BLOG: Crime Scene Photos Show Baskey Holding The Gun?

Bryan Dubois
Jul 6, 2010

The fact that both of the families are being dragged through this again is sad, but I suppose if I felt that a relative of mine was being unjustly portrayed as a murderer who then committed suicide, the emotional toll would be worth enduring again...

Some of the alleged errors in the investigation:

Crime scene photos show Baskey holding the gun?

Come again?

And *Mark Gilliam (the 'coon hunting' fan) is heard discussing the gun placement...for what?  The photo?  Not enough info to go on - but any time I see his name and there's some kind of race issues involved, I cringe.

The official story is that Barnett (a black man) murdered his white girlfriend and then committed suicide.  The situation is ripe for face-saving manipulation.

Not that anyone in the area would harbor any suspicion when it comes to the SPD's investigative techniques, (*The Costante incident) but this is why the SPD has to get in front of PR issues as soon as possible.  Take the high road so that people aren't wondering if there's any truth to the NAACP's claims. 

Sounds like a great issue for a Friday afternoon talk show at 3:00 pm.

[*I'm required by the easily offended to state that anyone mentioned by name in these blog posts is a really good neighbor and would give you the shirt off his back.]

Comments

MontegoBay1

Ok, Brian this is a low blow even for someone as pathetic as you are!!!  You are brining up the "coon" thing again??? WOW that is sad and you are sad!!  Anyone who knows Mark Gilliam knows that was not a racist comment, but you who are just jealous cause youre not man enough to do what they do...have to try and smear his name...again very sad!!  Also if you read the original article in YOUR OWN horrible newspaper, it said that the two did not die right away, well when you have two people who are not dead, you DONT take pictures you moron!! You render first aid which the article said Parsons did...so instead of making all these bogus accusations, why dont you gather all the facts!  I also see you, once again, went after Costante.....youre a loser and you work for a loser newspaper, I guess I would be bitter too......

MontegoBay1

As for them being "good neighbors"...im guessing neither one would WANT to live next to  a loser like you!!

Bryan Dubois

MB1,  so you understand how these SPD gaffes help shape public perception of the department?  The department needs to get out in front of these issues.

Salvatore

That famous flag raising photo on Iwo Jima was actually the second raising of the flag. It was staged unlike the first raising of the flag. My question is why the gun was taken out of the police car trunk and placed on a body? If it was done to recreate a photo of a crime scene, then how can it be considered an official crime photo? Sounds to me like the gun was removed from the crime scene and placed back on a body. If so, was it placed in the exact location and position as before? Were there any tests performed on the hands of the body for gun powder residue? What make, style and caliber gun and ammo type? Powder burns on a body or lack of powder burns can vary by gun style, barrel length, caliber and type of ammo. If the SPD had to recreate the crime scene by placing the gun on a body and taking a crime scene photo, then the SPD should admit that this was done not to try to hide facts but to show where the location of gun was after the shooting. If Barnett was the shooter, were his hands tested for powder residue? Were his fingerprints on the gun and ammo casing? Where did Barnett buy the gun and ammo? What happened to that homeless pastor that saw the couple and later heard the shots? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. Okay all you legal experts, your turn.

Bryan Dubois

That about sums it up!  SPD shouldn't let any confusion linger.

Mr. Info

I like how these are 1) very legitimate questions 2) The SR has been named Best Newspaper in Ohio 3 straight years by the Associated Press. Yet MontegoBay acts like the newspaper stinks (even though unobjective outsiders say otherwise) and anyone who questions authority (a right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment because the Founding Fathers thought it was so important) is insane and trying to ruin the fabric of the community.

These are VERY legitimate questions. Guns ALWAYS leave powder burns at suicides. No powder burns in this case. Furthermore no photos show Barnett holdiing the gun, even though he supposedly committed suicide and died with the gun still in his hand. So these are questions the public deserves to know the answer to. If there are legitimate answers, fine, just tell us and end the controversy. If not, the city needs to investigate why there aren't answers to these questions.

There's an old saying, "You're entitled to your own opinion. Not your own facts." As both a former police detective and journalist, the facts are the SR is a great newspaper, and these are legitimate quesitons. Only an unobjective, extremely biased person would act like these aren't legitimate questions. The public deserves to know the answers.

Salvatore

All about gunpowder burns http://www.firearmsid.com/A_distanceGSR.htm

 

hussein membrane

 Hey Brian "Blanche" Dubois,

I kid, but wouldn't this be a great time to reiterate your theory on civil rights?

MontegoBay1

Yea Brian, this story doesnt need to brought back up....it is complete moron!  What exactly is it that you and the NAACP are accusing SPD of???  Stop beating around the bush and make an accusation.....you pathetic excuse of a person.  Are you claiming police corruption??  what is it...stop being a coward and accuse someone of something instead of being like the NAACP just trying to stir up some Conspiracy Theory...this is Sandusky Ohio, not LA Calfornia.  Youre just a small person in an even smaller town, but nice try!!

MontegoBay1

Now onto "Mr.Info",, You HAVE to be a Register employee, the fact that the Register is a joke of a paper is shared by more people now adays than me.  The Police are not hiding anything....ALL their records are open to the public, just go look at them, if you can find your way down to the station.  For you to think it is ok that Brian is smearing the names of great officers, means you are as big a joke as he is, maybe more so, at least he can use the excuse he is just trying to make a name for himself, but degrading the men and women who are tasked with protecting him.  Go to SPD as all the questions you want, this happened because an insane boyfriend shot his girlfriend then cowardly shot himself, PLAIN AND SIMPLE...get over it!!

MontegoBay1

If you people would actually read the original article that was published in THIS newspaper....you would see that ALL their accusation contradict what they are now claiming.  If youre a Police Officer and you see two people who were just shot, but are NOT dead, are you going to start snapping pictures or are you going to render first aid, now I know this is tough for some of you, but THINK, for once!!!   If they were discussing where the gun was at, then that is not a conspiracy.....you people are raising questions JUST to raise questions.....the pastor that was there did not just see the people before hand, he SAW Parsons yelling at them to drop the gun...he did not see him fire....GOD people READ the article!!!!!  Im still not real sure what you believe may have happened......what are you implying, but be careful, because if im parsons and I see even one person accusing me of something this bad, I sue the SR for allowing this story to be made fun of by of all people, Brian Dubois........as the public we do hae the right to question our PD, but why go fishing for things that arent there???  What a joke of a story this is.....I also like how Brian is making jokes about a story that has to be opening up old wounds for the family....good job Brian!!

concernedsubject

Bryan you are a joke.

Why would you even bring up Costante which is totally unrelated to the article, something that has been done you just try to bring it up over and over because you have no balls.

How would you like it if we brought up some of your old stuff that can be found on the court website??  It isn't relevant to this article so what would be the point??

Montego is right the two were still alive, the shooting just happened.  As an officer you are going to try and render first aid, you are not going to snap picures.  Parsons probably had to move the gun because they were still alive, you aren't going to let the person that just fired a shot still possess the gun while they are still alive so you are going to move it from their hands to protect yourself.

Why don't you try to use some common sense before just ranting about the actions?

Driving in Circles

If I were seriously concerned about a police cover up and had credible evidence, I would forward it to the FBI or a reputable attorney.  Given the polarized atmosphere around SPD and the Sandusky Register it is difficult to imagine this will lead to any kind of progress or improvement.

I have never shared MontegoBay's anger but he brings up a valid point, what is the accusation anyway?    Does the family think it is a coverup or just shoddy work?  One article states the officer actually witnessed the shooting, do they think he is lying?  Why would SPD go to all this trouble to "frame" one over the other?

I suspect a retired SPD detective could find inconsistencies with any number of Detroit murder investigations.  Detroit is not exactly known as a law and order town.  Does this detective have any specific credentials or just likes to second guess others?

MINE

Unreal. This newspaper is tearing this town apart bit by bit. Now I know why I have someone at my door constantly wanting me to subscribe. Never!

Julie R.

Sandusky sure does have problems...................................

will it ever end

This is just another reason why I canceled this worthless paper, WORTHLESS REPORTS who write worthless articles!    I agree with MINE...this paper is trying to tear this city apart bit by bit.  I would be curious to know how much the sales have dropped since Westerhold has come on board.   Dubois you are a real piece of work....I would like to use some different words there, but I refuse to stoop to your rotten level!

 

 

safecracker2

This "paper" is constantly trying to stir the pot. These officers have a quick second to make decisions when the sh## is hitting the fan. I say let them come in and do their own investigation. Sadly and unfortunately, 2 young people are dead. Just remember.... Kimmie was the person ultimately responsible for the investigation, if my memory serves me correctly. And say what you want about Gilliam and Constante. They're still going to go into work and do their job, trying to protect people from themselves and others. They have nothing to do with this article. You are just trying to boost your ratings. How bout if everytime this newspaper writes an article, we bring up their former employee who enjoys picnic tables?

OICU81

Mr. Dubois, so much for your so called "new stance" with writing coming back from the maternity leave.  I have a few questions I'd like to ask both you and your paper.

 

1.  Has anyone doing the work on this story even seen the photo(s) in question, or are you simply writing about what you've been told/read is in them?  Frankly if you haven't read the reports and viewed the evidence, then I feel it is wrong for you to be writing about it and making "suggestive" comments.  You may not be accusing Ofc. Gilliam of anything, but even the written word conveys the suggestion in your comments.

 

2. Why do you continue to bring up things like Costante's listing a wrong name in a report which was WAY overblown by this same paper?

 - The reason I say it is overblown is if you actually read that report, it listed her name as being in a room. There was no claim she did anything, no claim she was harboring the fleeing subject, no claim she knew he was coming in or even that she allowed him in the residence.  Simply that she was there.  Nothing that would have gotten her in trouble with any job or Metro or any other agency, yet your paper made it seem like he claimed she was the second shooter on the grassy knoll.  I guess you and others who were so criticle must have never seen some one you thought for sure was someone else.  I've been embaresed numerous times in my life saying "hi" to people only to find I didn''t know them.  I am not saying what he did was right, nor that she didn't deserve an apology, but it was a mistake, period.

 

3.  The stories had reported that he and/or she were both still breathing when Ofc. Parson got there. If this is the case do you really think he should have taken pictues rather than disarming a shooter who is alive with a gun?  Or taken pictues rather than attempting some first aid? I can only imagine the articles that would have been written had he done this and later there was a medical reporting stating one or both could have lived if he'd have attempted first aid right when he arrived.

4.  What about the eye witness whose comments this paper quoted originally? 

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/2007/jul/30/two-dead-lions-park-murder-suicide

He even says the man has it and he witnessed the shooting.  Funny how that part isn't being report in any of the current articles.  I guess its much more fun to cry conspiracy theory than actually put in prior reported facts which might actually support SPD.

 

I can't/won't speak as to what the picures show as I like most readers haven't seen them.  We rely on the writers for fair, unbiased journalism, I'd simply like to make sure we're getting it.

 

Lastly to Mr. Info, when this paper continously writes slanted articles it is fair for people to have their feelings that they dislike it.  If you and this paper disagree, then I hope/plan to never see another article or comment slamming our award winning prosecutor, after all, he won a award so he must be the best.

Bryan Dubois

OICU81,  all fair questions.  Your questions are in bold. 

1.  Has anyone doing the work on this story even seen the photo(s) in question, or are you simply writing about what you've been told/read is in them? 

I am writing my opinion based on the information I read in this newspaper.  If the information in the newspaper is false/misleading then my opinion is tainted.  I accept that because I am not a reporter.  A reporter has the job of delivering the information.  I simply offer my opinion on it - as does all the people who comment on articles on the SR.  We all count on having unbiased information presented to us in the newspaper.  If somebody can prove that this is not the case, then my sights will be turned on why we're not getting the information properly.

Frankly if you haven't read the reports and viewed the evidence, then I feel it is wrong for you to be writing about it and making "suggestive" comments.  You may not be accusing Ofc. Gilliam of anything, but even the written word conveys the suggestion in your comments.

Ofc Gilliam referred to himself as a fan of "coon hunting" in the presence of several black students a few years ago.  That is a fact.  If you can show me how a police officer, in his right mind, could make such a statement without it being racially motivated, please do so.  My point is that these incidents are remembered by the public - and that's the basis for public perception of the SPD.

2. Why do you continue to bring up things like Costante's listing a wrong name in a report which was WAY overblown by this same paper?

I bring it up because Costante's actions embarassed the department.  I am told that he apologized to Deidre Cole for the mistake - but that apology was never made public (as far as I know.)  The SPD has an obligation to maintain a good relationship with the public.  If this Detroit police detective has raised legitimate questions enough to be covered by this newspaper, then obviously somebody at the SR believes that they need to be answered.  If Sams answers the questions, explains the situation and puts a hole in the hull of the SR, then that will force the SR to reconsider how they're covering the news.

This is a GOOD thing.  It will force accountability at the newspaper. 

 - The reason I say it is overblown is if you actually read that report, it listed her name as being in a room. There was no claim she did anything, no claim she was harboring the fleeing subject, no claim she knew he was coming in or even that she allowed him in the residence.  Simply that she was there.  Nothing that would have gotten her in trouble with any job or Metro or any other agency, yet your paper made it seem like he claimed she was the second shooter on the grassy knoll.  I guess you and others who were so criticle must have never seen some one you thought for sure was someone else.  I've been embaresed numerous times in my life saying "hi" to people only to find I didn''t know them.  I am not saying what he did was right, nor that she didn't deserve an apology, but it was a mistake, period.

Agreed.  But do you agree that while it may have been a simple mistake, it placed an innocent person at the scene of a crime?  That hurts the reputation of people who avoid bad company.

3.  The stories had reported that he and/or she were both still breathing when Ofc. Parson got there. If this is the case do you really think he should have taken pictues rather than disarming a shooter who is alive with a gun? 

I agree with you.  Parsons likely did exactly what he was supposed to do.  I never said otherwise.  My question is and remains:  How and why do crime scene photos show Baskey with the weapon?  Admittedly, the language in the article says that Gilliam told the officer to place the weapon "on her."  It doesn't say, "in her hand."  For all we know, the weapon could've been used to committ murder, then suicide, then after the fatal shot, it could've fallen onto Baskey.  Again, all of these questions can be answered and if they're answered they can punch a hole into the side of the NAACP which some believe has a tendency to toss around accusations of racism like they're candy.  So what is the SPD waiting for?  Answer the questions because if the story remains that the NAACP asked some unanswered questions, it looks bad for the department.

Or taken pictues rather than attempting some first aid? I can only imagine the articles that would have been written had he done this and later there was a medical reporting stating one or both could have lived if he'd have attempted first aid right when he arrived.

4.  What about the eye witness whose comments this paper quoted originally? 

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/2007/jul/30/two-dead-lions-park-murder-suicide

He even says the man has it and he witnessed the shooting.  Funny how that part isn't being report in any of the current articles.  I guess its much more fun to cry conspiracy theory than actually put in prior reported facts which might actually support SPD.

Again, answer the questions - and then use the results to build a theory against whatever organization cried wolf.  If the NAACP overreacted - let it be known so that they suffer the public consequences.  This is how you keep these large organizations honest.

I can't/won't speak as to what the picures show as I like most readers haven't seen them.  We rely on the writers for fair, unbiased journalism, I'd simply like to make sure we're getting it.

I completely agree with you.  We all depend on accurate information.  It's what we pay for when we purchase the newspaper, isn't it?

Thanks for taking the time to ask your questions without getting nasty.  (Aside from your first line. heh heh)

hussein membrane

 Brian Dubious strikes again!

Bryan Dubois

:)  Thank you!

jethro

DuBois:

Sounds like YOU have a personal vendetta against Police Officers.  Ofc. Gilliam, Ofc. Parsons, or Ofc. Constante ever arrest you, or someone you are close too?  Read the "coon-hunting" report- an innocent statement was made when the young gentlemen in question asked Ofc. Gilliam if he "knew" they were "big-time" Sandusky High School basketball players.  He replied he wasn't "into" sports, if they wante to talk about rabbit hunting, coon-hunting, or deer hunting he was their man.  I agree, poor choice of words- but, as I recall, EVERY African American Officer on the Police force, stood behind Gilliam, went on T.V., and stated there wasn't a racist bone in his body.  As far as Ofc. Constante, if Deidre Cole accepted his apology, the matter should be laid to rest.  Ofc. Parsons did his job, what he was TRAINED to do- he shouldn't be second guessed for the decision he made.  The Sandumpy Register NEVER says anything positive about the Police Department- good thing Kimmie was in charge the night of the "murder/suicide"-MAYBE the register will report the story accurately and fairly.  NOT!!!

 

 

Bryan Dubois

Jethro, with all due respect, could you please point out where I second guessed Officer Parsons actions?   If you cannot, could you please clarify the point?

MontegoBay1

Brian you are second guessing his actions by even writing this article!! Are you that brain dead that you forget what you are writing???   You are enabling the NAACP by carrying on with this article, if you were not questioning this at all, you wouldnt have written anything!!! GOD!!!! you are ignorant!!!!

MontegoBay1

I dont think this article quite had the response you were hoping for huh Brian.....you can see from the majority of the responses that no one appreciates you digging up old stories like the Gilliam story or the Costante story, and I HIGHLY doubt EVERYONE who disagree with you are all cops....though I am sure you are telling yourself this to boost your own ego....you are a disgrace to this city and you need to remember that anything you have ever done at anytime in your life...is also PUBLIC RECORD.....God forbid someone dig into your past and publish your issues.....maybe ill log onto a couple websites and see what I can find.....when I do I will be a cuttin' and pastin' boy...STAY TUNED EVERYONE!!!

Chung Lee

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained threats and personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines

Chung Lee

Truth hurts?

thinktwice

IF this turns out to be a man shooting a woman and then himself, I'd say because of race this may be a hate crime against white women.

IF this was a white man killing a black girl it would be a hate crime.... right?

It appears and is my opinion that we may be in a time of reverse hate crimes against whites.

OICU81

Bryan,

Thanks for the answers to the questions. While I am not going to engage in this the way some are, I will point out I highly dislike your article..and you replies to me questions do little to make me feel better about it.  The reason I say this is you may say that this is just your "opinion", but opinions by  those who don't know what they are talking about oten cause more harm than good and this is a perfect example. 

You may tell yourself your "blog" is just your thoughts and is seperate from the Register, but I doubt many of us reading it feel this way.  The fact is we click on the Register's website, click on their opinion tab, and click on the one labeled "insight" (a term which would make you think it is going to lead to someone post thoughts and looking deeper into a subject).  Only to find you admitting these are just your thoughts and not based on any research. 

I doubt this would this way as much had you maintained your own website like you once did, because as it seems to me and I'll bet others you went from an original blog which mashed on the SR to one on their website often aiming at the same target (SPD) that they do.

In an answer to my question you made the comment that you too rely on unbiased reporting just as we do, and if not you'd target them as well.  How can you except ties to the SR if this is the truth?  I am not just talking about SPD, but Sandusky Politics (a certain blonde female excepted) and Sandusky City Schools are also great examples of groups who will take a bashing from this paper while their piers in the surrounding area get by so light.  

Not trying to get into an insult war here, simply trying to make the point that if you are going to blog on their site, then you will be looked at as part of them by the majority of the people who read your blogs and I hope you will do some research before blogging things like this and/or break free of them and go back to doing your own thing on your own completely seperate site.  There is not even a disclaimer on the top of your blogs stating you are not a member of the SR staff, so maybe you actually are now.  No need to reply, I am done here.  Not trying to engage in a battle of words, but wanting to share with you why I think so many take the angle and anger towards your blogs on here.

Lastly, the maternity leave thing wasn't a dig.  I really didn't know what else to call it when someone male or female takes time off after children are born, so I used that term.  I am glad the twins are doing well and hope that continues.

 

 

Bryan Dubois

Thanks brother.  (Or sister?)  Twins are doing well, and I'm taking  your comments to heart.  Perhaps a disclaimer is appropriate.  I've spoken with the Register's IT people and they're still going through a transition from the old site to the new one.  I don't have the same functionality that I did before.  When I get it back, I'll take your advice and post a disclaimer somewhere in the right column.

I actually am not a Register employee.  I will criticize them when appropriate.  If you feel that I'm soft on the topic, call me on it.  That's how we keep each other accountable and credible.  I will admit that when I see a problem with coverage I'm more apt to make a direct phone call to the newsroom instead of criticizing them publicly.  I do the same with the Sandusky Police department, but as of yet, I have not gotten a return phone call.  (Regarding the Costante issue:  I made a call to the SPD requesting to speak with him.  He chose not to return the call, which is his right.  Detective John Orzech assured me that Costante received the message.  I'll take his word for it.)   I don't think it's right to make public criticisms without being open to discussion with the people you choose to criticize. 

I'm no different than some guy sitting next to you at McDonalds drinking a coffee and reading the Register.  (The only difference being I probably follow local politics a little more closely.)  In truth, I'm just some guy.  Take my opinions, or leave them.  It doesn't matter, just as it shouldn't matter to anyone that I offer my opinion in the first place.

Fair enough?

Thanks for offering your thoughts, and please stop back!

In The Light



It is interesting how many of you are speculating about what is true, and making claims about who did or did not do something.

According to the initial story the NAACP reviewed the conclusions presented by the former DPD investigator, and reached their conclusions based on what they saw and heard. Assuming that what was presented was so convincing they then decided to go public with their concerns.

One could conclude that what they reviewed was probably a more complete set of facts than either one of you have heard, or seen. It is highly doubtful that they would have gone public without having first confirmed the validity of what was presented. If I were asked to bet on which side is more likely to know what the FACTS are about the issue, I would probably choose the NAACP, or not bet at all.

All most of you have are some newspaper snippets, some persons with other agendas to hash out, rumors, and mere speculation.

I would also guess that they, the NAACP, are aware of the potential legal ramifications of their actions. They do have access to considerable national legal sources, that might have reviewed their information prior to its release. Now for some of you, your other agendas might affect your ability to accept the probability that such actions were taken.

Also, if they and/or others believed that something was wrong with the alleged murder/suicide conclusion, who do you think they would have relied on to review the evidence, SPD?


Salvatore

The NAACP has about as much of a chance to get questions answered as they did about 10 years ago when an unarmed young black man was shot to death outside of a Margaretta body shop.

wayneonwayne

I was just talking to a group of downtown business owners the other day, it seems that a majority of them feel that the Register is attempting to make Sandusky sound unsafe.

This stems from a number of stories that have been half-reported or sensationalized, to blogs like this one that lead people to believe that the police are a bunch of bad guys out to get us all.

How will this city ever heal and move on if people keep rehashing the past, this that are done and over with. Things like an officer making a mistake with a name in a report, or an officer saying he likes to hunt deer, rabbits, and coons. Bryan, from what I have seen in the past, you do not like people bringing up your criminal past, what makes it right for you to do the same?

We as a region need to let go. We as a region need to grow. Resentment might be all we have left here, but we need to find a way to replace it with intelligent thoughts, ideas, and projects.

Bryan, you say you are not employed by the Register. Are you telling us that you do not get paid by them?

One question though, in the title you say that Baskey was holding the gun, in the story you say that the police placed it on Baskey. Did you make a simple mistake with the headline or is this more sensationalized reporting.....sorry I meant blogging.

Bryan Dubois

Wayneonwayne, speak it brother.

I don't mind bringing up my "criminal" past.  I wasn't convicted of anything.  Look it up.  I'll strive to be more accurate with headlines - and you can strive to be more fair with your comments. 

Deal?

wayneonwayne

I just did some looking up.  Sure, technicaly you were not convicted of anything, you entered a diversion program in exchange for testimony from what I can gather.  I will give you that.  But you were not found innocent either.  Charges dismissed because of a diversion program will still lead to additional criminal history points under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

I could not find the outcome of the domestic violence charges though.  

I will speak it, if you will start practicing it. 

Bryan Dubois

From your internet sleuthing could you tell if the "guidelines" were followed on my participation in the diversion program?

They weren't.  (Can you spot how?) 

Diversion in my case was lawyer-speak for, "We want to get rid of these charges, and this is the easiest way.  Will you cooperate with us?"  Being tired of litigation and not being required to even enter a plea on the charges, I accepted the terms.

I did the right thing. 

I told my story to the prosecutor - which never changed from day one - and was restored back to my family.  The case never went to trial.

DV charge dismissed by Sandusky.  No billed by Erie County grand jury. 

By the way, it's impossible to be found "innocent" in a court of law.  That's not how it works.   To say I was never found "innocent" seems like a desperate attempt to cast doubt on whether I was guilty.  {That would be an attempt to smear - which ironically is the same thing you accuse me of doing.}

wayneonwayne

No smear attempt just following the logic.  You were not found innocent, nor were you found guilty.  You agreed to testify against your business partner and co-defendant.  After that  and a year of good behavior they "got rid of the charges", correct?

Bryan Dubois

Wayne, I testified on the internet for a year before that.  I testify here, I testify there.  It never changed.  Look it up.

Bryan Dubois

Wayne, prosecutor wanted a year.  The judge said, 'no, six months is all your gonna get.'  And she never asked for me to enter a plea.  Court system must be corrupt, huh?

And yes, after that six months, the charges were gone.  I moved on with my life and am all the better for it.

Chung Lee

OJ was innocent too! So when will people stop calling OJ a killa?

Bryan Dubois

OJ was not found "innocent", Chung.

Chung Lee

Chung Lee said nothing about found innocent.  Chung Lee said he was innocent.  He was found not guilty.  Accept it because you can't keep a good black man down.

Chung Lee

In da hood we call that being a "snitch"

Bryan Dubois

Whaddya call it when you hide behind a screen name? 

I'll give you a hint:  It rhymes with snitch.   :)

Chung Lee

Why so hateful?  Here Chung Lee thought you were above all the name calling.  Seems that rules only apply to other people. Seems to Chung Lee when you had your other operation you operated under a screen name? So what exactly does that make you?

Bryan Dubois

"Seems to Chung Lee when you had your other operation..."

concernedsubject

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines

starryeyes83

I can't believe the SR  allowed  " coon"  on here without the moderator pulling it.

concernedsubject

there were no person attacks in my comment it just goes with a comment another left there is nothing wrong with saying....

Bryan hid behind his sn and continued to bash on SPD officers every chance he got until someone finally pointed out who he was and I believe he would still be hiding behind his sn if someone had not.

How come mine gets erased for saying the exact same thing Bryan said about another commentor on here and his didn't get erase??? Is it because he may have flagged it because he didn't want the truth?