ADVERTISEMENT

Brown-Wilson (Ferguson) discussion

that's possible

it would fit a large universe of possibilities from Wilson being the aggressor to Brown being the aggressor to a mutual series of events. I think it likely that regardless of who the initial aggressor was, at some point, you had two guys struggling, and Wilson at some point going for his gun, and yeah, at that point Brown may either grab at it to prevent that or paw at it to push it away depending on when and how he realized it was being pointed at him, and depending on how the confrontation actually went down.
 
again no the forensic doesn't

back him up, or Brown all that much for that matter other than the following things:

1. At some point, Brown was close enough to the weapon to get blood on it. Since the cops never bothered to do fingerprints, we'll never know if he actually grabbed it or not. This clearly supports some sort of confrontation at close quarters inside the car. It tells us nothing about who started it, what happened, or anything else. Since both sides agree there was some sort of confrontation inside the car, this evidence tells us very little. If one side or the other denied such a confrontation, this evidence would have more impact.

2. At some point, we know Brown was shot. The majority of the evidence suggests it was all while facing the officer. We don't know exactly how far away because, again, the cops never bothered to measure any distances on the scene. One of the forensic experts is pretty adamant that the shots to the arms COULD have been while he was running away, and that the most likely trajectory for the rounds the entered the arm involves hands raised, but again, other experts disagree. Most of the shots clearly connected while facing the cop. Whether he was charging, walking forward, stumbling forward, or standing still is completely unclear.

Sure, some, I repeat some of what Wilson says is believable. No one tells a 100 percent complete lie. Even folks trying to lie don't do that. They, in my experience, try to put in as much truth as possible. When you are looking for the lie(s), you look at the critical bits that are important and affect the person who has a motive to lie. I wish there were witnesses in my time who were complete liars, it would make cross exam so much easier. I've only really seen it once, and that was a guy I was prosecuting for child molestation who'd confessed and he was trying to explain a pretty solid confession away with a pretty crazy story.

Forensics doesn't tell us if he fired at him while running away, it doesn't tell us exactly how the confrontation went down in the car, it doesn't tell us how Brown was acting in those final seconds (was he charging, was he walking, was he falling from the first shots, was he standing, were his hands up or down). None of those questions are answered by forensics one way or the other.
 
that's his testimony, it ain't consistent

there's no actual evidence or transcript of that call that I'm aware of. I've linked am article from what I assume you don't think is a leftist paper but who knows that lists some of those discrepancies including the one I'm talking about.

Here's the Chief of Police less than a week after the shooting:


"In a press conference earlier on Friday, Ferguson police Swisher Sweets cigars valued at $48.99 was stolen and a clerk was allegedly shoved.



Video of the incident allegedly showing Brown, which was released to
the public, "had nothing to do with the stop" and was "unrelated" to
Wilson's contact with Brown, Jackson said. He said video of the
convenience store incident was released in response to Freedom of
Information Act requests.
"The initial contact between Darren
Wilson and Mike Brown was not related to the alleged theft of cigars,"
Jackson said, indicating Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect in the
robbery.
Jackson said Wilson was in the area "coming off a sick
case," and initiated contact with Brown because the teenager was
"blocking traffic, that's it."

Now, where do you think the Chief got that information? Do you think he talked to Wilson?
Here's the statement in the autopsy which is the officer who initially interview Wilson (again nothing about the robbery):


The deceased and
another individual were walking down the middle of the Canfield. Officer
D. WILSON DSN-609, of the Ferguson Police Department observed the two
individuals, he requested that they get out of the roadway.
The
deceased became belligerent towards Officer WILSON. As Officer WILSON
attempted to exit out of his patrol vehicle the deceased pushed his door
shut and began to struggle with Officer WILSON, during the struggle the
Officers weapon was un-holstered. The weapon discharged during the
struggle.
The deceased then ran down the roadway. Officer WILSON
then began to chase the deceased. As he was giving chase to the
deceased, the deceased turned around and ran towards Officer WILSON.
Officer WILSON had his service weapon drawn, as the deceased began to
run towards him, he discharged his service weapon several times.

[/QUOTE]

Daily Mail
 
Re: I dont know what you mean

Originally posted by qazplm:
by "fully credible." I honestly don't. You show me someone you think is "fully credible" and I can usually find some bias, or some niblet they've said that's different. So you'll have to explain to me what you mean by that first.
I'll say it again, everyone who testifies has "changes" to their stories. Try and tell the truth, record it, wait months, then tell it again, and tell me if there aren't changes.

Witnesses rarely "lie." They may exaggerate, they may misremember, they may get confused, or they simply may not have seen what they thought they saw for all the reasons that recall can trick us and the brain/eye isn't a camera...but you rarely see in my experience out and out lies, and you never see two dozen plus people most of whom don't know each other all lying.
I am certain that every witness is flawed. But, for example, I believe witness number 32 far more than I believe witness 41. The reasons should be obvious, as that example is pretty extreme. The girl's journal entry is far more believable than some of the other testimony, as well.

So, while witnesses rarely "lie", in this case I think a lot of them didn't see much of anything, but are going off of hearsay. And then there are some that are obviously lying. Witness 41 is one of them, and she is caught in lies several times in her interviews. The fact is, I do not think some of these "witnesses" actually witnessed anything. Maybe they heard some shots and saw Brown's body on the ground, or caught the tail end of it, but I think maybe two people saw the whole thing start to finish, and one of them is dead and the other is Wilson. I think a handful more saw everything that happened after the first shots, and then I think a whole bunch saw Brown die.
 
Re: that's possible

Even if Brown was the aggressor, few people are ballsy enough to try to unholster a cop's firearm. Maybe if it was already out, and you're in close contact, but it just seems way more likely to me that Brown was simply trying to avoid being shot at some point during the altercation and the gun went off in close proximity to his hand.
 
Re: that's his testimony, it ain't consistent

I'll say this again: I am not reading anything but testimony and evidence. I am purposely not reading anything written by anyone else - "leftist" (your word) or right - because it is ultimately tainted by their view consciously or subconsciously.

Officer (21) in the link attached. He knows about the robbery... see the previous discussions with other officers involved. The description goes over the radio. I don't know if Wilson heard that or not, but it went over the radio so it's likely that he did. He calls in that he is approaching "two" on Canfield and asks for backup in track 369.



This post was edited on 12/2 8:19 PM by gr8indoorsman

Radio transcript
 
ok start with the very first witness starting on page 11

He says the following:

1. I saw Brown facing the cop
2. Then I saw Brown point at us, which scared me
3. Then I saw Brown turn and run
4. Then the officer followed
5. Then the officer fired one shot while Brown was running away
6. then the witness says I thought it hit Brown because he spun around like his leg had been hit, but I didn't see any blood
7. Then Brown starts walking towards Wilson
8. then Wilson guns him down

He also says at the end that he thought "the officer did what he had to do" so seems to me that's not someone who's trying to lie against Wilson. Now, he thought Brown MIGHT have had a gun but didn't see a gun, and he thought something might have come out of Brown's hand because of a "glint" but didn't know what it was.

It's CLEAR he's the first witness for a reason, because he was overall favorable to Wilson (he suggests he might have seen a gun, and he admits that cop "did what he had to do" and that Brown was a "threat" to Wilson. He also says Wilson fired at least one shot at Brown while running away.

So tell me what about this witness you find not credible.
 
Re: What about the Blaze

I agree that the initial approach wasn't related to the robbery. I'm not sure how that's germane to anything.

You've been saying "he didn't know" which is factually incorrect as shown by the radio transcript. He had a conversation with two other officers regarding the robbery, so he knew it happened. Whether or not he knew the description of the suspect, I don't know.

Either way, I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that your statement of "he didn't know about the robbery" is false and is prove false by the radio transcript linked in the prior post. Sorry that the Blaze and a bunch of other articles printed by a wide number of sources three months before the evidence was released got it wrong.

And that's what's so frustrating. Now that the evidence, transcripts and testimony is out there, people aren't reading it. They're just reading places like the Huffington Post who are manipulating it to favor their narrative by saying "15 witness say he had his hands up!!!" and not explaining what's meant by "hands up" (hands in front of him at shoulder level, or looking at his hands, but not over his head or surrendering) nor mentioning that of those 15, many/most/all are not credible, admit they didn't see it, or admit that it's just hearsay.
 
well goodness

how can you ever find inconsistencies if you are going to ignore statements made PRIOR to the testimony. The link from the Blaze was a week after the shooting BEFORE anyone remotely alleged that Wilson knew about the shooting. There's nothing to taint. It's straight up reporting. It's literally quotes by the police chief about the relevant issue. You've got to be kidding me.
 
Re: ok start with the very first witness starting on page 11

Originally posted by qazplm:
He says the following:

1. I saw Brown facing the cop
2. Then I saw Brown point at us, which scared me
3. Then I saw Brown turn and run
4. Then the officer followed
5. Then the officer fired one shot while Brown was running away
6. then the witness says I thought it hit Brown because he spun around like his leg had been hit, but I didn't see any blood
7. Then Brown starts walking towards Wilson
8. then Wilson guns him down

He also says at the end that he thought "the officer did what he had to do" so seems to me that's not someone who's trying to lie against Wilson. Now, he thought Brown MIGHT have had a gun but didn't see a gun, and he thought something might have come out of Brown's hand because of a "glint" but didn't know what it was.

It's CLEAR he's the first witness for a reason, because he was overall favorable to Wilson (he suggests he might have seen a gun, and he admits that cop "did what he had to do" and that Brown was a "threat" to Wilson. He also says Wilson fired at least one shot at Brown while running away.

So tell me what about this witness you find not credible.
What witness number? Or provide a link? We're obviously looking at different document caches, because the first one listed in the NYT list is number 10 who doesn't say anything about a shot when Brown's running away.
 
there's nothing in that link

that says much of anything. There's nothing where "officer 21" says something related to the robbery. You have no way of knowing "it's likely that he did."
 
Re: well goodness

Originally posted by qazplm:
how can you ever find inconsistencies if you are going to ignore statements made PRIOR to the testimony. The link from the Blaze was a week after the shooting BEFORE anyone remotely alleged that Wilson knew about the shooting. There's nothing to taint. It's straight up reporting. It's literally quotes by the police chief about the relevant issue. You've got to be kidding me.
I really don't care what the police chief said. I don't care what Wilson said; I haven't read it! Again, for the four hundredth time, my determinations are based on the documented testimony and evidence, not Wilson's testimony. Not what the police chief said. Not what The Blaze thought based on what the police chief said Wilson said.

You said, "Wilson didn't know about the robbery." The radio transcript shows otherwise.
 
it's a pretty large pdf document

but I'll link it here. But it's literally the first witness.

page 11
 
no it doesnt

you've made the assumption, Wilson must have heard the radio traffic and knew about the robbery.

The radio transcript shows that two cops talked about the robbery, it shows nothing that Wilson talked about it, and it says nothing about whether he heard about it.

So how would we know one way or the other?

We could see what Wilson says about whether he heard that or not. But apparently you don't "care" about what Wilson says about that.

We could look to contemporaneous reporting about whether or not Wilson knew. We have that, but you don't care about that either.

All you have is, it was discussed by some cops over a radio thus Wilson MUST have heard it. Come on man, you've got to be kidding me.
 
Re: there's nothing in that link

In track 350, officer 25 is assigned the robbery call from the Quik Trip.

Up through 358 are traffic related to the robbery.

360 - 22 calls in as "with 25" responding to the robbery.

364 and 366 - Wilson (21) directly asks 25 and 22 if they need his assistance.

369 - Wilson (21) calls in "on Canfield with two."


Yes, Wilson knew about the robbery. I don't know if he knew the description of Brown or not.
 
Re: it's a pretty large pdf document

Ah, you're reading from the Grand Jury testimony. I'm reading from the law enforcement testimony statements, hence the numbers. I'll read it, but Purdue's starting soon, so may not get back at this till later.

Seriously, thanks for discussing... I know we won't agree, but I want to try to see it from the other side to see where people might think differently.

I don't disagree about the two realities for blacks and whites. I just don't think Mike Brown is a proper martyr for that cause.
 
uh no

those tracks are not one long string of a single conversation. Cops are calling in for various, unrelated things. They aren't engaged in one long unbroken conversation where every entry relates to every other entry.
 
Re: it's a pretty large pdf document

I really can't find the witness on page 11. You linked the entire GJ file, but I'm looking through the volumes or the direct witness statement. The one I *THINK* you're talking about is Witness number 12, who is the gentleman who had the recording of the gunshots on his cell phone.

Keep reading all the way through his various testimony, particularly the third one. He never saw the first four shots. He also said Wilson kept shooting when Brown was on the ground, and he can't explain where he is. He said he went outside after he heard the first four shots, but by the time he got outside, it was evident that Brown was already hit. So how did he know Brown was running away? The forensic evidence doesn't allow for Brown to be hit while running away, so something he's saying isn't right.

He then goes back and forth in the third interview (taken only four days after the event) about where he was, and what he saw. It's evident that all he really saw was the argument by the car, heard some shots, called to his fiance to go outside and then saw Brown dead. That's about all that can be considered credible there.

Maybe I'm reading the wrong one? Got another, because that one's honestly very weak if that's it.
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
those tracks are not one long string of a single conversation. Cops are calling in for various, unrelated things. They aren't engaged in one long unbroken conversation where every entry relates to every other entry.
I understand that, but 21 called 22 and 25 asking if they need assistance. Those two officers were involved in the robbery. The timeline for all those calls is a few minutes. Seems fairly obvious that Wilson at least knew a robbery had occurred, which is all that I am saying, and the evidence is pretty clearly pointing there unless you have some other thought.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Re: it's a pretty large pdf document

ok well it's glitching on me now, thought it was the first witness but when I reopened it it clearly wasnt and a whole lot of new stuff opened up so wondering if there was a hiccup in the download but I figured it out...it starts on page 11 of Volume 12.



This post was edited on 12/3 12:30 AM by qazplm
 
it doesnt seem fairly obvious to me

You don't have timestamps, and you don't know why he called and what he knew. What we DO know is that he told the Chief he didn't know unless you think the Chief just made that fact up. Why in the world would he?

Even if he "knew a robbery occurred" there's no evidence he knew it in the great detail he recounted on the stand or that magically it was cigarellos that clued him in. Heck, if he WAS listening he had a description, he didn't need the cigarellos to clue him in.

Sorry but that's manufactured, just like the "hand in his waistline going for a gun" baloney.
 
Re: it doesnt seem fairly obvious to me

No, what I know is that he called the officers engaged in the robbery follow up offering assistance. The Chief said the initial contact with Brown wasn't due to the robbery, not that he had no knowledge of the robbery. While you think I'm drawing too much from too little, I think you're being obtuse. I mean how long do you really think that transcript covers? The day? The shift? I don't think it's being overly aggressive to say it covers less than an hour, and probably much less than an hour - like 20-30 minutes.

Note that I've never once - not once - commented about him going in his pants for a gun. Several witnesses said his hand went to his pants once. I've always assumed that was to pull them up because several also mentioned that he was frequently pulling his pants up throughout the first interaction.

This post was edited on 12/3 9:52 PM by gr8indoorsman
 
Re: it's a pretty large pdf document

Originally posted by qazplm:
ok well it's glitching on me now, thought it was the first witness but when I reopened it it clearly wasnt and a whole lot of new stuff opened up so wondering if there was a hiccup in the download but I figured it out...it starts on page 11 of Volume 12.



This post was edited on 12/3 12:30 AM by qazplm
OK, I'll check it out.
 
Re: ok start with the very first witness starting on page 11

Originally posted by qazplm:
He says the following:

1. I saw Brown facing the cop
2. Then I saw Brown point at us, which scared me
3. Then I saw Brown turn and run
4. Then the officer followed
5. Then the officer fired one shot while Brown was running away
6. then the witness says I thought it hit Brown because he spun around like his leg had been hit, but I didn't see any blood
7. Then Brown starts walking towards Wilson
8. then Wilson guns him down

So tell me what about this witness you find not credible.
OK, so first, this witness (page 11 of vol 12) is in his car. He didn't see the first shots nor the altercation at the car, but that's immaterial.

What you left out was that he testified that he thought the officer was "in a shootout" and that the "large black man appeared to be pointing a gun." So, obviously, he's mistaken there.

He did not see the officer exit his vehicle. (To wit, witness 12 who I discussed below, said the officer got out of his vehicle, took big steps and started firing immediately as Brown was moving away, and indicated that Brown appeared to have been hit while running away, which we forensically know is not true). Even in the testimony that supports being shot while moving away, they don't agree.

He says:

"Yes, my first, that was my first view of Mr. Brown. He was in a direct line just past the officer and he was pointing in our direction."
...
Q: "The first time you saw him, you saw the front?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "Okay, you never saw the back of him?"
A: "No, I did not."

His testimony continues that Brown and the officer were out of the car. Brown and the officer faced down as though it was a shootout. Wilson fired while Brown was facing him. Brown turned and ran. Wilson pursued, apparently firing one shot, when Brown turned around again.

No one else that I've read has testified to this "showdown" followed by Brown turning and running. The "hands up" testimonies have all said "Brown ran, the cop ran out of his car, started shooting as Brown ran away" or something to that effect. The other testimonies (the ones that support the narrative quoted by the
DA), all say Brown was running when Wilson got out of the car, but
stopped and turned. No showdown followed by running. Everyone except this guy is consistent on that point.

As they ask the witness to describe Brown, he said "Blue jeans, white t-shirt and tennis shoes." He wasn't in jeans, but that's easy to mistake. He is specifically asked if he saw a hat. He said he didn't remember one. One of the primary descriptors of Brown given to police was a red Cardinals baseball cap. It's possible that he just missed that, though I'd think that would be the one thing that stands out from that distance. Either way, his description of Brown is flawed.

Moving on, he said Wilson fired "one shot" while Brown was running away, and that it appeared he was hit in his "left leg or low left side" because he "staggered to the left".

Brown has no injuries to the left side of his body other than abrasions caused by the fall.

Perhaps this gentleman thought Brown was facing away, since he testified that he thought he was hit on his left side, but forensic evidence only shows gunshot injuries to his RIGHT side. Thus, it could be that this gentleman had that wrong, and that Brown was facing the officer. Either way, Brown was not shot on the left side of his body, so he got that wrong.

Finally, he said that after Wilson "gunned him down", Brown fell to his right and appeared to land on his back. Brown's body was found face down, so he got that wrong too.

It appears to me that he is mistaking facing and facing away, which would be understandable given the distance. He testified they were never closer than two blocks from the shooting.

Later on, this witness testifies that he is "a convicted felon and I don't have any love for the police." He offered the "love for police" part freely. The questioner asked him about serving time, drawing the felon comment. I can see how that might be viewed as manipulative for sure, but why offer "no love for the police?" Odd to me, but his life experience is much different than mine, obviously.

He also says that he was playing with his phone and his attention was drawn by the first "three or four shots" which he heard. It's been consistent within many testimonies that three groups of shots occurred: two in the car, several as Brown faced Wilson down initially, and several more in the fatal volley. It could be that he heard the first two shots, or it could be that he heard the second batch and thus all he saw was the third. Either way, his version of the story has you believe that Brown ran from Wilson twice, which no one else testifies to.

So while I don't question this witness' "credibility" per se, I do question his version of the story as very much flawed and would consider this witness of limited value given the discrepancies between his version and literally every other version I've read (which at this point is about twenty of them). Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but if I'm putting myself in the position of a juror, I'd put little stock in this account.

It would be enough for me to want to corroborate the firing while running away part, but I'd need other credible, more accurate witnesses to do that rather than leaning on this one.
 
you have no idea

why he called in "offering assistance" which is a bit more descriptive than what he actually said. You are making great big leaps because it serves what you want to believe. You are ignoring hugely relevant evidence, because it contradicts what you want to believe.
 
Re: you have no idea

Originally posted by qazplm:

You are ignoring hugely relevant evidence, because it contradicts what you want to believe.
What "evidence" am I ignoring? Literally the only things I'm ignoring are Wilson's statement and Johnson's statement because they're both self-serving.

The police chief did not say "he didn't know about the robbery." He said, "the initial stop was unrelated to the robbery."

I'd argue that you are ignoring more evidence than I am. I'd also argue that you've been completely duped by lies made up on the street and are frankly displaying an alarming amount of intellectual irresponsibility because you apparently refuse to question the statements of the "hands up" crowd.

Anyway, I've offered plenty of facts and statements and read lots of statements and picked the one apart that you thought was relevant. You won't agree because you don't wanna. It's fine. I'm over it.

If you can come up with some other statements you find credible and accurate that talk about shots fired while running away, or hands up while being shot at, I'm happy to read them. Since I've read nearly every one out there right now, I have to say that I seriously doubt that they exist. As I mentioned above, the one you cited is probably credible, but contains so many inaccuracies from every other testimony and evidence, there's no way it stands on its own, nor does it really corroborate any other testimony.
 
you are ignoring

the chief's statement which can only be based on what Johnson reported directly to him close in time to the events.

Your parsing is almost lawyer-quality when you attempt to differentiate between "initial contact" and later. If the officer later put two and two together at that time, why in the world wouldn't the Chief say so since it helps his officer? Watch the video tied to the Blaze article. At 610-710 of the video tied to Blaze article, the Chief point blank says "it had nothing to do with the stop" and he says "he didn't know about the robbery, he was coming off a sick case" which AGAIN is evidence that no, he didn't know about the robbery.

As far as being duped, first of all, sorry but no I don't handwave away every single witness, of varying backgrounds, and no clear connections to each other, who says some version of hands-up as all collectively lying. To believe that requires a suspension of logic.

I gave you one person right off who said a version of hands-up for whom the record reveals no reason to question it, have you looked at it? What about that statement do you challenge? He's a guy who effectively says "the cop probably had to shoot Brown because he was a threat" but he's making up the hands-up part because he's part of the "hands-up" crowd? Please, talk about intellectual irresponsibility.





watch the video
 
Re: you have no idea

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Originally posted by qazplm:

You are ignoring hugely relevant evidence, because it contradicts what you want to believe.
What "evidence" am I ignoring? Literally the only things I'm ignoring are Wilson's statement and Johnson's statement because they're both self-serving.

The police chief did not say "he didn't know about the robbery." He said, "the initial stop was unrelated to the robbery."

I'd argue that you are ignoring more evidence than I am. I'd also argue that you've been completely duped by lies made up on the street and are frankly displaying an alarming amount of intellectual irresponsibility because you apparently refuse to question the statements of the "hands up" crowd.

Anyway, I've offered plenty of facts and statements and read lots of statements and picked the one apart that you thought was relevant. You won't agree because you don't wanna. It's fine. I'm over it.

If you can come up with some other statements you find credible and accurate that talk about shots fired while running away, or hands up while being shot at, I'm happy to read them. Since I've read nearly every one out there right now, I have to say that I seriously doubt that they exist. As I mentioned above, the one you cited is probably credible, but contains so many inaccuracies from every other testimony and evidence, there's no way it stands on its own, nor does it really corroborate any other testimony.
I try to avoid things like this, because (like Trayvon) it's usually muddy and just gets idiots riled-up. However, I could have sworn that prior to the grand-jury we were informed by the police department that he didn't know of the robbery.
 
Re: you are ignoring



Originally posted by qazplm:
the chief's statement which can only be based on what Johnson reported directly to him close in time to the events.

Your parsing is almost lawyer-quality when you attempt to differentiate between "initial contact" and later. If the officer later put two and two together at that time, why in the world wouldn't the Chief say so since it helps his officer? Watch the video tied to the Blaze article. At 610-710 of the video tied to Blaze article, the Chief point blank says "it had nothing to do with the stop" and he says "he didn't know about the robbery, he was coming off a sick case" which AGAIN is evidence that no, he didn't know about the robbery.

As far as being duped, first of all, sorry but no I don't handwave away every single witness, of varying backgrounds, and no clear connections to each other, who says some version of hands-up as all collectively lying. To believe that requires a suspension of logic.

I gave you one person right off who said a version of hands-up for whom the record reveals no reason to question it, have you looked at it? What about that statement do you challenge? He's a guy who effectively says "the cop probably had to shoot Brown because he was a threat" but he's making up the hands-up part because he's part of the "hands-up" crowd? Please, talk about intellectual irresponsibility.
I picked that entire statement apart in a long post above. Read it and do better.
 
sigh

1. He said appeared. He said appeared because he saw a glint of something. He ALSO said that he wasn't sure, he didn't actually see a gun. So what was he "mistaken" about? Something "appearing" a certain way, when the person freely admits he isn't sure is not a credibility issue.

2. Who cares if he saw the officer exit the vehicle? He saw the relevant part of the confrontation. So his testimony doesn't agree with other testimony, that you also discount. So, it wouldn't matter what he said then right? Whatever he says, because someone else said something different, you discount it. Interesting.

3. His description is white shirt, correct. And he's wearing pants. Whether they were blue jeans or some other material, completely minor detail. And we know his Cardinals cap fell off because it was nowhere near where he was finally shot. So saying his description is flawed because:

it wasn't blue jeans but another material, and he missed a hat that very likely wasn't on his head at the time he observed him because it had fallen off is weak sauce.

4. Again, he said it "appeared" that he'd been shot. He didn't say he actually WAS shot, simply that the manner in which he spun around made it look that way. Again, when a witness isn't sure about something but talks about how it appears while fully acknowledging he doesn't actually know, that enhances his credibility, it doesn't detract from it.

Your comments are pretty much weak sauce based reverse logic. "I think it went down this way" thus any testimony that suggests otherwise is "flawed."
 
Re: you are ignoring

we have different interpretations of "picked apart" which I noted in my response.

You've settled on what happened, and then you are determining who's credible or not based on how they conform to that, which ain't how it works.

You also apparently think that saying something appears to be a certain way, while admitting you didn't actually see it for sure is somehow a poor reflection on credibility.

You also appear to think that if other folks say it happened differently, even if you think those other folks are also wrong, then it detracts from credibility.
 
Re: sigh

No, my comments are based on what is supported by evidence. The fact is, he got a lot of things wrong that I pointed out. None of those - no hat, where he fell, where he got shot, the showdown (i.e. facing, then running, then facing again) - are supported by evidence nor any other testimony. His testimony may be truthful based on what he thought he saw, but being that he got so much of it wrong - likely because he was two blocks away in a car - makes his testimony far less meaningful. You're a criminal lawyer, yes? And you hang your hat on this testimony? Really?

Not one single detail that I discussed there was based on the narrative I believe to be true. It was compared to evidence and other testimony. No other testimony backs up those items. No forensic evidence backs up those statements. That's five or six errors in his testimony that I pointed out that aren't consistent with anything anyone else said, regardless of their favored story.

Come on. I can't be any more objective. I don't think you'll be satisfied until I say, "Yes, clearly he was shot at while running away." That testimony didn't prove it, yet I admitted that it would make me look deeper to try to corroborate that.

And again, I asked for another credible testimony that didn't make so many errors that might corroborate it. Instead of bitching about my lack of objectivity, try proving your point. The fact is, there isn't testimony nor evidence that proves it. I know because I've read most of it... Have you? Or have you stuck with blogs and news reports as it appears?

This post was edited on 12/4 10:21 PM by gr8indoorsman
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT