Ed Indictment in Breonna Taylor case.

[shuttlt]

First of all, yes you do have to provide evidence that they told the truth. That’s exactly how this skepticism thing works.

No it isn't. That is how being an advocate for a claim works.

Secondly, my evidence does not consist of “additional claims” (so far, you’re the only one who’s been caught with their hand in that particular cookie jar), it consists of pointing out the contradictions and deceptive language in their claims.

If we stick to just what has been said, all they claim is that the USPI said packages addressed to Glover were going to Taylor's address. That hasn't been contradicted, unless "packages of interest" means "packages addressed to Glover". That hasn't been established yet.

The evidence for my belief has been provided. So, so many times. You just choose to hand-wave it away with plausibility-torturing narratives that you have concocted out of thin air.

I'm not hand waving it away with narratives. You need "packages of interest" to be equivalent to "packages for Glover" in the quote from the USPI and/or you need the police to not have gotten their information relating to the USPI via the other agency we know the USPI was communicating with on the case. Neither of those things have been proved, though of course they may yet be.

 

[shuttlt]

Also, he may not have even hit the police officer, it may have been self-inflicted gunshot.

https://www.fox23.com/news/trending...es-suit-her-death/USNLHXVM4JAGFMYS5JBOZI2CMU/

That does seem a little bit unlikely doesn't it? From memory, there was only one bullet of that calibre (9mm) found. The calibre matched his weapon. I think Hankinson had been issued with a 9mm, but that wasn't what he is in trouble for firing through the window. Presumably even if the bullet isn't marked enough to match to a gun, it is at least going to be clear whether the wound to the officer was front to back, or back to front.

The only thing I can think of that agrees with this theory is Walker's description of firing as a warning shot before he had seen the officers. That at the moment is pretty clearly in conflict with Mattingly's description of events where he had time to perceive Walker and Taylor in the corridor before he was shot.

 

[johnny karate]

If we stick to just what has been said, all they claim is that the USPI said packages addressed to Glover were going to Taylor's address. That hasn't been contradicted, unless "packages of interest" means "packages addressed to Glover". That hasn't been established yet.

The police claim that they spoke to the postal inspector.

The postal inspector says they didn’t.

That’s a contradiction.

I'm not hand waving it away with narratives. You need "packages of interest" to be equivalent to "packages for Glover" in the quote from the USPI and/or you need the police to not have gotten their information relating to the USPI via the other agency we know the USPI was communicating with on the case. Neither of those things have been proved, though of course they may yet be.

It has already been confirmed that the police claimed to have spoken directly to the postal inspector.

Again, the postal inspector contradicts this claim.

Furthermore, even if the police did speak to the postal inspector, they failed to disclose the results of the investigation that they referenced in the warrant in order to make something seem suspicious that had already been determined not to be.

Plenty of reason to believe the police are lying.

No reason to believe they are telling the truth.

 

[johnny karate]

It hasn't been contradicted. There has been a statement that may, once it is clarified, contradict it. You are in too much of a hurry to come to conclusions.

The police claim that they spoke to the postal inspector.

The postal inspector says they didn’t.

That’s a contradiction.

 

[lobosrul5]

That does seem a little bit unlikely doesn't it? From memory, there was only one bullet of that calibre (9mm) found. The calibre matched his weapon. I think Hankinson had been issued with a 9mm, but that wasn't what he is in trouble for firing through the window. Presumably even if the bullet isn't marked enough to match to a gun, it is at least going to be clear whether the wound to the officer was front to back, or back to front.

The only thing I can think of that agrees with this theory is Walker's description of firing as a warning shot before he had seen the officers. That at the moment is pretty clearly in conflict with Mattingly's description of events where he had time to perceive Walker and Taylor in the corridor before he was shot.

Ohh, I hadn't heard the police were not carrying 9mm's. Where did you see that? 9x19mm is pretty much ubiquitous in the police world in the USA these days, other than some small rural forces.

 

[shuttlt]

The police claim that they spoke to the postal inspector.

The postal inspector says they didn’t.

That’s a contradiction.

The police didn't claim this. They said they verified some information through the Portal Inspector. They didn't say that they had spoken to the Postal Inspector directly.

It has already been confirmed that the police claimed to have spoken directly to the postal inspector.

Not in any of the primary sources we have access to.

Furthermore, even if the police did speak to the postal inspector, they failed to disclose the results of the investigation that they referenced in the warrant in order to make something seem suspicious that had already been determined not to be.

That wouldn't be a lie though. I'm open to the idea that they should have stated this. It would reflect pretty poorly if the judge read that warrant and assumed the postal inspector found something in the packages that was illegal and the police just didn't mention it. Presumably the police don't list all the checks that they made that came up with nothing? Anyway, I'm not focused on whether the warrant was good or not.

Plenty of reason to believe the police are lying.

Time may yet tell.

No reason to believe they are telling the truth.

You seem to have a hair trigger for believing the police lied.

 

[shuttlt]

Ohh, I hadn't heard the police were not carrying 9mm's. Where did you see that? 9x19mm is pretty much ubiquitous in the police world in the USA these days, other than some small rural forces.

This isn't the best source for it, but:
https://eu.courier-journal.com/stor...-taylor-fact-check-7-rumors-wrong/5326938002/

Moreover, no blood is visible in a photograph of the hollow-point bullet fired from Walker's 9 mm Glock, he added. The photograph is under a court seal.

Based on consults with pathologists, Walker's hollow-point bullet would have done "considerably" more damage to Mattingly's thigh, Romines contends.

Cameron rebutted Romines' theory, saying Mattingly was struck by a 9 mm round. Officers on scene all carried .40 caliber handguns, he said.

But a Kentucky State Police ballistics report doesn't fully support Cameron's assertion.

The KSP report says “due to limited markings of comparative value,” the 9-mm bullet that hit and exited Mattingly was neither “identified nor eliminated as having been fired” from Walker’s gun.

I guess they are disputing that he was struck by the 9mm at all.

I'd have thought it would still be coming down to whether the entry wound was in the front or back of the leg.

It seems kind of academic though. He admits shooting the warning shot first. Unless Walker's lawyers can prove the he didn't shoot Mattingly, and hence Mattingly is lying, I don't see this changing anything fundamental.

 

[johnny karate]

The police didn't claim this. They said they verified some information through the Portal Inspector. They didn't say that they had spoken to the Postal Inspector directly.

Evidence has been provided to the contrary.

Not in any of the primary sources we have access to.

But the evidence has been provided nonetheless, and you have provided no evidence that invalidates it.

That wouldn't be a lie though. I'm open to the idea that they should have stated this. It would reflect pretty poorly if the judge read that warrant and assumed the postal inspector found something in the packages that was illegal and the police just didn't mention it. Presumably the police don't list all the checks that they made that came up with nothing? Anyway, I'm not focused on whether the warrant was good or not.

But you are focused on defending the police, and this defense of their blatant deception is weak-sauce word salad.

You seem to have a hair trigger for believing the police lied.

No, it’s based on the sound reasoning I have laid out in this thread more times than I can count.

 

[johnny karate]

Louisville police were repeatedly told there were no packages, "suspicious or otherwise," delivered to Breonna Taylor's home in connection to a drug investigation, according to testimony in an internal LMPD report

Judge says she is 'concerned' detective may have lied to get Breonna Taylor search warrant

Yikes.

Things are not looking good for the diehard fanboys of the police.

 

[pgwenthold]

Louisville police were repeatedly told there were no packages, "suspicious or otherwise," delivered to Breonna Taylor's home in connection to a drug investigation, according to testimony in an internal LMPD report.

Asked about this during the LMPD interview on May 18, Salyer said packages could have been delivered and received under another name to the address.

Like, "Breonna Taylor."

I mean, how suspicious would that be? She is getting packages sent to her place in her own name!!!!!!

 

[shuttlt]

Louisville police were repeatedly told there were no packages, "suspicious or otherwise," delivered to Breonna Taylor's home in connection to a drug investigation, according to testimony in an internal LMPD report

Judge says she is 'concerned' detective may have lied to get Breonna Taylor search warrant

Yikes.

Things are not looking good for the diehard fanboys of the police.

Finally you have found something to back up your claim. I agree, this looks to be evidence that the statement made by the police on the warrant was false. You see? All you need is evidence, and I start agreeing with you.

 

[johnny karate]

Finally you have found something to back up your claim. I agree, this looks to be evidence that the statement made by the police on the warrant was false. You see? All you need is evidence, and I start agreeing with you.

Well, it’s more like I have provided additional evidence that further demonstrates my belief is correct.

But I understand that you’re pretty much painted into a corner and you need to save face, so you do you.

 

[shuttlt]

Wait a moment. If we are now saying that police were told about the packages by the USPI, doesn't this mean you were wrong about the communications between the USPI and the police? You ridiculed me for thinking that the USPI statement didn't rule out the possibility that the police had been informed of the USPI findings. Now you are elated that you have demonstrated one of the things I hadn't previously accepted your "proofs" for, while also demonstrating that possibilities you dismissed out of hand were in fact true.

 

[johnny karate]

Wait a moment. If we are now saying that police were told about the packages by the USPI, doesn't this mean you were wrong about the communications between the USPI and the police? You ridiculed me for thinking that the USPI statement didn't rule out the possibility that the police had been informed of the USPI findings. Now you are elated that you have demonstrated one of the things I hadn't previously accepted your "proofs" for, while also demonstrating that possibilities you dismissed out of hand were in fact true.

I mocked you for making up something independent of the evidence.

I provided evidence that contradicted your made-up claim.

You dismissed that evidence for no valid reason.

However, it now appears that evidence is in dispute because of contradictory claims made by the police. So be it. I guess when you’re dealing with liars, things like that happen.

This doesn’t render correct anything you’ve claimed or your methodology to arrive at those claims, and it certainly does nothing to diminish the inescapable fact that the police drafted a bogus warrant that resulted in someone getting killed.

 

[banquetbear]

You've probably missed the bit where almost every post I explain how I am not attempting to prove that the police were telling the truth, since that isn't my claim.

...you've probably missed the bit where almost every post I explain how I am not attempting to prove that the police were lying, since that isn't my claim.

I don't know how this is such a struggle to understand, but if it helps, I will explain it again... I do not know if the police told the truth about their interaction with USPI, I do not claim that the police told the truth about their interaction with USPI, Johnny Karate made a claim that they lied, Johnny Karate is the one who needs to evidence his claim.

I don't know how this is such a struggle to understand, but if it helps, I will explain it again... I do not know if the police lied about their interaction with USPI, I do not claim that the police lied about their interaction with USPI, you said Johnny Karate failed to show the police lied, I said you failed to show the police told the truth.

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.

I am referring to the statement in the warrant about being registered in multiple databases. Sure, yes... Glover isn't a DBA and didn't register himself directly on multiple databases.

That was what your statement implied.

The police are checking multiple databases that record instances where he has given his home address as hers. We are aware that at least one of the places he used her address was with his bank.

So another great big nothing then. A bad guy does bad guy things. Breonna Taylor does nothing. Yet you want to make her out to be the bad guy.

Your agenda is painfully obvious.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The latest Opening Arguments podcast went into this case for maybe 15-20 minutes, if anybody is interested in their take.

 

[Checkmite]

Holy crap.

A Kentucky judge has ruled that grand jurors in the Breonna Taylor case are allowed to speak publicly about the case. Shortly after that ruling, two jurors did speak up - and what they had to say is frankly shocking:

(CNN)The Breonna Taylor grand jury was not given an opportunity to consider homicide charges in the case against police officers who served a no-knock warrant at her home the night she was killed, an anonymous member of the panel said Tuesday.

"The grand jury did not have homicide offenses explained to them," the anonymous grand juror wrote in a statement issued by attorney Kevin Glogower. "The grand jury never heard about those laws. Self defense or justification was never explained either."

The grand juror said the panel was only presented with wanton endangerment charges against one officer involved the police shooting in March. A second grand juror, who also stepped forward to ask about speaking publicly about the case, said Tuesday they were discussing next steps with counsel.
"Questions were asked about additional charges and the grand jury was told there would be none because the prosecutors didn't feel they could make them stick," the first juror's statement said.

"The grand jury didn't agree that certain actions were justified, nor did it decide the indictment should be the only charges in the Breonna Taylor case. The grand jury was not given the opportunity to deliberate on those charges and deliberated only on what was presented to them. I can't speak for other jurors but I can help the truth be told."

The failure of homicide charges to materialize against the directly-involved officers has consistently been spun and heavily implied by Kentucky AG Cameron to be the result of the grand jury being shown all of the evidence and deciding that homicide charges weren't warranted based on that evidence. In fact, the grand jury was never allowed to even hear evidence relating to the direct shootings or the officers involved, let alone decide on homicide charges against them.

 

[pgwenthold]

"The prosecutor didn't think it would stick"

Isn't that the job of the grand jury?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Holy crap.

A Kentucky judge has ruled that grand jurors in the Breonna Taylor case are allowed to speak publicly about the case. Shortly after that ruling, two jurors did speak up - and what they had to say is frankly shocking:



The failure of homicide charges to materialize against the directly-involved officers has consistently been spun and heavily implied by Kentucky AG Cameron to be the result of the grand jury being shown all of the evidence and deciding that homicide charges weren't warranted based on that evidence. In fact, the grand jury was never allowed to even hear evidence relating to the direct shootings or the officers involved, let alone decide on homicide charges against them.

The DA lied about this explicitly in the immediate news conference after the grand jury indictments came out, stating it was the GJ had declined to indict.

From Daniel Cameron's public statement at the time:

While there are six possible homicide charges under Kentucky law, these charges are not applicable to the facts before us because our investigation showed, and the grand jury agreed, that Mattingly and Cosgrove were justified in the return of deadly fire after having been fired upon by Kenneth Walker. Let me state that again: According to Kentucky law, the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in Miss Breonna Taylor's death.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/23/what-we-know-about-breonna-taylor-case-announcement/5415646002/

Cameron chose not to pursue these charges and pinned the responsibility on the Grand Jury. Now we know that the Grand Jury never even had the option presented.

 

[Trebuchet]

"The prosecutor didn't think it would stick"

Isn't that the job of the grand jury?

The job of the grand jury is to indict ham sandwiches, but only if the prosecutor wants them to.