Freddie Gray dies a week after being injured during arrest

[RavenSky]

Sometimes, ya just gotta concede that Loren is right once and awhile.

I have never had a problem saying that Loren is right once in a while. It's just not this time.

Later in the day, Donta Allen the second man loaded into the van was called for the defense.

In a session that at times turned standoffish, Allen told defense attorneys he couldn’t recall that day.

Later video of Allen’s statement to police was shown in which he said he heard Gray banging his head, and Allen confirmed that on the stand.

Donta Allen told defense attorney Matt Fraling in redirect he was in fact under the influence of Xanax and heroin when he gave his statement to police, and lied at the time about his substance use.

Fraling asked Allen to read some of that statement to police. He read potrions where he told police about the banging he heard from the other side of the van. At one point, Allen asked why he was being told to read it aloud.

"Because I said so," Fraling said, to prosecutors' objection.

Judge Barry Williams then admonished Fraling to ask another question, and it was after that that Allen made the admission about his drug use on the day he spoke with police.

Once Allen finished his testimony, we was led out of the courtroom by state corrections officers.

http://www.wbal.com/article/170972/...s-forgetfulness-in-sixth-day-of-goodson-trial

This particular witness contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth. There is no particular reason to believe any version of events as he tells it. Loren continues to repeat one version of Donta Allen's story (without any reference or acknowledgement of the contradictions) as his sole support for his position that Freddie Gray killed himself - that police failure to at least put Freddie Gray into a seat belt had any bearing on the fact that Freddie Gray was killed in police custody.

Loren is wrong.

 

[Trausti]

Come on. For anyone interested, the interview (which apparently was also recorded on mp3) was attached to Goodson's motion to dismiss: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2856634/Goodson-Motion-Part-1.pdf

You think posting the contents of the first statement negates the FACT he later recanted. Really?

Wow. Just wow. Again, it's like you're deliberately contrarian. Seems every thread. Okay, laughing dog. What motivation to fabricate did he have in the first interview? What? Surely, if he had been coerced he would have since said that? Where's the subsequent statements saying that police offered him this, or threatened him with that? So why the sudden recantation when it's all over the news? Snitches get stitches.

“I had two options today right, either come and talk to y’all and get my credibility straight with ya’ll and not get killed by these [expletive] or not tell a true story,” Allen added. “The only reason I’m doing this is because they put my name in a bad state.”

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/30/wjz-exclusive-the-other-man-in-the-van-with-freddie-gray-breaks-his-silence/

 

[Trausti]

I have never had a problem saying that Loren is right once in a while. It's just not this time.

Later in the day, Donta Allen the second man loaded into the van was called for the defense.

In a session that at times turned standoffish, Allen told defense attorneys he couldn’t recall that day.

Later video of Allen’s statement to police was shown in which he said he heard Gray banging his head, and Allen confirmed that on the stand.

Donta Allen told defense attorney Matt Fraling in redirect he was in fact under the influence of Xanax and heroin when he gave his statement to police, and lied at the time about his substance use.

Fraling asked Allen to read some of that statement to police. He read potrions where he told police about the banging he heard from the other side of the van. At one point, Allen asked why he was being told to read it aloud.

"Because I said so," Fraling said, to prosecutors' objection.

Judge Barry Williams then admonished Fraling to ask another question, and it was after that that Allen made the admission about his drug use on the day he spoke with police.

Once Allen finished his testimony, we was led out of the courtroom by state corrections officers.

http://www.wbal.com/article/170972/...s-forgetfulness-in-sixth-day-of-goodson-trial

This particular witness contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth. There is no particular reason to believe any version of events as he tells it. Loren continues to repeat one version of Donta Allen's story (without any reference or acknowledgement of the contradictions) as his sole support for his position that Freddie Gray killed himself - that police failure to at least put Freddie Gray into a seat belt had any bearing on the fact that Freddie Gray was killed in police custody.

Loren is wrong.

Oh, blame it on the drugs. He was able to have a conversation with the police officers about everything else. But on this point, where he just happened to say things which match up with the autopsy report, the drugs got him confused. Come on, people.

 

[RavenSky]

You think posting the contents of the first statement negates the FACT he later recanted. Really?

... What motivation to fabricate did he have in the first interview?...

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/30/wjz-exclusive-the-other-man-in-the-van-with-freddie-gray-breaks-his-silence/

His possible motivation/coercion for his first statement is in the very same article a couple of lines above:

Allen was in the van because he allegedly stole a cigarette from a store on North Avenue.

He was never charged.

bolding mine

 

[RavenSky]

Oh, blame it on the drugs. He was able to have a conversation with the police officers about everything else. But on this point, where he just happened to say things which match up with the autopsy report, the drugs got him confused. Come on, people.

I didn't blame anything on drugs. Donta Allen did. If you don't find it credible, then you just supported my position that Donta Allen is not credible; and therefore Loren is wrong for trying to use one version of Donta Allen's conflicting statements as his sole support for his claim that Freddie Gray killed himself.

 

[Trausti]

... What motivation to fabricate did he have in the first interview?...

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/04/30/wjz-exclusive-the-other-man-in-the-van-with-freddie-gray-breaks-his-silence/

His possible motivation/coercion for his first statement is in the very same article a couple of lines above:

Allen was in the van because he allegedly stole a cigarette from a store on North Avenue.

He was never charged.

bolding mine

That's it? That's your smoking gun? Oddly, that wasn't the excuse he gave in the story you cited. Oddly, there is no evidence of a quid pro que at all. Anywhere. Come on Danta, speak up, will ya.

 

[Trausti]

Oh, blame it on the drugs. He was able to have a conversation with the police officers about everything else. But on this point, where he just happened to say things which match up with the autopsy report, the drugs got him confused. Come on, people.

I didn't blame anything on drugs. Donta Allen did. If you don't find it credible, then you just supported my position that Donta Allen is not credible; and therefore Loren is wrong for trying to use one version of Donta Allen's conflicting statements as his sole support for his claim that Freddie Gray killed himself.

This is all kind of silly, though. Allen didn't really recant his testimony. In the media interview and in the story you cited, he affirmed that he heard banging from Gray's side of the wagon. He simply tried to downplay that later by re-characterizing the banging as not being that loud. In his interview (which I linked earlier) he said: "I was like -- he wasn't doing it hard and shit, but he was definitely banging himself in the head. I know he was."

 

[laughing dog]

You think posting the contents of the first statement negates the FACT he later recanted. Really?

Wow. Just wow. Again, it's like you're deliberately contrarian. Seems every thread.

Trying to deflect from the vacuousness of your replies with even more bullshit. LOL.

[
Okay, laughing dog. What motivation to fabricate did he have in the first interview?....

Not being charged.

In your linked story you provided to cast doubt on Allen's motivation for retelling his story you conveniently omitted this

A story he says is being distorted and now he fears being killed.

. That means he fears being killed for not telling the truth - just the opposite of your claim. Again, its like you are deliberately being obtuse or intellectually dishonest.





BTW, still waiting for you to actually support your claim that Freddie Gray was not denied due process with something other than "Cuz I said so".

 

[RavenSky]

I didn't blame anything on drugs. Donta Allen did. If you don't find it credible, then you just supported my position that Donta Allen is not credible; and therefore Loren is wrong for trying to use one version of Donta Allen's conflicting statements as his sole support for his claim that Freddie Gray killed himself.

This is all kind of silly, though. Allen didn't really recant his testimony. In the media interview and in the story you cited, he affirmed that he heard banging from Gray's side of the wagon. He simply tried to downplay that later by re-characterizing the banging as not being that loud. In his interview (which I linked earlier) he said: "I was like -- he wasn't doing it hard and shit, but he was definitely banging himself in the head. I know he was."

And Allen knows this... how? He could not see Freddie Gray to know what body part he may or may not have been banging, nor whether said alleged banging was even on purpose. Does Allen, perhaps, have X-ray eyes?

Sounds very much like a convenient fabrication. And regardless, unfortunately for Loren, Allen discredited himself by changing his story too many times.

I'm not going to continue to address this point with you an further. Loren is wrong to insist that Freddie Gray killed himself by using the suspect and conflicting claims of another prisoner who - conveniently - gets released without charges right after conferring with one police officer to tell a tale about something that was impossible for him to witness... and then changing his story multiple times after.

Further, Loren continues to ignore police malfeasance in cuffing and putting leg irons on a man, but not putting a seat belt on him. Had, at any point, Loren chosen to take the position that perhaps the police just made a little boo-boo of forgetting the seatbelt, and that is why Freddie Gray got tossed around in the back of the police van, then you and I would not be here wasting our time talking past each other on a point we will never agree on.

Instead, Loren insists Freddie Gray killed himself. He ignores indisputable facts, and instead offers up only a highly suspect narrative from a discredited source. Loren is wrong.

 

[Trausti]

This is all kind of silly, though. Allen didn't really recant his testimony. In the media interview and in the story you cited, he affirmed that he heard banging from Gray's side of the wagon. He simply tried to downplay that later by re-characterizing the banging as not being that loud. In his interview (which I linked earlier) he said: "I was like -- he wasn't doing it hard and shit, but he was definitely banging himself in the head. I know he was."

And Allen knows this... how? He could not see Freddie Gray to know what body part he may or may not have been banging, nor whether said alleged banging was even on purpose. Does Allen, perhaps, have X-ray eyes?

Sounds very much like a convenient fabrication. And regardless, unfortunately for Loren, Allen discredited himself by changing his story too many times.

I'm not going to continue to address this point with you an further. Loren is wrong to insist that Freddie Gray killed himself by using the suspect and conflicting claims of another prisoner who - conveniently - gets released without charges right after conferring with one police officer to tell a tale about something that was impossible for him to witness... and then changing his story multiple times after.

Further, Loren continues to ignore police malfeasance in cuffing and putting leg irons on a man, but not putting a seat belt on him. Had, at any point, Loren chosen to take the position that perhaps the police just made a little boo-boo of forgetting the seatbelt, and that is why Freddie Gray got tossed around in the back of the police van, then you and I would not be here wasting our time talking past each other on a point we will never agree on.

Instead, Loren insists Freddie Gray killed himself. He ignores indisputable facts, and instead offers up only a highly suspect narrative from a discredited source. Loren is wrong.

So, let's make two columns on how Gray was injured. In column A is the evidence that Gray hurt himself. In column B is the evidence that he was injured because of a "rough ride." In column A we write in Allen's statements. In column B, nothing. No evidence was offer at all of a "rough ride." So, yeah, self-infliction is probably more likely. I know, I know, there's your fantasy that Mosby's district attorneys chose not to charge Allen in exchange for him giving statements tanking their high-profile case against the cops. That'd probably be the worst quid pro quo evah. But let's remember that all it takes to break a neck is just enough force at the right angle. Happens in football in wrestling. And this guy did it dancing to his favorite rave: http://www.youredm.com/2015/12/14/guy-literally-breaks-neck-from-raging-too-hard/
So Gray hurting himself is far more plausible.

 

[laughing dog]

And Allen knows this... how? He could not see Freddie Gray to know what body part he may or may not have been banging, nor whether said alleged banging was even on purpose. Does Allen, perhaps, have X-ray eyes?

Sounds very much like a convenient fabrication. And regardless, unfortunately for Loren, Allen discredited himself by changing his story too many times.

I'm not going to continue to address this point with you an further. Loren is wrong to insist that Freddie Gray killed himself by using the suspect and conflicting claims of another prisoner who - conveniently - gets released without charges right after conferring with one police officer to tell a tale about something that was impossible for him to witness... and then changing his story multiple times after.

Further, Loren continues to ignore police malfeasance in cuffing and putting leg irons on a man, but not putting a seat belt on him. Had, at any point, Loren chosen to take the position that perhaps the police just made a little boo-boo of forgetting the seatbelt, and that is why Freddie Gray got tossed around in the back of the police van, then you and I would not be here wasting our time talking past each other on a point we will never agree on.

Instead, Loren insists Freddie Gray killed himself. He ignores indisputable facts, and instead offers up only a highly suspect narrative from a discredited source. Loren is wrong.

So, let's make two columns on how Gray was injured. In column A is the evidence that Gray hurt himself. In column B is the evidence that he was injured because of a "rough ride." In column A we write in Allen's statements. In column B, nothing. No evidence was offer at all of a "rough ride." So, yeah, self-infliction is probably more likely. I know, I know, there's your fantasy that Mosby's district attorneys chose not to charge Allen in exchange for him giving statements tanking their high-profile case against the cops. That'd probably be the worst quid pro quo evah. But let's remember that all it takes to break a neck is just enough force at the right angle. Happens in football in wrestling. And this guy did it dancing to his favorite rave: http://www.youredm.com/2015/12/14/guy-literally-breaks-neck-from-raging-too-hard/
So Gray hurting himself is just far more plausible.

Gray was not secured properly - that is the issue. If he had been (i.e the seat belt fastened), ne would not have been thrown around or he would not have been able to throw himself around: he would have survived the ride.

 

[Trausti]

Wow. Just wow. Again, it's like you're deliberately contrarian. Seems every thread.

Trying to deflect from the vacuousness of your replies with even more bullshit. LOL.

[
Okay, laughing dog. What motivation to fabricate did he have in the first interview?....

Not being charged.

In your linked story you provided to cast doubt on Allen's motivation for retelling his story you conveniently omitted this

A story he says is being distorted and now he fears being killed.

. That means he fears being killed for not telling the truth - just the opposite of your claim. Again, its like you are deliberately being obtuse or intellectually dishonest.





BTW, still waiting for you to actually support your claim that Freddie Gray was not denied due process with something other than "Cuz I said so".

Police don't charge people. They arrest people. The prosecutor charges people. So your hypothesis is that Mosby made a deal with him to say Gray banged on the wall thus crippling her hasty prosecution of the cops? I guess that makes sense in laughing dog land.

And due process. Again. There is a difference between civil and criminal law.

- - - Updated - - -

So, let's make two columns on how Gray was injured. In column A is the evidence that Gray hurt himself. In column B is the evidence that he was injured because of a "rough ride." In column A we write in Allen's statements. In column B, nothing. No evidence was offer at all of a "rough ride." So, yeah, self-infliction is probably more likely. I know, I know, there's your fantasy that Mosby's district attorneys chose not to charge Allen in exchange for him giving statements tanking their high-profile case against the cops. That'd probably be the worst quid pro quo evah. But let's remember that all it takes to break a neck is just enough force at the right angle. Happens in football in wrestling. And this guy did it dancing to his favorite rave: http://www.youredm.com/2015/12/14/guy-literally-breaks-neck-from-raging-too-hard/
So Gray hurting himself is just far more plausible.

Gray was not secured properly - that is the issue. If he had been (i.e the seat belt fastened), ne would not have been thrown around or he would not have been able to throw himself around: he would have survived the ride.

And the prosecution failed to offer any evidence that that's how he sustained his injury. Let's not forget that.

 

[laughing dog]

Police don't charge people. They arrest people. The prosecutor charges people. So your hypothesis is that Mosby made a deal with him to say Gray banged on the wall thus crippling her hasty prosecution of the cops?

WTF are you blabbering about. It is possible that the police let him go when he told his story.

And due process. Again. There is a difference between civil and criminal law.

Yes there is. There is a difference between chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream too. But none of that has anything to do with whether Freddie Gray had due process denied.

And the prosecution failed to offer any evidence that that's how he sustained his injury. Let's not forget that.

Let's also not forget that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. That is just as relevant to the issue as to whether Freddie Gray was denied due process.

I guess in Traustiville, spouting non-sequiturs counts as reasoned argument.

 

[RavenSky]

So, let's make two columns on how Gray was injured. In column A is the evidence that Gray hurt himself. In column B is the evidence that he was injured because of a "rough ride." In column A we write in Allen's statements. In column B, nothing. No evidence was offer at all of a "rough ride." So, yeah, self-infliction is probably more likely.

Strawmen are so easy to knock down

I did not offer "rough ride" as the alternative to Loren's little fantasy here. I offered 3 indisputable facts:

1. Freddie Gray was handcuffed
2. Freddie Gray was put in leg irons
3. Freddie Gray was NOT buckled into a seat belt (as policy said he should have been)

Even under the best of driving conditions, Freddie Gray is not going to be able to catch himself if he was sliding off the bench during a turn, and would have no ability to recover while the vehicle continued in motion. "But let's remember that all it takes to break a neck is just enough force at the right angle."

 

[Trausti]

WTF are you blabbering about. It is possible that the police let him go when he told his story.

That doesn't make any sense. The police just couldn't "let him go." The police can only hold an arrestee for a certain amount of time. In most jurisdictions, the prosecutor has up to 72 hours to file charges or the arrestee must be released. The only way the police could have kept Allen longer is if Mosby's office filed charges. So the premise that Allen avoided charges by making statements harmful to Mosby's prosecution of the cops is simply ridiculous. (Unless Mosby really is that dumb.)

Due process. Focus on process. Due process violations included not being told your Miranda rights, warrantless searches, etc. If a person dies while in police custody, that could be a civil rights violation. But it's not a due process one. Think of a due process violation as a way for a criminal defendant to get charges dropped, dismissed, or to keep out incriminating evidence. Not being seat-belted on your way to the jail won't get the charges dropped, dismissed, or exclude evidence.

 

[Trausti]

So, let's make two columns on how Gray was injured. In column A is the evidence that Gray hurt himself. In column B is the evidence that he was injured because of a "rough ride." In column A we write in Allen's statements. In column B, nothing. No evidence was offer at all of a "rough ride." So, yeah, self-infliction is probably more likely.

Strawmen are so easy to knock down

I did not offer "rough ride" as the alternative to Loren's little fantasy here. I offered 3 indisputable facts:

1. Freddie Gray was handcuffed
2. Freddie Gray was put in leg irons
3. Freddie Gray was NOT buckled into a seat belt (as policy said he should have been)

Even under the best of driving conditions, Freddie Gray is not going to be able to catch himself if he was sliding off the bench during a turn, and would have no ability to recover while the vehicle continued in motion. "But let's remember that all it takes to break a neck is just enough force at the right angle."

And there was no evidence of a rough ride: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trial-of-van-driver-in-freddie-gray-case-continues-in-baltimore/2016/06/13/f148075e-3197-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

You kind of need that indisputable fact.

 

[RavenSky]

Strawmen are so easy to knock down

I did not offer "rough ride" as the alternative to Loren's little fantasy here. I offered 3 indisputable facts:

1. Freddie Gray was handcuffed
2. Freddie Gray was put in leg irons
3. Freddie Gray was NOT buckled into a seat belt (as policy said he should have been)

Even under the best of driving conditions, Freddie Gray is not going to be able to catch himself if he was sliding off the bench during a turn, and would have no ability to recover while the vehicle continued in motion. "But let's remember that all it takes to break a neck is just enough force at the right angle."

And there was no evidence of a rough ride: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trial-of-van-driver-in-freddie-gray-case-continues-in-baltimore/2016/06/13/f148075e-3197-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

You kind of need that indisputable fact.

So you have completely ignored that I very clearly told you I did not raise the issue of a "rough ride" and don't need to



Well then you keep right on giving that strawman a blow job, why don't you.

 

[Trausti]

And there was no evidence of a rough ride: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/trial-of-van-driver-in-freddie-gray-case-continues-in-baltimore/2016/06/13/f148075e-3197-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

You kind of need that indisputable fact.

So you have completely ignored that I very clearly told you I did not raise the issue of a "rough ride" and don't need to



Well then you keep right on giving that strawman a blow job, why don't you.

I dunno. If we're at the point where we dismiss the available evidence and just imagine discordant scenarios, then Gray broke his neck giving Allen a blowjob. It explains why Allen's statements are unreliable and why the cops let him go - they were in on it. So there's that.

 

[Arctish]

So, let's make two columns on how Gray was injured. In column A is the evidence that Gray hurt himself. In column B is the evidence that he was injured because of a "rough ride."

This is an excluded middle fallacy aka false dilemma. Only two possible causes of Gray's injuries are being presented even though there is at least one more possibility: Gray could have fallen from his seat during the ride, most likely during changes in speed and direction or when the vehicle drove over a pothole, and was not able to save himself from injury because he was in handcuffs and leg restraints. No 'rough ride', no self-harm, just Newtonian physics at work and the reason why police are supposed to secure detainees with seat belts.

 

[JonA]

I'd be surprised to see anyone convicted in this case.