PAPD investigating the death of 26 year old Woman.

[BMTSoulja1]

Homicide or suicide?  🤷🏾‍♂️
 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

Well if she was pushed it had to be a homicide.

If the victim was conscious enough to give a statement, that might make a difference. It said there are several witnesses but what exactly did they witness? After talking with thousands of witnesses while working for the same police department, I can tell you that what witnesses think they see is not always true. That doesn’t mean they lie, they just come to a conclusion that they think is logical that may not be true or even possible to get some circumstances.

As an example, I was working a vehicle accident one day several years ago. One vehicle left the roadway on a curve and hit a street sign causing damage to the car and destroying the sign. The driver’s  excuse was that he was runoff the road by another vehicle. I was looking at the evidence and scratching my head  thinking, this does not all add up but let me look further. There were two “witnesses” at a car wash next to where the accident happened. Both claimed to witness the accident. When I separated them and ask their  story each said something like, I was washing my car when I heard of screech and then a collision and I turned to look……

At that point I would stop the interview and simply tell them OK thanks, you did not witness  the accident. That made them mad that I would not take their statements. The fact is if they heard a noise such as tires squealing, then a collision and THEN turned to look, at best all they saw was the aftermath. By their own statements they did not witness anything that led up to the accident. I don’t think they intentionally lied, they just never saw what they thought  they saw. They heard a noise and looked up a short time later and saw a vehicle in the middle of the street. If you want the conclusion, a passenger in the car called me over to  the side and said the driver was driving too fast around the curve and lost control. He said there was no other vehicle. So the two witnesses that wanted to back up the driver’s  story that he was run off the road, not only saw nothing, they were absolutely wrong. 

Has the  justice of the peace made a ruling on the cause of death yet?

Too many questions with no answers at this point in time.

[LumRaiderFan]

18 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Well if she was pushed it had to be a homicide.

If the victim was conscious enough to give a statement, that might make a difference. It said there are several witnesses but what exactly did they witness? After talking with thousands of witnesses while working for the same police department, I can tell you that what witnesses think they see is not always true. That doesn’t mean they lie, they just come to a conclusion that they think is logical that may not be true or even possible to get some circumstances.

As an example, I was working a vehicle accident one day several years ago. One vehicle left the roadway on a curve and hit a street sign causing damage to the car and destroying the sign. The driver’s  excuse was that he was runoff the road by another vehicle. I was looking at the evidence and scratching my head  thinking, this does not all add up but let me look further. There were two “witnesses” at a car wash next to where the accident happened. Both claimed to witness the accident. When I separated them and ask their  story each said something like, I was washing my car when I heard of screech and then a collision and I turned to look……

At that point I would stop the interview and simply tell them OK thanks, you did not witness  the accident. That made them mad that I would not take their statements. The fact is if they heard a noise such as tires squealing, then a collision and THEN turned to look, at best all they saw was the aftermath. By their own statements they did not witness anything that led up to the accident. I don’t think they intentionally lied, they just never saw what they thought  they saw. They heard a noise and looked up a short time later and saw a vehicle in the middle of the street. If you want the conclusion, a passenger in the car called me over to  the side and said the driver was driving too fast around the curve and lost control. He said there was no other vehicle. So the two witnesses that wanted to back up the driver’s  story that he was run off the road, not only saw nothing, they were absolutely wrong. 

Has the  justice of the peace made a ruling on the cause of death yet?

Too many questions with no answers at this point in time.

Recently watched a documentary on Netflix about Carlos DeLuna, who MAY have been an innocent man put to death based on eyewitness testimony. One statement that one of the lawyers made that I thought was interesting was that the case was based solely on eyewitness testimony from several witnesses, which he said was the worst type of evidence to base a case on.  

[tvc184]

24 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Recently watched a documentary on Netflix about Carlos DeLuna, who MAY have been an innocent man put to death based on eyewitness testimony. One statement that one of the lawyers made that I thought was interesting was that the case was based solely on eyewitness testimony from several witnesses, which he said was the worst type of evidence to base a case on.  

Eyewitness testimony can be completely unreliable and again as I said, a witness might not be lying. In fact they probably absolutely think they are telling the truth.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Recently watched a documentary on Netflix about Carlos DeLuna, who MAY have been an innocent man put to death based on eyewitness testimony. One statement that one of the lawyers made that I thought was interesting was that the case was based solely on eyewitness testimony from several witnesses, which he said was the worst type of evidence to base a case on.  

I will say when an eye  witness testimony is good however. It is not looking at a person saying yeah, that’s him. When an officer is speaking with a witness who is not looking at a suspect, and gives a very detailed description, it is pretty important and usually accurate.

For example many times and officer will be speaking with a witness and another officer in the area will detain a person. If the author of speaking with a witness gives a detailed description of the suspect and it matches the one being detained, it is fairly significant and reliable. I am not talking about saying, the man was  5’9”  with a medium build. I mean when they say some thing like, he is very tall and over 6 foot, very skinny, has a red and white horizontal stripe shirt, a tattoo of the letters AB on the right side of his neck and had blue tennis shoes with the red laces.

If all of that matches, in my mind, we’ve got the right guy. Especially if he detained him in the vicinity of the crime which basically puts him at the scene.  It kills the alibi such as, I was visiting my cousin in Louisiana and he will sign a statement saying so. Even then it takes something else to convict however it does not take much more, in my opinion.

[bullets13]

The wording “thrown from a moving vehicle” is definitely open to interpretation, which is how I saw it worded in the article.  Was she pushed from or thrown from the vehicle?  Because when I hear “thrown”, I think of someone either being on the vehicle and falling off, or falling out of the back of a truck.  Or it could be someone grabbed them and threw them out.  

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, bullets13 said:

The wording “thrown from a moving vehicle” is definitely open to interpretation, which is how I saw it worded in the article.  Was she pushed from or thrown from the vehicle?  Because when I hear “thrown”, I think of someone either being on the vehicle and falling off, or falling out of the back of a truck.  Or it could be someone grabbed them and threw them out.  

That is one of the keys to a good investigating officer and certainly some don’t have it, maybe even a majority.

If an officer asks a question and never asks a follow-up question(s), he/she just as well be a secretary. Hand the witness a piece of the paper with a basic questions and tell them to fill in the blanks.

For example, let’s say a witness is half a block away from this scene.  The witness sees a door open and a woman comes out and then makes an assumption on the cause. That may be a natural thing to do as your mind sometimes comes to an immediate conclusion. So the witness tells the investigating officer, I saw a woman thrown for my car. Should that be accepted as what happened or as what the witness saw? What should be the follow-up questions if any? 

How about…..

Did you see the car door come open and the woman come out or just looked up in time to see a woman on the road with the  vehicle door open?

What is the vehicle moving or just sitting there?

If it was moving, was it swerving around as if there was a struggle going on inside the car?

Could you tell if the victim put her hands out to try to brace herself after coming out such as a person would normally do if she fell or was pushed or did the woman go head first like a dive?

Could you see any movement inside of the vehicle through the back window like hands moving around like a shove or some kind of a fight?

Maybe some you could come up with more questions.  If I was actually at the scene and depending on how some of those questions were answered, that might lead to others.

Another key however is also to not lead a witness. Many people will simply agree with what they were told or you might change the persons opinion on what he saw. 
that is also why you never interview one witness in front of another. The officer should ask, not give. Yes or no questions are usually, but not always, the wrong way to go. That sounds more like a leading question a lawyer might use at a trial.… 😀

Like an officer should never ask, “So the car was swerving around like there was a fight going on and you saw the person shoved out, right?”. 

[CardinalBacker]

I always scoff at these stories.  Have you ever tried to open your car door as you were driving down the road?  It's hard.  Now imagine trying to maintain control of your car as you reach across the vehicle, over a person who is likely resisting, then somehow having the superhuman strength to hold the passenger door open with one arm while shoving a full grown human out the door with your second arm and using your third arm to steer the car. 

This scenario only applies if the driver is being accused.  A passenger in the middle would have a lot easier time shoving the outside seated passenger out of a vehicle, but only if they're going slowly enough that the wind won't keep the door closed.