tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post7878803803162519201..comments2024-03-18T04:20:15.987-04:00Comments on Statement Analysis ®: Statement Analysis of Darren Wilson Part One Statement Analysis Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13607372649929274491noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-34574736536842195972020-05-01T00:35:31.396-04:002020-05-01T00:35:31.396-04:00Re: I'm not sure exactly what it was and then...Re: I'm not sure exactly what it was and then started swinging and punching at me from outside the vehicle.<br /><br /><br />The pronoun HE is missing from above.<br /><br />Doesn't that make that statement a lie?<br /><br /><br />.Nadine Lumleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05591663475427502169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-19257113302696459052014-12-15T13:03:27.762-05:002014-12-15T13:03:27.762-05:00I validate your points. I didn't interpret off...I validate your points. I didn't interpret officer Wilson's responses to imply he was responding to the call. I interpreted it just as it was stated, he heard the call. He didn't indicate that he was driving to the market. In fact he was clear as a bell what roads he took. I also understand this interview to be the very next day. Which speaks volumes for the veracity of his Statement as it doesn't offer any need to spin a story. It is clear cut. Certainly, he offers more details later, to the GJ. But the differences are so slight, that it would be akin to two people arguing about what color someone was wearing, when from one person's perspective with the lighting the jacket looked crimson and to the other it looked royal purple. A reasonable difference given where each person stood according to the lighting. It seems to me, his testimony is quite like that, given the context, nothing he says in either case changes the events. Just my thoughts anyways. ~mjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-91645683643452594502014-12-15T11:00:43.376-05:002014-12-15T11:00:43.376-05:00It may be, but in the GJ testimony, Wilson is unam...It may be, but in the GJ testimony, Wilson is unambiguous that he was not responding to the "stealing" call. Yet in the interview with the detective it is ambiguous. It seems from the statement, Wilson never states he was responding to the call, but wants us to believe he was. The above analysis clearly assumes he was responding to the call. But when asked the direct question under oath, Wilson cannot lie and tells us it was not his call.Buckleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04087082956705159705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-28388646084411639592014-12-15T10:40:56.371-05:002014-12-15T10:40:56.371-05:00I think the difference in testimony to the GJ vs h...I think the difference in testimony to the GJ vs his interview regarding when he heard the stealing call is pretty weak. Perhaps for the GJ he gave more details than during the interview? Portable radio vs just radio, exactly his position when he heard the call, we have no way of knowing if he was wrapping up the sick baby call and heard it on his radio, that would certainly fit both descriptions. Especially since during his interview he states, "As I left..." a lot can take place between the action commencing of leaving and the actual leaving. - I do look forward to the rest of the analysis. ~mjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-54497495819362186272014-12-15T09:25:00.640-05:002014-12-15T09:25:00.640-05:00That he was responding to a "stealing case&qu...<i>That he was responding to a "stealing case" is clarified by a single phrase:<br /><br /> "in progress."<br /><br /> That it might be still "in progress", that is, active, live, indicates the need to rush.<br /><br /> The sensitivity is likely explained here, in the context, of rushing to get to the case while it is yet live, therefore, with a higher chance of successful apprehension of the thief (thieves) by the officer. <br /></i><br /><br />From the grand jury testimony:<br /><br /><i>Q: Okay. did you get any other calls between the time of the sick baby call and your interaction with Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson?<br /><br />A: While on the sick case call, A call came out for a stealing in progress from the local market on West Florissant, that the suspects traveling towards QT. I didn't hear the entire call, I was on my portable radio, which isn't exactly the best. I did hear that the suspect was wearing a black shirt and that a box of cigarillos was stolen.<br />Q: okay. And this was your call or you just heard the call?<br />A: it was not my call I heard the call.<br />Q: some other officers were dispatched to that call.<br />A: I believe two others were.<br />Q: was it a call that you were going to go to also?<br />A: no<br />Q: so you weren't really geared to handle that call?<br />A: no</i><br /><br />Notice in the detective interview, he says "as I left the sick case call I had heard on THE radio..."<br /><br />In the grand jury testimony he says "While on the sick case call, a call came out...I was on MY portable radio."<br /><br />The two accounts differ in when he heard the call- while on" vs. "As I left" and the language he uses to describe which radio he uses changes.<br /><br />He was not responding to the call.Buckleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04087082956705159705noreply@blogger.com