See: probable cause
We have an example of truth and deception mingled. Here is the analysis from August 29th, 2014, with what we now know, today, from the affidavit.
First, we note the priority of his 911 call:
911: What is the location of your emergency?
Therefore, we expect order to begin with address. His answer:
Therefore, we expect order to begin with address. His answer:
Note that being robbed came before reporting his son missing. This is not expected. When a child is kidnapped, it is likely to be the first thing out of the subject's mouth when asked what has happened.
Was this a drug robbery? Why is the robbery more important than the missing child?
We now learn this very thing: the robbery may have been truthful, but there was no child with him.
Was this a drug robbery? Why is the robbery more important than the missing child?
We now learn this very thing: the robbery may have been truthful, but there was no child with him.
Note the error between "daughter" and "son." It would be interesting to learn if he also has a daughter near the same age, with another woman.
It would also be interesting to learn if he is on drugs.
A missing child would not be mistaken.
Pronouns are instinctive and when pronouns are "wrong", we are looking at deception.
It would also be interesting to learn if he is on drugs.
A missing child would not be mistaken.
Pronouns are instinctive and when pronouns are "wrong", we are looking at deception.
"I'm laying on the middle of the street off Oliver..."
note the need to give the location of where he is laying, which makes it unnecessary information. Is it scripting?
We now learn that a police officer noticed a security camera in the area and were able to review it.
911: What's your name?
Subject: Willie.
First name only given.
"One was a white male who was a man the other person who was a lady was hispanic. "
Specific description even of the shoes. "Jordans, red black and blue..."
911: They took your son?
Subject: Yes, they abducted my son.
It is interesting to note that he did not enter the language of the 911 operator, but changed "took" to "abducted."
To "abduct" his son shows a deliberate action with a reason to do so. There are two possibilities here:
1. abduction for a reason, such as drug non-payment, illegal adoption, custody issue, etc.
2. The subject is deceptive and has rehearsed his story.
We see that he is now charged with murder and it was scripted.
He calls out that he was just "robbed and pistol whipped" but did not mention the baby, to the passerby. That the child was abducted would be the expected first thing he said.
Later, to another passerby, "I was robbed and they took my two month old son" with "took" and not "abducted"
But being "robbed" came before the taking of his son. This indicates his priority.
Now that the video shows no child, we understand why "robbed" came first.
The use of the word "because" twice here is not sensible. Is the lack of sense due to deception, or is it because he was knocked unconscious?
Note the verb tense.
The 911 call does not show the priority of a kidnapping.
note the need to give the location of where he is laying, which makes it unnecessary information. Is it scripting?
We now learn that a police officer noticed a security camera in the area and were able to review it.
911: What's your name?
Subject: Willie.
First name only given.
"One was a white male who was a man the other person who was a lady was hispanic. "
Specific description even of the shoes. "Jordans, red black and blue..."
911: They took your son?
Subject: Yes, they abducted my son.
It is interesting to note that he did not enter the language of the 911 operator, but changed "took" to "abducted."
To "abduct" his son shows a deliberate action with a reason to do so. There are two possibilities here:
1. abduction for a reason, such as drug non-payment, illegal adoption, custody issue, etc.
2. The subject is deceptive and has rehearsed his story.
We see that he is now charged with murder and it was scripted.
He calls out that he was just "robbed and pistol whipped" but did not mention the baby, to the passerby. That the child was abducted would be the expected first thing he said.
Later, to another passerby, "I was robbed and they took my two month old son" with "took" and not "abducted"
But being "robbed" came before the taking of his son. This indicates his priority.
Now that the video shows no child, we understand why "robbed" came first.
Willie Wilson made an emotional appeal for information on the whereabouts of his missing child.
“All I want is my son. I am begging, please search. I love my son.”
The mother of six week old Delano Anthony Wilson Taniasha Perkins made her own emotional statement:
“He means the world to me and his dad and as his parents we work really hard for our child and for you to take him away is tearing a hole in my family and in my heart,” she said.
“He means the world to me and his dad and as his parents we work really hard for our child and for you to take him away is tearing a hole in my family and in my heart,” she said.
Wilson told police that he was accosted by a white male and hispanic woman in an alley less than a block from his home Wednesday at noon.
Delano Wilson
Wilson said the pair intended to rob him of his cell phones and his wallet but took his baby instead.
“He said ‘I don’t care.’ That’s when he hit me knocked me down. I got the baby in my arms. That’s when I knew they were gonna do more because she didn’t do nothing because the man is constantly yelling at me telling me to empty my pockets, grabbing at my pants. All I could do is give him what I had. I didn’t wanna harm the baby.”
Note the verb tense.
The 911 call does not show the priority of a kidnapping.
No comments:
Post a Comment