WordPress version

                          

  About & Contact          Archives        Page One          Resource Pages          Topics Index          Art


Antinomian Opinion Page


October 13, 2016

Death, Lies, & Videos
Sorting out the official and unofficial lies in the Keith Lamont Scott homicide

by Denis R O'Brien, PhD/Esq.
~
Part I -- The Gun
~


Keith Lamont Scott  
Feb03|1973 -- Sep20|2016

[PDF version of this article here]

Part II -- Murder?

 

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 proper part of their jobs, and that seems to be OK with the American public. But it's not OK with me.

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 wrong."

Conclusions/summary of evidence from Part I

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 was shot.

  • 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 line.

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 below. 

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, approached him.
[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 that the 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 II.]

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 Putney's statement:

The officers observed Scott rolling what they believed to be a marijuana "blunt."

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 safety" concerns.

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. 
[This 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 SUV had?]

A uniformed officer utilized his baton to attempt to breach the front passenger window in an effort to arrest Scott.
[Scott still 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 justice.]

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 "at the time of the encounter with the officers." The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event. 
[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 EMT arrived.

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.

The videos

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 gun

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 photographed.

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. 


Fig. 2. CMPD evidence-photo of gun alleged to be Scott's

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 scene.

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 ground. 

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 cops.

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 are 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, white target-pattern 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 saying here:

 
Fig. 7. Scott lifts his pant leg to show the cops that he is armed.
Vid01/00:17.

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 autopsy. 

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 is no 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. Vid01/00:20.

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. Vid03/00:35.

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 reference shadow 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 used. 

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 to him. 
The long shadow is from an approaching cop. Vid01/00:28

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.
Vid01/00:29

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.
L-Vid02/01:52. R-Vid03/01:13.

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 the gun.  

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.


Denis R. O'Brien, PhD/Esq.
denis [at-sign] thepatentguy [full stop] net

 

Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.