• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 134 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
More full Contractor video

How does the voice saying "He was no fucking threat at all!" (appears to be guy on left) know that? This appears to prompt the hands up motion moments later by the guy in pink.

Here's CNN video for comparing.

I'd simply say that CNN is better at making money and wonder why they not only edited out portions of video but also made it appear they didn't edit out portions of video. They didn't blur edges, they removed them and then formated video to make it look complete.


From first link can anyone confirm text from the article?

Then Brown moved, the worker said. He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up. Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said. After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.” (“Workers who were witnesses provide new perspective on Michael Brown shooting”, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Sept. 6, 2014)
Click to expand...

So I was making bad case about contractor distance, unless they are very bad at estimating. I wonder if this account is where CNN got the 50ft number from? I'd still like to know the location of contractors when they saw what they saw.

"25ft towards Wilson" matches witness who described a charging brown. It also does not match Piaget "Maybe 1 cm" when she balks/retorts at being asked if Brown moved towards Wilson at any time during one of her later interviews with Anderson on CNN.

6+4 shots were ~7 seconds long, covering 25ft (if true) in portion of that time, would seem to be more than a walk pace and it's faster than a stumble pace.


Starting to see a new scenario where Wilson may have aggravated Brown with unwarranted shots to Browns front.
-Brown surrendurs
-Wilson shoots
-Brown goes after Wilson

If possible, then is Wilson enraged/confused/concerned about DJ at his rear when he begins 6+4, why pause...?
 
Last edited:
soundforbjt said:
I didn't make the claim the cases were similar in any way, I only pointed out the CTH's conspiracy similarities post, you and Londo made the claim the cases were similar in many ways. Back up your claim or admit you're falling for the conspiracies presented by CTH because they support your bias.
Click to expand...

I weep for our education system.

Yea, so this has nothing to do with CTH. If you care so much about that aspect link up the article you are referring to and lets address it, I can indulge that. CTH gets some things right (maps are good and sourcing witnesses videos they are good), they get somethings wrong.

Other than that it sounds like you're hiding around your desire to hold words hostage again. I'll note in your post your hold up on the word cases

The word "cases" is used to describe the incident and aftermath of the TM and MB "cases", obviously. Whose involved, racial makeup, history of victims, protests over the killing, national headlines, ect.

If you want to indicate the "cases" as anything other than what folks would tend to think about regarding these two cases, then please define your limitations for "cases" as it relates to MB and TM cases. Then we can simply acknowledge all the similarities and realize we differ only in interpretations of "cases" (which doesn't really matter because you are an idiot). Just like when you claim that "running towards, kept coming towards the police" doesn't really mean "charging" because "charging" wasn't actually said. Then we can kinda just move on and you can play more games after being called out for your games with more of your "well it was only one eyewitness and he might have been blind/drugged/ect so it doesn't matter" garbage.

So if you want to limit "cases:", i'll just acknowledge now that if the only definitive thing for you regarding the MB and TM cases is the blades of grass in the respective neighborhoods, that yes, the grass in TM neighborhood may have been Kentucky Blue while in the MB neighborhood it was Bermuda and thus their are in fact zero similarities between the MB and TM cases.

Anyways, link the article to CTH you keep bringing up and highlight the similarities they note in full, we can take a look. Why does that article offend you so much?, if it's so important, link it so we can take a look and see what you're so upset about.
 
Last edited:
Londo_Jowo said:
Imagine that Frank Taffe needed to make more money so he claimed something after the fact. This doesn't change the fact that TM assaulted GZ and that's what led to his own death.
Click to expand...

In the interview he said there was no book deal. He changed his mind after he lost both of his own son and just wanted to make thing right with God. IMO, that's understandable, losing two child can change a person's outlook on life, doesn't have to be something malicious.
 
Frank Taffe is red herring on GZ racial profiling and whether or not GZ should have been convicted.

Frank Taffe does not matter, and he didn't matter to the same guys who now want to worship at his alter now that he's changed his mind, when he was previously defending GZ.

Taffe can say whatever he wants. We have relevant facts about what GZ said on UNedited tapes in his 911 call about TM and for the case itself regarding conviction, sorry guys the jury spoke. I would not take solace in Frank Taffe's statement as a way to maneuver around what we all learned in the TM case.
 
Last edited:
Attic said:
Frank Taffe is red herring on GZ racial profiling and whether or not GZ should have been convicted.

Frank Taffe does not matter, and he didn't matter to the same guys who now want to worship at his alter now that he's changed his mind, when he was previously defending GZ.

Taffe can say whatever he wants. We have relevant facts about what GZ said on UNedited tapes in his 911 call about TM and for the case itself regarding conviction, sorry guys the jury spoke. I would not take solace in Frank Taffe's statement as a way to maneuver around what we all learned in the TM case.
Click to expand...

Let's not wonder too far from this thread and make it into GM vs TM(which I'm guilty of also). The jury too according to one was split until the last mine.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/16/us/zimmerman-juror/index.html

Even with the Jury verdict, things were far from conclusive.
The jury was initially split -- three and three along the line of guilt -- she said. Juror B37 was among those who believed Zimmerman was not guilty from the start.

The one who thought he was guilty of something seem to feel that they had nothing to convict him of due to the technicality of the Stand your Ground law. In the end, I don't think the Jury were conclusive on who initiated the struggle. I think regardless of who started the struggle, the loser had the right to shoot the winning fighter under Florida law. This kind of makes me wonder, had TM also had a gun that night, would he be justified in shooting GZ if he was the one losing the fight.
 
Attic said:
Piaget's first known video. Keep in mind she was allegedly on her balcony while she witnessed this, roughly 50ft-75ft from MB body.

Here Same day and shortly after the incident. A lot of info there, if she's important to an understanding of the case (in any light) worth watching a few times to see what's going on as this thing explodes from that point in time on out.

So to be clear, her mind is made up very early and it's racial. And she's knows this how?

Prejudice based on race.... Ever wonder what the actual true effect of racism in this case has been? Ever revisit how the true voice of racism played into the GZ case and where that racism was free to be displayed based on whom it was directed at? Isn't making GZ into a racist when he was not, racism? Isn't making anyone/anything into racism when it is not, a form of racism? What is Piaget doing here?, id say simply what she's learned is tolerated, racism. Lets start calling this shit what it is. DW engaged MB and DJ initially not because they were walking in the middle of the street, it was because they were black..... Can't let this kind of infectious racism be permitted just because of the horrible history of the country on race relations. The country and press will need to start calling all forms of racism out to indicate it's not going to pass.

The note of Trayvon Martin (though Piaget might as well be standing on her head as she details how things "really" are) is eerie, the similarities as we have seen are here in Mike Brown case as well. Piaget did not help herself by revealing that comment.

Also watch that video from the 1:00 to about 1:40 a few times until it clicks. She unknowingly (to herself in realtime) falls into revealing she's only retelling what's she's HEARD about the incident. Where does the half truths and lies stop and the actual truth begin, if at all? Not court material, so it's clear given what's she's doing, she's there to stir the pot.

Keep it in mind as she changes her story to evolve with new information that comes out. She's a bad actor.

Transcripts of her interviews.

http://truth007seeker.wordpress.com/tag/piaget-crenshaw/
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the links, especially the transcripts which are SOOO much faster. Undoubtedly she has some issues that make her problematic as a witness at trial - she's predisposed to immediately assume Brown was shot due to racism (not an uncommon belief in black people - that's kind of the point of the protests) and she's incorporating elements learned after the shooting into her account, such as going from asserting Brown was shot in the back to admitting he was not (with the possible exception of a grazing arm wound.) But I don't think her account is necessarily false unless we can establish a sequence of events and shot spacing. IF the audio recording holds up, then her account cannot be factual - there simply isn't time for Brown to stop running, turn and raise his arms before the second volley. But at this point I'm not willing to accept the audio recording over her account. If the likely sequence of events prior to the audio recording turns out to be accurate - one shot at the car, several shots at a fleeing Brown, Brown stops either grazed or unhit from the bullets flying past him, Brown turns to face Wilson, Brown is either gunned down in cold blood or shot in self-defense while charging Wilson - then her story is essentially intact. She sees the initial struggle, she sees Brown flee, she assumes Brown was shot in the back but later learns he was not but he stops either way, she sees Brown turn, she sees Brown shot fatally. She COULD be lying her ass off, either about Brown raising his hands in surrender or even about seeing the whole thing, but I don't see any reason to assume she is lying at this point. She could also be honestly wrong, her predisposition toward assuming racism excessively influencing her interpretation of Brown's behavior. Or she could be reasonably correct.

The whole thing about adding in elements later learned and reconciling them with one's story is commonplace; it's why investigators separate witnesses and try to get statements as soon as possible. It may be problematic for her as a witness at trial, but I don't think it makes her necessarily acting in bad faith. We all have our prejudices which color our interpretation of what we witness. Perhaps she honestly interprets a particular set of movements as Brown beginning to raise his hands in surrender whereas someone else (Wilson?) honestly interprets the same set of movements as Brown beginning to charge. Obviously they can't both be correct, but they can both be honestly relating what they witnessed as they interpret it.

What's really going to be diagnostic here are the locations of blood splatters and casings, none of which we yet know. If there is blood significantly past Brown's body, then obviously Brown was charging, as nonsensical as that behavior seems. If there is blood slightly past Brown's body, then perhaps Brown was charging and all the injuries (excepting perhaps the grazes which might bleed slightly or not at all) were inflicted within a very short window of time. If there is no blood past Brown's body, I don't see how Wilson's story holds up. Assuming the audio holds up we have a maximum time and a minimum time for all the shots striking Brown (or at the least, all the shots but two, the graze and a possible shot at the car) and can therefore assume boundaries on how far Brown would have moved in a charge. Best case would be that the shot at the car struck Brown and bled freely, so that his movements can be tracked without argument.

One other thing - the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that Londo_Jowo is correct about all shots striking as Brown was facing Wilson. The chance of one shot striking at almost the exact area several of Wilson's shots struck, on the side to which all Wilson's shots are biased, in spite of being fired from the rear seems slight to me. It would require Wilson's shots to be biased in one direction in the first volley and the opposite direction in the second volley. If correct, I don't think that necessarily makes Ms Crenshaw a bad player though; she could merely be wrong about why Brown stopped running. Either way, clearly Ms Crenshaw's account or the audio recording can be legitimate, but not both.
 
werepossum said:
Snip

The whole thing about adding in elements later learned and reconciling them with one's story is commonplace; it's why investigators separate witnesses and try to get statements as soon as possible. It may be problematic for her as a witness at trial, but I don't think it makes her necessarily acting in bad faith. We all have our prejudices which color our interpretation of what we witness. Perhaps she honestly interprets a particular set of movements as Brown beginning to raise his hands in surrender whereas someone else (Wilson?) honestly interprets the same set of movements as Brown beginning to charge. Obviously they can't both be correct, but they can both be honestly relating what they witnessed as they interpret it.

Snip
Click to expand...

Good look, particularly the above. There is definitely this going on, some of actions interpreted very differently by different folks. Could be because of racism of witnesses or officer Wilson, could be due to MB punching Wilson in the face (*if* this happened) could be due to many other things.

If we can reasonably find a way to do so I think we are more interested in DW state of mind, over witness state of mind. For Michael Brown, may he be at peace and with purpose at this place in time.


Biggest new info i've seen is regarding contractors. I note that most stories on contractors i'm seeing include reference in part or in full to these statements, while CNN left it out.

Then Brown moved, the worker said. He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up. Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said. After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker said he could not tell from where he watched — about 50 feet away — if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.” (“Workers who were witnesses provide new perspective on Michael Brown shooting”, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Sept. 6, 2014)
Click to expand...

Highlights mine for touching on below.

I can't confirm it, but i'm seeing that statement in multiple locations in reference to reporting on the contractor video.

So to tie it back to Piaget and also touch on more of Piagets tactics, there is this from transcripts.

Q10 – you say his arms were up, there is an account from this woman who called into a radio show who claims that the officer is saying MB was rushing MB was rushing the police officer, is that what you saw?

A10 – no, at no time did I see him move towards that police officer, he may have taken one centimeter of a step forward before he was gunned down (2:10)
Click to expand...


Overall with the new info from the contractors and Ms. Piaget existing account:

1) We can't see 1cm movement from 50-75ft (Piagets approx distance from MB). Piaget is slanting heavily again. Is there a difference between "No I didn't see him move forward", or "I couldn't really say to be honest", and

no, at no time did I see him move towards that police officer, he may have taken one centimeter of a step forward before he was gunned down.
Click to expand...

Well, according to her, she did see the whole thing. "I witnessed everything" at ~0:10

I think the added effect of Piaget implying she had such a good viewpoint in an authoritative manner on the subject and being used to be able to say she saw MB move no further than 1 cm towards DW just further highlights Piaget's questionable disposition and presentation as an accountable witness with any sense for integrity or truth on a critical aspect of the case.

2) Compare to contractor describing unmistakable and remarkable movement forward from MB, 25ft. How does this square in any reasonable manner with Piaget account? Piaget not only said she didn't see MB move forward, she was very clear that at the very most that she saw MB move forward 1cm. Implying she had an excellent vantage point account for the integrity of what she saw. "Maybe 1cm", *not* "well I couldn't really see, MB may have moved forward". I trust the significance of what Piaget does here by making such statements is resounding. As an eyewitness describing in detail (more so as new info comes out), her detail implies either great view and photographic memory or lies IMO.

3) Hands up while moving towards an officer is *not* surrendering, it is a threat when the officer has his firearm out. If as the contractor says, MB's hands are up while MB advances towards officer Wilson, then only mentioning hands up becomes a perverse way to frame that encounter as something it was not.

4) For T-Shirts and Chants:

"Hands up, I'm coming towards you, Don't shoot" vs "Hands up Don't Shoot". Holy fiery raining shit balls @ missing context.

5) "Then Brown moved, the worker said. He’s kind of walking back toward the cop." This context is malleable and different if MB has shown to be non threat or generally compliant up to this point, vs non compliant and punching DW in face at car vs DW hostile and aggresively pulling MB into car while MB tries to flee. What happened at car? Witness Brady says 2:00-4:00. Also implied there is that Brady said "he ran up to the car, he was punching on him" on an audio recording of the incident. Who ran up on the car?

DJ and other witnesses seem to indicate more that DW pulled MB into the car and MB was trying to get away.

6) After car incident. Shots vs hands up timing? How much of this can be pinned down? Pretty damn important. If DW is in fact moving backward while firing, what does this imply if anything about that sequence of events and his perception of the encounter and MB's threat level?

7) Contractors have remained anonymous, Ms. Piaget has not.

8) Contractors are mistaken on movement of MB or Ms. Piaget is mistaken on movement of MB.

9) From contractor quote about this time frame, hows that square with a 6+4 gun shots? Frame around the "third shot" specifics which after this point MB moved 25ft towards DW. Did the "third shot" come from the 6 portion? It must have, MB is not fast enough to cover 25ft if the third shot came from the 4 shot portion while MB advanced 25ft. (How quickly did MB cover that 25ft estimate? I've got a theory on that below in next point.)

*This could place the +4 portion (two to head) portion after Brown already definitively moving towards Wilson, given the pause of +4 time frame, this possibly indicates with some certainty the 6 portion was with MB facing Wilson. The pause may not be damning, it may have been merciful.

10) Rate of speed for MB to cover 25ft after 3rd shot of the 6+4? 25ft in roughly 5-6seconds? Did MB not stop at all during the 3sec pause between 6+4? Sounds like MB may have stopped and dropped before last kill shot or last two shots so did he cover 25ft in 4-5 seconds or less?

Also, it appears that MB moved in total more than 25ft towards DW. The 25ft, and it sounds like the movement before the 25ft portion was a walk, and during the 25ft portion was a more brisk pace. This based on audio of gun shots with contractor account.

Contractor account matches up very well with hidden/unknown recording grab of eyewitness account. Here is both:

Contractor eyewitness
Then Brown moved, the worker said. He’s kind of walking back toward the cop.” He said Brown’s hands were still up. Wilson began backing up as he fired, the worker said. After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing
Click to expand...

Hidden eyewitness
WITNESS (6:51 – 6:55): Then the next thing I know, he coming back towards the police. The police had his gun drawn already.

QUESTIONER (6:56 – 6:57): Oh, the police dropped the son?

Key Element – the witness is stating Mike Brown stopped, turned and began coming back toward officer Wilson who had his gun drawn. *Note* No gun fire prior to Mike Brown turning around – no shots toward the back.

WITNESS (6:57 – 7:05): Yeah the police shot him. The police kept dumping him, and I’m thinking that the police missing like, he’s like, police was like this far from him.

WITNESS (7:06 – 7:12): And I’m thinking [inaudible], at least, at least 5 shots. Next thing I know, I think he’s missing.

Key Element – Witness implying Officer Wilson and Mike Brown close in proximity when he observes initial volley of gunfire. Witness sounds incredulous because from his perspective officer Wilson should not be missing at the distance he’s observing.

QUESTIONER (7:12 – 7:14): The police shoot the dude?

WITNESS (7:14 – 7:17): The police shot him. Next thing I know, I think he’s missing.

[Attic Edit: Does above refer to the 6 shot portion (witness accounts for 5 shots), and the next part below refer to the 4 shot portion?]

WITNESS (7:18 – 7:21): He, then dude started running, kept coming toward the police.

[Attic Edit: Contractors 25ft portion during the pause and 4 shots of audio? MB covers 25ft in 3-4secs if MB is going down at final two shots.]
Click to expand...

11) If contractor quote legit, smh@CNN again. At least put it out there for folks to knock back and forth.

12) If that contractor quote gets widely circulated via MSM, will Piaget "adjust" her story again to account for it? She's fairly boxed in now.


Compare to this to other intepretation.
Here


How much do reasonable heads matter, if unreasonable heads can effectively be ruled through deceit? How much deceit is going on here in the MB case? In a perverse Truth does not matter systemic environment of our media and political system, events can and will be framed to fit beliefs in spite of whatever actually occurred, that's the most lucrative course and we are if nothing else a profit driven and control over others system. Does this kind of BS stop at "WMD!!!" to get us to invade Iraq, or does it permeate multiple other facets of our surroundings?

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Will there always be an attentive and willingly/easily fooled audience or not?, is that in itself an excuse to decieve?
 
Last edited:
werepossum said:
I would agree except for one factor - as a cop, Wilson gets an enormous amount of good faith credibility (as he should.) I don't think Wilson's lack of arrest really tells us anything about the witnesses' credibility because cops really, really, really don't want to arrest other cops and at the very least, will delay it as long as possible. And as a cop, if the evidence of guilt is mixed, as a cop Wilson will receive the benefit of the doubt. (Which, again, he should receive, as a cop.)
Click to expand...

Why exactly should he simply because he is a cop? We all know they do get the benefit of the doubt but if you actually dig into it you will find that cops are the most likely than any other group to commit perjury. They even have a cute little name for it, "testilying" or some crap.
 
Understanding that all that's needed is reasonable doubt, I think (someone can correct me if I'm wrong), all these interviews that some of the witnesses are giving, along with them frequently changing their narrative to fit with new evidence as it comes out, is going to make this very easy for the defense. "Well, on <date>, you said that he shot him in the back. Then, after the autopsy came out, you changed what you saw in <this> interview. Then, ... Isn't it true that you don't like the police?" In other words, discrediting a lot of these witnesses (I think) will be a walk in the park.
 
Darwin333 said:
Why exactly should he simply because he is a cop? We all know they do get the benefit of the doubt but if you actually dig into it you will find that cops are the most likely than any other group to commit perjury. They even have a cute little name for it, "testilying" or some crap.
Click to expand...


Not that you may be right, but what studies have you seen that show that cops are the most likely to commit perjury? I would think that criminals that are actually guilty would have the biggest incentive to lie on the stand.

And most cops don't really care about if someone is found guilty or not (obviously, there are cases that they take personally). They did their part in bringing the case to court. It's up to the prosecutor to do the rest. They get paid OT for being in court and get to go home afterwards. They couldn't care less what actually happened in court.

- Merg
 
Attic said:
Good look, particularly the above. There is definitely this going on, some of actions interpreted very differently by different folks. Could be because of racism of witnesses or officer Wilson, could be due to MB punching Wilson in the face (*if* this happened) could be due to many other things.

If we can reasonably find a way to do so I think we are more interested in DW state of mind, over witness state of mind. For Michael Brown, may he be at peace and with purpose at this place in time.


Biggest new info i've seen is regarding contractors. I note that most stories on contractors i'm seeing include reference in part or in full to these statements, while CNN left it out.



Highlights mine for touching on below.

I can't confirm it, but i'm seeing that statement in multiple locations in reference to reporting on the contractor video.

So to tie it back to Piaget and also touch on more of Piagets tactics, there is this from transcripts.




Overall with the new info from the contractors and Ms. Piaget existing account:

1) We can't see 1cm movement from 50-75ft (Piagets approx distance from MB). Piaget is slanting heavily again. Is there a difference between "No I didn't see him move forward", or "I couldn't really say to be honest", and



Well, according to her, she did see the whole thing. "I witnessed everything" at ~0:10

I think the added effect of Piaget implying she had such a good viewpoint in an authoritative manner on the subject and being used to be able to say she saw MB move no further than 1 cm towards DW just further highlights Piaget's questionable disposition and presentation as an accountable witness with any sense for integrity or truth on a critical aspect of the case.

2) Compare to contractor describing unmistakable and remarkable movement forward from MB, 25ft. How does this square in any reasonable manner with Piaget account? Piaget not only said she didn't see MB move forward, she was very clear that at the very most that she saw MB move forward 1cm. Implying she had an excellent vantage point account for the integrity of what she saw. "Maybe 1cm", *not* "well I couldn't really see, MB may have moved forward". I trust the significance of what Piaget does here by making such statements is resounding. As an eyewitness describing in detail (more so as new info comes out), her detail implies either great view and photographic memory or lies IMO.

3) Hands up while moving towards an officer is *not* surrendering, it is a threat when the officer has his firearm out. If as the contractor says, MB's hands are up while MB advances towards officer Wilson, then only mentioning hands up becomes a perverse way to frame that encounter as something it was not.

4) For T-Shirts and Chants:

"Hands up, I'm coming towards you, Don't shoot" vs "Hands up Don't Shoot". Holy fiery raining shit balls @ missing context.

5) "Then Brown moved, the worker said. He’s kind of walking back toward the cop." This context is malleable and different if MB has shown to be non threat or generally compliant up to this point, vs non compliant and punching DW in face at car vs DW hostile and aggresively pulling MB into car while MB tries to flee. What happened at car? Witness Brady says 2:00-4:00. Also implied there is that Brady said "he ran up to the car, he was punching on him" on an audio recording of the incident. Who ran up on the car?

DJ and other witnesses seem to indicate more that DW pulled MB into the car and MB was trying to get away.

6) After car incident. Shots vs hands up timing? How much of this can be pinned down? Pretty damn important. If DW is in fact moving backward while firing, what does this imply if anything about that sequence of events and his perception of the encounter and MB's threat level?

7) Contractors have remained anonymous, Ms. Piaget has not.

8) Contractors are mistaken on movement of MB or Ms. Piaget is mistaken on movement of MB.

9) From contractor quote about this time frame, hows that square with a 6+4 gun shots? Frame around the "third shot" specifics which after this point MB moved 25ft towards DW. Did the "third shot" come from the 6 portion? It must have, MB is not fast enough to cover 25ft if the third shot came from the 4 shot portion while MB advanced 25ft. (How quickly did MB cover that 25ft estimate? I've got a theory on that below in next point.)

*This could place the +4 portion (two to head) portion after Brown already definitively moving towards Wilson, given the pause of +4 time frame, this possibly indicates with some certainty the 6 portion was with MB facing Wilson. The pause may not be damning, it may have been merciful.

10) Rate of speed for MB to cover 25ft after 3rd shot of the 6+4? 25ft in roughly 5-6seconds? Did MB not stop at all during the 3sec pause between 6+4? Sounds like MB may have stopped and dropped before last kill shot or last two shots so did he cover 25ft in 4-5 seconds or less?

Also, it appears that MB moved in total more than 25ft towards DW. The 25ft, and it sounds like the movement before the 25ft portion was a walk, and during the 25ft portion was a more brisk pace. This based on audio of gun shots with contractor account.

Contractor account matches up very well with hidden/unknown recording grab of eyewitness account. Here is both:

Contractor eyewitness


Hidden eyewitness


11) If contractor quote legit, smh@CNN again. At least put it out there for folks to knock back and forth.

12) If that contractor quote gets widely circulated via MSM, will Piaget "adjust" her story again to account for it? She's fairly boxed in now.


Compare to this to other intepretation.
Here


How much do reasonable heads matter, if unreasonable heads can effectively be ruled through deceit? How much deceit is going on here in the MB case? In a perverse Truth does not matter systemic environment of our media and political system, events can and will be framed to fit beliefs in spite of whatever actually occurred, that's the most lucrative course and we are if nothing else a profit driven and control over others system. Does this kind of BS stop at "WMD!!!" to get us to invade Iraq, or does it permeate multiple other facets of our surroundings?

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Will there always be an attentive and willingly/easily fooled audience or not?, is that in itself an excuse to decieve?
Click to expand...
I agree completely that IF these witnesses are real and deemed credible, Ms Crenshaw's credibility evaporates totally. I'm withholding judgement at the moment though because all these witnesses are anonymous. I can see good reasons why they would wish to remain so, but in racially charged cases from Tawanna Brawley to O.J. to Martin we've been treated to "facts" that dry up when it's time for trial. It's very common in such cases that both sides try to bias the jury pool, so I'm suspicious of everything with which I cannot associate a face and a name.

soundforbjt said:
This case will never see trial at all...http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
Click to expand...
Man, that article is a mess. I'm assuming that either the prosecutor doesn't think Wilson should be charged, or doesn't want to be blamed for Wilson not being charged with what people wish. Either way I really don't have a problem with this approach, as the old say about indicting a ham sandwich assumes that the prosecutor really believes the ham sandwich needs to be indicted.

And clearly we don't need a special prosecutor when we have Holder on the job. He's a racial justice warrior from way back, as is his boss. If there is any 'there' there, they'll charge and prosecute.

Darwin333 said:
Why exactly should he simply because he is a cop? We all know they do get the benefit of the doubt but if you actually dig into it you will find that cops are the most likely than any other group to commit perjury. They even have a cute little name for it, "testilying" or some crap.
Click to expand...
Cops cannot function as a part of society without presumed honesty and integrity.
 
Code: 
https://************/VeryWhiteGuy/shaunking-exposes-ferguson-pd-lie-about-distance-f

Why is this link blocked?

Use storifydotcom where the asterisks are.

Comments?
 
The Merg said:
Not that you may be right, but what studies have you seen that show that cops are the most likely to commit perjury? I would think that criminals that are actually guilty would have the biggest incentive to lie on the stand.

And most cops don't really care about if someone is found guilty or not (obviously, there are cases that they take personally). They did their part in bringing the case to court. It's up to the prosecutor to do the rest. They get paid OT for being in court and get to go home afterwards. They couldn't care less what actually happened in court.

- Merg
Click to expand...

I think a police chief would have more insight into this than either of us. Here is what one police chief is on the record with:
Police perjury in criminal cases - particularly in the context of searches and other exclusionary rule issues - is so pervasive that the former police chief of San Jose and Kansas City has estimated that "hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests" alone.
Click to expand...


http://www.constitution.org/lrev/dershowitz_test_981201.htm


A 1987 study from Chicago found that 76 percent of officers agreed that that they frequently bent the facts to establish probable cause; 48 percent said that judges were right in tossing police testimony as untrustworthy.

Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, publicly stated in the 1990s:

"It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers &#8230; police lie to avoid letting someone they think is guilty, or they know is guilty, go free."
Click to expand...

http://www.vice.com/read/testilying-cops-are-liars-who-get-away-with-perjury

But the judge, John E. Sprizzo of United States District Court in Manhattan, concluded that the police had simply reached into the pack without cause, found the gun, then &#8220;tailored&#8221; testimony to justify the illegal search. &#8220;You can&#8217;t have open season on searches,&#8221; said Judge Sprizzo, who refused to allow the gun as evidence, prompting prosecutors to drop the case last May.
​
Yet for all his disapproval of what the police had done, the judge said he hated to make negative rulings about officers&#8217; credibility. &#8220;I don&#8217;t like to jeopardize their career and all the rest of it,&#8221; he said. (Emphasis added)
​
Let me spell this out for you: a federal judge, and a tough one at that, finds that the cop lied on the witness stand. What&#8217;s his primary concern? Not to hurt the cop.

One might think he would see his duty as making sure that a lying cop was drummed off the force. Maybe make sure that no other person was ever mislead into believing that this was a cop who wouldn&#8217;t lie. Perhaps even referring the matter to the United States Attorney for prosecution for perjury. Remember, the judge just found that the cop lied!

Nope. None of the above. Make sure he doesn&#8217;t hurt the cops career. That is his concern. That&#8217;s the duty of a federal judge, to protect lying cops from the consequences of their commission of a crime.
Click to expand...

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2008/05/12/testilying-without-fear/
 
Last edited:
Don't worry, there will be plenty of evidence here (independent of witnesses) to describe what happened.

There will also be witnesses that match that evidence, and those whom don't.

The truth here is going to be VERY visible for those willing to see it (where ever it lands).

Shell casings related to Browns body is going to be big. Autopsy if it can be definitive about shots is going to be big. What's in the car is going to be big. What the witnesses say WHILE UNDER OATH is going to be big.


For those who don't want to see the truth here, there will always be the stubborn donkey response of No, No, No to clear indications of what occured here.

If physical evidence matches what Dorian, Piaget, Mitchel have described, then Wilson is toast, particularly with the high levels of Federal and other scrutiny this case will be under.

Thinking Wilson will only get off because of xyz shenags, pretty transparent.


What do you think Browns body position on the street indicates about what he was doing before a bullet shut down his central nervous system??? What about the picture of the very likely shell casing that is behind (as in behind his feet) in the pictures of the scene?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top