<p>It’s a $40 fine, Gates was released without posting bail. It did take his high-profile lawyer four or five days to get the charges dismissed. The police investigation in the meantime had found the arrest to be proper, but Gates had friends in high places and it wasn’t worth fighting over a $40 fine.</p>
<p>Perhaps Massachusetts legislators should change the law to make nuisance arrests illegal.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine that any jury in Cambridge would find him guilty should it have gone to trial.</p>
<p>
But the WITNESS has talked to the press and SHE says she did not EVER tell the cop that there were 2 black guys.</p>
<p>I sure don’t hear any crazy shouting going on in the background on the dispatch call where Crawley says “keep the cars coming” – [url=<a href=“http://www.breitbart.tv/cambridge-officerdispatch-audio-he-is-not-cooperative/]Breitbart.tv”>http://www.breitbart.tv/cambridge-officerdispatch-audio-he-is-not-cooperative/]Breitbart.tv</a> Cambridge Officer/Dispatch Audio: ‘He Is Not Cooperative’<a href=“its%20in%20the%20last%20few%20seconds%20of%20the%20tape”>/url</a></p>
<p>That’s strange, Calmom - I did hear a man yelling at the same time as Crawley asked for assistance.</p>
<p>911 tape here: [Breitbart.tv</a> 911 Tapes Released in July 16 Arrest of Harvard Professor](<a href=“http://www.breitbart.tv/911-tapes-released-in-july-16-arrest-of-harvard-professor/]Breitbart.tv”>http://www.breitbart.tv/911-tapes-released-in-july-16-arrest-of-harvard-professor/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the question here is whether it was done because of Gates’ skin color.</p>
<p>
Source: [911</a> caller in Gates arrest never referred to ‘black suspects’ - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html]911”>911 caller in Gates arrest never referred to 'black suspects' - CNN.com)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The bigger question is whether it should be done at all. It costs money in terms of police, court and prosecution resources. It costs the person arrested time and money and it generates distrust between police and the public. I suppose that it’s great for creating work for the justice system so that it can justify growing itself.</p>
<p>
Oh really? Your hearing must be better than mine. I heard talking in the background, but it didn’t sound very loud and I couldn’t make out what was being said. Since you could hear so clearly… can you tell us what was said?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I certainly believe this woman to be truthful in that she only reported “two men breaking in,” but I don’t see why we need to be so precious about this. Why shouldn’t she have reported two black men breaking in, if that is what she saw? What would have been the point in omitting the racial descriptor as a means of helping the police find the suspects? If I see two men wearing red jackets breaking in (or doing what I believe to be breaking in), I’ll tell the cops they are wearing red jackets. What would have been wrong with her describing the suspects as black (if she felt that she had seen them clearly enough to do so)? Or is that racist, too?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, the point is that the police report states that the people who were apparently breaking in were described as “black males” by the 911 caller. According to CNN, she did not say this at any time. She did not say it during the 911 call (I haven’t heard the tape of the call itself, but this seems to be universally agreed). Further, contrary to the police report–as far as I can detect–the 911 caller states that she did not talk with Sergeant Crowley when he arrived at the home. So she could not have described the men as “black” then. That’s an issue.</p>
<p>If she had stated that they were black, and had been reporting her observation, I don’t think that would have been objectionable–aside from the fact that the driver is not black.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The plot thickens. It seems that there is a direct contradiction between Whelan and Crowley now.</p>
<p>BTW, what about the issue with the backpacks? Backpacks can be a pain when you have an injury but let’s say that Gates did wear a backpack. Why would his driver have a backpack as well? Wouldn’t Gates take it off if trying to get into his home?</p>
<p>The Boston Herald has the original MP3 files of all radio transmissions, not the lower quality YouTube verisons.</p>
<p>You can hear somebody talking loudly during all three radio transmissions – the one from the front porch (uncooperative), plus two attempts from inside the house while Crawley is trying to give his dispatcher the name Henry Louis Gates. The loud voice in the background is enough that the dispatcher cannot “copy” the information either time and both transimissions are aborted while they instruct Crawley to try different channels. It is at this point that they try three times to reach Crawley and can’t.</p>
<p>Basically, the tapes support everything Crawley said in his lenghy TV interview. Crawley’s voice is calm and businesslike during all of these transmissions.</p>
<p>[Cambridge</a> releases Gates arrest 911 tapes - BostonHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090727cambridge_to_release_gates_arrest_911_tapes/srvc=home&position=0]Cambridge”>http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20090727cambridge_to_release_gates_arrest_911_tapes/srvc=home&position=0)</p>
<p>Let the audio keep playing, there are periods of silence.</p>
<p>BTW, the original 911 call was pathetic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s only an “issue” if you believe that Crowley was more likely to believe Gates was a suspect based on his being black. It seems pretty clear to me that Crowley pretty early on established that Gates was the homeowner and not a suspect, and proceeded from there.</p>
<p>LOL. There is no shouting on these tapes anywhere, and we all know it. If anything, we MAY hear someone in the background who is talking, no “tumultuous” behavior of anything of the sort.</p>
<p>And yet we do have a police report that says the 911 caller saw two black men, and we have the caller herself saying she did NOT say this, and we have a tape of the 911 call where no black men are even mentioned. If the worst thing Gates did was talk, then the cop obviously abused his power and then inserted racism into the report to cover for himself.</p>
<p>[It’s only an “issue” if you believe that Crowley was more likely to believe Gates was a suspect based on his being black. It seems pretty clear to me that Crowley pretty early on established that Gates was the homeowner and not a suspect, and proceeded from there."]</p>
<p>It’s an issue because it would mean that Crowley lied about talking to the witness [assuming Whelan’s account is true]. If he lied about this, what else did he lie about?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why am I not surprised.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you misunderstand the importance here. The police report clearly states that Crowley spoke to Whelan, she identified herself as the person who called, and that she said she saw two black males. Whelan says this never happened. Suddenly the facts that the official report is supposed to be, seem not like facts at all. The cop is just making mess up just as I suspected from the very beginning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That seems a rash statement to me, given that all the objective evidence so far supports the officer.</p>