American cops are voracious liars: they lie to
deny their crimes and to protect themselves from prosecution; they lie to cast
blame on innocent people and put those innocent people in prison; they lie merely by
keeping their mouths shut when they know other cops are explicitly lying
or are otherwise breaking the law, perhaps out of fear of retribution or
to reciprocate for helpful lies or silence by fellow cops who comprise the
"thin blue line." While cops do not have a
patent on lying, they have something even better: the endorsement of
America's top federal courts. See, for instance, Frazier
v. Cupp, USSCt, Apr22|1969; US
v. Magallon-Lopez, 9th Circuit, Mar31|2016. Talk about thin
lines, the line between judicially permissible cop-lying and obstruction
of justice is so thin no one can see where it falls.
And therein lies one of the most
pernicious problems with America's system of "justice." For the consequences of
cop-lies can be devastating to
innocent victims, their finances, their careers, and their families. As a good example I refer you to the Tanya
Weyker case where a couple of lying Milwaukee County cops tried to
frame a young woman after one of them broke her neck by T-boning her car. Oddly, cops and politicians are the
only classes of American public employees that seem to consider lying to be a
of their jobs, and that seems to be OK with the American public. But it's not OK
This is a two-part series analyzing the Keith
Lamont Scott killing and the official and unofficial lies that are
being spun and that are taking over the story. I'm investing 20 or more hours on this project not for Keith Scott's wife
or family, not for the citizens of Charlotte, not for Americans, but for
Keith Scott, who had tattooed on his right upper arm "Truth."
This Part I is a frame-by-frame analysis of
the videos of the Scott killing with the objective of finding and publicizing the best
evidence available related to whether Scott was armed, whether he had a gun in his
hand, and how a gun that is seen on the pavement and was allegedly
photographed by the cops came to be on the pavement. In Part II I will
review the numerous lies & distortions of the truth and throw shadow
on the people generating them.
Those of us with the necessary the skills and
with sufficient time have an unprecedented opportunity to analyze online information regarding cop dishonesty, brutality, and other
misconduct, and to help get the record straight and keep
it straight. LogoPhere has reported again and again and again on
cases of killer cops, lying cops, and cop-brutality, and will continue to
do so. There are legions of online
citizen-warriors who feel the same way I do and
who undoubtedly have had an effect in pushing back against the thin blue
line, which is the American euphemism for "police dishonesty."
Lord knows there is no dearth of material
to work on, what, with black people being killed by cops on what is very
close to a rate of 1 per day. Many of those deaths must be
considered "fair 'nuf" because the bad guys are sometimes black,
too, and the cops and public really are often put at risk by society's felonious
sewage, whatever its color. But many of the homicides of blacks by cops are way, way out of
line -- so far out of line as to be properly characterized as
"executions," "extra-judicial killings," and, more to
the point of the present post, "constabulary murder."
If cops were 100% honest, there would be no
problem here. To determine whether a cop-killing was legal and justified,
all we would have to do would be to ask the cop what happened. Just think for a
second how ridiculous
that sounds: Sure, just take the cop's word for it that his/her killing of an
unarmed person was justified. And yet that is what cops do when they
investigate themselves and, apparently,
that's about all they do.
No, the problem the country has is not just
psychopathic, trigger-happy cops; it's the universality of
cop-lying that often makes it impossible to separate valid
"kills" from the constabulary murders. And that's where online citizen-warriors come into
the picture. Scott's case is an excellent example of having access to online evidence that can
either contradict or corroborate the cops'
story, which is always, always, always . . . "we didn't do anything
Conclusions/summary of evidence from
This Part I in the series is a long analysis, so let me start
with the conclusions and a summary of the evidence for those of you in a hurry:
Keith Scott did not have a gun in his
hand at the time he was shot.
Scott's hands were not in the air, they
were hanging below his waist.
Scott did not make any moves that any
reasonable person would interpret as threatening or as a justification
for killing him.
Brentley Vinson an officer in
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dept. fired four rounds at Scott,
hitting him three times and killing him.
The evidence supports the conclusion that Scott had a Colt .380 Mustang
semi-automatic handgun in an ankle-holster on his right ankle when he
The cops did not "plant" the
weapon. After Scott was down, a CMPD cop removed the Colt from Scott's
holster, dropped it on the pavement, and used his foot to slide the
gun along the pavement away from the dying victim. This was likely
done to make the scene safe.
Someone, presumably a cop, removed the
magazine from the gun, extracted the round from the chamber or checked
the chamber, left the gun cocked, and put it back on the pavement.
The evidence suggests to me that CMPD
top-cop Kerr Putney has made numerous lies and false innuendos
to the media, which lies and innuendos have tainted the public's
understanding of what happened.
The killing of Keith Scott
Just before 4pm on Sep20|2016 Keith Scott, 43-years old, was
shot 3 times at almost point-blank range by Vinson in the parking lot of an apartment complex on Old Concord Rd.
in Charlotte, NC.
Fig. 1. GoogleEarth view of the crime scene
Fig. 1 is a GoogleEarth view of the crime-scene where
Scott was killed. The date of this photo is Aug24|2012. Orientation is
north at the top. The location is 35° 17.725' N 80° 43.625' W.
The killing took place in a part of apartment complex parking lot where
there were only three marked parking places. At the time of the
killing a white F-150
pickup was parked adjacent to the curb in the left-most slot in Fig. 1. The
middle slot was empty. Scott was in his SUV, which had been backed
into the third slot. That slot is mostly obscured by trees and shadows. Balloon "A" marks the precise
spot Scott was standing when he was shot -- right at the end of the white
The balloon marked "B" designates a shadow cast
by a light pole. As this photo was taken in the early morning of a day in late
August, the shadow points toward about 275 degrees. Scott was killed
in the late afternoon of Sep20, and at that time the pole's shadow was
pointing at about 60 degrees, which is toward the curb and onto the pavement. The reason I
mention this shadow is that it provides a useful reference for
determining the movements of people and objects on the ground, as noted
In trying to calm down the riots following Scott's killing, Putney initially asserted
the following details about the shooting [my annotations added]:
Scott was seen by undercover cops getting out of a car holding a
handgun and then Scott got back in the car.
[This is referred to herein as "the first exit."]
Scott exited again as the cops, who had donned protective gear,
[This is referred to herein as "the second exit."]
Scott was "armed" with a handgun.
Scott refused orders to drop "the gun."
[Putney never actually says Scott was holding a gun on the
second exit, and appears to be intentionally vague as to which of the
two exits it was that Scott is alleged to have been holding a gun.
This is an extremely loaded issue, and so one has to be very careful about what the precise allegations are
cops are making.]
Cops "seized" a handgun at the scene.
No book was recovered from the scene.
[Witness claim Scott had a book and dropped it when he got out of
his SUV. This allegation, almost certainly a lie, is discussed in Part
In a written
statement released on Sep24, Putney made the following
assertions in addition to or different from his original oral
assertions. These are given in the order in which they are presented in
The officers observed Scott rolling what they believed to be a
Vinson observed Scott "hold a gun up."
[Again, Putney does not say which exit he is talking about.]
Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Scott had in
his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for "public
After putting on protective gear and returning to the scene, the
officers again witnessed Scott "in possession" of a gun.
The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers
and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun.
Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.
assertion makes no sense because it appears to refer to a point in
time when Scott was still in the car. How does one drop a gun while in
a car, and how would the cops know if the person complied with that
command, especially when the car has darkly tinted windows as Scott's
A uniformed officer utilized his baton to attempt to breach the
front passenger window in an effort to arrest Scott.
in car. Open carry is legal in NC, and so the only reason for the cops
to arrest Scott would be the "blunt" they claimed they saw.
Normally, possession of MJ is dealt with in NC by means of a summons.]
Scott then exited the vehicle "with the gun" and backed away from the
vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal
commands to drop the gun.
[Once again, Putney implies but doesn’t actually say that Scott was holding
"the gun." When cops know they are being filmed, they often scream
"Stop resisting!" or "Drop the gun!" just to taint
the evidence. Such conduct should be prosecutable as obstructing
Vinson perceived Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent
physical threat to himself and the other officers. Vinson fired his
issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott.
[If Scott's gun was in an ankle-holster, then this is pure BS. See below.]
A lab analysis conducted on the gun that crime scene investigators
recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Scott’s DNA and his
fingerprints on the gun.
It was also determined that the gun Scott possessed was loaded
the time of the encounter with the officers." The investigation also
revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of
[Putney declines to say whether or not the gun was actually in the
holster. If it was in the holster at this point, then it was,
essentially, irrelevant to any perceived "threat" Scott may
have presented. See below.]
Of course, we have to evaluate the veracity of the foregoing cop-statements on
the basis of the federal courts' repeated endorsement and
encouragement of cop-lying, which, in my mind, means one has to
presume the cops' are lying until the evidence says otherwise.
What does the evidence say?
Here are additional details on the killing:
Vinson fired four rounds and hit Scott three times: front left abdomen,
top [dorsal] left wrist, rear left shoulder
As Scott was dying face down on the pavement and not a
danger to anyone, the cops cuffed him and left him cuffed until
The cops repeatedly rolled Scott onto his right side without taking
any consideration as to whether Scott's spinal cord may have been
injured. In fact, one bullet struck Scott's spinal column and
fractured at least two vertebra.
Unlike most of these cases of cops killing people on video, the
cops didn’t just sit back and let Scott bleed out. Two white cops,
identified herein as "BCC" and "Red"
made efforts to help the dying man, although they did not administer
CPR. Vinson, who is black and who did all of the shooting,
just stood around gawking, throwing rubber gloves on the ground thus
tainting the evidence-field, and not being particularly helpful in
trying to save Scott.
At least three digital video cameras were recording at the moment Scott
was gunned down. An additional video exists that begins after Scott was
shot. Here are links to, and my designations of, the vids used in
this analysis. .
Vid01: The long bodycam vid (16 mins 29 secs.), which was released by CMPD on
Oct04. (The edited version first released by the cops was only about 1
min.) Source: YT
Vid02: The long dashcam vid (39mins 24 secs), which was released by CMPD on
Oct04. (The edited version first released by the cops was only about 2
mins.) Source: YT
Vid03: Cell phone vid recorded by Scott’s wife. (2
mins 20 secs) Source: YT
Vid04: Cell phone vid recorded by unknown person from an elevated position
looking down on the shooting scene. (2 mins 12 secs) Source: YT
The official lies vs. the evidence with respect to
The media have consistently repeated the cops' assertions that Keith Scott had a loaded gun in his hand when he was
shot; consequently, the issue of whether Scott had a gun and, if so, what he was doing with it are at
the crux of this entire case. We have to evaluate the evidence here one step at at time
because it's a bit complex.
Step 1: Determining that the gun as photographed at the
crime-scene by the cops was almost certainly not loaded when it was
Fig. 2. CMPD evidence-photo of gun alleged to be Scott's
First, the identity of the gun and its position. Fig 2, below, is a cop evidence-photo
of the gun Putney says his cops "seized" at the site of the
Scott homicide. It is a .380 cal. semi-automatic Colt Mustang Plus II,
registration number RR05501.
In the photo the gun is obviously lying on pavement and
there is a cop evidence-marker "C" next to it. I believe we are
expected to infer that this is the crime-scene and that's where the gun
was photographed. There is only one gun at issue in this entire
story, and so we must also infer that any gun that is seen on the ground in any of the
videos is this one, according to the cops. We'll come to the
precise position of the gun within the crime-scene in a moment.
Second, the status of the gun. The internet has filled up with 2nd
Amendment wacko-dudes, mostly white and mostly from the South it seems, pointing out how
this photo shows that the gun was loaded, cocked, safety off and
"ready to go," and that means Scott was "extremely
dangerous." The CMPD has also claimed that the gun was
loaded. These implications are important and damning to the public's
perception of Scott and they tend to vindicate Vinson's killing of Scott, and so they need to be carefully checked.
The gun in the photo is obviously cocked and the safety
is off. That lever below the hammer is the safety and when it is in
the lowered position as in the photo, it is off. If the trigger were
to be pulled with the gun in this state, the hammer would fall forward
against the firing-pin, but the gun almost
certainly wouldn't fire because the gun is almost certainly empty.
And the reason I say it is that there is no
clip, aka magazine, in the gun. Neither the 2nd Amendment wackos nor
the cops are pointing that out for some reason. You can tell there is no
magazine because like most semi-automatic pistols, the magazine for this
type of gun has a small tongue or tab that sticks out beyond the handle to
make a bit easier to remove the clip from the gun. There is no tab in the
photo, which means there is no clip.
Here is a close up of the alleged Scott-gun
compared to another Colt Mustang that has a magazine inserted.
Fig. 3. The butts of two Colt .380 Mustangs showing
the one at the crime scene (L) has no clip
The butt on the left is the gun the cops
say Scott had; the one on the right is the same model with a clip
inserted. You can see that there is no tab protruding out of the
alleged Scott gun; if a tab were sticking out, then that tiny pebble in the
asphalt next to the left corner of the butt would not be visible. Here is an enlarged view where you can
even see the pebble and the indentation in the leading edge
of the butt where the magazine-tab would stick out if a clip was in place.
Fig. 4. Closer view of the butt of the gun "seized" at the crime
Besides, if Scott had dropped the gun
photographed above when the cops shot him, being cocked and with the
safety off like it is, it most likely would have gone off when it hit the
However, the fact that the gun has no magazine
when it was photographed doesn't necessarily mean it was empty. There could have been a round
in the chamber. Probably not.
It is apparent to me that what happened is
that someone went to the effort to make the gun safe. To do this
they removed the clip, and then they ejected the round remaining
in the chamber (or checked to see if a round was in the chamber) by sliding the slide to the rear, which cocks the gun. But
they didn't ease the hammer home before they laid the gun carefully on the
pavement safety-side up so the safety could easily be seen to be off. So what you have is an empty, safe pistol with the hammer cocked and
the safety off waiting to be photographed. Someone put the cocked, safe gun on the ground,
perhaps to make it appear to the public that it was ready to go off and an extreme danger to the
Step 2: Determining that Scott did not have the gun in his
hand when he was shot
Of course, this evidence that the gun was empty when the
photograph was taken doesn't tell us much except to suggest that the cops
liars, and we already know that. It could be that Scott had a loaded gun in his hand but dropped the gun when he was shot
and a cop came along later, made the gun safe by emptying it, and put it
back on the ground. But that's not what happened.
And this brings us to the $40,000 question that has been beat around
the bush 500 times: Did Scott have a gun in his hand when he stepped out
of his car? Chief-cop Putney says he did, but he also says you can't
see that gun in the videos. Apparently he is taking his guys' word for
it. He would, wouldn't he? But we don't have to.
Like a lot of black and white folks I know,
Keith Scott had two hands: one on his right, and one on his left. And like so many
2-handed folks, the hand on Scott's right was his favorite, and we know
that because, as we will soon see, his ankle-holster was on his right
ankle. But that's getting ahead of ourselves, for the moment we just want to analyze what, if anything, was
in each hand.
Analysis of Scott's left hand is
easy. First of all, knowing he was right-handed, a priori, we
would not expect to find evidence of the gun in his left hand even if he did
have a gun. And, sure enough, the video evidence clearly tells us that
his left had was empty.
Fig. 5 is a screen-grab from the bodycam carried
by an unidentified uniformed cop I refer to as the BodyCamCop or
"BCC." At 00:20 of Vid01 you can see Scott a fraction of a second before Vinson
(seen on Scott's left, at arrow "B") opened up on him. Scott
at this point doesn't know it but he is taking the last breath he will
take before Vinson's bullets rip through his guts and into his spinal
column a fraction of a second later.
Fig. 5. Keith Scott's step in this world. "A" shadow of
Scott's L hand.
"B" -- Vinson just about to gun Scott down. Vid01/00:20.
You will note that Scott's tee-shirt presents a perfect,
that no cop could miss at that close distance. But more germane to
this discussion is Scott's left hand, which is perfectly clear. You
can see his thumb and his fingers, and he has no gun. Moreover, the arrow marked "A"
points to the shadow on
the ground of
Scott's left hand, which is unambiguous proof that Scott was not holding a
gun or anything else in that hand. But, as I say, he was right-handed so this comes
as no surprise.
As an aside, once he was out of the car, Scott
was obviously more
concerned with BCC, the white cop with a gun, than with Vinson, the black
cop with a gun. He should have been more worried about Vinson. For if you'll watch carefully,
BCC never actually points his pistol at Scott, at least as far as we can see
in the vids. (Unfortunately, some idiot ordered bodycams that mount
on the shoulders of the CMPD cops; consequently, BCC's head blocks his
bodycam at crucial moments, as shown below. So the bodycams are
about 50% useless, which may be the intent.)
Fig. 6. Idiot-bodycam view of the back of
BCC's right ear. Vid01/00:17.
When we come to Scott's right hand, the
analysis is complicated by the lack of clear video evidence.
The view most people commenting on this
issue rely on is BCC's bodycam view from the rear of Scott's car as he gets
out. Here are a couple of those frames from Vid01, but please watch
the entire sequence in stop-frame mode and slo-mo to verify what I am
Fig. 7. Scott lifts his pant leg to show the cops that
he is armed.
First, note BCC's pistol. As noted above, unlike Vinson, BCC in this view is following good police procedure by keeping
the muzzle of his handgun pointed at the ground. There is no reason in heaven or hell for the cops to think
that Scott has committed a felony or is about to. Nor is Scott acting
aggressively or threatening anyone. The fact that the cops say they saw
a gun in his hand means next to nothing in a state in which open-carry is
legal. In other words, there was no
reason to put Scott in their sights, and BCC doesn't.
As to Scott, his ankle-holster is clearly
visible on his right ankle because the right pant leg is pulled up.
Unfortunately, BCC didn't turn his bodycam on
until after Scott was shot, and so it is not possible to hear what Scott
is saying to him, or what he is saying to Scott. But it's pretty damned obvious
to me from reviewing Vid01 numerous times that what Scott is doing is using his right hand to lift his right
pant-leg to show BCC that his weapon is in the ankle-holster. This
puts Scott's killing in the same category as Philandro
Castile's live-streamed cop-homicide near Minneapolis last July.
Castile also disclosed to the cops who killed him that he was armed.
The present point is that if Scott was using his
right hand to lift his pant-leg to show BCC the gun, then it is
preposterous to conclude that he had the gun in his right hand. But the bodycam vid isn't crystal clear, and so we need to look at
the only other vid that shows Scott alive -- the dashcam vid.
Fig. 8, below, is a native screen-grab (L)
and its enhancement (R) taken from the dashcam vid, Vid02, at 01:41. The
enhancement doesn't help a lot, but it's enough to show that Scott had no
gun in his right hand. The gun is black and would be visible against the
white vehicle in the background.
Fig. 8. Scott a fraction of a second before being hit.
Left image, enhancement of the right one. Vid02/01:41
Fig. 8 is the point at which Scott's right hand had released his
pant-leg and it had fallen back down, partially covering the
pistol/holster. He was backing away from his car, and his head is turning
to his left where Vinson is. At almost exactly the time Scott's right toe
touched the ground, Vinson
opened up. Scott had just reached the end of the white line painted on the
pavement, which is barely visible to the right of Scott's right foot.
Consequently, in my mind there is absolutely no evidence
supporting the cops' assertion that Scott was holding a gun in either hand
or acting in a manner that threatened anybody when
Vinson killed him. The evidence shows the contrary beyond a reasonable
doubt: Both of Scott's
hands were empty and hanging down below his waist and he was making no moves that
any reasonable, reasonably trained, non-psychopathic cop could have
interpreted as threatening even if he did have a gun in his
hand. IOW, there are no self-defense issues here -- Vinson
essentially executed the man.
It is also worth noting that in the frames
following the screen-grab in Fig. 8, as Scott is hit, his left shoulder
drops as he doubles over and he
reaches across his body with his right arm to, apparently, grab his left
side where Vinson's bullets entered. Scott straightens up, his right arm
still across his body. Then he spins to his right and begins to fall as
he goes out of view of the dashcam, his right arm still across his body.
Consequently, at that point he would have
dropped any gun that was in his right hand and it would have fallen near to the white line painted on the pavement. We'll come back to
that in a moment. In Part II of this series I analyze the bullet
trajectory and Scott's wounds as determined by the independent
But the question for the moment is this: If Scott
was not holding the Colt in either hand when he was shot, then how did it come to be
lying on the pavement?
There are two complimentary lines of
evidence that answer this question: One comprises numerous views of the
pavement before and after Scott was killed; if he dropped the gun, we now
know where to look for it. The second line of evidence is to
follow carefully the movements of the cops in the seconds after Scott was
shot, particularly one of the undercover cops who is wearing a red tee-shirt. I refer to
him as "Red." We'll begin
with the pavement.
Step 3: Determining that there was no
gun on the pavement both before Scott was shot and immediately after.
As a baseline, we need to see what the
pavement looked like before Scott was shot, and, hence, before he would
have dropped his gun if he had been holding it. Fig. 7, above, and Fig. 9,
below, give a good view of the pavement to the south of where Scott was
standing when he was shot; i.e., the pavement between the vehicles. There
gun; we wouldn't expect to see one at this point. Also note that there is
no book, which one witness claimed Scott dropped.
Fig. 9. View of pavement between the vehicles
a second before Scott was shot.
Similarly, Fig. 10, below, shows the pavement
between the white F-150 and BCC's police cruiser. Scott is still in his
vehicle at this point. There is no gun, as expected. Also, please note
the linear shadow. That is the reference shadow marked "B" in Fig.
1. and discussed above. The area between the reference shadow and the shadow
from the F-150 is where the gun eventually appears.
Fig. 10. Area adjacent the reference shadow. Scott is still in
his vehicle at this point.
Next we want to carefully follow the
movements of Red, the cop in the red tee-shirt.
Step 4: Determining that the Colt
Mustang was removed from Scott's ankle-holster by Red.
Red first comes into view in Vid02, the dashcam
vid, as BCC pulls into the
parking area where the undercover cops are pointing their guns at Scott's
car. (Vid02/ 1:00) Red is standing on the grass next to the passenger side of the white
F-150. Vid02 shows BCC dashing around Red to take a position behind
Scott's vehicle. Red maintains his position next to the F-150 until Scott
falls. Red hesitates momentarily and then approaches Scott, who
is mortally wounded on the ground. As Red moves to the left and out of
view of the dashcam, we see him start to squat down until he is out of view altogether.
But fortunately BCC is following Red with the bodycam, which at this point
is recording sound.
Fig. 11. Red approaches Scott. Vid01/00:25
The screen-grab in Fig. 11 is the view from
BCC's bodycam. It shows Red approaching the dying Scott, who is lying
face-down. In the upper right
corner Vinson, the killer, can barely be seen looking on from behind a gray cop
vehicle. The elongate shadow
in the lower left corner is the terminus of the reference shadow. The second
in the lower right corner is from the pick-up truck. The lighted area
between the two shadows is where the gun will eventually appear, but at this
point, after Scott fell, there is no gun. It is worth looking at these few seconds from
Vid01 a few times to verify that.
As Red's shadow passes over Scott's right
foot, the ankle-holster and gun become visible, although it's difficult to
make out the gun.
Fig 12. Scott's right foot as BCC and Red approach. Vid01/ ~ 00:25
Fig 12 is a montage of three screen-grabs
from Vid01 as BCC and Red approach Scott. The holster is obvious but it is
not possible to say for certain that it contains the Colt. The shot on
the right is a blow-up, which to my eye indicates light reflecting off of a
dull metallic surface, but the image lacks coherence. While this is not exceptionally strong direct video
evidence that the gun was in the holster, when we combine it with the video
of evidence of what Red does next, the point is all but beyond doubt, but
first it is worth having a close look at this ankle-holster.
Fig 13. The ankle-holster the cops claim to
have removed from Scott's body.
There is not a lot that is immediately
remarkable about the holster. It is polished, and the leather is not
scuffed, marked, or worn. The elastic band does look like it's well
What is interesting is what appear to be
smudges of blood on the inside of the holster, the largest of which is in
the shape of the symbol for pi. It certainly doesn't look like a
splatter. It will be very interesting to see what the cops report on these
blood-spots. Is the blood Scott's?
And the reason I raise the question is that
we know from Vid01 and from the independent autopsy that Scott did not
exhibit profuse external bleeding, and that's because there was only one
exit wound and that was his wrist. We also know all of the wounds were on
his left side whilst the holster was on his right ankle and was partially
covered by his pant leg. Moreover, if the gun was in the holster, then
the portion of the holster with the blood on it would have been protected by
the gun, unlike the outside of the holster. The cop-photos of the gun show
the surface of the gun that would have been adjacent to these "blood
spots" (if that's what they are) and yet there is no apparent blood on
the gun. Of course, the blood stains might have been from some cat's bloody
nose for all I know, and may be totally irrelevant, but they may be
important evidence, too.
Returning to Red's actions, we
can see from Vid01 that Red moves right up
to Scott so that Red's left foot is adjacent to Scott's right calf. As
Red squats down next to Scott, BCC's
head moves in to block the cam and Red goes out of view. As this is going on, BCC is moving to the
left side of Red, and when Red comes back into view, Red's left arm is
reaching forward, toward Scott.
Fig. 14. Red reaches toward Scott while squatting next
The long shadow is from an approaching cop.
And then Red can be seen (Fig.15) moving his
left hand back, like he is hiking a football between his legs just before he
stands up. We can see clearly that Red is next to the shadow from the F-150,
the bumper of which is seen in Fig. 15.
Fig 15. Red moving something between his legs.
What Red is pushing between his legs becomes evident when
we look at Red's subsequent movements as recorded by the dashcam vid (Vid02) and
by Mrs. Scott (Vid03).
As Red stands up, he comes back into view of
the dashcam. Now fully standing, he looks down twice at something between his
feet, as shown in Fig. 16.
Fig. 16. Red paying close attention to something at his feet.
And then, in both Vid02 and Vid03, we
can see Red do something really odd, given the situation. He makes a sweeping motion with his foot as if to move
whatever is between his feet toward the curb. Once this movement is complete, Red again looks down at his
feet. Then he holsters his pistol and makes a second, similar sweeping
motion with his foot -- Fig. 17.
Fig. 17. Red's second foot-slide in 5 seconds. Vid02/~01:58
Red's footsy-game can also be seen in Vid03
as Mrs Scott approaches the scene: Red is kicking the gun with his foot.
Fig. 18. Her camera is, of course, shaking a lot
more than the cop's dashcam, but the two vids can be juxtaposed to confirm
each other by subtracting 44 seconds, more or less, from Vid02 to give the
time on Vid03.
Fig. 18. Red sliding the gun across the pavement.
Note the reference shadows. Vid03/01:14
What we have at the conclusion of Red's
kill-scene dance-routine is shown in Fig. 19, below: the gun rests on the pavement just
adjacent to the shadow of the F-150, to the west of Red's left foot. Also
presented below is Fig. 10 reproduced as a reminder that there was no gun
on the ground at that spot before Scott was killed. What this sequence
tells us is that Scott did not have the gun in his hand; it was in his
ankle-holster where it was not a threat to anyone, much less Vinson.
Fig. 19. L- Vid02/02:01 ~ M-Vid03/01:15 ~ R-Fig. 10 redux
For the next two minutes Red stands over the
gun, guarding it. After all, there are now a number of people gathering
around the crime-scene. While there is ambiguity in the vids that what we
see is actually a gun next to Red's foot, at various points in Vid01 one can
hear the cops referring to it. At 02:52 we hear someone say: "Hey, stay
right here. Stay right here with the gun," at which point Red enters
the view of the bodycam where the cops are attending to Scott. This
corresponds to Vid02/04:11 where we can see Red moving away from the gun and Vinson
assuming a position over the gun.
An army of online citizen-warriors have
checked in on this story and a pretty clear view of what happened and who's
lying is being developed. I hope we've contributed something to that effort
here. The foregoing description of the gun suddenly appearing on the
pavement corresponds pretty well with Robert Mackey's Intercept
article of Sep23|2016, although Mackey does not mention or discuss
the ankle-holster or how the gun got from the holster to a position just a couple
of feet from the curb. Mackey provides some clearer images of the gun on the
pavement that were taken after the crime-scene tape was put up and which,
according to Mackey, were confirmed by "police sources" as showing
There can be no doubt that a gun that was not
initially on the pavement appeared after Scott was shot. What we have added
here is an explanation of how that happened, and that explanation does not
comport with what the police have told the public. But it also does not
comport with many allegations that the gun was "dropped" or
"planted" by the cops.
In Part II we will dissect a number of lies
swirling around this story and making it unduly difficult to understand.