Today, on the first anniversary of the Ferguson incident, the American Thinker website published my article titled What Would Have Happened in a Trial of Darren Wilson.
I have read American Thinker every day for many years. I am happy that I was able to contribute an article to that excellent website.
In the article's first paragraph is a link from the words 5,000 pages. The link should have gone to this website. The error was my own fault.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Indications of Hacking
Recently I have become aware that someone else has accessed my blog account. Now I have improved my security.
If you find inappropriate text or links or other sabotage in this blog, inform me with an e-mail to MikeSylwester@gmail.com.
If you find inappropriate text or links or other sabotage in this blog, inform me with an e-mail to MikeSylwester@gmail.com.
An Article About Wilson in "The New Yorker" Magazine
The New Yorker magazine has published an informative and fair-minded article, titled The Cop, about Darren Wilson, written by Jake Halpern. Wilson allowed Halpern to interview him over the course of several days. Halpern describes Wilson's life in detail and with sympathy.
Halpern does not challenge the US Justice Department's report about the Ferguson incident. He writes that Wilson has been exonerated.
Halpern does not challenge the US Justice Department's report about the Ferguson incident. He writes that Wilson has been exonerated.
Wilson has twice been exonerated of criminal wrongdoing. In November, after a grand jury chose not to indict him, the prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, was widely accused of having been soft on him, in part because McCulloch’s father was a police officer who had been killed in a shootout with a black suspect. In March, the U.S. Department of Justice issued two official reports on Ferguson. One was a painstaking analysis of the shooting that weighed physical, ballistic, forensic, and crime-scene evidence, and statements from purported eyewitnesses.
The report cleared Wilson of willfully violating Brown’s civil rights, and concluded that his use of force was defensible. It also contradicted many details that the media had reported about the incident, including that Brown had raised his hands in surrender and had been shot in the back. The evidence supported Wilson’s contention that Brown had been advancing toward him.Halpern summarized the incident as follows.
According to Wilson and several witnesses deemed credible by the Justice Department, Brown reached into the Tahoe’s open window, grabbed Wilson, and punched him. This narrative, the report says, is supported by bruising on Wilson’s jaw and samples of Brown’s DNA found on Wilson’s collar, shirt, and pants. It’s not known why Brown did this, and many have speculated that Wilson provoked Brown somehow.
At this point, Wilson told investigators, his training kicked in and he reviewed his options. He did not carry a Taser, so the weapons at his disposal were mace, a retractable baton, and his gun. The only one readily accessible, Wilson said, was the gun. When he unholstered it, he told investigators, Brown reached for it. He told the grand jury that Brown said to him, “You are too much of a pussy to shoot me.” In the ensuing struggle, Wilson shot Brown in the hand. This sequence of events has factual support. Brown’s DNA was detected on the inside of the driver’s-side door, and soot from the gun’s muzzle was found in Brown’s wound, indicating that his hand was within inches of the weapon when it fired. It was the first time that Wilson had used his gun in the line of duty.
Wilson told the grand jury that Brown, upon being shot, had “the most intense, aggressive face,” and looked “like a demon.” Brown retreated, running east. Wilson chased him. Brown ran at least a hundred and eighty feet down Canfield Drive—his blood was found in the roadway—and then headed back toward Wilson. According to the Justice Department, eyewitnesses claiming that Brown raised his hands in surrender proved unreliable. (One of these witnesses, Dorian Johnson, continues to insist that Brown’s hands were raised.) Witnesses deemed credible offered varying accounts of Brown’s movement—“charging,” “slow motion,” “running”—but concurred that he was approaching Wilson. According to Wilson, he repeatedly ordered Brown to stop and get on the ground. Brown, who was unarmed, kept moving. At one point, Wilson told investigators, Brown put his right hand into his waistband, as if reaching for a weapon.
Sometime after the chase began, Wilson shot ten bullets at Brown. A few missed him, but he was hit in the chest, the forehead, and the arm. Autopsy reports indicate that, contrary to initial media reports, no bullets hit Brown in the back. It is possible that Wilson fired some of the errant bullets before Brown turned around, and the Justice Department report says that “the autopsy results alone do not indicate the direction Brown was facing when he received two wounds to his right arm.” Yet the report repeatedly underscores that eyewitness accounts describing Brown being shot from behind were unreliable.I recommend reading the entire article.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
The Monte Carlo driver's statements about the incident were confused and dubious
MC Owner told her story three times.
1) On the late afternoon of August 9, unknown to her, a casual acquaintance tipped off a detective that MC Owner had seen the incident. The detective showed up five minutes later and surprised her with a request to tell her story. MC Owner consented to tell her story to a detective in an interview that lasted only 8½ minutes.
2) After ignoring and evading investigators for two months, MC Owner consented to tell her story on October 12 or 13* to an FBI special agent.
3) She told her story on October 13 to the grand jury (beginning on page 102).
The FBI special agent just rehashed the August 9 interview. MC Owner was not questioned critically and at length until the grand-jury hearing, which lasted more than two hours.
MC Owner's story was false, which is why she didn't want to tell it to investigators. She was asked questions she did not expect and so had to concoct answers on the spot.
The truth (I have argued in my previous articles) was that her Monte Carlo was the get-away car for Brown and Johnson after the robbery of the Ferguson Market and Liquor store. Later, on Canfield Drive, she made a U-turn and drove back west to Wilson's police vehicle. There, her Monte Carlo again served as a get-away car for Johnson. She had to tell a story that was completely different.
MC Owner was concerned that she and her Monte Carlo had been seen by bystanders during the incident. She had to concoct a story that would explain what those bystanders might have reported to investigators about her actions.
------
When the detective showed up unexpectedly on August 9, MC Owner was in a group situation. She was staying in the home of an acquaintance of her mother. The acquaintance and the mother were present. At least one neighbor -- the one who called the detective -- was present, and they all were discussing the incident. MC Owner could have answered the detective's questions in the group's presence, but a decision was made that she and the detective drove alone to a nearby barbecue restaurant.
It would have made much more sense for them to drive to the killing scene, which was just as close in the opposite direction, so that MC Owner could have pointed to all the exact places for the detective. I have suggested that MC Owner worked at the restaurant and was supposed to begin working there at 7 p.m.
I suggest also that MC Owner did not want to tell her false story to the detective in front of her mother and all the other acquaintances.
------
The story that MC Owner told the detective on August 9 is remarkable for two omissions.
1) She did not mention that she had a passenger in the Monte Carlo. (In the transcript, the detective did not ask her whether anyone else was in the car.)
2) She did not mention that Wilson's police vehicle drove backward to block Johnson's and Brown's path. This omission is especially remarkable because she estimated that her following distance did not exceed ten feet. Her story indicated that the struggle between Wilson and Brown through the vehicle's window took place in the same spot as the initial encounter. (I have suggested that MC Owner was making her U-turn when Wilson drove backward.)
------
By the time of her interviews on October 13, she had watched a lot of television reporting and engaged in a lot of personal conversations with MC Passenger about the incident. Nevertheless, her final story suffered from several inconsistencies.
1) She seemed to say that she initially stopped far behind -- in the area where eventually Brown fell dead, between two apartment buildings -- and did not explain why and when she drove closer to the police vehicle.
2) She contradicted herself about her car's situation when Wilson backed his vehicle up. First she said that she had to swerve out of his way, and then she said she already had stopped when Wilson backed up.
3) She said she never opened her car door during the incident, although MC Passenger had insisted repeatedly that she did so.
----------1) On the late afternoon of August 9, unknown to her, a casual acquaintance tipped off a detective that MC Owner had seen the incident. The detective showed up five minutes later and surprised her with a request to tell her story. MC Owner consented to tell her story to a detective in an interview that lasted only 8½ minutes.
2) After ignoring and evading investigators for two months, MC Owner consented to tell her story on October 12 or 13* to an FBI special agent.
3) She told her story on October 13 to the grand jury (beginning on page 102).
The FBI special agent just rehashed the August 9 interview. MC Owner was not questioned critically and at length until the grand-jury hearing, which lasted more than two hours.
MC Owner's story was false, which is why she didn't want to tell it to investigators. She was asked questions she did not expect and so had to concoct answers on the spot.
The truth (I have argued in my previous articles) was that her Monte Carlo was the get-away car for Brown and Johnson after the robbery of the Ferguson Market and Liquor store. Later, on Canfield Drive, she made a U-turn and drove back west to Wilson's police vehicle. There, her Monte Carlo again served as a get-away car for Johnson. She had to tell a story that was completely different.
MC Owner was concerned that she and her Monte Carlo had been seen by bystanders during the incident. She had to concoct a story that would explain what those bystanders might have reported to investigators about her actions.
------
When the detective showed up unexpectedly on August 9, MC Owner was in a group situation. She was staying in the home of an acquaintance of her mother. The acquaintance and the mother were present. At least one neighbor -- the one who called the detective -- was present, and they all were discussing the incident. MC Owner could have answered the detective's questions in the group's presence, but a decision was made that she and the detective drove alone to a nearby barbecue restaurant.
It would have made much more sense for them to drive to the killing scene, which was just as close in the opposite direction, so that MC Owner could have pointed to all the exact places for the detective. I have suggested that MC Owner worked at the restaurant and was supposed to begin working there at 7 p.m.
I suggest also that MC Owner did not want to tell her false story to the detective in front of her mother and all the other acquaintances.
------
The story that MC Owner told the detective on August 9 is remarkable for two omissions.
1) She did not mention that she had a passenger in the Monte Carlo. (In the transcript, the detective did not ask her whether anyone else was in the car.)
2) She did not mention that Wilson's police vehicle drove backward to block Johnson's and Brown's path. This omission is especially remarkable because she estimated that her following distance did not exceed ten feet. Her story indicated that the struggle between Wilson and Brown through the vehicle's window took place in the same spot as the initial encounter. (I have suggested that MC Owner was making her U-turn when Wilson drove backward.)
------
By the time of her interviews on October 13, she had watched a lot of television reporting and engaged in a lot of personal conversations with MC Passenger about the incident. Nevertheless, her final story suffered from several inconsistencies.
1) She seemed to say that she initially stopped far behind -- in the area where eventually Brown fell dead, between two apartment buildings -- and did not explain why and when she drove closer to the police vehicle.
2) She contradicted herself about her car's situation when Wilson backed his vehicle up. First she said that she had to swerve out of his way, and then she said she already had stopped when Wilson backed up.
3) She said she never opened her car door during the incident, although MC Passenger had insisted repeatedly that she did so.
In her grand jury testimony on October 13, MC Owner abandoned her initial idea that she followed Wilson's police vehicle at a distance of no more than ten feet. Now to the grand jury she indicated that she stopped on Canfield Drive far behind the police vehicle, almost as soon as she saw Brown and Johnson in the distance.
Prosecutor At some point the officer's car stopped ... Were you behind the officer when the officer's car stopped?
MC Owner Yes, ma'am, I sure was [behind the officer's car] -- probably right in between the apartment complex. Just like right actually [where] he [Brown] fell out is actually where I stopped.
Prosecutor So when you first saw the officer stop, what did you observe?
MC Owner I just observed there are two gentlemen walking down the street. They was walking my direction, going back towards Northwinds.
 |
| BF = Where Brown "fell out" Red lines = "Right in between the apartment complex" BJ = Brown and Johnson's position when Wilson initially stopped PV = Police vehicle's position after it backed up |
In the above photograph, I put the label "BJ" in the area where Wilson initially stopped and asked Brown and Johnson to walk on the sidewalk. After Wilson backed up his police vehicle to block their path, he stopped in the area labeled "PV".
----------
In her August 9 interview, MC Owner seemed to say that Wilson stopped only once -- omitting Wilson's backward drive and second stop. In her October 13 testimony to the grand jury she now did say that Wilson drove backward.
Prosecutor When you saw that [police] car stopped, was the car just driving in the natural [right lane], down the lane, or did it stop some other way?
MC Owner It was straight down the lane.
Prosecutor And what happened at that time when you saw the car stop? Did he [Wilson] appear to be talking to anybody?
MC Owner Yes, ma'am, but I didn't hear anything.
After the actual stop -- quick seconds, it wasn't really a long period of time -- I saw the SUV go in reverse. I saw the reverse lights on, and it came to the two guys, and they jump back. He [Wilson] put it in reverse, [and] it went back.
And that's when it [the police vehicle] went to an actual stop. The truck shook just a little bit. You could tell that somebody pressed down on the brake really hard. ....
As the two suspects start to actually keep walking. It looks like he [Wilson] is trying to stop them from walking away from the truck.
Prosecutor I see. They're walking away, so he has to go in reverse to get up to them?
MC Owner Yes, ma'am.
[Pages 111 - 112]To dramatize her false story that she had seen Wilson back up, MC Owner began to tell the grand jury that she even had to swerve out of Wilson's way as he backed up. Apparently, though, she immediately decided not to continue along those lines and instead said that she already had stopped well before Wilson's vehicle back up close to her car.
Prosecutor When the officer drove back at the diagonal and hit the brake real hard, was he close to hitting you, your car?
MC Owner Actually, he was close enough, but he was, like, right there to where I couldn't even move. I thought as it [the police vehicle] was coming -- I was kind of shocked -- he would have hit my car, but he didn't.
Prosecutor Were you concerned that he was going came back?
MC Owner Yes, ma'am, I had to swerve over.
Prosecutor You swerved over?
MC Owner No, ma'am, I was [already] there.
Prosecutor You stopped?
MC Owner Yes, ma'am.
[Pages 113 - 114]In sum, MC Owner's testimony about how she found herself stopped close to Wilson's police vehicle was confused. She evidently had not thought through that part of her story adequately beforehand, and so she had to make it up as she went along during her testimony.
-------
MC Owner's (and MC Passenger's) determination to lie to investigators and to the grand jury is illustrated by her insistence in October that she did not know MC Passenger's last name, although she had socialized with him often for more than a year.
MC Passenger told investigators that he and MC Owner discussed the incident whenever they watched the CNN reports.
FBI Special Agent Have you talked to her since then [the incident]?
MC Passenger Yeah, this morning. ....
FBI SA Have you and [MC Owner] talked about this?
MC Passenger Yeah, when we look at CNN.
FBI SA Okay. So you were watching TV and then started talking?
MC Passenger Yeah.
[Pages 27 and 29]MC Passenger remarked to the grand jury that they had talked about the incident "basically every day" and had been a close friend for about a year.
Prosecutor Did you ever, after [MC Owner] dropped you off [right after the incident], have you ever had a conversation with her about what the two of you witnessed?
MC Passenger Yeah, basically every day, from when we see it on TV.
[Pages 199 - 200]
Prosecutor I guess you two have a pretty close friendship.
MC Passenger Uh-huh, yes.
Prosecutor How long have you known her?
MC Passenger Since approximately about a year.
Prosecutor About a year?
MC Passenger About a year.
[Page 203]Nevertheless, MC Owner told the FBI special agent on October 12 or 13 that she still did not know MC Passenger's last name:
FBI SA Who else was in the car with you?
MC Owner One of our friends.
FBI SA And who is that?
MC Owner His name is [MC Passenger's first name]. I don't know his last name.
[Page 6]MC Passenger likewise insisted as late as August that he did not know MC Owner's last name.
Detective Who were you with?
MC Passenger A girl named [MC Owner's first name].
Detective You know [MC Owner's] name?
MC Passenger Huh uh [no].
[Page 5]----------
In general, MC Passenger told a story that was much more coherent and consistent than MC Owner did. He also was much less emotional during the incident itself. I had the impression that he told her what to do during and after the incident.
---------
* The grand-jury questioning of MC Owner began a few minutes at 11:03 a.m. on October 13 (page 102). Earlier that morning, the transcript of the FBI interview was read aloud to the grand jury (page 70). However, the FBI interview is dated October 13 at 6:26 p.m. Somehow the FBI transcript is misdated and should be October 12 at 6:26 p.m. or else October 13 at 6:26 a.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)