Consistent story among police is a red flag

TryingMyBestsquareThe April 8, 2016 Star Tribune had a front-page article “Memory’s fragility helps explain eyewitness conflicts,” and also a letter to the editor titled “Jamar Clark Case, Witness recollections may vary, but that doesn’t mean no truth.” Both the article and letter explained how it is normal for witnesses to view the same scene but see different things.

What both the article and the letter did not address is how all police officers when visiting the same scene see the same thing. This is not normal and goes against scientific research. Since the police are humans like the rest of us, they should also experience memory fragility and varying recollections within their ranks.

Yet, that does not happen. All police officers always have the same story. This is not natural and should raise a red flag for someone like Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman.

The BCA report states that “they can’t say for sure one way or the other whose DNA is on the gun, either Ringgenberg’s or Clark’s.” What is the stuff they always talk about that sets people free — oh yeah, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The DNA evidence is no truth serum.

What Freeman does and the Star Tribune goes along with, is deliberately cook the evidence. He knew what the BCA report said. He twisted it to get the results he wanted. He should be held accountable for lying. He did not have transparency; he showed how he came up with his lies.

A Black man was again framed by the police. The public seeing how he was framed and having no problem with it, shows the fight is going to be a long one.


Frank Erickson lives in Minneapolis.