MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #14

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know about anyone else but I find it suspect/weird that Paiget, Tiffany and DJ were all on the same side of the street after the MB shooting discussing what took place (from the pictures I've seen in the Media Thread). They all were very sure that MB was surrendering and he had his hands up. YET, MBrady, who was on the opposite side had no idea what was said and he stated, to various interviewers (ACooper for one, also in the Media Thread) that he did NOT see any hands up or surrendering. He also stated he missed seeing part since he left the window and ran outside. The altercation and shooting took only minutes so it seems he missed a portion of what happened. The fact NO ONE that was interviewed bothered to film this incident until after MB is on the ground bothers me because they all had their iphones out calling people or taking pics after the fact. I do give 'some' weight to MBrady only because MB was directly across from his apartment and could actually see most of what happened, ie MB punching/'movin his arms' at OW, MB running, OW in pursuit outside the vehicle, DJ hiding behind the cars. Brady gets outside to see MB with his arms DOWN in front of him and falling to the ground.

I found it very amazing that all these witnesses could not hear gun shots through a window right in front of them OR only heard 4 shots while standing in the vicinity
outside. I'd truly hate to be on the GJ and have to sift through all this.

I call the 3 witnesses, Paiget, Tiffany and DJ ground zero for why we have all the hands up craziness. IMO, I don't at all think MB was surrendering or had his hands up. I do hope when these three have to testify in front of a GJ and knowing the repercussions of lying, that they are scared enough to tell the truth of what they saw and heard, not what they've been coached to say to the media. MOO

Also note and also in the media thread, the activist(s) that arrived at the scene immediately and were photographed behind DJ giving his hands up account interview.



I agree, certain things look very suspicious that there was possibly some coaching going on.

Good thing, the FBI is involved in this case and the investigation. And if there was some wrongdoing, I hope there will be consequences.

IMO, those initial statements made by those witnesses had a huge ripple effect. Resulting in uproar, outbursts, protests, riots, looting, violence. People getting hurt, even killed. LE had to take extra measures, costing a fortune.

If those initial statements would have been like: two young men walking down in the middle of the street, getting into an argument with a police officer, one of the young men, MB, starting pushing and punching the PO, was trying to grab the PO's gun, first shot was fired, MB run away, stopped, turned around and started bum-rushing PO to everyone's shock and surprise and was shot and killed while trying to attack the PO again... what would have been the outcome then? Would there have been any protests? Riots? Looting? Violence? IMO, no. Just my thoughts and MOO.


What? I mean, they would have had to have been right there next to MB, OW, and DJ in order to see that many details. Sure, we would all like to have first-hand witness for every case so they can ID the real killer. Doesn't happen that way. We have to piece together what each witness says.

JMO.

I've tried to stay updated on the postings; however, I could have missed reading about the stories at these links. Why are the witnesses accounts almost verbatim? Lots of good info. IE, Piaget tweeted that she needed to use someone else's urine so she could pass a drug test.

Charles "Checkmate" Johnson is flying into StL this morning for the hearing regarding the juvie records

<modsnip>

moo omho omo
 
"And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,” he told them."
***he graduated on Aug 1 2014.

“Everything happen for a reason,” he posted to Facebook the night before he was shot. “Just start putting 2 n 2 together. You’ll see it.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/2...ling-with-lifes-mysteries.html?referrer=&_r=0

Why would he strong arm a little guy for cigarillos?
Why would he walk in the middle of the street with stolen cigarillos and refuse to move?
Why would he punch/assault a police officer?
Why would he run towards someone shooting at him?
—------------------

And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,”

“Everything happen for a reason, just start putting 2 n 2 together. You’ll see it.”

All posts are MOO

Why would he strong arm a little guy for cigarillos? Because he wanted them and didn't have money to pay for them or didn't want to pay for them.
Why would he walk in the middle of the street with stolen cigarillos and refuse to move? Because everyone was afraid of him.
Why would he punch/assault a police officer? Because he realized that OW wasn't afraid of him.
Why would he run towards someone shooting at him? Because he was high as a kite.
 
I've tried to stay updated on the postings; however, I could have missed reading about the stories at these links. Why are the witnesses accounts almost verbatim? Lots of good info. IE, Piaget tweeted that she needed to use someone else's urine so she could pass a drug test.

Charles "Checkmate" Johnson is flying into StL this morning for the hearing regarding the juvie records

<modsnip>

moo omho omo

I read that for the first time last night. I liked the person who commented she should just quit using drugs :giggle:
 
"He shot him" would come from someone who saw Wilson shoot Mike Brown. "They shot him" would indicate someone reacting to news they heard well after the fact. "I witnessed the cop chase after him" would come from someone who saw Wilson shoot Mike Brown, "I witnessed the police chase after him" would indicate multiple cops or not getting the story she was supposed to tell right.

This in the hours immediately after the shooting, probably coached or influenced, like her accounts of the shooting, by Shahid.

I question how she saw the tussle from the opposite side of the car with dark tinted windows of the police cruiser. She admits she couldn't see the other side of the SUV in another statement, yet gives the same account as Tiffany about the tussle she couldn't possibly have seen? She got the tussle second hand from Johnson through Shahid, just like Mitchell did.

Crenshaw said the reason she looked out the window was because Tiffany was calling her to "come down" for work. That indicates Tiffany was there. If Tiffany was on site, the scuffle was happening as she pulled up, so there would be no nonchalant "come down" for work. It would be "there's a fight with a cop down here". Tiffany mentions consistently when she arrived that she pulled out her phone to shoot video, but didn't because of shots fired. Pulling out your phone indicates it was in her purse or pocket. So, best case scenario for them is that Tiffany called before she arrived on Canfield, then put her phone in her purse. In that scenario, Piaget would have looked out the window and either saw nothing or saw the very beginning when the cop first approached Brown and Johnson. And if she saw the very beginning, with phone in hand from the call from Tiffany, she would surely have recorded the event or included it in her statements. If she saw nothing, she'd have went on with her business until, at best, she heard the first gunshot, missing the tussle part. When she finally did record, there was no focus on Wilson specifically. If I saw Wilson shoot Mike Brown in cold blood, I don't think "they shot this boy" would be my comment on the recording while I am scanning all around, it would have been "that's the SOB who executed this kid in broad daylight" focusing as clearly and concisely as I could on Wilson to show someone in authority who it was.

If no one is swayed by the "they" versus "he", the phone call that caused her to look out the window, the recording after the fact, or that she couldn't see the tussle on the other side of the car, this last quote is the mess that should conclude it. I heard the shots, not I saw him shoot. Why grab the purse??? Who looks away as something like this is happening? Brady did the same thing. She saw the hole in the building from her apartment - what kind of eagle eyes and attention to detail did that require in the chaotic 50 second this lasted? And this quote was in response to "Could you tell who fired the first shot?"

I honestly don't see how anyone could believe a word out of her mouth. I think the reason no one impeaches her is because once you acknowledge that one witness simply relayed a story they were told, you have no choice to wonder the same about the other three.

By the way Foxfire, I am not directing this post at you, just used your post as a place to chime in.


BBM-The nice thing is that LE had Piaget's cell phone. I would imagine they would know exactly when the call came in, etc...

Also, too chime in on the he/they situation, I originally thought the same thing, but she is quite clear at the end of the interview, when asked, that it was just one cop.
 
BBM-The nice thing is that LE had Piaget's cell phone. I would imagine they would know exactly when the call came in, etc...

Also, too chime in on the he/they situation, I originally thought the same thing, but she is quite clear at the end of the interview, when asked, that it was just one cop.

If you ask storytellers leading questions, it's much easier to keep their story straight. In her video, before interviews, before meeting with people in the street to get the story, "they killed him".
 
If you ask storytellers leading questions, it's much easier to keep their story straight. In her video, before interviews, before meeting with people in the street to get the story, "they killed him".

"They" being the police force perhaps - of which OW was a part? I really don't see why this is some sort of smoking gun saying she didn't witness the shooting.
 
Regarding Piaget and Tiffany and their cell phones, I remember reading that Tiffany said she had texted Piaget to come down when she arrived at the apartment complex, as she was picking up Piaget for work. That would surely be on both of their phones, no?

And I don know about other brands of phones, but some phones (iPhones) now indicate when a text message was read. So that could put the phones into both of their hands at a specific time. That could add to the whole picture of each of them as witnesses.

Sorry- no link handy for Tiffany saying she texted Piaget on arrival. Just my recollection.
 
"They" being the police force perhaps - of which OW was a part? I really don't see why this is some sort of smoking gun saying she didn't witness the shooting.

In and of itself, no smoking gun. With all the rest of the nonsense from her put together, smoking gun. People can feel free to dismiss it, but that isn't the same as explaining it.
 
"They" being the police force perhaps - of which OW was a part? I really don't see why this is some sort of smoking gun saying she didn't witness the shooting.

I think it's just generally poor grammar, street dialect, on her part. However, I do agree that if she actually SAW what happened, she would have been much more likely to say "he" or "the cop". That's just my opinion from listening to how she speaks.

I wonder if she was able to give a description of the officer if asked, beyond the uniform. Would she have been able to identify him in a line up? I doubt it. But just my opinion.

I don't think Tiffany or Piaget are particularly credible for witnessing the shooting, or what happened in the 1-2 min before. I think they began to direct their attention to the situation AFTER the shooting. At this point, I think a reasonably competent attorney could easily impeach their statements for the shooting and the events immediately prior. JMO.
 
Never got a ruling (that I saw) on the Mo. Casenet site, which is THE court records for Missouri. May we link to it?

Yes. Just not political. Laws, caselaw, criminal record links are all okay. Political sites are considered rumors because they are often one-sided. I know......
 
Never got a ruling (that I saw) on the Mo. Casenet site, which is THE court records for Missouri. May we link to it?

It depends on who you are linking about. If it's a sleuthable player, then it's okay. We don't have really have a reason to look up court records in a case like this, unless it has to do with this issue directly. I'm sorry it's clear as mud, but this isn't a typical crime case that is discussed on Websleuths.
 
Yes. Just not political. Laws, caselaw, criminal record links are all okay. Political sites are considered rumors because they are often one-sided. I know......

And what Lambchop said here. ^^^^^

We were posting at the same time.
 
I've tried to stay updated on the postings; however, I could have missed reading about the stories at these links. Why are the witnesses accounts almost verbatim? Lots of good info. IE, Piaget tweeted that she needed to use someone else's urine so she could pass a drug test.

Charles "Checkmate" Johnson is flying into StL this morning for the hearing regarding the juvie records

<modsnip>

moo omho omo

Ok. OT, but I can't resist!

LOL, I wonder how much "clean pee" goes for these days! If I were inclined to break the law, my kidneys could be worth millions! I sold my blood and plasma in college, the first time, to buy books. Maybe I could pee my way to retirement now, lol! Golden flow, indeed!
 
I think it's just generally poor grammar, street dialect, on her part. However, I do agree that if she actually SAW what happened, she would have been much more likely to say "he" or "the cop". That's just my opinion from listening to how she speaks.

I wonder if she was able to give a description of the officer if asked, beyond the uniform. Would she have been able to identify him in a line up? I doubt it. But just my opinion.

I don't think Tiffany or Piaget are particularly credible for witnessing the shooting, or what happened in the 1-2 min before. I think they began to direct their attention to the situation AFTER the shooting. At this point, I think a reasonably competent attorney could easily impeach their statements for the shooting and the events immediately prior. JMO.

I consider the possibility of poor grammar. Seems some though (not you of course) refuse to consider that she assumed the two cops in her video were both involved in the shooting she didn't, hence "they" instead of "him". Her story certainly evolved pretty quickly once she got down to the crowd. And we know FOR A FACT that she heard Johnson's story from someone before her first interview.
 
Maybe because that's what MB and DJ did? :thinking:

Oh man... I wonder if that was part of today's plan to block traffic. Because MB and DJ were originally stopped for blocking the road?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
201
Total visitors
287

Forum statistics

Threads
608,709
Messages
18,244,410
Members
234,434
Latest member
ProfKim
Back
Top