Statement Analysis of Darren Wilson: Conclusion

This is part two of Statement Analysis of Darren Wilson where we learn:

Is he truthful?

Did he shoot a man who's arms were up in surrender?

Did he fear for his life?

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, I know his hand was around my trigger finger which was inside the trigger guard. Urn, and when he grabbed it he pushed it down and angled it to where it was like this in my hip.

When one says "I know" it is an affirmation that he "knows" something, or remembers something, which leads us to ask, "Is the subject cognizant of things he does not remember?"  If so, we need to explore areas.

Even in traumatic events, we must mine for information to get to the truth. 

DET. Okay, and-and just for the purpose of the recording, can you just explain what you're demonstrating right now?

We will now be given a verbal description of what took place visibly:  

D. WILSON: The, my firearm was in his control around my hand pointed directly into my hip.

He begins with "the", which may have been about the "firearm" but then takes ownership of it.  Or, "the" could refer to something else, or someone else, including "the suspect..."

"my firearm" is important to note the possessive pronoun, for without it, we may be looking at distancing language.  

DET. Okay, you're-you're holding the gun in your...

The Interviewer does not do a good job.  Here, he not only interrupts again, but (again) gives the subject language.  He changed "firearm" to "the gun"; it is better to only use the subject's own language whenever possible.  

Trained listening is key to Analytical Interviewing. 

D. WILSON: ... right hand.

DET. ...right hand. Okay, and your right hand is holding the gun and the gun is now being pointed into your left hip.

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. Okay. Go ahead and continue.

This is best as it allows the subject to choose his own starting point and his own language and allows us to determine if the subject is truthful or not. 

We listen for him to connect himself to the event with: strong pronoun use and past tense verbs.  

D. WILSON: At that point, I was guaranteed he was going to shoot me. That's what I

thought his-his goal was. He had already manipulated I was not in control of the gun. I was able to tilt myself a little bit and push it down and away towards the side of my hip and kinda lock my wrist into my leg to where he couldn't get it back up 'cause I did not have enough strength to come up and force him off of me. He was-he had me completely overpowered while I was sittin' in the car.

He editorializes with "I was guaranteed", which is weak.  If this is what he is thinking, he simply should state that. 

Next, he does: "That's what I thought his, his goal was" recognizes the sensitivity of the "guarantee" 

This is a weak assertion.  What has caused it?

a.  The context.  He is under accusation.  This is the most logical reason

b.  He was thinking the suspect was going to do something else.   This is doubtful. 

That an officer in this situation must report his thought process, as his actions are under question, is, itself, the context.  This reduces the element of sensitivity.  

Note strong use of the pronoun "I" puts the subject in the scenario, with an equally strong past tense verb usage. 

"I did not have enough strength" is likely an admission that the subject believed that the suspect was physically stronger than he was.  This would increase the threat. 

The threat is that an unarmed belligerent is able to recognize that the subject is:

a  a police officer
b.  armed
c.  in a police vehicle readily identified.

This scenario makes the threatening of the suspect more heightened and likely increased fear.  That the subject mention body strength shows the intensity of the threat he perceived for himself.  

Then I took my left arm and I pinned it against my back seat and pushed the gun forward like this.

Strong connection.  

DET Okay, and just for the purposes of the recording again, just explain what you're doin'.

D. WILSON: My left elbow locked into the back of my seat ...

DET. Okay.

always remain silent so that the subject can continue.  When affirmation is needed, nod one's head but do not speak whenever possible. 

D. WILSON: ... took my left hand, placed it against his and my hand on the side of my firearm and pushed forward both of my arms.

DET. Towards what would be the steering wheel then? Is that...

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: It ended up being right about where the door handle is on the Tahoe.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: When it got there I saw that it was somewhat lined up with his silhouette and pulled the trigger. Nothing happened. Pulled it again, nothing happened. Urn, I believe his fingers were over in between from the hammer and the slide preventing it from firing.

Nothing cannot happen.  This is interesting.  Did he hear a "click"?  This would be a good area for the Interviewer to enter with solid questions. 

"believe" is weak, which allows for him or another to believe otherwise. To speak of this altercation with absolute certainty would be difficult.  He interjects "belief" expressing appropriate uncertainty to a small detail. 

DET Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, I tried again. It fired. When it fired, my window had been down the entire time. Glass shot up. The first thing I remember seeing is glass flyin' and blood all over my right hand on the back side of my hand. Urn, he looked like he was shocked initially but, and he paused for a second and then he came back into my vehicle and attempted to hit me multiple times.

The "first thing" is a signal that logic is in play and the Interviewer should always ask, "What did you remember after that?" seeking to learn 'the second' or even 'the third' thing.  

The memory uses "I" and past tense and is, again, reliable not so much as to fact, but that even if wrong, he is not attempting to deceive. 

It is the need to deceive that we pick up in language.  One may be right or wrong in what they report, but intent is key.  He does not have, here, intent to deceive the Interviewer. 

DET. Okay, you said came back in your vehicle. What'd you mean?

D. WILSON: He had, after I had shot and the glass came up, he took like a half step back and then realized he was okay still I'm assuming. He came back towards my vehicle and ducked in again his whole bod...whole top half of his body came in and tried to hit me again. Urn...

compare "realized he was okay" with the above, "initially", as he consistently recalls the reaction of the suspect:

initially appeared to be shocked, but recovered and came back. 

This is an important tie to the previous statement in which the subject's experiential memory is in play:

he is speaking from what he experience.  He is not:

a.  making it up as he goes along
b.  speaking from memory of what he previously reported 

DET. How is he tryin' to hit you?

D. WILSON: Fist, grab, I mean just crazy. Just random, anything he could get a hold of swingin' wildly. And then at that point I put my hand up like this and tried to fire again and my left hand was up blocking my face.

He, again, uses the past tense "tried" which indicates failure. 

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, my right hand was still on my lap pointing towards the door handle. I tried to fire again, just a click. Nothing happened. After the click, I racked it and as I racked it, it just came up and shot again. Urn...

Here he explains "nothing happened" with the description "just a click" preceding it.  

DET. And, just for the purpose of racking, you're-you're meaning what?

D. WILSON: I took the slide and cleared the chamb ... the round out thinking it was januued.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, after the round was cleared out, I brought it up and I shot again. When I shot that time, a, I was still in this position blocking myself and just shooting to where he was 'cause he was still there. Urn, when I turned and looked, I realized I had missed I saw a, like dust in the background and he was running eastbound on Canfield.

This s very strong.  He takes ownership of the shooting and does not show sensitivity --which could have been seen in blaming the victim. 

This is critical. 

He is not justifying his action here, but reporting what happened.  Had he shot, for example, out of racism, we might pick up it in his language here, particularly when shots are being fired, as this would be the most sensitive part of his statement. 

The most sensitive part of this case is the actual shooting itself. 

In this portion, there are no sensitivity indicators. 

The subject is telling the truth.  

Note he recognizes that he missed and explained how he knew that with "like dust in the background", showing the need to explain, not the shooting, but the missing. 

DET. Okay, and you said you shot that second time, right? Where did that round ... did you shoot that round through...at the door or the window, or. .. ?

D. WILSON: I'm not sure.

This is also indicative of one telling the truth when he is "not sure" after giving specific detail (again, view this in context).  

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I'm not exactly sure. It was a, just one of these to get him off me.

Here we find an indicator of sensitivity.  Note the context

It is not the shooting but another reference to the overpowering he felt by the suspect he shot.  

Here, he reveals his motive for shooting:

He was unable to (his account) overcome the suspect because the suspect had more strength than he did. 

The suspect kept coming at him, with fists, or anything he could grab at. 

The subject perceives the suspect as bigger, stronger and on top of him, where only firing his gun will save him.  

This reveals the subject's motive, according to his own language, for the Ferguson shooting, to this point. 

We need to see if this continues in his language.  

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, he ran east on Canfield. I exited my vehicle and I said, I got on the radio and said, "Shots fired. Send me more cars." It wasn't found till later my radio had been switched in the struggle, my person radio to channel three.

Note the change to present tense language as he recalls the transmission via quoting.  

DET. What side of your body is your radio on?

D. WILSON: My left side.

DET. Okay, and you carry that on your belt?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, it's on one of the swivel holsters so it always faces up when I'm sittin' down.

DET. Okay, and what's channel three for you guys?

D. WILSON: I believe it's county radio.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, our chann...our main channel is channel one. So, I get out, I say that. He runs from this intersection where I originally told you towards this entrance to this parking lot. Urn...

Here he refers not to experiential memory, but memory of what was previously "told" (one way)

DET. Okay, and you're sayin' that you were originally at Canfield and Copper Creek, right?

D. WILSON: Can I draw on this for you?

DET. Absolutely.

D, WILSON: My vehicle was like (mumbles pen not working) was like right there, if you can see that.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: He had ran around my vehicle in this direction.

DET. Okay.

We come to another critical point of the account.  The more words the subject is allowed to use, the greater the reliability of Statement Analysis as he is freely choosing his own words, and moving away from the words of the Interviewer. 

We look for the verbal commitment formula:  The pronoun "I" and the past tense verbs.  We look for simple, short sentences that are best.  

D. WILSON: I exited. I followed him in that direction. After I said on the radio, "Shots fired.

Send me more cars", 

I was yelling at him to stop and get on the ground. He kept running and then eventually he stopped in this area somewhere. 

When he stopped, he turned, looked at me, made like a grunting noise and had the most intense aggressive face I've ever seen on a person. When he looked at me, he then did like the hop...you know like people do to start running. And, he started running at me. 

Note short sentences. 

Note pronoun use with past tense verbs.

Now, notice that the suspect did not run "towards me" but "at me."

To run "at" the subject is to reveal the subject's own fear and realization that he almost lost his life and it is about to happen again.  

What is he dealing with at this point?

He has transmissioned "shots fired", and has been physically attacked and overpowered.  

He pursued the suspect who now is classified as "dangerous" enough to use deadly force. 

Rather than come "towards him", the subject uses the small word "at" which reveals what his thought process is:

he is under attack, personally.  

"at me."

Now towards, nor in the direction or vicinity of, but "at" and personally, "at me."

This continues the theme of threat for life.  

During his first stride, he took his right hand put it under his

shirt and into his waistband. 

The account continues with the connection to the suspect "he", and the past tense "took" and "put"

And I ordered him to stop and get on the ground again. 

He didn't; I fired, a, multiple shots.

Reliable 

 After I fired the multiple shots I paused for a second, yelled at him to get on the ground again, he was still in the same state.

Reliable 

 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.  

DET. Okay. When a, let's just continue with this. When you get to the police station, what'd you do?

D. WILSON: I went into the bathroom to wash the blood off and I had also realized I had blood on the inside of my left hand from my fingertips to about my wrist.

DET. Okay, so you had blood on your left hand?

D. WILSON: And the back of my right hand.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, at that point, I believe the blood was from after I originally fired, the very first shot that fired and he came back in to hit me, was from him like me blocking is how I got this. 'cause I was not cut or bleeding anywhere.

The lack of commitment to the blood is appropriate as it would take time to learn its origin.  This is consistent with high level hormonal response where pain, for example, is reduced during a fight or flight situation. 

DET. Okay, so you think that was his blood then?

D. WILSON: Yes, I think and same on the back of my right hand. I think it was his blood.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I went right to the bathroom and had to wash it off. I washed the blood off. I went into our roll call room, I took my belt off, I took my gun out, I made it safe, and I sealed it in an evidence envelope.

DET. Okay. Okay. And then did you remain at the station then until...

D. WILSON: Yes, I did.

DET. ... a, you would've talked, spoken with Detective ?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay. Okay, urn, I just wanna ask you a couple, clarify things here, okay? How many times do you think he struck you when you were sitting inside your vehicle?

D. WILSON: Solid blows to my face struck? Or, just made contact with me?

DET. A, both.

D. WILSON: Made contact with me, numerous. I mean I'd say excess of ten. His hands were all over me.

Note the sensory description along with the estimate.  This is often in the language of those who recall what they experienced (experiential memory). This is why a certain scent, for example, can transport us back to childhood, as sensory description is often a memory trigger.  The reverse is true:  it can indicate veracity in a statement. 

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, solid blows, I'd say at least two.

DET. Okay. And, that was to where on your face?

D. WILSON: My face, my jaw line. Both sides.

DET. Okay. And then a, what commands were you giving him in the car?

D. WILSON: "Stop and get back."

DET. Okay. Was he saying anything to you at that point?

D. WILSON: He was but I don't know what it was. I was not focused on him talking. My mind had switched to of the training mode of how do I survive to get passed this?

This confirms the use of such phrases above including the later, "at me"

DET. Okay. How many times do you think you said, "Stop get back"?

D. WILSON: The entire time I was talking, saying "Stop get back."

He uses "talk" twice, which is weaker than "told", and may indicate that this was not strong in his mind, and may have even been muttered by him in fear, hoping to deescalate the suspect.  This was not issued as a "command" in the middle of an attack. 

This suggests that he did not put much faith into words at this point, as he feared for his life and further buttresses the use of his gun, which he connects to with the possessive pronoun "my" and with the firing of it, with "I" and "fired" (past tense).  

DET. Alright. When he puts, urn, when he grabs your gun, how long do you think he's-he's holding your gun or has his hand or hands on your gun?

D. WILSON: Hmmm, ten seconds.

pause necessary.  This would be a very difficult question as time moves quickly in survival mode due to hormonal increase. 

DET. Okay. And, during that time, what are you saying?

This question appears to be more in attempting to justify the shooting by the Interviewer than a genuine question.  The subject (Wilson) has not shown any need to have the shooting justified for him.  This sounds as if the Interviewer wants to establish that protocol was followed and ample warning was given, 

but it does not appear necessary based upon the statements reliably given.  

D. WILSON: "Get back."

DET. Okay. Um, he comes back in to the car a second time ...

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. . . . after you have fired that first shot, right?

D. WILSON: That was actually his third time re-entering the car.

"actually" attempts to correct the interviewer.  We note the use of "third" and will look to see if he will affirm this assertion. 

DET. The third time entering the car?

D. WILSON: Yes.

The subject is staying with his assertion. 

DET. Okay. He comes back in at that point, right?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Roughly how long is that portion of it?

D. WILSON: That one was fairly quick. Urn, he came in and there was a few wild swings at me, attempts to grab, and then fled.

DET. Does he touch your gun on that second ...

D. WILSON: I don't know.

DET. ... that second time. Okay. Alright.

D. WILSON: There was blood on my gun whenever I sealed it in the bag.

DET. Okay. Alright, urn, you exityourvehicle ...

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. . . . right? And, obviously, this map we're looking at here is to scale. I don't have any expectation that we're talking on scale here, okay. Roughly, how far do you think he-he runs?

D. WILSON: Originally, 20 to 30 feet. Playing it back last night, there were two cars parked behind me. He ran passed that second car.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I didn't run as far as him. I stopped and I gave our self at least a 20-foot gap between me and him. 'cause when he stopped running, I stopped running. He had already had a head start on me and I maintained that distance whenever he stopped. So, I don't know the exact. I can't give you anum... a number.

DET. Okay, alright. And, what are the commands you're sayin' as you're running? D. WILSON: "Get on the ground."
DET. Okay. And, does he comply?
D. WILSON: Never.
DET. At any point?
D. WILSON: Never.
DET. He turns around?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Right? And, what's his posture at that point?

D. WILSON: Very aggressive. Urn, he is I don't really know how to describe it. Urn, he turns, I looked at his face. It was just like intense. It was, I've never seen anybody look that, for lack of a better words, crazy. I've never seen that. I mean, it was very aggravated, urn aggressive, hostile. Just, you couldn't, you could, you could tell he was lookin' through ya. There was nothin' he was seeing. Urn, he had kind of, he did like that hop and started running and when he did he was kinda leaning forward a little bit and then right as he started his hand went in his pants.

DET. Okay. And, you said his hand went in his pants and what hand are we talkin' about?

D. WILSON: His right hand.

DET. Okay. And, you said you stopped, mark me ifl'm wrong, but 20-roughly 20 feet away from him, right?

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. What was, what was that distance ... and I know we're-we're not talkin' exact but did you maintain that distance or did it get closer?

D. WILSON: A, I did not maintain it. It did get closer but not at the rate of which it could've
if I had stood still. I was backing up. When he started running, I started backing up after the first round of shots and he still hadn't gone down and was still coming just as fast as he was, I backed up at a faster rate. The entire time I was going backwards.

DET. How far do you think you were backing up?

D. WILSON: I probably backed up at least ten feet in the process.

DET. Okay. And, how far do you think he went from the time that he stopped, a, and turned around until the time that he went, that he went down to the ground?

D. WILSON: At least 15.

DET. Fifteen?

D. WILSON: Feet, at least.

DET. Okay. Alright.

D. WILSON: 'cause if I would've stayed where I had stopped and he had, like where we originally started at that point. If I would've stayed he would've been on me.

DET. Okay. What were you, a, what were you thinking as this event is progressing?
D. WILSON: He's gonnakill me.
DET. Okay. Anything else?

D. WILSON: How do I survive. I mean it was, the whole time it was a very non... it started was a very non-confrontational "can you just walk on the sidewalk?" Urn, I downplayed the whole issue because I didn't want a confrontation. Ya know, then after he made his comments I realized cigarillos ya know, then I was like well I gotta stop and talk to the guy.
DET. I-I-I'm sorry. Say that part again.
D. WILSON: I have to stop and talk to the guy.
DET. Because ... ?

D. WILSON: The comments he said and the cigarillos in his hands judging by the call we just had as well.

DET Okay.

D. WILSON: Urn, and after that is when it instantly turned into how do I live through this basically.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I didn't never at any point did I have control of him. I mean, he-he manipulated me while I was in the vehicle, completely.

December 12, 2014 at 10:29 AM 

Anonymous said...

Part 7

DET. Alright. This second individual that was with him...

D. WILSON: Uhhuh.

DET. What does he do?

D. WILSON: After he hands off the stuff, I never see him again.

DET. You don't know where he went. You don't know?

D. WILSON: I believe he ran around the back of my car towards that direction he pointed to.

I don't know. I said I...I couldn't observe anything else but the guy that was in my face. He was big enough to take up my whole window and I didn't have an option to look at anything else.

DET. Okay. What type of weapon do you carry?

D. WILSON: A, the Sig 229.

DET. 229.

D. WILSON: Yeah, it's the same (UI).

DET. What caliber is it? D. WILSON: It's a .40 caliber.

DET. Okay. And a, how many rounds a, does that weapon hold?

D. WILSON: It holds 12 in the magazine and I had one in the chamber.

DET. Okay. And, is that how you carry it?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. That's how you were carrying it yesterday?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay. So, 12 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber for a total of 13, correct?

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. And a, it's a .40 caliber weapon?

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. And, roughly, do you know how many times you fired?

D. WILSON: No.

DET. Okay. And ... is that the only weapon that you fired?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Alright. From the time that you first made contact with him, okay, or first talked to both these individuals until the time that-that a, he goes down to the ground, roughly how long is that?

D. WILSON: Less than a minute.

DET. Okay. Urn, how long do you think you're in the car for?

D. WILSON: I was in my vehicle when...

DET. Between the time that you made contact with him and when you're in the car until the time that you actually get out of your car. How long do you think that is, roughly?

D. WILSON: Thirty seconds or so.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: I mean that was the majority of it. Once we got out, I mean, I didn't run very far or very long, urn, and that's when the shooting started.

DET. Okay, alright. And, urn, describe your injuries.

D. WILSON: I had, urn, some redness to my left jaw line then I had swollen right cheek and jaw. I had scratches on my back and neck, on my shoulders. I guess my shoulders up to my hairline was scratches and red marks.

DET. Okay. Did you see anybody else outside when this was taking place?

D. WILSON: When it was actually in progress, no.

DET. Okay. And, other officers arrived after urn, he had already went down to the ground, is that correct?

D. WILSON: Correct.

DET. Okay. Once the a, urn, I guess, a, encounter stopped ...did a-did you or anybody else I guess, a, call for an ambulance?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. For the suspect?

D. WILSON: Urn, . He did.

DET. Okay. And a he was one of the-the police officers. Was he the, a, first assist officer that arrived?

D. WILSON: They, the two that arrived were both on that stealing call together. They both were on the scene simultaneously.

DET. Okay.

D. WILSON: He was the first one that made it to me.

DET. Okay. Um, and then a, the other question I would have is, a, can you describe the urn, you said there was two subjects. The first subjects I guess the one that­ that fled, urn from the stop ... can you describe him to me?

D. WILSON: Shorter black male, 5-5ish, 120-130 weight, really dark complected, a, black shirt, brown shorts, unsure of footwear or socks, had, not full-length dreads but you know the like long twisty dreads all over his head.

Order can reveal priority  

We note that before saying "black male" with height and weight, the subject begins the description by comparing him to the one on his mind:  the shot suspect. 

"Shorter"

There is no need to ask, "Shorter than whom?" as this reveals that the subject is thinking of the shot victim predominantly.  

That this man was shorter than the suspect, indicates his priority.  Note that race did not come first, but size.  Compare this to the strength issue noted above. 

DET. Urn, have you ever seen either one of these individuals before? 

D. WILSON: I did not recognize either one.

DET. No, okay. Do you think you could recognize a the man with you said dread locks, right?

D. WILSON: Yeah.

DET. Do you think you could recognize them again if you saw him? 

D. WILSON: I think so.

DET. Okay. Can I show you a-a photo spread here? Can you tell me if you can identify him?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. So, this is a Lineup number 146113, which was, a, created today. Are any of those individuals, there's six people in that photograph...

D. WILSON: Number two.

DET. ... what number?

D. WILSON: Two.

DET. Okay. How sure are you of that?

D. WILSON: That's what he looks like. I didn't see him long, but if I, I'd say number two ifl had to pick one of those.

DET. Okay. Alright. Just going through all my notes here. Just give me a minute, okay?

D. WILSON: Uhhuh.

DET. One other question I had a, urn, when you a, downloaded your gun or made it safe, urn, how many rounds did you discover inside the weapon that were left?

D. WILSON: One.

DET. One live round.

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay. A, was that in the magazine or in the chamber?

D. WILSON: Chamber. I took out the magazine first and it was empty. When I made it safe a round came out of the chamber.

DET. Okay, a, and then a on your uniform, do you carry any additional ammo?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Okay, what do you carry?

D. WILSON: Two extra rounds, or two extra magazines.

DET. Okay, did you ever reload?

D. WILSON: No, I didn't.

DET. Okay, and those a, the magazines on your duty belt were a full?

D. WILSON: Yes.

DET. Do you carry any backup weapon?

D. WILSON: No, I do not. There's a shotgun in the vehicle, but ...

DET. Did you ever get that out?

The Interviewer continually interrupted and asked leading questions.  Do not imitate.  

D. WILSON: ....no I didn't.

DET. Okay. Is there anything that-that you feel is important that we should know.

Anything that you want to add. Anything that a we didn't ask you that we

should've asked you?

D. WILSON: I think we're good.

He sees a unity in the interview, which is expected.  This is not an antagonistic cross examination, but an interview.  

I think we're good.

DET. Alright. If there's nothing else, a, the time is 10:47 a.m. and this concludes the interview.

Analysis conclusion:

Darren Wilson shot the suspect due to the attack and the fear of his own life.  He is honest about the shooting, and did not shoot someone who's hands were up in a surrender posture.  This is noticeably absent from this interview which may be because it had not been alleged yet.  That there is a notable lack of sensitivity in this area suggests that it was added artificially to the case later.  I suspect media or someone with an agenda.  The subject has no need to address it, even in the negative.  This indicates that it was not in his mind.

Had he shot a suspect who had surrendered, he would have had to deceive the interviewer as it would have been heavily on his mind during the interview and would have shown itself, one way or another, in his language.  This is key to understanding Statement Analysis:

the brain knows what it knows and when one is deceptive, one is thinking specifically of the area in which one must deceive, via leaving out, and the language chosen reveals this necessity.

It is lacking from the subject.  The subject has no need to deceive.  The suspect's arms were not raised in surrender.  This is a lie that spread quickly. Someone is responsible for it.  This lie caused a great deal of pain and outrage and many sought to capitalize on it.  

The suspect was aggressive and attacked the officer even though the officer was in uniform and a marked car, signaling official capacity and that he would be armed. 

There is no racial sensitivity in his language, only fear for his life.  He may not be accurate about the distance, but did not intend to deceive. He appropriately shows weakness in the areas of uncertainty, and takes ownership of his weapon, the firing of the weapon and shows consistent linguistic signals that he was in fear for his own life.  

The subject is truthful.  

Sensitivity Indictors regarding arms:   0
Sensitivity indicators regarding race:  0
Sensitivity indicators regarding firing weapon:  0 

Indicators of deception:  0 




This was not a racially motivated shooting, nor an unjust shooting of an unarmed teenager.  

This was a shooting of a violent criminal who had attacked a police officer and posed a danger to the officer, as well as citizens with whom  he lived.