I would suggest that juries don't buy into being grammar police. Also, an understanding and appreciation for the climate and culture in that area might help one better understand the "us versus them" culture that is present. Also, one's education level does not make them no longer a witness to events.
I retyped my response here to try and remain cordial and decided to ignore the air of superiority as if I do not understand or appreciate the climate and culture, education and grammar of black people in Ferguson. I understand it just fine, in my view, none of it has any bearing on her comments. In fact, given her statements, I would say the "us versus them" culture actually makes it more likely for Crenshaw to perpetuate a lie to keep Wilson on the hot seat. I pointed out plenty of context to go along with why I didn't believe that to be a misstatement based on grammar or education level. I concluded someone who just saw a specific cop shoot a black teen in the face would not talk in general terms while seemingly ignoring the cop who did it in the video. I'd think most people would be screaming in the video, "that SOB right there just executed that kid in the street".
I would certainly entertain this possibility if some actual facts of it happening are presented. Not just someone's presence. Some facts that he actually instructed her on what happened.
That's pretty much the essence of the entire case, if we had facts, there'd be no need for discussion. All we can do is pass along opinions and speculation until more facts are released. You need certain facts to prove certain things, that's fair. I saw Shahid in Johnson's first interview, I saw Mitchell and Crenshaw in a group of people that included Shahid and Mike's mother before Crenshaw's first interview, I know Crenshaw had heard Johnson's story about walking back from the store before her first interview, I know Mitchell and Crenshaw's stories sound far more like parroting Johnson's version rather than giving their own unique version based on their location and circumstance. I also know Shahid is one of the people leading this protest to get Mike arrested. I also know Mitchell was quick to call the news that day, then doesn't do an interview for four days after the fact, with a lawyer. Add to that the activist sounding comments from Piaget and Mitchell's lawyers and there's incentive to maintain the narrative for the bigger picture, Darren Wilson be damned even if he's innocent here. If you disagree with my conclusion, that's fine. My question is, are you going to pursue the potential of Shahid instructing these people to tell a story as hard as you defend some of the points on Crenshaw. With all due respect, I tend to doubt it.
Again. Opinion, and that's fine. I just want it to be clear that there is zero evidence of this beyond people being present at the same place after a white cop shot an unarmed black man. Regarding what she could see, I imagine she could see the larger picture of what was going on despite it being on the opposite side of the SUV. I can certainly tell if someone is inside or outside of the vehicle even if it's on the other side. What I wouldn't be able to tell is exactly what the scuffle entailed or the finer details of it. Having said that, you had previously made a good point about the brick wall obscuring her view. I think that should be followed up on.
I've never enjoyed playing the opinion game on message boards. That said, all one needs to do is stop the video at 0:32 at this link and explain how anyone could see a tug of war struggle from the angle that video was shot from, as that was Piaget's perspective. At best, she maybe could have seen the top of Mike Brown's head if he were standing straight up.
Certainly couldn't have seen arms pulling and pushing through the driver door. If that isn't common sense evidence, then I'd say the hope for a particular outcome is driving the evidence requirement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advkpZIuq2U
IMO it depends on when the phone call was made and when she went to the window. It is just as easy to believe that the phone call was made as Mitchell was approaching, letting her know she was pulling up. Then, it depends on how long it was before she looked out the window. I know in my personal experience, a friend will call as they're entering the subdivision. I won't go look out the window for them pulling up immediately, but within a minute or 2 I will go look to see if they're there. I'm not saying that is how it happened, but it is a possibility. From her statements, I have concern about what she actually saw from the standpoint of her saying she changed windows she was looking out of and went to get her phone. When these things occurred could determine what she could or couldn't have seen.
Not really. Look at how many ways you have to adjust the story to fit the perfect timing required. I considered the fact maybe Mitchell called beforehand. The odds of Piaget getting called ahead of time and alter looking out the window at the exact same time as Tiffany pulls up on the scene, to see and tell the same story about the tussle, from the opposite side of the car...I'm telling you those are unbelievable odds. And let's not forget, she went to get her purse, not her phone per her statements. Now she has to get the call, put the phone in her purse, go back to the purse to get her phone, then wait to film until eight minutes after the shooting. Not even close to logical.
The last quote does draw issue with her as I said above. IMHO.
I left out that she "saw the hole with the building in it", I do try and give the benefit of the doubt to people who reverse their words when speaking, it's common. It's just a bizarre addition that had nothing to do with the event or the question asked, what would a prosecutor do with that?
I honestly don't know how one draws a conclusion that if one person is lying they are all lying. That isn't logical. She could very well simply want to be in the limelight and is regurgitating what she has heard. I don't know. But that doesn't make the others wrong or lying. Time will ultimately tell how accurate these versions are. As far as how to believe a word out of her mouth, maybe because we haven't actually sat down and interviewed her. Interviews are not meant to get the whole story out of a person. They are meant to get sound bites. I anticipate that LE actually followed up with her and asked her, when you say "They", who are you referring to and have a much clearer understanding of her version of events.
I impeach witnesses individually. Mitchell was impeached for some similar looking reasons and some that are unique. At no time did I ever conclude that Mitchell lied because Crenshaw did. I asked what it means when Johnson, Mitchell, and Crenshaw are in the same grassy area near Wilson's SUV before any gave interviews and then conclude one of them is lying. Has to give reasonable people pause when three accounts align from three totally different perspectives knowing they met and that Johnson's account was known by Crenshaw. You'll note I have yet to make a claim about Brady's reliability so far...haven't had time to dig in on him yet. I've seen enough interviews of Crenshaw that I think I know how she'd answer my questions. She's on Facebook, maybe you could ask her some questions if you still seek information from her.