The Premeditated Murder of George Floyd: A Theory (part 1)
We’re at war with terrorism. We’re at war with racism. But most of all – we’re at war with ourselves. (Jesus Walks by Kanye West)
The emergence of Covid-19 in early 2020 led many in the United States and around the world to seek guidance and certainty in a turbulent time. Historically, the United States relied upon political unification to provide a common “ground truth” to all its citizens. This is what occurred after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Kennedy assassination, and the September 11th attacks. In the US in 2020, however, this possibility was ruled out due to divided opinions between those who supported President Trump and those who actively sought his impeachment. As a result, US citizens sought unifying “ground truths” elsewhere, with one area of focus being science. One may rely on two plus two equaling four, and on the colors of a rainbow being properly ordered. This desire to congeal around a common ground truth is one reason why Dr. Anthony Fauci emerged since most at that time viewed him as an honest broker of the scientific viewpoint of Covid-19.
On May 25th, 2020, George Floyd was killed outside Cup Foods in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The ongoing Covid-related crisis also led many to seek ground truth for the circumstances surrounding his death. One group – let’s call them the “Blue Group” – with an appreciation for the history of racial prejudice in the US believed that the evidence showed that the four police officers murdered Derek Chauvin. However, a second group – “Red Group” -with an inherent sense that police officers would not harm the people they have sworn to protect primarily blamed George Floyd for apparently resisting arrest, especially after an autopsy revealed the presence of drugs, including fentanyl, and a high blood pressure condition.
The group into which a person fell depended upon both one’s own life experiences and also upon which media sources were consulted. The Blue Group surely relied on traditional “mainstream” media outlets to inform their classification. For the most part, the people in this group accepted that George Floyd was a drug user and that the encounter began with a fake $20 bill, but they focused on the fact he was handcuffed, roughed up inside a police car while in cuffs, and subsequently pinned to the ground for over nine minutes before he died while crying out “I can’t breathe.” Some in this group attributed their own previous negative prior experiences with police officers to racial prejudice.
The Red Group relied on conservative media outlets for information. They focused on the autopsy showing drugs and on George Floyd’s reluctance to get into the backseat of a police cruiser. The physical size of George Floyd was often described in those media outlets, which led commentators to discuss the challenges which good police officers frequently face. To a debatable extent, racial prejudice played a role for some who joined the Red Group. In turn, the Blue Group labeled the Red Group as “racist” while the second group likewise termed the Blue Group as “anti-police.”
Ultimately, two groups with conflicting ground truths formed in the US, largely along racial and political lines, during a time of crisis. At a time when the existence of ground truths had outsized psychological importance, these two groups would hold ever more tightly to their diametrically opposed positions even as additional evidence was uncovered. Following media tailored to affirm the chosen group’s “ground truth” led individuals to “lock in” their views.
***
This background demonstrates the difficulty of swaying members of either group that a third option might provide the best understanding the circumstances surrounding the murder of George Floyd. (Since a jury convicted former officer Derek Chauvin of second-degree murder, hereafter I will use the term “murder.”)
The first step in the laying out this third possibility is through a simple statement may at first appear agreeable to the Blue Group while some members of the Red Group will be inclined to tune out the argument:
I believe that George Floyd was an Innocent Man.
While the Blue Group might be pleased with this initial statement, the satisfaction will be temporary. I also believe George Floyd was drugged with fentanyl and murdered by Chauvin, Thao, Kueng, and Lane in a carefully planned (pre-meditated) operation supported by an enormous and well-organized deadly cabal. Furthermore, I suspectpart of the motivation for some individuals within that cabal was to defeat Trump in the 2020 election. I also believe the goals for the leaders of the cabal go far beyond a single election- rather, I believe they wish to impose a Color Revolution upon the United States. Simply put, we are in the process of being tricked by a large well-organized group of professionals. Unfortunately, I sense that their actions have already cost the lives and health of many across the world. Even if we are victorious over what I perceive to be a powerful force aligned against us, our process of recovery will be long and difficult. Nonetheless, I hope this essay provides a stepping stone to prepare for that victory march.
My first goal is to methodically lay out an argument that George Floyd was innocent. He may have taken prescription pain pills like Percocet, but I do not believe he willingly took the much more deadly illicit drugs heroin or fentanyl. Furthermore, I believe he considered the alleged “Fake $20 bill” (which was an initiator of the incident) to be analogous to an IOU that he eventually would have repaid.
However, I will not prove to 100% certainty that my argument is true. Rather, I ask only that the reader accept that what I propose has a reasonable possibility of being true. Even for that to happen, the mind must be “unlock” from either the “Red” or “Blue” narrative. To borrow the advice of the 1990’s musical group En Vogue: “Free your mind, and the rest will follow.” It may sound easy, but working through this process presents a challenge because it requires that members of each of the two groups-in other words, *all of us*- to accept our own limits in perception. Moreover, you will not come to a new “ground truth” but rather end with many questions left unanswered – though I believe we will be better prepared to take in new information, not yet at our disposal.
The chart above indicates the path of the third option and uses the term Ockham’s Razor, which can be taken to mean that the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. What I propose is that Ockham’s Razor will not lead to a correct conclusion in our present circumstance. Consider a simple example: Suppose you are playing a game of hide-and-seek with a child, and the child hides. If you open your eyes and see the child’s shoes on the floor with a curtain bulging above the shoes, Ockham’s Razor would lead you to believe that the child is hiding behind the curtain. However, a clever child might place his or her shoes below the curtain and stack pillows behind it, creating the bulge, while hiding somewhere else. The point is that the more sophisticated and clever the child is, the more likely it is that Ockham’s Razor will lead us astray.
The dual narrative approach provides two options (red and blue) – each of which at first appear more likely, as shown by the left and right branches on the chart. Thus, the media outlets on each side spend most of their time and resources comparing and contrasting the two possibilities rather than exploring a third, which at first seems less plausible than the other two. Counter-intuitively, the apparent lack of plausibility is what makes the third option attractive to a clever and sophisticated cabal.
***
George Floyd’s detractors typically characterize him as being guilty of three separate activities which, in isolation, would be crimes:
1. It is claimed he used illicit drugs like fentanyl and heroin.
2. It is claimed he committed forgery by using a fake $20 bill to buy cigarettes.
3. It is claimed he resisted arrest.
However, let us consider the possibility that George Floyd was drugged with fentanyl without his knowledge. Although there is some evidence that he acquired and used the pain-killer Percocet, there is a dearth of evidence he took either heroin or fentanyl of his own volition during 2020. I will also point out that there are two possibilities for why he may have used a fake $20: (1) he may have viewed the exchange as the equivalent of giving an IOU and/or (2) he had been drugged with fentanyl, without his knowledge, prior to entering Cup Foods and therefore unknowingly under its influence. More importantly, if George Floyd were surreptitiously drugged with fentanyl or amphetamine prior to his interaction with Chauvin, then he would not be responsible for behavior consistent with resisting arrest. I wish to focus on the possibility of an IOU-equivalence for Cup Foods first because I view it as more likely, though the second possibility is a subject worthy of addressing later in this article series.
The main basis for the third option is drawn from my interpretation of material primarily from two sources: an article titled “George Floyd’s Search for Solutions,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune, by Maya Rao, 27 December 2020 (available at: (https://web.archive.org/web/20201230035723/https://www.startribune.com/george-floyd-hoped-moving-to-minnesota-would-save-him-what-he-faced-here-killed-him/573417181/ ) Herein, I will describe this source as “the Rao article.” As the title suggests, the Rao article provides a very detailed- and generally favorable- account of George Floyd’s life.
The second main source is the testimony of Courteney Ross in the Derek Chauvin trial, which is available on C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/video/?510411-1/derek-chauvin-trial-death-day-4# ). The C-SPAN testimony by Courteney Ross has the inherent advantage of being under oath. Information from several other sources, including the police body-cam videos of Floyd’s arrest, will be used to illuminate points in later articles in this series.
A natural question one might have is the motive. Why would this cabal choose to drug and murder George Floyd instead of someone else? It is simpler to make the argument for George Floyd’s innocence – and the officers’ guilt- first and address specific aspects of the motive afterward. However, a very specific motive will be proposed in a subsequent article.
Without doubt, the level of certainty could be improved with more information. However, to obtain evidence, one must have trust in those who gather it. Let us reflect that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is in a prominent position for gathering and analyzing the evidence. Unfortunately, we know that some within the FBI have obscured evidence for purposes which are unknown at present. For one example, FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty to a felony charge of falsifying information about Carter Page, related to the Mueller investigation, and was sentenced to a year of probation. A second example is presented by the FBI handling of the laptop now widely verified to belong to Hunter Biden. Moreover, the treatment of the New York Post story about the Hunter Biden laptop in October 2020 demonstrates that journalists may be censored if they work to present evidence outside the bounds of a desired narrative. This limits discussion of ideas even by credible sources outside of official investigative channels.
Given that these conventional information gathering sources and some aspects of law enforcement have been compromised, the unfortunate outcome is that we are left to do our best to debate evidence gathered from sources with limitations. Thus, we must accept the inherent risk of being wrong in exchange for a candid discussion of facts and ideas.
Let’s begin with three excerpts from the Rao article:
The first excerpt (above) starts by pointing out the obvious. At 6’5” and 240 pounds, people paid attention to George Floyd. Simply due to his size, it was more likely that others would recognize him – instead of the other way around. Second, Thunstrom observed that Floyd did not drink in his presence and his impression of Floyd was very positive. Consider this statement in the same vein as one might a character witness. The third important aspect of this excerpt is that although Floyd worked inside the establishment owned by Thunstrom (Conga Latin Bistro), he was often willing to go outside as part of his job.
The second excerpt (above) states that George Floyd passed a drug test. While passing a drug test in 2018 does rule out the possibility that he took heroin or fentanyl in 2020, it is a data point to consider.
The third excerpt (above) demonstrates that, according to the Rao article, George Floyd was a regular at Cup Foods. He paid his phone bill regularly there for over two years. Considering the earlier point regarding Mr. Floyd’s stature, it is likely that some individuals at Cup Foods knew -or at least were familiar with- George Floyd.
It also describes that an acquaintance named Maurice Hall went inside Cup Foods first, and a clerk is said to have rejected his $20 as counterfeit, according to Cup Foods spokesman Jamar Nelson. A short time later, Mr. Floyd walked in and paid for cigarettes with a bill the clerk also believed was fake. Mr. Floyd returned to the car and was sitting in it with Hall and Hill when the police arrived.”
Setting aside the question of drugs for a moment, consider the chain of events. With respect to Floyd’s use of the fake $20 bill, there are several indications which suggest George Floyd felt his actions were mostly innocent. First, if he felt he had robbed the store or committed forgery, why would he stay nearby – simply resting comfortably in his car? Surely, it took several minutes for police to arrive, right? Why would he remain in one place instead of driving away before police arrived?
Second, if the clerk accepted the $20 bill, was George Floyd given change? Later on, during the encounter with police recorded on body-cams, his pockets were emptied but no dollar bills or change fell out. Did Hill give Floyd the fake bill, and if so, did he give the change to Hall? Is it possible that Floyd gave the clerk the paper but did not get change back? If so, that would be behavior consistent with an IOU. One might reason that the next time Floyd entered the store, where he regularly visited, he would pay back the debt. After all, as the Rao article suggests, he was highly recognizable - a man who was 6’5” and 240 lbs was not going to blend into the crowd.
Jovanni Thunstrom, the owner of George Floyd’s place of employment (the Conga Latin Bistro), attested to his character. The Rao article states, “Thunstrom considered Floyd the best employee he had had in his 20 years at the club. And he thought no differently after Floyd opened up about his past. ‘Floyd, you’re a good person,’ he said. ‘You deserve to start all over.’” Other interviewees provided similar feedback used for the article. George Floyd’s roommate, Alvin Manago, even credited Floyd for helping him get his own dishwashing at the same nightclub owned by Thunstrom.
Another factor in my sense that the “fake $20 bill” was more akin to an IOU than forgery is provided by the encounter with the Minneapolis police. George Floyd’s reaction when probed about the incident had the tone of a person who felt bad about it. After all, one should not coerce a store clerk to accept an IOU. He did not deny that the incident occurred, which a person guilty of a more serious crime of forgery or theft might be prone to do. Details of this aspect of the police encounter will be described in a later article in this series.
My inference from the combination of evidence and testimonials to his character is that George Floyd viewed the interaction at Cub Foods to be more akin to providing the cashier with an IOU rather than a robbery or forgery.
***
Floyd was a 46 year old former athlete with several old injuries, and it seems there is evidence that he *did* have a track record of taking the pain-killer Percocet outside of prescription. In fact, the Rao article lays out a specific incident involving police from 6 May 2019:
Let us consider this excerpt very carefully. First, Mr. Floyd was a passenger and not the driver. Second, his reaction was unusual enough that officers remembered his behavior. Third, Floyd admitted to taking *Percocets* that day and said he took 8 or 9 pills daily. Percocet is a common “bridge drug” used by opiate users when an addiction is present but when a supply of opiates is hard to find. While skeptical readers may believe he used also heroin or fentanyl, no drugs other than Percocet were described as being in his possession during the 6 May 2019 incident, and no charges were ever brought against Floyd pursuant to that incident. There is no other published incident from Minneapolis involving a drug charge with respect to George Floyd.
In this 6 May 2019 incident, authorities called an ambulance for George Floyd… Per the Rao article: “A medical professional named Shelley took his blood pressure and voiced alarm at the reading: 216 over 160. Floyd said he was not taking his meds.”
It is rare that someone of George Floyd’s stature has an over-the-top reaction to police. His behavior surely would have been the topic of discussion among some officers in the Minneapolis Police Department. Was Derek Chauvin aware of this encounter?
In the trial, George Floyd’s drug history is largely provided by Ms. Courteney Ross, who has been described alternatively as his girlfriend (https://news.yahoo.com/george-floyd-girlfriend-verdict-d-232400710.html ) or fiancée (www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/it-was-a-relief-george-floyds-fiance-speaks-out-after-derek-chauvins-arrest ) at the time of his death. Therefore, her testimony warrants very close scrutiny.
The evidence from her testimony will show that:
1. Courteney Ross exaggerated the extent of her relationship with George Floyd. In this regard, at least one statement in Courteney Ross’s testimony directly contradicts a statement derived from her interview for the Rao article.
2. Courteney Ross’s testimony in several responses suggests that she disputed statements in the FBI transcript of her interviews in May and June of 2020. However, she often avoided a direct contradiction of the FBI by answering “that is what the transcript says.”
3. Both the prosecution and the defense attorneys sought to establish that George Floyd obtained drugs from Maurice Hall or Shawanda Hill – and NOT from another source. The prosecuting attorney made NO EFFORT to persuade the jury that George Floyd might have been drugged without his knowledge.
4. There is a reasonable probability that the hospitalization of George Floyd in March 2020 might NOT have been from a drug overdose at all - but rather was due to Covid-19.
***
Courteney Ross’s testimony under oath was only about an hour long, and I would encourage readers to watch it and form an opinion. The responses I view as most relevant are included herein. All quotes are provided and time stamps are from C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/video/?510411-1/derek-chauvin-trial-death-day-4# )
The question begins with the prosecuting attorney called Ross as a witness and allowed her to discuss alleged aspects of drug use by Floyd and herself. However, a more specific and substantial discussion came upon cross-examination.
33:35: Chauvin’s Defense Attorney (Mr. Eric Nelson): “You were interviewed by law enforcement. The first interview you provided was on May 31 of 2020 with an agent from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension named Nathan Adams as well as an FBI agent named Christopher Langert. And have you had an opportunity to review a transcript of that first interview?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Then later…
34:10- Atty: “Then you also had an interview back in June of 2020 with just the FBI agents and some prosecutors from the federal government?”
Ross: “Yes.”
For reference, a CBS story from May 2021 included an interview with FBI agent Christopher Langert in the context of an unrelated story about hostage negotiations in St. Cloud Minnesota. ( https:www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/let-them-tell-their-story-fbi-crisis-negotiator-discusses-st-cloud-hostage-situations-safe-outcome/ )
34:40: Chauvin defense atty: “And in fact, I think yesterday, when you met with prosecutors, you went through the FBI transcript from that meeting back in June.”
Ross: “Yes, I did.”
Later on in the testimony:
38:50: “In the January and February (of 2020) timeframe, were you and Mr. Floyd were clean and free from using opioids? Were you clean and sober?”
Ross: “In January and February?”
Atty: “Yes.”
Ross: “We weren’t really talking to each other, so I wasn’t around him.”
Atty: “So you were on the break at that point, right?”
Ross: “Uh-huh (yes).”
Atty: “And then you reconnected in March?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Pause at this point to consider that one excerpt of the Rao story contradicts this statement from Ross on the witness stand. Rao states the following: “In the new year, Floyd found another way of claiming his place as a Minnesotan. He changed the area code on his replacement cell phone from 832 – Houston – to 612. Then he and his girlfriend, Courteney Ross, ran out of the Metro PCS store, holding hands and laughing as they jumped over snow banks with giddy elation. They bought pizza slices across the street to celebrate.”
This exchange provides evidence that Ms. Ross has exaggerated the closeness of her relationship with George Floyd in the media. Does it make sense that Courteney Ross would celebrate George Floyd’s apparent commitment to living in Minnesota with him “in the new year” but somehow not see Ross in January or February.
(Maybe some see it differently, but my experience with replacing a cell phone at a store ranks with visiting the Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the dentist’s office. There is usually a long line, about half the time there is some kind of technical problem transferring data from my old phone to my new one, and I always end up paying more than I thought I would. It is hardly the place I would take a date.)
For another example, Ross was represented in the media as engaged to be married to George Floyd, yet her testimony reflects that that they did not interact with each other for a two-month period of January and February. Over a period of only one week in early March, they “reconnected.” It seems to me that Ross was in no hurry to correct common media representations of she and George Floyd being engaged, given that her status has usually been commonly described as ‘girlfriend’ in more recent articles.
During her testimony on matters outside her relationship with George Floyd I found her testimony, at first, to come across as mostly authentic to me. For reasons which will become clear later in this article, I subsequently have come to question her authenticity.
The testimony continued:
Atty: “And was there an incident in March which required Mr. Floyd to be hospitalized?”
Ross: “Yes”
Atty: “And that was… can you describe to the jury what that incident was?”
Ross: “Which date are you speaking of?”
Atty: “In March, when he was hospitalized.”
Ross: “We went to the hospital a couple of times in March.”
Atty: “OK. I understand he was hospitalized for a more extended time period in March. That is the incident I am talking about. I understand he went once because he cut his hand on glass or something and that was a shorter hospital stay. But then there was an extended stay in March. Can you explain what led to that hospital stay?”
Ross: “Yes I went to go pick Floyd up from his house that night. I thought I was taking him to work. He wasn’t feeling good. His stomach really hurt. He was doubled over in pain. Just wasn’t feeling well, so he said he had to go to the hospital. So I took him straight to the hospital. We went to the ER, and they were checking him out in the ER. And - It was getting late, and I had to get home to my son, so I left that Friday night.” (Indeed, 6 March 2020 was a Friday.)
It is curious that, after such a long break in a relationship, Courteney Ross happened to be the person who took George Floyd to the hospital on 6 March 2020. She testified that she thought she was taking him to work, but here is a question. How was George Floyd going to get back home that night? In other words, why wouldn’t he drive simply drive himself to work instead of asking Ross, with whom he had “reconnected” less than one week prior, to drive him there according to her testimony?
The testimony continued…
Atty: “Did you later learn that was due to an overdose?”
Ross: “Yes” (objection by prosecutor was overruled)
Atty: “You spent several days with him at the hospital, correct?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Atty: “and did you learn what caused that overdose?”
Ross: “No.”
Atty: “And at that time did you learn Mr. Floyd was taking anything other than opioids?”
Ross: “No.”
Atty: “You did not know that he had taken heroin at that time?”
Ross: “No.”
Note that this is a clever strategy by Chauvin’s defense attorney. He was able to introduce the notion that George Floyd was a heroin user. But why did the prosecutor fail to raise an objection when the second question, specifically involving heroin was posed.
Another interesting exchange starts at 49:10.
49:10- Defense attorney: “Do you recall the FBI asking whether you were getting those same pills from the same source from March to May?”
Ross: “I do not recall that question.”
Atty: “Would it refresh your recollection to review the transcript?”
Ross: “Yes.”
The transcript is brought to Ross.
Ross: “Honestly, I was in such shock, I don’t even know what I mean by some of the things I said.”
(At this point, the attorneys had a sidebar with the judge.)
After the sidebar is complete, the questioning continues at 51:40:
51:40 - Chauvin’s Defense Attorney: “So you now have had an opportunity to review that portion of the (FBI) transcript. Would you agree with me that the FBI agents asked you from March to May if you continued to purchase those pills from the same source. Did they ask you that question?”
Ross: “They did.”
Atty: “And you responded, ‘Once in a while when we were desperate. Agreed?”
Ross: “That’s what it says-yes. I don’t recall saying that.”…
52:37 - Chauvin’s Defense Attorney: “And Mr. Floyd’s overdose, that was at the beginning of March 2020. He was hospitalized on March 6th -agreed?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Chauvin’s defense attorney: “And he was in the hospital for 10 or 11 days, something like that?”
Ross: “No. Five.”
It is noteworthy that Courteney Ross was very definitive in her answer that George Floyd’s hospitalization was no longer than 5 days.
52:50 - Atty: “5 days. And when you took him to the hospital, did you notice foam coming from his mouth?”
Ross: “Ummm, I noticed like some kind of like –you know- foam building in the corner of his mouth, kind of – dry.”
Atty: “A dry white substance?
”
Ross: “Uh-huh (meaning yes). Yes - sorry.”
The issue of foam is very important because former officer Kueng was seen on body-cam video suggesting that George Floyd was “foaming at the mouth.” Ask yourself this simple question: when someone is foaming at the mouth, is the foam wet or is it dry?
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foam
By definition, foam involves a liquid. Yet the prosecutor does not use redirect to ask Courteney Ross why she characterized foam as being dry.
If George Floyd were hospitalized due to stomach pain, it is reasonable to think he might have experienced nausea. Nausea can lead to hyper-salivation, which is similar to foaming at the mouth.
The testimony continued…
Atty: “Now, you were asked a couple of questions of whether that overdose was caused by heroin. And you said you didn’t know.”
Ross: “I didn’t.”
Atty: “Do you remember telling the FBI that the overdose was from heroin?”
Ross: “I was speculating.”
Atty: “Do you recall telling the FBI where or whom the source of that heroin was?”
Ross: “Once again, yes, I do remember that, but I was speculating.”
Atty: “Was that Mr. Hall?”
Ross: “No.”
Atty: “Was that Shawanda Hill?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Atty: “Did you know Mr. Floyd to purchase drugs from Ms. Hill as well?”
Ross: “No.”
Atty: “Do you recall being asked whether he purchased drugs from Ms. Hill previously?”
Ross: “I don’t remember that. No.”
Atty: “Would it refresh you recollection to review a copy of your (FBI) transcript?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Judge: “So this is to refresh your memory. There will not be a question before you at this time.”
55:04 - Ross: “Where does it say that he was buying drugs from her? (Attorney points at the page.) That doesn’t say buy. This says ‘getting drugs from her.’”
Atty (to judge): “I need to grab one previous page.”
At this point, Courteney Ross pored over the transcript with a quizzical look (below).
Judge: “This again is to refresh your memory. There is not a question before you that you need to answer yet.”
Atty: “Ms. Ross, does that refresh your recollection?”
Ross: “Yes, but none of that says he was buying drugs from her.”
Atty: “You were asked: ‘Do you know who the woman was he would have gotten that from, and your response was ‘Shawanda Hill.’”
Ross: “Yes. I was speculating at the time. I did not know that.”
Atty: “Understood. You were asked, ‘And he liked getting drugs from her?’ And you said ‘Uh huh.’ Correct?”
Ross: “It says that in the transcript – yes.”
Atty: “Now, those same pills -you ultimately got some of those same pills from March or similar pills in May of 2020. Correct?”
Note here that the defense attorney skips from March 2020 to May 2020. He does not address what might have happened in April 2020. This re-enforces the point that George Floyd’s alleged overdose in March 2020 played an essential role in forming the opinion -both for the jury and for the general public- that George Floyd was a habitual user of opioids.
The testimony continued…
Ross: “We got pills in May that remind me of the same feeling. I don’t know if they were the same pills. I don’t know where they came from.”
Atty: “OK. So you had a second experience with those pills, right? Or a similar feeling to those pills?”
Ross: “I had a similar experience. Yes”
Atty: “And that was approximately a week before Mr. Floyd’s passing.”
Ross: “Yes.”
Atty: “And by similar experience, do you recall telling the FBI that when you had that, you felt like you were going to die?”
Ross: “I don’t remember saying that, but I did see it in the transcript.”
Atty: “And is that how you felt? Like you were going to die?”
Ross: “I don’t remember feeling that way. No. I did not recall even saying that.”
Then later…
1:00:10 – Chauvin’s Defense attorney, Eric Nelson: “Do you recall telling the FBI there would be times that he (George Floyd) would be up bouncing around and then there would be times when he was unintelligible?”
Ross: “I don’t recall that. But…”
Def. atty: “Would you disagree if I said that is in the transcript?”
Ross: “No, I wouldn’t disagree with that.”
If one listens to the last comment by Ross in particular, it seems she accepted that virtually *anything* could have been in the FBI transcript. Courteney Ross repeatedly appeared very uncomfortable with what was stated in her FBI transcript. And recall that she earlier testified that she had the opportunity to review this exact same transcript with the prosecution only one day prior to her taking the stand.
Is it conceivable that the prosecutors in the Derek Chauvin trial coordinated with the FBI to fabricate material in Courteney Ross’s transcript prior to her testimony in order to coerce her into testifying that the drugs which were found in George Floyd’s autopsy came from either Maurice Hall or Shawanda Hill?
***
The attorney for the prosecution acknowledged the potential credibility problem in his redirect. The question centered on an alleged drug sale from Hall to Floyd. Ross testified she heard over the phone but did not see it herself when it allegedly took place.
1:02:00 -Pros. Atty: “Just a few follow up questions for you…. I just want you to clarify for the jury, you’re not trying to mislead them or anything, what you’re saying is that you personally didn’t see that sale (of drugs from Mr. Hall to Mr. Floyd).”
Ross: “No, I didn’t. I just wanted to say what I saw.”
Pros. Atty: “But you think that’s probably where those pills came from.”
Ross: “Yes.”
Pros atty: “You don’t disagree with that.”
Ross: “No, I don’t.”
Atty: “You just personally didn’t see it.”
Ross: “Exactly.”
Atty: “And incidentally, what did he call his mother? What did he refer to her as?”
Ross: “He called her ‘Mama’ too, but the way he said it’s just different that way he said it. It’s kind of hard to describe.” (She paused sobbing throughout her answer.)
---
Imagine being asked the question “You’re not trying to mislead the jury, are you?” on the witness stand. Furthermore, consider that testifying that your own FBI transcript is incorrect would be tantamount to accusing the FBI of lying in a murder trial. If Courteney Ross did disagree with the transcript, it would be a much less risky road to travel for Courteney Ross to simply blame an errant memory instead of taking on the FBI. Doesn’t it seem strange that a prosecution witness would have so many occasions to express confusion, and even outright disagreement, with an FBI-recorded transcript?
Clearly, the prosecuting attorney led the witness in the questioning. However, the defense attorney did not object since the prosecutor reinforced a point that the defense attorney wished to make: that Floyd purchased drugs from either Maurice Hall or Shawanda Hill.
It is an interesting paradox that *both* the prosecution and the defense had a motivation to elevate the perception of George Floyd’s drug habit. Chauvin’s defense attorney’s motivation was clear. He wished to raise doubt among jurors about Chauvin’s guilt by suggesting that drugs were the primary contributor, as opposed to Mr. Chauvin’s actions, to Mr. Floyd’s death.
The prosecution team might contend that their purposeful portrayal of George Floyd as a habitual user of drugs enabled them to argue that Floyd’s drug resistance would have been sufficient to leave him largely unaffected by the level of drugs reported in his autopsy.
Would George Floyd’s family have objected to the prosecutor’s strategy of portraying George Floyd as a habitual abuser of heroin and other street drugs? Perhaps that was a motivating factor for the multi-million dollar settlement which was arranged with the Floyd family prior to the trial.
In any case, it was clear that the prosecutor was intent on reinforcing the argument that the George Floyd chose to use drugs. The prosecutor also placed an extraordinary level of importance on establishing that the drugs came from Mr. Hall or Ms. Hill, as opposed to another source. Why do you suppose the source of the drugs found in George Floyd’s system mattered so much to the prosecutor? After all, it would not matter with respect to his drug resistance, right? On the other hand, it *might* matter if one prosecutor goal was to ensure that no one would suspect that a different source of those drugs.
Consider also the absurd juxtaposition of arguably the most important question posed to Ross (from whom Floyd might have obtained fentanyl) with a trivial non-sequitur (what George Floyd called his mother).
Yet which clip appeared in the media? You guessed it – the idea that George Floyd called both his mother and his girlfriend ‘Mama’ through her flowing tears was broadcasted to millions.
For those who have never listened to popular music from 1970’s, let me add that the Led Zeppelin song Black Dog, which starts with the phrase “Hey, hey mama, say the way you move. Gonna make you sweat, gonna make you groove” was NOT about Robert Plant’s (the band’s lead singer’s) mother. On the other hand, the Johnny Cash song Five feet high and rising includes a question “How high is the water, mama?” That ‘mama’ refers to an actual mother. In other words, our society understands the difference when used in context.
Having said that, doesn’t it seem odd that George Floyd would describe her as ‘Mama’ is his cell phone so shortly after his own mother’s death? Did he delete his mother’s phone number from his phone when he got his replacement, supposedly with Courteney Ross by his side? How was his mother listed in his phone prior to her death? Was Ross also listed in his phone prior to his mother’s death as ‘Mama’? If his mother were listed as Mama while Ross was listed differently, why would he change her ‘pet name,’ as described by the defense attorney? I am also curious how George Floyd’s family and friends from Houston felt about his new area code, which Ross asserts was assigned to his phone in “the new year (of 2020).” What was the chain of custody of George Floyd’s cell phone from the time of the George Floyd’s death to the time of the trial? Did anyone make changes to the name entries in his phone after his death?
***
Remember that much of Ross’s testimony was centered on supposed pills from March and then pills from May. So the hospitalization of George Floyd in March has a very strong influence on the perception of George Floyd as a drug abuser.
Could it be that after George Floyd visited the hospital (presumably the emergency room) after hurting his hand, he had pain-killers prescribed? Is it possible that one reason he “reconnected” with Courteney Ross was to obtain additional prescription drugs, such as Percocet? Generally, Ross’s answers to specific questions about Floyd’s alleged drug use in March and then May of 2020 are very ambiguous. She testified that she did NOT know whether he had taken heroin.
While she said she “later learned that” his hospital stay to be due to an overdose - it remains unclear how she obtained that information. Did doctors disclose the information to her? Did George Floyd tell her? Did she come to the conclusion through others (which would be hearsay) or perhaps even on her own? Why did both the prosecution and the defense teams avoid placing George Floyd’s medical records into evidence? It seems strange to me that they relied instead on Ross’s testimony.
Even if doctors did indeed characterize George Floyd’s medical emergency as due to a drug overdose, is it possible that they misdiagnosed the true reason? Conceivably, the medical examination, combined with a conversation with a patient suggesting the ingestion of a large number of Percocets, might have led doctors to prematurely conclude that Mr. Floyd overdosed without due diligence.
Could it be that George Floyd’s hospitalization on 6 March was due to Covid-19 rather than a drug overdose?
To support this line of argument, let’s consider another, earlier part of Ross’s testimony, this time with the prosecuting attorney questioning prior to the defense cross-examination. The attorney begins rather oddly, with the phrase “and I think I forgot to ask you...” It came across to me as though the prosecuting attorney were attempting to downplay the significance of the topic.
31:02 Pros. atty: “And I think I forgot to ask you, was there a time in 2020 when the two of you took a test for covid?”
Ross: “Yes… George Floyd was positive and I was negative.”
Pros. “Do you recall when that was?”
Ross: “I believe it was in late March.” (An autopsy report indicates that on the date of 3 April 2020 George Floyd was known to be positive for Covid-19.)
Pros: “And as a result of that, did he quarantine for a while?”
Ans: “Yes. He was already quarantining. But his roommates also had Covid.” (This last statement is available only when listening to the audio recording – curiously, it is not included in C-SPAN’s written transcript. C-SPAN includes a disclaimer that the transcript is from closed captioning.)
To understand the significance of this statement, consider that Covid-19 was relatively slow to reach Minnesota. By 6 April 2020, only 986 Minnesotans had documented contracted Covid-19.
http://web.archive.org/web/20200407194809/https:/www.inforum.com/newsmd/coronavirus/5031158-Minnesota-coronavirus-testing-now-nearly-entirely-private
It is well-known that Covid-19 often spreads robustly among individuals who live together.
The Rao story also describes some of the circumstances surrounding Floyd’s positive Covid test in early spring of 2020, as follows: “Floyd was still looking for another job when the pandemic struck in March. Then he tested positive for Covid-19. Though hypertension put him at higher risk, Floyd appeared to recover quickly…”
***
Admittedly, it is possible that George Floyd’s possible use of prescription drugs such as Percocet might have exacerbated the effects of Covid-19. For example, the article “Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Opioid Use – A pandemic within an Epidemic” (Slat, Thomas, and Lagisetty, 29 May 2020, JAMA Network Health Forum
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coronavirus-Disease-2019-and-Opioid-Use%E2%80%94A-Pandemic-Slat-Thomas/4cc40cb10eb98f1292eeaf6050076d58eb0811b5
) states the following: “Coronavirus disease 2019 is often associated with serious lung complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome. Because opioids directly affect the brainstem to slow breathing, individuals using opioids may be at increased risk for worsened hypoxemia with the (Covid-19) infection.” And the US Native American Health Services website http://www.ihs.gov/opioids/covid19/ states the following: “Opioid use affects the respiratory and pulmonary health which may make those with opioid use more susceptible to COVID-19.”
Hospital records were not released as part of the court proceeding against Derek Chauvin, and to my knowledge, journalists have not published information about George Floyd’s hospitalization from that time period. The conjecture regarding the cut hand occurring prior to 6 March is derived from defense attorney Eric Nelson’s phrasing, “I understand he went once because he cut his hand on glass or something and that was a shorter hospital stay. But then there was an extended stay in March.” The use of ‘then’ implies- but does not confirm- that the longer stay came after he was released after his hand injury.
My belief that the magnitude of George Floyd’s drug habit was exaggerated was also expressed by the family of George Floyd in the aftermath of his death. . ( https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-floyds-family-disputes-drug-allegations/story?id=72945774 ) titled, “George Floyd’s Family Disputes Drug Allegations”:
“The family of George Floyd pushed back against accusations levied against him in court on Friday after lawyers claimed he had taken drugs prior to his fatal encounter with Minneapolis police in May.
Defense attorneys for the four officers charged in Floyd's death claimed he had swallowed fentanyl, a deadly synthetic opioid, before his arrest, but the slain man's lawyers disputed that.
Ben Crump, a lawyer for Floyd's family, accused the defense team of blaming the dead, a legal maneuver that ‘flies in the face of what we see with our own eyes on the video,’ he added, referring to viral cellphone footage of an officer with his knee on Floyd's neck before his death.
‘The only overdose that killed George Floyd was an overdose of excessive force and racism by the Minneapolis Police Department. George was lucid, cooperative, obeyed commands and had situational awareness when he died,’ Crump said in a statement. ‘The world witnessed his asphyxiation on video, and now defense counsel is asking us to disbelieve our own eyes. Multiple autopsies determined that he died of asphyxiation because of the officers kneeling on his back and neck.’
‘Watching our brother die on video was the most painful experience of our lives. But listening to those defending these officers blame him for his own death today felt like a knife in the heart,’ Philonise Floyd said in a statement. ‘It shows the degree to which the justice system works to protect those in authority at our expense.’
Crump also accused the opposing counsel of portraying ‘negative narratives’ often used against Black victims of police brutality, in which individuals effectively are "assassinated a second time when the official story line destroys their character after they are dead.’"
***
Is this the first time you have heard the possibility that Covid-19, rather than drug overdose (with the heroin suggested by Chauvin’s attorney) might be responsible for the trip to the hospital in March 2020? Does it surprise you that, considering that statues have been erected in George Floyd’s honor, that not one media outlet has even pursued the possibility that George Floyd’s hospitalization on 6 March 2020 might be a result of Covid-19 – even though he was known to have tested Covid positive either in late March (according to Ross) or, at the latest, 3 April (according to the autopsy report)? The logic path is quite clear, in my opinion.
If George Floyd were hospitalized due to Covid-19 rather that a drug overdose in March 2020, he would be viewed in a more favorable light. So why haven’t you heard about this possibility? Given the strong statements from George Floyd’s family and attorney, why would both traditional and conservative media sources avoid addressing this legitimate question?
Take the very in-depth Rao article as one example: it portrays George Floyd in a positive light but does not question whether he might have been hospitalized due to Covid-19 rather than an overdose on 6 March 2020. Likewise, it does not explore the possibility that the fentanyl in George Floyd’s system, reported in the autopsy, might have been introduced without his knowledge. Let this unavoidable conclusion sink in for a moment:
Those who control both mainstream and conservative media outlets in the US do not want their consumers to consider the possibility that George Floyd was an innocent man.
If George Floyd did not overdose on drugs in March 2020, it disrupts the narrative that he willingly took a large quantity of illegal drugs in May 2020. Both the prosecution and defense in the Chauvin trial knew this, which is why they focused so much attention on the March hospitalization of George Floyd during Ross’s testimony.
In turn, this leaves open a key question: If George Floyd did not willingly take those drugs reported in his autopsy, then how did they get into his body?
It is tragic to consider, but we must consider what entities benefited from George Floyd’s death. Clearly, the murder of George Floyd impacted political matters and, specifically, the 2020 US presidential election.
For starters, consider the following two comments:
--- When asked a question by Rep. Dwight Evans, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, on 11 June 2020 Biden replies in part:
Biden: “But even Dr. King’s assassination did not have the worldwide impact that George Floyd’s death did. Because, just like the television changed the civil rights movement for the better when they saw Bull Connor and his dogs ripping the clothes off of elderly Black women going to church, and the fire hoses ripping the skin off of young kids – all those folks around the country that didn’t have any Black populations heard about this, but they didn’t believe it, but they saw it. It was impossible to close their eyes. Well, with George Floyd, what happened to George Floyd, now you’ve got how many people around the country - millions of cell phones. It’s changed the way everybody’s looking at this. Look at the millions of people marching around the world. The world! So my point is that I think people are realizing that this is a battle for the soul of America. Who are we? What do we want to be? How do we see ourselves? What do we think we should be?”
( https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-george-floyd-mlk )
Now consider this statement from House speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi: “We all saw it on TV. We saw it happen. And thank God the jury validated what we saw – what we saw. So again: Thank you, George Floyd, for sacrificing your life for justice. For being there to call out to your mom. How, how heartbreaking was that? Call out to your mom, ‘I can’t breathe.’ But because of you, and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice. And now we have to make sure justice prevails in the sentencing. But that is its own procedure.”
(https://nypost.com/2021/04/20/pelosi-hit-for-thanking-george-floyd-for-sacrificing-life/ )
George Floyd’s murder was clearly used for political purposes. These are just two examples from among many.
Consider that a sophisticated cabal might also have preferred for Joe Biden to be president instead of Donald Trump. We now know that individuals at high levels of the FBI covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story, and it is reasonable to suspect that one reason for their actions was to influence the 2020 presidential election.
Is it possible that political preferences motivated some individuals within the FBI to eliminate the possibility that George Floyd might have been drugged and killed by a cabal which favored Biden over Trump and which also preferred the positions espoused by Speaker Pelosi?
Would such a consideration have motivated some FBI agents to ensure that Ross testify in order to eliminate the suspicion a more sinister plot to murder George Floyd?
Is it possible that some key influential members of the FBI were so determined to enable Biden to ascend to the presidency that they would cover up actions related to the murder George Floyd? Even worse, are some agents comprised and working for the “large well-organized group” which I believe persuaded the four former Minneapolis police officers to murder George Floyd?
***
As stated at the outset, one must be wary of simple answers. And I believe there is a reasonable likelihood that the FBI agents who interviewed Courteney Ross in May and June of 2020 did, in fact, recorded her answers her answers accurately.
Let us also consider the possibility that Courteney Ross’s answers on the stand were very carefully crafted in order to lead those who look closely at the case to prematurely assign blame to the FBI agents who recorded her transcript. It is possible that Ross knew quite well what she had told the interviewing FBI agents and that it matched what was in the transcript. I have reason to believe that Ross lied on the stand on matters which extended beyond her relationship with George Floyd.
First, recall the discrepancy between her statement in the Rao article (celebrating the new year of 2020 by helping George Floyd get a replacement cell phone with a Minneapolis area code) and her testimony that they were on a break in January and February of 2020. Clearly, a lie was told by Ross – either on the stand or to those who worked on the Rao article.
At 24:35, her testimony dealt with how she knew George Floyd was using drugs.
Prosecuting Atty: “There was a time in March you knew he was back to using drugs, is that right?”
Ross: “I thought his behavior had changed.”
Atty: “What do you mean by that?”
Ross: “I think when you know someone who suffers from any type of addiction, you can start to see changes when they are using again. And there’s just slight behavior changes I noticed in him that made me suspect.”
Wait a minute. If George Floyd went to the hospital on 6 March and Ross did not interact with Floyd until no earlier than 1 March –as she testified- then she was only around George Floyd for only 5 days before he allegedly overdosed. How would she notice a behavior change within that short time frame?
Atty: “And did you also fall back into using again?”
Ross: “In March, yes we did use together.”
Atty: ”And was there a period after March when you think the two of you had quit for a while?”
Again, consider the timing. Does it make sense George Floyd have gotten out of the hospital for an overdose, and then used drugs again from 11 March to the end of March? But then in April, he quit? It is possible, of course, but is it likely?
Ross: “Yes.” (tearfully)
Atty: “And then going forward to May, was there a time when you thought he might be using again?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Atty: “So in May when you thought that, what led you to think that?”
Ross: “It was the same type of thing. Just behavior changes in Floyd.”
Atty: “Ad did you fall back to using opioids in May of 2020?”
Ross: “One time. Yes.”
…
Atty: “In May of 2020, did you know where he was living?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Atty: “Did he have his own place?”
Ross: “Yes. He lived in a place in St. Louis Park.”
Atty: “Did he have roommates there?”
Ross: “Yes. Two.”
Atty: “Did the two of you ever live together?”
Ross: “No. We stayed at each other’s place, but we never lived together.”
Atty: “So in May of 2020.. do you recall the last time you spoke to him?”
Ross: “Yes…it was the day before he died.”
Atty: “How did you you talk to him?”
Ross: “By phone.”
Atty: “Did you know what he was going to be doing that night or where he would be staying?”
Ross: “Uh. That night, well… he said he was going to be staying at Sylvia’s.”
Atty: “Did you know who Sylvia was?”
Ross: “Yes. She is a friend of ours.”
Atty: “And so as far as you knew, he was going to be staying at a friend’s house. Sylvia’s. And do you recall him saying what the plan was -why they were going to Sylvia’s?”
This question appeared to cause Courteney Ross to stumble more than any other.
Ross: “Uh well, Floyd had you know made his Minneapolis family here too. And a lot of the people that he was his friends with were um (from) other states… And uh, almost everybody had lost their jobs within that time. And he was feeling kind of lonely and just wanted to hang out with his friends. And so a lot of people that worked with the Salvation Army with him and other people just stayed there. And they were, you know, just kind of – being a family.”
So Courteney Ross was unsure where George Floyd stayed. But then she suggested that a large group of people stayed at Sylvia’s house the night before he was murdered? Here is a question: Why didn’t the prosecution ask Sylvia to take the stand? I believe that if George Floyd had used drugs in Sylvia’s presence, both the prosecution and the defense likely would have asked her to testify.
Let’s think this through… why would a man who was “feeling kind of lonely” avoid hanging out with his girlfriend? Recall that it was a holiday weekend. Ross had only talked to George Floyd by phone on that Sunday, and she had not interacted with him at all through the day on Monday, the Memorial Day holiday. Were they really close enough for Ross to “observe changes in behavior” that she attributed to drug addiction in May? There is no evidence to suggest that she did.
Atty: “And did Sylvia work at the Salvation Army?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Atty: “So you knew her from there?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Atty: “And that was the last time you talked to him? The Sunday before his death?”
Ross: “Yes.”
Consider the timeline in early 2020:
January-February: They did not see each other, according to Ross’s testimony (contradicting the Rao story).
March 1-5: Unknown status of the relationship.
March 6-10: George Floyd was in the hospital.
March 11- (at latest) April 2: Unknown
Does it make sense that George Floyd would have come out of a hospital after supposedly being told that he had a drug overdose and then… continue to take drugs? Perhaps- but then why did he essentially stop taking drugs in April? And then start taking drugs in May once again?
April 3: George Floyd is known to be positive for Covid-19 while Ross tested negative.
Reflect how often George Floyd saw Ross for the two weeks following his positive diagnosis. Think back to April 2020… that was the height of the “14 days to stop the spread.” Even if George Floyd felt pretty good after testing positive (since he likely had already recovered from Covid in March), both Ross and Floyd would have wanted to stay apart to prevent Ross from getting Covid. She surely would have wanted to prevent it from spread to her son, for example. Therefore, it is unlikely they were together very much (if at all) for at least two weeks. They did not live together, so despite any suggestions otherwise by either attorney, common sense dictates that they did NOT “quarantine together” in April 2020. So…
April 2- April 17: They likely did not see each other.
April 18 – May 23: They saw each other an unknown amount of times.
May 24 – May 25: They did not see each other. According to Ross’s testimony, they only spoke by phone on 24 May.
It is clear to me that Courteney Ross exaggerated any problem George Floyd might have had with drug use.
In fact, I have a high level of confidence- not 100%, but close- that Courteney Ross worked for the carefully planned, operation supported by an enormous and well-organized deadly cabal, which resulted in George Floyd’s pre-meditated murder by Chauvin, Thao, Kueng, and Lane.
But the link to Ross is made clearest by another pre-meditated murder: the slaying of Daunte Wright by Kim Potter.
Daunte Wright, whose mother is White and father is Black, was killed on 11 April 2021 only a few miles away from the ongoing Derek Chauvin trial, which took place in Minneapolis from 8 March 2021, through 20 April 2021.
It turns out that Courteney Ross knew Daunte Wright. (link)
“An aunt of Daunte Wright, 20, revealed a connection between her family and George Floyd on Tuesday, April 13. Daunte was fatally shot by the police in Minnesota during a traffic stop. During a press conference, Daunte’s aunt Naisha Wright said that a former girlfriend of Floyd had also been her nephew's teacher at one point.
She made the statement during a press conference held by attorney Benjamin Crump, who is representing both the Floyd and Wright families. Naisha, wearing a T-shirt designed with a photo of Floyd, pointed to the shirt while discussing the two families’ ties. Floyd's girlfriend Courteney Ross was Wright's former teacher.
“I wear this shirt and the craziest thing is to find out today that my family has connections to this man, to this family. His girlfriend was the teacher for my nephew,” she said, gesturing to the shirt, which read the word “justice” below Floyd’s picture.
Ross confirmed her connection to Wright to the Washington Post on Tuesday afternoon, April 13, telling the outlet that Wright attended Edison High School while she was a dean. He was a "silly boy, as goofy as can be," and "needed a lot of love", Ross told the Washington Post. She also said that one of the last times she saw him was when Ross and Floyd were walking through Brooklyn Center in the summer of 2019. They saw him being confronted by police. "Students like Daunte needed more resources but they never got more resources," Ross told the Washington Post. "Our system doesn't serve kids like Daunte. And now I'm seeing, more than ever, this system I once believed in, we're done doing what we need to be doing to protect Black life."
Naisha also called for Kim Potter, the Brooklyn Center officer who killed her nephew, to be held accountable. “His smile, the most beautiful smile. Y'all took that,” she added. “My nephew’s blood is on y'all hands. I’ve never seen my brother hurt like this before. Never. To hear my brother and to see my sister’s pain. Hold her accountable? Hold her higher than accountable. You train people on this stuff. Twenty-six years. Twenty-six years.”
Floyd's brother, Philonise Floyd, stood alongside the Wright family during the press conference, saying the Floyd family "will stand in support" of them. "The world is traumatized... Police officers are killing us, and we are being murdered at a rate I cannot imagine," Philonise said. "We're here and we will fight for justice for this family, just like we're fighting for our brother. There's a time for change," he added, "and that time is now".
The Hennepin County medical examiner ruled Daunte’s death as a homicide and said he died from a gunshot wound to the chest.
On Sunday, April 11, Daunte was shot dead by Potter after allegedly being pulled over for having his air freshener hanging from his mirror. Police noticed he had an outstanding warrant and placed him under arrest. As he tried to get back into his car, Potter pulled her handgun and shot him in the chest. She resigned shortly after his death. Potter claimed that she meant to use her taser and not the gun. “I have loved every minute of being a police officer and serving this community to the best of my ability, but I believe it is in the best interest of the community, the department and my fellow officers if I resign immediately,” she wrote in a resignation letter addressed to the mayor and police chief.
***
In February 2022, former officer Kim Potter was sentenced to only two years for manslaughter of Daunte Wright. Once more, it is essential to gaincontext of this killing via the entire text from the NYPost article on the sentencing of Kim Potter. Emphasis is mine:
https://nypost.com/2022/02/18/kim-potter-sentenced-to-two-years-in-daunte-wright-killing/
“Ex-cop Kim Potter was sentenced to two years in prison Friday for killing 20-year-old Daunte Wright, shooting him when she thought she was firing her Taser.
The 26-year Brooklyn Center police veteran was convicted of manslaughter in December for the fatal shooting, which took place after Wright tried to flee a traffic stop. Video from the scene showed Potter shout that she was going for her taser, though she’d mistakenly pulled her pistol. She fired a single shot before realizing her mistake.
“This is one of the saddest cases I’ve had on my 20 years on the bench,” Judge Regina Chu said Friday. “This is a cop who made a tragic mistake.”
Potter, who was put into custody following the hearing, will be eligible for supervised release after 16 months in prison, Chu ruled.
The sentence angered Wright’s parents, his father calling it “a slap on the wrist.” Prosecutors had asked Chu to give Potter a seven year bit.”
Chu was quick to differentiate Potter from other officers convicted in recent killings, most notably Derek Chauvin, the officer convicted of murder for kneeling on George Floyd
“She never intended to hurt anyone,” Chu said of Potter. Had Potter in fact pulled her Taser, Chu said, that use of force would have been legitimate.
The sentence came after an extremely emotional statement from Potter, who wept openly while apologizing to Wright’s family.
“To the family of Daunte Wright, I am so sorry that I brought the death of your son, father, brother, uncle, grandson, nephew, to your home.”
She addressed Katie Wright, Daunte’s mother, directly.
“Katie, I understand a mother’s love, and I am sorry I broke your heart. My heart is broken for all of you.”
“Earlier when you said that I didn’t look at you during the trial, I don’t believe I had a right to.”
“I am so sorry that I hurt you so badly,” she said, her voice breaking.
“He is not more than one thought away from my heart,” Potter said of Wright. “And I have no right for that, for him to be in my heart.”
“I do pray that one day you can find forgiveness,” she said.
At a press conference following the sentencing, however, Wright’s mother said she found Potter insincere.
“White women’s tears trump justice,” Katie Wright, who is also white, said. “I thought my white-woman tears would be enough.”
“I feel cheated, I feel hurt, I feel very upset,” Daunte Wright’s father, Aubrey Wright, said.
“This lady got a slap on the wrist and we’re still sitting around every night crying, waiting for my son to come home,” he said.
Wright’s mother had earlier asked Chu for “the highest accountability” in Friday’s sentencing.
“She took our baby boy with a single gunshot through his heart,” Katie Wright told the judge. “And she shattered mine.”
Throughout the emotional statement, Wright’s mother broke into tears.
She referred to Potter only as “the defendant,” because “she referred to Daunte, over and over again, as ‘the driver.’”
“As if killing him wasn’t enough to dehumanize him, she never once said his name,” Katie Wright said, before turning to Potter: “And for that, I’ll never be able to forgive you.”
“She rolled around on the ground crying for herself: ‘I’m going to prison, I shot a boy, call [my union representative],’” Katie Wright said at sentencing.
“She should have in fact said, ‘Please go save him. How is he doing? Is he ok? Please help him,” Wright’s mother said, in tears. “She didn’t even try, your honor.”
Ben Crump, Antonio Romanucci and Jeff Storms, attorneys for the Wright family, expressed disappointment in the sentence Friday.
“Judge Chu’s comments about Potter resembled those of a job recommendation and not that of a senseless and preventable death of a promising life,” they said in a joint statement.
Wright was killed after Brooklyn Center officers pulled him over for having expired license tags and an air freshener hanging from his rearview mirror.
Evidence at Potter’s trial showed officers learned he had an outstanding warrant for a weapons possession charge and they tried to arrest him when he pulled away.
***
Now let’s revisit the Rao article, which you will recall was published in the Minnesota Star-Telegram on 27 December 2020. The link is repeated here for easy reference
https://web.archive.org/web/20201230035723/https://www.startribune.com/george-floyd-hoped-moving-to-minnesota-would-save-him-what-he-faced-here-killed-him/573417181/
In the section which details Ross’s relationship with George Floyd, there is a picture. An excerpt of the Rao article’s interpretation of the text corresponding to the picture is included below. Immediately it can be seen that the word “wright” appears in place of the properly-spelled word “right”. We could stop there and consider the odds that this scrap piece of paper that Courteney Ross kept would have the last name of the young man who was killed during the trial where Ross testified. I suppose some might classify this occurrence as a coincidence. But let’s continue.
Consider how improbable it is that Courteney Ross would obtain and subsequently keep this scrap of paper for months and show it to the reporter at the Minnesota Star-Tribune. Why and how was this page selected? Why wouldn’t the newspaper seek a personal note expressing affection, for example? Why would Ross share this keepsake with the newspaper as opposed to any others? How does the writing on this page compare to other known samples of George Floyd’s handwriting.
During the February timeframe, which as Rao points out was on the piece of paper itself, Ross testified under oath that she and George Floyd “were on a break and later reconnected in March.” Then, he supposedly taped the paper to his wall – yet the fold lines are very pronounced. Did she re-fold it? That seems unlikely to me.
Somehow, Ross obtained the paper, presumably after George Floyd was killed and decided to keep it. Did the police or FBI enter Floyd’s room before she did? Presumably, they might have wanted to look for drugs or other evidence of a prior relationship between Chauvin and Floyd, right? What date did Courteney Ross first enter George Floyd’s home after his death? When did she find this scrap of paper supposedly taped to his bedroom wall, take it off the wall, and keep it? Is there evidence that the page was once taped?
***
It is interesting that the word “wright” is misspelled. Moreover, this seems like an uncommon way to misspell “right” to me. Now look closer at the paper and find only the misspelled words (I assume the ‘k’ is present but covered up in ‘dark’, so let’s exclude that word). Let’s go bullet point by bullet point.
1. For bullet point 1, all words are spelled correctly – even though the word “through” which is commonly substituted by “thru”. The word situation is sometimes substituted with “sitch”, but here the full word is spelled properly.
2. For bullet point 2, “U” is substituted for “you” - even though the complete word “You” is also spelled out in the first sub-bullet of bullet point 3. As highlighted, “wright” is used in place of “right.”
3. All words are spelled correctly in main bullet point 3 and in its second sub-bullet, but the first sub-bullet has two spelling errors: “da” is used in place of “the” - even though “the” is spelled out properly in bullet point 1. Oddly, the word “morning is misspelled with an extra ‘n’ as “morninng”.
4. Also on this same bullet, there appears to be a strange correction unlike any other part of the page. Rao interprets the marking to mean “L” and “F” to yield what Rao et al. interpret to be the slang word for “yourself”, namely “yaself”. So that word is also misspelled. But…
5. Observe closely the oddly marked “L” and “F”, as described by Rao. The first detail to notice is that there is a marking between the alleged “L” and “F”. It resembles the letter “A”. This detail is excluded in the sentence described by Rao because it appears to be out of place. But perhaps it is placed precisely where it ought to be…
6. For what Rao represents as an “L”, there are two small well-placed bulges outward to the right at the top and middle of that marking which could be interpreted generating a script-E.
7. Now look closely at what Rao represents as the letter “F”. There is a relatively light horizontal line just below the top horizontal line in the ‘F’. It even extends slightly to the left of the vertical line in the ‘F’. There is also a light vertical line between the two horizontal lines which form the ‘F’, which would be approximately where a properly-placed vertical line of a ‘T’ would be. It would extend lower along the right side of the vertical line in ‘F’. It is possible that the “F” really covers up a capital “T”.
8. For now, let’s ignore the left-over nonsense-word “yase”. The result would be to form we would get the word “EAT” after “yase”. Then, oncemore ignoring “yase”, the combined phrases led to a combination of sentences which makes sense, as follows, with the addition of punctuation:
“No matter the time, you can always grab you some word. You get up and gather. Eat in the morning and feed your spirit. Follow that with your workout.”
Let’s take the letters from the only other misspelled words on the page- other than “wright” and “yase” and combine them with the two letters covered by what Rao interpreted as “L” and “F”. Since the “A” between the two characters was already present and in needed to correctly spell “eat”, do not include it. Those left over letters are “da”, “U”, “n”, “T”, and “E”.
Now let’s reconsider the nonsense word “YASE” and think pictorially. The difference between “TASE” and “YASE” is only one letter. The occurrence of a TASE of a person, viewed from the side, might resembles a capital “T” on its side. The person, standing vertical, would be stunned but unhurt and unbowed. The electric leads might extend horizontally.
Now consider that the top half of a Y shape turned sideways might resemble a person’s midsection bent at the waist with both feet and head forward of the waist. If we imagine a bullet passing through the midsection would leave a stream of blood behind it as it passes through the broken body.
It seems to me that the nonsense-word “YASE” represents a preplanned TASE, as the illustration below suggests – with the end result being that a person (Daunte Wright) who would only have been stunned by a “TASE” but was murdered by a bullet when a “YASE” occurs.
If you look very closely at the capital “T” in “wright”, you might even notice the shape of a teardrop adjacent to the vertical line. You might also consider that “YASE” is an anagram for “easy”.
Perhaps the cabal felt it would be “easy” to convince people that a two-year sentence is the appropriate price for a murderer to pay for the pre-meditated killing of a young man in Minnesota with a fake story about how Kim Potter thought her gun was really just a taser.
For good measure, upon close inspection of the word “wright”, one can observe a teardrop adjacent to the vertical line in “T”. Consider the context of that sentence, supposedly written by George Floyd: “Always know that you are ‘wright’ here with me” could be interpreted to mean that both are dead, and that their murders were coordinated by the same group.
I conclude that a decision made among Courteney Ross and the staff at the Minnesota Star-Tribune led to the publication the picture which can easily be interpreted as being a signal that a cabal would murder Daunte Wright. Moreover, the means by which his death would occur is also easy to discern from a simple word puzzle. Remember that the publication of the story in the newspaper occurred over three months before Daunte Wright was murdered. There is virtually zero doubt in my mind that Courteney Ross is a malign actor and that she lied about George Floyd’s drug use in order to obscure the actions of the group which persuaded Chauvin et al. to murder him.
The level of sophistication and resources required to signal a murder in a newspaper three months in advance is breathtaking to even consider.
“The prettiest (and wealthiest) people do the ugliest things… on the road to riches and diamond rings.”
***
“White women’s tears trump justice,” Daunte Wright’s mother stated to reporters. That sounds about right to me. As a matter of fact, I agree with every statement Daunte’s Wright’s mother made (above) after Potter’s light sentence was announced.
Moreover, I believe Courteney Ross’s tears over addiction, alleged remembrances of George Floyd, and the word “mama” were designed to distract the American public and the media from comprehending that George Floyd was an innocent man. In my mind, it is an open question whether some members of the FBI also suspected that Courteney Ross’s testimony was designed to hide the actions of the cabal. Either way, it is time for FBI agents with integrity to speak up, even if it means that some of their peers are exposed as politicizing the pre-meditated murder of George Floyd.
One might ask: Why would this cabal arrange for the murder of Daunte Wright to be signaled in a newpaper article published three months prior to his killing? One reason is simple to understand. They are recruiting more experienced police officers in the United States to join them. By callously and audaciously announcing their plans to murder a 20-year-old, they also demonstrate that they are, in essence, untouchable. Once individuals like Potter and Chauvin are successfully recruited, their actions demonstrate that the cabal uses them to simultaneously stoke justifiable anger among Black communities and to sully the name of hard-working, fair police officers around the entire country. The tactic is evil, but it is also sound and rational if one of their goals is to destroy the foundation principles of the United States.
If it seems conspiratorial to suggest that individual officers in local police departments in the United States could be working for a malign actor, consider this recent (18 August 2022) Fox News story about a New York Police Department officer who according to allegation by US Justice Department officials, worked for the Chinese Communist Party.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-officer-accused-spying-china-stand-federal-trial-next-month-release-bond
The story of Daunte Wright also demonstrates how powerful the dual narrative can be for distracting both Red and Blue group members away from the truth as long as the media for both the Red and Blue groups are controlled by the cabal. Red group media continues to emphasize the notion that Daunte Wright had weapons charges against him. Frankly, I suspect those charges might be bogus. If they are real, the cabal may have chosen Daunte Wright in part because those in the Red group would be less likely to sympathize with the Wright family if he were associated with a crime.
The narratives targeting the Blue group hastily classify contrarian critical thinking as “conspiracy theory” and instead encourage those members to have faith in Ockham’s Razor on almost every subject. In this instance, both the Red and Blue groups tended to believe that the simplest answer – an accidental discharge of a gun instead of a taser – was the cause.
So what now of Kim Potter? Well, for starters, I think she should stand trial again. Double jeopardy would not apply if the charge is treason. And treason is also a capital offense.
Wake up, America. No matter your race, no matter your creed, no matter your political affiliation - we are under attack.
***
This concludes the description of the rationale for my original statement:
I believe that George Floyd was an Innocent Man.
But I have more to say about George Floyd. I believe I know HOW the cabal carried out their plan to murder him (to come in part 2). And I believe I know the main reason WHY the cabal chose George Floyd (to come in part 3).
In the meantime, I would like to suggest that ALL mRNA-based vaccine mandates be dropped immediately.
To those of you who work with or in state or federal health agencies, state medical boards, state pharmacy boards, academic medical journals, or in the media -now would be a very good time for you to come forward with information. One way to do so is to contact Senator Ron Johnson’s office at whistleblower@ronjohnson.senate.gov (also at https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/whistleblower-email ).
For example:
1) Do you have knowledge of statistical tricks and data manipulation which artificially increase the reported safety and effectiveness of expensive drug protocols used to treat Covid-19, such as Remdesivir and Paxlovid?
2) Do you have knowledge of statistical tricks and data manipulation which artificially decrease the measured safety and effectiveness of inexpensive drug protocols used to treat Covid-19, such as Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin?
3) Are you aware of possible manipulation of “recent upgrades to the software system” at the CDC designed to hide or downplay mRNA vaccine injuries, such as increased cancer occurrence among Americans?
4) Do you have firsthand or secondhand knowledge of individuals within the federal health agencies who received royalties while playing a role in the approval process for the same drug which yield the royalties to them?
5) Are you aware of any unethical behavior within your company or organization related to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine approval testing and process?
6) Are you aware of any member of a state medical or pharmaceutical board member receiving money or other goods and services from a pharmaceutical company or non-governmental organization in exchange for threatening or carrying out suspensions of doctors and pharmacists for prescribing and/or providing hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin for the purpose of treating patients with Covid-19?
7) Have you served as an associate editor or reviewer for a medical journal which has rejected articles because the authors’ conclusions failed to align with the desired outcomes of the pharmaceutical industry, especially with relation to treatments for Covid-19?
Let me help you think this through.
It may strike those in the lower levels of the power structure of those organizations (FDA, CDC, state medical boards, academic journals, media, etc.) as a ridiculous proposition that the simple act of misrepresenting or “fudging” data with the “noble” goal of “reducing vaccine hesitancy” might somehow be related to the pre-meditated murder of George Floyd and its subsequent cover-up. However, consider that those near the very top of the power structure might know better.
Eventually, those at the top might decide that their path of least resistance is to express “shock and disappointment” that those working below them in the power structure lied, for example, about the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. In other words, they will blame those at the bottom of the power structure of the health agencies… because they might just know what’s coming. Once that happens, those “noble lies” will not appear so noble after all.
Of course, I understand that those lies and misrepresentations of data were demanded and expected by those at the top. Jobs, grants, and promotions all depended on data supporting the positions of pharmaceutical companies and certain non-governmental organizations. But will the American people see it that way, or will they credit only those at the top who speak out first and blame the people who work for them?
In my opinion, many reputations will be ruined through association with the premeditated murder of George Floyd and its subsequent cover up. And by the time I complete two more articles, the window of opportunity for coming forward and telling the truth might be closed.
Do the right thing.
Whelp.... in all fairness, I read about the first 15% of this incredibly long article and I must say that I regret the 20 minutes I will never get back. I started this with an open mind because it was referred from Mathew Crawford and I find him to be one of the most credible people I follow. I’m not going to make the effort of quoting the different sections I read that I disagree with because it’s just not worth my time, so I will paraphrase. You start out to purport a fair and balanced assessment (even though you immediately follow that up with the fact that you are going to try and convince us of a conspiracy to murder George, which I found to be fair that you at least pointed that out), but immediately the descriptions veer off into the “gentle giant“ fairytale.
You describe how everybody liked George, all the nice things they had to say about him, what a sweet guy he was… What is noticeable by its absence is any mention of the guy's police record to include being under the influence of drugs, suspected of selling drugs, and the most glaringly absent: events where he and four other men armed with deadly weapons invaded a couple's home, and George specifically restrained the woman with a gun or knife pointed at her while the rest of the thugs ransacked the house looking for drugs and money which they never found. I might have found you somewhat credible if you had brought any of his history of drug use or violent commission of crimes up. Instead, you gently miss lead us by talking about “prescription Percocet“ that you never quite tell us whether he personally had a legal prescription for the Percocet or whether he was just illegally in possession of this "prescription" drug at the time of the incident. Need I tell you where my inclinations lead?
And here’s where I read a couple more paragraphs and slammed on the brakes. Out of thin air, with absolutely not a shred of evidence or anything that might lead a reasonable person to believe this would be a credible hypothesis, you purport that poor George was drugged without his knowledge. Why not aliens or demon possession — you had equal evidence of any of the 3 hypotheses, which is to say: none. We don’t know who would’ve drugged him or why or even how (I never did make it to the complex plan that shows how all of this was premeditated, but I can’t even begin to imagine a scenario where someone could’ve preplanned all of this to work out to their advantage, as evidenced by 4 cops serving time). Here’s a thug and drug user who has a documented history verifiable through police reports of drug use, possession, and presumably intent to sell… And you expect us to believe that just this time he was drugged without his knowledge — this time he was just an innocent bystander sitting in his parked car! And the proof of that being that if he were guilty of passing a counterfeit bill, he simply would’ve driven away so as not to get caught, and not sat in his car stoned out of his mind, probably not even caring where he was at the moment. Perfectly credible hypothesis — not.
And do you realize how laughable your attempted contortion of reality is, trying to make us believe that sweet, innocent Georgie tried to pay for whatever items he was buying with a counterfeit bill and that his only intention was to leave the counterfeit bill as....wait for it..... an IOU??? What honest person expects to pay for merchandise with an IOU — in the form of A COUNTERFEIT $20 BILL??? Much less, he never explained to the store clerk that this was "just his way of leaving an IOU" and he would be back to pay with cold, hard US legal tender. Puhlease. You rolled off into the height of ridiculousness so fast that the induced vertigo made me nauseous.
I’m not going to take the time to honor this ridiculous screed with a cogent retort. Sadly, my rebuttal is as much of a mess as your article. It’s late, it’s been a long day, and I’m more than a little miffed to have wasted the time that I already have on this mess. I was honestly curious how you would build a case that poor George was deliberately murdered as part of a much larger plan to ignite WWIII by 4 now-imprisoned officers (well their little plan sure worked out in their favor, didn’t it…) and other unnamed collaborators as part of a grand scheme to… I never got that far.
Anyways… My apologies to anybody reading this. I could’ve done a better job but I’m just too tired and agitated at having wasted even this much time. Do yourself a favor and skip this article.
I hope the whistleblower candidates read to the end. Great article! I do think you forgot about George holding a gun to a pregnant woman’s belly in the commission of one crime, and the counterfeit bill as an iou is fairly unlikely. However, I have often wondered how they could have killed him in plain view as if they wanted everyone to see unless it was set up to cause riots.