Paging Gazhekwe

[gazhekwe]

“Mishi bizhiw,” or the Great Lynx, is another constellation that emerges in the late
winter skies. Because the lynx is known to be a somewhat dangerous animal, this
constellation is a reminder that the north woods, especially during the transition time
between winter and spring, can be dangerous. Thinning ice on the lakes and rivers, hard crust on the snow, flooding, and unpredictable snowstorms are characteristic of the Great Lakes region during this time.

The constellation, “Mishi bizhiw,” consists of the two constellations of Leo and Hydra. The head of Leo makes up the long curled tail, while the head of Hydra makes up the head of the Great Lynx.

Trying to add an image of the constellation. Too big so far. Working on it.

More from Michael Wassegijig Price, "Star Knowledge," Mazinigan, Summer 2010, page 12
http://www.glifwc.org/publications/m...Summer2010.pdf

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Buster/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png

[/IMG]


Leo, rising in early spring in the north sky.


Remember Mishi Bizhiw is the water spirit who controls the water and to whom bad weather on the lakes and drownings are attributed. So is good weather, and that is why offerings are made to Mishi Bizhiw to assure safe passage.


NOTE: Tomorrow I will interrupt the star series with news of the Williams inquest in Seattle.

[gazhekwe]

The inquest into this unfortunate death is continuing today. I am fortunate to have a friend in attendance who is keeping me updated. As far as I can tell, the following facts are verified by testimony to date.

On August 30, 2010, John T. Williams was walking across a Seattle street near the market where he sold his wood carvings. He was intent on a piece of wood he was holding in his hands, and he may or may not have been carving on that piece of wood as he walked.

He crossed in front of Officer Birks in his squad car waiting at a light. He did not look at or react to the presence of the squad car.

Officer Birks, seeing an open blade in Williams hand, pulled over and got out of his squad car. He crossed in front of the car, in clear view of it's dash cam. After he passes out of camera range, he is heard shouting, "Hey Hey Hey, Put thje knife down, put the knife down, PUT THE KNIFE DOWN." Within four seconds of his first shout, five shots ring out, in rapid succession. Birk can be heard telling responding officers "He had a knife and wouldn't drop it."

The dash video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1VKo...ayer_embedded#!

During the inquest, Birk is asked about whether he identified himself as a police officer or warned Williams that if he did not drop the knife he would shoot. He agreed he probably did not say those things, and agreed that it is proper police procedure to say those things. He said he didn't have time, he felt so threatened by Mr. Williams. He was asked to demonstrate the threatening stance taken by Williams, shown on this video:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/video/mediacenterbc3.html?bcpid=30884189001&bckey=AQ~~,A AAAAFn2Wfk~,QUqnr01qM6aNyA1l3Tnqn9EkxU1YnZwX&bctid =747348209001

I am really upset. Whether Williams was a sweet old guy or a raving drunk, he deserved a better chance than he was given. I can guarantee that I would react similarly to hearing shouting behind me, Turn to see what the commotion was about, probably frowning and feeling defensive, realize the guy was shouting at me, assess what it was about and whether it was some nut. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. Before I could figure it out, I would be dead

It is good the Williams family is keeping this on the radar so it won't be swept under the rug. Seattle Police have some serious issues.

Regarding Williams acting in a threatening manner, it is said that a woman witness can be heard on the first video asking Birk why he shot that man, he didn't do anything. I haven't heard it, and it has not been brought up in the inquest yet. Other witnesses on the scene who testified said that Birk looked unexpectedly agressive, but they did not notice Williams.

Update:

A witness who called 911 after the shooting declined to testify because she was "traumatized" by what she saw.

The judge has just ruled that she must testify and that the 911 tape of the call must be admitted.

Transcript of Dashcam video admitted into evidence says a woman said at 16:36: "What happened? He didn't do anything." Birk responds: "Maam, he had a knife and he wouldn't drop it."

Witness who was walking across the street in front of where Williams was headed as the officer approached from behind Williams, states she didn't see Williams do anything threatening, and after the shots, she saw the blood on the front of his shirt. Williams was facing her and never turned away.

It really sounds like this officer not only killed John T. Williams, his actions threatened a passerby. How irresponsible is that? He was only 4 months qualified on his Glock.

Also, autopsy results show Williams was shot in the side. The witness is saying the blood was on the front of his shirt, which seems to indicate a through and through shot in the back. Of course, there were five shots, four casings found.

Update:
Next witness testified that she saw the police car and heard the officer said drop the knife at least three times, though she was wearing headphones. She states Williams did not stop, turn or follow the officer's instructions. She did not see him do anything. She stated immediately after the shooting, another witness asked "Why did you shoot him?" and Birk responded "He had a knife and wouldn't put it down." Witness states that she was not concerned about or threatened by Mr. Williams in any way.

Another witness was driving through the intersection, saw the police officer, saw Williams moving slowly, not seeming alarmed. Heard shouting, not sure what was shouted. Once the shooting occurred, she was upset and decided to return, because it seemed so wrong. It was a beautiful sunny day, peaceful part of town. She did not see what Williams was doing immediately before the shots.

Next witness, was at the light, saw the police flashers go on, saw the officer exit and approach scruffy man. The officer shouted Hey, Hey, and then the shots. Williams did not seem aware of the officer, he was in a neutral stance. He was not facing Burk, but was facing the retaining wall at the edge of the sidewalk. Birk shot Williams immediately after shouting Hey, Hey!

Next witness is a Fire Dept officer.EMT responder for crime support. She and three other fire officers responded within one minute to the shooting. She was told the scene was secure, approached Williams and commenced to work on him, determined he was deceased. She was told not to cover him as the police were still investigating. She saw an open knife on the ground next to him. She said the knife was gold. When shown the knife and asked to identify if it was the same knife, she said it was but it looked more gold. It was definitely open, she said. She said she knew the victim and that he was Native American, so she filled that ethnicity in on her report.

[There has been testimony that the knife on the ground, secured by Officer Birk putting his foot on it, was closed. There was another closed knife in Williams' pocket.]

Witness stated she had seen early media reports stating that the knife was open before she gave her statement to the investigator on 12-6 that the knife was open. She says the knife she saw open on the ground was gold and not serrated. [knife in evidence is not gold. ] She was shown the second knife and said that was not the knife she saw. Witness repeats the blade was open, and answers jury question about position of knife that blade awas pointing toward Williams' feet. She wondered why the open knife had not been secured. She confirmed she had a professional relationship with the deceased. She responds to another question that she used scissors to remove the victim's clothing, not a knife.

Two witnesses give similar testimony. They were in their cars at the corner, noticed the police car with lights flashing. One saw the officer draw his gun as he walked toward a disheveled person standing with his hands in front of him. Neither heard the officer shout, both heard the shots. One witness didn't see Williams until he was on the ground. The second of the two, who saw both the officer and Williams at the point of the shooting, says Williams turned slightly toward the officer but did not appear aggressive. She saw Williams fall and was shocked. She said the officer was doing something with his gun afterwards. Williams was lying on his right side with his right arm outstretched. She says Williams was walking very slow when she first saw him. Officer raised his gun and took a stance. Williams did not face the officer or appear threatening in any way. Both attorneys make inferences from what this witness said.

The fire EMT has a colleague who also saw the open knife and wants to testify. Taking that under advisement, also a media request for tbe qluestions the jury will be asked to determine a verdict.

Last update for today: Tomorrow will feature testimony from the medical examiner and Rick Williams.

[gazhekwe]

Polaris, or the North Star, is known as “Giwedin’anung—Star of the North.” “Giwedin’anung” was used in determining the four cardinal directions as well as
navigating through the Great Lakes region at night. “Giwedin’anung” is part of the constellation known as “Maang‚The Loon.” The Loon constellation comprises the stars of the Little Dipper. “Giwedin’anung” is located at the tip of the tail feathers of the Loon constellation.

More from Michael Wassegijig Price, "Star Knowledge," Mazinigan, Summer 2010, page 12 http://www.glifwc.org/publications/m...Summer2010.pdf

There are many stories associated with Gewedinanung. I posted some last winter. Here is one from January 23, 2010, Post 253. It is traditional to repeat stories.

Why Bears sleep through the Winter

Long, long ago, Bears roamed the woods all the time, winter as well as summer. In summer, times were good, with the warm sun and rain, berries were plentiful, fish swam in the streams, soft grass grew lush and fine for sleeping. Bees filled their hive trees with honey and all was good.

But when winter came, it was a different story. The berries were all gone, the streams were icy and frozen, so the bears couldn't catch any fish, and the bees crept into their hives and hid because there were no more flowers to make honey. There was only the cold snowy ground to sleep on.

The bears eventually became so miserable that they called a council to discuss what could be done to make their lives better in winter time.

One wise old bear said, "We can do nothing ourselves. We must ask the Great Spirit for help.'

"Yes, yes!" agreed one young bear. " We should ask the Great Spirit to make it summer all the time. That way there will always be berries, and fish, and honey to eat, and warm grass to sleep in."

The wise old bear shook his head. "That may not be the right thing, even for us. The Great Spirit may have a very good reason for making winter on the earth."

"What can be good about it," the young bear objected, "when there is nothing to eat, and only cold to endure?"

"I cannot say," said the old bear, "but I am sure if we ask, the Great Spirit will be happy to help us." He looked around and asked, "Who will travel to the Great Spirit to ask for help? I am too old to make such a long and hard journey."

None of the bears was anxious to make the trip, but finally a strong young bear stepped forward. "I will go and ask how we can live more comfortably in the winter."

The young bear traveled long, and finally arrived at the setting sun where the Great Spirit lived. As soon as he got there, he went to the Great Spirit and explained how miserable the bears were every winter. He asked, "Could we just have summer all year 'round? Summer is so wonderful, with lots of good things to eat, and warm places to sleep. We really have a hard time getting through winter."

"Oh, no, that can't be," said the Great Spirit. "After a time, you would be even worse off than you are now. Without snow in winter, there would be no water for the streams, and the fish would die. There would be no berries to eat, and no flowers for the bees to make honey."

"Then must we go on freezing and starving through the winter as usual?" asked the young bear.

"No," said the Great Spirit. "I have thought of a plan that will help you all be comfortable through the winter. Listen carefully while I explain, then you go back to your brothers and tell them what they must do to live through the winter in comfort."

The young bear listened carefully, then he hurried back to tell the others.

"We are each to find a cozy den in a cave or the trunk of a hollow tree, or under the roots of a big fallen tree. Then, when the sun heads to the north, and the berries die on the bushes, we are to go into our dens and sleep through the long winter. That way we will miss all the cold and hunger of winter. When the sun comes back and melts the snow, we shall awaken and find fish in the streams and honey in the bee trees."

"It is well," said the wise old bear.

"It is well,' echoed the other bears in council.

""But there is more," said the messenger bear. "The Great Spirit has put a sign in the sky so we will know which is the season for going to sleep and which is the season of awakening. In the northern sky he has put a Great Bear. All year long it will travel around a fixed star which is the opening of its den. In the summer the Great Bear will be above his den, and we will know it is the right time for us to stay above ground and enjoy the warm weather. When the winter cold comes, the Star Bear will be below his den, and we, too, will go below the ground."

"It is indeed wise," said the old bear. "Now the winter will be just a short dream."

And so it has been from that day to this. The bears go into their cozy dens to sleep away winter's cold, and come out when the sun warms the earth again in the spring.

[Pam]

During the inquest, Birk is asked about whether he identified himself as a police officer or warned Williams that if he did not drop the knife he would shoot. He agreed he probably did not say those things, and agreed that it is proper police procedure to say those things. He said he didn't have time, he felt so threatened by Mr. Williams.

How about aproaching the man and taking the knife away if he was truly a danger? Wouldn't that be proper police training? Or are they teaching them to "shoot first -ask questions later" now? Scary.

[gazhekwe]

Well, apparently he was afraid John T. was about to attack him. He couldn't back away because he was afraid of falling over backwards with his gun at ready. He is the one who closed the distance between them. This "cowboy" approach is seriously scary. Is it just in Seattle? I don't think so. There are some voal officers there in defensive mode, wanting to know why civilians think they have a better idea about police procedures. Still if he had followed procedure, identified himself as Police, issued an order with a clear consequence,Drop the Knife or I';ll shooot, we probably wouldn't be here today.

The inquest continues.

A relative of the deceased comes into the courtroom wearing paint. He is made to wash it off.

Two more firefighters have come forward with information about the knife. Judge has agreed to allow their testimony.

First witness, a west precinct patrol officer, arrived at the site as primary officer in less than a minute. With him was a new police recruit. Both officers present had their guns trained on the subject who was lying prone with his feet pointing west. Next to him about 2 feet away, was a knife, didn't notice at first if it was open or closed. As other officers arrived, this witness took charge as no supervisors were present. He formed a team and gave assignments according to procedure. The student officer was assigned to arrest officer, he was to be the first to touch and confront the subject. Officer Birk was assigned designated shooter, since he had already fired. The team advanced on the suspect as a group. The student hesitated to touch the man, so the witness grabbed his arm adn flipped the body over, then the student handcuffed him. At this point, the witness noticed that the knife was closed. The suspect's condition was then assessed.

When asked why he didn't offer medical aid, witness responded: There are hundreds of documented cases of suspects who have been shot, stabbed, and assumed to be dead, and then resumed consciousness and attacked.

Asked if the closed knife still represented a threat: Absolutely.

"Does the fact that the suspect is on the ground and the knife is closed alleviate your concerns about the physical risk involved?"

Witness: "No, it's still a threatening situation." "It's still an extremely dangerous situation.If i...t happens, you're going to have someone on top of you with a knife and fighting for your life....slashing, cutting...

Was the victim wearing earbuds? I don't know.

Did any officer search the victim's clothing. I don't know.

"How did Birk look when you arrived?"

Witness: "In many instances officers are shot or stabbed and don't even know it, so I checked him out to make sure he was okay. He was in shock."

Witness was the officer assigned to train officer Birk when he started with the SPD.

Suspect must be cuffed to assure that the scene is safe. Williams received medical treatment as soon as he was cuffed.

Cross examination: "Officer Collins, did you tell Birk 'Good job' regarding the shooting?"

Witness: "Yes. I was trying to offer support. If you cook a good dinner, you say 'Good job"... it's just a commonly-used phrase.

Was it immediately clear to the witness that the shooting victim had attacked Birk with a knife. Witness states that he does not know... "I assumed that an armed confrontation had taken place."

Ford asks about the research that the "21-foot rule" is based on.... witness states that there is sound basis for the 21- foot-rule... and that many decisions have to be made [["I've got to assess the situation, raise my gun, etc... ) in the... time that an attacker can swiftly cross the 21 feet.}

Ford: "Are you going to now shoot anyone holding a knife, open or closed, who's standing 21 feet away?"

Witness: "No, Sir, I am not."

jury question: "Is it illegal to carry a knife - open or closed - in Seattle?"

Witness: "Yes, a knife with a blade over 3 and a half inches is illegal."

Witness states that he would stop a person carrying a knife because it's "not normal." Witness states that he would not want his mother or sister to encounter a person carrying a knife. You can pursue life, liberty, or happiness if a dangerous person is walking down the street carrying a knife.

jury question: "Is a closed knife seen as much of a threat as an open knife?"

Witness: "I think so. If they're tense, staring at you, any normal would person would say yes, that's a threat. The knife can be opened in an instant, and ...then you can get your ears cut off... and why? Because you ignored the threat!"

Ford: "Is it a threat if the person closes the knife when asked to drop it?"

Witness: "It depends on the situation."
Ford: "So if you see someone with a closed knife and a mean expression on his face, you shoot him?

It's our job to check on them anyway if they're impaired"


Witness: "If I'm pointing a gun at you and telling you to drop the knife, yes, I'm in danger and will shoot you."

Witness states that SPD officers are not trained to warn before shooting...The implication of pointing a gun at you is that I'm going to shoot you - that's a warning in itself. Witness states that he has shot and killed two suspects in his career.

Ford asks the witness to clarify his understanding of the city statute which says it's legal to carry a knife if it's required for one's livelihood. Witness states that if the suspect looks impaired or possibly dangerous he/she will still be stopped. Ford reads the statue aloud, and then asks the witness to read it aloud.

Some Q & A over whether this knife was one used in carving . Witness said it was not, but admitted he did not know. This prompted the Williams family attorney to ask to enter photographs of family members carving wood with similar knives. Judge does not allow them.

Another witness, who was an eyewitness passing by. Witness states that she observed "an Asian or Native American male who looked like he might be homeless." Witness states that she did not see anything in Mr. William's hands. She waited on the corner at the light with Mr. Williams, where she failed to notice either a board or knife in his hands. Witness states that she "glanced over" at Mr. Williams at the intersection, then bypassed him as she was walking much more quickly. Perhaps 15 seconds later she heard an "angry shouting of Hey! Hey!"... "it's not unusual to hear shouting downtown so I didn't turn around. If I had heard 'Help!' or 'Police!', I'd have definitely turned around." .Witness states that she then heard gunfire. She decided not to turn around or stop because she thought it wasn't safe." She did not notice any of the interaction between Birk and WIlliams She heard five shots, and before that, three Heys. When she was next to him, she thought he was well-behaved, normal, not threatening.

There is one more witness so far. I'll be back to add that after I take my dog for a walk.

I'm back. There have been two more witnesses, sort of related. Both were passing by at the time of the shooting. Neither observed anything prior to the shooting.

First of the two. After she heard the shots, she looked to her left and saw the man lying on the ground, with an officer standing nearby pointing a http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showthr...#post215481gun at the man on the ground. The man was wearing white and there was a good amount of blood on his shirt. She took a photo of the scene with her cellphone because it was bizarre. Photo is identified and shown to the jury. The officer was about 10 or 15 feet from the man.

She asked the officer if he had shot the man, and why he didn't help him, he was bleeding so badly, and why he had shot him. She was emotional. [[she can be heard on the dashcam video) The officer replied, yes, maam, he had a knife and he wouldn't drop it. Witness couldn't understand why the officer continued to stand over the man with his gun drawn instead of helping him. She felt Birk was in shock. She did not see a knife as she was focused on the blood pouring from his shirt.

The second of the two witnesses heard the shots and heard a woman shouting at the officer, who was crouched behind the utility box with gun drawn. She was stunned and called 911. "An officer shot someone... I think this street is called Howell.. The officer is saying the man had a knife, but I didn't see one"

[gazhekwe]

King County Medical Examiner takes the stand. He has been in his position since 2005. He has performed between 3,000 and 4,000 autopsies in his career. He describes the autopsy procedure. Witness states that all deaths are categorized as 'natural', 'homicidal', or 'suicidal', and that two categories can't be chosen.

Dr. Pizaro clarifies that Mr. William's death was classified as a 'homicide'. He further clarifies that homicide indicates the manner of death, but isn't a legal declaration of murder.

Witness states that he arrived at the crime scene on August 30th to find the victim covered with plastic sheeting. He quickly determined that the victim suffered multiple gunshot wounds. He has nothing noted in his report re the knife on the ground.

The autopsy was conducted the following day, on August 31st, 2010. The body was secured in a refrigeration unit. Witness attests that no evidence is lost by being stored overnight before the autopsy.

Dr. Pizaro begins to read the autopsy report. First is a description of his grey jacket with snaps, a white button-down shirt, black belt, and blue jeans and black sandals with grey socks. Clothing was then removed from the body. Upon examination, the nude body reveals multiple gunshot wounds. Two bullets recovered from the wounds were deformed but not shattered. Witness states he has examined many gunshot wounds. He clarifies the difference between entry and exit wounds. Dr. Pizaro observed four gunshot wounds on Mr. Williams, with multiple entry and exit wounds... meaning the bullet enters one part of the body, exits, and then enters another body part. He was unable to determine which gunshot wound was received first.

Dr. Pizaro is shown a photo of Mr. William's gunshot wounds, as is the jury. Reporter can see the photo on the video screen from her vantage point. Reporter can see five gunshot wounds, three on his chest around the right nipple, two on the right arm.

Dr. Pizaro describes how the bullets entered the late Mr. William's right arm and passed through into his chest through the upper arm. Another bullet entered the fleshy part of the chin of the late Mr. Williams. This was not a lethal wound. Dr. Pizaro is describing the body diagram, which depicts the front and back anatomical illustration of a male body, and which pinpoints exactly where the wounds are.

One bullet entered the right side of Mr. William's chin and exited the left side. The second bullet entered the rear of the right arm, exited the armpit of the upper arm, re-entered the chest wall and exited through the front side clavicle [[Dr. Pizaro clarifies that this was not a lethal wound). The third bullet entered the chest cavity [[and therefore was lethal), passed though the right lung, both chambers of the heart, and through the sixth rib upon exiting. The fourth bullet also entered and exited the right arm, but did not enter the chest wall [[not a lethal wound).

Dr. Pizaro clarifies that the force of the bullets can actually move the body.

Dr. Pizaro now points out the entry and exit wounds on a larger, close-up photo of the late Mr. Williams for the benefit of the jury.

The Williams family stand up and leave the courtroom in distress.

Showing close-ups of the gunshot wounds, Dr. Pisaro states that he cannot attest to the survivability of the gunshot wound to the heart and lungs, but that everyone he's ever seen with that wound has been dead.

KC Prosecutor asks Dr. Pizaro if he can describe the position of Mr. William's arm at the moment he was shot. He responds that the arm was likely slightly bent.

Dr. Pizaro states that he noted a "fatty liver" in Mr. Williams, consistent with chronic alcoholism. And that he conducted a standard toxicolgy test.

Witness states that toxicology results indicated an elevated blood alcohol level.

NOTE: I will be back, taking a break for dinner. [[I don't feel hungry but hubby is so happy today, wants to celebrate., gotta find out what that's all about.

We're back. While we were gone, the medical examiner continued his testimony.

Dr. Pizaro could not determine if Mr. Williams had any mobility issues.

City attorney asks what is the significance of Mr. Williams' tattoo.

Dr. Pizaro states he cannot speak to the significance of Mr. William's tattoo. City attorney was wondering if the doctor always notes the presence of tattoos. He said that he does.

the likeliest position of Mr. Williams at the moment he was shot, given the forensic evidence, was with his upper trunk slightly turned. Dr. Pizaro doesn't speak to the distance issue, what was the distance between between the shooter and the victim. Mr. William's torso was at a slight diagonal from his feet [[meaning his trunk was slightly twisted).

Cross examination:

The doctor did not examine the bullet holes in the clothes, he just examines the body.

Ford [[Williams family attorney) mentions the deformed bullet which exited Mr. Williams and was found inside his jacket sleeve. Had it hit a hard surface [[inside the body?). Dr. Pizaro states that the bullet did hit Mr. William's sixth rib and was likely deflected into another direction.

Ford clarifies that the bullet that entered the inside of Mr. William's lower arm and exited the back outside of the upper arm.

Can the velocity of the bullet physically move the arm and/or body. Dr. Pizaro states that it's possible but that bullet dynamics is not his area of expertise.

Ford demonstrates Mr. Williams' likely positioning holding the carving board in his left hand. Reporter cannot see the position of his right arm.

Ford clarifies that an abrasion observed on the body was sustained in the hours or moments preceding death, not after.

Dr. Pizaro states that he cannot determine if Mr. Williams fell on his back, side, or front after being shot.

Dr. Pizaro states that Mr. William's blood alcohol level is not particularly high, especially given Mr. William's chronic alcoholism - but that he cannot attest to whether Mr. Williams' gait would have been affected.

KC Prosecutor asks if Mr. Williams had scars or callouses on his hands indicating his habit of carving with a knife. Dr. Pizaro states that he did.

Next witness is another eyewitness. She was driving through the intersection, noticed the two men, but saw nothing unusual. She then heard the gunshots and stopped immediately, wondering if she were in danger. She was just coming alongside the two men. Williams was between the witness and Birk. He then fell rather gracefully. He fell onto his back. She saw movement before the shots but wasn't focused enough to say what the movements were. She wondered if the shots were fatal. She did not see any interaction before the shots. After the light changed and she began to move, she heard police sirens. When she got home, she called the police and gave a statement. She referred to a cardboard begging sign she saw lying by Mr. Williams. She again says she could not tell if Mr.Williams was being aggressive before the shots as she was not focused on anything until she heard the shots. In her original statement she said that perhaps Mr. Williams turned slightly toward the officer, but she now says she was not focused and can't say.

Witness states that Mr. William's hands and shoulders continued to move after he lay on the ground and that "he struggled a bit." Witness wondered if medical aid could be offered and his life saved. Ford clarifies that the witness did not notice any aggressive movement from Mr. Williams in the moment preceding his death.

Witness states that Birk did not move after the shooting other than to use his radio, and that he kept his gun trained on the victim. Witness heard another witness very clearly shout at the officer asking why he had shot Mr. Williams, but she could not make out his reply. She stated she was stunned.

Court adjourned. Final day of testimony will be Tuesday.

Reporter: Another staredown with Birk's security detal. Amazed at the hostility emanating from these men.
NOTE: If you go back to the notes I posted in September about this, you will see how the person giving us these blow by blow accounts was sitting in a nearby park with Mr. Williams' relatives when several bicycle officers started hanging around across the street, staring at them and acting intimidating. This staredown is being viewed the same way, as support for the officer and aggression towards the Indian community and the Williams family.

[Pam]

Why do they care if the knife was open or closed when he wasn't threatening anybody?

[gazhekwe]

The officer is insisting he shot because he was in fear for his life. He says Mr. Williams turned to face him in an agressive posture with an aggressive look on his face.

I guess if the knife were open, that could lend some juice to that argument. Or, it could be that the poor man had no idea who was yelling at him and why, so he didn't close the knife or drop it because he felt threatened.

FWIW, when Officer Birk showed the knife to responding officers, it was closed. He had his foot on it.

[gazhekwe]

This is a video of Birk demonstrating the threatening position taken by Mr. Williams. He describes Williams' expression as "thousand yard stare." This is a term usually referring to the expression on someone dealing with post traumatic stress, not as a threatening stare.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/video/mediacenterbc3.html?bcpid=30884189001&bckey=AQ~~,A AAAAFn2Wfk~,QUqnr01qM6aNyA1l3Tnqn9EkxU1YnZwX&bctid =747348209001

[gazhekwe]

Seattle Times story on the inquest:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nquest14m.html

[gazhekwe]

More Seattle News. I am really interested in this examination of police/community relations.

The Williams case is one of a wave of shootings and beatings involving the Seattle Police Department, prompting widespread public demand for a rethinking on the use-of-force policies and policing in minority communities, particularly one of its biggest and least understood, Native Americans.

Newly installed Chief John Diaz this week announced a top-end overhaul to ramp up training and reemphasize community relations in a department that recently earned national praise for its neighborhood policing.

"We have lost some of that through the years, that sense of connection, the social fabric that keeps all of us together," Diaz said this week. "We really are talking about building peace in every one of those contacts. We can't get them right 99% of the time. We have to try to get them right 100% of the time."

Lately, the average hasn't been close.

In April, Seattle police made national headlines with a video of a gang detective stomping a Latino man who was prone on a sidewalk and warning that he was going to "beat the … Mexican piss out of you, homey. You feel me?"

In June, another video emerged. This time, an officer was seen punching a 17-year-old African American girl in the face when she intervened in the arrest of her girlfriend for jaywalking.

The worst string of violence began in August, with three officer-involved shootings in three weeks. During the same period, a knife-wielding man was shot to death by police in neighboring Tacoma and a 74-year-old Baptist pastor investigating a noise in the nursery next to his home late at night was shot to death by a sheriff's deputy after he allegedly moved to pull out a gun. [This incident actually happened in the Spokane Valley, on the other side of the state]

Diaz said he would ask two outside police departments to independently review the Williams inquiry once it was completed.

"This incident raises, as do other incidents in the past, very serious concerns about the preparation of our officers and concerns about racial profiling within the department," said Mayor Mike McGinn. "The can of worms is open."

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep...oting-20100917

There continue to be on-line discussions about inflammatory language, racial animus, and there is substantial backlash about whether civilians have any right to question police action. As seen in the inquest testimony, there is room for improvement in communication. Should police officers have to identify themselves as such when confronting someone who cannot see them? To me that is the biggest question raised in the Williams case.

[gazhekwe]

In his book, Red Earth, White Lies, Vine Deloria, Jr., Hunkpapa Lakota, stated that natural and catastrophic events throughout the Earth’s history and within the time frame of human memory, are contained in tribal stories and traditions. Many tribal traditions and stories originated from actual observations that occurred centuries ago, but are still preserved in tribal oral traditions.

Tobasanokwut Kinew told [] the story of the wolverine and the shooting star. The Anishinaabe word for the wolverine is “Gwiingwa’aage” which means “The One Who Came from the Shooting Star.”

There were four star spirits soaring through the night sky. One of the four spirits was belligerent and ill-tempered. While soaring through the night sky, the contentious star spirit, in an attempt to startle and scare everyone on Earth, flew too close, lost control, and collided with the Earth.

The spirit left a huge crater in the Earth where it hit. The Anishinaabek, who were familiar with the antics of that particular star spirit, cautiously examined the crater and continued to observe it for several years. Over time, it filled with water and became a lake. Eventually, trees and grasses began to grow on its banks.

One day, an unusual animal emerged from this lake; an animal that the Anishinaabek had never seen before. It had a vicious and ill-tempered disposition. It was said that this animal was the star spirit that hit the Earth long ago. So, the Anishinaabe called this animal “Gwiingwa’aage” [[“Gwiingwa”—shooting star; “aage”—originating from). Contained within the Anishinaabe name for the wolverine is the occurrence, recorded in oral tradition, of a meteorite colliding with the Earth long ago. That crater still exists today in northwestern Quebec, Canada.

Michael Wassegijig Price, "Star Knowledge," Mazinigan, Summer 2010, page 12 http://www.glifwc.org/publications/m...Summer2010.pdf

Check Lac a L'Eau Claire in northern Quebec.

[canuck]

Yes, that is a mighty crater alright. Take a look at the Manicouagan lake crater on the north shore of the St Lawrence river. It is 62 miles wide in diameter and is the fifthe largest impact crater on earth. This is a shot from the space shuttle:

[gazhekwe]

Fred Pine, an Anishinaabe Elder from Garden River First Nations, near Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan told the story of “Genondahway’anung—Long-Tailed Heavenly Climbing Star” hitting and scorching the Earth long ago.

The Great Spirit, “Gichi-Manitou,” warned the Anishinaabek ahead of time about the approaching star, and so they fled to a bog and rolled themselves up in the moss and mud to protect themselves. Only the Anishinaabek who maintained their spiritual beliefs heard the warning of “Gichi-Manitou.

When the star hit, its fiery tail spread out over the entire landscape. Nothing survived the heat. The giant animals and trees were all killed off. Only those Anishinaabek who rolled up in the moss and mud lived to tell this story. The story of “Genondahway’anung” is an account of an astronomical event that was recorded within the oral tradition of the Anishinaabek. This catastrophic event cannot be dated exactly, but may have possibly coincided with the Great Firestorm of 1871, which was caused by fragments of the tail of Biela’s Comet disintegrating over Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois.

In 1832, Beila’s Comet, on its orbiting path, just missed colliding with the Earth by one month. Because of the close proximity with the Earth’s gravitational field, Beila’s Comet split into two trajectories and became two comets approximately 16,000 miles apart. The comets were observed in 1839 and 1846, but suddenly disappeared.

It wasn’t until October 8, 1871, that the simultaneous firestorms broke out across the upper Midwest. The fall of 1871 was particularly dry which made vegetation vulnerable to fire. Because the Earth passed through its orbital path, scientists theorized that the fires were caused by debris from the disintegrated tail of Beila’s Comet. Witnesses in Peshtigo, Wisconsin made mention of “fire coming from the heavens.” The story of “Genondahway’anung” resembles the events surrounding the mysterious conflagration.

The stories of “Genondahway’anung” and “Gwiingwa’aage” also resemble the Tunguska Blast of 1908, where a meteorite crashed into the Tunguska River region of Siberia, Russia. The Tungus tribes people, an indigenous group in Siberia, and some Russian fur trappers witnessed the gigantic fireball with its long, fiery tail just before it impacted the Earth. The blast incinerated and leveled an area approximately 1,240 square miles. Trees were felled in an outward direction from the epicenter of the crater.

Afterwards, witnesses recalled “black rain” in which airborne ash and debris from the blast mixed with the rain. Shockwaves, through the Earth’s crust, pulsated approximately 620 miles in all directions.

Halley’s Comet the Prophecy Star

Halley’s Comet, the brightest and most spectacular of all comets, becomes visible on its orbiting path every 75 years. The Anishinaabek at Garden River First Nations have recorded accounts within their oral history of Halley’s Comet in 1834 and 1908. There are several names among neighboring Anishinaabek communities for Halley’s Comet, which include: Gitchi’Anung [[ Great Star), Wazoowaad Anung [[long-tailed star) or No’aachiigay Anung [[prophecy star).

The story of the Prophecy Star tells that, when nature comes out of balance and people lose their spiritual path and purpose, a star spirit would return and destroy the earth. In 1994, when scientists observed the Shoemaker-Levy-9 Comet crashing into the southern hemisphere of Jupiter, it was now apparent to the scientific community that the Earth is vulnerable to collisions with comets or asteroids of apocalyptic proportions.

The story of the “No’aachiigay Anung,” reminds Anishinaabek of this fateful and potential reality through tribal oral traditions.

More from Michael Wassegijig Price, "Star Knowledge," Mazinigan, Summer 2010, page 12 http://www.glifwc.org/publications/m...Summer2010.pdf

The Peshtigo fire consumed more than 1875 square miles, jumping across Green Bay to burn part of the Door Peninsula.. On the same day, October 8, 1871, the city of Chicago was struck by a devastating fire, and a huge swath of Michigan burned on the same day, from Holland to Glen Haven on the west coast to the Saginaw Valley, Genesee County and the Thumb. Over 2,000,000 acres were burned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Huron_Fire_of_1871

[gazhekwe]

9:26 am: Rick Williams is on the witness stand. Judge Chapman has taken counsel into sidebar when Buck asks "Mr. Williams, were you aware that your brother had grown increasingly psychotic in the months preceding his death?"

[[Boy oh Boy, leading question!)

KC Prosecutor and Ford have both established that John T. was in the habit of closing his knife whenever anyone initiated conversation with him, and that he did so by raising his arm.

Ford's objection over-ruled.

Buck suggests that Rick hadn't seen his brother in a long time before the shooting

Buck: "You don't know, do you Mr. Williams, what your brother's behavior was like with authority figures in the months before his death?"

Buck: "Mr. Williams, do you know if your brother threatened officers in the months before his death?"

Ford objects, Chapman overrules.

Buck: "Is the man who threatened police officers not the brother you remember?"

KC PRosecutor and Ford object, Judge Chapman takes counsel into sidebar.

Objection sustained.

Buck: "Mr. Williams, your knowledge of your brother is predicated on his behavior ten years before, is that correct?"

Buck: "Didn't you state to reporters that his carvings had changed?"

Buck: "You can't tell this jury anything about how your brother was interacting with law enforcement officers on August 30, 2010, can you Mr. Williams?"

Inaudible reply.

Ford: "Was the late John Williams handling his carving equipment any differently when you saw him on August 30th?"

No.

Both KC Prosecutor and Ford characterize Buck's questions as attempts to create a false impression to the jury.

Rick Williams steps down.

Reporter has not been as clear today, states there are connectivity issues.

Ford is the Williams family's attorney.
I believe Buck is Officer Birk's attorney.
King County Prosecutor is Thomas.

Next witness, another eye witness, approached the intersection, saw the lights of the police car, stopped at the light, saw the officer get out, draw his gun, she demonstrated the officer's stance, and then he was shooting, all very fast. She heard his voice but couldn't determine what he said. As she drove on after the light changed, she saw Mr. Williams first, just standing, then she saw him fall, then as she drove by she saw him lying on the ground. She does not recall his position relative to the officer, nor what he had in his hand.

Next witness, another eyewitness: Witness was driving east on Howell, approaching the intersection of Boren and Howell. She noticed Mr. Williams "out of the corner of my eye" as she approached the intersection. Her windows were down and radio on at low volume. She first noticed Birk when she stopped at the intersection.

Witness states that when she first noticed Mr. Williams was wearing a baseball cap and white shirt, and that he was holding what she guessed might be a clipboard. He was "slightly hunched over it."

Witness states that after she heard the officer say 'Drop the knife' [[at which point she noticed Birk) she noticed his raised gun. She estimates that Birk and Williams were 10-15 feet apart at that moment.

Witness states Mr. Williams was "shuffling a little bit", and facing sideways from Birk.

Witness then heard 5 shots, and was watching Birk at that moment. Witness: "Officer was very calm and composed." "Mr. Williams was facing us. And "sort of laid down." Witness' voice breaks. "I saw the expression on his face as he fell; he fell over on his back, and then rolled over onto his side."

Witness states that the next thing she was aware of was the sound of sirens. She felt she "needed to get out of there."

Ford clarifies that Mr. Williams was not facing Birk at the point that she heard Birk say 'Put the knife down!'.

Witness states that she did NOT see Mr. Williams turn towards Birk in the moment before the shots were fired.

Ford clarifies that in her original statement she stated that she thought the bullets were rubber bullets, because she couldn't believe the officer would have fired real bullets at an unthreatening vicitm. KC Prosecutor objects, Judge Chapman sustains.

Witness clarifies that she saw Mr. Williams "hunched over" what she thought was a clipboard in the moment before he was shot.

Jury question: "Did you see Mr. Williams drop anything after he was shot? Did you ever see a knife?"

Witness: "no" to both questions.

Judge Chapman hands the final interrogatories to Ford [[these are the questions that the jury will answer). Ford has not previously seen these).

Next witness is the driver of the fire engine. He says he saw an open knife and a board lying by the deceased. He can't locate himself in the dashcam video.

Question from the jury: "Was there anyone around the knife at the time you saw it?" Witness: "No"

Question from the jury: "Did you respond to any other calls regarding a knife in the month of the shooting?"

Witness: "I don't recall."

Next witness, a fireman who arrived by aid car. He saw the victim and no one was giving medical assistance. He saw the knife but cannot recall if it was open or closed. Subsequent discussion at the firehouse indicated it was open, but he cannot recall whether it was or not. There was an officer standing guard over the knife.

Next witness, SPD Sergeant who handles investigations into officer-involved shootings.

As Scene sergeant, he took photos of the crime scene which included a board and a closed knife. A second closed knife was found in the Mr. Williams' clothing. After a thorough search, no other knife was located.

Buck asks the witness if he has ever experienced arriving on a scene when responding officers wrongly pay attention to pieces of evidence that are not related to the crime scene. Witness says 'yes'.

Witness clarifies that he was the "Scene Log Officer" who was keeping track of who was at the scene and what their roles was

Ford clarifies that it would have been strictly against protocol for anyone to move any evidence until it had been recorded and documented - and that the witness saw Officer Leavitt guarding evidence as expected. Witness steps down.

Ford asks to discuss interrogatories for jury.

Ford wants the question "Did Mr. Williams attempt to put the knife down" to be added to the list. Judge Chapman states that this can be discussed after lunch. Court is in recess.

[gazhekwe]

Discussing interrogatories.

Ford finds them inadequate. Ford wants to see a question about whether John threatened, lunged, or attacked.

Judge Chapman insists that he will not strike any of these questions. Chapman: "There is no evidence to support whether he did or not."

Ford argues that there is no evidence to support many of these questions. And that there are critical questions not being asked.

[Some in the community have said they feel the questions are slanted toward a finding for the police officer-- Gazhekwe]

Ford wants the jury to answer if the shooting of Mr. Williams was necessary. And is Officer Birk's description of the threat posed by Mr. Williams accurate?

Judge Chapman states that it is not appropriate to ask the jury if the witness is telling the truth.

According to Chapman, the purpose of the inquest is to air the facts, and not determine liability.

"Did John T. put the knife down before Officer Birk fired?" has been added to the list of interrogatories.

Buck wants "Was the front of Mr. Williams facing or partly facing Officer Birk when he fired?" asked.

"Based on the information available to Officer Birk did that make him feel Mr. Williams was a threat?" is another question Buck wants.

Buck implies that lay people such as the jury will not be able to give informed opinions re the necessity of Birk shooting.

Judge Chapman does not want to consider what Birk believed, but rather what objective facts can be ascertained.

Ford: "The officer is not a scientist who knows more than the rest of us."

Ford: "Was John T. turning to comply or to attack?" is a question that should be asked.

Ford argues that common sense inferences about what Mr. Williams was thinking is what the jury will arrive at. And that Judge Chapman's interrogatories will only lead the jury to one conclusion.

KC Prosecutor suggests that the question be taken out of the realm of Birk's perceptions and based on facts.

Jury enters.

Last witness, a forensic scientist from an independent lab. He conducted a forensic examination of the knife. Detective Mudd, SPD investigator, was present during the examination.

Witness states that the knife was tested to determine how much force was needed to overcome the knife's locking mechanism.

Witness states that there was normal wear and tear seen in the knife.

Jury is being shown an image of the knife, and an "area of separation" on the back of the knife.

Witness states that lint fibers in the "area of separation" demonstrate that this separation had been present for some time.

Reporter [[and me) [What is the significance of the "area of separation?]

Witness is showing the jury a stereo microscope view of the area of separation on the handle. Close-up view of lint.

Witness states that the locking mechanism was unable to fully engage.

Witness states that when the handle of the knife was squeezed in the vise at the lab, the locking mechanism fully engaged.

Witness did not conduct a full test of the force needed to overcome the locking mechanism, for fear of damaging the knife.

Witness states the blade was placed in a vise, and a spring scale employed on the handle to test the force...Witness demonstrates how this test was conducted, showing the jury his spring scale.

Witness states that it took one pound, 2 ounces of force to overcome the locking mechanism. Witness states that seven readings of the spring scale were recorded.

KC Prosecutor asks which conclusions were reached by the withness.

Witness states that when opened slowly or with little force the locking mechanism did not fully engage, but if opened quickly or with force it did fully engage.
Witness states that when not fully engaged, little force was needed to overcome it.

Witness states he was asked to determine the age of the knife, re-examined it, and looked at the wear and tear on the knife in greater detail. The jury is being shown images of scrapes, gouges, and impact marks on the knife. Witness clarifies that an impact mark is a dent.

Witness describes for the jury an image of the body of knife with various marks. Witness asserts that a scratch on the knife is more recent, given that it has no accumulated dirt or lint in it. Witness describes this as "fresh damage." Witness is showing the scratch to the jury.

"Witness states that the damage was recent, having happened during the incident, or up to a week prior."

Witness is pointing out embedded particles in an older scratch to the jury in a magnified image of the knife, demonstrating what an older scratch looks like.

Witness states that an electron microscope view of the embedded debris yielded a conclusion of concrete.

Witness states that he did not do any drop testing due to the likelihood of doing damage to the evidence.

Witness states that he found no recent damage to the blade of the knife.

Witness states that the second round of testing concluded that there was recent damage to the handle of the knife which revealed embedded concrete, but nothing conclusive about whether the knife was open or closed.

Witness states that the concrete embedded in the fresh damage is not consistent with someone having put their foot on it [[as Leavitt has attested he did).

Ford clarifies that the witness is a chemist and not an expert on knives.

Ford clarifies that the witness's testing was "simply common sense testing" rather than that of a knife expert.

Ford clarifies that the blade of the knife has no conclusive recent damage.

Witness clarifies that he never tested the knife against a carving material, as it was used.

Ford clarifies that the knife cannot close by itself. It needs force to close.

Ford clarifies that it would be unlikely for the blade to have closed on its own without any impact marks to show for it.

Buck is up now... he implies that the knife has been poorly cared for. The witness declines to agree. "Most of the scratches were relatively light."

Jury is being shown another image of a dent on the knife.

Witness states that the handle of the knife is softer than the blade and more prone to show damage.

Witness states that the knife is readily closed with one hand, with practice.

Witness states that he cannot conclusively attest to the knife being open or closed at the time of the shooting.

Witness clarifies that it is his understanding that the knife is not a genuine Sheffield

Witness clarifies that force applied to the handle of the knife caused the locking mechanism to fully engage.

Buck inquiries if placing the handle in the vise helped to repair it somewhat by closing the gap.

Buck asks if the impact force of being dropped would be enough to close the knife. Witness states that it does not close by itself, but that it might be possible.
Witnesses state that his investigation of the knife did not focus on the dynamics of dropping the knife.

Witness states that measuring the gap in the pre-test photographs would reveal that.

Ford clarifies that the recent impact mark that showed traces of embedded concrete was the worst damage on the knife.

Witness clarifies that the knife likely struck a glancing blow to the concrete when it fell.

Witness clarifies in response to a jury question that there isn't a button to push to engage the locking mechanism.

Witness states that he did not weigh the knife. Witness clarifies that he cannot tell if it weighs more or less than 500 grams.

Witness clarifies that in his opinion the dent containing concrete is the most recent damage to the knife.

Witness clarifies that if the locking mechanism is fully engaged, forcing it shut would damage the knife.

Witness steps down. Next up is instruction to the jury about how to answer the interrogatories.

[Pam]

[Some in the community have said they feel the questions are slanted toward a finding for the police officer-- Gazhekwe]

That seems pretty obvious! Even supposing he had threatened someone with the knife how is 5 shots resulting in death an appropriate response? Disarming him would have been the appropriate response.

[gazhekwe]

The officer is saying the man was unresponsive to verbal orders to drop the knife. He was in fear for his life and dared not close with him to take the knife. He had to shoot him so the scary drunk Indian ten feet away and just slightly turned toward him would not stab and kill him. And then stand there with his gun pointing at the bleeding man lying limp on the sidewalk until relieved by responding officers who also pointed their guns at the poor man.

Isn't this maddening? I am so glad we have a good and responsible friend in the audience to report what is happening.

[gazhekwe]

Judge Chapman is explaining that the jury is to consider any evidence that has been struck from the evidence, that they are simply answering the interrogatories, but not determining guilt or innocence.

Chapman: "You are the sole judges of the witnesses testimony, and of their credbility."

Chapman: "Disregard any statements or evidence not supported by testimony."

Chapman: "Do not let your emotions overcome your rational thought processes."

Chapman: "Evidence may be direct or circumstantial."

"Select a presiding juror to oversee that the questions are answered fully and fairly."

Chapman: "Do not refer to the notes of another juror."

Chapman: "It will be the duty of the juror to answer each interrogatory in written form."

[Each juror answers for him or herself, no consensus is needed. This was discussed at some point before the inquest at a community meeting to explain the inquest process--Gazhekwe.]

Court's instructions are concluded, the jury is excused, and court is in adjourned.

[Now we wait. The jury findings will be submitted to the court which will tally them, determine the results and make a finding.--Gazhekwe]

These are the jury questions as given on Day 1 of the inquest, January 11. There were a few others added today as reported above.

On August 30, 2010, did Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk observe John T. Williams crossing the street?

Was John T. Williams carrying an open knife at the time he was observed?

Did Officer Birk get out of his patrol car to contact John T. Williams?

Did Officer Birk attempt to stop John T. Williams?

Did John T. Williams have a knife in his hand when he was contacted?

Did Officer Birk tell John T. Williams to drop the knife?

If yes, did John T. Williams comply with that order?

Did Officer Birk believe that John T. Williams posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm to himself or others at the times he fired his weapon?

Did John T. Williams die in King County, Washington on August 30, 2010?

Did Officer Birk fire his service weapon at John T. Williams on August 30, 2010?

If yes, did John T. Williams die from the gunshot wounds caused by Officer Birk?

When Officer Birk fired his service weapon, did John T. Williams have a knife in his hand?

If yes, was John T. Williams' knife open when Officer Birk fired his service weapon?

Was John T. Williams facing Officer Birk when Officer Birk fired his service weapon?

If no, was John T. Williams turning towards Officer Birk when Officer Birk fired his service weapon?

[canuck]

This sad story reminds me of the pitiful event that took place at Vancouver International Airport in 2007. 4 RCMP officers surrounded a confused, probably mentally perturbed Polish immigrant on his arrival to Canada. One of them tasered him and he eventually died. The event was overkill as the guy did not sem to be threatening anyone. But 4 big burly officers decided that this unarmed guy needed a jolt. A lot of incompetent trigger happy folks out there.


http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...aservideo.html

[gazhekwe]

Exactly. I sure hope they take away Birk's gun and never unleash him with police power again.

[gazhekwe]

Seattle's can of seething worms

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...arrest19m.html


Seattle officer punches handcuffed man in the face, and Scene Sergeant agrees with him, scolds witnesses.

Not to pound on Seattle alone, the state of police procedures needs serious attention nationwide. It seems we are at war here. Criminals are identified on site, and deemed guilty so punishment can be meted out, including capital punishment. See Detroit story of teen robber killed by retired officer. He died of multiple gunshot wounds. How much is enough?

[Pam]

Exactly. I sure hope they take away Birk's gun and never unleash him with police power again.

I'd like to see jail time.

[gazhekwe]

You and me both. That would be hard time for him.

Here is a blog from someone who knew and interacted with John T on a daily basis. It casts the cold light of reality on his sufferings, while illuminating his humanity. We who feel we are better than our least brothers truly have something to learn.

http://teslasays.wordpress.com/2010/...s-takes-a-bow/

[gazhekwe]

The judge and jury were sequestered in the courtroom until late in the day. Parties and observers have been told to return in the morning when the jury might have finished deliberations.