WSUwarrior
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,864
- Reaction score
- 493
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
The prosecutor has already acknowledged to the Court that the witness made the previous statements that were reported on. You know, those that he denied making.
But she is also trying to control the narrative. When she stops, the first hand information will be made available.
Notwithstanding? Wut? What he heard is first hand information. Don't confuse that with any characterization he attributed to what he heard.Curious...
How can there be any first-hand information as to what happened in the compartment where Gray was contained when he was the only person transported in that side of the police van and no one saw what happened? The quoted "ear-witnesses" side of the story notwithstanding, no one actually saw what happened. So, where exactly would this first-hand information come from?
Curious...
How can there be any first-hand information as to what happened in the compartment where Gray was contained when he was the only person transported in that side of the police van and no one saw what happened? The quoted "ear-witnesses" side of the story notwithstanding, no one actually saw what happened. So, where exactly would this first-hand information come from?
Oh G-d! :dohbut the defense is curiously letting the prosecution control the narrative by not showing anyone this alleged video.
Oh G-d! :doh
Letting?
Are you not following this case?
The defense had just received the evidence.
That is not the defense letting the prosecution do anything.
Presently they are waiting on a Judge to decided if the information will be released to the public, as Mosby asked the Judge for a protective order.
The defense opposed her motion. That also is not the defense "letting" her control the narrative.
To suggest that defense is "letting" her control the narrative is ridiculous.
:dohAnd leaks have never happened in the history of US criminal court. I mean, never. No damning information has ever found its way into the hand of the press anonymously. Nope, that has never happened, not even once.
:doh
1. Your position is premature.
Again.
The defense had just received the evidence.
That is not the defense letting the prosecution do anything.
What did you not understand about the above?
2. The new info was based on a leak. :doh
Obviously you just don't like the type of leak it was.
Oh look, another post of reality twisting.You have a ton of gall to call my demand to see the evidence "premature" while you sit there pontificating on what this alleged evidence means.
I mean, you haven't seen it either. So why are *you* so sure? Premature, indeed!
:doh:slapme::dohAll I have asked for (for months!) was a first hand source for your claim. You still have yet to provide one. It's cute to watch you act like you finally have something though. Like watching a baby deer try to walk.
Oh look, another post of reality twisting.
No, it is you who has a ton of gall to dishonestly deflect from was actually said and try to make it about something else.
Again.
You were the one saying;
"but the defense is curiously letting the prosecution control the narrative by not showing anyone this alleged video."
When they were not "lettign them do anything.
Your position was shown to be premature, and simply wrong.
1. The information was just released to the defense by the prosecution.
That means they just got it and had nothing to do with "letting" as you absurdly and prematurely asserted.
2. What has brought us to this point was a leak, supposedly by the defense, again showing that the defense is not "letting" as you ridiculously asserted.
But please continue showing all that you chose to be dishonest. It is fun to watch.
As for pontificating? iLOL
You just don't like the evidence, that is why you try to deflect away from it.
The most absurd was you pointing out that the witness recanted when it was apparent why he was changing what he said. :lamo
:doh:slapme::doh
And all this was you playing a game.
You had the information from the article which was what it was about.
They attributed the quote to the witness. Period. You not wanting to admit that was your silly game. Nothing more.
Even the Prosecutor attributed the "snippets" to him. Yet you still want to play your silly game. Sad. Truly sad.
Notwithstanding? Wut? What he heard is first hand information. Don't confuse that with any characterization he attributed to what he heard.
A person who hears banging and yelling would be first hand information that they heard banging and yelling. That would included the witness and at least the driver.
“I had two options today right, [1]either come and talk to y’all and get my credibility straight with ya’ll and not get killed by these f***ers or [2]not tell a true story,” Allen said. “The only reason I’m doing this is because they put my name in a bad state.”
:naughtyYou still confuse a secondhand source with a firsthand source.
You are only speaking of your own behavior.Your ego simply won't let you examine this objectively.
And again, this is you as I haven't been wrong at all.You are wrong. You have been wrong for months.
Not once have you been able to refute the fact that the author attributed the quote to the witness. So instead all you have done is twist and deflect to avoid the reality of it.You twist and duck and dive and avoid the basic argument blatantly - you have no firsthand source, and your report of someone else's second or third hand account is that much farther removed from any kind of evidence.
:doh Wrong as usual.When I see or hear this tape of Donta Allen saying what he allegedly said, we can have a discussion of the actual words and phrasing used. Until then, YOU ARE SPECULATING.
A first hand account is a first hand account, regardless of whether it is a an ear, or eye witness.I asked because per your post #599 you came across as if there was an actual first-hand account of what happened from an actual eye witness.
[...]
Ok...just wanted some clarification on this first-hand accounting claim.
Dismissal?But other than this alleged video confession from Donta Allen that has neither been verified nor aired, there's really nothing new here.
You can let that bother you all you want.EDIT: One thing that continues to trouble me about Donta Allen's public "clarification of events" to the media was his reason for "coming clean".
Makes me wonder who was trying to kill him? Fellow drug/gang members or local police? And who are "they"? Police or media? What surprises me more is no one has actually questioned this before.
:laughat::naughty
No, I haven't confused anything. You have. Then you tried to change the goal posts becasue you simply refuse to admit the reality that the author clearly attributed the quote to the witness.
You are only speaking of your own behavior.
And again, this is you as I haven't been wrong at all.
Not once have you been able to refute the fact that the author attributed the quote to the witness. So instead all you have done is twist and deflect to avoid the reality of it.
:doh Wrong as usual.
No, I am not speculating. That is a dishonest assertion on your part.
I am relying on the information that we have been informed of.
Again. "Even the Prosecutor has acknowledged that those "snippets" were made by the witness." Which is just another thing that you dishonestly choose not to recognize.
Your whole post is nothing more than an example of dishonesty.
You argue agaisnt that which wasn't said and then refuse to acknowledge the different possibilities that I pointed out and then state the total opposite of what has occurred, and are just continuing to deflect from being wrong about your previous premature assertion of "letting" as well.
Truly sad.
A first hand account is a first hand account, regardless of whether it is a an ear, or eye witness.
The prosecutor has already acknowledged to the Court that the witness made the previous statements that were reported on. You know, those that he denied making.
But she is also trying to control the narrative. When she stops, the first hand information will be made available.
And when what is being spoken about is what the witness heard, that is what is being spoken about. How you think I came across is all on you. :shrug:
Come now, Excon. You're the one who made the claim:
So, all I asked was what first-hand account would that be? YOU spoke as if there was some new accounting of events that took place on Gray's side of the van, an account that had been witnessed by someone else whose identity has never been made public. Did you give a false impression here? I'd say you did since we're right back to the initial ear-witness whose assumptions of what he heard could have been anything. Could it have been Gray kicking the wall of the van? Could it have been him stumping on the floor? Could it have been his unconscious body bouncing around? You don't know precisely what happened or what caused those noises anymore than I do. But when you make such claims as "the first hand information will be made available," you come across as if NEW information (or a new accounting from an actual eye-witness to events) will be made public. And so far, nothing has come about to substantiate your claim. Still, I'll wait until all the facts come out on this case. Perhaps so should you.
Perhaps you should pick your words alittle more carefully and maybe they won't be misinterpreted. But when someone asks for clarification, the prudent thing to do would be the clarify, not deflect.
As to the rest of your commentary, it's all hearsay and conjecture anyway at this point since no one saw what actually happened and what one person believes they heard can be interpreted in several different ways. But like I said, we'll know more when the details start to come out at trial. Meanwhile, carry-on. :2wave:
:dohSo, you've seen the tape then?
Come now?Come now, Excon. You're the one who made the claim:
Which was lame.So, all I asked was what first-hand account would that be?
:dohYOU spoke as if there was some new accounting of events that took place on Gray's side of the van,
No, that was you making things up instead of paying attention.an account that had been witnessed by someone else whose identity has never been made public. Did you give a false impression here? I'd say you did since we're right back to the initial ear-witness whose assumptions of what he heard could have been anything.
And again, this is you not having paid attention to what was said, the context of the discussion or to that which it was said in reply. ([SUB]٭[/SUB])But when you make such claims as "the first hand information will be made available," you come across as if NEW information (or a new accounting from an actual eye-witness to events) will be made public.
:dohAnd so far, nothing has come about to substantiate your claim.
Deflection of the worst kind. Not only is it deflection, but hypocrisy as well.Still, I'll wait until all the facts come out on this case. Perhaps so should you.
I haven't deflected in the slightest.Perhaps you should pick your words alittle more carefully and maybe they won't be misinterpreted. But when someone asks for clarification, the prudent thing to do would be to provide clarity, not deflect.
Apparently you haven't paid attention at all throughout this topic.As to the rest of your commentary, it's all hearsay and conjecture
No to all of them.Could it have been Gray kicking the wall of the van? Could it have been him stumping on the floor? Could it have been his unconscious body bouncing around?
1. We are arguing what has been reported he heard. That is all we need to know for this portion of the discussion.You don't know precisely what happened or what caused those noises anymore than I do.
Not in this case.what one person believes they heard can be interpreted in several different ways.
No to all of them.
Obviously you are not paying attention to what has been reported. The last, "bouncing around", is eliminated by the fact that he said it was a "smooth ride".
Then purposely banging your head sounds differently than stomping and kicking. A head imparts a hollow sound and is not protected by footwear which would deaden any sound from kicking. Nor did he have much leverage to do any forceful kicking being shackled as he was.
Regardless, it is possible to differentiate, and as reported, he made that distinction.
How he differentiated, if it has not already been done, will be discovered. Whether that is believable will be another matter.
For all we know, he has had multiple rides in the back and based what he heard off of his own banging and kicking experience or from being next to another who has done it.
1. We are arguing what has been reported he heard. That is all we need to know for this portion of the discussion.
2. Banging your head sounds differently than stomping your feet or kicking the wall. If you do not understand that, please find a place that has a similar set up, ask to view one of these vans and do your own experimentation.
Not in this case.
Yelling and banging is yelling and banging.
Clarifying that it sounded like a "mad man" is not the same as "a little banging."
I do not always phrase my counter arguments in such a fashion. Only for those who are ignoring what was said or have clearly shown they do not understand.Why must you always phrase your counter arguments by questioning someone's intelligence, i.e, "if you do not understand..."? I find that to be most insulting and I'm sure I'm not the only one. You'd be better off (and sound far less like a pompous ass) if instead you said, "if you disagree...". A little politeness and common courtesy goes a long way.
:doh:slapme: :dohEDIT: Interesting...your opening reply, "Not all of them" referring to the head banging. So, there is some slight concession from you here. Very good. There's hope for you yet.
I'm just going to say "duly noted" and leave it at that.
Can we close the stable door on this thoroughly tenderised horseflesh?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?