Posted on 07/11/2016 11:02:35 AM PDT by IChing
Well, well, well… What a tangled web of hair-weaves, when the race-hustlers practice to deceive!
Despite the lies spun by #BlackLivesMatter scammers, new analysis (to date, found only here) may turn out to blow the lid off the Philando Castile case.
Officials are keeping such tight screws on information about the incident (the dashcam video, for example) that we are left to try to decipher everything ourselves, while black terrorists launch assassination attacks on police and lay seige to cities across the country.
Castile’s girlfriend and passenger, Lavish “Diamond” Reynolds, has changed her story in multiple ways since the aftermath of her boyfriend getting shot and killed (which she live-streamed to Facebook, narrated in her oddly calculated-sounding outrage) by a police officer during a traffic stop in Minnesota last Wednesday, July 6th.
For one thing, she started out saying repeatedly that Castile had been pulled over for supposedly having a broken taillight. But in subsequent statements, on video, she said multiple times that it was for having a headlight out.
The taillight/headlight discrepancy is no bombshell, of course.
Neither is her dubious claim that Castile was reaching for his license & registration when shot by officer Jerenimo Yenez. I say dubious partly because as anyone who has dug into this case at all knows, it seems Castile never actually drove legally. Based on his miles-long record of violations, showing scores of just about every kind of motor vehicle offense, and under near-constant license suspension/revocation, it’s very doubtful that Castile even had a license at the time in question because the scofflaw usually just drove without one.
So, for a variety of possible reasons, officer Yenez could indeed have been right in fearing that Castile was reaching for the gun instead of a license/registration. Especially since the real reason Yenez stopped Castile to begin with was (as told to police dispatch by Yenez) because Castile closely resembled a suspect wanted for an armed robbery at a nearby store four days prior.
But the unlikelihood of reaching for a license/registration by Castile isn’t the bombshell either.
What’s the bombshell? Check this out: I came to notice something very peculiar in yet another way Lavish Reynolds changed her story, something that didn’t quite sink in or set off any big alarms for me at first.
Hours after the shooting, upon Reynolds’ being released from police questioning to a wildly sympathetic crowd/press gaggle, a woman asked her, “How were you able to figure out that you should put this on Facebook?” Reynolds replied by going into a long tirade saying she wanted to show the world that “these police are not here to protect and serve us, but to assasinate us; they are here to kill us because we are black!!”
In mid-rant, she told the crowd that she didn’t capture the actual shooting on video because “…if I woulda moved while that gun was out, he woulda shot me too!”
That question and answer comes at the 7:07 mark in the video below:
https://youtu.be/ArV8jrKNM6k
Does that even make sense? If we are to believe her, she started rolling video while Yenez still had his gun out, and had just let several shots fly.
It seems to me that most people who take video when they get pulled over by police start recording at the earliest possible point in the encounter. If Reynolds was afraid of being shot for moving to capture video before Yenez opened fire, wouldn’t she have been just as afraid to start recording once Yenez had opened fire and was still hyper-adrenaline keyed on any threat/target in the vehicle?
Now comes the bombshell. The next day, Reynolds spoke at a press conference and completely changed her explanation of why she didn’t get the shooting itself on video.
Ready? Go to the 5:00 mark in this excerpt:
https://youtu.be/GSmDFPz4Bx4
Did you catch that?
You hear Reynolds say, “…I was not able to get the actual shooting because I did not want that horrible act to be on social media…” That’s a completely different reason than the one given the day before, by the way.
Most importantly, that remark is what I believe poker players and con-men call a “tell.”
In the process of shifting parts of her story and bellowing indignant racial screeds, she’s inadvertently telling us, by letting subconscious code slip out, that she actually did record the shooting itself — but she cut off/hid that part of the video from what she wanted us to see, and began live-streaming what she did want us to see.
Think about what she said: She claimed that she did not want to have video of a “that horrible act” to be on social media. Ask yourself, now, how could she have known that a “horrible act” was about to take place, and thereby base her alleged decision — to supposedly not start recording until afterward — on such knowledge? It doesn’t pass the smell test.
She could not know of an impending “horrible act” — unless she was in on some sort of failed plan by Castile to try to shoot the police first (or, an insane plan to deliberately provoke police deadly force for some reason).
She’s lying about something having to do with the video on her phone.
I say that what she’s really telling us (without intending to) is that not only doesn’t she want people to see the shooting, but also that she had the ability to let people see it, but pretends otherwise. She pretends she made this decision to start recording afterward. Except she’s too illogical to trick everyone.
I suspect she’s trying to cover up the video evidence which would sink her shakedown scam’s chances of succeeding. That is, the part of the video she’s pretending not to have recorded would help prove that Yenez was justified in shooting Castile, because for whatever reason, Castile refused to comply, and reached toward where his gun was when ordered not to reach.
Lavish Reynolds may be remembering the unfortunate incident in the video below, from a couple of years ago, and using it as the template for her shakedown story:
https://youtu.be/5J83Q1JKv-A
My understanding as of this writing is that the police still have custody of Reynolds’ phone while they conduct their investigation. If I’m right about all this, can she be that much of a gambler as to think investigators wouldn’t discover the segment of video in question while examining the phone’s contents?
Maybe this case will be over more quickly than we expected.
Oh, really? I haven’t even had time yet to listen to THE FULLER VERSION of the audio. I’ve REPEATEDLY specified that it’s the FULLER VERSION.
Where did you get the idea that the video the attorney mentioned was at any link I provided?
I am trying to tell you, the link you provided, in the interview the reporter told Reynolds and her attorney the cops have audio and VIDEO of the traffic stop. Reynolds and her attorney urged them to release it, like she did her video.
Then ya tell me some guy at this link said this was “Approached as a felony stop”. Once again, how does that work when they were still in the vehicle AFTER the shooting?
This is not complex Ching.
in 104 your provided a link, no? The link has a video at the top where Reynolds and her attorney are interviewed by some reporter hack who informed them the cops have audio and VIDEO.
Please try to keep up.
Again, what did I say in comment #105?
For the 7th time, what kind of mental twist makes you think I have access to that video?
OMG...gak
Hey Ching, can you answer this?
Then ya tell me some guy at this link you provided said this was “Approached as a felony stop”. Once again, how does that work when they were still in the vehicle AFTER the shooting?
??
What, you think that because I gave you a link to source of the dispatch audio, that means I have a way of giving you the unreleased dashcam video too?
Can you really not understand comment #105, seriously? Is it not clear?
I’ve been giving you leads and resources and you’ve been chasing parked cars
Did you not understand in the link YOU provided here the reporter told Reynolds and her attorney the cops have VIDEO??
??
Did you not review your own link you posted?
And you obviously felt it important enough to tell me this Sundancing guy who said it was “Approached as a felony stop”
I then I’ve asked you 10 times, given the circumstances of where the suspect was shot, how in tarnation can this be considered a “felony traffic stop”??
Wowza!
You don’t think that narcissist skank fired up her iPhone the moment the cops lit them up?
When it started? You’re a tool. You think she started recording as soon as the officer shot Philando? You think she grabbed her phone and manipulated her hands with a gun pointed at her?
She recorded *the whole thing* and only published video after the shooting.
Ok, WHY are you after ME about the police video?
And why are you after ME about what another says the fuller audio tells him? If you’re that wildly obsessed, just go to the damned audio and listen yourself see if you can figure out why he said it! Browse the comments for all I care, I gave you SPECIFIC locations of relevant comments!
She may have, but if she’d caught the actual shooting, don’t you think that’d been sold off for big bucks by now?
Lit up as in pullover lights, not gunshots, we’re saying. Don’t confuse Gaffer.
Yanez’s lawyer says they have video...I wonder if it’s video from her phone?
Police have her phone.
There is something like video and post to cloud isn’t there? Just asking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.