detector-tests-on-camera-amid-rumors-of-sexual-abuse/?fbclid=IwAR0_86stqVTkkDf9RbP1CY_sWph1U1wSqYUSbPOYVPowz-V6J519m6288go
Some one one this blog is haunted by the murder of Casey Anthony. I don’t know much about it other then her statements about a squirrel. There are many murders that haunt me too. I think of it as the spirits or angles of the victims. They were happy people, snd deserve attentive, serious, analysis of any suspicious statements. I have wrongly wondered on this blog about potential suspects. And also am certain about a living Alta, and a Patsy writing a ransom note while looking at Mathew 18. None of it seems to matter when the person who murdered walks free
Ayla
For Linette, above, who wonders why this analysis was chosen, Aaron Solomon was accused of rape by his 14 year old daughter, and she also said she believes her brother was murdered. The "three men" who were supposedly at the scene have never been identified. No one has seen them or the truck they supposedly drove.
John Mc Gowan said...
"Casey Anthony’s Parents Take Lie Detector Tests On-Camera Amid Rumors of Sexual Abuse"
I managed to watch the full program. Casey Anthony is one serious piece of work.
Adrian.
He does NOT say “I tipped.”
The suggestion he tipped us more passive. We can’t assume he did.
This has been a case in a suburb near me. Not going to detract from the analysis of the statement but it’s a very troubling story that caused pain for far too long.
There hasn’t been the same quantity of good analysis. This post is a great analysis though!
Just now my sons , who is homeless in Eugene sent a Spanish reply to my text, perfectly spelt. And alarm bells went off! I called the Eugene FBI and was in a waste land if prerecorded prompts. I am SO worried! Please pray for Daniel. He’s a very good person. He tested into the highly gifted program and somehow started smoking heroin, and traveled to Eugene because he hoped to geographically kick his drug habit,
I received a text from him tonight on Spanish, correctly spelt, it was SO worrisome that I called the Oregon FBI but was only instructed by prerecorded voices to submit on line. I am really worried about by son. Please pray for Daniel.
I’d love to see some analysis of Wendi Adelson! Especially the police interview (which is long) where she discusses “You probably think I’m a suspect” but doesn’t say “I didn’t _____.” Alibi building on “when did you leave house?” “I didn’t leave until…”
Off Topic
Isn’t it really interesting how No and Know are phonetically the same? I always ask my kids, is it no? Or know? And immediately hear for an unreliable denial.
I’m in Alaska with more then 100 inches of snow, it’s mainly unreported on main strem media, as is the yellow light on our natural gas supply in minus 18 degrees. And the city asking us to conserve. Natural gas is clean burning and how we heat our homes in Alaska when we have these weird winters with a ton of snow and minus 18 at night.
I don’t feel like we’re a part of the USA, during the ABC news David Muir asked his weather women if there would be a white Christmas any where in the US snd Ginger Z replied No , there no snow anywhere. When we had record breaking 80 inches at that point. And deal with it.
On the bright side , there’s more then 100 tulip bulbs under the snow that will bloom in the he spring. And with the lengthened daylight, it will be soon.
Parents talk to media after a week off silence.
https://x.com/wsmv/status/1765188113486262554?s=46&t=vUij3uNHZptGJLf6VBC7zw
https://x.com/wsmv/status/1765188113486262554?s=46&t=vUij3uNHZptGJLf6VBC7zw
Here’s Sebastian’s mother and (step) father’s earliest (?) and lengthiest online interview with the YouTuber, Dutchess:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZq1UwSf00I
There’s an auto-generated transcript - the link is at foot of the video info.
OT - Sebastian
Extreme distancing language in the Dutchess interview - CP refers to KP as “the mother” and “his wife” - seems hostile, is he angry with her? He takes control, speaks for his wife, keen to control the narrative, even relating to time during which he was not present.
—
They don’t speak Sebastian’s name in any of the interviews.
—
In the on camera interview the father offered the mother no comfort - not even a pat, or his hand on hers, and she didn’t look for his comfort.
Also, in the on camera interview, Katie says, of the police response, “It was rapid fire” - which made me wonder if a firearm was on her mind; maybe the association was with the police being armed, but why say “it was rapid fire” rather than “rapid response”? Rapid fire questioning, could be a very likely association? “Rapid fire” and gunfire was the first association I made, and that, with all the “combing” references, and no shoes, makes me wonder if there was an accident with a gun which was covered up. In one interview, she didn’t want Sebastian’s face to drop - to the bottom of the feed, or to be covered - by other nonsense. Leakage, possibly, or is all that too much a reach…?
continued…
On the shoes - another possibility, maybe KP took away Sebastian’s shoes to prevent him leaving the house.
If all his shoes were accounted for, could he have left wearing his parents/siblings shoes - have they checked all theirs, too?
They are so insistent that his phone/internet was locked down - won’t even countenance the possibility that he could have bypassed their efforts, or therefore that he could have been lured, but that, to me, seems a possible reason for him to leave, if he did. Kid desperate for friends, meeting a forbidden online friend, outsmarting and defying strict parent/s. They’re doing a lot of combing considering they’re so convinced he couldn’t get online - so maybe not so convinced?
“When I woke him up he was gone” is like Casey Anthony’s dead squirrels climbing into the engine - but in each interview, she does word it differently. “Gone” though, is often dead.
What does Chris mean by “the other side of the bed” - whose bed? Why not “his bed”? Is “the bed” the parents’ bed? Did Sebastian sometimes hide in his parents room? Look for something there? His shoes, a firearm? Katie looked in all the closets. If everything was actually, really, good that day/weekend, how did it end with her looking in all the closets for Sebastian - (maybe also checking for a gun)? Why would he be hiding in closets by the morning if everything had been good when he said goodnight? Was he something of a school refuser, maybe?
Chris seems to have some disdain towards Sebastian, maybe finds him not boy enough, (he’s not even a tomboy - a boyish girl). Katie mocks Sebastian, while missing, for his reaction to a fly. Poor boy, no friends, not allowed online friends, no extra curricula activities, and he also can’t ride the city bus - a quite locked down life for a fifteen year old. Chris describes the friends at school, as “a couple of kids he talks to” - well, if those are the friends, and the level of friendship he’s able to have, good on Sebastian for achieving that in his locked down life.
Understandable he’s restricted, if really he’s much younger than his years - no need for them to diminish him, though.
So, locked down, yet he has a front door key, despite having nowhere to go…we’re they his own keys, or house/parents keys? Did they have a gun locked away that Sebastian might have been able to access?
So - I’m thinking, possibly something involving a gun - an accident, or that he ran away with one, or, defying his stepfather’s strictness, he managed to get round his online restrictions, and was lured outside, and hopefully having a whale of a time with some misguided but well-intentioned kidnapper friend - sounds and probably is implausible, but who wouldn’t have wanted one at some stage in life?
The rapid fire comment, hiding on the other side of the bed, looking through closets - kids and guns; I don’t think they’ve been asked publicly, or volunteered information on whether they keep a gun or guns, but it would be good to rule that out as a possibility.
OT - Sebastian
Forgot to say that in the Dutchess interview, the parents come in at around 23 minutes in.
So strange… I haven’t posted in so long and it was this death that had a statement I was wondering if you had analyzed.
Will read content. It’s just a very weird coincidence that it was their first time together in years and there were accusations against the dad, only known witness. And the accusations against him by his mother about his actions immediately following his passing. It’s DO sad, he looked like a very beautiful young man with promising future. Someone who was willing to mend horrific bridges to attempt a reconciliation with his dad. If his father orchestrated his death do yo think statement analysis can convict him? I’m
The boys clothes lacked any sort of scare marks associated with dragging down a hill.
Did a father who hadn’t seen his son in years really murdyhim within hours?
Why would a father murder his son who he hadn’t seen in years, within hours?
Why did he kill his son?
I was going to ask for an analysis of this statement from the Global Vision Bible Church. 200 bibles were burned in front of their building and this is what the pastor said about it. From the article:
----
He said he hadn’t personally viewed the security footage yet, but went on to describe it. “He’s got his hazard lights on at 5:58 in the morning,” the pastor said. “I’m like, ‘Wow, here’s the most polite crook I’ve ever met in my whole life.’ I’ve never met, you know, polite Satanists.
“And so he unhooks the trailer and douses it with gasoline, with fuel, and then—there were probably 200 Bibles,” Locke continued. “I don’t know where he got them.”
I was going to ask for an analysis of this statement from the Global Vision Bible Church. 200 bibles were burned in front of their building and this is what the pastor said about it. From the article:
----
He said he hadn’t personally viewed the security footage yet, but went on to describe it. “He’s got his hazard lights on at 5:58 in the morning,” the pastor said. “I’m like, ‘Wow, here’s the most polite crook I’ve ever met in my whole life.’ I’ve never met, you know, polite Satanists.
“And so he unhooks the trailer and douses it with gasoline, with fuel, and then—there were probably 200 Bibles,” Locke continued. “I don’t know where he got them.”
Post a Comment