Wayne
William’s statement
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment