Interview 1
First
5:00 minutes:
I know the investigators
have to state that he is free to walk out if he wants to but… JR is an attorney general and I’m sure he knows that.
14:32: “Quite frankly, wham! I hit, you know --- the incident happened.”
Distancing language: He started saying “I hit –” but then quickly “corrected” himself. When he gets a sentence out of his mouth, it’s not “I hit something” or even “something hit me” but “the incident.”
Why “quite frankly”? Usually because… the following words are
not frank or honest.
15:01: “I believe my phone will show 10:24, when I called.”
Yes, I’m sure your phone will show that very precise time.
15:12: “If I can demonstrate… I’m looking back towards Highmore…”
I think this moment is odd. JR is going into great detail about “looking back towards Highmore.” It seems like it’s very important for him to let the investigators know that he’s looking “back towards Highmore” and looking at “the sign for Highmore.” There is a similar emphasis on “looking back towards Highmore” in the second interview. Maybe someone who has been to the crime scene could explain why this is so significant? It’s also curious because, in the 2nd interview we’ll learn that while he was “looking towards Highmore,” he should have seen either Boever’s body or Boever’s flashlight. But he claims he didn’t see either.
16:48: “I then go to the front of my vehicle and I snap one picture.”
Why does he say “one picture” and not simply “a picture”? I would love to see this picture.