Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp's Interviews Match Precisely- LaVoy Finicum WAS Murdered in Oregon

a reply to: Indigo5
First, I will apologize for attributing her words to you as if you are making it up. Oh wait, I didn't. I was referring to your posts because that is what you are saying. Twist that however you like if you choose but that was what I meant.

Both women said they saw him with his hands up when the first three shots were fired after he got out of the truck. Why do you discount this so adamantly? I'll start where we have some common ground. I think we both agree that the bullets stopped about the same time the truck stopped. From Victoria's statement in the OP video:
1:18:20 "because the bullets stopped coming when we stopped, when the vehicle stopped"

What did Levoy do when the truck stopped? He immediately got out to protect the women because he knew he was the target. That's why he was shouting at them to just shoot him, because that is what he thought they wanted.
1:18:10 "as soon as the vehicle came to a stop Levoy opened his door"
1:19:00 "but I just know that as soon as it came to a stop he opened the door"

Here is what she said after the interviewer rudely interrupted her just as she was about to describe those seconds after he got out and she finally got back to it:
1:19:28 "but he had his hands up the whole time and the next thing we knew they shot him. three consecutive shots at the same time" Right there she is claiming she saw him with his hands up and three shots.

1:19:38 "and I ducked down immediately" So how did she see him go down?

1:19:43 "then we heard three more shots but they didn't hit our vehicle so we were like they just shot him when he was down" No, she didn't see him go down because she ducked. The interviewer wants to be clear so he asks her "so you heard three shots-pop pop pop" she says "yes" he continues his question "and then momentarily later you heard three more-pop pop pop" she says "yes. and we saw him go down right as the first three shots hit him" I think they saw him when he was reaching for the wounds and was bending a little just as he started turning toward the truck and assumed he was going down. I mean, he was just shot after all and she said they ducked immediately.

So, as they are ducked down in the truck they hear the second set of three shots and assume that he was shot when he was down when in fact these were the killshots. We're only talking about a few seconds here and a couple of steps. At this point they come back up, see him dead and she starts screaming let me help him. In the video from the plane, the only indication that he may have been shot on the ground was when his hand was still in the air and then fell. During my initial studies of that video before I even heard the testimony of Victoria and Shawna I thought he might have been shot at that time. I don't think so anymore. I now think this was just the moment of his final breath and there were no more shots after he was down. There were lasers on him at one point but I think the snipers were just watching for movement through their scopes. There was none.

So, my question for you is: Do you consistently not mention the second three shots because you think they are irrelevant due to your focus on what you want to hear (that same "sound byte" you keep repeating) or did you just simply not take the time to look at all possibilities before coming to your conclusion?

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: Indigo5

Both women said they saw him with his hands up when the first three shots were fired after he got out of the truck. Why do you discount this so adamantly?

Correct..and Victoria was adamant and clear that those "first three shots" were rapid succession and that LaVoy immediately went down when those three shots "pop, pop, pop" hit.

I discount the claims by them that his hands were up "the whole time" and when those shots landed simply because (a) the video shows something very different than that and (b) Victoria when interviewed by CNN and reviewing the video modified her recollection to afford for the fact that his hands were not up the whole time.

That seems plain? Does it not? Straight forward? His hands were not up the whole time...nor were they up when he was "first" shot "3 times" rapid succession and "Immediately went down".

I am not clear what the confusion is there? Honestly...

I'll start where we have some common ground. I think we both agree that the bullets stopped about the same time the truck stopped. From Victoria's statement in the OP video:
1:18:20 "because the bullets stopped coming when we stopped, when the vehicle stopped"

Agreed and makes sense.

What did Levoy do when the truck stopped? He immediately got out

Correct...video and witness accounts agree

to protect the women because he knew he was the target.

Speculation.

That's why he was shouting at them to just shoot him, because that is what he thought they wanted.

Or it is what he wanted? Since he said he would never spend a single night in a "Concrete box" had no intention of surrendering or being arrested etc. This is public, repeated and his words.
If we are going to speculate why he shouted just shoot me, his repeated discussions about his intents if confronted or if there was an attempt to arrest him should be considered?

1:18:10 "as soon as the vehicle came to a stop Levoy opened his door"
1:19:00 "but I just know that as soon as it came to a stop he opened the door"

Correct

1:19:28 "but he had his hands up the whole time and the next thing we knew they shot him. three consecutive shots at the same time" Right there she is claiming she saw him with his hands up and three shots.

Correct.

1:19:38 "and I ducked down immediately" So how did she see him go down?

Slow down there...she clearly and repeatedly said he "Immediately" dropped and went down when those three shots hit.
No question..no maybe's..she recalls seeing him go down "immediately" with those three shots. She claims to have ducked her head after he dropped and explains this with tragic tone...she saw him die etc. Do you question her honesty here?

1:19:43 "then we heard three more shots but they didn't hit our vehicle so we were like they just shot him when he was down" No, she didn't see him go down because she ducked. The interviewer wants to be clear so he asks her "so you heard three shots-pop pop pop" she says "yes" he continues his question "and then momentarily later you heard three more-pop pop pop" she says "yes. and we saw him go down right as the first three shots hit him"

When LaVoy went down, all snipers and back-up immediately zoomed in on him. There was a moment when his right arm reached up. That was the second three shots to make sure he was no longer a threat. Brutal, but not unusual protocol.

I think they saw him when he was reaching for the wounds and was bending a little just as he started turning toward the truck and assumed he was going down. I mean, he was just shot after all and she said they ducked immediately.

If you listen carefully to Victoria's statement, she describes him stumbling through the deep snow..the first time Lavoy reached was near immediately, before he struggled with the depth of the snow...so VIctoria's timeline is after he had reached for the first time. She was also adamant about him going down and seeing that clearly.

I understand what you are claiming..but I would recommend carefully examing the video alongside Victoria's account...she describes him saying "just shoot me" stumbling through the deep snow all before the first three shots and clearly she recounts him going down and seeing
that clearly. vs. the first time Lavoy reaches when he exits the truck.

If she confused his first reach for "going down" and dropping to the ground, dieing etc. Then she would have thought he died right beside the truck (first reach) and realized when she exited that his body was much further away...when she recounts wanting to help him etc.

It simply does not align to the video nor her actual words.

So, my question for you is: Do you consistently not mention the second three shots because you think they are irrelevant due to your focus on what you want to hear (that same "sound byte" you keep repeating) or did you just simply not take the time to look at all possibilities before coming to your conclusion?

To me the second three shots?...Snipers and officers zooming in on him once he is down in case he gets back up or continues to pose a threat...supported by protocol on how these guys are trained and operate...supported by the red dots in the video...supported by that reaching arm when he is down ...3 more shots right then "pop,pop,pop"

My conclusions align with all the witness accounts and video with the exception of "hands up the whole time"...

Your conclusion aligns with the exception of most of VIctoria's description...seeing him die, drop immediately, discounting that she describes seeing him struggle as he moved in the deep snow whilst he had already reached once before that...requiring that Victoria though he died beside the truck during that first (beside the truck) and Victoria not mentioning he died beside the truck...nor reconciling the different distance his body was at when she emerged from the truck etc. etc.

I understand fully what you are saying...I am saying your theory requires the majority of her recounting to be inaccurate or false, including things she was pretty adamant about seeing, while mine only requires that she was wrong about the hands up the whole time thing.

a reply to: Indigo5

I discount the claims by them that his hands were up "the whole time" and when those shots landed simply because (a) the video shows something very different than that

I disagree. I've already stated why so I won't be repeating myself.

(b) Victoria when interviewed by CNN and reviewing the video modified her recollection to afford for the fact that his hands were not up the whole time.

What happened in that interview was disgusting. "modified her recollection" Stop and just think about that for a moment. Her most reliable statements are from the very first interview she did.

nor were they up when he was "first" shot "3 times" rapid succession and "Immediately went down"

speculation. without audio there is no proof.

If we are going to speculate why he shouted just shoot me, his repeated discussions about his intents if confronted or if there was an attempt to arrest him should be considered?

I did consider it. It is relevant in both of our scenarios. In mine because maybe he is attempting to defend himself at the point he has both hands in his coat when his back was to the camera milliseconds before the second set of three shots took him down. In yours because it is the reason you believe he was going for a gun when he first put his hand down and was reaching.

Slow down there...she clearly and repeatedly said he "Immediately" dropped and went down when those three shots hit. No question..no maybe's..she recalls seeing him go down "immediately" with those three shots. She claims to have ducked her head after he dropped and explains this with tragic tone...she saw him die etc. Do you question her honesty here?

Ok. let me ask you this: If they did actually see him go down, why did they duck? He was down right? So why duck if it's over and he is dead? Why didn't she start screaming for help right then? I do not question her honesty. I obviously believe her version of the story. It's much easier for me to believe she/they assumed he went down rather than that they are lying about having his hands up the whole time.

When LaVoy went down, all snipers and back-up immediately zoomed in on him. There was a moment when his right arm reached up. That was the second three shots to make sure he was no longer a threat. Brutal, but not unusual protocol.

I'm just going to leave this at: I disagree.

If you listen carefully to Victoria's statement, she describes him stumbling through the deep snow..the first time Lavoy reached was near immediately, before he struggled with the depth of the snow

That is not what the video shows. He was stumbling through the deep snow toward the back of the truck with his hands up. His hands come down as he stopped walking which would not be "immediately" Then, as he turns back he takes two steps in place and only takes two more steps before the fatal shots. He is actually less than two steps from where he first dropped his hands because he is also turning around.

She was also adamant about him going down and seeing that clearly.

Not really. She was more adamant about him having his hands up when the first three shots were fired. How did she manage to forget him putting his hands down and turning around? She didn't forget. She just didn't see it.

so VIctoria's timeline is after he had reached for the first time.

I disagree. Her timeline is from when he got out of the truck to just as he was dropping his hands. That's what she saw before she ducked.

Then she would have thought he died right beside the truck (first reach) and realized when she exited that his body was much further away

See above. He was less than two steps.

It simply does not align to the video nor her actual words.

Again, I disagree. it aligns perfectly to the video and her words with the exception of actually seeing him go down.

I am saying your theory requires the majority of her recounting to be inaccurate or false, including things she was pretty adamant about seeing, while mine only requires that she was wrong about the hands up the whole time thing.

Not true. My theory only requires that she/they assumed he went down as they immediately ducked. All alleged six shots fit the scenario I outlined perfectly. The timing between when he went down and his hand falling to ground does not fit quite as well and the red dots were after that anyway. Your theory requires that they saw him put his hands down, saw him turn as he takes two steps, put his hands inside his coat and then not remember any of that or they are lying in their statements. Why would they both be so clear about seeing him with his hands up when the first three shots were fired if that wasn't the case?
Thanks for the civil discussion and debate. I know you are passionate about your stance and so am I so let's just wait for more evidence before we discuss any more.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Shawna did a 90-minute interview with, "The Oregonian," last Friday which I don't see posted yet but in this text article she adds new details. Maybe I didn't look well enough yet for the video.

Link

There's over 3500 comments under the article already and, of course, the first one is calling all of them idiots.

a reply to: tweetie

So a few excerpts:

We sink into the snow and we're stuck. We come to a dead stop. They started shooting immediately and LaVoy jumped out," Cox said.

So this lines up with what we think we see in the video and exactly NOT what some in this thread have been trying to narrate. The police WERE firing while Lavoy exited the vehicle according to this testimony.

We also get confirmation that Shawna and Victoria never saw him go down. They assumed he did and took Bundy's confirmation:

They shot him

She didn't see him until she exited the vehicle:

Sharp was next. "She sees LaVoy. 'He's dead. They killed him,'" Cox quoted her as saying.

Even after he was down they were still being shot at, the FBI claims non lethal rounds only:

Sharp was screaming "They're trying to kill us" and then at the top of her lungs yelled at police to stop. Cox said she joined in, and the firing did stop.

So the girls screaming/begging for them to stop firing is what actually got them to stop firing.

a reply to: Indigo5

So, now that your narrative has been utterly destroyed here and here

May I ask WHY you so vehemently defended an obviously wrong position?

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Spot on almost. Well done.

At least now, we have confirmation of our collective suspicions, that the reason no audio was released, was to cover something up.

Yes, Robert LaVoy Finicum was murdered. The FBI knew they murdered him, they knew they staged this, and they attempted to cover it up by releasing an audio-less video of their hunting party.

At this point, whatever claims the FBI makes regarding this incident are dubious.

Here's the autopsy report....

Finicum Autopsy

Interesting all three bullets came from the same direction slightly behind and from the right. Looks like one officer did the shooting. Standard three round group.

a reply to: dragonridr

Two Oregon State Police Officers shot the final and fatal 3 shots, according to the investigation, and that wasn't until LaVoy turned to look at the officer coming out of the woods with the taser. That's when he was shot from behind in the back area three times very quickly. Those would have to be the second set of three, quick shots Victoria Sharp remembers hearing.

After all I have studied about this case, I agree that LaVoy wasn't actually hit with gunfire once away from the truck until he turned to face the officer coming out of the woods with the taser. I don't believe the theory that he was reaching for any gunshot wounds on his body before that. That's just me. A person shot in the midsection would be in so much pain they couldn't even touch the area, much less remain standing. It's not like stubbing a toe or bruising a body part during which the instinct kicks in to hold or rub it.

Text of March 8th press conference

I know a lot of people don't want to believe the part about when he was actually shot but I do and have all along, since the FBI video was released.