Wayne Williams and Atlanta child murders

Wayne William’s statement

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/wayne-williams-proclaims-his-innocence-in-atlanta-child-murders/ar-BBVuXa4

I just want to express my appreciation to the mayor and the concerned citizens of the city Atlanta for bringing this case back to light in the interest of justice. And I say this not just in my behalf, but also for the families --who’ve never received not even justice but their due consideration and regards to the human rights of their children. I just hope that not only will some answers come forth as far as the suspects and other persons who are responsible for these terrible crimes, but I also hope that we can get to the bottom of the social conditions that led to this type of apathy in Atlanta --which continues today. You know the news media painted these kids to be street kids, thugs and all of that which is not the case. I stand fully ready and willing to cooperate with any renewed investigation to find the truth on what happened with the purpose of straightening up any lies and misconceptions of my unjust conviction. Any official statements regarding me will come through the Wayne Williams Freedom Project.

I just want to express my appreciation to the mayor and the concerned citizens

The statement begins with “I” – the speaker is psychologically present in the statement. Where the subject begins is often the priority. Here he begins with “just want to express”. He doesn’t express his appreciation; he only wants to do so. But he weakens that by saying that he “just” which is a dependent word that connects two concepts. What is he connecting? A shorter statement would be “I appreciate the mayor and the citizens of …”

He is only speaking to “concerned” citizens, as if there are citizens who are/were unconcerned that multiple children were killed.

of the city Atlanta for bringing this case back to light in the interest of justice.

Why does he say “the city of”? Those are unnecessary words. Why isn’t it “concerned citizens of Atlanta”? Is there another non-city of Atlanta? Does he consider the city today different than the one where he was convicted?

He uses “this case” making the deaths of multiple children close to him. This could be contamination. The case is old and he’s talked about it many times which could lead to the lack of distance in his language. This could be a statement written by someone else, a publicists or attorney. We look for clues in the statement.

He says they are “bringing this case back to light” He doesn’t say they are re-investigating or re-opening the case, but that they brought it “back to light”. Interesting wording choice, since he was captured dumping something into the water in the dark.

They didn’t bring the case back to the light to prove his innocence, but “in the interest of justice”. He doesn’t say he’s not the one who killed the victims and we cannot say it for him. This was a good place for a reliable denial and he doesn’t give one here. What is justice for him? This is a hina clause, it tells us why he wants it brought back to light. But what is justice for him? Proving his innocence? Getting out of prison? He doesn’t tell us. I should mention here that Wayne Williams is convicted of killing two adults, not the kids mentioned in this article. People believe that he was the one who committed the murders, but he was not convicted of them. He doesn’t use this moment to tell us that he didn’t commit the murders. He doesn’t even say he’s innocent of them.

For investigators, explore his definition of “justice”

And I say this not just in my behalf, but also for the families --who’ve never received not even justice but their due consideration and regards to the human rights of their children.

His wording here is odd. He talks about the families “not even” receiving justice, or their “due consideration”. What is due consideration to Wayne Williams? What is due consideration for the deaths of two adults he was accused and convicted of killing? Consider: words of attorney, publicists or SJW.

He also talks about the “human rights” of the victims – not their deaths, not their murders. He minimizes the allegations.

I just hope that not only will some answers come forth

He hopes some answers will “come forth”. Not people with information or answers, but the answers themselves to come forth. Answers themselves cannot “come forward” someone has to bring the answers or get the answers.

as far as the suspects and other persons

He uses “the suspects” – does he know the suspects? Normal article in this instance would be “a suspect” The word “the” implies knowledge of the suspect.

Who are “other persons”? If suspects are already mentioned, who are other persons? If they are not suspects, who are they and how are they related to the crimes in question.

This is a neutral linguistic disposition toward a person who is supposed to have killed kids and who is free when WW stands accused of the crimes.

Expected – anger towards the person. Possibly after so many years, resignation and frustration. Expected – negative linguistic disposition.

who are responsible for these terrible crimes, but I also hope that we can get to the bottom of the social conditions that led to this type of apathy in Atlanta --which continues today.

Again he brings the crimes close to him with the use of “these”, even as he talks about 

“the suspects and other persons who are responsible.”

“But” refutes that which came before it. Here he refutes answers “coming forward” in favor of getting to the bottom of social conditions that led to the apathy. This statement is in response to re-testing of evidence, to prove/disprove Wayne Williams guilt. How is that supposed to get to the bottom of social conditions? He isn’t talking about social conditions that led to the crimes he’s accused/convicted of, but social conditions that led to apathy. Will proving he didn’t commit the crimes “get to the bottom of the social conditions”? How does this re-investigation help social conditions that led to apathy?

You know the news media painted these kids to be street kids, thugs and all of that which is not the case.

He shows an awareness of the audience. If the media painted the victims as “street kids” and “thugs”. What is “and all of that”? What is left to be painted?  How does he know the media was wrong? Did he know the victims? Is this personal knowledge of the children who were victims?

Question: Who is the intended audience? The media and “concerned” citizens of Atlanta. Who is the unintended audience? Social justice warriors who will get to the bottom of the apathy, which continues to day?

I stand fully ready and willing to cooperate with any renewed investigation to find the truth on what happened with the purpose of straightening up any lies and misconceptions of my unjust conviction.

He introduces body posture, which increases the tension. He also tells us he is “fully ready and willing to cooperate”. He weakens his statement about cooperation with the following:

•            With the addition of the word “fully” and
•            the increased tension of “stand
•             ready
•             willing

The shortest sentence is best: “I am willing to cooperate with the investigation.” His statement is that he “stand fully ready and willing to cooperate with any renewed investigation to find the truth on what happened with the purpose of straightening up any lies and misconceptions of my unjust conviction.” His cooperation is only to straighten any lies and misconception of his unjust conviction. He doesn’t say it was a false conviction, only that it was unjust. What is his definition of “unjust”? This is another place to put the reliable denial, to tell the world that he did not kill the kids or the two men he was convicted of killing. He doesn’t do that. Consider: words of attorney, publicists or SJW.

He tells us why he is willing to cooperate, “find the truth with the purpose of straightening up any lies and misconceptions of my unjust conviction.” This is another Hina Clause. He makes it more sensitive by adding “the purpose”. It’s not just an investigation to find the “truth on what happened”; it’s an investigation with “the purpose of straightening up any lies and misconceptions of my unjust conviction.

He doesn’t say the lies told about me, he says “any lies and misconceptions of my unjust conviction.” The use of “any” allows for there to not be any lies about his conviction.

Any official statements regarding me will come through the Wayne Williams Freedom Project

Conclusion:

There is contamination from the passing of time. The statement is possibly written by attorney, publicists or SJW. Wayne Williams does not say he didn’t commit the crimes in question and we cannot say it for him. He has a neutral linguistic disposition toward the killer(s). If as he claims the killer is someone else who is free when he is incarcerated for their crime(s), his linguistic disposition should be negative.

If he wrote this he uses the language of social justice warriors by talking about human rights and unjust conviction; and throws in blaming the media of the day.

He does not give listeners or readers any new information, nor does he deny the crimes – either the ones he was convicted of or the ones he was accused of but not tried for.

"I had nothing to do with it." - David W. Prevatte

http://www.wect.com/story/38566116/i-had-nothing-to-do-with-it-man-suspected-in-his-nieces-murder-denies-involvement/

A 19-year-old man suspected of sexually assaulting and killing his niece, 5-year-old Paitin Fields, adamantly denied any involvement in the toddler's death during a jailhouse interview Tuesday morning.

"I had nothing to do with it," David Wesley Prevatte repeatedly said during the nearly 10-minute interview.

This is an article and analysts must assume contamination and/or editing. This first quote is not a reliable denial. There is no context to the quote. Was he asked a question or was this him freely making the statement?

The author says Prevatte “repeatedly” said this. Were all times exactly like this? Were they said in response to a question?

A RD has 3 parts: I didn’t/did not and the allegation.

He is quoted as saying “I had nothing to do with it.” What is “it”? This is not the allegation which is sexual assault and murder. By using “it” Wesley minimizes the allegations. He is also distancing himself from “it”. By using “with” he distances himself from “it.” The shortest sentence is best: “I didn’t kill Paitin”. Here he says “I had nothing to do with it.” He is elongating time and distancing himself from the event. He and the event could not be farther apart in his language.

If repeated in this same manner – he is not only distancing himself, he is increasing the sensitivity and the time.

The case has been investigated as a homicide since Paitin's death on Nov. 16, 2017.

She was "limp and without vital signs" when her family took her to Pender Memorial Hospital three days prior, according to her autopsy report. Her condition "rapidly declined" after being transferred to NHRMC, where she was ultimately pronounced brain dead.

The medical examiner determined Paitin was strangled to death and was also the victim of sexual abuse.

More than seven months after Paitin's death, the Pender County Sheriff's Office named Prevatte as a suspect in her killing after charging him with threatening the lead investigator on the case.

Prevatte, of Willard, had been in the Pender County Jail since April on unrelated charges. He has not been charged with Paitin's death.

"The reason that (the investigator) said I'm a suspect is because,

Here he states he knows the reason the investigator is looking at him as the suspect. He is attributing these words or this knowledge to the investigator. He is not saying that he believes he is a suspect, this is not an embedded confession. Again we don’t know if this is in response to a question from the interviewer or free editing. He could have said, “Investigator said I’m a suspect because . . .” this would be the expected. He claims to speak for the investigator.

 he simply just that I was 19 years old so that automatically made me a suspect for it,"

This is the reason he believes the investigator thinks he is a suspect. If this is a pure quote, he self-censored or left out a word. Simply and just minimize his being 19 and a suspect. His age is the only thing that made him a suspect and it automatically made him a suspect for it. A suspect not for the sexual assault and murder of a 5 year old, but for “it.” Again he minimizes the harm to the little girl. He is unwilling or unable to acknowledge what was done to his niece.

Prevatte claimed during the interview, adding that he threatened him because "he was mad at the time" and that the threats were not serious.

Prevatte then acknowledged he was the one who found Paitin unresponsive and apparently seizing the morning she was taken to the hospital, but said his innocence was demonstrated by his rendering aid to the child.

The article uses “child”, which is typically used when a child is in danger; but not as a quote, so we cannot attribute this to Wesley. None of this is a quote, so we do not know if Prevatte used Paitin’s name or the word child.

"I was there

This is a truthful statement. He was there. He doesn’t say “I found her” or “I was there when she was found.” He says I was there. When was he there? When everything happened.

and, like, everything that happened you know happened,

This is the first instance of his use of “like”. There could be more if this article was heavily edited, but in the quotes we have this is the first time. This is a pause in the language. We look for what brought it out, which is “everything that happened”. He then says “you know” which is again the first time he’s used this phrase. If it was a habit of speech, we would expect it in more quotes. We look for what brought this out and it is “happened” – the event. This is passive – there is no actor responsible for what “happened” – it simply happened.

and I did CPR and all that on her you know.

What is “and all that”? CPR does not include anything else. It is a set of instructions. He does not use Paitin’s name. This is his 5 year old niece and he hasn’t been quoted as saying her name. Did he not use it or is this editing? From the quotes thus far, we do not know the name of the victim, the age or her relationship with the speaker. We do know the victim is a “she”

I'm the one that took her to the hospital, me and my dad did. And I sat there all the time, you know."

The shortest sentence would be “I took her to the hospital.” Or “my dad and I took her to the hospital.” What he said, “I’m the one that took her” and then he adds “me and my dad”.

This is the first introduction of another person when he says “me and my dad”. In this quote this is ISI – he does not give a name, but does give the title.

This is after he did “CPR and all that” on her. Does this indicate a delay of time? He does not mention his dad, until after “CPR and all that”. This could indicate a passage of time.

Here he uses “you know” for the 3^rd time in this short quote. It appears to be a habit of speech, unlike “like” which was used once.

And I sat there all the time, you know."

“And I sat there” implies the tension he is experiencing. Again he uses “you know” he is very conscious of his audience.

Prevatte also denied the autopsy's findings of sexual assault, saying he "knew for a fact she wasn't," but would not clarify how he knew that.

Though he initially said he did not think Paitin was murdered – claiming her death was the result of a medical issue – he later said he had "suspicions" about who could have caused her death.

Asked for clarification on whether or not he thought Paitin was murdered, Prevatte responded:

"She was, I mean think about it. All of a sudden, I come in from the house, right, and I'm about to go to bed. She's laying there wide awake… I go to bed and the next morning I wake up to just like… it was just… it was a mess, you know?"

He starts this quote is past tense, but most of it is in present tense. Is this because of PTSD and he’s reliving the awful moment? Or is this a killer reliving a moment? We don’t have enough information in this article to make a determination.

This quote contains a lot of self-editing; he has trouble completing a sentence. He wants the journalist to “think about it”. He wants the journalist to picture it.

All of a sudden, I come in from the house, right,

He is now speaking in present tense.

Why is coming in from the house sudden? This is before she’s dead according to his statement, so why “all of a sudden”? Did he startle her? Did he startle someone else? He says “I come in from the house”, where was he going? It’s not the house because he said he came from there. Where was Paitin if not in her bed? If she was in her bed, where was that?

and I'm about to go to bed. She's laying there wide awake…

 He’s still in present tense here. He is only about to go to bed, not that he does. He says, “she’s laying there wide awake”. Without context, the audience does not know if she should be awake (it’s early evening) or she should be asleep (it’s late night). But it’s important enough for him to bring it up. Would this not have happened if she was asleep? From the previous statement she was not in the house, so where was she “laying there wide awake”?

Wide awake implies more than merely awake. Were her eyes opened wide in fear? Where did he see her last?

I go to bed and the next morning I wake up to just like… it was just… it was a mess, you know?"

“I go to bed” is present tense and he is speaking of something in the past. We have him about to go to bed and then he goes to bed. What happened between the about to and the actual going? What is omitted here? What is it about her being wide awake when he was about to go to bed? The investigators need to look into this area of his statement.

He added that her death had been "pretty hard" for him.

When asked if he thought he would face any charges related to Paitin's killing, Prevatte said he believes he will not as there is no evidence of his involvement.

"I didn't do nothing," Prevatte said. "It's been how long since this happened? Seven, eight months now? I gave them my DNA and all that. There would have been something by now that would have led me to it.

This is the perfect place for a reliable denial, but he does not give one. He talks about time, as if that clears him of responsibility. He tells us “I didn’t do nothing.” The “nothing” is the rape and murder of young his niece. He still minimizes the allegation. 

He says he gave them his DNA and “all that”. What is “all that”? DNA is a simple process to give. Did he give them something else? Or is he trying to imply more cooperation than he really gave?

There would have been something by now that would have led me to it.

This is weird phrasing.

I didn't do it, and I can't say nothing else, you know, because I didn't do it.

He goes on to say “I can’t say nothing else”. The “can’t” implies there is more he could say, but he isn’t able to. Is that because it will implicate someone else? Implicate himself? If he didn’t kill his niece, he should be able to say so.

He again says “you know”. His use of it here is the same as before, to get the reporter on his side, to get the reporter to agree.

He then says “because I didn’t do it.” This is why he can’t say anything else, because he didn’t do it. The innocent don’t hide, they tell you they didn’t do it and they have a “wall of truth” that backs that claim up. He still hasn’t said her name or said the actual allegation out loud; the allegation has been “it” or “nothing” throughout the article. Considering this is an article and we must assume there is editing to the quotes, his inability to use his niece’s name is still disturbing.

There's nothing else that I can do to prove to you all that I didn't do it."

He again says there is “nothing else”. He has said there was nothing else he could say and now there is nothing else he can do to prove his innocence.

"Well, one thing, if they charge me with it, I'm going to take it to trial, because I didn't do it," Prevatte continued. "I know for a fact, I don't feel that I'm innocent, I know that I'm innocent. There's a difference in that."

Asked if he had any statement to the Pender County community, which has been rocked by the 5-year-old girl's murder, Prevatte responded:

"Let them think what they think. Only God and Paitin know what happened. And that's that."

 Here is the first use of Paitin’s name and it’s connected with deity. This statement is supposed to address the community which has been hurt by this death. His response shows how little he cares. He can’t tell them he “didn’t kill Paitin.” He can only say, “let them think what they think.”

He doesn’t include a suspect in the list of those who know what happened. Why? Does he think the suspect doesn’t know what happened? If he didn’t do it, why wasn’t a suspect included in the list of those who know what happened? This is passive in that it removes responsibility from a person and moves it to deity or a 5 year old little girl.

And that's that."

He knows more, but is unwilling to say more? He is telling us the interview is over.

At no time in the quotes given, does he reliably say he “didn’t kill Paitin”. He says he didn’t do “nothing” or “it”, but he doesn’t even name the allegations. Because he didn’t say it, we cannot say it for him. He issued no reliable denial.