“Road Rage” Murder Trial: Walker Appeared to Goad Harvey: “Come on.”
“[Walker] was standing like he was kind of daring [Harvey] to come, like, come on.” “[Walker] made head nod, like come on.”
Our next piece of evidence from the Joseph Walker trial is the transcribed interview of a pair of witnesses, a married couple traveling together, who drove by the shooting scene. Their names have been redacted from this transcript, so because this transcript was attached as Exhibit G to the defense’s recent motion to dismiss the charges against Walker, I will refer to them as Mr. and Ms. G.
The interview is conducted by the Maryland State Police’s Lead Investigator on this case, Trooper First Class (TFC) Myles Roy, on June 13, 2013, five days after the incident on June 8.
Ms. G was driving their vehicle, which contained just herself and her husband. They were driving on Route 3 northbound to I-97, the same stretch of road on which Walker would shoot Harvey. TFC Myles asked them to describe what they saw as they approached the scene.
Walker Already Standing by Minivan When Harvey and Pidel Exit Honda
Ms. G: We saw two vehicles pulled to the side. We saw a gentleman in a minivan get out, cross his arms, and do like a head nod kid of thing. And then we saw two gentlemen in the car in front get out and start approaching the man at the minivan.
TFC Roy: Then you said there were two people in that Honda.
Ms. G: I actually saw them outside the car. I saw one approaching from the passenger’s side, and I saw one approaching from the driver’s side. And they are both walking towards the minivan, the gentleman and the minivan.
And near the end of the transcript:
Mr. G: The little car [Harvey’s Honda], they were like – he was shutting the door and started making his way towards the minivan.
That, then, was the start of their observation of the conflict. They passed when Harvey and Pidel were not yet halfway to the minivan, and Mr. G observed a few moments longer through his rearview mirror.
TFC Roy: Where were they in reference to the actual vehicle? Like how far away from the vehicle did you see them get?
Ms. G: I saw them get – they were not halfway distance between their car and the minivan when I passed them.
Walker “Very Large,” Harvey “Stocky,” Pidel Smaller
TFC Roy: Okay. Can you describe that man that was next to the van?
Ms. G: Very large African American man, looked like he was bald. Very large, 6’ 5”, 6’ 6”, somewhere around there probably.
Ms. G: The gentleman, the driver, looked to be heavyset to me. And I believe he was wearing shorts. And so – I remember him. And I remember the passenger gentleman to look smaller in statute than the gentleman that was driving.
No Weapons Were Observed
TFC Roy: Did you happen to see if they had anything in their hands, any kind of weapons or anything like that?
Ms. G: I saw their hands, kind of that stocky, blown-up chest walk from the driver, but I didn’t see anything in his hands.
TFC Roy: Okay. How about the driver of the van?
Ms. G: I did not see anything in his hands. I
TFC Roy: Sir, did you see anything in either of their hands?
Mr. G: No. I didn’t see anybody having any weapons.
Mr. G: Walker Appeared to Goad Harvey, and Harvey Eager to Confront
They did, however, described Walker as presenting a demeanor they perceived as goading Harvey and Pidel to approach. This is vastly different than Walker’s recounting at the scene that he was inspecting his tires and did not observe Harvey and Pidel until they were within 10 feet of him at his minivan.
Mr. G: Like she said, he was standing like, kind of like to me, in my point of view, he was like kind of daring him to come, you know, like you say, you know, come on, you know.
TFC Roy: And who are you talking about?
Mr. G: I’m talking about the guy in the minivan. He was standing there asking them to come on. They were both like the same distance apart, maybe not even 10, 15 feet away from the trunk of their car heading towards him. The driver [Harvey], a stocky, big guy, it looked like his hands were clenched and like in a pissed-off manner, was heading towards him, like he wanted to confront them.
Mr. G: And, you know, after we passed him up, I looked in my rearview mirror. And it looked like the black guy leaned over, opened his door, and reached in for something. And I don’t know what it was or anything. He didn’t pull out anything by the time we passed.
Ms. G: Walker Made “Head Nod, Like Come On”
TFC Roy: Did you hear anything?
Mr. G: Not at all.
Ms. G: And I didn’t see any lips moving, like somebody – like they were exchanging anything.
TFC Roy: No hand gestures?
Ms. G: I just saw the head nod, like come on.
TFC Roy: And that was from the guy with the van?
Ms. G: Yes, sir. And, of course, I’m inferring what he was thinking. You know, he may have been – maybe that’s a nervous tic that he has. I’m just inferring that’s what it looked like to me. That he was like come on.
Witnesses Describe Walker as “Aggressive” and Harvey as “Ready to Rumble”
Mr. G: I didn’t think it would have been somebody dying, or, you know, or him pulling out a gun.
TFC Roy: But did you think it may escalate to a fight or something like that?
Mr. G: Yeah, because he came – he came with an aggressive attitude. And, you know, the guy who was walking towards the minivan, he was like ready to rumble. And – and obviously, the other guy was nudging him on, you know. He was like come on. So I – I thought they were just – if it was a fist fight, that happens all the time, you know.
Harvey Closed on Walker at a Fast Walk, Not a Run
TFC Roy: Did you get a sense of haw fast they were traveling towards the van?
Ms. G: I didn’t feel like they were traveling that fast. They surely weren’t running.
Mr. G: I though it was like he wanted to get there, you know, kind of. He looked like he was, you know, ready to go over there and see what’s going on.
TFC Roy: But he wasn’t like running or sprinting.
Mr. G: No.
TFC Roy: Would you describe like a faster paced walk or –
Mr. G: Yeah.
TFC Roy: And then was that both of them?
Mr. G: In the beginning? Yeah.
TFC Roy: Looking in the rearview mirror, did you ever seem them break apart or one person slow down or –
Mr. G: No.
Walker Not Seen to Display Any Indicia of LEO Status
TFC Roy: You saw the gentleman standing next to the van – obviously it’s now known that he was a police officer – did you see any kind of identification—
MS. G: No, sir.
Mr. G: No.
TFC Roy: — that would have led for you to believe that he was a police officer, whether he was holding a badge or wearing a badge? Or did you see a gun holster –
Ms. G: No, sir.
TFC Roy: — any kind of police gear or –
Mrs. G: No, sir.
Mr. G: Not at all.
And that’s it for the substantive part of the transcript. Here’s the whole thing, for your viewing pleasure:
–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog, Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle), Barnes & Noble (paperback and Nook), and elsewhere.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
Well Walkers excuse that he was taken surprise by these two guys while checking his tires is now total BS. His story with the ankle holster is also a lie. And now it seems he was goading them on? He does not seem like the innocent and forced victim he claims he is…
Walker’s story is busted on so many levels it would take too much time to list them all. In considering Walker’s story and the statements of others, one has to keep asking himself if Walker’s actions are those of a frightened man or not.
It’s clear that Walker was not frightened. He was angry. I think he felt he had the upper hand because he’s a cop and he was armed – figured that makes him golden. Goading Harvey on indicates premeditation.
But this adopts, whole enchilada, the head-nodding thing with the arms folded across Walker’s chest.
I’ve said I could certainly make the argument, as prosecutor, that is what happened, and that that behavior was goading Harvey on, inviting him to come to Walker’s gun.
That is not the same as feeling like I, personally, know that of a certainty right now.
You see it through a lawyer’s eyes, I see it through a criminal investigator’s eyes. It’s a similar skill set, but the nuances are different.
Haha, indeed it is different. Main thing that differentiates Mas and me. We both cover the same law–literally, exactly the same law–but the difference in our perspectives is sufficient to make both of our seminars well worth attending. 🙂
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Oh, by the way I do have at lease one place that wants info on your seminar here in Arkansas. I am waiting on a couple of others to get back to me and I will send them along in an e-mail.
Well, encourage them to move along. I’ve got much of the year already booked.
FYI, I will be in Memphis doing an LOSD Seminar on Saturday, July 12–if the Arkansas folks would like to do something the afternoon of Sunday, July 13, that would be easiest for me from a travel perspective.
Or we’d have to find a totally clear weekend, and these are disappearing fast.
If they seem seriously interested, let me know, I’ll send them out a copy of the book.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
You and Mas should get together and do a “Lecture Tour”, hehe!
In fairness, no witness is terribly reliable. All we can say at this stage is that on several important points, Walker’s account diverges from that of Mr & Mrs G. We can’t tell from that fact alone which of them is more accurate.
Which statement of Walker’s are you talking about? They’re contradictory. 🙂
Mr G – “And – and obviously, the other guy was nudging him on, you know. He was like come on.”
He knows this HOW ? He just stated the he did not hear a single word !
He does not claim to have seen any gestures, either. He makes a speculation like that based ‘how the guy was standing’ ? How the hell you you ‘stand in an agressive manner’ ? Unless may you have your fists up in a fighting stance or such ? Which these G’s make no claim to have seen ?
How did the English know the Scots were egging them on from several hundred yards away when they lifted their kilts and waggled what God gave them?
That would not be’ just standing there’ now, would it ?
Given Ms G’s apparent visual acumen, I suspect she would have mentioned anything larger than a cocktail weenie that seemed out of place.
From several hundred yards away, IOW a few football fields end to end, I’d kind of doubt they saw very much of anything ‘under the kilt’.
The Scots were, after all, men not horses.
Billy Connolly would disagree with you.
And how is he supposed to be standing, with a purple faced goon bearing down on him, with a wingman no less?
Like he’s waiting for an invitation to dance?
What this witness subjectively thinks is aggressive could be just as subjectively considered defensive by someone else.
Reasonable doubt.
Dig down on these two and I bet we come up with Democrat bed wetting gun haters.
You have to be a parody.
And how is he supposed to be standing
According to his police statement, he’s supposed to be in some attitude appropriate for checking the condition of his tires.
And he may well have been.
But even if these statements are true, which seems doubtful because they are somewhat contradictory, Walker’s ‘stance’ could just as easily have been defensive as provocative.
The witness’s account of what Walker was doing, and their conjecture about what he was signaling non-verbally, are separable. By that I mean that they can be dead wrong about the conjectures, but be accurate and credible about where Walker was, which way he was facing, etc. That’s what will be damaging to Walker, as it contradicts his police statement about being unaware of Harvey’s approach.
I personally don’t see much value in their interpretation of Walker’s head nod (and even they express reservations about its possible significance).
@ Tom Swift
“I personally don’t see much value in their interpretation of Walker’s head nod (and even they express reservations about its possible significance).”
Here is one thing that you might not have considered. Even though any 2 people could interpret someones stance and demeanor differently, if a majority of the witnesses have the same impression then that could be significant.
….or he was standing there because he’d been “pulled over” by the deceased. It depends on which one of his statements is being read.
What would I expect from the trained and experienced LEO, other than just standing there with his arms crossed.
I would expect him to be holding his shield at eye level out from his body, yelling something to the effect; “Hey, I am a cop. Stay back.” or how about; “Hey, what did I do to get you so upset?” or ya know any kind of verbal deescalation. Its just a thought and may seem far fetched to some that someone who really didn’t want a confrontation would try to deescalate things, but hey, stranger stuff has happened.
I don’t know where Mr. and Mrs. G come from but where I come from a “head nod” means “hello.” Indicating “come on” usually requires a hand gesture.
Sorry but I find their statement laughable. It will be interesting to see how they do on the stand.
It’s a statement from people who are not themselves biased participants in the incident, and it directly contradicts substantial parts of Walker’s police statement.
Nothing laughable about that.
But they are biased. They contacted police because of the news stories and internet stories they saw. Those stories certainly biased them. Even to the point where they new the manufacturer of Harvey’s car was Honda.
Do you know for sure the police did not ask local media to ask viewers to contact them if they had any information about the incident?
Do you know if either of them or one or more of their friends or family members don’t drive an accord and thus they would be familiar with what the car looks like?
What you’re saying is that nobody who witnesses anything and then sees something about it in the news can ever be unbiased. That’s not unlike saying any potential juror who has read articles about a case or has seen it on the news can’t be impartial. Yet such people are selected and very often return fair and accurate verdicts.
An objective reading of these witnesses’ statement reveals no bias against nor malice toward Walker. They explained what they saw and threw in some of their interpretations, but also were careful to point out that those were just their interpretations. Just because their statement isn’t helpful to Walker doesn’t make it biased, no matter how much you wish it was so. Sometimes you just have to suck it up and deal with it rationally.
But they are biased. They contacted police because of the news stories and internet stories they saw. Those stories certainly biased them. Even to the point where they new the manufacturer of Harvey’s car was Honda.
Not a single one of these sentences is obviously true.
Knowledge is not bias. And who really needs the newspapers to tell them the make of a car they saw themselves?
I think he may be “bias” more towards not Bias towards walker or Harvey. Yes, they probably got info from the tele, but that doesn’t make their testimony worthless.
Depends.
In my region a down nod is generally considered cordial, if not overtly friendly.
An up nod can mean anything from ‘yes, I’d like another’ to ‘screw you and your kinfolk.’
If it was just one nod that took place in a fraction of a second, the witnesses probably would have missed it. It seems more likely that he nodded continuously for at least some several seconds.
Maybe, but until a witness actually says something to that effect you are making one Hell of an inference.
I was speculating, not inferring.
Like the earlier disinterested passing motorist and passenger, they see quite a lot for such a small time opportunity do do so. Especially MRS. G (I have never been accused of being PC) who was driving the vehicle, aka otherwise occupied to some extent.
The dual interview is a no-no, especially with a married couple, as one will not want to openly contradict the other in a circumstance like this. Separate interviews will at least verify they practiced enough to both get it right, otherwise there will be some deviation, especially in the interpretation of visual clues.
The head nod could have been nothing more than his acknowledging to himself, “So this is where this goes….” with the subliminal nod saying “Yep, it is”. If the head nod really happened.
driving the vehicle, aka otherwise occupied to some extent.
In the thread following the previous post on this topic, we saw a good photo of the ramp where it all happened, thanks to Google’s worldwide spying program. Nice flat, wide road, two lanes with full breakdown lane on right, narrow paved shoulder on left, no potholes, no trees or barriers on the sides, no residences implying the likelihood of dogs or children darting out into the street, no obstacles but an occasional lamppost. Certainly not a difficult bit of navigation. It hardly taxes the imagination to think that Mrs G could devote a major portion of her attention to the drama playing out in the breakdown lane while simultaneously avoiding being a public menace.
Also, its not just the “head nod” that gives the impression, it is all the other body language displayed with the head nod. Remember we take it all in at once and our brain processes it even if we are placing our focus on it.
Is Walker ‘very large’?
According to this witness, he’d be as large as Harvey, yes?
Isn’t Walker considerably smaller than Harvey?
In general, I agree with pjm, this account sounds specious; it is heavily subjective–though it does confirm the central fact that Harvey was advancing on Walker.
All “perception testimony” is subjective.
It is still WONDERFULLY useful because everyone on the jury understands it.
Defense counsel will make these witnesses confirm that Harvey was advancing on Walker. The jury will understand that.
As to the quality of the perception, the defense shouldn’t have any more trouble than pjm just did in raising veracity questions.
Is Walker as large as these people say?
“veracity questions”
Dude! Get a dictionary!
You could question their perceptions (at your peril. HEH!)
Buy you can’t question their truthfulness (except at your GRAVE peril).
Yet you are quite ready to declare Walker a liar over issues that are also perceptual in nature, that involve Walker’s best efforts of recollection under PTSD type circumstances.
Anything that doesn’t exactly comport with your prejudiced notion of how it should be equals “Walker is a liar”.
Despite the fact that in these situations there are always several differing recountings, it seems.
Pidel is obviously lying on the gun issue, but you wont touch that with a ten foot pole. Defense counsel will, though.
Dunno that I’ve declared anybody anything here.
I have, do, and will point out that there are some really bad, terrible, awful holes in our LEO’s statement.
Thing is, hunny, I understand juries. They don’t demand infallibility from a witness. They listen, and they accord credence consistent with their own standards…which are very human and perfectly fallible themselves.
No witness to an event in my experience is consistent to the nth degree. All of them can be attacked. The wise interrogator does not attack too hard.
Also, you have this beeeeeeezare idea of the rules of evidence. This is not a “Perry Mason” episode. The scope of cross is not infinite. Any skillful sponsor of a witness KNOWS not to open the door too wide.
You impute all kinds of daffy stuff to people on no evidence whatsoever, as you have here.
Like I say, you have to be a parody of something or other.
Oh, good grief. Now you’ve got Walker, a police officer, suffering PTSD. Did Andrew recruit you to bring some levity to the discussion?
(the above post was for Bildung)
Bill Dung wants to hope that there are no members of the military community on the jury, if he’s going to go the “LEO SHOT UNARMED CIVILIAN BECAUSE BEING CUT OFF IN TRAFFIC GAVE HIM THE PTSD!!!” route.
Nomesayin’?
Actually, I don’t think a jury would much care if the witnesses get Walkers height and relative size compared to Harvey correct. Even if the defense brings it up, which may or may not happen. What they are going to know is that regardless of his size, Walker had the equalizer, and that will be in the back of their minds.
Isn’t it possible Walker had finished checking his tires and stood up at the point when the witness drove by? How fast were they traveling for her to have seen so much in such a short time? If the guy is standing by his van and not making a move towards Harvey and Pidel, they its clear that Walker wasn’t the one looking for a fight. I do think Walker being a cop might have got more then he was asking for. Both parties tempers were flairing and things just got out of hand. In the end Walker was the one with the gun. Had it been Harvey or Pidel, I would bet they would have shot Walker first.
Isn’t it possible Walker had finished checking his tires and stood up at the point when the witness drove by?
But Walker’s police statement was that he was so occupied in checking his tires that he was unaware of the approach of Harvey until he was a mere six feet away. The G.’s statement is that Harvey was a good deal further away than that, and that Walker was standing and facing Harvey’s direction (they don’t actually specify direction, but interpreting his body language as some sort of statement to Harvey, even if incorrect, implies that they saw that Walker and Harvey were positioned in such as way as to be visible to each other).
The G’s also said they were 100 feet apart. Maybe the G’s just suck at approximating distances.
The G’s said that the cars were 100 feet apart.
What are you trying to say – the police measured the cars as being 150 feet apart, and the G’s estimated 100 feet, therefore their entire statement is questionable?
So what? Distances seem shorter while in a moving vehicle than when standing still.
The fact that they guesstimated 100′ and it was really 150′ is meaningless. It’s so minor it will be passed over quickly. It will not be a meaningful “gotcha” point for the defense to hammer on. That defect in their statement goes nowhere for the defense.
There is no evidence Walker was checking his tires except his second statement which fully contradicts his recorded statement to 9-1-1. No witness thus far has stated they saw Walker walking around his vehicle.
Summation of their statement.
The passed by two parked vehicles.
They saw two big guys from the front vehicle walk fast towards a guy outside the rear vehicle. They may have been walking aggressively. They may have looked like they wanted to fight.
They see the guy by the van standing, maybe waiting, with his arms crossed. They see the guy nod his head. Maybe he is doing so in a manner that suggests “come on let’s fight”. Or maybe not. [1]
Finally they see the guy reach into the vehicle, but they don’t see him pull anything out. [2]
Seems to me that their statement doesn’t add much.
[1] Don’t a lot of people, when inspecting some thing like for example tires, cross there arms? Could a guy looking at the front of a car, then looking at the tires then looking back up, kind of look like he is nodding?
[2] Could it be that what they thought was Walker reaching into the vehicle, actually be Walker getting into the vehicle, then seeing Harvey, decides it is better to stay out.
What is adds is testimony (well, it’s not testimony yet, but I expect it will be soon), independent of Pidel’s, that Walker’s claim – that he had no idea that Harvey et al were approaching until Harvey was a mere six feet away – is not to be taken at face value.
And that lands Walker in the middle of his “duty to retreat” problem, at the very least.
Mouse, my horses are down on their feed. Maybe it’s the weather. Anyway, I’ve got some extra hay I can send to you so you’ll have a fresh batch of straws to grasp.
You forget that Walker told 9-1-1 that a police officer had been attacked and that he had been run off the road and that “they pulled us over.” The tire tale is a complete 180 of that, as is “A police officer was attacked”. It doesn’t fly and it never will fly. Liars always realize at some point they’ve trapped themselves/backed themselves into a corner and tell more lies to try to cover their asses and/or fill in the blanks that form the contradictions. They just keeping stacking them up like cord wood. I’m sure we’ll hear yet another version from Walker to cover the problems he’s created. He will try to mesh the two stories.
Seeing Walker reach into his vehicle, followed by the question did they see him pull anything out can be taken two ways. Follow-up questions should have been asked: “Did you see him pull his arm or body back out of the vehicle with nothing in his hand? Or did you not have an opportunity to see because your vehicle was moving past the incident such that you don’t know one way or the other if he pulled anything out of the vehicle in his hand?” The investigator should have clarified whether they saw Walker pull nothing out or just couldn’t see the end result of Walker reaching into the car.
Leave a Comment