Why Is Philando Castile’s Girlfriend Lying About Not Having Videotaped the Actual Shooting?

Well, well, well… What a tangled web of hair-weaves, when the race-hustlers practice to deceive!

Philando Castile’s girlfriend and passenger, Lavish “Diamond” Reynolds, has changed her story in multiple ways since Castile was shot by Officer Jeronimo Yenez during a traffic stop near St. Paul, Minnesota last Wednesday, July 6th.

In a previous version of this post, I went into more detail about various ways Reynolds has made inconsistent statements.  But to avoid bogging this down in those related details, I’ll get down to the main business at hand rather quickly, so as not to lose or confuse you.

The real reason Officer Jeronimo Yenez stopped Castile to begin with was (as recorded on police dispatch by Yenez) because Castile closely resembled a suspect wanted for an armed robbery at a nearby store four days earlier.

That’s not the bombshell; we’ve known that for almost a week now.  Stay with me for a minute….

The day after the shooting, Reynolds stormed the governor’s mansion amidst a wildly sympathetic crowd/press gaggle, and proceeded to scream and rant non-stop, telling outright lies about how the police treated her and questioned her.

A  woman asked her, “How were you able to figure out that you should put this on Facebook?”   Reynolds replied by going into a long tirade saying she wanted to show the world that “these police are not here to protect and serve us, but to assassinate us; they are here to kill us because we are black!!”

In mid-rant, she told the crowd that she didn’t capture the actual shooting on video because “…if I woulda moved while that gun was out, he woulda shot me too!!”

Given the point at which she did start live-streaming video, whether that statement even makes any sense is questionable.  But we didn’t have to wait long for her to make up something else….

Now comes the bombshell:  The next day, Reynolds spoke at a press conference and completely changed her explanation of why she didn’t get the shooting itself on video.

Ready?  Go to the 5:00 mark in this excerpt:

Did you catch that?

You hear Reynolds say, “…I was not able to get the actual shooting because I did not want that horrible act to be on social media…”  That’s a completely different reason than the one given the day before, by the way.

Most importantly, I say that remark is what poker players and con-artists call a “tell.”  She’s inadvertently telling us that she did film the shooting.

Think about it:  She claimed that she did not want to have video of “that horrible act” to be on social media.

Ask yourself, how could she have known that a “horrible act” was about to take place, in order to decide not to film it?  It doesn’t pass the smell test at all.  It’s so bizarrely illogical, we have to conclude that she came up with it in order to misdirect.

I say she filmed the entire stop, but switched over to live-streaming after the shooting.

She could not know of an impending “horrible act” – unless she was in on some sort of failed plan by Castile to try to shoot the police first, or, an insane plan to deliberately provoke police deadly force for some reason.

So why would she lie?  She’s misdirecting away from what’s stored on her phone.

What she’s really telling us (without intending to) is that she did make it possible for people to see the shooting and what led up to it, but now pretends otherwise.  She pretends she made the decision to start recording afterward.  But she’s too stupid, too addled from her constant illegal drug use (displayed in her own social media videos), and too illogical in her clumsy nonsense to trick everyone.

She’s trying to conceal the main piece of evidence which would sink her shakedown scam.  That is, the part of the video she’s pretending not to have recorded would exonerate Yenez, because for whatever reason, Castile refused to comply, and reached toward his gun when ordered not to reach.

We still don’t know for certain that Castile wasn’t the armed robber being sought.  If you examine the store video still frames, the two did look exactly alike, down to the features, clothing brands, and body.

Lavish Reynolds may be remembering the unfortunate incident in the video below, from a couple of years ago, and trying to use it as the template for her shakedown story:


Police still have custody of Reynolds’ phone while they conduct their investigation.  If I’m right about all this, can she be that much of a gambler as to think investigators wouldn’t discover the segment of video in question while examining the phone’s contents?

Maybe this case will be over more quickly than we expected.



36 thoughts on “Why Is Philando Castile’s Girlfriend Lying About Not Having Videotaped the Actual Shooting?

  1. Gum

    IMHO: 4 shots were not necessary. Unanswered questions include: 1) Did Philando act irrationally becs on an MJ high? 2) Was the gun visible? 3) dash & body cams? 4) Was Philando in fact the robber of the convenience store (I don’t think so, but possible). If Philando announce WHILE reaching for his pocket, “I have a gun,” then the first shot is understandable. Moral of Story: 1) Do not drive or be in a car under the influence of MJ, dope, or alcohol. 2) Do not reach for your pocket with a cop. Keep your license & permit in a special holder ON THE DASHBOARD. 3) Be merciful & be willing to take some personal risk to avoid killing a man unnecessarily. 4) Trust the Lord Jesus as your Savior becs we never know when death may come.


  2. Ma am (Stephanie Richardson Cox) Sir (Donald Joy),

    What makes you think that this will put this matter to rest? I am not disagreeing with your statements at all. I just want to know how you deduce that a complete video of the incident will change the way African Americans feel. Even if this were true, and a complete video could put this to rest, how do you justify the Trayvon Martin incident? How do you justify the death of Alton Sterling? There is a cause and effect for everything. African Americans are feeling racially profiled and in some cases hunted for a reason. We have not yet discussed racial profiling; however, we are discussing how the only other person involved is not telling the truth. It is very simple for all of us to make assumptions based on information we feel is true.If that is the case, and our feelings were our truths, we will remain a divided country forever. We spend our time calling people out of their name (Squid2112 July 13,2016 0250 A.M), but we do not wish to keep them in our prayers or even shed the least amount of compassion for their loss of life. A little child was in the back seat, there has been no mention of that at all. We have quickly found a criminal charge on this young lady, and we are discrediting her accounts of the situation. She was a witness to a traumatic event; how do you expect her to be eloquent and articulate everything that went on, prepare a funeral with her Fiancees family, and not be emotional?

    We are a world of perfectionists that quickly attack those whom cannot defend themselves appropriately. When will we come together, for the sake of our country, and begin to love and treat one another with dignity and respect.

    That being said, I also do not agree with the way droppinbombz (July 14,2016 at 10:48P.M) commented on this blog as well. We can’t resort to name calling to express how we feel. Dialogue and conversation will be the way we can resolve this issue.

    Although I expect to hear a response from this blog, I have been quite respectful and expect the same.

    May you all have a wonderful day and be blessed.


    1. I have answers for you. Our criminal justice system is oriented around facts, not feelings. If the facts prove that officer Yenez was legally justified or otherwise not guilty of a crime here, it doesn’t matter what unintelligent black people or any other stupid, hysterical people “feel” about that. That’s their problem, that they cannot, or refuse to, mentally process facts and allow them to determine their feelings, instead of allowing feelings to utterly dominate them, to the exclusion of factual reality and evidence.

      As for Trayvon Martin, where the hell have you been?? George Zimmerman was put through the ringer and forced to run the gauntlet, subjected to the worst kind of official violation of his Constitutional rights, all because of a politically-oriented, racial-hysteria driven prosecution, with no probable cause, and he was acquitted by a jury in court. Trayvon Martin caused his own death by his vicious, brutal attack on an innocent man who was merely trying to stop a burglary in progress by watching Martin and calling the location in to the police, and who was then forced to defend his own life.

      As for Alton Sterling, it’s an open-and-shut, clear-cut case of justified deadly force by police. Sterling threatened a civilian with his gun, then when police arrived, refused to get down on the ground, and when the taser failed to subdue him, he was tackled. As officers tried to cuff him, he struggled with them and reached for the gun in his pocket. Sterling caused his own death by his actions. He was a violent, inferior criminal thug for many years leading up to his death. What the hell is wrong with you that you fail to recognize reality?

      As for profiling, what’s wrong with it? Absolutely nothing, because it is based on reality. It is necessary for public safety. If anything, it is not done enough! Blacks (especially young black males) are EXTREMELY more likely to be dangerous, violent criminals. That’s proven by Table 43 of the FBI’s Uniform Crme Report.

      Young black males comprising less than 3% of our country’s population commit over 57% of all murders and 69% of all robberies!

      A police officer is 19 times more likely to be killed by a black person than an unarmed black person is to be killed by police.

      80-84% of the time, blacks who are shot by police are armed, and 73% of the time, are in the process of attacking police.

      There is no “epidemic” of police shooting innocent blacks, nor even of police shooting blacks at all. This is all thoroughly documented by researchers like Heather McDonald in the Wall Street Journal, by Jared Taylor of the National Policy Institute, by the Washington Post, and by this Harvard study done by a black professor, who found that WHITES are more likely to be shot by police:


      We are sick and tired of the black criminal subculture and their scams and lies, like in the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin cases, the Duke Lacrosse case, Tawana Brawley, Tamir Rice, Vonderrit Meyers, the Jena 6, the list is endless. This case is just another bullshit shakedown scam by a lying black criminal — violent convict “Lavish” Diamond Reynolds is full of crap, and the bodies of police officers are piling up because of her and because of all the race-hustlers and panderers in the media and in public office. And people like you.


      1. Mr. Joy,

        I see that you have been hard at work. I did not expect this at all, but I am glad to engage in conversation with you in reference to my post. Mrs Cox stated that a complete video of the incident will put this matter to rest quickly…. For the sake of the country. I simply disagreed with the fact that a video will change how a race of people think or feel. Kind of like my post would not change the way you think or feel.

        Yes, the judicial system is oriented around facts, not feelings. I was not speaking of that, but since you brought it up. No one knows the facts. The only people that do, in this case, is Officer Yenez, Ms. Reynolds, and Philando Castile. It is up to the judicial system to decide what they are going to do. Not the court of public opinion. The rest of what you said in that paragraph was irrelevant.

        As far as Trayvon Martin, and Alton Sterling, those were examples to show why they may be feeling the way they feel. Not to suggest anything else; none the less, thanks for the walk back down memory lane.

        When it comes to racial profiling, you can’t speak on something that you have not been subjected to. I have not been subjected to it at all, but I can clearly see that this is part of the problem.

        When it comes down to the information that you submitted, it is nice that you did but there are some issues with it. Below I have a few excerpts from that document on the Harvard study, and although you picked it apart and displayed what you wanted to, reading the whole thing might have been better for you. Especially the part that states “And, to the extent that there are racial differences in underreporting of non-lethal use of force (and police are more likely to not report force used on blacks) our estimates may be a lower bound.” I am certain that this is telling me that police officers are not reporting everything they do.
        Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner – making it difficult to interpret regression coefficients in the standard way. It is exceedingly difficult to know how prevalent this type of misreporting bias is (Schneider 1977). Accounting for contextual variables recorded by police officers who may have an incentive to distort the truth is problematic. Yet, whether or not we include controls does not alter the basic qualitative conclusions. And, to the extent that there are racial differences in underreporting of non-lethal use of force (and police are more likely to not report force used on blacks), our estimates may be a lower bound. Not reporting officer-involved shootings seems unlikely.
        You claimed, in this same report, that whites are more likely to get shot at by the police. Below is an excerpt from that same report that you referenced. It states that in the areas it collected data from whites, which is considered others, are least likely by percentage.
        Table 1C displays summary statistics for OIS data, divided into four locations and six categories of data. Column (1) contains observations from the full sample – 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015. Forty-six percent of officer-involved shootings in our data are blacks, thirty percent are Hispanic, and twenty-four percent are other with the majority in that category being whites. Given the spate of video evidence on police shootings – all of which are of blacks – it is a bit surprising that they are less than half of the observations in the data.
        Now when it comes to non-lethal use of force again Whites are the least likely to experience it with a whopping 15.3 percent. Below is the excerpt to show this.
        The first row in table 2A presents the differences in means for any use of force. These results reflect the raw gaps in whether or not a police stop results in any use of force, by race. Blacks are 53% more likely to experience any use of force relative to a white mean of 15.3 percent. The raw gap for Hispanics is almost identical. Asians are no more likely than whites to experience use of force. Other race – which includes American Indians, Alaskan natives or other races besides white, black, Hispanic and Asian – is smaller but still considerable.
        Although you are correct in some instances, that being whites are more likely to be shot by police officer, the interactions that take place with an officer and blacks are more likely than with whites, as this document has stated. As you can see below, blacks are 21% more likely to have any force used against them compared to white civilians with the same reported compliance behavior.
        Figure 5 shows that even when we take perfectly compliant individuals and control for civilian, officer, encounter and location variables, black civilians are 21.1 (0.041) percent more likely to have any force used against them compared to white civilians with the same reported compliance behavior. As the intensity of force increases, the odds ratio for perfectly compliant individual’s decreases.
        Even when the study discussed the interaction between police and civilians in relation to intensity of force whites were considerably lower as well. You failed to mention this also. As you can see below, blacks are 21.3 percent more likely to be involved where a police officer draws his weapon than whites.
        Interestingly, as the intensity of force increases (e.g. handcuffing civilians without arrest, draw- ing or pointing a weapon, or using pepper spray or a baton), the probability that any civilian is subjected to such treatment is small, but the racial difference remains surprisingly constant. For instance, 0.26 percent of interactions between police and civilians involve an officer drawing a weapon; 0.02 percent involve using a baton. These are rare events. Yet, the results indicate that they are significantly more rare for whites than blacks. In the raw data, blacks are 21.3 percent more likely to be involved in an interaction with police in which at least a weapon is drawn than whites and the difference is statistically significant. Adding our full set of controls reduces the racial difference to 19.4 percent. Across all non-lethal uses of force, the odds-ratio of the black coefficient ranges from 1.163 (0.036) to 1.249 (0.129).
        I must say I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion with you; however, I have one more series questions to ask of you. You stated “people like me” therefore you stereo-typed me without even knowing who I am. That being said, I ask the question, what are people like me? Who are people like me? Where am I from? It appears as if you know me when you made that statement, so if you could clarify I would greatly appreciate it.
        Thanks again


        1. Callie Beanz

          Thank you InjusticeforsumandJusticeForAll. It is refreshing to see someone attempting to have an open and civil dialogue with someone who doesn’t have the same point of view. I commend you for treating other posters with dignity and respect even though you did not receive the same.


          1. Samuel Cortijo

            Ma am,

            I thank you for noticing and enjoyed being a part of the dialogue. I have learned through out my years that even though people may not agree with me, they are still people with feelings. They are passionate about what they believe and there is nothing wrong with that. I learned a lot from the people here, and hope to continue to learn. That is what will ultimately change our society and the way the world is now. Understanding, patience, and peace can change the way people think.

            I thank you once again for the compliment.



      1. Gail swearngin

        You are awesome! I love it when a hothead on a racist “blm” we are victims and blah blah blah gets thrown actual facts that SHOULD shut them the hell up(but of course they won’t) Facts are facts. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  3. TheMrs.

    Last night, I heard that she has now recanted the story regarding Castile informing the officer he was in possession of the gun or that he even had a CCL. Now she states that the officer was completely unaware and that Castile was reaching for his driver’s license when he was shot. Perhaps in that reach was when his shirt slid back and the officer saw the gun, telling him to put his hands on the wheel and stop moving.

    It makes sense. Cop says to present your license and registration. You go to do so and he sees a gun he had not known was in the driver’s reach and possession. Cop says to stop moving and put your hands in plain sight. You keep going for the license. The cop has NO IDEA if you have another gun in your waistband. He tells you to show your hands, you don’t, and you get shot. Changes the whole calculus of the story now.

    This is why the police needed time to investigate. I wonder if there is dash cam audio that proved Reynolds to be a liar and after her little showing on The View, police were ready to call her out on her story.

    Since her story is most likely a lie and a man slaughtered 5 officers in Dallas, does this make her responsible for any part of the Dallas shootings?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Do you have a link to that “recanting”? I have seen erroneous reports that in her ABC interview she said the gun was never mentioned in the traffic stop, but if you play the interview and pay attention she does say they told the cop about the gun.


        1. I’m betting it was as I described, what you heard. You can even find that error elsewhere on this thread. John Ziegler at Mediaite spread the same falsehood. People need to be less careless, and listen. But if she really recanted somewhere I haven’t seen/heard, I want the source….


        1. Yeah that was sickening. Nobody asks her anything about her inconsistencies, her doing drugs with child in car, her changing story, they all just fawn all over her….not just The View, Stephanopoulos, all of them….


    2. Y’all racist morons can twist or ignore the facts all y’all want.
      The black community knows Philando Castille was MURDERED in cold blood by a racist COWARD COP!
      UNREST UPRISING & continuing to make AmeriKKKa uncomfortable continues


      1. Hey Genius “droppbombz”…
        You DO know on that “computer-thingy” you are using that your Internet Protocol Address is recorded, right?
        Your stupid post is the king of language that leads to killings and can be outright regarded as a threat of domestic terrorism.

        Keep on posting threats, it will make the job of the FBI finding you after the next murder of an innocent officer easier to find.



  4. Julie

    I think it’s plausible that she knows there is something on her phone which will contradict her story. In the following video, she says that the police took her phone, took over her Facebook, and that they will “tamper with evidence.”

    Watch from 28–1:08

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Great catch, and I’m glad someone’s paying attention for a change.

      It turns out she has a criminal record herself, if I recall correctly at least assault & battery back in Chicago.

      Like you said, her live-stream of the aftermath is public access now, so what could she be worried about being supposedly “tampered with” on her phone? Ha. There’s MORE video on her phone, is what she’s saying!


      1. The bald man with gray beard and sunglasses directly behind Diamond is holding her shoulders and “coaching” her and telling her what to say is wearing a T-shirt from Islamic Relief USA.
        The Israeli government has banned Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), a U.K.-based charity, for financing Hamas. Its American branch, Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), is based in Virginia and, shockingly, its current CEO, Anwar Khan, is an advisor to the State Department as was its former CEO Abed Ayoub.
        President Obama has boasted of his administration’s work with IRUSA. Ayoub spoke at an event hosted by Vice President Biden in June 2012 when he was IRUSA’s CEO.
        IRUSA is sponsored by Microsoft, Cisco Foundation, GE Foundation and the JPMorgan Chase Foundation. Guidestar lists IRUSA’s 2012 revenue as over $60 million.


    2. Let this bitch keep talking. This isn’t going to end well for her. He is obviously a careless loudmouth, and all of this lying scam is going to come crumbling down on her. This is going to be a quick one. She will take herself right down. The more money she gets from her Go Fund Me page, the louder her mouth is going to get, and the more mistakes she is going to make.

      Please pass the popcorn…

      Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s really getting old, how these black hustlers start these scams by crying wolf, and the media and officials, politicians all fawn all over them and treat them like sacred beings, exalting them as if fonts of supreme righteous justice, until the bodies are piled high and the facts finally start trickling in….then they’re exposed as complete criminal frauds, but by that time we’re all already dealing with the disaster of the next apocalyptic racial scam upon our throats….

      Liked by 1 person

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