< ^ >
J __ u __ s __ t __ i __ c __ e ____ f __ o __ r ____ W __ o __ o __ d __ y
J.F.W. Home
Analysis
Sanctuary Request
Right of Sanctuary
Was Woody Threatened?
Unanswered Questions
December 2001
January 2002
October 2002
November 2003
Extreme Secrecy
What Evidence Shows
Shooting Was Unprovoked
Shot After Falling
Denied First Aid
Evolution of Confession
Woody Needlessly Killed
Failures of Investigtion
Conflicts of Interest
Dan Davis
Attorney Generals Office
Department of Justice
Statements Contaminated
Questions Not Asked
Sloppy Work
Sorrell's Errors
Guide to Analysis
Summary of Biases
DETAILED FINDINGS
Contradictions
Shooting Theory
Manipulative Language
Witnesses Discrediting
Misrepresentation of Facts
Omissions
Response Needed
Press Spin
Insults to Bereaved
Talks
Report
News & Events
About JFW
Contribute
Contact
Sitemap
Search
Version 3.8
Copyright 2001-2008
JusticeForWoody.net site last revised 1/17/06
fair use notice

Killing Reaction Cases Evidence Analysis Media Woody

Summary of Some Biases Apparent in Sorrell's Report

The Attorney Generals's report has a number of flaws including the following apparent biases. These biases become apparent when one compares the report to the eyewitness statements.

  • It only includes information that supports it's conclusion.
  • It makes an effort to discredit eyewitness testimony by pointing out inconsistencies, yet used eyewitness testimony when it supports the conclusion.
  • It treats as fact police claims when there is direct eyewitness testimony that contradicts these claims.
  • In painting Woody as a dangerous psychotic, it uses more extreme words than used by any witnesses, like "extreme psychotic episode" in the SUMMARY FINDINGS, and ingores the opinion of at least one mental health professional present that Woody did not appear psychotic.
  • It uses a variety of semantic tricks to suggest that woody threatened when in fact none of the eyewitnesses said he did.
  • It begins by quoting Woody as making a statement confessing to assaulting officer Parker and expressing the desire to have been shot, quotes that are recounted only by government officials and not supported by any of the eyewitness who were present.
  • It assumes that Woody was a danger to others when there is no credible evidence that he had threatened others, and does not question that the police acted as though Woody posed a threat.
  • It does not mention the criticisms of the police action expressed by many of the eyewitnesses.

An unbiased report, even one that reached this conclusion, would contain information that painted a complete picture of the incident, rather than only information that supports the conclusion.


page last modified: 2008-07-20