"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.