WordPress version

                          

  About & Contact          Archives         Page One          Resource Pages          Topics Index          Art


Antinomian Opinion Page


October 17, 2016
Minor revisions, Oct19|2016

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

Denis R. O'Brien, PhD/Esq.
~
Part II -- Murder?
~


Keith Lamont Scott  
Feb03|1973 -- Sep20|2016

[PDF version of this article here]

Part I -- The Gun

 

In Part 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. 

The evidence

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 relied on.

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. Source: YT 

Vid 06: Media vid of Taheshia Williams. Source: YT 

Vid07: "Witness" Tracey McClean. Source: YT

Vid08: CBS interview with Rakeyia Scott, Oct13|16.  Source: YT 

The whoppers

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 valuable. In 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 
cops that 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. 

But, and 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 of the 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 no weapon."

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. 

It just 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) 
and RT. Oct13|2016 (lower)

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 Vinson.


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 there 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. (Vid01/12:46)

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, hit two 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 cop

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 people. 

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 him." (Vid06/00:13) 

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 shirt." (Vid07/01:00)

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 surnames!)


Fig. 6. NYT graphic reconstructing the crime scene and screen-grabs 
showing the five CMPD cops who formed the "suicidal circular firing squad."

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.  

Williams 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 is just 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 she saw. 


Fig. 10. If Scott dropped a book as he got out, 
it disappeared as soon as it hit the ground.
Vid01/00:17

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 heard.    

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.

Summary

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 its holster.

  • 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 Scott.    

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 triggers are.

 


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

 

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