Bryant charged VI

121 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fidel

Maybe the Liberal Party fat-cat was expecting to have his lights punched out for ramming Sheppard's bicycle, and so he murdered him as a pre-emptive manouver? I think I read Iggy saying something similar about murdering large numbers of people, as a  pre-emptive measure only, of course.

remind remind's picture
Unionist

So, remind, neither of your two articles has any statement by Bryant, and neither of your two articles mentions the word "carjacking".

Are you still sticking by your claim that Bryant told a "blatant lie"? I'm still sticking by my claim that Bryant hasn't said a single word.

 

martin dufresne

Re: origin of "fear of car jacking" whitewashing hypothesis.  It's Leonard Stern, for the Editorial Board of the Ottawa Citizen...

These are the circumstances in which Sheppard, shortly after, met up with the convertible. It was reported early on that the cyclist and driver had a verbal argument, but now there are reports that Sheppard tried to commandeer the vehicle, reaching in to grab the wheel and attack the driver.

Again, the precise details are still unknown but if this was, for all intents and purposes, an attempted car-jacking, then it's hard to blame the driver for flooring it...

(in the piece "Bryant's predicament, published September 4 here.)

So why not cool it with the accusatory bold and italic, Unionist!... It didn't "start with Sineed" as you wrote; it started at the highest level of one of the most respected newspapers in the country, as speculation as to what Bryant may have felt.  

remind remind's picture

Unionist wtf do you want, as your quote of my words indicate, I stated everyone is saying it FOR Bryant.

Navigators hand is quite obvious.

Unionist

remind wrote:
Unionist wtf do you want...

Accuracy. Caution. Facts, not rumours. Evidence. And "sorry, I was mistaken" when that is warranted.

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

So why not cool it with the accusatory bold and italic, Unionist!... It didn't "start with Sineed" as you wrote; it started at the highest level of one of the most respected newspapers in the country, as speculation as to what Bryant may have felt.  

So, Bryant gets called a "liar" when he said nothing at all. And I get told to "cool it" because of the font that I use. Martin, there's very good analysis and condemnation of our "just for the rich" justice system being made by many posters in this thread. When total BS is concocted and then repeated, however (such as "Bryant lied!!!"), it just looks very dumb. It certainly doesn't make the argument any more convincing.

 

 

writer writer's picture

Michael Bryant's team (*not* relevant to carjacking issue): bryantfacts on Twitter

With thanks to Tehanu @ enmasse: Spinning the first week of Michael Bryant's new life

(And with apologies - I now see that it's also at the top of this thread!)

martin dufresne

"bryantfacts on Twitter"

"Name Bryantfacts
Bio This account is maintained by Michael Bryant's team. The purpose of this account is to quickly correct inaccuracies as they appear with factual responses."

Awesome: They have the arrogance to inform us that witnesses' "assertions are already dismissed by police"!!!! Whatever happened to prosecutors and judges?

 

 

remind remind's picture

Not apologizing for sfa, it is obviously Bryant's PR team pushing the carjack buttons.

Thus IMV it is lying by proxy.

remind remind's picture

Good point cue, blatent lie on Bryant's team's part, there is no way that it can be skewed as a carjacking.

martin dufresne

Unionist, you _²çà'"èç'"èç'"!!, if you want to play this sick game, hear this: You are even more inaccurate than the people you are accusing and demanding apologies from like some pontificating arrogant upper class twit (which we well know you aren't of course)

remind never said which lie Bryant put out. She just said "blatant lie on Bryant's part", on the face of the new evidence from a security camera. Given that Bryant did put out a statement of innocence of what he was charged with on the day after the killing, I submit she is completely right and deserves an apology from YOU!  

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

I submit she is completely right and deserves an apology from YOU!  

Ok, martin.

Remind, you are completely right, and I apologize to you. I also apologize to you, martin.

Now, I've watched the video and can't see a damn thing. Thank goodness for all those balloons and editorial comments!

remind wrote:
Good point cue, blatent lie on Bryant's team's part, there is no way that it can be skewed as a carjacking.

[emphasis added]

Thank you very much for editing your post, remind. That's all I was really looking for. Now it's unobjectionable.

 

 

Fidel

Who needs eye witnesses when they have a perfectly good old boys system in place to protect fat-cats from the mice?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I'm glad that Unionist is making us think about this one.  It's bringing better clarity to the going-ons.

 

Hope the heat stays on.

martin dufresne

Who needs eye witnesses when they have a perfectly good old boys system in place to protect fat-cats from the mice?

Yes, isn't it strange that no editorialist is insisting on specially brought in Crown Prosecutor Richard Peck's blatant conflict of interest, pointed out by writer here, post #4,  in the "Bryant charged IV" thread, on September 3?

(CV of Richard Peck, QC - Taman Inquiry)

•Special Prosecutor Richard Peck, speaking at the Taman Inquiry, answering questions about another special prosecutor in another case. A special prosecutor who was normally a defence lawyer. Read. Weep. (http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=158585&sc=503)

 

martin dufresne

BTW, at the risk of thread drift, I heard today on Radio-Canada that Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzón is being subpoenaed before the Spanish Supreme Court for having dared to go ahead and started investigating, on his own and without State authorization, crimes against humanity committed under Franco's regime. Still a few eyewitnesses around, so can't have him starting to ask questions, especially when he has been a thorn in Spain's relationship with the U.S. by clamoring about Guantanamo detainees.

From Wikipedia's Baltasar Garzón entry:

"(...) On October 17, 2008, Garzón formally declared the acts of repression committed by the Franco regime to be crimes against humanity, and accounted them in more than one hundred thousand killings during and after the Spanish Civil War. He also ordered the exhumation of 19 unmarked mass graves, one of them believed to contain the remains of the poet Federico García Lorca.[7][8]

On November 17, 2008, Garzón said that he was dropping the case against Franco and his allies after state prosecutors questioned his jurisdiction over crimes committed 70 years ago by people who are now dead and whose crimes were covered by an amnesty passed in 1977. In a 152-page statement, he passed responsibility to regional courts for opening 19 mass graves believed to hold the remains of hundreds of victims.[9](...)"

But I see that Garzón's efforts against Guantanamo's torturers are starting to be discussed here.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Unionist wrote:

Cueball wrote:
Didn't Bryant say he thought it was a "carjacking".

remind wrote:
Good point cue, blatent lie on Bryant's part, ...

Funny - I haven't heard one single statement from Bryant as to what took place (other than saying he was innocent of the specific accusations). For Bryant to have lied, he would have had to say something. Got a link?

 

Oh. Didn't he? I guess I picked up on one of those headlines for one of those papers I don't often take out of the box. It would be pretty dumb since there is some footage there of him charging Sheppard and his bicycle with his 1 ton automobile and knocking the man flat, and running his bike over. Looks like the rest is plain murder, but that is just "conjectural".

Sorry you are having trouble seeing the video, mind you I have seen some footage of New Belsen that looks pretty dodgy too. And eyewitnesses? Ha! Who needs those.

ETA: You can remove the annotations from the video using the icon on the bottom right hand of the youtube box.

Fidel

martin dufresne wrote:

Who needs eye witnesses when they have a perfectly good old boys system in place to protect fat-cats from the mice?

Yes, isn't it strange that no editorialist is insisting on specially brought in Crown Prosecutor Richard Peck's blatant conflict of interest, pointed out by writer here, post #4,  in the "Bryant charged IV" thread, on September 3?

(CV of Richard Peck, QC - Taman Inquiry)

•Special Prosecutor Richard Peck, speaking at the Taman Inquiry, answering questions about another special prosecutor in another case. A special prosecutor who was normally a defence lawyer. Read. Weep. (http://www.ngnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=158585&sc=503)]

Hmmm? Is he the same Dick Peck [url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/08/28/bc-jack-crone... this case[/url] defending a fat-cat bank exec from charges of possessing a shitload of child pornography, and advocating for a hard-line crackdown on the internet? It sounds like Peck is out standing in his field.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Long thread.

Pages

Topic locked