I agree. But one's choice to change has no bearing on facing the consequences of one's actions.
DC - Savvas Savopoulos, family & Veralicia Figueroa murdered; Daron Wint Arrested #17
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
New Posts
-
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #4- Latest: Incoherent
- Status
I agree. But one's choice to change has no bearing on facing the consequences of one's actions.
OR LE could have reported what JW told them initially, and what he told them when confronted with evidence to the contrary.
SeesSeas
FLORIDIAN
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7,251
- Reaction score
- 17,223
blessedlife
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2013
- Messages
- 415
- Reaction score
- 507
It absolutely does. Consequences bring change.........which is why we teach from a very young age......."this is the consequence of your behavior". Incarceration is the very reason we incarcerate........to try and change behavior. Consequences ideally bring about change. IDEALLY. Completely disagree with that statement. It is the very reason we have consequences. Best phrase I ever heard......."the best lesson is a bought lesson". That purchase is a different currency to everyone. JMO.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don't see how LE makes the "mostly" telling the truth innocent person lie. That person gets carried away and lies, because it's "human nature" or something, not because LE makes him/her do it.
I didn't speak clearly. What I meant to say is one's decision to change does not abrogate one's responsibility to deal with the consequences of one's previous actions. Sorry!
Do you believe LE mischaracterized JW's statement based on knowledge of these investigators particularly, LE in general or JW specifically? I don't know for sure what was said and who is lying in the sworn affidavit. I'm interested in what makes you confident that LE is lying and JW, with a history of lying, did not lie, but was mischaracterized or entrapped by LE. I might sound snarky because it's late and I'm tired, but I'm actually truly interested in understanding what you think.
CrimeNeverPays
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree, (all future tense of course) once he gets charged, serves his time, ... then I am all for redemption!!!
SeesSeas
FLORIDIAN
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7,251
- Reaction score
- 17,223
He explains really well why innocent people might lie during police questioning.
rkf:
I don't remember the attorney or the cop saying innocent people would lie in interviews. IIRC, the attorney said innocent people's statements could be misinterpreted and used against them. I don't remember either of them saying innocent people could be made to lie. JMO
Above dialogue is a simple example of how words and thoughts get skewed and twisted so quickly and easily. There was no initial statement about LE making someone lie. But that is what is being argued "innocent people could be made to lie " and "because LE makes him/her do it "
I did and I really enjoyed it. Thank you for posting it. I thought both of the men were great and interesting speakers! But I don't recall them saying LE would make an innocent person lie. I know they said people could say stuff that they thought was totally unrelated to the crime in question that LE would then twist to their own nefarious purposes.
SeesSeas
FLORIDIAN
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7,251
- Reaction score
- 17,223
Yes, that is what could have happened. But I don't believe that is what happened. I think LE mischaracterized JW's statements.
I never wrote that I was "confident that LE is lying and JW... did not lie". This is a good example of mischaracterization.
I wrote "But I don't believe that is what happened. I think LE mischaracterized JW's statements. "
Originally Posted by jjenny
He explains really well why innocent people might lie during police questioning.
rkf:
I don't remember the attorney or the cop saying innocent people would lie in interviews. IIRC, the attorney said innocent people's statements could be misinterpreted and used against them. I don't remember either of them saying innocent people could be made to lie. JMO
Above dialogue is a simple example of how words and thoughts get skewed and twisted so quickly and easily. There was no initial statement about LE making someone lie. But that is what is being argued "innocent people could be made to lie " and "because LE makes him/her do it "
You are 100% correct IMO. If someone chooses to lie (might lie) and is not cornered into doing it, I still think the person doing the lying is responsible for his/her choice to do so. I have a problem with LE "trapping" and out-smarting an interviewee in an effort to "catch them in a lie". But if someone decides s/he want to lie to LE when s/he has been asked to help LE with an investigation, I'm not going to give him/her a pass just because s/he is lying to is LE, rather than me, their boss, their mother, their spouse, etc.
SeesSeas
FLORIDIAN
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7,251
- Reaction score
- 17,223
You can watch again, and start at 13:40 for the overview of Reason #3, then watch through 27:00 to look for the specific examples about Reason #3.
Why Not Talk to the Police
3. Even if your client is innocent
and denies his guilt and mostly tells
the truth, he can easily get carried
away and tell some little lie or make
some little mistake that will hang
him.
Originally Posted by SeesSeas
Yes, that is what could have happened. But I don't believe that is what happened. I think LE mischaracterized JW's statements.
I never wrote that I was "confident that LE is lying and JW... did not lie". This is a good example of mischaracterization.
I wrote "But I don't believe that is what happened. I think LE mischaracterized JW's statements. "
Okay, again, my misspeaking... Do you believe LE mischaracterized JW's statement based on knowledge of these investigators particularly, LE in general or JW specifically? I don't know for sure what was said and who is lying in the sworn affidavit. I'm interested in what makes you believe that LE is lying and JW, with a history of lying, did not lie, but was mischaracterized or entrapped by LE. I might sound snarky because it's late and I'm tired, but I'm actually truly interested in understanding what you think.
BBM
ETA: The witness may be innocent of the crime being discussed, but they are not innocent of lying to LE. Depending on the crime, the lying may be more or less serious than the crime s/he is at the PD to discuss. Also, AFAI can tell, the video focused on people who were suspects in a crime, not people who were there as "witnesses", not suspected of any crime.
1&2&3
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 4,735
- Reaction score
- 7,914
It is easy for me to see how an innocent person speaking with LE may get mixed up by throwing in an extra sentence to explain the situation, however, that little sentence gave a new context to the whole scenario and things are being questioned that have no meaning to the story. Eek, how many times do we do that and then realize the mess we caused! But now that it.has come up, it has to br checked out!
To me, this is the type of smear io they are describing.
To me, this is the type of smear io they are describing.
SeesSeas
FLORIDIAN
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7,251
- Reaction score
- 17,223
Misspeaking happens often - it's human nature. Even with JW. Even with LE.
You write "I don't know for sure what was said."
BINGO! I, too, don't know for sure what was said."
None of us on WS (to my knowledge) know for sure what was said.
Since we don't know what was said, we certainly don't know who is lying and who is telling the truth.
LE has power because they wrote the affidavit. JW didn't agree to the words in the affidavit, and until it was unsealed, JW would have not known what LE wrote about what he supposedly said or did.
Think outside the box. Just because LE wrote the report does not mean it is accurate. Did LE intentionally lie or mischaracterize. Hmmm, I don't know. But I personally KNOW circumstances where LE has lied under oath. Why? Favorable outcome.
My thoughts... the scenario with the $40,000 being transferred, transported, and delivered is SO KOOKY, that LE must have quickly decided that JW is guilty of something serious related to this horrific crime. Most people would think this (human nature). LE has the power to write their affidavit with a spin, slant, lie, mischaracterization (or whatever other word fits), to shape a view that would be in line with their thoughts... that JW is guilty of something. And, so here we are on WS debating about this.
- Status