Q: when we asked to see all associated tapes, why were we not shown this one where Jeff was taped? Neither of us was informed that our words could be used against our son at any time, that we were being recorded at the police station, nor were we aware of these fact until retaining Ms. Lopez two weeks later.
NOTE: Det admits that everyone ASSUMED Brent loaded the weapon, and that he COULD have found it loaded.
NOTE: Det admits that many parents are unaware of bullying, though that does not negate the possibility.
NOTE: Det states she was aware prior to interview (approx. 1400) of pending terrorism charges, and therefore knew what questions to ask Jeff, though admits no special training in this type of crime.
NOTE: Admits we discussed mental health care for Brent as an immediate necessity. That discussion never included negotiation regarding whether or not we were turning Brent in, nor of what actions would be subsequently taken. HOWEVER, by stating that police could not proceed without legal guardian’s written statement, at a time when the focus topic of discussion was mental health assessment, parents were deliberately led to believe that mental health care would occur within a 24-hour time-frame for baseline diagnostic purposes regardless of any other subsequent actions.
NOTE: Det describes Brent’s affect/demeanor, particularly the peculiarity of his eyes—which are the exact conditions discussed in regard to immediate mental health assessment. Det cannot remember at what time the boy was arrested, but remembers his eyes one month later.
NOTE: Parents have presented evidence in case study showing that young teenagers rarely understand more than 25% of Juvenile Miranda and/or its implications. To state that Brent has greater understanding than his general peer population is an assumption on the part of the Det, who is not trained in this area of assessment.
NOTE: Det states Brent was forthright in answers. Parents note that Brent was generally non-responsive prior to being detained and questioned by SIX police officers at the school with no other witnesses present, and prior to formal questioning.
Q: When and why did he become so perfectly responsive?
NOTE: Det states he believe Brent planned to take hostages all along. Parents think the impact of what he had already done overwhelmed his ethical upbringing, and he was searching for a resolution for his previous actions. Det states planning was methodical; analysis shows consistent pattern of flaws in the boy’s thought processes.
NOTE: Here again, Brent’s wording is rearranged to fit someone else’s supposed scenario. That person, once again, is Det Greason.
NOTE: Det Greason excuses [the alleged bully's] actions because [the bully] did not think he exhibited bullying behavior.
NOTE: relational bullying behavior is more common in females overall, but the lack of physical bullying is not cause to dismiss the actual actions out-of-hand. Doing so provides the school with "plausible deniability"-- an excuse NOT to investigate or report the matter to the proper state and federal authorities under the No Kid Left Behind Act, because the teacher failed to document the complaint.
NOTE: Det states there was ongoing childhood rift between these boys. Subpeona school records for both from outset of entering
NOTE: Det states that Brent was arrested at 1400. Brent was actually arrested at 1127, immediately after transport to the police station. Det states he did not know whether he intended to charge Brent or not until
NOTE: states neither prosecution nor defense has copy of [victim's]statement; states it is in possession of
NOTE: VP Kevin
NOTE: Ofc admits he did not investigate the matter, but wrote his report off his interpretation of mother’s written statements. Q: Did he also interpret oral interaction?
NOTE: Ofc admits he did not know what was said during conversations in security office, where Brent was held alone with only other police officers.
Q: who is this person, and is he speaking on behalf of Det Ray???NOTE: Det states Brent got cami uniform from young marines. The cami trousers are, in fact, part of his sanctioned Young Marines organization UNIFORM, and were present in the house for many years ( he did not remove any decoration or other identifying device from any portion of this uniform at any time; they are still in tact in his closet as of this date).
NOTE: Det states that Jeff said knives were acquired in
NOTE: Det states that military books were found in Brent’s room, but does no note they were also in the backpack. Brent has an interest in the military and in military history, having met many veterans from all of the major world conflicts and working closely with them over the past several years, including the Navajo Code Talkers.
NOTE: parents were unaware that Brent’s military books from his room had been impounded: they are neither noted nor detailed in the arrest report. This interview is the first knowledge parents have of alleged seizure of property.
NOTE: officers asked if they could search Brent’s room for signs of GANG ACTIVITY, and were granted access ONLY on this basis. They removed a variety of smaller pocket knives and two air-soft guns that had no relation to the alleged crime. At the conclusion of their search, they stated they could find no indication whatsoever that parents could have seen this incident coming.
NOTE: Det fails to note that ALSO in backpack were old Valentines, silver rings and other mementos, which may speak to a plan to run away along with the ski mask and gloves that were also found. By choosing which items to focus on rather than on the entirety of the backpack’s contents, law enforcement changed the possible/probable range of Brent’s actual intentions, and through the extensive media coverage, caused the same possible misperception on the part of the community. AND why would Brent need a ski mask to hide his identity if he intended to call police himself , identifying himself for the sake of media coverage???
NOTE: Det states that he THOUGHT Brent had been Mirandized twice: this is not evident on the tapes viewed by the parents. Again: this interaction was prior to 1400, the time Det Greason claims Brent was arrested.
NOTE: Det states that BRENT is the owner of the handgun (mother is the owner).
NOTE: Det notes that suicide-by-cop would not necessitate ski mask or latex gloves for completion of intent. This “reasoning” alone shows faulty reasoning by a teenager, as does the fact that Brent “thought” he would be able to enter campus undetected.
NOTE: Brent CHOSE not to leave home that day: he remained in his own home, where police could easily have located him had they simply taken the time to knock on the door, for a minimum period of three hours. Brent stated to parents that morning that he had expected police to locate him at his home, implying that he was not prepared to carry through on his alleged plan.
NOTE: due to Brent’s height, weight and physical build, a ski mask would not have hidden his identity in any case from familiar classmates.
NOTE: all law enforcement personnel involved in this matter assumed that Brent was not under the influence of any drug or alcohol, but no one ever tested him or even took samples of blood, urine, or hair follicles at a time critical to such a determination, despite repeated requests of the parents, and despite their attestations that the boy was acting entirely out of character.
NOTE: a BA in Psychology and a background as a juvenile detention and probation officer does not qualify Det to make mental health assessments based on experience for a child with no prior background and an outstanding record as a student and citizen. This case should have required a Forensic Psychiatrist from the outset, specializing in youth.
NOTE: there was no second search of the child’s home: parents located the missing key as well as the knife immediately upon entering the home; no further latex gloves were evident at that time unless placed there by a nonresidential party. Both parents were present at this juncture.
OTHER REPORTED INCONSISTENCIES:NOTE: Police report claims I stated that Brent had been “snapping” in short outbursts of temper prior to this incident. I in fact stated that Brent had expressed verbally frustration and annoyance of late, more frequently than normal. I specifically stated he had NOT exhibited ANY signs of anger at all or exhibited any physical acts indicating either annoyance, frustration or anger at all.
NOTE: I never stated that Brent was under care for anger management. I SPECIFICALLY stated that another family member had been under care for anger management, and that we parents had decided that family counseling would be a more equitable solution to the maintenance of our family unit, therefore placing our entire family under the same umbrella of care.
