dtowndetective411
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2017
- Messages
- 359
- Reaction score
- 3,324
I said this in a previous thread but want to re-up it due to the conversation coming back full circle here.
I find the bodycam footage from 14:25 to 14:44 to be very interesting and confusing.
“She got a little worked up and she had her phone in her hands and her keys and everything — no not her keys, her rings — she had her rings, her phone, and I was holding on to the keys because I didn’t want her to go anywhere. My big fear is I don’t have my phone and I don’t really, I don’t have a phone, so if she goes off without me I’m on my own.”
1- Did he just mean his phone was in the car so if she drove off he wouldn’t have it? Because at 55:24 he takes his phone out of his pocket….so I assume he couldn’t have meant he didn’t *have* a phone…?
2- The keys/rings confusion made me do a second take. Could that story be a little backwards, and he was sort-of projecting *her* fear that he would leave her stranded (as the other police record states that she was afraid he would leave without her) and twisting that, gaslighting in a way, as if that was his fear, instead? Perhaps she did have the keys first and he grabbed them from her and threatened to leave which caused her to start freaking out.
I just find that fishy, and am just trying to make sense of that language, because it immediately seemed deflective/defensive/over-explanatory to me (MOO), and upon further review still feels a little ‘off’ when I continue to listen back. Like he couldn’t get his story straight. It was the FIRST discrepancy I noticed when I listened to the video and it stuck out to me immediately.
It could also be a simple innocent mixup of words in a stressful situation with police.
I find the bodycam footage from 14:25 to 14:44 to be very interesting and confusing.
“She got a little worked up and she had her phone in her hands and her keys and everything — no not her keys, her rings — she had her rings, her phone, and I was holding on to the keys because I didn’t want her to go anywhere. My big fear is I don’t have my phone and I don’t really, I don’t have a phone, so if she goes off without me I’m on my own.”
1- Did he just mean his phone was in the car so if she drove off he wouldn’t have it? Because at 55:24 he takes his phone out of his pocket….so I assume he couldn’t have meant he didn’t *have* a phone…?
2- The keys/rings confusion made me do a second take. Could that story be a little backwards, and he was sort-of projecting *her* fear that he would leave her stranded (as the other police record states that she was afraid he would leave without her) and twisting that, gaslighting in a way, as if that was his fear, instead? Perhaps she did have the keys first and he grabbed them from her and threatened to leave which caused her to start freaking out.
I just find that fishy, and am just trying to make sense of that language, because it immediately seemed deflective/defensive/over-explanatory to me (MOO), and upon further review still feels a little ‘off’ when I continue to listen back. Like he couldn’t get his story straight. It was the FIRST discrepancy I noticed when I listened to the video and it stuck out to me immediately.
It could also be a simple innocent mixup of words in a stressful situation with police.