I of this two-part series I laid out the case that Keith Lamont
Scott was not holding a firearm when he was killed on Sep20|2016 in
Charlotte, N.C. But that is not to say he was not armed. The video evidence and
the inescapable deductions derived from that evidence make it quite clear
that Scott was carrying a Colt Mustang .380 semi-automatic pistol in an
ankle-holster when he was shot, assuming that the Charlotte-Mecklenberg Police
Dept. is not out-and-out lying about finding the Colt at the crime scene.
And so, when CMPD top-cop Kerr Putney told the media that Scott was
"armed," the statement was -- technically -- factually correct, but it was
a lie to the extent that it was meant to convey the idea that Scott had a
weapon in his hand or was a threat to anyone, least of all Berkley
Vinson, the CMPD cop who killed Scott. Just because a statement is
factually correct doesn't mean it isn't a lie, which brings us to this Part
II. The objective here is to identify the many allegations in the
media that appear to be almost certainly lies, even though some of
them may be "factually correct." Once we have worked our way
through the thicket of lies, a more objective and a troubling conclusion
begins to come into view. From evidence I have analyzed, it looks like
Scott was murdered.
Being 2500 miles away from the crime-scene,
the only evidence I have access to is what has appeared on the
internet. And not being able to depose or cross-examine the sources of
this information, I am at an even greater disadvantage than what is
imposed by mere distance. And so, for the most part the evidence
comprises videos of the crime itself, and by "crime" I mean the
killing of Scott. In addition there is a report from a private autopsy that was carried out
at the request of Scott's family. The report can be
found here. The cops have, for whatever reason, not released the
results of the government's autopsy, and that in and of itself is
suspicious. And so, for the moment this research and its conclusions must
be constrained by the limited evidence available and the most reasonable
deductions that can be made from that evidence.
There are at least four videos available that show
various aspects and angles of the shooting and the crime scene. They
are designated Vid01-Vid04 in the list below, the same designations used
in Part I. In addition there are
four videos of "witnesses" making statements about
what happened. These are designated Vid05 - Vid08 below.
Here is the complete list of relevant videos that I am aware of and have
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 Scottís 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) Original source: YT
Vid05: Al Jazeera vid of "witness" Taheshia Williams.
Vid 06: Media vid of Taheshia Williams.
Vid07: "Witness" Tracey McClean. Source: YT
Vid08: CBS interview with Rakeyia Scott, Oct13|16. Source:
When someone who claims to be an "eye
witness" to an event publicly describes actions of people that
clearly do not occur on multiple videos of the event, the person is
either throwing out a whopper or is hallucinating so badly they should
be locked up for their own safety and the safety of the public.
That goes for both cops and civilians. And in the present situation, when we
try to analyze the statements made by both the CMPD cops and Mrs.
Scott or her supporters, we have to be particularly skeptical because both sides have a
conflict of interest: Mrs. Scott stands to acquire hundreds of
thousands or millions of dollars in a settlement or jury verdict, and
the cops want to avoid or mitigate any such settlement or verdict.
Consequently, both sides try to dominate the media reports with
statements "of fact" that support their own version of what
happened. After all, the members of the jury pool are watching
those media reports and will be forming their own conclusions long
before they are called to duty or seated. In other words, there are
incentives built into the American system of justice for both sides to
spin whoppers. We expect them; we look for them.
What is more difficult to understand is when a
seemingly neutral witness spins whoppers. We don't expect people to
lie to millions of TV viewers merely for the fun or challenge of
lying, and that's why the testimony of neutral witnesses is so
the absence of a conflict of interest or some other ulterior motive,
there is a strong presumption that what they say is the truth. But when such a "neutral"
witness starts asserting "facts" that we can see from video
evidence cannot be true, then it is natural to wonder whether that
person has a psychological problem or an undisclosed conflict or
motive. These sorts of questions about motive for lying I will
leave for my readers to contemplate after seeing the evidence; all I am doing here is relating
who said what, what the evidence shows, and why I believe that there
are a number of whoppers twisting the public's perception of this tragic story.
Whoppers #1 & #2: Scott was holding a gun vs.
Scott did not have a gun
Fig. 1. Scott lifts his pant leg to show the
he is armed. Vid01/00:17.
With respect to media accounts, the issue
of the gun comes down to two mutually exclusive assertions, both of which
are almost certainly whoppers. First, we have statements made by top-cop Putney
noted above to the effect
that Scott was "armed." Putney is being a bit slimy here because he
does not come right out and say that Scott was holding a gun, but his statements
about Scott being "armed" appear to be premeditated attempts to convey the impression that Scott was
holding a gun when he was killed. He wasn't.
For instance, at Vid05/02:30 Putney steps
through his version of what happened: the cops were yelling for Scott to drop
his weapon, Scott got out of the car "armed with a handgun," and
the cops "continued to yell at him to drop it." Of course,
such statements would be interpreted by any reasonable person to mean that
Scott was holding a gun.
here's the slime, Putney never actually says that Scott had a gun in his
hand. Having a gun in an ankle-holster, which ankle-holster and gun Scott
revealed to the cops by pulling his pant leg up, is being armed. But by a
careful choice of what he says and what he deletes, Putney spins the implicit whopper that Scott had the gun in his hand, and
when you think about the intent and the effect of such BS, it is outrageous.
My analysis of the gun in Part I of this
series sets forth the evidence that Scott was armed, that he had no weapon in
his hand, and that he showed the cops the weapon in his ankle-holster. Judge
the evidence for yourself, for if
I am correct, then one must conclude that Putney is spinning this story in order to get pressure off
cops for killing Scott, and in order to taint any jury that may be seated for
either criminal or civil litigation. If that's what he's doing then this cop, Putney,
who is black, is not deserving of the community's trust -- not the
black people in the community and not the white people.
The alternative whopper -- that Scott had no
gun at all -- comes from Mrs. Scott. For instance, at Vid08/02:02 she unequivocally
tells the national audience watching CBS that "He had no gun." At the scene she
records herself saying repeatedly "He has
Not true. As I have shown in Part I, the
evidence that Scott had a gun is overwhelming. We can see the
officer in the red shirt, "Red," sliding the gun across the
pavement away from Scott. We can see the ankle-holster on Scott's right
leg in many views and from many angles.
Fig. 2. Holster on Scott's right ankle visible
after his pants were removed while he
lie dying. Vid01/05:51
Because of the poor quality of the videos, it is not
possible to state with absolute certainty that we can actually see the gun
in the holster, but we can nevertheless deduce that it was in the holster
by watching Red's movements, which are clearly seen in the vids. All
of this is explained in Part I.Even if she did not know that Scott was
carrying a gun in an ankle holster, Mrs. Scott's public
statements that he didn't have a gun at all appear to me to be an attempt to taint the public record with information she did not
have. She didn't say: "As far as I know, he had no gun."
She said he had no gun: period.
One might excuse her for trying to convince
the cops at the scene that her husband had no weapon, even if she had
known he did have a weapon. I mean, she could not be faulted for trying to
save the guy's life, when the guy is black and he's surrounded by cops
with their guns drawn -- particularly in a place like North Carolina. But
her honesty comes into question when she goes on a CBS national
broadcast and calmly tells millions of viewers that Scott had no gun. The way she makes it sound is: no gun - period, as in
he didn't own a gun or have access to one. After all, as a felon, Scott
being in possession of a gun would itself have been a felony.
bends the credulity of a reasonable, objective person too much to believe Rakeyia Scott's assertions that her
husband had no gun when we can see for ourselves that he was wearing an ankle-holster,
and we can see a gun on the pavement and we can see how it got there. But
worse, we know that, according to her
own request for a domestic protective order just last year Mrs.
Scott herself accused her husband of threatening her and their children with a gun.
What I don't understand is why Scott wasn't
in prison on Sep20|2016 instead of sitting in that parking lot. CNN
and other news outlets have reported that Scott did time in a Texas prison
in 2005 for shooting a man. Consequently,
pursuant to N.C. Article 54A, Section 14-415 it was a Class G felony for
him to be in possession of a firearm. Why didn't the CMPD cops bust him on
a felony firearm charge when Mrs. Scott told them last year he was armed?
He would likely have been sent up for 8 to 31 months, but at least he
would still be alive.
Whoppers #3 & #4: Scott was shot four times,
once in the back
Fig. 3. Headlines from Washington
Post Oct12|2016 (upper)
This double-whopper has been spread all over the
MSM and internet, and it distorts the perception of what happened as much
as the gun whopper.
There is no question that four shots were
fired -- you can hear them very distinctly (Vid02/01:42). But, contrary to what many reporters and bloggers have
alleged, no more than three bullets hit Scott. Maybe only two. And none in
the "back" as most of us understand that term.
The cops have not released the government
autopsy, but the
report was made public on Oct14|2016. The type of people who just
look at pictures and ignore words are likely to look at the diagram
from this report and conclude incorrectly that Scott was hit by all four bullets fired by
Fig. 4. Diagram from private autopsy of Keith Scott
Given that the autopsy clearly states that
wounds "C" and "D" are entry and exit wounds,
respectively, of the
same bullet, Scott could not have been hit by more than three
bullets. And if the bullet that penetrated his left wrist subsequently entered his
abdomen at "A," then he was hit by only 2 bullets. The report is
vague on this point but it is an important one.
We can actually see each of the entry wounds in the bodycam
video (Vid01) as the cops did an inventory of the wounds. One entry
wound can be seen in each of three places: 1) high on the dorsal (back) side of Scott's left shoulder
(Vid01/01:39); 2) on the top of his left wrist (Vid01/12:05); and, 3) on his left side in the area
of his abdomen (Vid01/09:08). These are the three entry wounds labeled
"A," "B," and "C" in the diagram. Although
are numerous clear views of the underside of Scott's left
wrist, the exit wound is not visible. The bullet emerged from the medial edge of his wrist, the side
with the little finger, which we can't see but where a significant amount of blood is evident.
At present I don't believe it is known
whether Scott was hit by two or three bullets. He definitely was not
hit by four, contrary to what the MSM says. The bullet that went through his wrist may be the same one
that entered his abdomen, and the reason I say it is because, as explained
in Part I, Scott's left hand was hanging down by his side when Vinson shot
him, and Vinson was on Scott's left side. In other words, Scott's wrist
was between Vinson and Scott's left abdomen. From these angles, it seems
likely that a bullet could have passed through Scott's wrist before hitting his body. Because his organs had been removed during the
initial autopsy, the private pathologist was not able to conclusively
identify which bullet went where. Presumably, the cops' autopsy will do
that, which is why it is so important.
There is one other worthwhile issue to
point out about
the wounds. There are a number of reports quoting the lawyers for Mrs.
Scott that Scott was shot in the back,
which, of course, is a phrase used intentionally in cop-shootings to conjure an image of a
cowardly cop shooting a victim who has his back turned to the cop.
"Shot in the back" is an emotionally loaded assertion -- always
has been, always will be. But that is
not what happened here, which throws shadow on the veracity of people making such emotional
assertions, including the paid pathologists.
The very first finding listed on the autopsy report refers to a
wound to the "left upper back." This statement virtually
guarantees that lazy reporters will likely read just that far and then reach for their keyboards to describe Scott as having
been shot in the back. And as I say the lawyers have pushed this
mischaracterization. But at page 5 of the autopsy report that wound is described
as being in the "shoulder/back." Because of the psychological
punch "shot in the back" has, in litigation, there is a world of
difference between being shot in the back and being shot in the
shoulder/back. My prediction is that when the cops' autopsy report is made
public it will describe or emphasize this wound as being in the shoulder,
not the back.
Fig. 3. shows the actual wound, which is
seen in Vid01 multiple times, for instance at 02:19.
It is at the very top of Scott's left shoulder, well above the arm-pit,
and lateral to his sleeveless
shirt. I would characterize it as a "shoulder wound," which is
what it clearly is. Seems to me that if the bullet had hithim
withing the boundaries of that shirt, it would be fairly characterized as
being in the "back," We'll see what the coroner says.
Fig 5. The shot to "the back." Vid01/01:39
At any rate, it also seems to me that referring to this as being
a wound in the
"back" -- without properly qualifying the statement so that it
indicates the back, upper portion of the shoulder -- is utterly
irresponsible on the part of the pathologist, the lawyers, and the media.
It would be interesting to know how much, if any, input the lawyers and/or
family had in the writing and wording of the autopsy report. After all,
they paid for it.
It is also worth noting that lawyers for
Rakeyia Scott have speculated
that this shot to "the back" was the first one to hit Scott,
surely an assertion designed to reinforce the public's (i.e. potential
jurors') disgust of this whole "shot in the back" meme. But
this is likely nothing more than lawyerly bullspit, if you think about it for about
30 seconds. Here's why I say it:
Scott was six feet tall. And given that Vid02
(01:41) shows that when the first shot was fired, Scott was standing upright,
the only way the shot to the shoulder could have been the first one would
have been if the Jolly Green Giant was standing over
him and shooting downward. In addition, the autopsy report says that the bullet
that entered the shoulder traveled "downward" through Scott's chest cavity,
posterior ribs on his left side and passed through the lower portion
of his lung. The only way such a trajectory would have been possible is if
this bullet hit Scott after he bent over in response to the first bullet,
which was likely the one that hit him in the abdomen, which is why he bent
over. Because all four bullets were fired within one second, and given the
time it took for Scott to react and bend over, and given the trajectory of
the shoulder wound inside Scott's body, we can easily deduce that the shot
to the shoulder could not have occurred
until after Scott bent over.
IOW, it's clear that the wound to the
shoulder came last. This conclusion is further supported by the video
evidence (Vid02/01:42) showing that after Scott bent over upon being hit
first in the abdomen, he then suddenly straightened up and spun almost 180
degrees to his right (clockwise), probably as a result of the force of the
bullet hitting him in the left shoulder.
It appears to me that someone is throwing out a
whopper when they say the first bullet fired hit Scott in the back.
Whopper #5: Scott was shot by a white
The one fact that is virtually beyond
dispute in this case is that the only black cop on the scene, Brentley
Vinson, is the one who killed Scott. At least Vinson is the guy who top-cop Putney has
publicly fingered and the one who has cashed in on the "Who wants a paid vacation?" offer that is the universal
reward in America for cops who kill black
But even this indisputable fact has been
disputed. It has been disputed by three women who claim to be
eye-witnesses: Scott's wife, Taheshia
Williams, and Tracey Maclean. They all claim a white cop killed Scott.
This is the point at which racism raises its ugly head.
Rakeyia Scott: "Officer Vincent
I don't believe shot my husband . . . I could see the officer with the
white shirt, my husband, the officer with the dashcam, and the officer
right here with the red shirt . . . I saw [Vinson] but he was at a
distance and was not a part of the action . . . " (Vid08/03:52)
Taheshia Williams: "No, ma'am.
It was not a black officer that killed him; it was a white officer that
killed him. He was bald-headed. The black officer came on the scene maybe
fifteen (inaudible) minutes later, and he was the one doing the CPR on
Tracey Maclean: "That's when
the guy that really shot him, it was not the black guy that shot him . . .
It was not a black officer that shot him, there was not a black officer
anywhere near it. It was a white officer and he was bald, and had on a red
In order to expose these whoppers for what
they are, it's necessary to set out the facts about where everybody was
positioned when Vinson dropped Scott. This is not a difficult task given
the body cam vid (Vid01), the dashcam vid (Vid02), and Mrs. Scott's vid
(Vid03) combined give us a very good understanding of the crime-scene. And the task is made a lot easier because of excellent work done
by four NYT reporters.
I waded through the videos and
obtained screen-grab portraits of the five CMPD cops who were present at the crime-scene
when Vinson killed Scott. Then I juxtaposed those portraits against a
graphic of the scene that was produced by Sarah Almukhtar, Ford
Fessenden, Anjali Singhvi and Josh Williams for the NYT.
(Incidentally, I cannot think of a better example of the power of
racial/ethnic diversity than their outstanding effort -- look at those
Fig. 6. NYT graphic reconstructing the crime scene and
showing the five CMPD cops who formed the "suicidal circular firing
The NYT graphic is valuable and
interesting. It shows the positions of all five CMPD cops at the moment
Scott was killed. All of these positions
can be easily verified by reviewing Vid01-Vid03. The pink vehicle
represents Scott's; the other four vehicles are cop-cars, which I have
labeled CC-1 through CC-4. I have placed red letters corresponding to
each cop in the portraits above. The only cop that has been
publicly named, so far as I am aware, is Vinson at "E." In Part
I, I refer to the cop "A" as the "BodyCamCop" or
"BCC," and I refer to cop "B" as "Red." "RS" refers to Rakeyia
Scott's position when the bullets started flying.
Now, bullets flying . . . we need to think
about that because this graphic shows how stupid cops can be when it comes
to flying bullets. And the reason it comes to mind is that I was a part
of a Marine recon unit that set up ambushes in Vietnam, and I have a lasting respect for
the deadly potential of fratricidal fire. I mean, there is a good reason why
ambushes and firing squads are not circular and yet what you have in Fig. 6 is,
essentially, a diagram of a suicidal circular firing squad -- five cops in a circle with their guns
drawn, all pointing at one another. "B," you will note, is
in the line of fire of "E." Conversely, "E" is in the
line of fire of "B." And "A" and "D" form a
similar couplet of mutually suicidal cops. Mrs. Scott was initially
next to the right, front wheel of CC-4 -- right in the middle of this
frightening formation. But she was smart enough to back up to a position
so that the car was between her and this insanity. It is more than a minor miracle that Keith Scott
was the only person killed.
To make this whole situation even more
scary -- and more insane -- there is a phenomenon known amongst cops as
"sympathetic fire." It happens all the time and YouTube is full
to over-flowing of such cases, such as the executions
of Mario Woods in San Francisco and Milton Hall in
Saginaw. Sympathetic fire is when one member of a group of trigger-happy cops
pulls the trigger, and they all open up . . . just because. And so five
cops can spill 30 rounds into a suspect like Scott in a couple of seconds.
This happens so often in America that one must presume the cops are trained that
way, or maybe each cop figures he/she will win the Kewpie doll and get a paid vacation if one of their bullets hits the
hapless victim, which victim is often unarmed or
minimally armed with say, a knife, and could have been neutralized by a
single shot to a leg. If the Scott situation had been another example of
sympathetic fire, given the suicidal circular firing squad there surely would
have been multiple dead cops, a dead
wife, and, of
course, a dead Keith Scott, who would have been blamed for the whole thing. Fortunately, the only cop who opened up in this situation
was Vinson at position "E" who squeezed off four rounds within a
second and then stopped, probably because nobody else was firing.
And so please look at the NYT diagram of all of
the fire-power organized in a suicidal circle around Scott and consider this:
The underlying problem that precipitated this cluster-fuck, in the cops'
view, was that Scott had a single joint and he had a gun in a holster -- in a state where open
carry is legal. If you don't see the insanity in this, you would do us all a
favor, especially if you are a cop, to find yourself four like-minded souls and form your own
suicidal, circular firing squad out in a desert somewhere where no one
else will get hurt.
But getting back to the three witnesses and how
we know they are spinning a whopper about a white cop killing Scott, which appears to be a choreographed
whopper, Mrs. Scott told CBS that she could
see four of the five cops: A, B, C, and Vinson (E). But she said
Vinson was too far away to be "part of the action" and that is
the reason she knows Vinson was not the killer. What bullspit! We
can see exactly who Mrs. Scott could see and where they were by looking at
her own video, Vid03.
Fig. 7. Screen-grabs from Vid03. Elapsed times indicated.
Fig. 7 is a montage of three screen-grabs
from Mrs. Scott's video. These, in conjunction with Fig. 6, provide an
accurate description of what and who she could see at the moment her
husband was shot and just before.
Mrs. Scott initially moved toward the
crime-scene from the east until she was even with the front fender of
CC-4, the marked cop-car. Then she backed-up past the rear of CC-4. The image above
at 00:45 is when she began to move back. Cop "D" is clearly
visible adjacent the right tail-light of CC-2 and is pointing his gun at
Scott's SUV. Scott has not emerged from his vehicle at this point. (Cop
"D" did not have a white shirt on, he had a grey
shirt. Cop "C" was the only white cop in a white shirt and he
was on the passenger side of Scott's SUV. Mrs. Scott did not mention
"D", and contrary to her assertion, it would not have been
possible for her to see "C." The only other cop in a white
shirt was Vinson.)
Eight seconds later, at 00:53, Mrs. Scott
is standing well behind CC-4, at an angle from its right tail-light. "D's"
head is barely visible over the top of CC-4, his gun is not visible. Keith
Scott is standing inside the ring of the suicidal, circular firing-squad.
In the next image,
at 00:58, Mrs. Scott's position has not changed but she has rotated to her
right. Keith Scott and Red ("B") are clearly visible. Vinson's ("E") bald head
is barely visible as he steps out of a shadow and into the sun. Comparing
00:53 and 00:58, one can see that at 00:53 Scott was looking more toward his right were "A"
was positioned. And then at 00:58, as Vinson steps into the sun, Scott
turns his head to his left to look at Vinson, and that is when the
shooting starts. In the vid from "A's" bodycam, Vid01, this
interaction between Scott and the cops is quite clear. Here is Fig.
5 from Part I that shows Vinson in the shadow to Scott's left, before
Scott sees him.
Fig. 5. (Part I) Arrow "A" shadow of
Scott's L hand.
Arrow "B" Vinson. Vid01/00:20.
But with respect to Mrs. Scott's
allegation that a white cop shot her husband, contrary to what she claims,
she could not have seen cops "A" or "C", and it is highly unlikely she
saw Vinson who was in the shadow and behind CC- 2. The only cops she
could have seen for certain were Red and "D." (She might
have seen Vinson after he emerged from the shadow, but I doubt it.
His presence is so subtle on her video that I initially missed seeing his head even
after reviewing the video multiple times. Even if she could have seen
Vinson's shiny, bald head, she was not in a position to see whether or not
he was pointing his gun at her husband. But one thing is absolutely clear
from at least two videos, including her own: contrary to what Mrs. Scott
alleges, Vinson was absolutely "a part of the action." He was
one of the closest, if not the closest, cop to Keith Scott.)
From what I have seen online, Mrs. Scott
says Vinson did not shoot her husband, but she has not gone so far as to identify which white cop she is alleging
did. However, Williams and Maclean are not so coy.
claimed that "the black officer" did not arrive on the scene for
15 minutes. (Vid06/00:25) Well, as has already been pointed out by
others (Vid06), that is clearly a lie -- Vinson is shown pointing
his gun at Scott before the shooting (above) and wandering all over the crime-scene as
soon as Scott goes down.
Moreover, Williams says that the killer-cop was white and "bald-headed."
(Vid06/00:17) I invite my readers to examine Fig. 6 above
to determine for themselves which of the five cops present at the scene
was bald. Hint: there is only one and he's also the only one who wouldn't
qualify for a complimentary membership in the local KKK. We come back to Ms. Williams and more of her lies below.
Then there is Maclean who was adamant that the
killer-cop was white, bald, and had on a red shirt. Well, Red
("B") was the only cop there wearing a red shirt. But he clearly
is not bald; Vinson was the only bald cop. So what the hell is
Maclean talking about?
Furthermore, the videos disprove because they prove beyond any doubt that Red could not have
shot Scott. When the shots are heard, Red
is visible in two videos: Vid02/01:41 and Vid03/00:58. In neither one can
a muzzle-flash be seen coming from Red's weapon. But more to the point, Vid02
shows that the white F-150 (CC-1) was between Red's gun and Scott. Red
was not aiming at anything but was moving to his right to get behind the cab of the truck, (probably) trying to get out of
Vinson's line of fire as Vinson moved in for the kill. Maclean's
fabrication that the cop in the red shirt killed Scott is outrageous.
More Williams' whoppers
Fig. 8. Taheshia Williams
The additional whoppers spun by Williams
are so egregious they deserve a section all to themselves. Above I have
addressed her twisted "eye-witness" account about seeing a bald
white cop kill Scott. Here I want
to illustrate how far and wide her mendacity goes, particularly with
respect to her
statements broadcast by Al Jazeera, Vid05.
At 01:44 Williams claims that Scott got out
of his car with his hands up. This is not true and is precisely the sort
of falsehood someone would spread if they were hoping to provoke rioting
in these post-"Hands Up, Don't Shoot" days.
We can clearly see Scott getting out of the car in Vid01
and Vid02 -- if his hands ever get higher than his waist it is only
momentarily and not caught by the vids, but his hands are certainly never "up." Williams even
gives us a visual version of her mendacity by putting her own hands up to
demonstrate what she said Scott did. It never happened.
AT 01:49 Williams claims that when Scott
"got out the car, the book fell off his lap, the book he was
reading." Now, Scott had been sitting in his SUV with tinted windows,
parked under the deep shade of a tree. Even though Vid02 is taken from a dashcam that is
only a few yards from that SUV, you cannot see Scott or anything else
in the car. And when the bodycam moves right up to the SUV, you still
cannot see inside. (Vid01/00:11) The same is true for Mrs. Scott's vid, Vid03. It
a few yards from the SUV and you cannot see into the car because of the
tinted windows and harsh reflections. In order for Williams to have seen
Scott reading a book in the car, she would have had to have been standing
next to the driver's door with her nose pressed to the window.
Fig. 9. Williams claimed she could see Scott
reading a book in this car. Vid02/01:20
As for her seeing a book fall off of
Scott's lap, again the videos call her out. There is no indication of
any book falling in either of the videos that show Scott leaving the
vehicle. Even more telling is the fact that the videos show clearly the
pavement around Scott's SUV after he was shot, and there is no book on the ground.
Moreover, with Scott surround by cops and cop-cars it is highly unlikely that
Williams could have been anywhere near enough to see the things she claims
Fig. 10. If Scott dropped a book as he got out,
it disappeared as soon as it hit the ground.
At 01:57 Williams claims that when Scott
got out of his SUV with his hands up, he walked to the rear of his
car. Again, it never happened. Scott stepped away from the
driver's side door, turned 180 degrees to face cop "A," and began walking backwards toward
the front of his car. If he had walked to the rear of his car he
would have walked right into "A," whose bodycam was filming what
we see Fig. 10.
At 02:00 Williams claims that Mrs Scott
came running and by the time she reached the scene, ". . . they had
shot that man four times." More mendacity, as shown by Mrs. Scott's own
video. Mrs. Scott was at the scene for almost a
minute (50 seconds, precisely) before the shots are
My guess is that Taheshia Williams being on the
stand would be any lawyer's total nightmare, except the lawyer
cross-examining her. If she is, at some point, called to the stand, she
could not repeat these assertions and allegations without exposing herself
to an indictment for perjury.
At the end of this long, 2-part analysis, I feel like
I have a pretty solid understanding of what happened, and I hope I
have conveyed to my readers a sequence of events that is the most
consistent with the video and autopsy evidence. The sequence I have pieced it together from the videos is as follows:
[We do not know what happened in the initial
interaction between the cops and Keith Scott because there is no
video record of that interaction. According to the Washington
Post, the undercover cops saw the ankle-holster when Scott
got out of the car the first time, and as a result they got their
body protection on and initiated the confrontation that resulted
in Scott's death.]
The earliest view of the crime-scene is 50 seconds
before Scott was killed. (Vid03/00:01) At that time three of four
cop-cars were already at the scene and four of the five cops were
already deployed into their suicidal, circular firing-squad.
Scott was in the driver's seat of his SUV
surround by the CMPD cops. It is not possible from the videos to see or to
deduce what Scott was doing inside the vehicle.
Scott got out of his vehicle without putting his hands up.
No book fell to the ground.
With his right hand he hiked-up his right pant leg
to show cop "A", the cop with the bodycam, his weapon in
Scott took five steps backwards in a totally
non-aggressive, non-threatening manner without any sudden moves.
There is no perceptible reason for any person, much less a trained
cop, to pee their panties and fire their weapon. None.
Vinson, a few yards to Scott's left, moved around
the front of Scott's SUV and toward Scott, moving from the shadows
into the bright light.
Scott slowly looked to his left at Vinson and at
that point Vinson opened fire without any visible provocation
or justification. He pulled the trigger four
times. His premeditation and his intent to kill Scott must be
beyond doubt of any objective analysis.
The first bullet to hit Scott hit him either on
the left side of his abdomen or his left wrist. Scott reacted by
reaching across his body with his right hand and bending forward
at the waist, leaning toward Vinson.
At that point another bullet entered
Scott's left, rear shoulder above and to the right of his arm pit. In
response to this second hit, Scott stood up, spun almost 180
degrees to his right (clockwise) and fell face down.
Cop "B", aka "Red," hesitated
momentarily and then rushed up to Scott's right side.
Red squatted down, reached out, and took Scott's
gun out of its holster. He slid the gun through his legs back
toward the curb before standing up.
Using his foot, Red then kicked the gun farther away from
Scott and toward the curb. He then stood over the gun for 2
minutes until Vinson took up the same position guarding the gun.
The furtive nature of Redís movements are cause for concern. Why
didnít he merely reach down, take the pistol out of Scottís
holster, empty it, and put it in a safe place, like a pocket? If
he was worried about fingerprints, there were sure a lot of rubber
gloves around, including some he pulled out of his own pocket. And
why did he leave the gun on the ground and guard it? The
impression one gets is that Red, while not technically
"dropping" the weapon, was attempting to make it appear
that Scott himself had dropped the weapon.
At some point someone picked the gun up, removed
the clip, moved the slide backwards to eject any round that may
have been in the chamber, thereby cocking the weapon. They then
placed the cocked weapon back on the pavement, safety-side up, and
it was photographed on the pavement in that condition.
In addition to the expected lies and
deceptive language coming from the cops, this story is also burdened by its
share of lying civilians. In my
opinion it looks like Rakeyia Scott, Taheshia Williams, and Tracey
Maclean may have cooked up the story about a white cop killing Keith
Scott. And the reason I say it is that neither the video evidence nor the CMPD's own statements
support the allegation that a white cop shot Scott. That simply did
not happen. All three women alleging something that clearly didn't
happen does not smell good. It is just too incredible for a reasonable
person to buy. But why would they do that?
During the CBS interview Mrs. Scott throws
the race card right out on the table when she said that in her opinion the
role race played in her husband's shooting was "100 percent."
But, as the interviewer points out, that sounds a bit weak seeing as how
it was a black cop who pulled the trigger on Scott. And so, in order to
keep the race card in play, Mrs. Scott made the outrageous assertion
-- supported by nothing more than absurd "eye-witness"
stories from Williams and Maclean -- that a white cop killed
And yet it was a black man who shot her husband. And
it was white cops who were trying to save his life while the black cop just
wandered around the scene. Racism was not responsible for Scott's death,
but it seems to me that it is the driving factor in the false allegations
that Scott was killed by a white cop.
It seems to me that all
of the liars -- official and unofficial, cops, lawyers, witnesses . . .
whomever -- just need to get the hell out
of the way so the rest of us can figure out what happened.
And what really
bugs me, what, with this being North Carolina and all, if it had been
Sheriff Andy Taylor, or even Barney Fife, who confronted Scott, they would
have just tapped on Scott's window and asked if everything was alright,
and, if not, Aunt Bea would have been there with a cup of tea. Or
maybe not. Come to think of it, all the years I watched that show, I never
did see any black people in that mythical Mayberry, North Carolina.
But white cops did not make the decision to
kill Keith Scott, and they did not pull their triggers. It looks to me that Vinson shot Scott at almost point-blank range
without any provocation, without any valid claim of self-defense, and with
plenty of time to contemplate and understand the consequences of what he
was doing: putting as many rounds as he could in the target presented by Scott's tee-shirt. In other words, it looks like premeditated murder to
me -- black-on-black. It was the white cops who tried to save
Scott's life and who may have tried to protect Vinson by playing funny
with the gun.
Now let's see if the black people of
Charlotte want to take that to the streets. I would if I was them
because even if this was not a "racial" incident, this shit just has to stop regardless
what color the cops pulling the