Setting aside all of the peripheral evidence, the case came down to two witnesses for the prosecution stating they saw McCowan and Molens attack Gladney, versus a witness for the defense who made the claim that Kenneth started the "fight" by slapping the hand of Elston McCowan.First of all, that's not technically true. It was up to the jury to determine if there was evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the two defendants assaulted Gladney. Even if one witness was "more credible" than another, that wouldn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (BTW, as I've previously noted, the prosecution's witness John Mirelli does not seem very credible).
It was up to the jury to determine which witness testimony was most reliable
Anyway, they identify the witness as the woman with the cane in this video, seen in the screen shot below.
Their speculation that this is the witness is correct. Hilariously, Gladney had previously claimed that this woman had also assaulted him (Gladney's huge number of inconsistent statements and changing stories about the case are another major consideration in the jury's verdict, of course).
Anyway, the tea party speculation about the witness is just plain dumb:
The full video: You can see her just a few seconds in, clearly getting to the scene after it occurred.Actually, as anyone familiar with the case knows, the initial incident did not take place at the curb, but rather by the button board nearer to the camera, right where the woman is walking in the screen shot. The video was shown while the witness was testifying, and the lawyers asked her questions about it. There's nothing in her statement that would indicate that she was lying.
As we verify the identity of this witness that stepped forward two years after the fact, it seems fair to question if she perjured herself, seeing as she arrived after the assault occurred.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
What this does show is that another biased assumption of the tea party turned out to be false. They claimed that there "were no other witnesses." How did they know that? Obviously, they didn't know that. They just assumed it based on limited information, and it then became a piece of Tea Party Gospel. The reason McCowan and Molens were originally arrested was because the police were approached by the tea party and only ended up interviewing three people, all of whom were tea party activists. This is the same night that the police ridiculously arrested Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman, and also arrested Brian Matthews for "resisting arrest," a claim later disproved by video of the event.
Update: Like moths drawn to the Burning Flame of Teh Stupid, Jim Hoft and Dana Loesch are now promoting this idiotic conspiracy.
Posts
Great work on this case from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI diared about this on Daily Kos and linked to you
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/13/994312/-Two-years-of-Tea-Party-right-wing-lies,exposed-as-hoax?via=siderecent
Agreed. Reading through your posts on the Gladney trial, yup, it's quite clear that the jury ruled correctly.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I'm glad that you are able to keep a level head about this stuff. I've been so tempted to just say "Gladney's a con man and the whole business was a set up." but, of course, even thought there's a lot of evidence that various people, including Gladney, lied about this business, there's also no real evidence that this was some grand conspiracy. I'm sure at this point many people really believe Gladney, Brietbart, Hoft, and Co., perhaps they even believe themselves. But, doh, the evidence all around clearly demonstrates that Gladney was not assaulted and they all owe Molens and McCowen an apology.