|
Forensic Linguistic Analysis
"The overwhelming objective of bikers' fabrications is to trivialize pedestrian's motives ("you scared my dog") and make his actions seem grave (swinging cane, multiple swears, multiple statements), when, in fact, it was his actions that were trivial (9 word 3 second defensive startle response) and his motives that were grave (saving the lives of bikers and others). Only by ignoring Part A of the event (first encounter with bikers' reckless speed) and focusing on Part B (hill) of the encounter, can bikers attempt to pull off this sleight of hand."
Publications: This is the increasingly important "Three Biker's Problem" for Forensic Analysis. This case is currently scheduled to be published in 14 law journals and over 6 textbooks. There is an analysis contest being published using this case as the analytic test, and analysts and experts from around the globe are competing to add to the depth and breath of the analysis. Three US FBI analysts have done the initial summary, along with animators, audio pins and many other technologies, including supercomputers. The case will be used to illustrate coaching problems and solutions in many law courses.
Brief: A word for word police witness report (the "Three Bikers" problem) was presented for analysis to three groups: 1. Six internationally recognized Forensic Linguists; 2. A commonly used heuristic Forensic Linguistics Analysis automated "menu" driven support program and 3. A supercomputer run Forensic Linguistics analysis program using statement animation, AI and KBS. The statement is first given in raw form below, with situational details only, and no comments or supporting evidence, for readers who wish to check their own analysis techniques against the other three, before reading the results; and for those who wish to use the analysis problems in classes or training exercises. After presenting the raw analysis of all three techniques, polygraph and other brief factual evidence not originally given to analysts is added. Next, a "Delphi" resubmission to all three groups is summarized to highlight gaps and insights in each of the techniques. The conclusion models the three techniques in comparison to the past evolution of computer chess algorithms, and speculates on future directions for robust analysis of Forensic data using intuitive vs. exhaustive vs. table and matrix animation (array processor) methods. A technical afterward is given for those interested in the rapidly evolving fields of automated statement agents, Audio Pins, AI and KBS, as they apply to Forensic Linguistics and the Language of the Law.
Summary: Significant differences, strengths and gaps arise depending on whether analysts take a psycho linguistics, socio linguistics, quantitative, logical or affective approach to analysis. Computational Linguistics (CL), even at very basic analytic and menu driven levels, makes each approach more robust. Adding sophisticated, supercomputer run natural language processing and automated statement agents suggests a variety of different lenses through which statements can be viewed, some novel and subtle. As these CL programs evolve, much like chess playing computer algorithms have, analysis without them will at some point seem outdated and unprofessional.
The case: An elderly pedestrian with a cane is climbing a hill with his dog on a leash. Three motocross riders suddenly appear behind him wearing uniforms and helmets. The pedestrian turns and makes a defensive startle response statement to one or more of the bikers. The bikers call police, and give written statements (word for word, with misspellings included) to police. The bikers are found to be juveniles of teen age, ages unspecified. The police cite the pedestrian for several serious crimes including threatening and disorderly conduct. The pedestrian denies the bikers' version of the event. The pedestrian claims he only made a single 9 word statement to bikers, lasting 3 seconds.
Specific Objectives: Analyze the 3 bikers witness statements, and reconstruct what likely happened. Make recommendations both to the prosecution and defense on how to proceed. Give specific veracity conclusions, supported by your analysis. You are free to use expert analysis, audio pins and supercomputing in your analysis.
Biker Witness Statements Word for Word from police report:
1. Witness statement written by Biker One. Statement copied word for word including spelling and grammar mistakes.
"We were riding on the trail on our dirt bikes and this guy said if you dont slow the H word down I will snap your F word neck while he was cursing at us he had a 4 foot tall black stick threatening to break our necks. After he said that he said you little Fword Aword, you scared my dog. When I came home I was scared to death and crying so hard I was so scared. At night I did not even want to go to sleep. That afternoon I was so scared I did not want to ride on my dirt bike cause I was so scared. So when I turned around he said get out of her you little Aword (singular)."
2. Witness statement written by Biker Two. Statement copied word for word including spelling and grammar mistakes.
"Biker One, Biker Three and I were out riding and we decided to go up a trail Biker One was in front of us and I saw him stop halfway up and I saw an old man standing in front of him yelling at him. He had a four foot black stick that he held up swinging. By the time I got up there he was half way through yelling. The only part I heard him say was you get back down before I break your Fword neck Aword (plural)! Then me Biker One and Biker Three headed back down and told my Aunt and my mom what happened."
3. Witness statement written by Biker Three. Statement copied word for word including spelling and grammar mistakes.
"My cousins cam up to ride dirt bikes. When we rode up a trail, my cousin Biker One went up first Biker Two came second then me. When I came around the first tight turn both of my cousins were stoped. A man with a large black stick was thretining to snap our Fword necks if he saw us back there. Then he told us to get the Fword back were you came from and don't scare my dog again."
======================== Analysis Summary Follows =======================
Linguistic Analysis Summaries, 4 recognized Forensic Linguists:
-- Biker One gives an emotional interlude that may indicate coaching or statement prompting.
-- Biker Two reports some physical impossibilities, such as knowing he arrives half way through the old man's statement.
-- All three disagree on nature and order of profanity.
-- Disagreements on terms like snap vs. break indicate questionable veracity.
-- Two mention the dog, one does not.
-- Level of fear may indicate other sources of fear or abuse.
-- Were the bikes still running? How could they hear anything? Why didn't they just leave?
-- Statements like "the only part I heard" indicate a desire not to be present, and a desire not to lie.
-- Some report pedestrian yelling, others "saying." How loud were bikes, and how loud was pedestrian?
-- Biker One doesn't "want" to sleep, why does he simply say he couldn't sleep?
-- Numerous other inconsistencies and contradictions also exist in the biker's accounts, including the use of the words (never spoken or inconsistently reported): "Hell, get back down, don't come back; you scared my dog; snap vs. break"; contradictions of not being separated, yet arriving separately; one shows "swinging a stick," others don't, police verify it was a cane; according to Biker One the threat was contingent, according to the others it wasn't; the dog scare statements are completely different, Biker One phrasing as an accusation, Biker Three as a command, and Biker Two not mentioning it at all; the supposed threat of violence from Biker One only was to "get out of here," whereas in Biker Three's it was "if he saw us back there;" Biker One reports all three bikers being addressed at once, yet the reported speech is singular. In layman's terms, biker's accounts have no credibility at all, even on their face without linguistic theory, with clear evidence of fabrication and coaching.
-- Were I to encapsulate the statements, I would consider each to be a variation on the theme of using the stories about the altercation to punish an old man who impeded their ability to have fun, or do what they wanted their kids to do. Apparently, the planned event required a visit, presumably by car or motorbikes, to Biker Three's home. By adding curse words to the event, in the minds of the bikers, it elevated their story to a level of seriousness. There is no discussion of the threat of the physical object wielded by the man, and how he brandished it at them; rather, their concentration is on the words, fabricated by them to give the incident a level of seriousness.
Operating from the widely held belief that curse words aren’t normally uttered by pre-teens or teenagers when authority figures are around, (and lying to the police would be a very powerful reason for Biker One's angst that night), the threesome created the perfect scenario with which to embellish their effrontery. They empowered an old man with the prowess to subdue three kids, on motorbikes, who could as easily have run on foot away from him, let alone, use their bikes, which, were never described by any of the riders, as having been turned off. If no one turned off the bike he/she was on, did the witnesses hear anything? There is no talk about dogs barking and running after them, of getting sideswiped within an inch of their lives--just cursing, freely used by youngsters not accustomed to cursing in front of adults. By using those words, they elevated the stakes much higher, because everybody knows that cursing is bad. Maybe they were allowed to curse in front of the police and parents, and even encouraged, but what about lying? Lying to police, under oath, to wrongfully accuse, etc. are very serious crimes, even for juveniles, and with even the smallest amount of conscience, this would eat at these youth for years, and perhaps endanger their future employment options as well.
It is natural to accept the written word. However, upon closer examination, one should resist the temptation to take these bikers at their word. Each statement loses potency when deciphered and analyzed as to the deponent’s veracity. The attempt to show solidarity with one another and to seek revenge against an adult is laudable (in a perversion of justice kind of way), but no child should be allowed to fabricate a ruse to mete out justice. Children should be lectured that lying usually hurts the proponent of the lie, with guilt that will likely trail the culprits the rest of their lives, if they don’t atone now. If these are wealthy parents encouraging their spoiled youngsters to lie, that they are now victims and protected from their lies, and that they have a right to frighten elderly pedestrians, they are teaching their children lessons that will have deadly consequences for them in the future.
As an attorney who assisted many prosecutions by gathering and analyzing testimony evidence for numerous criminal prosecutions, I do not believe that this case is an efficient use of local, state, or federal government resources. The bikers should be lectured never to make accusations in so cavalier a fashion. They could destroy their lives and that of the Accused. The parents should be advised to be more skeptical of the saintliness of their children, especially in this age of bullying.
Linguistic Analysis Summaries: Computer Aided Heuristic Statement Processing
“…were riding…” – and not “rode”. Using past continuous indicates that they did something else while riding (were talking, or had planned events-- Did they discuss going after or confronting or following the pedestrian? Worth questioning).
“…on the trail…” – “the” trail means a known one.
Note that in many statements the “open statement” ("then he said') includes or precedes the reason for the events that follow (can indicate either coaching or reciting from planned or hearsay- copied testimony rather than witnessing).
“We were riding on the trail on our dirt bikes…” – and not “We were riding on our dirt bikes on the trail…” – the way the sentence is constructed, the trail is more important than the dirt bikes. One might question if such priority is expected from teenagers riding on dirt bikes. (Suggests adult perspective added, and that the trail is important to emphasize).
“…this guy…” – “this” means close by. (One should note that for a subject to say “this guy” means that that quite likely the subject knew the guy prior to the event, or had planned on meeting or seeing him there, or had discussed him after the fact).
“…and this guy said…” – note that the subject produced “this guy” in a vacuum. There is no mentioning how the guy was there. Did he face them? Did they pass him? Was he behind them? Nothing. The guy that says something from nowhere. (Often indicates attempt to be sure certain things are included rather than direct recall from witnessed events).
“slow” – and not “stop”. Note that for the guy to complain about “slowing” the guy had to be with them for a while. Otherwise, if they passed him at high speed he will have no time to say anything. And if they were passing him then the sentence to be quoted would be short – “Slow down!” and not a very long sentence as it is quoted here. Such a long sentence indicates that the riders were not moving at the time the sentence was said. (Note that this is reinforced by “this guy” – “this” indicates that they knew the guy prior to the event, had discussed meeting him prior, or were basing statements on subsequent discussions on what to say).
“…your Fword neck…” – Note that the subject used “neck” in the singular and not in the plural. (Contradicts whether was addressed to one, two or three. Witness singular means on its face that only one heard it, yet three report it, and later he uses "us" plural in the same report).
“If you don’t slow the hell down I will snap your Fword neck…” –Note the order of listing. It was more important for the “guy” that they will slow down than to snap their neck in their account. Why didn't the other two hear the slow down statement?
“while he was cursing at us…” – note that initially the subject quoted the “guy” using the word “said” which is not “yelled”, “shouted”, or “cursed”. To use the word “said” is quite innocent. (Contradiction shows potential of a mild response with enhancement to make the guy seem more menacing).
“cursing” – and not “threatening”. The main feature of what the guy supposedly said was threatening to “snap”/”break” their necks (with inconsistent use). But the subject is not talking about the “threat”. He is more concerned with the guy’s language – “cursing”. Why? (Very possible realization that this was a startle curse, and that the "threat" was assumed from the curse, whether intended or not by pedestrian, in later discussions by riders).
“while he was cursing at us…” – note the use of “us” (=”we”), still without introducing who are the people included in the “we”. (How can this be a we, if the others hadn't arrived yet, according to the others, and even according to the singular "neck"?)
“4 foot tall” – and “4 foot long” - this should bring us to wonder if the stick is the height of the subject. (Consistency in estimate demonstrates either uncanny accuracy of observation, or comparing notes to appear consistent-- which is more probable? Use Occam's razor!)
“4 foot tall black stick” – note the "accurate" description of the stick. Compare to the lack of any description of the “guy”. (If the guy himself was "old" and not very scary, emphasizing the stick (cane) is a way to make the situation seem more menacing).
“…to break our necks…” – note two changes in language. One, the change from “snap” to “break”. If both are the guy’s language (but compare to Biker Two’s report) then it would be an “unjustified change of language” indicating deception. Two, the change from neck in the singular earlier to necks in the plural here.
“After he said that…” – Note the subject doubled the activity of “saying”. This is “unnecessary connection” (implies added or missing information).
“…he said…” – once the subject mentioned that the guy “said” there is no need to say “he said” again. Unless, the rider is omitting what rider answered in response.
“you little Fword Aword…” – note the use of the singular again. (Contradicts whether there was one, two or three present, which themselves contradict, since Biker Three hears what Biker Two didn't, yet supposedly arrives last).
“…you scared my dog…” – note that this complaint is missing from the earlier account of Biker Two and pedestrian.
“…you scared my dog…” – and not scared the guy. (Trivializes motive).
The structure of the statement: the subject used 123 words in total. The subject divided the statement in actually 4 parts: “before” 10 words which is 8% of the statement. “During” = 50 words which is 40% of the statement. The “After” 49 words which is 40% of the statement. The subject added one more line at the end for the ending of the “during” which is 14 words which is 12% (rounded) of the statement. If we combine the last section and merge it with the “during” (the event) we get the following structure: 8%-52%-40%.
Discussion: the fact that the after is longer than the “before” indicates quite likely that memory is playing in the statement. However, to use only 8% for the “before” is too low. One should note that the division of the statement is usually “person” (how the person got into the event) – the incident (reported by the subject) – and the person (what the incident did to the person). In this statement we find that the “before”, or, the “person” (what led to the incident) is too low. Generally, such a structure would be produced by people who use memory but not their memory. Also, the subject might be concealing information which led to the events that if they will be found out it will turn the story upside down.
“I was scared to death and crying so hard I was so scared.” – note the location of the emotions in the “after” part of the statement which attempts to give credibility to the statement. It takes time for emotions to sink in. One should also note that the subject is very excessive in mentioning emotions, above and beyond the regular statement. (Was he asked to describe the event or his feelings? Why didn't the other two report any emotion at all? How could he not sleep if the police came the same evening, within hours of the event?).
“At night” – note that there is no time mentioned “before” and “during”. However, there is time mentioned in the “after”. Generally speaking, we see that many victims stop mentioning time once the crime starts. So it is expected that there will be no time mentioned in the “during” part of the statement. However, there is a definite expectation that time will be mentioned in the “before” part – but the subject didn’t. Please note that when a subject does not mention time, the subject is not enabling the investigator to verify the statement. The investigator needs three points to enable investigation: time, location, and people. In this case, we have location (“on the trail”) and we have the person (“this guy”) but we have no time. Why not?
“At night I did not even want to go to sleep.” – a sentence in the negative = importance added. Note that the subject did not say that he did not go to sleep. He only said that he did not “want’ to go to sleep.
“I did not want to ride on my dirt bike…” – while in the beginning the subject used the pronoun “we” for riding”, after the incident he used only the pronoun “I”. The “we” vanished. Was the subject present during the incident? Note the low “before” which might be explained by memory of someone else.
“I did not want to ride on my dirt bike cause…” – note the cluster of two points: a) a sentence in the negative – “what didn’t happen”, and b) giving a reason – “cause”. In both instances the subject exits the question “what happened?”
"Scared" -- This is the fourth time the subject mentioned “scared” – extremely excessive recounting.
"So when I turned" -- This sentence is actually part of the incident, the “during”. It is mentioned out of place. One might wonder if the subject added this sentence as an afterthought. Was the subject asked a specific question to generate this sentence? (How many of these statements were prompted by specific questions rather than witness recounting of what happened? Many of these contradictions are evidenced in all three accounts).
“…turned around…” – Note the order of listing. The subject mentioned “turning around” and only then the guy said what he said (“Get out of her(e) (sic)”). If the subject already turned around (assuming to leave the place) why would the guy tell him to leave? (This is very probably fabrication).
“decided” – indicating that they had other options in front of them. Did they specifically target this guy?
“Biker One was in front of us…” – note that the subject uses the “us” (=”we”) for him and Biker Three and not for Biker One.
“…and I saw him stop…” – and not “…and he stopped…” – the subject is telling us more of what he “saw” than what Biker One did, how is this possible?
“in front of him” – mentioning the exact location of “standing” (as well as “sitting” and “sleeping”) in an “open statement is 70% chance of a conflict.
“yelling” – while Biker One used “said” (Neutral) throughout the incident, this subject used “yelling” indicating more of a confrontation, even though he was reportedly farther away.
“swinging” (the stick/cane) – note that this point is missing from Biker One’s description.
(Biker Two) -- “By the time I got up there…” – along with Biker One riding “in front of us”. By this statement, Biker One was actually on his own with the “guy” / “an old man” for a little bit. If this is the case, then the wonder of the missing “I” until “after the incident” is ever increasing. Why it is “we” for Biker One while he was ahead of them?
“…he was half way through yelling…” – to indicate this exact point is impossible for the subject if he wasn’t there. This is definitely a reconstruction of the events after the fact. Note that when a person gives a statement from memory the subject can report to us what he knew at the time of the event. When we find in the statement information which is not from the time of the event, but from the time of statement, this is a signal that the subject is not reliving the incident. In other words, a strong signal of deception.
“The only part…” – the subject indicates that he knows of other parts to the conversation which he did not hear. By saying it, the subject incredibly talks openly about him and his brother Biker One changing impressions of what happened.
“heard” – one might wonder if the subject relates here to the ability to “hear” due to the noise of the engines. By the location the subject positioned Biker One – “in front of us” – and Biker One is right now in between the subject and the “old man” then it is a question if the subject can report what the old man told Biker One, at all, physically.
“The only part I heard him say…” – compare to “yelling” before. (Many contradictions between the loud noise of the bikes, their relative positions, distance to the pedestrian, and him speaking or yelling or talking). This biker wants to tell the truth, but is being pressured and coached not to, so he "exits" the situation with "the only part" disclaimer.
Being that this is the “only part” the subject “heard”, the subject is highlighting this point as the point which is the focus of the investigation. Coaching? Not wanting to lie? Or even be there?
“Then me Biker One and Biker Three…” – note the change of order of listing after the incident. The subject listed himself first before the others.
“told” – note the change in language from “said” and “yelling” earlier to “told” here. One expects a subject to change language from a violent situation to a non-violent one, this is constructed. Also note that there are situations in which a person would report to us what the person said in the past, but this is not necessarily true. It means that at times we might be facing an accurate quotation with deceptive content. This means that the subject might not have “told” "my Aunt and my mom” what actually happened.
Note that throughout this statement this subject did not mention the old man’s dog at all.
This statement has 103 words. Out of which the subject the subject used 21 words for the “before”, 65 words for the “during” and 17 words for the “after”. This is a structure of 21%-63%-16%. 85% of deceptive people write more for the time before than to the time “after” in Forensic Linguistics research findings.
“…both of my cousins were stopped.” – by the subject, he is clearly NOT a witness to the point the other two stopped.
Unlike the other two who gave us quotations of what the guy / man said, this one is not giving a quotation. It is quite likely what the other two told him.
“…and don’t scare my dog again.” – unlike Biker Two who didn’t mention the dog, Biker One and this subject did. Using “again” indicates that they thought the guy / man knew they were going to be back. If so, it would reinforce that they knew each other, or intended to meet him. Question: Did they scare the dog before? Is this an admission? Did they plan to go confront the guy?
Note that Biker Three wrote a total 78 words. Out of which 33 words for the “before” and 45 words for the “during” and 0 (nothing) for the “after”. 85% of deceptive people produce a statement in which the before is longer than the “after”. Structure wise, Biker Three’s statement is deceptive.
One should note that Biker One is the only one who produced a very small “before”, unlike the other two who inflated the “before” on the expense of the “after”. This indicates that Biker One is the only who uses actual memory. However, one must wonder if Biker One added many words to the statement which are from memory but not his memory, given the discrepancies, impossibilities and contradictions in accounts, and timing of arrivals.
Suggested strategy for interviewing: Recommend interviewing Biker One alone as a truthful subject who added lies to the story based on the other two accounts. Biker Two's most obvious fabrication is arriving "half way through," yet hearing the wrong half, and somehow knowing around a blind corner that it WAS half (impossible on its face), yet Biker Two agrees most closely with pedestrian (minus the impossible half way), in length of encounter, and not mentioning the dog at all, which Biker Three then supposedly does hear. Biker Three has the most obvious fabrications of the three, as he recounts the whole Biker One story, and more, yet supposedly arrives after the other two are stopped, and the guy's statement is finished, yet he hears more than Biker Two, who only hears half, and even more than Biker One, who purportedly hears all, and more than Biker Three!
Supercomputer, Animation and Audio Pin Aided Forensic Linguistics Program Summary:
-- Three motorcycles rounding a blind corner and encountering a defensive surprise/ startled pedestrian statement, while generating approximately 90 to 110 decibels of sound for EACH motorcycle, additive to over 200 decibels (where 140 is the reference threshold for instant hearing damage), and the bikers wearing full motocross uniforms and helmets, would make it impossible for bikers to accurately hear any statement, let alone supposed multiple statements and words. Pedestrian claims that he made one, 3 second, 9 word defensive startle response statement in total. Bikers claim they arrived separately, yet heard 62 words: 27 words (Biker One-- first), then 11 words (Biker Two-- second), then 24 words (Biker Three-- arriving last after "both others stopped" and after Biker Two, who arrives second, hears only half!). By decibel readings alone with helmets on, there would have physically been, with a single three sentence statement lasting about 10 seconds, as reported by Biker One, a decreasing ability to hear the entire statement due both to increasing noise levels as well as sequence and time of arrival. However, this decreases from Biker One at 27 words heard, to Biker Two at 11 words, then suddenly increases back to 24 words witnessed by Biker Three, who purportedly arrives last, yet hears more than Biker Two, who purportedly arrives second and ahead of Biker Three (in fact, Biker Three, arriving last, purportedly hears MORE THAN Biker One's entire statement, after Biker Two, arriving before Biker Three, purportedly hears only half!). Pedestrian's police report is that they arrived suddenly and closely together, and only one defensive startle statement was made of 9 words, lasting 3 seconds. The separate arrival and multiple statements by pedestrian are physically impossible, fabricated and contradictory on the face of the biker's own statements alone.
-- There were 62 words heard by bikers in the total account, yet Biker One, who reportedly was the only one to hear the entire account, only hears 27, and Biker Three, who arrives last while the other two bikers "were already stopped," suddenly hears the full statement purported by Biker One and much more, which Biker Two did not hear because he supposedly arrived "half way through" the pedestrian's statement to Biker One, and only heard 11 words. Hearing a statement out of order (Biker Three), which a reported earlier arrival didn't report hearing (Biker Two), is clear evidence of coaching, comparing notes, and fabrication, and makes it doubtful that two of the bikers (Biker Two and Biker Three) witnessed anything they reported at all, and the first (Biker One), then fabricated a large part (at least two thirds) of what he reported, by either comparing notes or with coaching, and then the other two read and embellished from his script.
-- Pedestrian claims pedestrian made only a single 9 word, 3 second defensive startle response statement, those 3 seconds BEING THE ENTIRE INCIDENT. Biker One claims pedestrian made three separate statements: 1. "If you don't slow the (hell) down I will snap your F neck" (on arrival); 2. ("After that he said") "You little FA, you scared my dog." 3. (Then: "When I turned around to leave") "Get out of here you little AH (singular)" as all three left. These statements, including the departure statements, do not match any other statements, and are completely contradictory, including pedestrian's report, and the other two bikers' statements.
-- Biker Two claims he sees Biker One stop "halfway up." He then claims he sees an old man "standing in front of him (Biker One), yelling at him." He then claims that by the time "he got up there", (pedestrian) "was half way through yelling."-- it is impossible by his own account, and the blind corner described both by Biker Three and Pedestrian, that he could have known the pedestrian was "half way through" the statement without hearing it, fabricating it, or being coached. He then claims "The only part I heard was: 3. "You get back down before I break your F neck AHs (plural)." Biker One, the pedestrian, Biker Three, and the statement animation model all confirm that this was a surprise encounter, around a sharp blind curve. There was no possible "line of sight" for Biker Two to see pedestrian's lips moving from 30 feet away around a blind corner curve, and the statement that he "arrived half way through" is physically impossible and fabricated on its face (how could he know if it was halfway if he only just arrived?), as well as completely contradicting both Biker One and Biker Three's accounts. The ability to "see around a corner" is in the family of "standing outside yourself" in Forensic Linguistics, and is common evidence of coaching and comparing notes, then incorporating the coaching and note comparing into fabricated witness accounts.
-- In addition, the "final" statement that Biker Two claims to have heard is directly contradictory to the order of the statements given by Biker One. If Biker Two only had heard the final, or last half, or departing statements, he would have heard "you scared my dog" and "get out of here", yet he reports hearing NO dog statement and a "break your F necks" statement, which are the FIRST statements Biker One purportedly hears, which are the ones Biker Two supposedly did not hear at all! (Note: it is possible bikers incorporated an entire fabrication about the dog story, since both Biker One and Biker Three reportedly hear it (arriving first (Biker One) and much later, last (Biker Three)), YET Biker Two (middle) does not hear it at all (after arriving second, and ahead of Biker Three, who supposedly hears it).
-- Biker Three's statement is the most egregious, and most blatantly fabricated of the three. Biker Three first acknowledges that the event takes place around a blind curve, then says "when I came around the first tight turn both my cousins were stopped." He then reports pedestrian as 1. "Threatening to snap our F necks" 2. "If he saw us back there" 3. "Then he told us to get the F back where you came from" and 4. "Don't scare my dog again." Biker Three purportedly arrives last (third), yet Biker Three supposedly WITNESSES more than Biker Two, who only heard a much smaller "half" (ONE sentence) because he (Biker Two) arrived second (and remember, half way through Biker One). Biker Three, in fact, reports hearing the entire Biker One statement PLUS even more, yet Biker One was supposedly was the only one to hear the entire statement, and Biker Three even adds "if he saw us back there" and "get back down where you came from," which neither of the other two (Biker One or Biker Two) report hearing, and pedestrian denies even saying. If we time out the three accounts by bikers (about 18 to 20 seconds, compared to the pedestrian's account of 3 seconds), the timing of the statements also are physically impossible, as the total statements, even those reported by bikers, are only seconds long, and belie the longer supposed separate arrival time scenarios (where does the time come from for all these separate arrival events?), and what could possibly have been heard in that time, especially with over 200 decibels of sound under helmets. For all three to hear three separate statements, repeated slightly differently, Biker One would have had to report 8 statements, not 3, when in fact pedestrian's statement to police report, as well as Biker Two's account, report only one brief, THREE SECOND LONG, SINGLE SENTENCE, defensive startle reaction, consisting of only 9 total words, NOT 62.
-- The biker's purportedly witnessed "departure statements" -- the three final things supposedly heard when the bikers were supposedly all together and about to leave, and supposedly unaffected by the suspicious separate arrivals, also egregiously contradict each other. Biker One's is "Get out of here you little AH"; Biker Two's is "Get back down before I break your necks"; and Biker Three's is "Don't scare my dog again." Pedestrian's poly and police statement show pedestrian making no departure statement at all, no reference to his dog, and no "get back down" or " don't come back" statements, no use of the word "hell" at all, and only a single swear of two words, not 9 SWEARS as reported in separate arrivals by the bikers, and not even the 5 SWEARS reported by Biker One, who is the only one to supposedly hear the whole statement, though Biker Three reports even more, arriving last! Remember, the bikers here are implicitly saying that the swears are ADDITIVE, not OVERLAPPING, due to their separate arrivals and not hearing the whole statement, yet the total swears heard by Biker One DO NOT ADD UP to the other two bikers at all, in order, content or association with motive (dog, neck, get down, slow down), making all three biker's witness statements impossible on their faces.
-- The order, type, motive and reason for the swears are thus very likely fabricated. Pedestrian reports a single 3 second defensive startle response sentence. Biker One then reports 5 swears, Hell, F with a neck statement, F and A with a dog statement, and A with a get out of here as (Biker One) was leaving. Yet Biker Two, who supposedly hears only half, hears two more swears, an F with the neck and an A with a get back down, whereas the F with the neck was reported by Biker One as the first one said, while Biker Two was supposedly not yet even there. Then Biker Three hears no A, no hell, and only two F words, one with a neck and one with a get back down, again after supposedly arriving well after both other boys ("while they were both stopped"), and well after Biker Two could not possibly have heard an F neck statement according to Biker One's account, since it was first, yet Biker Three then mysteriously hears the first F neck statement that Biker One reports as the first swear uttered, and Biker Two also reports hearing, even though he then contradicts himself by saying he only heard the second half of Biker One's statement.
-- The "disorderly" language of most State Statutes specifically state that the knowledge and intent has to be to disturb the peace of a neighborhood or person (which the bikers were actually doing, not the pedestrian), in a manner "likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation" (by bikers) (in other words, DC is usually about starting a fight). Biker One's statement on its face was that they turned and immediately left, and the pedestrian's statement had its intended effect, to defensively stop them from running him over, slow down, and thereby defend his life AND THEIR OWN LIVES FROM THEIR EXCESSIVE SPEED, not "start a fight" by "provoking immediate physical retaliation" BY THE BIKERS--these charges are absurd even on the face of the biker's own statements.
-- The linguistic difference between to "threaten" and to "defend" does not involve differences in force of language, or even physical force, it involves reaction vs. initiation in intent. To threaten is to INITIATE, to protect is to REACT. This was clearly a defensive startle reaction by pedestrian, not an initiation, even by biker's own contradictory accounts. Also, the "threat" of a "broken neck" was from the biker's own actions and speed ("SLOW DOWN"), not pedestrian, as bikers had the deadly vehicular force, not an elderly pedestrian walking with a cane with a dog. Also check Lexis Nexis for DISPARITY OF FORCE rulings under justification defenses for threatening / defending in many States and Countries.
-- Statement animation and Audio Pins of arrival time vs. amount heard. Biker Two's account, also being closest to pedestrian's account, is the lynchpin in the animation. He has to add the impossible line of sight to back up Biker One's artificially long statement. Animation suggests Biker One and Two arrived nearly together, and Biker Three behind them, hearing nothing.
THE WORDS OF THREE VS. THE WORD of ONE. It's axiomatic and a priori to say that you can't witness something you weren't present to witness. Biker Three was obviously not present to witness anything at all, by his and the other biker's own accounts on their face (Biker Two's "half way" and "by the time... they were both stopped" by Biker Three). If one or two bikers agreed with pedestrian's account, or were proven to be lying, and if the pedestrian only said one protective defensive startle response lasting only 3 seconds, there would be no citations, no threatening, and no disorderly "intent to start a fight," which also is absurd given the biker's ages and reported responses. The citation's basis of "three against one" removes the deadly force of the bikers to turn disparity on its head, and reverse the victim roles, all due to the "three words" of the bikers! If there were no "three words" there would be no citations.
All these reports and the pedestrian's account, and the bikers statements on their face, conclude the same thing: you can't witness something you weren't present to witness. All three of the bikers have to be lying if there is one interlocking contradiction-- arrival times vs. what they could actually have heard and witnessed, rather than been coached to say. To challenge the fact that Biker Three did not arrive in time to hear anything, you'd have to either say Biker Two is lying, or Biker Three is lying, or both are lying. Since Biker Two also does not agree with Biker One, one of them also has to be lying, tainting all three. Biker Two has to lie about arrival time to support Biker One's "longer" statement, even though Biker Two hears the pedestrian's reported short statement. Yet in lying about arrival time, he contradicts Biker Three's lie about hearing anything at all (Biker Three arriving after half was said, yet witnessing more than Biker One!). Why didn't the police visit the scene to confirm or deny the curve? Or did they?
To challenge the pedestrian's account, Biker One, Biker Three and Biker Two either have to rescind that they arrived when they say they arrived, or rescind that they witnessed what they say they witnessed, (timing and hearing have to go together like words and music), then Biker Three has to unravel Biker Two's arrival time or line of sight as well (Biker Two "heard only half", "arrived when Biker One had already heard half that Biker Two didn't hear but Biker Three witnessed what Biker Two didn't even though he wasn't there" and "Biker Two didn't hear any dog statement but Biker Three did."). Whether they were lying about their arrival times, or lying about what they witnessed (and in point of fact from their statements, both), they still did not witness what they claimed to have witnessed, and their "witnessing" is constructed and coached, negating the entire police report and "three witness accounts" upon which the police say the entire citation is based.
Biker One and Biker Two arrived nearly simultaneously, and Biker Three arrived in close proximity behind the blind curve according to our animation reconstruction model of the statements. Biker Three could not possibly have heard anything, and both of the other biker's accounts, and pedestrian's account, verify this. The "three against one" in reality is Pedestrian, Biker One and Biker Two vs. Biker Three, and if that is the police standard for citations ("three vs. one"), then on the police report's face, it is Biker Three that should have been cited for lying to police. To police: If it were obvious the boys were lying, would you still have issued the citations, even though it was three fibs vs. one truthful pedestrian, and three disparate deadly bike forces vs. one elderly pedestrian? There is the crux of the three vs. one question, disparity of force, and the reason these citations should be questioned. In fact, NONE of the statements are 3 vs 1 against pedestrian: The "dog" statement is 2 vs 2 (pedestrian and Biker Two not saying/hearing); the "sharp bend" is 3 vs. 1 (Biker One, pedestrian and Biker Three vs. BIker Two being the only one with fabricated "long view arrival" to support Biker One's lies); SLOW DOWN 2 vs 2 (Biker One and pedestrian vs. other 2); swears are complete disagreement between all (Biker One 5, Pedestrian 2 (police missing F word from pedestrian), Biker Two 2, Biker Three different 2!); 2 snap vs. 2 break, etc.
-- Lexis Nexis Summary provided by KBS of relevant similar cases, with sorts on disparity of force, linguistic statement weighting research and coaching studies. Legal definitions of threatening and disorderly, with linguistic interpretations, are provided.
-- Supercomputer scores witness statements as "veracity scale 5" -- "strong evidence of fabrication via contradiction and impossible, conflicting scenarios" (collision detection results in statement animations).
Delphi Adds Summary:
All respondents were given the summaries of all others. Added to this were several simple facts:
1. Pedestrian passed a poly concluding he only made one, 3 second long statement with two swear words (A and F).
2. Bikers refused depositions or polys.
3. Pedestrian proves he is medically unable to swing a cane while on a rocky hill.
4. No dog statement was made, except to police by pedestrian.
5. Only Biker Three lives with the adult complainant, and complainant pressured police and witnesses to make statements, and cite pedestrian.
6. Police left out statements about pedestrian's concern for biker's safety, and the fact that bikers had been riding at high speed in the neighborhood for a previous week.
7. Pedestrian's wife was killed in a four wheeling rollover accident, when her neck was broken.
8. Pedestrian claims he stated "Slow down (As), you're gunna break your (F) necks." and poly validates his version.
Delphi Responses:
"-- The supercomputer gives interesting word counts that should be included
-- The supercomputer animation is astonishing. How did we ever live without this?
-- The dog information shows adult coaching in purposely trivializing the pedestrian's motives
-- The heuristic run gives good research information on log likelihood of deceit
-- The KBS of the supercomputer is a good adjunct for adding legal and forensic linguistics case precedents and research to analysis
-- Biker Two comes to the forefront when the supercomputer analysis is read
-- Heuristics adds much to the Biker One importance
-- All accounts now conclude that Biker Three likely heard nothing
-- Socio Linguistic Additions after Delphi:
Biker One’s Statement
Biker One’s statement is the most thorough, visual, and, therefore, strongest of the three statements, even though Biker Two is the lynchpin. Although he is credited by Biker Two with being the true victim of the “attack,” as he was supposedly ahead of the other bike riders on the trail, Biker One attempts to recount the whole incident in the plural. His statements are confusing, as if he were the only person present. However, he uses other language that makes it appear that the three were together. His impulsive explanation is probably the basis of the other two. He was purportedly ahead of everyone, and the Accused supposedly lectured him and told him to slow down.
Biker One’s statement that “we were riding,” is logical because they were riding their bikes when Biker One encountered the Accused. However, the next sentence relates to words that were uttered as allegedly threatening and injurious. Given that a grown man was confronting them, the order in which the incident is relayed suggests that the black stick in the man’s possession was not the threat to them, rather, it was the words instead.
To use an analogy: If a car is going to run over someone on the street, the fact that the driver says, “I hate the color of your dress,” is not likely to be as threatening as the car itself. Here, the witness is focused on the words uttered by the man, and even returns to those words (after explaining his fear of going to sleep). Biker One focuses so much on the words that he does not use any punctuation when citing them: as if it is enough, or indeed even more important, to write down the rote passage to get those “keywords” recorded. The minimum number of words used to describe the event also make a case for the triviality of the incident. Apparently, the man’s stick never came near them, and he was many feet from the bikers. The accused had the stick. But at no time does Biker One use words that would show that the stick was aimed at them. The Accused “had... a stick.” It didn’t almost hit any of them; the old man didn’t throw it; he didn’t swing at them and just miss their bodies. He merely had the stick, or as in the police report, his CANE.
Besides having the stick (called such to seem more threatening?), there is no other object of fear that causes the bikers to run away, which they could very well have done, even leaving their bikes behind to evade immediate harm or capture. Although someone can be paralyzed by fear, given the age of the bikers, they could have easily driven or run beyond the older man’s reach and instinctively would have defended themselves, if just to ward off the imminent "stick" blows [that never came].
Biker One’s statement also implies that the three of them were under the older man’s spell for a long period of time, which militates against their fear for their safety. The clause, “While he was cursing at us,” suggests that they spent more time with the Accused. Yet the sparseness of each witness statement makes a strong case for this being a quick incident. If they were with the man for a longer period of time, one could expect that they would have more memories to share about what he said. Inasmuch as Biker One doesn’t relay any more details about what else was said, and says the very thing that Biker Two explains in his essay (Biker Two admits that he was not present for "half" of the Accused’s outburst at Biker One); then the conversation between the grown man and the bikers was so truncated that all that is remembered is that they scared his dog and they needed to “get out of her [sic].” What is noteworthy is that Biker One’s statement uses the word “scared” five times. One wonders if this is truly an explanation of fear or an attempt to reinforce Biker One’s conscientious effort to show that the Accused was a menacing man who terrorized them. Using the predatory car driving analogy again, does the fact that the car was nowhere near hitting someone, justify the fear that the comment, “I hate the color of your dress,” generated? Again, they used repetition to “drum” the point home that the Accused was dangerous and scared them--however, they didn’t seem to really fear the stick nearly as much.
Biker Two’s statement
Biker Two’s statement begs the question of how far away he was from the alleged altercation between Biker One and the Accused. Biker Two’s use of words is the most accurate in depicting what likely occurred; however, he, too, falls into the pattern of adopting language to describe the Accused’s behavior that he likely did not hear because of his distance from the Accused and the blind curve described both by the Accused and Biker Three. The three friends went “up” a trail. He “saw,” suggests that he was not a participant, but a witness to an event. If Biker Two saw Biker One stop halfway up, there’s a strong likelihood that Biker Two was at a distance from the dangerous episode because of his ability to see the panorama of the trail which put Biker One at a distance “halfway up” from them, which is physically impossible both in logical structure and due to the curve described by the Accused and validated by Biker Three.
Biker Two does not say that the Accused swung any stick at anybody. He was swinging it, and it is particularly described as being “held up swinging.” (Could the accused been merely trying to get their attention, by waving his arm, which due to disability, had a cane?) If there were real danger of being hit, a different phrase would have been used, such as “he swung the bat at Biker One, and missed him.” Instead he allegedly swung it up, which means it was not a threatening gesture. There was no depiction of the stick “lashing” at Biker One. Whatever can be said for Biker One’s veracity, this statement contradicts it and throws the entire incident into question. Biker Two continues to narrate, not as a participant, but as a voyeur, from afar: “The only part I heard him say,” suggests that he really does not want to be a part of the incident. Again, there is no quotation mark that sets the words apart; just run-on sentences, which suggest that Biker Two is being forced to use these words so they are consistent with the others’ claims. He makes the attempt to corroborate, but then falls far short, by saying that the Accused said he would “break your f_cking neck _ssholes.” Biker One said the Accused was “threatening to break our necks,” then added
“you little f_cking _sshole you scared my dog.”
The sequence of words used in both Biker One and Biker Two’s narrations is somewhat similar, as can be seen in the paragraph above. However, where do they stand, given Biker Two’s admission that he didn’t really hear everything because Biker One was allegedly (and impossibly) half-way up the trail? Biker Two could only have been coached, or influenced to use the same words as Biker One. Specifically, Biker One says that the Accused immediately cursed at him, saying that he would “snap your f_cking neck,” (in singular). Biker One next focuses on the phrase “break our necks,” as if to correct himself to add the other two bikers into the equation, thereby increasing the threat to them by the man. Biker One’s alliteration of the phrase “f_ucking _sshole,” (again, singular) was used with regard to scaring the dog. At the close of the alleged harangue, the Accused supposedly said, “you little _sshole,” again in the singular. If Biker Two heard only one part of the encounter, he would not have heard “break your _ucking neck _ssholes,” because those were stated, by Biker One, to be the original attack words used by the Accused. Biker Two would have been out of range of hearing for that part of the alleged altercation.
Biker Two’s statement is a half-truth. He didn’t really hear much of anything because he was too far back, and he did not continue along the trail but turned around. No man was running after them, throwing anything, making them flee in haste. Biker Two and Biker Three were too far behind to be in harm’s way by their own account, or to hear anything at all, except, for some series of words telling them to slow down, under loud bike noises and with helmets on. Biker Two makes a valiant attempt to mimic Biker One’s statement, but isn’t very good at it. He uses the same words, “little,” “break,” “necks,” “dog,” but in his haste to add the expletives, he fumbles miserably. Like one being told to memorize a list of numbers, he uses the digits but does not reiterate the exact combination or sequence. As if to divulge his unwillingness to be a part of the charade, he attempts to show his honesty by absolving himself from any guilt or blame--he wasn’t really present with Biker One; or even close to him. Biker Two is obviously the most honorable, the most compromised, and the most conflicted of the three.
Biker Three’s statement
Biker Three’s statement completely fails to corroborate the other two stories; this could possibly be because Biker One and Biker Two are siblings, closer in age, or at least communicate more readily with each other. Biker Three’s statement is weaker than Biker Two’s, as his involvement in the incident is even more attenuated than that of Biker Two. Whereas Biker Two saw Biker One half-way up the trail, Biker Three gives us another angle, from “around the first tight turn,” where he was not likely to see or hear anything until he made his way around it in pursuit of Biker Two, the latter who implies that he never even reached the alleged melee. From Biker Three’s description of the tight turn, he intimates that there are several such turns. Here, Biker Three channels the Accused’s verbal threats inasmuch as the dirt bike was likely idling and noisy, and all three had helmets on.
Biker Three uses the term “snap,” to describe what the Accused threatened, and corroborates Biker One’s choice of words. However, the choice of both Biker One and Biker Three to use the term “snap,” is unusual. A stick doesn’t snap. It hits, it bashes, it beats. The term snap is highly questionable. Although he gets it close to the other stories, that the man will “snap our f_cking necks,” Biker Three’s attempt to reiterate fails in many ways. He doesn’t use the term, “little,” which was definitely heard by Biker Two but not Biker One. He was told not to “scare my dog again,” the underlined word is one that his two companions never even mentioned. If he said don’t come back here again, that would be more consistent. In this case, Biker Three uses the term, “f_ck” a word allegedly heard by Biker Two, which, given Biker Two’s recitation of events, should have happened in the beginning of the event, before Biker Two was anywhere within hearing distance. Yet, Biker Three didn’t even hear “_ssholes,” which word the first two bikers heard. Biker Three might as well have not been on the scene. Indeed, the fact that he was "around the corner" suggests that he, too, does not want to be associated with the incident. Biker Three, like Biker Two, wants to corroborate Biker One’s story, but can’t really do so because Biker One was the supposed first biker, if you will.
The threesome may have been startled by the events of that afternoon, just as the Accused was, even if they planned to drive up to the man. Hearing any man yell is upsetting to any hearer, if it’s not expected. In the case of the three bikers, they were on restricted trails, a rule enforced by the Accused. Such an imposition on their freedom put a damper on the afternoon fun, and what better way to be vindicated than to give the man what he gave them--a hassle. After all, they’re “little,” they reiterate, and the man used terrible words, cursing at them.
Whether Biker One, Biker Three, the police or parents pressured the other two to corroborate Biker One's alleged statement of facts is open to conjecture. Even if the similarity of language used between the three is not coached but compared, it is obvious that these three bikers (and their coaches-- parents or police) were united in their belief that the man should be punished for stopping their progress on the trails, especially when it was their purpose to ride bikes on the trails that day. This also is a very adult view, and perhaps the parents themselves were incensed that anyone would dare "call" their perfect kids on their actions, or impede their fun, even if pedestrian's motives were to protect both his life and the bikers' lives."
|
|