Saturday, January 31, 2015

FBI Complete Ferguson Investigation

The FBI has completed its investigation into the actions of Darren Wilson, of the Ferguson shooting.  They have not released their findings, and it is not yet known if the federal government will move ahead towards further prosecution.

Darren Wilson spoke from experiential memory, and he was truthful in his account of what happened.

The analysis is found here.

The expression,  "hands up" is a popular, but  deceptive phrase.  It does not apply to the Ferguson shooting.

Specifically, Darren Wilson linked himself to the shooting by his language, and responded truthfully in describing not only why he fired, but in his specific details of the situation which caused him to fire his weapon.  He was truthful in his account, seen by employing the same principles of Statement Analysis that are employed in all other statements.

No date for an announcement from Eric Holder has been set.

Statement Analysis shows that the subject, Darren Wilson, spoke truthfully from experiential memory.  Therefore, any prosecution attempts made against the subject must be against the truth of the account.


John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Sidney Moorer still in jail after being granted bond

As of 3 p.m. Saturday, Sidney Moorer was still at J. Reuben Long Detention Center after being granted bond on Friday.

Moorer and his wife Tammy are charged with the murder of Heather Elvis, who has been missing since December 2013.

WPDE NewsChannel 15 was there as Tammy Moorer, Sidney's wife, visited her husband in jail Saturday afternoon for 30 minutes.

On Friday around noon, Judge R. Markley Dennis set bond for the Moorers at $100,000 each on charges related to the disappearance of Heather Elvis.

Around 6pm Friday, Tammy posted bond and was released from the J. Reuben Long Detention Center.

We have not heard about paperwork being filed yet for Sidney to post bond.

We have a crew at the detention center and will continue to update this story as new information comes in.

John Mc Gowan said...

State, defense moving forward after bond granted to Sidney, Tammy Moorer

Myrtle Beach, SC (WMBF) - Experts weigh in on how both sides, the state and the defense, will move forward after Sidney and Tammy Moorer are granted bond.

"This case is emotional, there's no doubt about it," William Monckton said. Practicing law for more than 22 years, and a former solicitor, Monckton is familiar with both sides.

Monckton says it is unusual for bond to be granted so close to the trial date. "Whether the Moorer's are in jail or out on bond, isn't going to change any of the evidence that's already been discovered, the interviews that have been discovered, the evidence is almost static. It's not going to change unless something new occurs," Monckton explained.

After seeing the bond hearing play out on Friday morning, one thing did stick out to Monckton. "The judge asked the state if they had any direct evidence and they did not," Monckton said. Monckton says this means the state could not present any evidence directly linking the Moorer's to Heather's disappearance, and the evidence they do have, is circumstantial.

Monckton feels the biggest challenge for the state will be taking the evidence they do have, and making it line up just right. "If A goes to B, and B goes to C, and C goes to D, and there can be no other path but that," Monckton added.

He said the challenge for the defense would be to prove the opposite. Monckton noted, "to show that there is no evidence, it's pure speculation."

Monckton says if the state cannot get over the point of speculation, the defense could ask for a directed verdict. "Then, the judge will be put in the position that he's going to have to grant a directed verdict which would be a directed verdict of not guilty," Monckton said.

If this case went to a directed verdict, that means a jury would not hear this case, and it would be solely Judge Dennis making that decision.

The trial is scheduled to start in May.

Buckley said...

Darren Wilson Grand Jury Testimony

From Officer Wilson getting out of Police SUV through Brown dead on the ground.

Past tense verbs italicized; present tense verbs bolded. I left out the verbs “know,” “think,” and “remember.”

Question: So how many times does it go off in the car?

A It went off twice in the car. Pull, click, click, went off, click, went off. So twice in the car.

Question: Are you certain?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Okay.

Answer: When I look up after that, I see him start to run and I see a cloud of dust behind him. I then get out of my car. As I'm getting out of the car I tell dispatch, "shots fired, send me more cars." We start running, kind of the same direction that Johnson had pointed. Across the street like a diagonal towards this, kind of like where the parking lot came in for Copper Creek Court and Canfield, right at that intersection. And there is a light pole right there, I remember him running towards the light pole. We pass two cars that were behind my police car while we were running. I think the second one was Pontiac Grand Am, a green one. I don't know if it was a two door or four door, I just remember seeing a Pontiac green Grand Am. When I passed the second one, about that same time he stopped running and he is at that light pole. So when he stopped, I stopped. And then he starts to turn around, I tell him to get on the ground, get on the ground. He turns, and when he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he's coming back towards me. His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running. When he does that, his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me.

Buckley said...

Question: You say under his shirt?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Was he wearing a shirt that was longer than his waistband?
Answer: Yes, ma'am.
Question: So he goes up under the shirt?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Okay. Go ahead.
Answer: That was all done, like I said, the first step, his first stride coming back towards me. As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it. I know I missed a couple, I don't know how many, but I know I hit him at least once because I saw his body kind of jerk or flinched. I remember having tunnel vision on his right hand, that's all, I'm just focusing on that hand when I was shooting. Well, after the last shot my tunnel vision kind of opened up. I remember seeing the smoke from the gun and I kind of looked at him and he’s still coming at me, he hadn't slowed down. At this point I start backpedaling and again, I tell him get on the ground, get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot another round of shots. Again, I don't recall how many him every time. I know at least once because he flinched again. At this point it looked like he was almost bulking up to run through the shots, like it was making him mad that I'm shooting at him. And the face that he had was looking straight through me, like I wasn't even there, I wasn't even anything in his way. Well, he keeps coming at me after that again, during the pause I tell him to get on a the ground, get on the ground, he still keeps coming at me, gets about 8 to 10 feet away. At this point I'm backing up pretty rapidly, I'm backpedaling pretty good because I know if he reaches me, he'll kill me. And he had started to lean forward as he got that close, like he was going to just tackle me, just go right through me.

Question: Can you demonstrate for us how he was leaning forward?
Answer: His hand was in a fist at his side, this one is in his waistband under his shirt, and he was like this. Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me. And when he gets about that 8 to 10 feet away, I look down, I remember looking at my sites and firing, all I see is his head and that's what I shot. I don't know how many, I know at least once because I saw the last one go into him. And then when it went into him, the demeanor on his face went blank, the aggression was gone, it was gone, I mean, I knew he stopped, the threat was stopped. When he fell, he fell on his face.

Present tense verbs (excluding know, remember, think): 49
Past tense verbs: 28

“know”- 10
Remember- 5
Think- 1
Kind of- 6
Like- 12
Start/starts/started- 8

Changes in language-
“Hand” (Brown’s free one) to “one”- (hand Wilson reports is in waistband)- this is done twice
“Step” to “stride”- Wilson self corrects describing Brown’s approach towards Wilson

Buckley said...

I did bold one "know" because it described what he was thinking at the time of the incident as opposed to being what he is aware of at the time he testified.

sidewalk super said...

And here I thought that the race "problem" so loved by holder, sharpton and our elected president, was merely used as a wedge so that the feds could infiltrate the Ferguson police dept, among others, and tilt them toward racial bias.

Sus said...

Do you have a take on why the Grand Jury testimony was in present tense and I would say pretty much "story" form? Yet the previous interview one day after the shooting was in past tense? I do. I wondered what you thought.

Buckley said...

Sus- There are sensitivities in both interviews around this same part of the narrative. In the police interview we see it more in dropped pronouns and a few present tense verbs, here in more present tense verbs. Peter concluded no deception but he noted sensitivities around Brown charging him, place and distance, about his hand in the waistband/fear of weapon. So if you're asking me why one seems reliable and one doesn't, I disagree with the premise.

Buckley said...

Pace, not place

Buckley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Buckley said...

Still charging, hands still in his waistband, hadn't slowed down.

The pace of the charge has a dropped pronoun, reducing reliability on the speed or pace of the charge. Sometimes one will drop a pronoun in broken sentences, but after "still charging, hands..." there should have been a pronoun "he hadn't slowed down" there.

I fired another set of shots. Same thing, still running at me hadn't slowed down, hands still in his waistband.

The hands in "his" waistband" here, is more reliable now that he used the pronoun "his", but regarding the pace, there is only "still running" and not "he was still running" or even "he is" (PTSD possible, as during the critical point, the subject may be re-living the most pressing part of the event)

He gets about eight to ten feet away, a he's still coming at me in the same way. I fired more shots. One of those, however many of them hit on him in the head and he went down right there. When he went down his hand was still under his, his right hand was still under his body looked like it was still in his waistband. I never touched him. I said urn, got on the
radio and said, "Send me every car we got and a supervisor." Fifteen to twenty seconds later, two marked cars show up, code three sirens and lights on. They started blocking everything off. A moment later my supervisor shows up and he sent me to the police station.

There is reduced commitment about the distance and pace. This may be sensitivity or it may be that he struggles to recall but when he uses "fired", he goes to the reliable past tense. I do not find his statement about pace and distance strongly reliable. He may not know, or it may be sensitive to him, but we can only commit to what he commits.

The ballistics should give an accurate account of the distance.

Please note that this is sandwiched between two reliable accounts.

"I never touched him" is very important to the subject, as it is in the negative and we do not know if he was asked, "Did you touch him?"

This would be an important topic to explore in the interview.

The waistband and the hand "like" is not strong. This may be an attempt to justify the belief that the suspect was armed but he does not say that he believed the suspect was armed at this point; at least, not yet. We do know that he believed the suspect was not only aggressive, but stronger and was coming "at" him, in a personal way.

Buckley said...

I should have clarified, that's Peter's analysis above.

Sus said...

"I never touched him." stood out to me, also. Of course, it must be remembered there was immediate backlash, with onlookers walking past and witnesses yelling comments. Darrin Wilson was aware of what he would be asked when he was interviewed.

I think only the original interview is good for SA purposes. By Grand Jury testimony, Darrin Wilson had gone over the account too many times, and possibly with the attorneys who seemed to use only present tense. Not to take away from the family who lost a son, but the signs point to Darrin Wilson also suffering. Remember that he had childhood trauma. Research shows that makes him a prime candidate for PTSD. He might have been displaying that in the Grand Jury.

Buckley said...

I would think going over it, it would be more "reliable."

I'm told to apply SA principles evenly and consistently, so that's what I'm going to do. The whole PTSD thing seems to make excuses for why we shouldn't apply principle fairly and consistently. It's a diagnosis of a medical condition of the subject. The subject is dead; the statement is alive. I'm sticking with the statement.

Buckley said...

Also, as I said when Peter posted the analysis- I don't think Wilson should be charged. Brown attacked him, he defended himself, aside from possible attitude on both sides, Brown began the assault against an armed officer and put himself in this deadly encounter.

However, I think as you said Brown knew what needed to be said and exaggerated the charge of Brown, exaggerated the hand in waistband thing, and, in doing so, exhibited some flags if deception. So when there are flags of deception present, I think it's oversimplified and misleading to say "no deception indicated."

Buckley said...

Arg..."Wilson knew what needed to be said."

Sus said...

I disagree with your comment that PTSD is used, or may be used, as an excuse. It can be discerned in a statement, but you have to use context. The statement of a person with PTSD is different than one who is deceiving or incorrect. The person with PTSD will show almost constant signs that the action is replaying in his/her mind. He or she sees it replayed and tries to make sense of it. Darren Wilson's Grand Jury testimony was such an example.