Friday, July 7, 2017

Bill Clark, Journalist Reports Abuse by Police

Bill Clark wrote that he was terrorized by police which has now given him a perspective on what it must be like to be a "minority" and pulled over by police.  

Police released video to counter his assertion.  First is his statement, then analysis, and then video. 

Was he truthful?

Is this a difference in perspective?

If Bill Clark lied, he had to fabricate reality to do so.  What would a profile suggest?

I have added some emphasis common to analysis to highlight some sensitivity points. 

Note that in this account where he felt his life was in danger, the specific location of emotions.  These are in the perfect portion of the story.  The perfect location is logical. 

It is also a signal of artificial editing, as in truthful accounts, unless many years have passed where the trauma has been processed, it is an indication of artificial placement. 

Note also the passivity.  Passivity removes or conceals responsibility.  At points of passivity, we ask why the subject would employ such?

The subject is a journalist who knows well how to write.  

Ol' Clark has run-in with the law

After over three million miles of driving and using my turn signals religiously, Ol’ Clark was pulled over for not signaling a right turn, giving me a chance to better understand how minority motorists feel when they are pulled over for the most trivial reason, or no reason at all.

Here’s Ol’ Clark’s story.

The intersection of Grace Lane and Lake of the Woods Road carries a heavy traffic load to major subdivisions all the way south to highway 63. Cars on Grace Lane can go either left or right at Lake of the Woods, where traffic does not stop. It can be a very dangerous corner.

On one recent evening, I left my gym half a block south of the intersection and, upon reaching the stop sign, I stopped and remarked to myself that I couldn’t believe there was no traffic in either direction. There was only a car a block behind me.
My stop had been total, not rolling. I turned right and headed toward Interstate 70. Within 100 yards, red lights flashed behind me, seeming to come from nowhere. I pulled over to allow an emergency vehicle to pass, stopping in the intersection with Bull Run Drive. Then I realized the lights were for me.

note the inclusion of emotion.  A truthful account of a trauma will not only have a basic form of reliability of:

25% into
50 % account
24% post account, 

but it will have the emotions in the post account portion.  


Because it takes time to process trauma.  (genuine trauma)

I was now blocking traffic onto Bull Run, so I rolled slowly forward to a shoulder wide enough for both vehicles. The move made sense.
Wrong move!

Note that he did not drive his car but "rolled"

Note the inclusion of hina clause as to why, in blue coloring as his explanation of "why" he did this.  As unnecessary information it is very sensitive. 

I’m lucky I didn’t get shot. 

Here is his statement that warrants buttressing.  What did he witness that would lead him to believe he was "lucky" (chance) to not get shot?

Note this statement is in the negative.  

Truthful people tell us what happened and what was said, and what happened after.  We take careful note when one reports what did not happen.  

Note the element of time:  

Sirens wailed and when I stopped, two officers were out of the sheriff’s vehicle. When I reached over to turn off the radio and then take my wallet out of my pocket to produce the driver’s license and insurance card, I realized my hands were not at the top of my steering wheel. 

Note inclusion of "realized", which also focuses upon the element of time, as realization is a time processing of the brain.  

Note he reports where his hands were not. (rule of the negative_ 

Danger lurked and official arrogance was to follow.

Note the passive voice used in this sentence.

Note he does not say who posed the danger, nor to whom danger lurked, 

Note he does not tell us who was arrogant, nor how it followed.  

I had no idea why I had been stopped.

Here is a statement that is not to be believed.  Everyone has an idea about everything.  

 I rolled down the window 

note the slowing down of the pace.  Lying causes internal stress and it is to be avoided.  Here, by slowing down the pace, we should be aware of what is to follow: 

and when the sheriff’s deputy approached, my question was, “Why am I being stopped?”

Note again the element of time rather than what happened.  It is not that he asked the question, but "when" he had this question.  He does not say "I asked this question." He skillfully avoids this, as reporting of fact.  This is not a novice.  

“Because you didn’t use your turn signal back at Grace Lane.” And she added, “And you don’t move your vehicle when we stop you.”

Police in training often call this "story telling", but in analysis it is narrative building. 

Note when a sentence begins with "And", there is missing information.  

“Hey, I was blocking a major intersection because I thought you were an emergency vehicle and traffic couldn’t move.” No answer.

Note that he does not state that he said this.  

After surrendering my license and insurance card, here came the lecture while the second officer stood guard. Then I asked the question: “I normally am very good about using my turn signal,” I said, realizing that the deputy had probably heard that excuse too many times before. “Tell me, just how did that infraction interfere with the flow of traffic since there was no one except you behind me? How did I endanger others? What did I do to compromise the safety of others and the flow of traffic?”
The answer, “You didn’t use your turn signal. If you don’t agree, plead “not guilty.”
Why bother? It would be me against two officers. If they said, “no turn signal,” the cost of the ticket would be increased. I said: “Give me the ticket. If you say I’m guilty, I’ll be guilty.” I felt a warning would have been sufficient.
Now I’m charged with a moving violation, though I was stopped, by the deputy’s admission. I have no idea what the fine will be because there is no listed fine for not using the turn signal. I had to call the fine collection center in Jefferson City. The service agent there couldn’t tell me the fine because they had not received a copy of the ticket a week later. You tell me how this operates.
Now a note for the deputy and her standby partner. I was not wearing a seat belt at the time and that is a more serious offense. And, when the two officers turned off their red lights and pulled back into traffic on Lake of the Woods Road, they did not turn on their left turn signal to let traffic know they were changing from the shoulder to the right traffic lane. Whatever fine I pay should be less than what these sheriff’s deputies should pay. I was at least stopped when I allegedly violated.

I can fully understand how easy it is for police to make random stops. I have a rear bumper full of liberal bumper stickers and a dent. My car is old, with 425,000 miles, which probably makes me an aging hippie with a weed habit. So why not pull me over?

I’ve just come to appreciate even more the words of those minorities when they speak of harassment and police arrogance. I had a good dose of arrogance on this evening and, in my rear view mirror, the image of the second officer out of the car, his hands ready in case I made the wrong move. My life seemed to be in danger.
I fully understand how a person can lose their respect for law officers. When you are in the shoes of the minority, you learn a lot more about their journey.

II.  The Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated.  

Passivity and artificial placement of emotion noted.  

III.  The Video 


IV.  Consider that this journalist, at age 84, used his talent to deceive. 

What does this suggest about his personality?

It would be fascinating to interview those closest to him in life.  His willingness to fabricate reality to propel a narrative makes him a most accomplished liars. 

He has likely done a great deal of damage in life, just as he was willing to damage the careers and lives of the officers he falsely accused.  

To fabricate reality puts him in a class of 10% rarity.  These are the most dangerous liars who cause the most trouble for others in life.  

That he is a journalist only brings into question what damage he has done before in employing deception. 

He is not a "nice old man" but a liar who has grown in his ability to lie to pervert justice.  He could have destroyed officers' lives and reputations so he could ingratiate himself into a cause. 

Liars grow in contempt towards the public and grow more and more desensitized.  To do this at such an advanced age shows one who has harmed many others through lies and who believed he was beyond question.  

Nice old men were nice young men.  

Our subject was willing to destroy innocent civil servants without regard to their families.  

Note the pedantic lecture of the deceiver in seeking to condemn the officers for not signaling.  This after claiming his life was in danger is called "incongruence" in language.  

I believe that those closest to him could adequately describe the destruction he has brought with lies over his many years.  


Bobcat said...

Lake of the Woods Road doesn't exist. He turned onto St. Charles Road (which would take him to Lake of the Woods Recreation Area).

I wonder if his "weed habit" had anything to do with "leaving" the gym.
I wonder what police would have found if they had searched his vehicle.

Anonymous said...

The Columbia Tribune has now published a non-apology by "Ol Clark".

The way this liar refers to himself in 3rd person is telling. Distancing himself - his made-up character, from reality?

Hey Jude said...

I listened to the video a few times - the officer was courteous and patient. Ol Clark is unaccepting that he did anything wrong - even after the video is released he continues to challenge it as the reason he was stopped - in his non-apology he says he 'allegedly' didn't signal.

He says the officer said:

' "If you don’t agree, plead “not guilty.”
Why bother? It would be me against two officers. If they said, “no turn signal,” the cost of the ticket would be increased. I said: “Give me the ticket. If you say I’m guilty, I’ll be guilty.” '

Twice on the video he demands the bill/ticket. He does not sound as if he believed his life was in danger, rather he was angry and irritated because he was stopped.

I transcribed from when the officer returned with the ticket - Ol Clark interrupts throughout, and nowhere did the officer say 'plead guilty' or that he would be taken to court. I think the officer meant Clark could take it to court if he wanted to challenge the ticket?

PO [inaudible] Here is a citation for failure to signal when turning right, alright? I’ve got more information right here [inaudible] - your information right here [inaudible] you’re given thirty days to send it in this envelope to pay by mail
OC [inaudible]
PO Yes sir, yes sir
OC [inaudible]
PO Sorry?
OC Is that a supervisor with you?
PO Th - supervisor? No, he’s not a supervisor
OL Oh [inaudible] back there.
PO No sir
OL Okay. What did I do to - uh - put other people at risk? I know that I did not signal right. I’ve got a clean road, nobody coming to the left, nobody coming to the right. I made a dead stop and I turned right.
PO But, sir, you
OC There was nobody else on the highway.
PO There’s nothing to argue about. Okay? Failure to make
OC: There is something to argue about
PO: Okay, well, if you want to go to court that’s
OC I probably will
PO Okay
OC Give me the bill
PO Well, I’m not done explaining it to you
Okay, Like I said, here’s your vehicle information, here’s your information with uh
OL: [inaudible]
PO Okay
PO Do you have any other questions for me?
OL I have no other questions
PO Okay. One more thing I just want to address. Whenever you get pulled over you need to stop until we tell you to move over or otherwise
OL You know what? I hadn’t done anything wrong at that point
PO: Failure to
OL: I pulled over so that you could go by me because you were on a mission
PO You failed to signal, sir, and that is just as much a violation as anything else -
OC give me the ticket!
PO Right, there. Thank you.

Hey Jude said...

I think he and balloon boy's father would probably get along well - they share the same contemptuous and blame-shifting attitudes towards the police - probably no less in regard to anyone else who ever crosses, doubts or questions them.

Ney said...


Cheney Mason, Casey Anthony's lawyer's statement:

“I BELIEVE that Casey’s mind, IN SOME DIMENSION , I GUESS the common word WOULD SAY ‘snapped.’ She DIDN'T go crazy BY ANY MEANS — but blackout — COMPLETELY a blackout — of what WENT ON AND WHAT HAPPENED” Mason told
“I wasn’t there. I don’t know ALL that happened,” Mason added.

George Anthony's statement:
“We are done because when this happened, I lost my daughter and my granddaughter. I lost them both,” he said. “Justice would be to have my daughter behind bars and have her suffer the way Caylee suffered.”

elf said...

The subject speaks of the arrogance of the two officers that pulled him over but the only arrogance I can see is his. I have to wonder what else he does in his life that he isn't supppsed to do but does anyways because he thinks no one else sees it or that he won't get caught. Most people would have said "oh I must have forgot to use my blinker, I applogize" but the subject tries to justify why he didn't use his blinker by telling the officer there was no one around so who did it hurt. He implies that because there were no other drivers visible he is above the common rules of the road, which is also exhibited by his lack of seat belt and pulling over in an intersection to allow an emergency vehicle to pass (which every student driver learns right off to pull over to the shoulder).
I think the subject knows he was in the wrong and he knows the only hint of danger they pose to him is the potential loss of his license and a few dollars on a ticket.

Hey Jude said...

He said to the officer: ' I know that I did not signal right.'

Yet he still says he didn't do anything wrong. He didn't forget, as he says that he knows he did not signal. Yet he also says that 'up to that point' (when he was pulled over) he hadn't done anything wrong. No-one said he did 'anything wrong', just that he failed to signal, which at eighty-four he might have forgot (though he says he knew, so he did not forget?). Could he have said he knew he didn't signal, because he'd rather say he knew than because he's getting older, and actually he forgot?

Is it interesting that in his apology, he speaks of 'error' rather than doing anything wrong? The failure to signal is more easily seen as a driving error, whereas to lie is to do something wrong. When it happened, he magnified the driving error into doing something wrong, or rather into not having done anything wrong. In the apology he minimises the lies of police harassment and arrogance, his claim he was lucky to have not been shot, into 'error', and ‘over-reacting’. He says he has been called a liar, received threatening phone calls, and accused of disrespecting the police officer - he says ‘Overreact yes, liar I am not’, making the ‘apology’ a continuation of the lies rather than an admission. He says he ‘allegedly ‘didn’t signal, which is to continue to suggest doubt exists, despite he admitted to the officer he knew he didn’t signal, and he says he has paid a fine.


I think it interesting that in the apology he talks of lousy decisions, mistakes, error in judgement, distortion, the original sin, overreaction - but the word ‘wrong’ does not appear again, neither in his article -one can’t say he avoids it, only that previously has used it. The thought of having done, or rather not done ‘anything’ wrong was there, when the police pulled him over - he says up to that point he hadn’t done anything wrong. So, why did he think they stopped him? What was he doing when he realised his hands weren’t on the wheel? He did not have his driver license and insurance ready when they were asked for, despite he said he got them before the officer had approached the car. So, yes, I think interesting the suggestion made above, and by himself, that he maybe has a weed habit - also we didn’t need to know he had left the gym, but he chose to put that early on in his narrative, and the police were soon behind him. Some say weed can be bought at such places - maybe he was so defensive/rude/arrogant because he initially thought he was being pulled over for a different reason, (because he had done something 'wrong' rather than made a traffic mistake), and thought next they would ask to search the glove compartment? He still seems to be of the belief he signalled ('alleged violation'/'allegedly'), so even though he said to the police officer he knew he did not signal, I am wondering, did he forget to signal, and assumed he has been stopped for another reason? I think the doing or not doing of 'wrong' seems a bit excessive in relation to failing/forgetting to signal - whilst later, in the article and apology there is no suggestion of his doing or not doing anything 'wrong', when it would have been easier and ,appropriate for him to have said he was wrong to have written the article because the claims he made in it were not true. Is he hiding there was a bigger 'wrong' than either his failure to signal or to wear a seat belt?


‘For the benefit of those callers who question my disrespect for the military’ - does he own his disrespect there?

ima.grandma said...

O'Clark displays characteristics of a disturbed liar who cannot avoid telling lies that make his narrative interesting by bringing ridicule upon someone else and attempting to seed the intellectual environment with particular ideas thereby 'poisoning the well.' (motive: to amuse himself and attract eyeballs to his articles in the newspaper.

Sigmund Freud defines pedantic as, “The pedant is he who finds it impossible to read criticism of himself without immediately reaching for his pen and replying to the effect that the accusation is a gross insult to his person.

Anonymous said...

Well you apparently have this all wrong. He's not a liar. Not at all. He just made a lousy call. It was just an overreaction.

rob said...

Local to me, we had a 10 year old kid on a woman's property, shooting other kids with a BB gun. The property owner called 911. County officer showed up, got out of the car and told the kid to drop the gun, then handcuffed him and placed him in the back of the car. While he is talking to the property owner to see exactly what happened, kid's mama showed up, acting like a fool. she also got cuffed and placed in the car. The property owner then agreed that the kid didn't damage property and the BB's didn't go thru the other kids clothes, but she wanted him to stop shooting before someone did get hurt and she wanted him off her property. The officer then released the two from the car and explained to them the problem. Mama goes home gets on social media and you would think her and the child were all but killed. So the sheriff releases the video from the officer to the news media. Haven't heard from mama since.
In my day, mama would have taken me out of that car and switched me all the way home, after thanking the officer.
what attitude will this kid grow up with?
Yeah, we all know.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, Rob!

Hard to believe the Calis that bumrushed a neighborhood because they thought their children had the right to destroy property and even a cop shouldn't have any right to defend theirs.The mayor backpedaled and yielded to the masses of morons.

Anonymous said...

I never picked up the FACT the old man felt TERRORIZED by the incident.

"Danger lurked" doesn't sound like terror (IMO)
"I'm lucky I didn't get shot" doesn't either considering what he described though it may have been blown out of proportion for his own agenda.

Seemingly and seems tells of what he THOUGHT happened. Obviously his eyesight isn't what it once was and the fact he stopped in the middle of an intersection makes me wonder if his family might not look into giving him rides to and fro the gym and elsewhere.

Arguing about the semantics of a "moving" violation sounds like a life-time of similar quarrels...with people other than police, too.

He gives me the feeling he could be in the Fred Phelps category by the way he addressed the female officer assuming the other officer to be her superior. He wants to relive the chaos of the recent Ferguson debacle and tell tales of his part in the '60s (which he fabricated then, too).

The Adventures of Ol Clark amuses other old men in his area. I suspect he has always been a drinker and maybe more.

To receive death threat over such an article is ridiculous; it's today's society.
The inability to beleive old men do such things calls for the police to 'set the record straight?' Really? It's a no-win. Though perhaps an eye opener for his family.

rob said...

Someone is posting under my name, I did not make the last 2 posts.

Anonymous said...

Well, it seems that Bill Clark will not be writing any more stories for that newspaper. He has been fired.