Is there more to the George Floyd story? Why would a cop commit murder in broad daylight, surrounded by witnesses?
Just 3 days after his death, we found out that Chauvin and Floyd knew each other – they worked together for months.
Now, the defense attorney for J. Alexander Kueng (one of the other officers present) filed a motion including this – which was obviously meant to exploit a loophole in the judge’s “gag order” – he basically used this public court filing to leak to the public the fact that George Floyd was a confidential informant for the police. He even added “(snitch)” so that it was clear to the public:
“Any and all files pertaining to Mr. Floyd’s cooperation as an informant
(snitch) for the Minneapolis Police, FBI or any other state or federal law
enforcement agency either before or after May 6, 2019. This includes
information from ongoing and closed investigations, documents or other
information prepared as part of the vetting process to become an
informant/cooperator and any police report/case materials where Mr. Floyd
worked as a cooperator, CI, CRI, concerned citizen informant or other status.”
The fact that this motion was entered into the record by the presiding judge without argument is clear evidence that the judge knew that the motion was legitimate, and that the evidence was relevant to the current case somehow, and admissible.
Why? We can only speculate, but there has to be a reason it was allowed. If this motion was illegitimate (for example if it were made just to sway the jury pool by publicly claiming that Floyd was a snitch) it would have been dismissed, sealed, not allowed to be public, and the attorney would have been censured and probably disbarred.
Then the next day, Chauvin’s attorney filed a similar motion demanding the same information (without the word “snitch”), because the news was already out (https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/NoticeofMotionforDisclosure08282020.pdf):
In other words, they knew something regarding Floyd being an informant that was relevant to the case, and the judge agreed. But What?
The state’s response (Keith Ellison) was to demand the court stop the disclosure of those files, in a very long and comprehensive brief on 9/9/2020.
Their arguments varied from “informants are off limits to protect police” to “the documents are in custody of another agency so we don’t have to provide them” to “you didn’t prove that you need them” (excerpts in order):
It seems there is more to this story.