FBI investigating 'suicide' of woman in jail - The Sandra Bland case

It doesn't add up.  This intelligent, pretty young woman named Sandra Bland was given a traffic stop for--WTF???--failure to signal a lane change during an emergency stop?  (Is that even a law?)  Then, as the clip shows, the officer demands she not smoke, that she get out of her vehicle, then he gets into a physical altercation with her, and arrests her FOR ASSAULTING A POLICE OFFICER!

Then he takes her to jail, whereupon she ends up dead?  The authorities try to tell us she hanged herself with a garbage bag?  How do you hang yourself with a plastic garbage bag?  Here...you - hold - this - end - while - I - try - to - get - the - other - end - around - my - ne...uh, neck...oh crap, I dropped it.

So they are mulling that over, and they find she answered 'yes' on an admittance form where it asked if she ever tried to commit suicide.  Ahah!  There...see?  She admitted it...um, before the fact.  How can you admit suicide before you commit suicide??  Um...let's put that aside.  The more important questions is, Why didn't you then have her on suicide watch, as Texas law requires?

So, the Texas authorities go back and re-do the autopsy one more time.  Ahah!  Look, see?  We found marijuana in her system!  What does that show?  What is the relevance of marijuana in her system?  More importantly, how did you let her obtain marijuana?  She was in your jail for what, 2 - 3 days, as she tried to arrange for bail.

I've got a simple theory.  They wanted to do away with her so they drugged her to kill her, and used a drug that shows up as trace MJ.  Then they faked a hanging with a--ahem--plastic bag.  Makes more sense than the answers they are giving out.

Here, take a look:  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33573743



TOPICS MERGED

Huge campaign about this on Twitter: https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=%23SandraBland&lang=en-gb

Seriously, a traffic violation!

They are saying injuries match suicide. Yep, and they also match someone putting something round her neck and pulling it up!

sassy wrote:Seriously, a traffic violation!

I know! How fookin' dumb do they think we are? The clip shows she was pulling over to get out of the way of the cop, in the first place.

Alternatively, maybe they are that dumb in the south.

Strikes me they are that dumb in the South.

Hmmm, suicide is a possibility. She had depression, she said she had attempted suicide before, she had just moved to a new area, and she had been arrested and kept in custody for a fairly trivial reason.

This plastic bag though - it must have been very large, and what was it doing in her cell?

This does need a proper investigation.

I'm amazed at the infinite escalation. From the stop for no realistic cause, to the cop starting the argument, to the cop starting the physical altercation, to taking her to jail. This has all the appearances of a set-up.

As for the depression, I've had bad days too. You don't commit suicide. As for indicating the 'suicide' on the form, they don't say how many years before this was. Like...I broke my leg when I was 6-years old. Will they put that down as my cause of death?

She had just gotten a new job at Texas A&M University. Everything was looking up for her.

There is evil about on this one. This was a bad bust.

Original Quill wrote:I'm amazed at the infinite escalation.  From the stop for no realistic cause, to the cop starting the argument, to the cop starting the physical altercation, to taking her to jail.  This has all the appearances of a set-up.

As for the depression, I've had bad days too.  You don't commit suicide.  As for indicating the 'suicide' on the form, they don't say how many years before this was.  Like...I broke my leg when I was 6-years old.  Will they put that down as my cause of death?

She had just gotten a new job at Texas A&M University.  Everything was looking up for her.

There is evil about on this one.  This was a bad bust.

Depression isn't the same as having a "bad day" Quill. There would need to be an investigation as to how much it affected her to make a judgement really. She said herself that she had attempted suicide before, so this might have pushed her over the edge. Getting a new job is a good thing, but it can also be quite stressful, particularly if you move to a new town or city where you don't know anyone.

I watched a video of the incident. The officer told her why he was stopping her, and he asked for her documents. Why not just accept that she failed to signal and do as he asked? I don't get why people get so arsy with the police. If you have a complaint, save it for later.

"You don't commit suicide because you have depression" You are a Wanker sir.

Raggamuffin wrote:I watched a video of the incident. The officer told her why he was stopping her, and he asked for her documents. Why not just accept that she failed to signal and do as he asked? I don't get why people get so arsy with the police. If you have a complaint, save it for later.

Because cops are not gods.  If you want to understand Americans, read Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America.  It's as much a treatise on national character as it is on political science.  Americans are distinguished by breaking away from Europe, and developing a sense of independence from status and privilege.  Americans are the farthest things from sheep.

One of the great American sayings is: Question authority!  Americans do question authority.  We have a Constitution of 'express laws', which means if there is no authority written down, you can't do it.  American society is built upon rejecting presumptions of self-grandeur and status for those in positions of authority.  That's what it has always meant to be a part of 'The New World'.

Actually, you are asking the wrong question.  The real question is: by what authority was this cop demanding that this young woman stop smoking?  That she was getting--how did he say it--uppity?  That she even get out of the vehicle?  For all of these commands to be legal, the officer has to have 'probable cause' to issue the order.  You don't order a person out of a car unless there is a real, imminent threat to safety.  For god sake, he had no justification for demanding she put out her cigarette--cancer may be real, but it's not an imminent threat.

The question you should be asking is: where did this cop get the gall to assume he had the authority?  Perhaps because she was black, he was assuming a superior status?  Perhaps a little racism?  He had no such authority...and against that backdrop, you can see that he was provoking this altercation.  That in itself demands and answer.

It also strongly begs the question: Why is she now dead?  This was a set-up.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I watched a video of the incident. The officer told her why he was stopping her, and he asked for her documents. Why not just accept that she failed to signal and do as he asked? I don't get why people get so arsy with the police. If you have a complaint, save it for later.

Because cops are not gods.  If you want to understand Americans, read Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America.  It's as much a treatise on national character as it is on political science.  Americans are distinguished by breaking away from Europe, and developing a sense of independence from status and privilege.  Americans are the farthest things from sheep.

One of the great American sayings is: Question authority!  Americans do question authority.  We have a Constitution of 'express laws', which means if there is no authority written down, you can't do it.  American society is built upon rejecting presumptions of self-grandeur and status for those in positions of authority.  That's what it has always meant to be a part of 'The New World'.

Actually, you are asking the wrong question.  The real question is: by what authority was this cop demanding that this young woman stop smoking?  That she was getting--how did he say it--uppity?  That she even get out of the vehicle?  For all of these commands to be legal, the officer has to have 'probable cause' to issue the order.  You don't order a person out of a car unless there is a real, imminent threat to safety.  For god sake, he had no justification for demanding she put out her cigarette--cancer may be real, but it's not an imminent threat.

The question you should be asking is: where did this cop get the gall to assume he had the authority?  Perhaps because she was black, he was assuming a superior status?  Perhaps a little racism?  He had no such authority...and against that backdrop, you can see that he was provoking this altercation.  That in itself demands and answer.

It also strongly begs the question: Why is she now dead?  This was a set-up.

Quill, let's keep it real here.

From what I've seen from various videos and reports, the cops in the US don't like people getting gobby with them, and they don't like being disobeyed or resisted. Now you can say all you like that's wrong, but they're not generally the ones who end up in a cell - that would be the person who got gobby.

The US police are much maligned on here and elsewhere, but they have to be tough, what with all the crims running around with guns over there. Why not just do as you're told and complain later? Getting gobby won't help, as the lady found out - it just made it ten times worse.

He asked her to put out her cigarette, and she got gobby. Why? Why not just put out the cigarette? Perhaps he doesn't like cigarette smoke.

nicko wrote:"You don't commit suicide because you have depression"     You are a Wanker sir.

As much as it embarrasses me, Nicko...I agree with you.  Lol.

Keep in mind, we are talking about a lay person's answers to a form question.  A lay person is not entitled to make diagnoses that it takes a physician 8 - 10 years to study.  There is no actual evidence of depression.

That's my answer to you too, Raggs.  I call it a 'bad day' because that's as much as we have evidence for right now.

The same with 'suicide'.  Who hasn't looked up that word in the dictionary...that's called contemplating suicide, but strict definition.  To even question the meaning of the term is to "contemplate" the word.  It's a box checked on a form by a lay person, unqualified to make a diagnosis.

The real question about her marking 'suicide - yes' on a form is, Why didn't the authorities take precautions?  They were on notice that she was a potential risk.  I have my own theory: she didn't die of suicide.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:"You don't commit suicide because you have depression"     You are a Wanker sir.

As much as it embarrasses me, Nicko...I agree with you.  Lol.

Keep in mind, we are talking about a lay persons answers to a form question.  A lay person is not entitled to make diagnoses that it takes a physician 8 - 10 years to study.  There is no actual evidence of depression.

That's my answer to you too, Raggs.  I call it a 'bad day' because that's as much as we have evidence for right now.

The same with 'suicide'.  Who hasn't looked up that word in the dictionary...that's called contemplating suicide, but strict definition.  To even question the meaning of the term is to "contemplate" the word.  It's a box checked on a form by a lay person, unqualified to make a diagnosis.

The real question about her marking 'suicide - yes' on a form is, Why didn't the authorities take precautions?  They were on notice that she was a potential risk.  I have my own theory: she didn't die of suicide.

She said herself she had depression. It's in the article you linked to. She called it "the devil". You said yourself that she filled in a form where she asked if she had attempted suicide before, and she said yes, so I don't know where all that stuff about the meaning of the word is coming from.

Right, so it was a plastic garbage bag. I presume they had them in all cells. It is possible for her to have done that.

There are even theories that she was dead in her mugshot.

Raggamuffin wrote:
Quill, let's keep it real here.

From what I've seen from various videos and reports, the cops in the US don't like people getting gobby with them, and they don't like being disobeyed or resisted. Now you can say all you like that's wrong, but they're not generally the ones who end up in a cell - that would be the person who got gobby.

This is exactly why I go into character discussions, if you pay attention. In America, police are taught that Americans are going to be gobby. They are instructed, specifically, that they cannot engage in or take up on any such remarks. The are under orders to use 'sir' and 'ma'am' and to stick strictly to the facts. In fact, I believe this officer is already under reprimand for that very violation arising out of this incident.

Raggamuffin wrote:The US police are much maligned on here and elsewhere, but they have to be tough, what with all the crims running around with guns over there. Why not just do as you're told and complain later? Getting gobby won't help, as the lady found out - it just made it ten times worse.

They get paid a paycheck, and in return for their paycheck they are given directions as to how to perform the job, just as any other worker. Now, if they can't perform. Or, if they don't want to perform the job as they have been instructed, they need to inform their employer that the job is not for them. The police officer is designated as a 'critical occupation' under US Department of Labor standards. That means the incumbent must perform critical functions under stress. The standard is, always, to weed out those who can't perform critical functions under stress.

These are the job requirements. If you one meet them, I suggest looking elsewhere for employment.

Raggamuffin wrote:He asked her to put out her cigarette, and she got gobby. Why? Why not just put out the cigarette? Perhaps he doesn't like cigarette smoke.

No sense in making a bad situation worse. The officer had no probable cause of imminent danger. It was an illegal order. The 'bad serve' happened in his court.

But, as I say, I think something else was afoot.

Quill, let's leave out an analysis of whether police officers are in the right job or not, and concentrate on why you think this death is suspicious. I can think of reasons why she might have killed herself, and how she did it.

Why do you think she did not?

So they are mulling that over, and they find she answered 'yes' on an admittance form where it asked if she ever tried to commit suicide.  Ahah!  There...see?  She admitted it...um, before the fact.  How can you admit suicide before you commit suicide??

What does this even mean? The question was whether or not she had attempted suicide prior to her arrest, and she said yes. What that's stuff about one admitting suicide before one commits suicide?

Raggamuffin wrote:
She said herself she had depression. It's in the article you linked to. She called it "the devil". You said yourself that she filled in a form where she asked if she had attempted suicide before, and she said yes, so I don't know where all that stuff about the meaning of the word is coming from.

She's not qualified to make a diagnosis on a form.  Fgs, we don't practice medicine like that over here in America, NHS standards notwithstanding.  

Those questions are asked for one reason, and one reason only: To give the police agency a 'heads-up' on a prospective suicide risk.  They are a part of the State of Texas arrest form.  If she's looked after and nothing happens, there's no harm no foul.  The questions do not in any way qualify as a diagnosis after-the-fact.

As I say, the police didn't do their job and question is:  Was that intentional?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
She said herself she had depression. It's in the article you linked to. She called it "the devil". You said yourself that she filled in a form where she asked if she had attempted suicide before, and she said yes, so I don't know where all that stuff about the meaning of the word is coming from.

She's not qualified to make a diagnosis on a form.  Fgs, we don't practice medicine like that over here in America, NHS standards notwithstanding.  

Those questions are asked for one reason, and one reason only: To give the police agency a 'heads-up' on a prospective suicide risk.  They are a part of the State of Texas arrest form.  If she's looked after and nothing happens, there's no harm no foul.  The questions do not in any way qualify as a diagnosis after-the-fact.

As I say, the police didn't do their job and question is.  Was that intentional?

I think she would know if she was depressed or not. She lost a baby apparently, and tried to kill herself afterwards. It's nothing to do with being qualified or not, it's to do with her state of mind, and whether it's likely she killed herself or not.

So are you now saying that she did kill herself but should have been on suicide watch? That's completely different to what you said in your first post.

I've got a simple theory. They wanted to do away with her so they drugged her to kill her, and used a drug that shows up as trace MJ. Then they faked a hanging with a--ahem--plastic bag. Makes more sense than the answers they are giving out.

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, let's leave out an analysis of whether police officers are in the right job or not, and concentrate on why you think this death is suspicious. I can think of reasons why she might have killed herself, and how she did it.

Why do you think she did not?

The marking of 'suicide risk' is just a convenient tool, applied after-the-fact. I don't believe she was a suicide risk at all. And for the reasons stated, I don't believe she was, or could have been a suicide in the event.

However, there are some real questions that have to be answered when someone is injured or, worse, killed in police custody. In that circumstance the law enforcement agency is responsible ipso facto. It is definitional: when in custody one has no ability to control oneself and the police agency is in complete charge of your person and your life.

You discharge that responsibility by delivering the person to a court whole, alive and in tact. When you cannot, you are responsible and you have to answer.

This case goes further: it's was a set-up from the start. The charge was trumped up...she was pulled over for the flimsiest of reasons. The argument was provoked by the officer. The arrest and incarceration was way over the top. The cause of death is fictitious. The breach of duty is not only present, but strategic in that they failed to watch even her under their own standards. Then: a trash bag? I couldn't even tie one around my wrist, let alone from the rafters...plus, it would stretch and break in an instant. There is nothing about this case that stands to reason.

It smells of a week-old dead fish.

Let's just stick to this claim that the cause of death is fictitious.

She wouldn't need to be actually hanging in order to suffocate herself. Think about how Michael Hutchence died.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think she would know if she was depressed or not. She lost a baby apparently, and tried to kill herself afterwards. It's nothing to do with being qualified or not, it's to do with her state of mind, and whether it's likely she killed herself or not.

She's not an expert, Raggs.  The question is an empirical one, calling for an expert's opinion.  Watch a few episodes of Law and Order.

Raggamuffin wrote:So are you now saying that she did kill herself but should have been on suicide watch? That's completely different to what you said in your first post.

Your confusion is the same one the cops want you to have.  What was the purpose of the form?  And, what was the cause of death?

The purpose of the 'suicide'-question on the arrest form is to alert jail personnel of a potential suicide risk, prompting them to put her on 24-hour watch.  The fact that she died in her cell means they didn't not discharge that responsibility. The question is, why didn't they?

The question of 'cause-of-death' calls for expert opinion, based upon empirical evidence.  Her answers on an arrest form do not constitute empirical evidence.  First, she is not an expert, as mentioned.  But, second, answers on a form are not intended to be empirical evidence of causation.  It's a clear evasion.

The cops are trying to use the admittance arrest form as a Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801, admission.  None of the standards of an admission apply.  It was written before-the-fact, not after-the-fact; there is no event to admit to.  She is not qualified to diagnosis the problem.  And she is not a party to an action over her own death.

Legally, its smoke and mirrors.  But then the whole thing has been a fake from the start.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think she would know if she was depressed or not. She lost a baby apparently, and tried to kill herself afterwards. It's nothing to do with being qualified or not, it's to do with her state of mind, and whether it's likely she killed herself or not.

She's not an expert, Raggs.  The question is an empirical one, calling for an expert's opinion.  Watch a few episodes of Law and Order.

Raggamuffin wrote:So are you now saying that she did kill herself but should have been on suicide watch? That's completely different to what you said in your first post.

Your confusion is the same one the cops want you to have.  What was the purpose of the form?  And, what was the cause of death?

The purpose of the 'suicide'-question on the arrest form is to alert jail personnel of a potential suicide risk, prompting them to put her on 24-hour watch.  The fact that she died in her cell means they didn't not discharge that responsibility.

The question of 'cause-of-death' calls for expert opinion, based upon empirical evidence.  Her answers on an arrest form do not constitute empirical evidence.  First, she is not an expert, as mentioned.  But, second, answers on a form are not intended to be empirical evidence of causation.  It's a clear evasion.

The cops are trying to use the admittance arrest form as a Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801, admission.  None of the standards of an admission apply.  It was written before-the-fact, not after-the-fact; there is no event to admit to.  And she is not a party to an action over her own death.

Legally, its smoke.  But then the whole thing has been a fake from the start.

FFS Quill, she doesn't need to be an expert to know if she's depressed or not.

Quill, why do you think she did not kill herself? I mean practically-speaking.

It strikes me quill that a large %age of your police forces are "no longer fit for purpose"

Raggamuffin wrote:FFS Quill, she doesn't need to be an expert to know if she's depressed or not.

Of course you do. Forensically, depression is a question that can only be answered by an expert, and only under oath. A casual check on an admittance arrest form is about as solemn as a candy cane.

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, why do you think she did not kill herself? I mean practically-speaking.

I believe that people take life more seriously than you are willing to admit. First, she had no reason to commit suicide with such bright prospects before her. Second, there is no forensic evidence of a mental state to commit suicide. Third, there are soooo many abnormalities in this case that it would be irresponsible not to question her death.

Fourth, and finally, she is black and dealing with a southern police officer. There should be a rule of evidence that raises presumptions on that basis alone.

I see no reason to think this lady did not kill herself. She'd had a bad time, and tried to kill herself. She got over it and planned a new life all full of hope. She starts the new life, but then ends up in a cell for three days crying, confused, angry, and feeling hopeless.

As for the method - it could be done. I've seen the rubbish bin, and it's a large one, so the bag would be large too.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:FFS Quill, she doesn't need to be an expert to know if she's depressed or not.

Of course you do.  Forensically, depression is a question that can only be answered by an expert, and only under oath.  A casual check on an admittance arrest form is about as solemn as a candy cane.

She said she was depressed herself! Read your own link - do some research.

I can't keep going in circles with you Quill. I'll post my own thoughts, but your posts are becoming a bit surreal.

victorismyhero wrote:It strikes me quill that a large %age of your police forces are "no longer fit for purpose"

It’s a much bigger country than yours, yet the news industry still makes appear like we are watching everything as it happens. We are not.

The fact of the matter is that our Federal authorities, as well as urban police in cities like San Francisco, Seattle, and even in the back offices of NYC, Boston, Tucson, San Diego, etc., are really good.

The problem—and it’s the problem here—is that the police and courts, including juries, reflect the communities in which they operate. And in the south, that means racism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course you do.  Forensically, depression is a question that can only be answered by an expert, and only under oath.  A casual check on an admittance arrest form is about as solemn as a candy cane.

She said she was depressed herself! Read your own link - do some research.

I can't keep going in circles with you Quill. I'll post my own thoughts, but your posts are becoming a bit surreal.

I'm afraid you are like the gullible people who let themselves be enslaved. You accept so little on questions of such importance.

Define 'depression' and then prove that your definition was the same as hers. See, you can't do that.

That is why we have experts to answer such questions about mental and emotional condition.

I strikes me you need another civil war to sort it out...

maybe a "military excercise, followed by interning the problems in FEMA camps "

It seems to me that some people are more concerned with "definitions" than anything else. Talk about lack of empathy.

The lady had a lot of old cut marks on one of her arms - sounds like she was a self-harmer.

Definitions are the essence of law , no doubt about it...

victorismyhero wrote:I strikes me you need another civil war to sort it out...

maybe a "military excercise, followed by interning the problems in FEMA camps "

I've often stumbled over that same thought.  But, really, I think the real problem is old, white men, and they are dying off quite expeditiously lately.  So, maybe natural selection will be kinder than a civil war.

victorismyhero wrote:Definitions are the essence of law , no doubt about it...

I'm talking about whether she killed herself or not - as per Quill's suggestion that she did not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:Definitions are the essence of law , no doubt about it...

I'm talking about whether she killed herself or not - as per Quill's suggestion that she did not.

The problem is, the law is set up to determine the truth. You are not, Raggs.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm talking about whether she killed herself or not - as per Quill's suggestion that she did not.

The problem is, the law is set up to determine the truth.  You are not, Raggs.

Then neither are you, and yet you came up with a theory in your first post that she did not kill herself. I'm discussing that, but you don't seem to want to.

Raggamuffin wrote:The lady had a lot of old cut marks on one of her arms - sounds like she was a self-harmer.

Now you are beginning to bring out the correct instincts. It is an empirical question, not a legal matter of a check on a form.

Still, you are not qualified to interpret signs of psychosis. Medical school in this country take 8-years, followed by 2-3 years of internship, 2-years of residency, and perhaps some post-doctoral studies. Are you willing to go up against that?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The lady had a lot of old cut marks on one of her arms - sounds like she was a self-harmer.

Now you are beginning to bring out the correct instincts.  It is an empirical question, not a legal matter of a check on a form.

Still, you are not qualified to interpret signs of psychosis.  Medical school in this country take 8-years, followed by 2-3 years of internship, 2-years of residency, and perhaps some post-doctoral studies.  Are you willing to go up against that?

You're not qualified to come up with some half-arsed theory about murder. You should do some research instead and try to put yourself in her shoes.

I'm out of this thread unless someone else posts something sensible. I'm losing the will myself ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The problem is, the law is set up to determine the truth.  You are not, Raggs.

Then neither are you, and yet you came up with a theory in your first post that she did not kill herself. I'm discussing that, but you don't seem to want to.

Actually, I am qualified.  I have been a teaching law enforcement officer and a lawyer, prosecutor and assistant attorney general. I have been an expert witness in Federal Court on matters of law, and I have even sat as a judge pro tempore.  But I have only limited access to the facts in this case.

Yet I have all the equipment I need to give an educated guess, within those limits.  And I theorize that something is amiss with this case.  I smell cover-up in the worst way.

Sandra Bland: suspicion and mistrust flourish amid official inconsistencies

Critics say scepticism is justified as evidence made public has only raised more questions about a young black woman’s death in police custody in rural Texas


As he posted a video clip to Facebook on Thursday night, the Chicago rapper Lil Bibby claimed to have startling new evidence in the case of Sandra Bland, who was found dead last week at the county jail in Hempstead, Texas, from what authorities said was a suicide.

“She looks dead in the video already,” he said of the footage, which showed a black woman cuffed at the hands and feet being pulled out of a police car and dragged lifelessly across a parking lot to jail by a white officer. The post was shared more than 260,000 times.

But the clip in fact dates from October 2013. The man seen in uniform is not Texas state trooper Brian Encinia, who aggressively arrested Bland following a 10 July traffic stop, but a police officer from Tampa, Florida. And the homeless woman being manhandled, who had been detained on drugs charges, survived her ordeal.

Lil Bibby’s was only the latest in a series of outlandish claims fuelling allegations that an official cover-up is masking the true story of Bland’s death. The assertions have laid bare the full extent of mistrust for the police that has grown sharply around the US in the year since the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, in Ferguson, Missouri.

“The case of Sandra Bland is an exclamation point on the reasoning of why it is that black Americans feel disdain and distrust for police,” said Jamal Bryant, a Baltimore pastor and activist who was on the scene in Texas this week and delivered the eulogy in his city at the funeral of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old who died from a broken neck in police custody in April. “People simply do not believe them.”

Speculation has circulated that Bland must have already been dead and lying on her back when police photographed her for a mugshot, because her head was tilted slightly back and the grey wall behind her appeared to match the floor of her cell.

Police point to a standard second booking picture, taken from Bland’s side, as evidence there was no foul play. Bland died in jail three days after the traffic stop, having been held on a charge of assaulting a public servant. An autopsy report released on Friday ruled Bland’s death a suicide and said investigators discovered wounds on her neck consistent with hanging.

A recording by the dashboard camera of Encinia’s cruiser, which was decidedly unflattering to the officer, was dismissed by Bryant and thousands of other activists online as a selectively edited piece of police propaganda, because the footage contained a series of unusual jumps and cuts. Police insisted a technical glitch was to blame.


WATCH VIDEO

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/25/sandra-bland-suspicion-mistrust-official-inconsistencies

More here:
http://yournewswire.com/video-anonymous-calls-for-national-day-of-rage-sandra-bland-murdered/

And for the bare facts: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sandra_Bland

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t10728-fbi-investigating-suicide-of-woman-found-dead-in-a-texas-jail

Oops! Sorry! Haven't been around much since Thursday!

I'll merge the threads

Waller County DA names committee to review Bland case

Waller County Texas has set up a blue-ribbon committee to look into the suspicious death of Sandra Bland.

KHOU.Com, Houston TX wrote:HEMPSTEAD, Texas -- The district attorney investigating the death of Sandra Bland says he's bringing in a committee of outside attorneys to review evidence as it's collected.

Waller County District Attorney Elton Mathis said Monday that the panel of lawyers will help his office make decisions based on "credible evidence and not rumors."

"So the public knows this case is getting the appropriate scrutiny it deserves," Mathis said.

Criminal defense attorneys Darrell Jordan and Lewis White are the first two named to the committee. These volunteers will have full access to all the evidence and be able to present their findings to the grand jury. They promise to be impartial.

"Independent from DAs, and also independent from any outside agitators who want us to side a certain way," White said.

"I have no dog in the fight whatsoever," Jordan said.

Mathis also released an initial toxicology report Monday with findings that Bland had marijuana in her system at the time of her death.

Bland, who was black, died in the county jail after a traffic stop by a white state trooper for failing to use a turn signal escalated into a physical confrontation.

Bland was found hanging in the Waller County Jail cell three days later. The medical examiner said it was a suicide, but her family doesn't believe it.

Her arrest has gotten international attention and questions about whether she was mistreated due to her race.

I am very suspicious about this case.  Since the death of Michael Brown by police in Furguson, MO, the world has been on the lookout for police murders.  They have found them in NYC to Baltimore, MD, to Charleston, SC, coming through in waves upon waves, proving that American police departments are essentially units of organized crime.

The evidence has come in from videos taken by dash-cams from the police cars themselves, plus the millions of cell phone cams in the hands of private citizens.  The problem has gotten so bad that the State of Texas is entertaining a bill to criminalize the taking of cell phone videos of arrests.  This has been taken as evidence that the police have a motive to falsify evidence.  Why else would them want to hide the truth?

So, comes now the case of Sandra Bland, who was arrested for assaulting a police officer--what else --after being stopped for failure to signal a lane change.  Can you fookin' believe that?  Failure to signal a lane change?

OK, stop laughing and get serious: Just like Freddie Gray, she was found dead three days later.  How, you ask, did she die?  The cops say she hung herself.  Why?, you ask.  She admitted it on an arrest form.  Admitted her suicide?  Before she died?  [edit: these are not the brightest bulbs on the police tree].  Yes...well, she was taking marijuana.  And the marijuana caused her to defy the laws of time?  Well, no...but it must have fooked up her head.  How?  I don't know.  Well, how did she get the marijuana after three days in jail?  We'll look into that.  Oh, and um...while you are at it, can you tell me how you hang yourself with a plastic bag?

So, there are obviously enough questions to go around.  So this Blue Ribbon Committee has been convened in order to look into things.  

Methinks they will probably be looking at the moon.  A monkey can see that this is a cover-up.  After all, it was Texas that wanted to outlaw evidence-gathering, such as on cell phones.  It's ground-zero for a motive to lie.  I can see Jerry Seinfeld right now: Newman!!

Keep in touch.  We'll see.

Original Quill wrote:
OK, stop laughing and get serious: Just like Freddie Gray, she was found dead three days later.  How, you ask, did she die?  The cops say she hung herself.  Why?, you ask.  She admitted it on an arrest form.  Admitted her suicide?  Before she died?  [edit: these are not the brightest bulbs on the police tree].

It's probably a big mistake to post in this thread again, but I really don't understand why you have misunderstood this issue of the lady having tried to kill herself previously. The form asked if she had tried to kill herself previously - ie, before the arrest, and before she was put in a cell. Why do you keep saying she "admitted her suicide" on the arrest form?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
OK, stop laughing and get serious: Just like Freddie Gray, she was found dead three days later.  How, you ask, did she die?  The cops say she hung herself.  Why?, you ask.  She admitted it on an arrest form.  Admitted her suicide?  Before she died?  [edit: these are not the brightest bulbs on the police tree].

It's probably a big mistake to post in this thread again, but I really don't understand why you have misunderstood this issue of the lady having tried to kill herself previously. The form asked if she had tried to kill herself previously - ie, before the arrest, and before she was put in a cell. Why do you keep saying she "admitted her suicide" on the arrest form?

Because that's the absurd use that the police are trying to put it.  They are applying ex post facto logic to the idea: It was a suicide because she marked 'past thoughts of suicide' on the form.  The form is speaking retrospectively.  Yet the police try to apply it to something that happened afterward.

I'm in agreement with you.  It's an absurd interpretation.  The purpose for which that question was put in the form was prospective: to look out for something.  And they didn't even do that!

I'm merely pointing out all the irregularities of this case.  Those irregularities point to a cover-up.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's probably a big mistake to post in this thread again, but I really don't understand why you have misunderstood this issue of the lady having tried to kill herself previously. The form asked if she had tried to kill herself previously - ie, before the arrest, and before she was put in a cell. Why do you keep saying she "admitted her suicide" on the arrest form?

Because that's the absurd use that the police are trying to put it.  They are applying ex post facto logic to the idea: It was a suicide because she marked 'past thoughts of suicide' on the form.  The form is speaking retrospectively.  Yet the police try to apply it to something that happened afterward.

I'm in agreement with you.  It's an absurd interpretation.  The purpose for which that question was put in the form was prospective: to look out for something.  And they didn't even do that!

I'm merely pointing out all the irregularities of this case.  Those irregularities point to a cover-up.

Well no, they're saying it's suicide because she was found with a plastic bin bag around her neck. They ask the question on the form to establish if someone is a suicide risk. You could say they should have put her on suicide watch, but that's different to saying that she admitted her suicide.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because that's the absurd use that the police are trying to put it.  They are applying ex post facto logic to the idea: It was a suicide because she marked 'past thoughts of suicide' on the form.  The form is speaking retrospectively.  Yet the police try to apply it to something that happened afterward.

I'm in agreement with you.  It's an absurd interpretation.  The purpose for which that question was put in the form was prospective: to look out for something.  And they didn't even do that!

I'm merely pointing out all the irregularities of this case.  Those irregularities point to a cover-up.

Well no, they're saying it's suicide because she was found with a plastic bin bag around her neck. They ask the question on the form to establish if someone is a suicide risk. You could say they should have put her on suicide watch, but that's different to saying that she admitted her suicide.

If you believe the plastic bag story, then you don't need to mention the arrest form. Don't you see? It's what we call in law of evidence, a 'make-weight' item, because it is only cumulative. The only time you need cumulative evidence is when you think you won't be believed.

And that's part of why I don't believe them. Why do they have to use something off-point to 'make weight' in their evidence? It's furtive behavior. They are trying to hide something...ie, cover-up.

Now, not that this item alone would tip the scales. But all things taken together, this case smells really awful.