Mark McConnell, man driving Jeep before Ammon Bundy's arrest, was informant, testimony reveals

a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks for keeping up with this and keeping us in the know.

Here's something that bothers me:

Wednesday afternoon, Deschutes County Sheriff's Detective Ron Brown held up the loaded 9mm Ruger seminautomatic handgun that had been in the inside left pocket of Finicum's denim jacket. The detective testified that the gun had one round in the chamber. He said an Oregon State Police forensic scientist was the first person to locate the gun on Finicum. A knife also was found tucked behind the front of Finicum's belt.

Is my memory bad or did we see someone remove a gun from Levoy's person in the video of the shooting. Does that mean they sent an Oregon State Police forensic scientist to the scene? What sort of "forensic scientist" is a member of their roadblock team? Anybody trained to collect evidence can be called a forensic scientist. I realize that but why use those words? Not wanting to admit that the sniper that shot the man was the one who "found" the gun that was NOT in anyone's hand, not a threat to anyone who had peaceful intentions. None of the weapons found had been fired and yet they are making such a deal of having guns in a truck.
Are they going to testify about how many guns and other weapons were in the possession of law enforcement? I'll bet they had more of those scary guns with scopes than the entire population of the refuge at the time. And it was their (LEOs) guns who ended up killing a man. To shut him up.

It's a widespread movement within government, silence the opposition by whatever means possible. Persecute whistleblowers, demonize anyone pointing out the illegal behaviors of government employees and officials; arrest and harass them with as many charges as possible. If the first time doesn't convince them to shut up, keep at it until they are bankrupt and destitute. Hit those who are even halfway self sufficient hard, especially if they don't owe the banksters for their property. If all that fails, just shoot them down like a dog on the side of the road and then put out snuff video for all to see.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
Dang it. I thought I'd heard the end of that idiot Bundy and dead idiot Finicum.

Odd statement from someone who chose to click on the thread.

originally posted by: imitator
U.S. District Judge suppressing the murder of LaVoy,

Well, as Lavoy was not murdered, and his death has nothing to do with the current Bundy trial, what are you on about?

originally posted by: Boadicea
First and foremost it goes to the credibility of the LEOs involved

What has that have to do with some armed people taking over a refuge?

The prosecution obviously thinks the traffic stop and roadblock is relevant because they are the ones who introduced it in court.

Care to link to exactly where they introduced it?

originally posted by: diggindirt
the gun that was NOT in anyone's hand, not a threat to anyone who had peaceful intentions.

Lavoy did not have peaceful intentions....

And it was their (LEOs) guns who ended up killing a man. To shut him up.

No, they killed a armed man who had been in a car that crashed a roadblock, and Lavoy kept reaching for his weapon.

a reply to: hellobruce
I would argue that his intentions were indeed peaceful. He stated as much in that famed interview with the msm weasel. In numerous interviews he stated again and again that he wasn't looking for trouble from anyone but that he was prepared in case someone decided to bring trouble his way.
Furthermore, had his intentions not peaceful, he would have pulled that gun out of his whatever and began firing back when law enforcement began firing on his vehicle. Only peaceful intentions will cause a man to raise his hands above his shoulders when being fired upon. Apparently only some law enforcement officers have the handicap of NOT recognizing the universal signal of "Don't shoot me."

a reply to: hellobruce

Lavoy did not have peaceful intentions....

Rubbish....

No, they killed a armed man who had been in a car that crashed a roadblock, and Lavoy kept reaching for his weapon.

No...they shot him in cold blood, regardless of how you try and twist the narrative....

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
No...they shot him in cold blood, regardless of how you try and twist the narrative....

You are the one doing the twisting here, Lavoy kept reaching for a gun, and disobeyed police instructions after the car he was in crashed a roadblock. If he had stayed in the car, or done what he was told he would be alive today.

His choices resulted in his death, no one else is to blame.

Despite what you try and claim!

a reply to: diggindirt

I found the "forensic scientist" bit rather odd also, but I have no idea what to make of it. I've never heard of a forensic scientist at the scene of a traffic stop before; I would think they would be used at crime scenes to analyze evidence. I doubt he would have been called in after the fact, but rather already been on scene. Maybe because they expected someone from the vehicle to shoot back? So they wanted him there to analyze whatever? I really don't know.

I also found it odd that it wasn't that forensic scientist himself who testified to finding the 9mm, but another officer saying he did. Could it have been an FBI agent who "found" the gun, but because they want to keep the FBI involvement out of the courtroom, they're just plain lying about it? Total speculation on my part...

a reply to: hellobruce

Care to link to exactly where they introduced it?

Without the courtroom transcripts, I cannot.

However, the prosecution is still presenting their case. They are the only ones introducing anything at this point. The defense is limited to cross-examination of information presented during direct questioning by prosecution. Therefore, it was the prosecution who introduced the information, and the defense who cross-examined the witnesses.

a reply to: hellobruce

...Lavoy kept reaching for a gun...

So we keep being told... as a knowable fact. But it's not. The only person who knew what Lavoy was doing is LaVoy himself. Presenting the unknowable as truth is a lie. Just like the FBI lied about shooting at Finicum prior to stopping at the roadblock, and prior to exiting the vehicle at the roadblock.

Too many mistruths and halftruths and untruths to trust anyone.

a reply to: Boadicea

I also found it odd that it wasn't that forensic scientist himself who testified to finding the 9mm, but another officer saying he did.

Yup, my boss pointed this out this morning. That is hearsay and should have raised an objection from the defense. Maybe the rules are different in federal court?

How the heck can they expect to keep the FBI out of the case when the property in question is controlled by the federal government? oh, look---a squirrel! But did we really expect anything different?

a reply to: diggindirt

I also find it very troubling that any information about LaVoy is allowed into testimony if they won't allow ALL information allowed, including specifically the shots fired upon Lavoy as he approached the roadblock and stopped at the roadblock. The jury cannot properly judge the aftermath if they do not know the preceding facts.

originally posted by: Boadicea
The jury cannot properly judge the aftermath if they do not know the preceding facts.

Lavoy has nothing to do with the current trial....

www.oregonlive.com...

It would be nearly impossible for jurors not to notice U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown's growing exasperation with Ammon Bundy's lawyer Marcus Mumford. Since the Bundy trial began two weeks ago, the judge has repeatedly told Mumford to follow her rulings, reword his questions to government witnesses and occasionally to either stand up when he addresses her or sit down and stop challenging her directives. Despite her earlier orders that defense lawyers weren't to raise questions at trial about who owns the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Mumford tried to solicit responses from the Harney County sheriff and refuge employees on the subject. Despite the judge's warnings that she didn't want any defendant or defense lawyer to ask witnesses about the circumstances surrounding the fatal police shooting of occupation spokesman Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, Mumford passed off as a question a stinging remark that Finicum was shot three times in the back, asked another witness how close police were to him when he was shot and why the FBI wasn't investigating the shooting. Each time, prosecutors objected. Each time, the judge asked jurors to disregard Mumford's bids to get around her edicts. Out of earshot of the jury, Brown on Thursday had enough. She threatened Mumford with contempt of court if he continued to delve into Finicum's shooting. She told him she'd fine him $1,000 for each time he continued to violate her orders.

Even the judge knows this trial has nothing to do with Lavoy's shooting!

a reply to: hellobruce

Lavoy has nothing to do with the current trial

So we keep being told. And it's just not true. Indeed, if it were true, there would be no reason to keep telling us.

LaVoy had everything to do with the standoff, everything to do with the events at the time of arrest, and he would be sitting right there in the courtroom with them if he weren't killed in a reckless and dangerous deadman's roadblock during the police ambush.

originally posted by: Boadicea
and he would be sitting right there in the courtroom with them

If he had not acted like a nutter. His own actions resulted in his death, no one else is to blame.

a reply to: hellobruce
Nope, he didn't shoot himself. He was shot by the cops after exiting the truck with his hands above his shoulders.
Had he been meaning to kill someone he could have stayed in his vehicle, which provided him at least some cover, and returned fire on the cops. They shot him down like a dog on the side of the road because he was a peaceful protester who had a powerful and reasonable voice. The very reason he had to silenced was that he wasn't a nutter. The cops were the nutters for setting up such a roadblock, shooting him multiple times, and then releasing their snuff video for all to see. Their message: "This is what we can do to any citizen who speaks out against us and there is nothing you can do about it because we are the LAW!"

This is exactly what many involved on the inside surmised as well as on the outside. More often then not cases as such have informants. Soon enough they may likely find their were even more(if you get who I'm thinking of).

McConnell, going through part of the plan, knowing the road block was ahead, exacerbated the already heated LaVoy. When they could have just been allowed to go the meeting with the Sheriff peacefully.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Boadicea
First and foremost it goes to the credibility of the LEOs involved

What has that have to do with some armed people taking over a refuge?

The prosecution obviously thinks the traffic stop and roadblock is relevant because they are the ones who introduced it in court.

Care to link to exactly where they introduced it?

Funny how people manipulate the facts to fit there narative isn't it? The defense didn't introduce it and there is no beneifit for doing so. It has nothing to do with there charges at all. But people want to make out these terrorists as hero's. We see this everywhere now people put there ideals above all us. We even see it in Black lives matter some thug gets shot for threatening police officers lives and he becomes a martyr. Same with this anti govt crowd want to take thugs and make them hero's for there cause what ever happened to integrity and honor.

originally posted by: diggindirt
They shot him down like a dog on the side of the road

Simply because he kept reaching for a gun. his own fault.

But of course it must be some one else's fault!