Head’s up, we’ve seen this play before. Corrupt and lying State Attorney, Angela Corey, did the exact same thing in the Zimmerman trial in order to keep the public from seeing how a fraudulent prosecution is constructed.
However, this latest manuever by Marilyn Mosby, as reported today in the Baltimore Sun, is Supernova levels beyond Hypocritical.
Can you imagine the outrage within the “Black Lives Matter” community if Saint Louis prosecutor, Robert McColloch blocked the autopsy release of Mike Brown? Think about it.
Via the Baltimore Sun:
Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby plans to seek a protective order blocking the release of Freddie Gray’s autopsy and other “sensitive” documents as she pursues charges against six police officers involved in his arrest..
Mosby discussed that intention in a court filing Monday, in which she also asked the court for more time to respond to defense motions that she and her office be removed from the case and that the case be tried outside of Baltimore.
Mosby’s office has also sought a gag order, which would prevent those involved in the case from discussing it in public, and broken with tradition by not providing the autopsy report to Baltimore Police. (read more)
Marilyn Mosby’s approach is further evidence of something we have previously outlined.
Our research indicated that Marilyn Mosby pressured the Baltimore Medical Examiner, David Fowler, to change the cause of death from “accidental” to “homicide”. In addition, we described how that same medical examiner built a self-detonating ‘red flag’ into the report by specifically writing in his opinion “the fatal injury occurred inside the van“.
Mosby’s move today assures there is something within the Autopsy Report which does not help her manufactured claims.
A reminder of Brick #11 constructed on the false foundation:
[…] BRICK Eleven – “Changed/Modified M.E. Report” – Research is also supporting a claim made by an anonymous source on the morning of Mosby’s announcement. A claim that Mosby’s office put political pressure on Medical Examiner, David Fowler, to change his report from cause of death “undetermined”, or “accidental”, to a specific cause of “homicide”.
[…] In addition, homicide investigators who were briefed by the medical examiner’s office believed the examiner’s autopsy report would likely find the cause of death to fall short of homicide, according to one official familiar with the case.
Instead, Mosby said that the medical examiner concluded that Gray’s death was a homicide and that Gray’s fatal injury to the head occurred in a police transport van that was taking him to the police precinct.
According to an official with Maryland’s office of the chief medical examiner, where Gray’s autopsy was performed, information was shared with police investigators throughout the process, a common practice.
But the official said there is only one conclusion on manner of death and that was contained in the final autopsy report delivered to Mosby on the same day she announced her decision to bring charges. (link)
It is important to read between the lines and apply Occam’s Razor to the highly controversial claim that political pressure was applied to change the report. Look at the highlighted segment above, what you’ll note is the same thing that Page Croyder identified.
How can a medical examiner claim the “fatal injury” occurred specifically in the van?
Nothing in the Mosby probable cause statement identifies how this “fatal injury” could have occurred in the van, let alone DID occur in the van.
Why? Because there is doubtful any evidence Medical Examiner David Fowler could specifically point to indicating the specificity of the time/location.
*IMPORTANT* Remember, Mosby filed the charges within THREE HOURS of getting the M.E. report. Implying she already had the statement outlining probable cause –delivered at her press conference– written before she held the M.E. report. AND she had no other experts look at the report, nor question the determinations therein.
With the script already written, the only thing she needed that Friday morning was the report itself; and the report HAD TO show “homicide”.
However, even within the report as shared, David Fowler puts a huge flag on the content by specifying the time and location of the fatal injury.
If Fowler was feeling pressure, and not comfortable with the needed narrative, you might read that M.E. finding as him: giving what was demanded, yet simultaneously building inside the report a self-destruct mechanism easily deployed by anyone adversely impacted by the fraudulent uncomfortable construction therein.
The construct of the ME report -as stated by Mosby herself- completely removes any fatal liability from any of the officers prior to Freddie Gray being placed in the van. Given the nature of all the unknown variables, at least on the surface, it appears virtually impossible for Fowler to give such specificity; yet he does.
As Page Croyder pointed out, “how could he know” – and without Mosby questioning it, or asking for experts to confirm, how could she also be so certain?
So certain she was – that she alone chose, without any feedback from any investigative agent, to charge “depraved heart Murder 2” of officer Goodson the van driver. (Previous Outline of the Fraud)
TODAY June, 3rd […] Mosby’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on why a protective order is needed in the case.
[…] According to the latest filing, attorneys in Mosby’s office had “attempted to reach an agreement” for more time to respond to the defense motions with Michael Belsky, the attorney for Rice and the “designated contact attorney” for all of the officers.
Belsky agreed to give the state more time to respond to the motions to dismiss the case due to prosecutorial misconduct and for Mosby to recuse her office from the case, the filing said, but only “in exchange for the State releasing certain discovery,” including Gray’s autopsy report, medical records and “all statements made by the defendants.”
He did not agree to give the state more time to respond to the motion to remove the case from Baltimore, the filing said.
Mosby’s filing said her office did not agree to “barter” over the documents.
“Because the State intends to seek a protective order to restrict the dissemination of such sensitive discovery in this matter, the State was not willing to so barter, and so no agreement could be reached,” she wrote.
Mosby is asking for an extention until July 10. Without that, the state’s responses to the defense motions, which were filed May 27, would be due June 11.
Mosby said an extension is needed because of the complexity of the defense motions and her office’s need to respond thoroughly. (read more)
