NEWS CORP CAUGHT RED-HANDED FABRICATING STORY ON POLICE SHOOTING
To get a concise an clear understanding of what Courier Mail have done; you first need to read the article published by ABC below.
ORIGINAL ABC ARTICLE
An article which gives the following key points which to remember before reading News Corps own fabrication of events.
• An impression that although the man was originally found in his car when police arrived; that for the most part throughout the siege he was within
his house. Something which is illustrated by the fact that the police needed to give him a cell-phone in order to speak with him.
• That the police needed to make a split-second decision when the man emerged at 4PM, as he had ‘what appeared to be’ a gun in his hand.
• That in that split-second the police didn’t have time to think about whether or not the gun was real.
• That the residents of the neighbourhood watched the drama unfold from a nearby park
The reason I have illustrated these couple points to you is because it is the police themselves giving you the important understanding of the fact
that; it was only when the man emerged at 4PM that they saw ‘what appeared’ to be a gun. And that from their other comments regarding it being a
split-second decision; we are given and understanding that the gun only came into the events which unfolded, at those seconds when the police chose to
An understanding that (by ABC’s claim) came from the Police themselves.
So now we move on to the Courier Mails fabrication of events. Where they give a completely different ‘spin’ on events.
CORPS OWN VERSION OF EVENTS
I am sure you are a highly intelligent man, and that you will be able to see the many holes in their story when it is held up to the ABC version; but
I am going to put the holes into as much detail as I can for you; in case you miss something.
The Courier Mail article starts by use the emotionally confronting article heading;
INALA GUNMAN SHAUN KUMEROA’S FINAL PLEA BEFORE BEING SHOT DEAD
An outright lie within the very heading of the article.
It first states that;
HE STRUGGLED with relationships. To read and write. To hold down a job. And it was a struggling Shaun Kumeroa who pleaded for his daughter while
‘BRANDISHING A HAND GUN FROM THE FRONT SEAT OF HIS CAR’ on Monday.
This stands out as interesting after reading the earlier article, when you consider that the OFFICIAL POLICE STATEMENT said that they were unsure if
WHAT APPEARED to be a handgun was real or not. And they needed to make a split-second decision.
The second interesting thing here; is that police stated that he had EMERGED with a hand-gun.
Yet somehow, Courier Mail seem to have a more detailed version of events to offer us then the police on scene; one in which he is BRANDISHING a
Next their story claims; “Neighbours have recalled how they told Mr Kumeroa “Don’t do it, mate” as he slumped in his car clutching a
Neighbours claim? Convenient unnamed neighbour? We are lead to assume that this neighbour is the one who gave them their information about a gun being
brandished. But more to the point; that the police had allowed this unnamed neighbour to be part of the negotiation process. Which gave him the
opportunity to be able to tell him ‘not to do it’.
Was this neighbour the specialist negotiator they got in? If so, no wonder it ended badly.
The next interesting thing I noticed with this story; was that in their version he stayed in his car the whole time.
The only reason I can think of that they would now say he was in his car; is to cover their asses if they were asked why they thought he had a gun.
Because it would have been rather hard for a news report to substantiate ‘Brandishing’ of a gun when he was inside the house and they couldn’t
OK, so he’s in the car. Let’s go with that. What other reason could there be for him to now be in the car the whole time?
The article goes on to say; “Nigel Butkowski said he spoke to the distressed man from his bedroom window about 20m away. “I said, ‘Don’t do
it, mate, don’t do it’,” he said. “He wasn’t erratic; he was basically sitting there looking straight ahead.””
Ahhhhhhhhhh!! THERE WE GO! Because being outside in the car also presented the opportunity for the reporters to name their witness and how they
obtained their source of information.
So was Nigel Butkowski the unnamed neighbour from the previous paragraph? The one who may, or may not also be a police negotiator? I raise this point
again because of the fact that they claim he was close enough to the victim to be able to talk to him. A man who was supposedly so dangerous that he
ended up being shot and killed by the police. Dangerous enough that heavily armed police locked-down the neighbourhood for four hours …
Yet, somehow … In the middle of the neighbourhood being locked down … There 20 metres away talking to the victim, having a good ‘ol yarn was
Nigel Butkowski! News Corps named witness; come to save the day by telling him not to do it. Go Nigel!
But it wasn’t only Nigel allowed to be there assisting the police in the siege. His partner Shelly Redding was also there! ‘Keeping watch’,
until the Police told them they were in the line of fire.
In the what? What fire? He hasn’t emerged with a gun yet!
So what Shelly is basically saying; is that the police allowed a couple of civilians to ‘keep watch’ and hold the fort while they went and locked
down the neighbourhood; which they did from their bedroom window 20 metres away; until the bedroom was deemed to be in the line of fire.
Does this mean the police went straight from; letting anyone in the neighbourhood ignore their lock-down so they could go have a chat with the victim
… to setting up snipers in the neighbours bedroom?
I guess setting up in the neighbours bedroom 20 metres away would give them a nice clear shot if they needed to shoot him. Heck it’s close enough to
have a chat. But wouldn’t it then also be close enough that they could have clearly see whether the guy had a gun or not??
OK, so now News Corps witness Nigel has police snipers in his bedroom …
“They were saying to him, ‘Get out, get out, drop all weapons’,” Ms Redding said. “He was off with the fairies somewhere.”
She said the man appeared to be asking for his daughter. When they rolled a bottle of water to him, she said he replied: “You could have brought it
down — I’m not going to shoot anyone.”
Off with the fairies? This must have been what made him seem so dangerous to them! I know that every time I see someone lost in thought, or off with
the fairies. It makes me fear for my life! Telling him to drop all weapons? The other report said they didn’t even know he had a gun til they shot
him; now he has multiple weapons?
But because he’s off with the fairies; they forget about demanding him to get out of the car, and instead roll him a bottle of water.
Though the ‘off with the fairies’ line is very subtle; I’m sure you know this lie has been cleverly crafted into the story for the very distinct
purpose of further developing the ‘he was suicidal’ impression upon any member of the public reading the story; which had its foundation laid in
the previous story.
edit on 906-0500-0500K-0500OctoberCDT15-0500CDT by BOOKOFTHOTH because: (no reason given)