Piaget Crenshaw: Ferguson Witness
Piaget Crenshaw spoke out to CNN about what she saw happen to Michael Brown in Ferguson and I wanted to state that I believe her. I believe she is telling us the truth.
Please keep comments respectful and on topic. Any rude or out of line comments will not be tolerated and deleted immediately.
Just wondering why not give your thoughts on the account given by the other man involved?
I have some hesitation with Dorian Johnson. He is withholding the exact verbal exchange between the two of them and that causes me some hesitation, and the flow of his events makes me want to ask a few questions to clarify things. That’s why I haven’t said anything. I don’t make opinions until I have enough information, and withholding information could happen for many reasons and I will not jump to conclusions.
Thanks for the reply, those are very good reasons and I admire your restraint not to jump to conclusions until you know more.
I’ve been reading your blog for years now, though I tend to try to avoid violence and murder, somehow I always come back for more. I believe you can learn as much about someone from what they write as you can from their facial expressions, body language etc. One thing that has always impressed me is that you consistently show no racial bias. Shouldn’t be a big deal but it’s actually not common. I’d imagine it’s part of the reason you’re so accurate in detecting lies, most people can’t see the truth because they can’t get past the top layers. Anyway, I appreciate what you do, and am always amazed by your ability.
I’ve been reading your blog for years now, though I tend to try to avoid violence and murder, somehow I always come back for more. I believe you can learn as much about someone from what they write as you can from their facial expressions, body language etc. One thing that has always impressed me is that you consistently show no racial bias. Shouldn’t be a big deal but it’s actually not common. I’d imagine it’s part of the reason you’re so accurate in detecting lies, most people can’t see the truth because they can’t get past the top layers. Anyway, I appreciate what you do, and am always amazed by your ability.
I agree, she is being truthful. She described what she saw and held speculation to a minimum.
It’s common for witnesses to be encouraged to speculate, and then have that speculation be reported as fact. Especially to speculate in order to meet someone’s agenda. Eyewitnesses being unreliable already, it’s very important to resist this, and/or make absolutely clear the delineation between observed fact, and assumptions or inference.
She’s being truthful, but why does she have a lawyer?
Most likely because the police confiscated her phone after her witnessing and shooting.
I didn’t quite understand the confiscation … I had the impression she was shooting out the window from a second story. Were the police able to go up, knock on her door, and get her phone? Wow.
Also, how did the video get uploaded on to YouTube … had they given it back at some point, and then she uploaded it?
Most people go out in public when something happens and more than likely a cop came by, talked to her and asked to take her phone or told her he needed it as evidence. She may have gotten it back already…
This is a big case, and she may get a lot of speaking engagements. She may have a lawyer to protect her from people that could twist her words, and cause her to have a lawsuit brought against her. She could be taken advantage of in a number of different ways. Also, the prosecutor could dig up every mistake that she ever made to discredit her. These people who are near to these big cases seem to have a lawyer to guide and protect them.
You’re absolutely right, and that’s the problem. Is it a witness, or somebody with an agenda trying to help a (their?) cause? If I saw something happen and I’m telling the truth, I don’t think “lawyer”, unless I’m trying to make my part bigger than it is. And even though she is truthfully telling her account here, I hold all the reasons for it that she may have-that you’ve laid out-suspect.
One perspective, of course, is to believe SHE thought “lawyer” herself.
I could see another side where she told all her friends she was going on a tv show, and how excited she was … and at least one of them said to her, “You know what, you’d better get a lawyer if you’re going to do that!”
Everybody needs a lawyer now! Especially if your telling the truth.
I agree that she is telling the truth, but I believe that statement should be made with the caveat that eyewitness statements can be 100% honest without being 100% accurate. Like most eyewitnesses, Piaget is giving a truthful account of what she remembers seeing and hearing. Even if some of what she said turns out to be inaccurate, I wouldn’t expect her to seem deceptive if she is simply recalling events as she truly remembers them. As we all have experienced, our memory is imperfect and it often manages to deceive us. Now, I am NOT judging the accuracy or inaccuracy of Piaget’s memories. I am just saying that another eyewitness could contradict some of what Piaget remembers while also still being entirely honest. In a highly emotional situation like this, I think it’s important to acknowledge the difference between an honest observer and an honest participant.
Absolutely. Very well said.
I agree with both Eyes and Jan. I will be glad to hear the toxicology report on the victim. His eyes looks like he could have been on some type of agitating drug. If that is the case, his size and what we have seen in the store video would make for a dangerous situation. I am not going to take either side until all of the evidence comes in. That could have been a pretty rough scene inside the police car. I heard, today, that this was the only shooting of this kind in Ferguson, so we know the police aren’t prone to this kind of thing.
Very, very true. Especially when there is alot of emotion involved, too. You can really see how uncomfortable she is when recalling the story. I don’t doubt her at all
Everyone has an opinion about Ferguson, but the truth is–there is
nowhere near enough objective evidence to say what the truth is at this
point. That is reality. While I believe the witness above, sadly her story does not corroborate or revoke anything at this point. We only have bits and pieces and until we get more information, none of us can say anything of merit until we get more.
She is lying through her rotten teeth. She saw the thug attack the officer it’s pure black lying for black at this point. Just like Dorian, they will say anything to help their chances at a payoff. Typical fare, the police officer was doing his duty and he was rushed by a 300 lb thug, he took appropriate action.
I would like to see an interview with the officer who was involved. This witness admits that she did not see what was going on before the shooting. It also does sound like she confirms reports that he was resisting arrest.
I was bothered by the tv interviewer who was telling the audience “she saw EVERYTHING”, only to hear the witness talk about all the lapses, including running to get her cell phone and missing even more of the ‘action’.
I believed her as well. Didn’t seem like she had an agenda, just expressing her ‘shock’.
I really have a question about the lady who called in to the radio (the friend of the Darren’s wife, who apparently told her this story). When she talks about what Darren did during his pursuit and ultimate shooting of Michael, she uses “ummm” about 20 times.
Is she fishing for details or a story line, or just trying to remember what she was told by the Darren’s wife.
IMHO, the importance of this video is the time it was taken. Crenshaw’s immediate shock expressed on the video about the “injustice” of the shooting is consistent with Dorian Johnson’s immediate statements that Brown turned toward Wilson with his hands up. And all of that is consistent with the bullet wounds found on Brown’s body.
So even the most racist people who assume all blacks (who don’t even know each other) would collaborate to get their “false” stories straight can’t deny this timely and physical evidence.
i.e. There was no time for Crenshaw and Johnson to meet and coordinate their stories. Nor could either of them cause the autopsy to show wounds consistent with their stories.
Telling the truth? She said she ran inside and got her phone after the shots and started recording. Cool!
The only problem is when her video starts their is yellow crim scene tape up. Do you really think they had the scene cordoned off in the amount of time it took her to grab her phone? She’s lying through her teeth. She didn’t see anything.
Where do you get that from? Is her entire video posted somewhere? Anyway, she could have very easily recorded two videos.
YOUTUBE com/watch?v=1F-ba5KwP_A
The first 13 seconds of this video show no yellow tape. Then it jumps. Seems like two different videos.
there were multiple videos.
you know they’re going to lock you up when you lie under oath?
I prefer the interview she did with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in that version she starts “witnessing” with hearing the cop car screeching to a halt and notices them “wrestling”. She goes to say that victim never really raised his hands up but rather the cop unloaded on him when he turn around. If she is to help the family of that unfortunate young man she needs to keep it simple. Don’t make up what is going thru cops head or try to police the police. that is what lawyers are for. The last thing the nation wants to see is another Rachel Jeantel…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FTSPGly6NM
I absolutely do not believe her. She is making stuff up as she goes along and this interview is different from the other ones she did. She is filling in details and in another one she looks down and quickly shuts up whereas she is normally blabbing. There’s something “not right” about her words. She’s one of those “I’m looking for attention” people.
Piaget Crenshaw first stated that the police officer shot mike brown in the back while he was trying to get away, however the autopsy shows bullet entries only on the front of his body. HMMMM
I thought she said that shots were fired AT him while he was running away. Not that they hit him, originally. But I don’t know for sure.
She wouldn’t be able to see whether the bullets actually hit him
She claims Michael may have come one centimeter toward the officer, and no more, which we now know to be objectively false. She also says that the officer killed Brown when he turned around by firing two shots at him. The audio of this shooting CLEARLY shows that to be false as well. Maybe Eyes For Lies should focus more on objective fact-finding and less time relying on their “gut instincts” about people. Just a thought.