Eyewitnesses Consistently Portray Michael Bryant as Aggressor


In the court transcripts of the case against Michael Bryant, special prosecutor Richard Peck made some comments as to the credibility and the nature of witness statements.

In this case eyewitnesses are people who were either in cars or on the street, in some cases within a few feet of the altercations. Some of them called 911 and sat with police for video interviews. Some of them spoke to the media, and related what they saw. Their witness testimonies were in some cases record mere minutes after the events while things were fresh in their minds. Because Bryant fled the scene of the initial accident, dragging Sheppard along the road, it was very difficult for any one witness to see the entire events that night. However it does not diminish the credibility of their description of the events they saw in person.

In the court transcripts Peck basically retold Bryant’s version of the vents without challenging them and attempted to use Bryant’s words to supersede the testimony of independent eyewitnesses. Peck cherry picked parts of the witness’s statement that could be manipulated to support Bryant and ignored explicit statements from the very same witnesses that showed Bryant to be the aggressor intending to cause harm to Sheppard.

Peck notes:

“The police took statements from numerous eyewitnesses in the area. The witnesses described seeing and hearing aspects of what occurred. No single witness appears to have observed the events from start to finish. There are both consistencies and inconsistencies in their evidence.”

In a telephone call for Jennifer Well’s Toronto Star report on the case (Lost Boy: The death of Darcy Allan Sheppard) Richard Peck continued to claim inconsistencies among the witnesses.

“There were quite disparate accounts of what happened from eyewitnesses or alleged eyewitnesses,” he says. “There were at least a dozen and they were quite disparate in terms of what they saw, or purported to see, the speeds, the interactions, all those types of things.”

Toronto lawyer Mark Sandler, who has many connections to Michael Bryant and who managed the case for Peck chimed in, “as is often the case when you’ve got a reconstruction of a traffic-related matter, the eyewitness accounts are wildly at variance with each other,” Sandler says.

So let’s look at the witness statements and compare them to each other and Bryant’s self-serving version of the events that he came up with immediately after receiving full disclosure of the Crown’s case.

The following is a compilation of all of the available witness notes from the police reconstruction report, police interviews of three witnesses, media interview of other witnesses, 911 calls and compared them all in a spreadsheet.

Not surprisingly the eyewitness testimony is quite consistent and it confirms what is seen in the video and forensic analysis. Witness statements clearly contradict Peck’s attempt to frame their words in support of Bryant’s version of the events.

Eyewitnesses were interviewed immediately so they did not know that Bryant would claim almost eight months later that his car stalled. Police did not have the opportunity to ask the eyewitnesses this question and no eyewitness suggested the car stalled at any time. In police video questioning Detective Hanna Bartz did ask two of the closest eyewitnesses if the car made any unusual sounds. Both replied “No.”

Among Peck’s most prejudicial, misleading completely false statements are the following:

“The accounts of the eyewitnesses, coupled with the forensic examinations, confirm that Mr. Sheppard was attempting to attack Mr. Bryant at that time.”

“One of the largely consistent themes is that Mr. Sheppard was acting loudly and aggressively, confronting Mr. Bryant.”

Witness 9.13 who was one of the two closest witnesses (9.12 was the other) reported that Sheppard stated “You want me to move now” after he stopped in front of the car. She also noted that Bryant’s response was to bump Sheppard with the car. In fact she said that most of the yelling was due to her yelling at Bryant to “stop it”.

Peck consistently emphasized that Bryant was quiet and said nothing during the entire altercation. His statement directly contradicts the statements made by the many construction workers who were eyewitnesses to Bryant’s screaming and road rage.

“Construction workers laying pipe on the stretch of road gasped as the car swerved toward them. It

According to Cathal Kelley in the Toronto Star (“Bryant’s Deadly Duel”, September 2, 2009), construction workers who were laying pipe in the part of the road just ahead of the original incident, watched as Bryant’s car swerved toward them. “All of them said they could hear Bryant screaming.”

The following compilation of all the available witness statements consistently portray Bryant as an aggressor in the middle of a road rage episode who intentionally ran Sheppard down and meant to cause him harm. The witness statements were taken before the surveillance videos were available to the public yet they are also consistent with the images in the videos.

Pdf versions of the eyewitness speadsheets  – Michael Bryant Witness Spreadsheet-1 and Michael Bryant Witness Spreadsheet-2

Eyewitness Spreadsheet – page 1

Bryant witness spreadsheet-p1

Eyewitness Spreadsheet – page 2

Bryant witness spreadsheet-p2

Advertisements

6 Responses to Eyewitnesses Consistently Portray Michael Bryant as Aggressor

  1. KCC says:

    Handling of this prosecution is certainly raising plenty of questions.

    1. Darcy undercuts the SAAB as Bryant attempts to move.
    2. Darcy likely yells back at the inattentive driver. This cannot be scary in any way as the complaint would have merit to it.
    3. Traffic light goes green (opposite direction traffic appears)
    4. Darcy does not move which likely irritates Bryant.
    5. Bryant moves a little and then rams the stubborn cyclist.
    6. Sensitive and touchy Bryant is not shocked by the accident. He does not run to check if the cyclist is OK.
    7. Sensitive Bryant shows remarkable speed and coordination to put the car with tight clutch in reverse and then drive around the cyclist.
    8. This has all appearances of the driver fleeing scene of an accident.
    9. Backpack is thrown and Darcy attaches himself to the car as he attempts to stop the driver from leaving.
    10. As the car accelerates Darcy has no options left but to hold on tight and attempt to get into the car.
    11. For some reason the car drives too close to side-walk on the side of the road which would be typically for traffic in opposite direction.

    The way other people get convicted in courts, Bryant could be easily convicted if put for trial.

    Bryant was never charged with leaving scene of accident. The charge can be laid easily. It is more complicated with the charge which was withdrawn and not laid again within 1 year. May be there is some way to get something similar going or get it reinstated in view of the circumstances.

    • KCC says:

      Backpack and jump toward the car have clear merit in the circumstances. Bryant could not be confused about his immediate conduct being explanation for the acts. Excuses about some fear do not sound credible.

    • KCC says:

      DELETE THIS QUICK COMMENT. APRIL 8 COMMENT IS MORE COMPREHENSIVE.

  2. KCC says:

    Handling of this prosecution is certainly raising plenty of questions.

    1. Darcy cuts off the SAAB as Bryant attempts to move standing vehicle. Quite possible that the car stalled here.
    2. Darcy likely yells back at the inattentive driver. This cannot be frightening in any way as the complaint would have merit to it.
    3. Traffic light goes green (opposite direction traffic appears)
    4. Darcy does not move which likely irritates Bryant.
    5. Bryant moves a little and then rams the stubborn cyclist.
    6. Sensitive and touchy Bryant is not shocked by the accident. He does not run to check if the cyclist is OK.
    7. Sensitive Bryant shows remarkable speed and coordination to put the car with tight clutch in reverse and then drive around the cyclist.
    8. This has all appearances of the driver fleeing scene of an accident.
    9. Backpack is thrown and Darcy attaches himself to the car as he attempts to stop the driver from leaving.
    10. As the car accelerates Darcy has no options left but to hold on tight and attempt to get into the car.
    11. For some reason the car drives too close to side-walk on the side of the road which would be typically for traffic in opposite direction.

    Backpack and latching on side of the car have clear merit in the circumstances. Bryant could not be confused about this being merely an attempt to keep him on site of the accident and his immediate conduct being explanation for the acts, but he was already set on going. Excuses about fear do not sound credible.

    Ultimately, Bryant had to be stopped well before. That had to occur irrespective of what he felt about injuries of Darcy from ramming. First impressions can be deceiving and lawyers know that well. Whining about being inattentive driver whilst sitting on bicycle cannot be seen as aggression, but more like a nuisance. Witnesses are fine, but all developments can be observed from videos. Who of the two was louder is insignificant and immaterial.

    It was reported about Darcy being intoxicated. In general terms, people find someone intoxicated more of nuisance than a bona fide threat. Bryant, who had problem with alcoholism first hand, would be the one with understanding of the problem faced by a fellow citizen. Such experiences are known to give rise to compassion. Videos show Darcy made no threatening moves. His post ramming move would be well in line with circumstances and someone going for citizen arrest.

    The genuine question a trial would have to resolve, whether the observed circumstances PRIOR to the ramming were REASONABLY enough to strike the STRONG ENOUGH type of fear for Bryant to run. Whatever transpired after ramming would be immaterial. In his explanations, Peck focused on collateral details and details which transpired AFTER Bryant decided to run.

    The way other people get convicted in courts, Bryant could be easily convicted if put for trial. Analogy can be drawn to discharge of a gun for someone being simply a nuisance. It can be said that Peck operates with UNREASONABLE ESTIMATE when making decision to drop charges. He focused on wrong set of events in the whole sequence thus exaggerating reasonably perceived level of threat at the time.

    Bryant was never charged for leaving scene of RAMMING accident. The charge can be laid easily. It is more complicated with the charge which was withdrawn and not laid again within 1 year. May be there is some way to get something similar going or get it reinstated in view of the circumstances.

  3. Tom says:

    Us vs Them never seems to disappear. Hire Navigator as your PR & get a good lawyer & blame the victim. It never ever ends.

    28 sec to commit 2nd degree murder using your car as the weapon.

  4. […] show the probability that the deceased was the aggressor”, even though there were eyewitnesses who made statements that Bryant was the aggressor and much of the incident was captured on […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: