The web of lies in Ferguson

[ApostateAbe]

The AP analyzed the many witness statements presented by the prosecutors to the grand jury who made the decision not to indict Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown. Here is an excerpt from the article Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies

But Johnson also declared on TV, in a clip played for the grand jury, that Wilson fired at least one shot at his friend while Brown was running away: "It struck my friend in the back."

Johnson held to a variation of this description in his grand jury testimony, saying the shot caused Brown's body to "do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him, but he definitely made a jerking movement."

Other eyewitness accounts also were clearly wrong.

One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson's vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, "middle age or young" and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not.

Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting.

Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have."

The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

"So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted.

"Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied.

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head."

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

"What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend.

Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

"I ain't feeling comfortable," he said.
​

I crawled the thread of Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath and collected the quotes of those who assumed the witnesses were telling the truth: @Nice Squirrel @Sabine Grant @RavenSky @Jarhyn @Crazy Eddie @Toni @none

The problem currently is that it looks like some sort of physical "arm wrestling" took place near the car, but Brown was shot in the back 20 ft away from the officer. Past violent behavior would indicate that Brown would have stayed to fight and not try to get away.

Trouble is that we do have more than 3 eyewitnesses who are telling the same story. This is what we know right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

1. there was some kind of altercation in or at the car
2. brown ran away from the car
3. the officer fired a shot (possibly hitting brown?)
4. brown turned around and put his hands in the air
5. the officer then fired at least two more shots, at least one of which hit and killed brown
6. brown was 20-30 feet away from the car at that point (supported by evidence)

The point which seems to be missed : Officer Wilson is going to have a very difficult time establishing that he fired his weapon several times based on self defense since Brown was running away and unarmed. Further if what Tiffany Mitchell reported in her interview last night is correct, Brown would have stopped following Wilson firing at him and put his hands up. However, Wilson fired his weapon several more times.

[...]

To which extent did that toxic climate influence Officer Wilson in pursuing to fire his weapon (and several times) at Brown, while he was running away and unarmed?

It does not, however, explain nor justify why the cop then proceeded to shot Michael Brown multiple times after Brown was ~~25 feet away from the patrol car with his hands in the air.

The officer DID know that he was running away with his hands up screaming 'don't shoot'. This means that the officer has to face the facts that he needs major corrective action before he is allowed to so much as LOOK at a gun.

It makes it more acceptable to shoot a suspect multiple times after they are no danger to anyone and they've put their hands up in surrender?

Right. According to the witnesses, that was the point when he turned around and threw his hands up.

Johnson isn't the only witness to contradict police versions of the shooting. At least two others have stated publicly that they witnessed the shooting and stated that Brown was far away and had his hands in the air. They were not acquainted with any of the parties involved.

The video footage being a live recording of 2 eyewitnesses of the shooting and their reaction to what they just saw. If one could venture in invalidating the narrative of other witnesses by claiming that they were changing their story to fit a "hands up" scenario, this footage captures a spontaneous reaction to what happened only minutes after the shooting.

The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

ok, the scene where there was supposedly activity between Brown and the officer was near the police cruiser, the scene where Brown was shot to death is at least 35 feet away and seperated by a duration of time, enough time for the officer to pull his weapon outside of the vehicle.
From what I remember it is apparent from the accounts of at least five witnesses that brown had his hands up, was surrendered.
There is no evidence at this time to counter the account that Wilson suffered a swollen face because of the door to the cruiser bouncing open and then closed from the officer trying to exit the vehicle, and the door hitting him in the head/face and causing the swollen head/face.
So it appears the officer was hasty to shoot as evidenced by the wild exit from the police cruiser and the shooting of an unarmed man in surrender with his hands up.

The most daring point was made by @Loren Pechtel, and it proved prophetic:

...when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

This claim was met by a series of accusations of racism. I actually agree. It is racist. The lesson is: sometimes racism is correct. More specifically, those who are part of an ideological movement will give misleading accounts and tell lies. That includes at least the black community of Ferguson, Missouri, with their false claims motivated by a racial identity. If a statement is racist, that does not mean it is unreasonable. A statement is unreasonable if it does not fit the evidence and the patterns of the world.

 

[laughing dog]

Wow - I think you just proved the point of "the black community of Ferguson, Mo" with your OP.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Wow - I think you just proved the point of "the black community of Ferguson, Mo" with your OP.

Yeah, they believe the white community does not trust them, and I think they are right.

 

[bilby]

It isn't reasonable to report inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony as 'lies'; eyewitness testimony is typically just as confused and contradictory in all court cases. It is well known to be the least reliable form of evidence - and, sadly, is often given totally unwarranted weight by both judges and juries.

I would be shocked if any court case - with or without the racial overtones of this particular matter - failed to provide similar examples of eyewitnesses getting things muddled or wrong, and/or using their prejudices rather than their memories to reconstruct the events they saw.

 

[ApostateAbe]

It isn't reasonable to report inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony as 'lies'; eyewitness testimony is typically just as confused and contradictory in all court cases. It is well known to be the least reliable form of evidence - and, sadly, is often given totally unwarranted weight by both judges and juries.

I would be shocked if any court case - with or without the racial overtones of this particular matter - failed to provide similar examples of eyewitnesses getting things muddled or wrong, and/or using their prejudices rather than their memories to reconstruct the events they saw.

Yes, that is a good point. I am being too harsh when I call their testimonies "lies." The phenomenon is probably best characterized as statements misleadingly bent to fit a systematic bias. Many of them clarified in favor of the truth after being critically examined.

 

[laughing dog]

Wow - I think you just proved the point of "the black community of Ferguson, Mo" with your OP.

Yeah, they believe the white community does not trust them, and I think they are right.

Between the arrogance of assuming you have a clue what "the black community of Ferguson, MO' thinks or wants and the disinqenuos conflation of contradictory claims with lies, it is hard to take your claims or conclusions seriously. One would think if "the black community of Ferguson, MO' has some monolithic views, it would be closer to "They do not trust the white justice system to be fair when it comes to police officers shooting black people". And, interestingly enough, that attitude appears to be shared by people around the USA as evidenced by the demonstrations by people of all colors.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yeah, they believe the white community does not trust them, and I think they are right.

Between the arrogance of assuming you have a clue what "the black community of Ferguson, MO' thinks or wants and the disinqenuos conflation of contradictory claims with lies, it is hard to take your claims or conclusions seriously. One would think if "the black community of Ferguson, MO' has some monolithic views, it would be closer to "They do not trust the white justice system to be fair when it comes to police officers shooting black people". And, interestingly enough, that attitude appears to be shared by people around the USA as evidenced by the demonstrations by people of all colors.

I don't have much disagreement. I don't see how that point is proved in the OP, but whatever.

 

[credoconsolans]

It isn't reasonable to report inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony as 'lies'; eyewitness testimony is typically just as confused and contradictory in all court cases. It is well known to be the least reliable form of evidence - and, sadly, is often given totally unwarranted weight by both judges and juries.

I would be shocked if any court case - with or without the racial overtones of this particular matter - failed to provide similar examples of eyewitnesses getting things muddled or wrong, and/or using their prejudices rather than their memories to reconstruct the events they saw.

Yes, that is a good point. I am being too harsh when I call their testimonies "lies." The phenomenon is probably best characterized as statements misleadingly bent to fit a systematic bias. Many of them clarified in favor of the truth after being critically examined.

Not really.

I'd call the below out and out lies:

Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting.

Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have."

The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

"So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted.

"Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied.

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head."

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

 

[RavenSky]

The AP analyzed the many witness statements presented by the prosecutors to the grand jury who made the decision not to indict Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown. Here is an excerpt from the article Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies

But Johnson also declared on TV, in a clip played for the grand jury, that Wilson fired at least one shot at his friend while Brown was running away: "It struck my friend in the back."

Johnson held to a variation of this description in his grand jury testimony, saying the shot caused Brown's body to "do like a jerking movement, not to where it looked like he got hit in his back, but I knew, it maybe could have grazed him, but he definitely made a jerking movement."

Other eyewitness accounts also were clearly wrong.

One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson's vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, "middle age or young" and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not.

Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting.

Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have."

The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

"So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted.

"Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied.

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head."

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

"What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend.

Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

"I ain't feeling comfortable," he said.
​

I crawled the thread of Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath and collected the quotes of those who assumed the witnesses were telling the truth: @Nice Squirrel @Sabine Grant @RavenSky @Jarhyn @Crazy Eddie @Toni @none

Trouble is that we do have more than 3 eyewitnesses who are telling the same story. This is what we know right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

1. there was some kind of altercation in or at the car
2. brown ran away from the car
3. the officer fired a shot (possibly hitting brown?)
4. brown turned around and put his hands in the air
5. the officer then fired at least two more shots, at least one of which hit and killed brown
6. brown was 20-30 feet away from the car at that point (supported by evidence)

The point which seems to be missed : Officer Wilson is going to have a very difficult time establishing that he fired his weapon several times based on self defense since Brown was running away and unarmed. Further if what Tiffany Mitchell reported in her interview last night is correct, Brown would have stopped following Wilson firing at him and put his hands up. However, Wilson fired his weapon several more times.

[...]

To which extent did that toxic climate influence Officer Wilson in pursuing to fire his weapon (and several times) at Brown, while he was running away and unarmed?

It does not, however, explain nor justify why the cop then proceeded to shot Michael Brown multiple times after Brown was ~~25 feet away from the patrol car with his hands in the air.

The officer DID know that he was running away with his hands up screaming 'don't shoot'. This means that the officer has to face the facts that he needs major corrective action before he is allowed to so much as LOOK at a gun.

It makes it more acceptable to shoot a suspect multiple times after they are no danger to anyone and they've put their hands up in surrender?

Right. According to the witnesses, that was the point when he turned around and threw his hands up.

Johnson isn't the only witness to contradict police versions of the shooting. At least two others have stated publicly that they witnessed the shooting and stated that Brown was far away and had his hands in the air. They were not acquainted with any of the parties involved.

The video footage being a live recording of 2 eyewitnesses of the shooting and their reaction to what they just saw. If one could venture in invalidating the narrative of other witnesses by claiming that they were changing their story to fit a "hands up" scenario, this footage captures a spontaneous reaction to what happened only minutes after the shooting.

The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

ok, the scene where there was supposedly activity between Brown and the officer was near the police cruiser, the scene where Brown was shot to death is at least 35 feet away and seperated by a duration of time, enough time for the officer to pull his weapon outside of the vehicle.
From what I remember it is apparent from the accounts of at least five witnesses that brown had his hands up, was surrendered.
There is no evidence at this time to counter the account that Wilson suffered a swollen face because of the door to the cruiser bouncing open and then closed from the officer trying to exit the vehicle, and the door hitting him in the head/face and causing the swollen head/face.
So it appears the officer was hasty to shoot as evidenced by the wild exit from the police cruiser and the shooting of an unarmed man in surrender with his hands up.

The most daring point was made by @Loren Pechtel, and it proved prophetic:

...when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

This claim was met by a series of accusations of racism. I actually agree. It is racist. The lesson is: sometimes racism is correct. More specifically, those who are part of an ideological movement will give misleading accounts and tell lies. That includes at least the black community of Ferguson, Missouri, with their false claims motivated by a racial identity. If a statement is racist, that does not mean it is unreasonable. A statement is unreasonable if it does not fit the evidence and the patterns of the world.

Why are you attempting to call out other board members by name? You have merely demonstrated that eye witness accounts are notoriously fallible - something everyone already knows. And why are you presenting those inaccuracies as all being "lies", and then using them as some sort of attempt to... what?

You claim you are calling out board members who you think "assumed the witnesses were telling the truth" yet there is nothing whatsoever to show that any of the board members you called out believed or referenced any of the specific witnesses in the article.

Moreover, nothing you wrote above has in any way refuted my position in the quotes of mine you choose to use. You haven't even demonstrated that I "assumed the witnesses were telling the truth" - any specific witness(es) or all of them.

My position is based on the fact that Michael Brown was approximately 25 feet away from Officer Wilson with his hands up when Wilson choose to kill Brown. No matter how you cut it, Wilson demonstrated a complete lack of policing skills, and consequently another young black man is dead.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Admittedly those statements of mine were back when we had less information.

I'd tell the story differently, but do feel that officer Wilson should not have continued to fire on Brown when he could have retreated, called for medics and waited for back-up. Wilson should have been prosecuted.

 

[RavenSky]

Admittedly those statements of mine were back when we had less information.

And you clearly stated (back on August 14): "This is what we know right now"

This is why I don't get the purpose of this entire call-out thread.

 

[ksen]

Well, I'm convinced. Since some talkfreethought posters didn't have access in august to everything we have access to now that Michael Brown deserved to die at the hands of police.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Wilson was also a witness, correct?

When in trouble, anyone will lie to get out of it.

So, by the OP's lights, should we trust the testimony of Wilson?

 

[Sabine Grant]

I crawled the thread of Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath and collected the quotes of those who assumed the witnesses were telling the truth: @Nice Squirrel @Sabine Grant @RavenSky @Jarhyn @Crazy Eddie @Toni @none

The point which seems to be missed : Officer Wilson is going to have a very difficult time establishing that he fired his weapon several times based on self defense since Brown was running away and unarmed. Further if what Tiffany Mitchell reported in her interview last night is correct, Brown would have stopped following Wilson firing at him and put his hands up. However, Wilson fired his weapon several more times.

[...]

To which extent did that toxic climate influence Officer Wilson in pursuing to fire his weapon (and several times) at Brown, while he was running away and unarmed?

"if what Tiffany Mitchell reported last night...." Do you understand what the meaning of "if" implies at the beginning of a sentence? Followed by the use of the conditional form of the verbs "to stop" and "to put", "would have stopped following Wilson firing at him and put his hands up". Explain how such grammatical construction on my part is to be presented by you as my assuming the witness known as Tiffany Mitchell was telling the truth? If it is the part of "running away and unarmed" which troubles you, you need to be reminded that at the time everything indicated that Brown was unarmed and his motion right after the struggle in the car was one of moving away or running away from the scene of the struggle in the car incident.

I also noticed you quote mined my referring to a "toxic climate". Did you not comprehend what it was referring to?

The video footage being a live recording of 2 eyewitnesses of the shooting and their reaction to what they just saw. If one could venture in invalidating the narrative of other witnesses by claiming that they were changing their story to fit a "hands up" scenario, this footage captures a spontaneous reaction to what happened only minutes after the shooting.

The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

Considering the video footage I had linked to did NOT involve 2 parties of Black ethnicity and living in Ferguson, what reasons would I have had to interpret this contractor's spontaneous reaction captured on tape as being a lie? By the way, there is no mention of that video taping and resulting spontaneous reaction of that witness in the discrepancies you have listed.

And considering I had also stated

if one could venture in invalidating the narrative of other witnesses by claiming they were changing their stories to fit a "hands up scenario" .....

where I recognized the possibility of such occurrence of witnesses changing their stories to fit a particular scenario. To CONTRAST with a spontaneous reaction captured on tape.

This claim was met by a series of accusations of racism. I actually agree. It is racist. The lesson is: sometimes racism is correct. More specifically, those who are part of an ideological movement will give misleading accounts and tell lies. That includes at least the black community of Ferguson, Missouri, with their false claims motivated by a racial identity. If a statement is racist, that does not mean it is unreasonable. A statement is unreasonable if it does not fit the evidence and the patterns of the world.

How does that apply to the contractor's spontaneous reaction captured on the video tape I had linked to? I had taken time mentioning he was NOT a Black person and not involved in the Ferguson's community pre existing racial tensions. Which should have indicated to you that suspicions of his spontaneous reaction being motivated by the same factors applying to other witnesses of Black ethnicity and involved in the Fergusons' pre existing racial tensions did not apply. That was my point.

And it is still my point now. Feel free to counter argue that the factors suspected to influence with a racist bias other witnesses apply to this contractor whose spontaneous reaction was captured on a video tape.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For anyone who's ever sat on a jury where eyewitness testimony was used in the case this conflicting testimony is standard stuff.

 

[ksen]

Wilson was also a witness, correct?

When in trouble, anyone will lie to get out of it.

Was Wilson lying when he said he was aware of the events at the convenience store when approaching Brown or when he said he wasn't aware of the events at the convenience store when approaching Brown?

Did the prosecutor make sure to point out to the grand jury the inconsistencies of Wilson's testimony?

So, by the OP's lights, should we trust the testimony of Wilson?

And which version of Wilson's testimony should we trust? Well, I'm thinking we should trust the parts that make him look better obviously.

Oh, and what about a prosecutor that lies to the grand jury when telling them to rely on a law that was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago?

 

[laughing dog]

Between the arrogance of assuming you have a clue what "the black community of Ferguson, MO' thinks or wants and the disinqenuos conflation of contradictory claims with lies, it is hard to take your claims or conclusions seriously. One would think if "the black community of Ferguson, MO' has some monolithic views, it would be closer to "They do not trust the white justice system to be fair when it comes to police officers shooting black people". And, interestingly enough, that attitude appears to be shared by people around the USA as evidenced by the demonstrations by people of all colors.

I don't have much disagreement. I don't see how that point is proved in the OP, but whatever.

Did you bother to read the OP?

 

[laughing dog]

For anyone who's ever sat on a jury where eyewitness testimony was used in the case this conflicting testimony is standard stuff.

You don't get it. It is standard stuff when white people give conflicting testimony. But when black people give testimony that conflicts then they are lying.

Interestingly, even though the witnesses are secret, some people can discern over the internet which ones are black and which ones are not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For anyone who's ever sat on a jury where eyewitness testimony was used in the case this conflicting testimony is standard stuff.

You don't get it. It is standard stuff when white people give conflicting testimony. But when black people give testimony that conflicts then they are lying.

Interestingly, even though the witnesses are secret, some people can discern over the internet which ones are black and which ones are not.

Not hardly. I've seen enough to know that no group holds the patent. And a video would leave little or no doubt rendering eyewitness testimony inconsequential.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

This claim was met by a series of accusations of racism. I actually agree. It is racist. The lesson is: sometimes racism is correct. More specifically, those who are part of an ideological movement will give misleading accounts and tell lies. That includes at least the black community of Ferguson, Missouri, with their false claims motivated by a racial identity. If a statement is racist, that does not mean it is unreasonable. A statement is unreasonable if it does not fit the evidence and the patterns of the world.

I disagree that it's racist. Pointing out a reality with racial issues doesn't make something racist.