Do the math.
OK Inspector!
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.
Do the math.
OK Inspector!
Gosh you don’t suppose they snagged it from her during questioning, do you???????????????????????????
You seem to have a lot of details Ching. Is that when she was searched?
There is discussion of the felony stop issue in the comments here, and the possible reasons why the dept may have proscribed doing them on black subjects:
The first comment I saw in that regard posted at 11:47 pm on July 11. Easy to find by scrolling based on date/time sequence.
There may be other comments elsewhere on the post having to do with that question also.
At 11:42 further up that same page, Sundance commented that based on the fuller version of the audio provided in the post, it WAS approached as a felony stop. I haven’t listened to the fuller audio yet and I’m not sure I’d concur on that but you can check for yourself.
Where is the police audio/video from the traffic stop? They have both according to the officers attorney.
I’d sure like to hear and see it. If it exonerates the officer, they really should release it as soon as possible. It’s in the best interest for everyone at this point, except maybe Reynolds.
Right?
Really? How does that work Ching?
When the Reynolds video started it was from the inside of the suspect vehicle. In a felony traffic stop the occupants will be ordered out of the vehicle, one at a time at gun point, walk backwards, hands in the air...You've seen the routine.
This is done to avoid incidents such as these and for the safety of the officers and the occupants. Do you not see an issue here?
Dude do you need your hand held for everything? I put the audio in front of your face, do I have to transcribe it for you?
You’re not following the bouncing ball. Read what I wrote in comment #105. It’s very clear.
Otherwise, yes, right, as for releasing the dashcam.
The bodies are piling up and the mobs are wildly howling for more
Not only have I seen the procedure, I’ve done it as a cop
Where is the police audio/video from the traffic stop? They have both according to the officers attorney. I don’t see the police video.
You know how to post a specific link directly to the video right? Btw dude? Really? I see you’re still using 60s lingo Ching. Far out man.
Just post the police video link. Thanks.
“””Otherwise, yes, right, as for releasing the dashcam.”””
What does that mean in English?
Again, you fail basic comprehension
Where did I say I had police video link? This is a waste of time, trying to help you. I gave you link to post containing fuller audio than released previously, let me guess, you’re too lazy to open it?
Good luck you’re on your own, I’ve got leads to chase down
How dense are you? I clearly asked you @104 where the audio/video is the officers attorney said he had.
If this guy your posting about said it was a felony stop, it don't make sense. No bueno.
Again when the Reynolds video started it was from the inside of the suspect vehicle. In a felony traffic stop the occupants will be ordered OUT of the vehicle, one at a time at gun point, walk backwards, hands in the air...You've seen the routine.
This is done to avoid incidents such as these and for the safety of the officers and the occupants. Do you not see an issue here?
Where is the *police video* link Ching. You know, the video the officers attorney stated they had, the one up thread I asked you about?
Gezuz.
Ya tell me this guy says it was “Approached as a felony stop”. Right?
I said how does that work when they were inside the vehicle AFTER the shooting?
You’re a cop, tell me how does that works Ching?
For cripes sakes Ching, everyone has heard that audio 200x.
I am talking about the video the cops attorney said he had right at your link you provided.
And whoever this guy is your referring to claiming this was “Approached as a felony stop”. It simply does not make sense. How were they ordered out of the vehicle at gun point yet still be in the vehicle after the shooting?
Why are you replying to me as if I were the one who claimed it was? Can you really not understand what you read?
Where did I ever say I had access to the police video?
Are you drinking?
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.