BBM. I'll post it one more time... He is responding in this quote to a question about Gatto's report of the 3:38 witness, which had been picked up by the media (When it says 'the time reported by other sources', this is what they are referencing). It is clear that the information about the times is based on video surveillance -- Dt. Q. states that they have talked to the witness, and that Lauren does indeed appear on video with a man who they have identified, at that location (i.e. referencing the story that the witness recounted) Only, not at the time reported -- because when they reviewed video an hour later at 3:38 (i.e. the time in Gatto's post), she does not appear on video. Therefore - the incident with Lauren and the man on video was an hour before 3:38 -- Get it?
Every statement from Qualter's required reading a few times though, I found! Nothing LE has said about this case has been very direct, mostly, I think because they were not revealing the identities of the POI early on. This is exactly why I wish they would have clarified or given an update on these statements, because they seem to have left a lot of confusion.
:deadhorse:
Also, what are you referring to when you say "altercation" at 10th and college? there was no report of an altercation there, only at Smallwood.
Unless you are working directly with Capt. Qualters, and I don't think you are, you can't possibly know what he was referring to, because that statement in question can be read several different ways, sorry if you don't agree with my interpretation, but I'm sticking to it.:twocents:
Remember, we are theorizing here. I am theorizing that there was another altercation, it was Lauren and CR trying to get in 10th and College minutes after the SW altercation but they wouldn't let her in. Supposedly, this is when
she smacked her head, and this is not on video. This could very well be what
Qualters is also referring to when he says the witness testimony is not backed up by video. So, the sitting on the steps could be, and them starting to walk up the alley may be, but the head smack isn't,
at that time.
Also, LE seems to have several witnesses to different things, apparently people must have admitted seeing Lauren trying to get in, or maybe even people came outside. We don't know how these witnesses were gleaned, but I'm betting they didn't willingly come forward, not all of them.
Why do I feel there was an altercation(s) at 10th and C?I feel like Lauren was not paying a happy social call, nor do I think CR was trying to make Lauren Zoe's "problem," as people have said.
I think Lauren
had a problem, not
was the problem,and I think she had a problem with someone inside 10th and C. Everyone keeps saying Lauren had to be too intoxicated to do anything, but I'm wondering if that's just a window dressing sort of panacea to say this or that couldn't have happened because Lauren was too high. She was actually going here and there despite being intoxicated, before CR had to carry her.
LE is purposely blurring the lines within the witness circles, IMO and for a good reason. Eventually, one or more of these people is going to contradict themselves.
Or each other. Getting the phone records is going to be a crazy good thing
for this kind of contradicting.
With the records, they'll be able to know who was really up and called whom. Or, who called JR back if he or MB called with a stealth method. Because if they don't have stealth, an unnamed call will still show up on their phone.
Then, once this kind of thing shows up in the civil trial, people may come forward who did know something but were not involved but now are scared they will get dragged into it.
And in this way, I think Akh will agree and also Doubting Thomas, the civil trial could affect a future criminal trial....:jail:
