The case of Grant Solomon has been getting some attention. Grant died in July 2020 in Tennessee. He was meeting his father Aaron for baseball practise, and Aaron was the only witness.
Officially it was an accident, his truck rolled over him. However, some believe there is more to it. You can see that here https://www.freedom4gracie.com
A follower suggested I look at Aaron’s police statement, which is below. I prefer to know as little about the background as possible so that the words I analyse can do the talking untainted by bias. With that in mind, I don’t know if this is a statement written directly by Aaron, transcribed by someone else or someone else’s version of his words.
Here it is printed out:
My son Grant and I pulled into WPI separately, parked side by side. I was still in my car, but noticed my son got out to get his baseball gear out of the back of his truck. I looked down to check a work email. And the next thing I know, I hear see the truck, rolling (or roll) backwards into the ditch. I get out of my car, to try to find my son, and saw that he was trapped underneath the truck, and immediately called 911.
Breakdown
The statement is 88 words in total. Broken down as:
51 words leading up to the incident, nearly two thirds of the statement is scene set before we get to what happened.
33 words on the incident
4 on the aftermath
The statement starts with a scene set. There’s nothing wrong with a scene set but one as long as this, relative to the description of the incident, should be looked at.
It can be an indicator of deception. The scene set is easy to do, there’s little stress in talking about innocuous details before the incident, and someone may enjoy spending a lot of time in scene set if the incident is stressful.
The incident could be stressful because it is going to be described deceptively, and that process causes us stress, and we want to avoid stress.
The incident part could be short because it’s not true. When we haven’t experienced something, and we manufacture that experience, it can be hard. We don’t have the real experience of events and emotions in our heads, so we’re having to invent them and the words to describe it.
Setting the scene
What do I notice about the scene set? It’s told from his perspective. That is expected to some degree, but Aaron doesn’t say “my son got out of the truck” which would be direct, he tells us how he experienced it “noticed my son got out”. It’s the same with the car roll, it’s not “the truck rolled backwards” it is “I see hear the truck rolling backwards”.
The very first thing he tells us is they arrived separately. That may be true, but why does he feel the need to tell us that? Why is telling us they arrived separately the very first thing he tells us? It’s obviously important to him.
There are markers of potential alibi building in this statement. He tells us he was still in the car, he was checking a work email, he got out the car (ie he was still in it). There are many words telling us that Aaron was removed from the incident.
Story jumping
He uses the phrase “the next thing I know” which is often used in story telling to skip details that we don’t want to convey. This can be because they are irrelevant, or we’re being brief. It can also because we’re hiding something.
I’m curious as to how you can “hear” a truck rolling backwards. You can hear a truck rolling, sure, but can you hear the direction of the roll? He does say “hear see” but it isn’t fluid in wording. More comforting would be “I heard the truck roll and turned to see it rolling backwards”.
Aaron says after he noticed the truck roll, he got out of the car to “try to find my son”. This is interesting. He doesn’t mention that he thought his son was missing or that he feared his son had been hit, or affected in any way, by the roll. That is fine, in such a shocking incident the events may happen too quickly to form expectations, but he doesn’t say why his initial reaction was that Grant had to be found. I’d be more comfortable if he’s said he went to check Grant was OK.
Immediate
Why does he tell us he “immediately called 911”? Why is it important for him to say he did that straight way? It could be that whatever occurred he didn’t call 911 immediately. Saying he called 911 would be enough and factual. For some reason, he wants us to know or believe his 911 call was immediate.
What’s missing? It’s a very brief statement, so lots is missing. The key for me is any interaction between Aaron and his son. They arrived separately and parked side by side. Did they acknowledge each other? Speak? Wave? Nod? We don’t know.
Getting tense
Finally, look at the tense changes. When someone relates past events in present tense, it can be a marker of deception. The reason is these false events aren’t in the past in our head, they are being invented in the present.
Look at the changes
PAST TENSE
My son Grant and I pulled into WPI separately, parked side by side. I was still in my car, but noticed my son got out to get his baseball gear out of the back of his truck. I looked down to check a work email.
PRESENT TENSE
And the next thing I know, I hear see the truck, rolling (or roll) backwards into the ditch. I get out of my car, to try to find my son,
PAST TENSE
and saw that he was trapped underneath the truck, and immediately called 911.
What’s the truth?
This could be a truthful statement but there are too many questions raised by the word choices for me to conclude that’s the case.
From my observations, it’s possible there was some altercation between them (indicated by arrived separately and no interaction detailed). Aaron was not in the car when the incident happened (alibi building he was in the car) and some activity took place between the incident and calling 911 (immediately).
For such a short statement, it leaves me with plenty of questions and no confidence this is truthful.
We have the 911 call Aaron made. I’ll break that down soon, meanwhile you can listen to it here.
Any thoughts on the statement or the 911 call? Drop them in the comments below and we can discuss them.
Further to what you said:
I was still in my car, but noticed my son got out to get his baseball gear out of the back of his truck.
He introduces the element of time with "still in my car", followed by BUT. But what? Where is the opposite of being still in the car? Well, it would be being outside the car. Noticed denotes something that is expected.
I looked down to check a work email.
It is not necessary to say "looked down". He could have said: I checked a work email. Looking down is important to him - I couldn't have seen what was going on!
And the next thing I know, I hear see the truck, rollig backwards into the ditch. I get out of my car, to try to find my son, and saw that he was trapped underneath the truck, and immediately called 911.
hear,+see - that is interesting, as if stumbling over words. But he is writing, not talking, so it does stand out a bit. Maybe he couldn't decide which sensory perception to describe - did I hear it first or did I see it first?
I get out of my car, to try to find my son - unsolicited explanation. Was he asked: why did you get out of the car? No. It is expected that he got out of the car. To try to find my son - not to find my son, just to try it. Where could he be that finding him is so difficult? Or is this distancing language, being reluctant to look for him/find him injured?
I find many deception indicators. The only thing missing; swear to god, officer, this is the honest truth.
This is a fascinating analysis. One would think had Grant been hit and dragged by his truck that he would have yelled either for help or in pain and that Aaron would have heard that sound.