Photo courtesy Jean's GoFundMe campaign: https://www.gofundme.com/in-memory-of-botham-jean

Media

Dallas Media Have Blindly Accepted What the Cops Tell Them About Botham Jean Killing

Very little about Amber Guyger's story makes sense. Including the media coverage.

If you’ve read a single article about the shooting death by Officer Amber Guyger of Botham Jean, you will have heard a single account of what it was that happened when Guyger showed up at the man’s door. If you’ve read more than one article, you’re likely to have heard two different accounts. One problem is that both of these stories were told to reporters by anonymous staffers at the very same police department; that they contradict each other in every major respect; that they contradict the “facts” that law enforcement finally settled on when they charged Guyger with manslaughter on Sunday; and that both contradict what actual witnesses appear to be reporting. The larger problem is that some of the city’s journalists don’t seem to have learned anything at all from this.

Law enforcement has controlled the narrative in this case to an extent that’s unusual even in the hazy field of police shootings. There is no dash cam or body cam, and naturally no dispatch records preceding the event itself; there is reportedly a 911 call that one would expect to be on tape, though it has yet to be made public. Meanwhile the other party is dead and history is written by the winners, often with help from reporters.

There is a degree to which a journalist must sometimes rely on accounts from interested, unaccountable parties for their scoops, and so long as this is done with due consideration for the credibility of the source, it is not necessarily a sin. There was nothing wrong, then, with J.D. Miles reporting via Twitter that “the door was unlocked and she thought she was entering her unit when she saw victim in the dark.” Nor should anyone object to a host of NBC 5 reporters relaying an account from a “Dallas police officer” who spoke on condition of anonymity that, on the contrary, Guyger actually “put the key in and struggled with the lock” and then “put down several things she was holding and continued to fight with the key when the resident swung open the door and startled her.” But when it becomes apparent — as it did to The Intercept’s Shaun King — that the two accounts being provided by the same agency are entirely different, it is prudent to stop regarding the law enforcement community as the most reliable source of information on an incident involving a vastly unusual killing by one of their own.

To their credit, NBC later posted an editor’s note at the very bottom of the article noting that they’d removed the whole door-wouldn’t-open-and-was-totally-closed-and-that-guy-swung-it-open-so-time-to-shoot story and that they did so “[d]ue to conflicting reports of the incident from various sources.” These “various sources” include the arrest warrant itself, which ultimately went with the door-was-totally-open-so-time-to-shoot variant while also expanding upon the killer’s own description of events with new details. Another “source” is the search warrant from last Friday, which, as a later piece by at least one of the same reporters notes in its subhead, “differs slightly” from the arrest warrant. In fact it differs on key aspects of the story and helpfully accuses Jean of having “confronted” the officer, while also reporting that a witness heard “an exchange of words immediately followed by at least two gunshots” (emphasis mine). This latter element is less helpful, which is presumably why it does not appear in the arrest warrant, of which more presently. But being a man of great patience, I continue to await NBC’s explanation for why it reported that Guyger shot Jean “once in the chest and once in the abdomen,” an event that goes uncommemorated in either of the official accounts, which both describe Jean being hit a single time out of the two shots reportedly fired.

What do you do when law enforcement agents contradict each other over and over again regarding a case in which their reputations are collectively at stake? If you’re the Dallas Morning News, you double down on your deference to law enforcement. “The arrest warrant affidavit provided the first official account of what happened the night Jean died,” proclaimed reporter Dana Branham, who seems not to regard the account provided in the original search warrant as having being official. “Without it, misinformation swirled on the internet.”

This is a rather bizarre thing to say in a situation wherein the most widely viewed misinformation has come from anonymous police officers via the press itself, and wherein the two public documents that authorities have produced contradict each other in major respects that the actual witnesses seem to be challenging, as Branham herself notes in the course of describing the position of Jean’s family’s attorneys. To be sure, people on the internet have indeed expressed opinions about the circumstances that may be just as wrong as what cops keep telling reporters; Branham cites “social media users who ripped a photo from Jean’s Instagram and misidentified a woman pictured with him as Guyger, in an effort to prove that the two knew each other before the shooting.” It was indeed uncivil of these random citizens to have “ripped” the photo thusly, whereas reporters are careful to merely copy them and paste such things.

Branham goes on to paraphrase Dallas Police Association head Mike Mata at great length about such extenuating factors as police overwork and his supposed concerns about Guyger’s safety. “Guyger has received threats online and through her phone,” she reports, citing no particular evidence other than the claims of Mata, who in the course of asserting that Guyger has received “texts” but is currently “safe” rather foolishly reveals that a manslaughter suspect who may ultimately be charged with murder by a grand jury seems not to have had her phone taken up as evidence during her three-day grace period, or perhaps even afterward. Jean’s iPhone, meanwhile, was indeed taken as evidence.

That the sacred arrest warrant itself turns out to be a vastly insane document seems not to have bothered many folks outside of the swirling misinformation-spreading circles of benighted “social media users,” such as Ian Holmes, an old friend of mine who got his start working in the Dallas DA’s office before going into private practice as a defense attorney. “The PC affidavit reads like her defense attorney wrote it. I’ve never seen one like it in 10 years of practice,” he wrote on Twitter. My own favorite part is where it actually describes the place where Guyger killed a man in his own home as “her apartment,” presumably by right of conquest. Similarly telling is the claim that Guyger saw Jean merely as a “large silhouette” but nonetheless “gave verbal commands that were ignored” while remaining entirely vague as to what those commands might have been and how she knew he was ignoring them if he was a silhouette. If one recalls the search warrant reference to shots being fired “immediately” after an exchange of words — and one would have to recall it to know about it, since someone seems to have decided that it’s no longer as important as it was on Friday, and the Dallas Morning News does not have time to go into all this since Mata has a great deal to say about police officers working extra jobs and this totally needs to be in this article — one starts to get a sense of what Guyger’s exposure may be here, and how much trouble has gone into confusing the issue lest the press somehow catch on.

For his own part, Mayor Rawlings used Branham’s story in the DMN, the latest in a long line of friendly interviews, to convey to the city that he is “now all but pleading with people ‘to stay off social media’” lest they get the wrong idea about a highly irregular situation that the authorities can’t seem to get straight. Although I agree with him that the masses are fools who cannot be trusted to assess reality, which would explain why Rawlings is still the mayor, those who want to understand what’s really at stake here have little choice but to search for answers themselves.

As journalists, or simply thinking beings, we must rely on what we already know to evaluate which things are sufficiently probable to warrant further inquiry. My broader concern is that too many in the press have decided that they generally know enough to make these decisions, and that even a debacle like that of the last few days will not be sufficient to convince them otherwise. There are always those who prefer things thus, and they are rarely disappointed.

EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this story contained material that, in hindsight, we felt needed to be expurgated. Find an explanation here

Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Dining

Dining

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments

  • Mavdog

    Thanks for the contribution Barrett. Good read and very thought provoking.

  • OldLakeHighlander

    So if I understand this tangential, wandering post correctly, Dallas Media are reporting the information they have available instead of rampantly speculating on a dozen different motives (including possibly, maybe, gang signs)? Well fortunately, we have D Mag for rampant speculations and criticizing the media for not rampantly speculating . Yay.

    • Mr. Food Genius

      THIS is the information they have available but choose to ignore, much like you:

      “Guyger said that Jean’s door was unlocked and ajar, but Merritt said that residents in the building heard knocking on his apartment.”

      “Guyger told investigators she had just ended a 15-hour shift on Thursday when she returned to her apartment complex. She said she mistakenly parked on the fourth floor, instead of the third, where she lived.

      She stated that when she put her key in the door, it opened, according to the affidavit.”

      • OldLakeHighlander

        And I am looking forward to the results of the investigations that will consider this information.

        • Mr. Food Genius

          considering that both contradictory statements were given by the same person, the accused, it wont take long at all

          • Char Char Binks

            What’s contradictory? She got to the door and assumed it was shut and locked, because she assumed it was her own door. It turned out to be ajar, and possibly unlocked, and it opened.

      • Char Char Binks

        So what? If she put her key in the door, and the door was ajar, she wouldn’t have been able to turn the lock, but the force of trying to turn it and/or the force of leaning on the door could have opened it.

        • Mr. Food Genius

          try reading some of the stories written in the 3 MONTHS SINCE THIS ARTICLE RAN

          • Char Char Binks

            What do you mean? The affidavit for arrest specifically says the force of putting the key in the lock opened the door. What has happened since then that has changed that scenario? Be specific.

    • Jenn O.

      Many of us have no faith in the same Texas Police system that started concocting her narrative at the scene to bring the truth. By their own admission they allowed her to make phone calls at the scene. They “thought” it was a line of duty shooting for half a day and had sent her home – did she lie or are they stupid? So many questions.

  • PJCTX

    This is tragic situation that demands justice. However, I am not following the criticism of the media less than one week into this odd situation. As you note, there may be a great deal more to the story. I don’t think anyone has put their pens down and proclaimed that the case is closed. The family definitely deserves answers, but these things also take time. There have already been multiple false scenarios presented on the internet. If anything, the media has rightly been at least attempting to responsibly only report things that can be sourced, etc. Claiming they should start just widely reporting accusations–e.g., that the officer is close to white supremacists because a thread on Twitter has proven that–is silly, and irresponsible. Indeed, this is what has happened in multiple situations. For example, in the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, the “hands up, don’t shoot” claims never happened. But the media there was more than happy to run with it, making it a national narrative that was proven to be false.

    And even your note, claiming that the anonymous sources are police officers, is incorrect (at least I believe it is). I haven’t read everything, but I believe there has been no specificity provided about whether the anonymous sources are police officers, clerks, or otherwise, within the DPD.

    The media needs to get better in lots of ways. Criticism of the media should be continued. I’m as guilty as anyone of wanting all the facts immediately, but that’s just not realistic.

    • Mr. Food Genius

      “Guyger said that Jean’s door was unlocked and ajar, but Merritt said that residents in the building heard knocking on his apartment.”

      “Guyger told investigators she had just ended a 15-hour shift on Thursday when she returned to her apartment complex. She said she mistakenly parked on the fourth floor, instead of the third, where she lived.

      She stated that when she put her key in the door, it opened, according to the affidavit.”

      • PJCTX

        I don’t see anyone contending that, based on sources, there are different stories being told by the officer and/or by witnesses. Indeed, NBC’s article acknowledges it, as do several other media sources.

        • Mr. Food Genius

          NBC is not “Dallas media” When you have to change the question to justify your answer…your answer is not justified.

          • PJCTX

            I believe it was the local affiliate, as noted in the article. It might be productive for you to actually read it.

          • Mr. Food Genius

            I did, along with a dozen articles on the topic. Sorry that you live in a bubble of your own design and bias.

      • Char Char Binks

        Where’s the contradiction? Why wouldn’t the door open if it was unlocked and/or ajar?

    • manny

      Your first sentence says it all.

  • Mr. Food Genius

    “Guyger said that Jean’s door was unlocked and ajar, but Merritt said that residents in the building heard knocking on his apartment.”

    “Guyger told investigators she had just ended a 15-hour shift on Thursday when she returned to her apartment complex. She said she mistakenly parked on the fourth floor, instead of the third, where she lived.

    She stated that when she put her key in the door, it opened, according to the affidavit.”

    I thought it was unlocked and ajar……….

    • Char Char Binks

      Does a door being unlocked and ajar prevent someone from inserting a key in the lock?

      • Mr. Food Genius

        So let me get this straight: You are TRYING to argue that a man was sitting in his living room watching a football game with his door sitting open, but not fully open, a cop walked into HIS HOME, thinking it was hers, and shot him while he watched not her TV, in not her living room, on not her couch, surrounded by not her furniture, not her pictures and/or not her decorations and you expect ANYONE to believe that you arent just a racist piece of sh!t apologist?

  • Gramsci

    PJCTX,

    Your statement about false allegations of white supremacy on Twitter proves Brown’s points in two ways. First, that people rarely go out of their way to analyze possibilities that contradict a convenient narrative. Second, Brown does not bring up the white supremacy gang signs as a rumor, fact, or as any other social media generated claptrap. Re-read it. He says photos were found on her Facebook page with a male throwing signs. Brown did his own research and says that more information is needed from a gang task force in another county, preferably. His point is that these photos with a male throwing signs is currently an unexplored avenue of inquiry, one among many that don’t follow a spoon-fed narrative. Reporters bear a responsibility but also readers.

    • Char Char Binks

      How does SOMEONE ELSE throwing “gang signs” implicate Guyger?

  • Brenda Marks

    Good grief. Her phone should have been confiscated immediately. What else did she get to take home?

    • manny

      They did confiscate her phone.

      • Craig Collins

        several days later, apparently.

  • tested123

    I’m all for making sure reporters are doing their jobs, but there’s a signifcant problem with Barrett’s story. Until yesterday, all we had were the basic information from the police statement Friday morning. It was regurgitated in a variety of ways over the weekend. Yesterday we finally got the officer’s statement about what she says happened. All the other reporting you mentioned was “sources say” – and that works about like a giant game of telephone in a story like this. By the time it gets reported, there’s something added or dropped that makes it highly suspect information. The fact Jean’s lawyers say they’ve got witnesses saying something else happened is fine, but we haven’t heard from those folks nor have we seen their statements to police.

    For the reporters, they don’t have much else to go on other than what the police and “sources” within the department say. They can’t wildly speculate like a columnist can. They have to report what facts they have at the time. I don’t blame them for any to fhe reporting they’ve done thus far.

    About the gang signs: that’s a problem, but doesn’t appear relevant to this situation at all. In a trial, that picture might be used to attack her overall character, but I have yet to see any evidence that it somehow caused her to commit this act. We don’t know much about her at all and it’s unlikely we’ll get much from her family or friends.

    Something else to remember: right after the Michael Brown incident we were told he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot.” When the witnesses who told the media that were put under oath, they all said that’s not what happened and in many cases said they didn’t actually see or hear anything. So when you hear some “fact” about this case right now, remember that by the time we get to a trial, there could be a lot of it that is proven wrong or recanted – including from the police officer.

    This shooting was awful and the officer should be tried for murder. I’m pretty sure the grand jury will decide that too. But what evidence we actually wind up with in court remains to be seen.

  • Jenn O.

    Finally someone in Dallas media doing journalism. This whole thing screams cover up from the moment she was pacing in the hallway instead of rendering first aid. If he had killed her we would know that he got a C on a pop quiz in 3rd grade. Those photos are so concerning and the police debunked 1 of the 4 (the group photo with him) and not the rest. So she did have her arm around someone throwing white supremacy gang signs. Her sister was also arrested some time ago – which we would be hearing about if she was the black victim instead of the white cop. The fix is in and unless they come clean their will be riots. And they will be justified.

  • Jeff

    What matters is what was stated to investigators and what will be stated to the court. What matters is physical evidence collected that has not been released. What doesn’t matter is what is unverified and leaked rumors to a magazine. The event is a legal process, not a game. Convictions are not voted on through social media.

  • PJCTX

    Barrett noted on Twitter that Meritt was on CNN today saying that the officer and the victim may have had some contact with each other as a result of the officer allegedly complaining about the noise coming from upstairs (the victim’s apartment). This is interesting, but is not new. It was reported the other day.

    Regardless, it’s a tie-in between the two and, if true, places the officer’s statements in a significantly different light.

  • Tl;dr version

    Trump sux lol

  • Amin San

    My two cents — the location of the body should indicate if the victim opened the door or was asleep inside. Having watched the video of the paramedics taking out his body, it appears that the building was well lit.
    Having lived in apartments, the locks don’t always latch properly. You might think you locked the door but the spring bolt did not go fully in the door jamb.
    My other two cents — if this was an accident, the sequence of events in the Texas Rangers affidavit is wrong. She switched on the lights and realized that it was not her apartment and therefore had to go outside to get the apartment number. I think that the witness who heard “let me in” may have heard someone else. There has been no proven connection that the two knew each other. If Guyger lived alone why would she bang on her “own” door to be let in?
    Final two cents — Why did she not shoot at his feet? She was at the door, he was some distance away (assuming he was near his bed), why did she feel her life was in danger?

    • MattL1

      Thank you. Everybody seems to be ignoring what I think is the most important question: Where was the damn body found?

    • Char Char Binks

      Did Guyger say Jean opened the door, or did someone else say she said that?

  • You lost all credibility when you approvingly mentioned Shaun King, a known liar and predictably anti-cop. You might as well cite Rush Limbaugh as a reliable source on abortion.

  • NealK

    Amber Guyger is a murderer. By her own account, she pushed open the door to some else’s apartment and shot the man inside. He was getting ready for bed. She murdered him. She must be executed for her crime.

  • David P. Bresett

    The door was ajar? Her key unlocked the door that was ajar? Somebody is confusing us for a reason. Typically how cops lie.

    • Char Char Binks

      She never said her key unlocked the door. She could easily have inserted her key in the lock she thought was on her own door, and the door opened, or Jean opened it.

  • jokeznsmoke

    Leaking a warrant and detailing weed found in the VICTIMS apt but mum on the whether Guyer was allowed to move out or the results of her tox screen all on the day the VITCIM is being remembered by friends & family, STAY CLASSY DPD & Texas Rangers!!!

    • Midnight

      Ok. I’m not from Dallas so I’m asking, is finding a small amount of recreational weed so detrimental to someone’s character? To me, it is not. The family seems to have Mr Jean on a pedestal and they see this small amount of weed as a disgrace. They also clearly believe they are aware of EVERYTHING Mr Jean did. He was a single 26 year old young man and he probably had a normal private life that may come as a surprise to the family Weed doesn’t soil his character nor does it negate his success or the goodness he gave back to his community. It is my understanding that search warrants and items confiscated are public record. This is an open investigation and that blows my mind. What was found in the cop’s apartment? That list should be available too. Why wasn’t that reported? I do know that a thorough tox screen can take at least a couple of weeks for results. Samples are sent to a lab with sensitive equipment that is able to detect minute amounts of “whatever” substance is listed on the warrant/order. Again, my opinion is that search warrant findings should be confidential, HOWEVER , I find the family’s attorney (who knows how investigations/warrants work) is inflaming this situation and almost exploiting the family’s shock and grief. Warrants are required for any crime scene when the victim cannot give consent. The entire home must be looked at for evidence or clues. We don’t know if that cop was inside of the apartment before she killed Mr Jean. We don’t know if she tried to alter the scene or did she drop something or who knows? This is standard procedure. I’m getting the impression that the family’s attorney has not explained this to the family and his statements alone seem to be intended to create outrage and controversy, especially when he stated his disbelief that the victim’s home was being searched and that marijuana was confiscated. Seriously?? This is a crime scene. It’s Standard procedure and he SHOULD know that. It just doesn’t seem like he explained this to the family and that upsets me. There is enough misinformation being released. This is NOT the first time we have seen an attorney (almost exploit) a
      grieving family for their own personal gain. We can’t be sure DPD is strategically releasing info. Even if they are, again, a small amount of weed doesn’t smear a person’s character. It is upsetting to the family,but an attorney should be talking the family down, not taking advantage of their emotional state to create racial tension and pressure the DPD. It doesn’t matter if Mr Jean was high as a kite when he was shot. HE was in his OWN apartment living his life. An intruder came into HIS home
      and killed HIM. I’ll
      say it again, assuming the weed belongs to the victim, IT DOESNT MATTER. This case is not about Mr Jean’s perceived character and I don’t think it’s about race either, unless the cop planned this and targeted him because he was black. All PD are under pressure to be transparent and fair For the sake of the family and Mr Jean, DPD better be thorough and crystal clear with its investigation. I believe there is way more to this situation and I’m inclined to believe premeditation was involved. As far as the press, we all know they’re like blood thirsty animals trying to get the scoop. The family attorney? Hey, it wouldn’t be the first time one of those leaks info to create controversy.

      • Char Char Binks

        The family and their shyster don’t really believe that having marijuana sullies Jean’s character. They’re pretending that it does in an attempt to sully the character of the Dallas Police Department in general, and by extension, Guyger’s character.

        • Midnight

          Thanks for the response. I didnt think of that angle IT makes perfect sense. Maybe a future lawsuit too?? IDK. The attorney of the family seems to have a real sense of SELF. Any word about these 2 knowing one another? I truly believe she planned this shooting. This is either a relationship gone bad or bad blood due to one or more unfavorable interactions between the 2.

          • Char Char Binks

            Rumors have swirled about them having some dispute about noise, or a romantic relationship gone bad, etc. All that soap opera nonsense has been completely refuted. They didn’t know each other.

          • Midnight

            Wow. Somehow that makes this story even more bizarre and sorta gives credence to her story. I just can’t imagine how she would have made such a “mistake” but if there is no past history between the 2 and she wasn’t “on anything” it’s very possible that a murder conviction won’t happen. I don’t think she’ll get off without any punishment though. Again, I’m just SMH because this is incredibly bizarre.

          • Char Char Binks

            It is incredibly bizarre. That’s because it’s a highly unusual, on-in-a-billion occurrence. I believe it was a perfect storm of tragic happenstance.

          • Midnight

            You’ve summarized this perfectly. It truly was the perfect storm. Everything went the right way in the wrong way. The most puzzling thing is, truly assuming that these 2 had NO relationship whatsoever, is HOW did that apartment door open???
            I guess that’s why she was indicted for murder because HE would have had to have opened the door which explodes everything she said, unless he had the door propped open, which again just adds to the phenomenal odds of this thing happening. I still think there has to be MORE, like her toxicology report because the narrative of her 15 hour shift is repeatedly mentioned as if to imply that she was so exhausted she wasn’t thinking straight, but her reflexes to crack those shots off sure didn’t seem sluggish. Anyhow, thanks for the local info and opinion.

          • Char Char Binks

            If the door was shut but not locked, or locked but not fully shut, as seems more likely based on known evidence, Guyger could have opened the door herself.

            There was a toxicology test done on Guyger, but the results haven’t been released yet. It makes sense since she’ll be going on trial, and releasing it could have prejudiced the jury pool.

            Being sluggish from lack of sleep, and then snapping to in an emergency is a common occurrence, and not at all suspicious. Imagine being worn out from a long day’s work, and then finding yourself suddenly in an emergency. That’s when the adrenaline kicks in — better than a double shot of espresso. There’s a reason these things are called “wake-up calls”.

            Working a 15-hour shift wouldn’t necessarily, or even probably, induce incapacitating exhaustion that a person couldn’t snap out of in an extreme situation, but it could cause just enough tiredness to make someone mistake the fourth floor for the third floor. Mere distraction could do that, with or without fatigue.

          • Midnight

            Very valid points and I agree, but from the info that was released, the apartment doors closed and locked automatically (not sure how accurate that info is) unless the door was left propped open. The other troubling detail is that distinctive red doormat. I just don’t believe that could be overlooked, no matter how exhausted a person is. But as you said before, each detail and the timing came together in a way that defies reason. Another thing, a police officer who is so fatigued from an extended shift is a frightening thought and needs to be addressed. This used to be an issue in hospitals a couple of decades back when interns and residents would work 24 hour shifts. A person in a high pressure, high stakes position cannot be expected to function safely when overly fatigued. I hope the true and accurate story is divulged at trial. Unless she had a prior history with him, I just don’t see a racially motivated crime here. If one acts on impulse, a millisecond doesn’t permit one to assess skin color. ???

          • Char Char Binks

            I have no idea how the doors function, unlike some people who claim that knowledge. It’s possible the door CAN’T close all the way if locked before being shut, but I don’t know. It’s also very possible that the door can be locked and simply not closed, despite supposed YouTube “proof” to the contrary. The best available evidence shows that she DID open the door, or she couldn’t have entered.

            If she had any racial animosity, and if she even knew that Jean was black, the prosecution will have to prove those things, if they choose to go that route.

            The red door mat is a problem for her, but it’s conceivable that she didn’t look at it, or notice, because she was carrying bulky items in her hands at the time. I’m also not sure the mat was there at the time. I’ve seen pics of flowers at the door with no mat. https://pittnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/US-NEWS-DALLAS-POLICESHOOTING-4-DA.jpg

            https://dallasnews.imgix.net/1536872604-ShootingDoor4725.jpg?auto=format,enhance&crop=faces,entropy&fit=crop&q=40&or=0&w=400&h=400

          • Midnight

            Hey thanks again for your “local” insight. The trial will be interesting. I hope for both sides that all information is presented truthfully and accurately in court.

          • Midnight

            Yea. Door may have been propped open for whatever reason or maybe it didn’t close all the way. It’s always amazing how small little changes can lead to tragedy. As far as the mat goes, I’m sure it has been taken for evidence, hence it’s absence in the photos. Hey, can you imagine if by some fluke or careless oversight by the apartment management,
            that HER key opened HIS door?? I’ve heard of that happening. Again, little errors sometimes lead to tragedy. Gotta wonder if it’s fate?

          • Char Char Binks

            There would be no reason to remove the mat for evidence. Photos from the night of the shooting show no red mat at the door.

          • Midnight

            That’s interesting. Maybe it wasn’t there when she entered the apartment (he removed it to clean it or whatever) or maybe blood was on it? Who knows, maybe he came to the door and she shot him right there, then he stumbled inside, (blood spatter on the mat) taken for evidence? Could the photos you saw have been taken after the scene was processed?? I enjoy hearing your insight! Thanks.

          • Char Char Binks

            I appreciate that!

            I wish I had all the answers. I suppose we’ll find out about the red mat, maybe at trial, and a lot more as the case progresses.

  • Craig Collins

    helluva good piece. we need a million more citizens like you. we’ll be following this closely. thnx.

  • chrystinp

    Most Dallasites are going to focus on the marijuana in his apartment. Smoke and mirrors to get this cop off for a cold-blooded killing. People are so stupid.

    • Midnight

      They found a small quantity of weed. Who cares? Is this seriously a huge deal in Dallas? The thing is, when this goes to trial, the weed find probably won’t even be admissible as evidence. It’s inconsequential. It really doesn’t matter what Mr Jean did or did not do. He was inside of HIS apartment and an intruder came into HIS home. Even if he was wasted and the weed was admissible, that wouldn’t matter. If he saw a cop coming into his home without a warrant,
      uninvited, I would think that he doesn’t have to listen to any command she claims to have given. SHE was the intruder. She had no right to open his door. (or whatever she did). Even if he let her in, there is no justification for her shooting him in HIS apartment Of course she can change her story yet again and say he let her in and he became violent…. nah. I don’t think she could be THAT ridiculous

      • chrystinp

        Yes, did something I said not clue you into the fact that this is a non-issue? But yes, if you are not from Texas, dope is not legal here. They don’t arrest you anymore in Dallas (unless you’re undocumented) for the amount Mr. Jean had, but they do give citations. Many people do still think marijuana is a bad drug, a gateway drug, and something to be abhorred in general. Hence, so many states still prosecute, and the US ATTY GEN (another a-hole from TX) is firmly on that page.

        • Midnight

          Thank you for the info. I appreciate your thoughts. Listen, I’m with you and now that I have a better understanding of the mindset there, I’m even more angry. Again I will say, I am disgusted that the details of items found during a search are made public. This is an active investigation and how many times do we hear law enforcement say “I can’t comment on an ongoing open investigation”. This is pathetic. I’m seriously trying to wrap my head around the thought process behind smearing a victim who was in his apartment,
          had an INTRUDER enter his apartment and then kill him. I just can’t fathom this. NOTHING NOTHING about what this cop did is justifiable. I was agreeing w you that weed is a nonissue. I’m sorry if you thought otherwise. My intention wasn’t to offend.

          • Char Char Binks

            The marijuana smear is not against Jean. The police and prosecutors are not making an issue of it. The Jean family and their shyster are using the supposed smear of Jean against Guyger.

        • Char Char Binks

          It should be a non-issue, but you people are making it one. It’s not a matter of importance to the police or the prosecutor’s, but you’re pretending that the presence of weed is being used to mitigate Guyger’s culpability, an accusation itself that is designed to the police, including Guyger.

  • Char Char Binks

    “Another “source” … helpfully accuses Jean of having “confronted” the officer…”

    That’s not an accusation. He either confronted her or not. It’s not a crime, or otherwise blameworthy to confront someone at your door, but it’s an important matter of fact in the case.

  • Char Char Binks

    The affadavit doesn’t say Guyger shot Jean in HER apartment. It says she shot him in WHAT SHE THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS HER APARTMENT.

    Really, Barrett Brown, you are either an idiot or a pathological liar. I’m guess it’s a bit of both.

  • Char Char Binks

    The arrest affidavit shows no probable cause for an arrest or charge of any kind at all. This is a political case entirely.