Exhibits‎ > ‎exhibit 3‎ > ‎

exhibit3a


S. Becerra's initial/Resgesae statement: With, No "officer identifications"No shouting prior to the shooting. The shouting took place after the shooting.
 [1]  She and her houseguests were frightened, and she wouldn't open her door. 
She also has absolutely no reason to lie one way or the other; not for me not for the cops even if she actually knew the specifics of this incident and wanted to take a side.  Nor would she have had the time to make up or fabricate such a lie. .  (Also see Steven and White's initial statements before any contamination by the two detectives, or anyone else and/or before they had time to think up something better.)[2]  
(Also see Buck”) 
 
In fact all nearby [not-a-cop] witnesses give this same basic accounting. -Of not hearing any shouting or "officer Identifications" prior to the shooting.  (And all cops are on record with 3 or 4 different accountings each.) 
 
 

                                                                                              (Next page 3b/ D. Gallo)

 



[1] It’s my contention that it is because of this/her statements here [with NO officer identification, with NO shouting until after the shooting] that NO other near-by witnesses were asked if they’d heard anything.

[2] Like K. Stevens, later remembering (at trial), that he was hit in the face with bullet debris, even though it wasn’t mentioned in any earlier reports (I mean after all who’s going to whine about a little ‘bullet debris’ hitting them in the face? –the wrong side of his face, physically impossible as shown by the actual-physical evidence).  And White remembering he heard the wrong identification/ announcement. 

 

Comments