Overview on yesterday’s Uvalde testimony from McCraw
Last night I watched the entirety of Texas DPS head Steve McCraw’s testimony in front of the Texas Senate, including the question-and-answer period. It’s a lot to digest; something like four and a half hours. I could probably write a post on the subject that would take you about that long to read – but never fear, I won’t be doing that. However, that’s how much I could say about it.
But I’ll try to touch on some of what I consider the more important points. This post is just an overview; I plan at least one more post on the subject of his testimony, with more details. Here are some of my general observations:
(1) It’s not easy to present with clarity the huge accumulation of information of the type that McCraw was trying to convey. There’s (a) the information itself and how it was gathered. Then there’s (b) the interpretation of what some of the ambiguous pieces of information (and there were quite a few) might mean. And then there’s (c) the evaluation of the whole, including what the presentation indicates about the people involved and even what might have been going on in their minds to explain their behavior.
I wish McCraw had been clearer in separating out those three elements.
As for (c), one of my major objections until now has been so many people feeling sure they can figure that out and that it’s obvious (for example, “they’re cowards just trying to protect their own butts and not caring about kids”) before they ever got much clarity on (a) and (b) from official sources such as video. Because of McCraw’s testimony yesterday, we now have some additional (although not perfect or complete) clarity on (a) and (b), and yet people will continue to differ on their conclusions about (c). But one thing I think we all can agree on is that the police response was chaotic, disorganized, and ineffective. Some will go much further in condemning the police, but those three things have been clear almost from the start to just about everyone, and they remain clear.
Also regarding (c), commenter “Owen” muses, after having watched 20 minutes of McCraw’s appearance: “It leaves me wondering if there is any difference between gross incompetence and simple cowardice.”
I think there’s a huge difference. However, their terrible effects may be the same. It’s not always easy to tell the difference between the two characteristics, either, because both incompetence and cowardice are interpretations of the facts. Both rely on an understanding of people’s perceptions and emotions and how they affect behavior. That’s difficult to evaluate; we often don’t even know that about ourselves, much less about other people. So interpretations will differ, given the same facts. And it would help to hear more from the people we’re trying to evaluate, although of course sometimes they will lie about their own motives.
(2) I already knew this, but putting together an investigation like this is incredibly time-consuming and complex, yet necessary. This one isn’t finished yet.
(3) McCraw’s presentation yesterday was based on two things: video evidence (from a combination of surveillance videos and police bodycams) and audio records (for example, 911 calls as well as cellphone calls, including some from the school police chief Arredondo to headquarters). We didn’t hear the audio or see any of the video itself, however, which is too bad – especially for the video. We were relying on the investigators’ interpretations, but I’d also like to see for myself whenever possible.
However, information from eyewitness interviews was not included yesterday. In fact, McCraw said he had taken out some information on the previous timeline that had been based on witness descriptions. So, unfortunately, our picture is not as complete as it could have been, even at this point, had eyewitness information been included. Witness statements could have supplemented the video and audio evidence and helped us better understand what was happening, but I suppose that for legal and time constraint reasons they were eliminated. I assume they will be incorporated into the final report.
I had read an article in a Houston paper in early June that said that the Robb Elementary hallway video was of poor quality and had to be enhanced by the FBI. That turns out to be true; according to McCraw’s testimony, the video was taken with a fisheye lens at one end of the hall and the view was very distorted. I’d be curious to know more about that process of enhancement, but at any rate according to McCraw it worked rather well in terms of the videos becoming clearer. However, as McCraw also said, the view further down the hall – where classroom doors 111 and 112 were located – makes it a bit hard to see certain things unequivocally. For example, McCraw mentioned that when the shooter first arrived in the hallway to the front of those doors and shot towards them, you can’t see which classroom he’s shooting into.
(4) Having watched McCraw’s entire presentation carefully and taken notes the entire time, I found certain discrepancies. Some probably don’t matter much – for example, several times he misstates some times in the timelines and says “11” when he means “12.” I had noticed he did the same thing during his press conference on May 27, and it alerted me to the fact that I had to listen very carefully for confusion of that sort. There were other problems, though – which is not surprising in a presentation this long and full of detail. I’ll be saying more about them in another post, hopefully today but maybe tomorrow. But in general they had to do with two things. The first was McCraw’s subtly contradicting himself a couple of times, in certain details, while trying to explain something complex very clearly (for example the locks on the classroom doors). The second was senators occasionally asking questions framed in a way that shows that the senator had misunderstood some part of McCraw’s presentation (sometimes an important part), and McCraw not correcting (or perhaps not noticing?) the misunderstanding. I plan to give at least one example of this happening.
Will your example include State Senator Roland Guiterrez’s questions of McCraw?
And now we have the mayor or Uvalde saying that the state investigation is only a coverup to protect the Texas Rangers who were there.
And thanks, Neo, for watching the whole thing. I look forward to your report.
I have watched nine hours of the Senate Commission and I have been overall impressed with some of the facts being presented, McCraw did a fairly good job and I noticed he corrected himself a few times however this is not a trial and mistaking time when the Senators had the time line charts in front of them did not seem to matter very much. I never watch politics on TV because I don’t watch TV so I was kind of glad to see my Senator Dr. Donna Campbell ask a few questions. I have voted for her over the years but would not have recognized her and I liked watching the various senators playing to their constituents because this is Texas politics and they are all on stage.
OldTexan:
The timeline number misstatements were minor, as far as I’m concerned. But McCraw’s problems with clarity extended beyond that, and I think some were more important in causing confusion. As I said, I hope to cover some of that later on.
His task was difficult, of course.
“both incompetence and cowardice are interpretations of the facts.” neo
Isn’t cowardice based in fear? A coward may interpret the facts accurately.
Isn’t incompetence an indication of a lack of mastery? A de facto inability to interpret the facts accurately.
Was McGraw persuasive in his claim that the door was unlocked and no key was needed? If so, that either directly contradicts Arredondo’s claim to have tried 30+ keys or that he assumed the door was locked, never checked that assumption and that none of the keys fit the lock. As had a key fit, though not turning the tumblers, it still would have turned the knob when he tried to use it to open the door.
If the Robb Elementary hallway video was of poor quality, how did the pictures with the time stamp attain that clarity? It’s my understanding that enhancement cannot provide data that isn’t there in the first place.
Geoffrey Britain:
I guess I didn’t make myself clear enough. Popper was right.
Try this:
The perception by a subsequent outsider that an actor in a certain situation was either incompetent or cowardly when acting and reacting in that situation is an interpretation of the facts. That’s “the facts” as later learned by the outsider.
I’m talking about you and me and other pundits and commenters and everyone offering opinions afterwards on what the Uvalde police were all about that day, in terms of incompetence or cowardice or both.
Geoffrey Britain:
I am merely describing what McCraw said about the video quality and the enhancement. I have no more information than that on it.
I plan to deal with the door lock info in a later post, in some detail.
do police forces do cognitive psychological testing for bravery? does such a test exist?
avi:
I’m going to assume the training experience is designed in part to reveal it. I don’t think any pen and paper test could test it, only real-life experience.
During the George Floyd period as well as the Atlanta case, i couldn’t help but notice how much bigger and stronger the perps were in comparison to the cops. I even joked to my better half that they should have been the cops.
I remember as a kid ( i admit memories can be faulty) that cops seemed to be John Wayne types. Has something changed or is my perception faulty?
neo,
Actions often speak for themselves. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty certainly applies to police actions. Yet that presumption does not prevent being charged with criminal behavior when circumstance indicates that there is a likelihood that criminality has occurred.
If a delay from 11:36 to 12:50 does not qualify as indicative of at least negligent incompetence, I don’t know what does and McGraw has now so stated. I just didn’t need him to confirm what should be a matter of simple common sense.
“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams
avi,
I suspect “equity, diversity and inclusion” has a lot to do with the all too common smaller stature of cops today.
If an arrestee strongly resists, short of employing their taser and/or resorting to their gun, women cops have little ability to assist a male partner. But tasers don’t always work and use of a gun on a resisting but later determined to be an unarmed black man is to face the possibility of a murder charge.
One has to wonder how the male partner feels about that liability. As well as the woman cop’s willingness to place her partner in potential jeopardy.
Now the Army is changing its physical fitness requirements. So male soldiers will now be placed in potential jeopardy. If a male soldier is seriously wounded in combat, a woman soldier is not picking him up and carrying him off to safety. Some will pay with their lives for that bit of leftist insanity.
But of course, now that Canary in the Coal Mine Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau has informed us that we have no inherent right to defend our lives with guns, (that would include the lives of our loved ones) why should soldiers have the right to use guns to defend thier or others lives?
After all, violence never solved anything, right?
Neo, I admire your patience in carefully watching and listening to all these hours of testimony.
The school district cop, Arredondo, said he tried so many keys (10lbs worth, said he) but could not get the outside door open. But three BP agents eventually arrived while the local cops were outside chewing their cuds, entered the building, without keys I believe to both the door and the classrooms. and one shot Ramos dead with one shot. Though Ramos’ final shot passed through his cap. He could have died.
If that door opens outside, normally its hinges and hinge pins must also be outside. Just remove the pins! But maybe its a special door, protected from fraudulent entry.
Quote the AP: “One Border Patrol agent near where the shooting started “rushed into the school without waiting for backup and shot and killed the gunman, who was behind a barricade, according to a law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about it,” the Associated Press reported on May 24.
Rushed into the school, huh?
I’m sorry, but cops practice shooting on ranges for a purpose, and that purpose is not merely to shoot mice. Or, ahem, unarmed blacks on drugs.
It is the nature of certain occupations that personal risks MUST be taken from time to time. See our military experience in Iraq.
I failed to develop antibodies to Hepatitis B despite two series of vaccinations, but I was still exposed to the blood and body fluids of many patients untested for Hep-B, and I did not back off doing the needed procedures. One of my surgical colleagues died of a Hep-B induced liver cancer. He was not yet 60.
You do what you gotta do!
Look at the many firemen who ran up 60-70 flights of World Trade Center stairs with 50 lb of equipment on their backs and died in the buildings as they collapsed.
“and shot and killed the gunman who was behind a barricade”
Was there nobody else around? Yes, yes there was.
“barricade” Door, or pile of desks?
Was he part of the entry team that finally got going?
Thanks for nothing, AP.
Neo, everything pertaining to this event from the first few hours until now is affected by Texas Politics, that means everything each person says who is employed by any governmental agency is going to tell the story that benefits them and their agency. Left or Right parties, Texas politics going back before Ma and Pa Ferguson, anytime an official or executive in Texas opens his or her mouth there are election consequences, and that’s the truth. I do want the most correct information about those tragic events however please understand that the tales being told from the first day are part of the next election.
Texas cop cowards. They should all be fired. This would never happen in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota or North Dakota.
The gut reaction should have been to ACT.
Seemed like cops in this sleepy town forgot how to be actual cops when the sh_t hits the fan. Probably too busy eating donuts and drinking coffee. I suppose they thought LARPing on the job was actually doing the job properly.
Geoffrey Britain:
You know much less detail than you think you know about it, but nevertheless you certainly have no problem making definitive judgments. The presentation by McCraw was absolutely riveting as far as I was concerned, and there were many details that give much food for thought and present something far more complex in every way than what you’re perceiving. When investigating a crime – or a charge of negligence – details are very important. Judges and juries are well aware of that; so are detective novel writers.
I repeat, however: everyone has agreed since early on that the police response was chaotic, confused, and extremely disorganized in terms of chain of command and much else. I have said that for a long time as well. There certainly are lawsuits – probably multiple ones – already against the police connected with this.
OldTexan:
I have little doubt of that. But I think it still is possible to glean something of the truth.
neo:
Thanks again for your patience, wisdom, and commitment to truth.
Thanks neo for sharing your efforts to inform us strangers.
There are basic facts and the media seems awfully inept at reporting them.
(1) Were the classroom doors ever locked? If they were that implies Ramos locked them, or at least he locked the door he entered. Did he? Could he?
(2) Who initiated the takedown of Ramos and by whose command did this happen?
(3) How did the authorities who entered the classroom gain access to the classroom?
If at least one classroom door was not locked, where did the story of police waiting for keys originate? What is the punishment for police lying in an official capacity? What is the punishment for gross incompetence?
As for the door locking and unlocking, isn’t this a fact two reporter could easily verify. Request access to the school, enter a classroom and then see how easy or hard it is to lock the door to prevent access from the hallway. Then report on the findings.
I find it interesting that journalism relishes the nostalgia of the Watergate reporters but today’s journalists have no stomach for reporting stories that might upset important people in their community.
“Stress incompetence that has to be experienced to be believed.”
Invisible Sun.
Our media is just terrible at the basics.
Sue who? It is said, irresponsibly, that parents of the dead kids will likely sue for loss of kids’ lives. But Uvalde is a small and not prosperous town, and the school board will be sued? What assets has that board? The parents will effectively sue the tax-paying citizens of Uvalde, which is rather stupid. Are the parents going to sue Arredondo? He is obese but otherwise hardly a fat cat.
That the Uvalde school district employs 6 cops full-time is an indictment of the school board.
It is further reported the Robb school will be bulldozed, as if that can eradicate the stain of the event. Build a new school? At what cost in these Biden-inflationary times? And it took the board 4 weeks to fire Arredondo!
Per Wiki, Uvalde is 78% Latino aka Mexican, and median household income is a very low $25K per year. A friend of mine has a hunting lease east of town; he invited me to join him one year. I pulled up to the locked gate before he got there, at 10pm. Called his cell: He gave me the combo to his gate lock and told me to put my gun on the front passenger seat, loaded with ammo, told me to check the trailer for bad guys. He kept the leased house trailer unlocked because otherwise it would simply be broken into.
Uvalde is more like a village in Mexico.
The sandy hook precedent they will sue daniel defense and anyone who is not for confiscation like alex jones (he made it easy by being stupid)
Cicero:
Typically many many entities are sued. I have read that in Uvalde the police (as an organization) are being sued, but my guess is that Texas state forces who were also there and maybe even federal troops who were also there will be sued.
In recent years, schools that have had school shootings of any magnitude have typically been razed. Nothing unusual about Uvalde’s plans. It has to do with people refusing to go back there.
I did a search at some point to learn how old Robb Elementary is. I never have been able to find out. I do remember hearing that some of the buildings are those temporary trailer-type things. I didn’t hear that about the one where the carnage occurred, but it does have walls that bullets can rather easily penetrate. I suppose any new building would be more hardened.
Invisible Sun:
I plan to answer the questions at length in future posts. But the short version is that the answers to some are quite complicated. Some will take quite a lot of words to explain.
However, I’ll take a couple of the easier ones: (2) the entry was a coordinated effort involving BorTac, the Uvalde police, and I think maybe one other from another force (would have to check that last bit again). Seven officers were in the stack, but 4 got in first and killed him. All the people there, including Arredondo, were in favor of this. (3) They gained access with a key.
The doors are the complicated part. But it seems pretty clear that everyone thought the doors were locked, and yet at least one probably wasn’t locked (accent on the probably – but too convoluted to explain it here). And whether they checked (and why they didn’t check if they didn’t) is also complicated – I plan to explain my theories of it.
I think incompetence gets a person fired, and maybe there’s liability in a civil lawsuit.
The investigators have already examined the doors and have all sorts of findings about the doors in the school and the particular doors on those rooms – it’s part of the McCraw testimony at the hearings. Unfortunately, it’s still not 100% clear, and as I said I plan to explain later why I say that.
Neo:
As for the checking, or lack thereof, of the doors:
It seems as though that could have been a sort of tunnel vision caused by lack of experience. I don’t have a specific term or explanation for it, just my anecdotal observations from several years of training in these sorts of things.
Pretty much every training scenario I’ve been involved in, at some point the instructor (or me if I’m the instructor) will bring up this point to ponder:
Hey, before you ram through / kick in / blow the door off….see if the knob turns!
There’s videos of these sorts of events, failed breaches where the breach man is unable to get the door open, he falls out of the way, then the next guy turns the knob and voila in goes the good guys. Sometimes they’re shown in class and everyone chuckles and never thinks they’ll be the person who doesn’t check the door first.
Common-sense things like “see if the door is locked before you ram it” get forgotten in the heat of the moment if you don’t train constantly for this sort of event.
Not an excuse for the failure, just an observation based on experience of how it can happen.
Grunt:
Yes, that was definitely part of it. But there was more than that, including poor communication in which I think most of the people there thought the doors had already been tried and found to be locked. Many other points I plan to make about the door locks, as well.
By the way, no one’s police radios worked in that school except for BorTac. Not just those of the Uvalde police (which some officers had taken into the building), but also of federal marshals and of state officers. Even BorTac’s radios had trouble being patched together with each other for inter-officer communication in the building. McCraw said in some instances the radios didn’t work until people got about 10 feet away from the building.
I recall radio problems for police and firefighters during 9/11 at the WTC.
One of my surgical colleagues died of a Hep-B induced liver cancer. He was not yet 60..
Yes, you do what you've gotta do. My partner and I ran a Trauma center during the AIDS crisis. California passed a law that no one but the AIDS patient could know the results of his AIDS test. My partner cut himself on a bloody case that had a high likelihood of AIDS. He avoided his wife until his own test came back negative.