Obvious Biases in Sorrell's Report

When we first read Sorrell's Woodward Shooting Report we were struck by numerious obvious biases. It was not until we obtained the eyewitness evidence package, that we learned just how manipulative and deceptive the report is. Here is a synopsis of biases in the report we made on the day we recieved the psychological assault of Sorrell's press conference.

• 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.
• It does not address the fact that the autopsy shows that Woody was shot in the back. Eyewitnesses report that Woody was shot while on the floor.
• It calls Woody psychotic, yet one mental health professional who was present has been quoted as saying that Woody did not appear psychotic.
• It calls Woody psychotic, yet it quotes him as providing a confession to assaulting an officer.
• It does not explore the source or effect of the inaccurate information that Woody was threatening people with a knife that the police claim they were acting on.
• It assumes that Woody was a danger to others when there is no evidence that he had threatened others, and does not question that the police acted as though Woody posed a threat.
• It does not acknowledge the controversial nature of the actions of the police, or explore the alternative tactics that could have been used.
• It mentions that Woody was requesting sanctuary, but does not explore the meaning or legal basis for such a request.
• It begins by directly quoting Woody as making a statement confessing to assaulting officer Parker and expressing the desire to have been shot, quotes that are brought forth only by government officials and not supported by any of the eyewitness who were present.

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.