FL vs Curtis Reeves

[RVInit]

Day 3 - Recorded interview, Curtis Reeves

The first interview posted above was conducted while Reeves was sitting in the police SUV. There was no real introduction to this interview or explanation as to where it took place, but I think it's after they brough him in for forensic evidence collection and now they are interviewing him again to tell him he is being charged.

How tall? 6'1"
Weight? Inaudible
Blue eyes? yes

Detective: Look, is there anything else you want to tell me?

Reeves: I don't think there's anything else to tell you. I'm sitting back there second guessing myself, did this have to happen, do I have to be here? (inaudible, he's asking about "you guys" meaning the detectives)

Detective: I understand

Reeves: This is a life changing event. (inaudible) I don't know what to say, except this is a lifechanging event that I would have avoided at all cost.

Detective: I understand

Reeves: It's a life changing event for me and certain for another family. Thinking it over in all my law enforcement career I don't think I've ever been that scared that quick, does that make sense to you?

Detective: I understand

Reeves: inaudible, but sounds like the same old excuses

Detective: We've talked to everybody involved and nobody sees a punch being thrown. And he's dead.

Reeves: Heavy sighing

Detective: I'm sorry. I'm sorry because I don't have a choice. Because understand what's going on here. You put your () on the line many days. I hate to do what i have to do sometimes, but I don't have a choice right now.

Reeves: my life is ruined, my wife's life is ruined, this family's life is ruined.

Detective: Uh, I'm going to have to arrest you on a 2nd degree. I've talked it over with the staff. My command staff and everyone else is in agreement. You'll have a bond. I'll make sure they know your are law enforcement, they will take care of you, sir.

Reeves: Asking if his wife saw what happened

Detective: No, sir. She never saw a punch. She said as he leans over, and I asked her point blank and she said she never saw a punch...

Reeves: I'm second guessing myself, I know what happened, I got hit on the left side of my face, (inaudible)

Detective: Did your wife see your glasses knocked off? Because she says no

Reeves: They didn't come all the way off, they went sideways (none of the other witnesses said this in court so far. The camera is showing his wife, she is looking down, not sure if she wiped a tear from her eye, I think maybe so)

Reeves: I guess at this point now, I have no alternative, I tried to cooperate

Detective: I'm sorry buddy. Curtis. Thank you. I'm sorry I have to (inaudible)

[RVInit]

Day 3 - afternoon, Detective Proctor

direct exam continues after the taped interviews were played

Prosecutor asks about chronology. Prior to second interview did you interview Mrs Reeves. yes. Then second interview iwth Mr Reeves. yes


Did you observe any abrasions, scrapes, bruising, injury to his face? No

What was he doing during his first interview? He was rubbing his left eye. He demonstrates rubbing the corner of his left eye. he did this quite a bit. No redness was noticed anywhere near this area prior to the detectives seeing him rub this area several times.

Did he state that he had been hit on any other part of his body? No

Did you photograph his left eye/ Yes the forensic tech did that

If there was an injury would you have put that in your report? yes, and I actually have the fact that no injuries were noted in my report

Asking about theater 19? No, never went in that theater

Did you learn of items of evidence in the theater later? Yes, in the top aisle.

Just so everyone is clear, is there a wall behind that row? Yes (that short wall, the partition)

What items were there? Popcorn, cell phone, popcorn bag, skinny cow wrapper, drink in cup holder

Other than those items, was there anything else? No, not in immediate area

Did you have to go there? No, we knew about those items, I was more concerned about the cell phone itself, which was pushed up toward the chair where the victim was sitting.

Did you meet with command staff prior to arrest? yes, witness statements were discussed, no witnesses saw punch or cell phone thrown, decision was made to arrest Mr Reeves

Asking the detective what was the meaning of saying "I'm sorry I have no choice but to arrest you". Defense objects

Defense attorney shaking his finger at the judge, he's angry as he walks away and takes faces at the jury direction.

Based upon totality of evidence did you believe you had probable cause to arrest Mr Reeves for 2nd degree murder? Yes

Handing detective an evidence bag. Do you recognize the contents? Yes.

Did you receive that poster from Deputy Long? Yes

-----------------------------------
Voire dire by defense: (I'm not sure why sometimes defense is allowed to make points of things durng direct exam, the judge referred to this as voire dire)

Can you read the label on the back. Just like the other one there is an 11 day difference in the label put on it. It was in his desk drawer. Not normally kept there, in this particular case kept there for 11 days. Defense attorney is making a big deal of this. Detective says his desk is locked and nobody could get it but admits that ideally it should have been turned over to evidence locker right away.

Also points out that he wrote the wrong year. It's against protocol.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosecution again:

This incident took place in early January, have you ever before wrote the previous year on a date after the beginning of a new year? Yes, I have made that mistake

Prosecution is finished with this witness. Since the cross exam will take a long time, she's going to stop early today.

[chancery]

Detective: Uh, I'm going to have to arrest you on a 2nd degree. I've talked it over with the staff. My command staff and everyone else is in agreement. You'll have a bond. I'll make sure they know your are law enforcement, they will take care of you, sir.

I dunno. On the one hand, it's a police officer being considerate of a prisoner in a stressful situation. That's fine, and admirable.

OTOH, I wonder if he usually behaves this way towards prisoners, or if this is special treatment.

[RVInit]

Detective: Uh, I'm going to have to arrest you on a 2nd degree. I've talked it over with the staff. My command staff and everyone else is in agreement. You'll have a bond. I'll make sure they know your are law enforcement, they will take care of you, sir.

I dunno. On the one hand, it's a police officer being considerate of a prisoner in a stressful situation. That's fine, and admirable.

OTOH, I wonder if he usually behaves this way towards prisoners, or if this is special treatment.

Yeah same here. I tend to wonder if he was really charging someone with 2nd degree murder who was never a police officer would he be that apologetic about having to arrest that person. In general I would say it would surprise me if any police officer would actually apologize to someone being arrested under these circumstances. This detective through the whole interview seem especially considerate of Mr Reeves. On the other hand, his demeanor in court, in general he seemed like a genuinely compassionate person, which is not what we usually see in the police officers that tend to come to our attention*. So, he may very well have been that way with other people he arrested for 2nd degree murder as well. Hard to say, really. He did seem like a decent human being I will say that.


*I'm pretty much talking about the "bad cop" thread we have here. Not all cops.

[LM K]

RV is a rock star!!

Thank you, my dear!!

[Ben-Prime]

I'm sorry but is everyone in Florida retired law enforcement?

My major takeaway from all this is that everyone involved except the dead guy and his wife was either a retired cop or carrying a gun, or both.

Pretty much. Seems to be a right of passage down here. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a current or former police officer. And everyone who hasn't been a police officer wanted to but were far too scary even for a Florida police department to hire.

Well except for me, neonnx, slim, p0rtia (honorary Floridian), Orlylicious, and other Boogle who live in Florida.

I am not now nor have ever been an agent of the law to the best of my recollection, but, let's be fair, Broward County is kind of Brooklyn South rather than Florida.

[Gregg]

Isn't this Pasco County?

The place that even on "Live PD" stuck out the the most white trash county in a very tough competition?

Hell, I know people in Broward County with teeth (plural) and who wear shoes.

[RVInit]

Isn't this Pasco County?

The place that even on "Live PD" stuck out the the most white trash county in a very tough competition?

Hell, I know people in Broward County with teeth (plural) and who wear shoes.

yeah, I would say Pasco County is different than Broward. The general population of Pasco County is probably not as enlightened or "woke" as Broward. Of course, you always have people that don't fit in with the majority.

[RVInit]

Day 4 Proctor ReDirect

( I ended up just commenting on cross exam below the redirect. Defense spent four hours grilling this guy making two or three points, which the prosecutor dispensed of in two questions. It was super tiresome to listen to, I needed a drink afterwards and I hardly ever drink)

Redirect was very short because basically the defense attorney spent all morning pinging on the same thing over and over, just in slightly different ways, and the prosecutor was easily able to eliminate all the smoke and mirrors with a couple of questions.

Proctor reiterated that it was common practice and within policy for the detectives to make notes on a pad and then transfer the information to the actual formal reports. Therefore there is no need to retain the notes. Once he finishes the report and is satisfied that everyting in the note is contained in the report, destroying the notes does not prevent the final report from being complete and accurate in terms of what his investigation has shown.

The prosecutor also asked him if there is any way possible to recreate the exact scene of this incident by bringing back all the people who were in the theater, having them sit exactly where they were sitting, and having the theater start the previews with exactly the same lighting, everyone recreating every movement, sound, etc. The detective responded "no, that is not possible"

I may not write up details about the cross exam since today I was watching the cross exam on my iPhone as I was installing software on my work computer and I didn't take notes as it went as I have been doing so far.

But generally, the defense put on quite a show, the attorney yelled angry questions at the witnesses, was admonished for badgering at a sidebar I believe, based on a slight change in tone after returning from sidebar. It's hard to say whether he scored points because basically any points he did score were probably dispensed entirely by the two or three questions the prosecutor followed up with as noted above. That's why I'm putting the cross exam underneath the redirect, because it was monotonous and the same old thing. Even the judge was showing signs of boredom and I wondered if she was thinking "can we move on already".

[RVInit]

Day 4 - Mark Turner - Direct

Retired Air Force and then aviation industry, now retired. Mostly in intelligence arena in the Air Force

Attended theater with his wife. Usually sits aisle seat near the back, as that day he did

Lighting conditions described as partial house lights, dim, but could clearly see rows, aisles, steps, people, etc. Could easily walk around safely in those lighting conditions

Sat on back row, first seat on the aisle on right side of theater.

Volume of previews was elevated but could easily converse with his wife and could tell other people were talking, but not listening to what other people were saying

Did not know anyone involved in the shooting at the time. Now he knows the defendant and deceased names.

He saw Reeves as he returned to his seat. He did not seem to have difficulty walking. Saw him go back to his seat because he turned as he moved his knees for Reeves to walk by him. He wasn't paying particular attention to him after that.

At some point he saw contact between Reeves and Oulsen. He saw Reeves lean forward but did not hear the exchanged words. Oulsen was standing. He heard him say "Do you mind, I was texting my babysitter checking on my daughter". Something was said by Reeves, Oulsen grabbed the popcorn and flipped it in Reeve's direction.

When Oulsen grabbed the popcorn he saw her hand reach across his chest, she was still kind of sitting, her left hand crossed over as she started to rise. (This matches pretty much exactly Mrs Oulsen's description as well. This man would have been sitting to the left of all of them and based on the video and seating chart probably had as good a view of it as anyone)

As soon as the popcorn was flipped he saw Mr Reeves hand extend, the muzzle flash, and heard the gunshot. It was very very quickly after the popcorn toss. Never saw Oulsen come over the seat, other than popcorn flip did Oulsen throw anything? No PUnch him? No Leaning over as if to punch him? No

Did defendant make any sound that indicated he thought he was being attacked? No Did you see anything the defendant was doing or saying that gave you the impressiion defendant was in a life or death struggle? No

The only thing you saw was Oulsen flip popcorn? Yes, correct

Did you ever see defendant grab his head as if he was hurt in any manner? No, sir, I didn't

At any time did he act as though he had been injured? No sir

did you ever hear Mr Oulsen threaten the defedant? I did not

did you ever see mrs Oulsen standing in front of him like trying to hold jim back as if he ws raging? No sir

After the shot did you hear defendant say anything? yes

what? "Throw popcorn in MY face" (witness stressed the word MY. This comports with what other witnesses close by heard. It really gives the impression that Reeves shot Oulsen for throwing popcorn at him, not because he was afraid for his life.)

After the shooting did you see what defendant did with firearm? he put it in his lap

After Oulsend was shot did you see what happened to him? He said "I can't believe this" took a couple steps and collapsed.

Did you see Mrs Oulsen? She was hysterical, began running up the aisle, my wife and I took napkins and helped wrap her finger. He describes her finger was hanging on by the skin, almost completely severed. They tried to help her

Did deputies come to the theater? Yes

Did you stay inside the theater? He describes that he offered to help and asked Mrs Oulsen if he could call anyone for her. he stepped outside so he could call someone for her.

At some point of time given a statement to fill out. He put basic details, but not exact detail in the written statement. he knew he would be interviewed. He never discussed anything with any other witness at any point in time. His statement is entrely what he himself witnessed.

Lunch Recess

[RVInit]

Day 4 - Mark Turner - Cross exam

Establishing his age at the time. Previews already playing. Took seats at top row. Problems with legs, used cane intermittently. Did not have a cane that day.

Defense attorney is trying to get the witness to refer to conditions as dark and loud. He has tried unsuccessfully to get every witness to change their mind about being able to see and hear things by muddying the waters with using different words to describe lighting and volume

He says witness has used the word "dark" in the past. Witness agrees the previews and commercials are trying to get your attention. Gets him to agree they were "loud".

He first noticed a man standing up with a phone in his hand. Witness agrees he thought it was odd, he would not have stood up while previews were running. Nobody was behind him in the theater according to the witness. Reeves wasn't there yet. I hadn't heard this before, everyone else says that Oulsen didn't stand up until after Reeves came back.

Attorney is yelling his questions loudly as usual. I can't help but think this angry questioning is a turnoff for the jury as much as for me. It's tiresome listening to that same angry questioning every single time the defense is up.

Defense is trying to argue with the witness about what part of Reeves he could see as he came back from "telling the manager". Witness is doing a good job of not allowing the attorney to get him flustered or change his answers.

Defense is readying from something that starts with "it was at this point". My feeling is that he is tricking the witness into thinking "at this moment" in the deposition is the same as "this moment" in the questioning.

Defense it trying to say the witness said Mr Oulsen was yelling. Throughout the entire trial, defense it trying to get the witnesses to say the previews were "loud" because if they were "loud" and you could hear Me Oulsen, that means Mr Oulsen was yelling. It hasn't really worked as of yet.

Witness agrees he has described Oulsen as being "pissed", "frustrated", etc. Attorney is demonstrating and using the word "anger" but the witness is indicating discomfort at being manipulated into saying soemthing he never said.

At one point witness says to attorney "if this is going to be about you and I, I don't see how that's helpful". Normally I would cringe at hearing a witness say that but I think it was actually appropriate. The attorney is tryingt to get him to agree that Oulsen was "angry". So, the attorney is using menacing body language toward the witness as he is "mock playing" Oulsen. That is when the witness balked and basically refused to play that game.

He asked the witness if he felt the need to get up out of his seat. Witness said yes, he got up. Witness does not agree that Oulsen "got closer" to Mr Reeves at this point. he says he turned toward Mr Reeves. Now the deposition comes out. Again, I have the distinct feeling that when questioning the witness he's bringing him to a certain point, then he's trying to say Oulsen did thus and such at this point. The witness says "no". Out comes the deposition and he starts reading "at this point thus and such". However, we have no way of knowing if the "at this point" in the deposition is the same "at this point" in the questioning. I have a feeling it is not the same point, this lawyer is being very tricky. The reason is that the witnesses are all being very consistent about the timing of events, and typically the prosecutor will bring out the same deposition and then go through the entire sequence showing that the witness was consistent during this trial with the deposition.

I can't take much more of this defense attorney. He may win this case for his client just because the jury wants to shut him the hell up.

he's trying to get the witness to say witnesses were talking to each other about the incident prior to their interviews. He's not agreeing. He agrees "quite a few" people were there. They were taken to a different room. Trying to get him to say people were talking about the incident to each other. He says he does not know what people were talking about to each other. So far not a single witness has agreed that they spoke to anyone prior to giving their statement.

Witness agrees that you could consider someone's position to be vulnerable if they are seated and someone else is standing.

ReDirect

Witness could see. Break between different previews so there were times when there was preview and time quiet. Did you see or hear anyone getting together to compare notes no

Did you see or hear anyone conspiring to make up a story about defendant? No

[RVInit]

Day 4 - Derik Friedhoff
Registered Nurse, Advent Health

Went to movie theater

Went with girlfriend. Sat in front of Oulsens

Did something catch your attention? Heard some bickering behind and to the right (where Oulsen's were)

How many voices? Two

What did you do? Kept focus on area because out of norm, but when it stopped, turned attention to screen

Describes what he saw. Chad Oulsen had phone in his lap, seemed to be turned on, with his head slightly turned toward Reeves

He couldn't hear exact words

Next thing he saw someone leave top row. Was aware no more bickering. He did not personally see Reeves come back

Later bickering resumed. Sounded like same voices, heard two voices. could tell they were male. Turned his head again. Saw Oulsen stand up and said something like "texting my daughter", right after that sounded like something crumpled, noticed standing up, saw him reach, saw him flick popcorn, gunshot, heard Reeves say in an angry voice somethong about "throw popcorn at me"

Never heard a life or death struggle, never heard sound of any attack, nobody say "no no no" or whoa whoa whoa, never heard any struggle happening, never saw Oulsen throw anything except to flick the popcorn box toward Reeves

He heard the gunshot, saw the muzzle flash, looked for exits in case there was more shooting, looked back, saw Oulsen fall, once he felt like no more shooting was happening, he went over to help Oulsen. Still dim, called 911, looked for exit wound, took his own shirt off to apply pressure. he was speaking with operator and assessing Oulsen's condition. Still breathing, involuntary movement, sounded like he was trying to breathe. As 911 progressed, pulsed declined, then stopped, asked someone else to do chest compressions because there was no room for him to move but someone else was in that area.

Filled out statement, nobody gave specific instructions for filiing out the statement. He eventually talked to deputy. Never talked to anyone else about what they say, did not conspire with anyone to tell any story about defendant, everything he reported he personally saw.

did he ever hear "no no no" or "whao whoa whoa". NOthing of that sort, no

Did you hear any threats toward anyone? No

[RVInit]

Day 4 - Derik Friedhoff - cross exam

Same angry defense attorney

had previously worked trauma. Purchased ticket at 1:16 and entered theater at 1:19

Girlfriend was to his right. Was able to see behind, seats reclined. What he heard that was audible was concerning? Seemed out of the norm, caught my attention. Seemed out of place. Trying to get him to use the word "concerning". Out comes the deposition

2017 hearing (I think that was the Stand Your Ground hearing, not sure)

Did you physically see the cell phone in his right hand? Yes (I doubt it, he was being badgered before this, and everyone said cell phone ws in in left hand, but on his lap. This witness is trying to give logical answers to questions as he's being asked, and he logically thinks he could see it easier if it was in Oulsen's right hand. Not good)

he used the words "full forward momentum" in his deposition. He says he did not see a "pitch", (I guess like an overhand throw) This hardly matters as the video shows this pretty clearly, we can see how it was "thrown". Other witnesses used the word "flicked" to describe how the popcorn was tossed

Defense attorney is hammering about when the gunshot happened in relation to when the words "throw popcorn at me" were said. Witness is now testifying it was so close in time, hard to say. Other witnesses all said the gunshot happened first, then the words. This witness deposition he said the opposite, the words first, then the gunshot.

All witnesses agreed that it was "almost simultaneous" so I'm not sure the defense scored much on this. It's damning that so many witnesses heard these words spoken so close in time to the shooting because this suggests the shooting was done in anger not in fear.

Attorney is trying to get witness to say people were talking to each other about what happened. He says police took him and a few others down to the front of theater and told them not to talk to each other about what happened. He and his girlfriend were separated from most of the group and says he thought he heard someone say the words "they were brave". Deposition comes out after witness says he did not hear anyone talking about the actual events

Witness reads to deposition and says the only thing that was talked about was "the nurses were brave" and nothing else was said other than that. Same deposition, different page

Witness reads lines 1-5 to himself. Apparently the deposition says that this witness said he heard someone say "I think it was over popcorn". He is saying he did not specifically recall this, this deposition was from 2014.

Attorney is trying to convince him that he is now saying he saw popcorn thrown because he overheard someone say "I think it was all over popcorn". He disagrees, he says his statement was from what he saw.

He received a plaque for heroism from the police. he doesn't remember what his "acceptance" speech is. The attorney says "Now you are beholden to the police department, aren't you?


Re-Direct:

Oulsen was completely on the ground after being shot, where lighting conditions were dimmer, full house lights were not yet up.

Are you making up about the popcorn because you got an award? No

Was it more important to save Oulsen's life or to get all the names of everyone gathered around to help Oulsen? To save his life.

[RVInit]

State rests

Motion to Acquit:
Since I'm not a lawyer, not sure how helpful my commentary will be, but I will take a stab at giving my impressions of what I'm hearing and what the judge rules, if anything

Defense - reading from the definition of justifiable use of force. Section B - he's making it clear that the law says the danger does not have to be actual, it has to be reasonably believed by the defendant.

he says clearly the phone can be a deadly weapon. There is evidence that the phone was at Reeves feet (yeah, Oulsen dropped it). No serious bodily injury required, he says this has not been refuted. Felony battery is the "throwing of the phone" and the "throwing of popcorn". An unwanted touching is a battery. And it's a robbery because of the throwing of the popcorn. If the prosecution says it was refuted because nobody saw it, that is not refuting. This is very unusual and we are pleased the prosecutor did what they did because none of their evidence refuted the throwing of the phone that the defendant says happened. So, therefore we have to have a judgement of acquittal. It is cystal clear


Prosecutor

It's crystal clear in the opposite direction. All the elements of 2nd degree murder have been proven, goes through them all. he has case law if the court wants to hear it. It's not true that the state has to rebut the defendant's statements. The video has been played and absolutely contradicts what the defendant says. He's citing a case, handing to the judge. The evidence presented in court shows the defendant himself only said he "thought he might have been hit by a cell phone" and he only thought that because he saw the cell phone at his feet and during his interview he says " I put two and two together and think I might have been hit by that cell phone". Had the defendant been struck by the cell phone, there would have been some form of injury, especially if it had been used as a deadly weapon. It's the manner in which it's used that determines if it's a deadly weapon. The cell phone would have had to have been thrown with great force to reasonably qualify as a deadly weapon. Tossing it might be a battery, but not an aggravated battery. There are different standards in the justifiable use of force law.

The use is justifiable if the defendant reasonably believed he was going to die. There is no evidence that he believed he was about to die. No way in the world he could have believed he was going to receive great bodily harm or death.

Let's say the felony suggested by Escobar. The act was complete and then Reeves shot. I couldn't keep up with all his arguments.

Defense:

Again, I think that their problem is the video supports US, not them. You actually see Mr Oulsen coming over the seat with his hand. he keeps saying no witness refuted what the defense is claiming. He keeps repeating this over and over that the state has to have refuted Reeves police interview and they say the prosecution didn't refute it.

The court must take his perception. The law does not punish one that reasonably believes they need to protect themselves against bodily harm or death. You can make a mistake and the law does not punish you. You have him talking about his law enforcement experience. They are stuck with that recording

Judge is reading through some case law.

As far as the statement interview with Mr Reeves I found there was a great deal of evidence that refuted some of his statements. For instance the no no no, pretty much every witness that claims to have heard said they never heard that. I know you've said several times about the video, it's clear to see the decedant came over the chair, I did not see it, I looked hard and tried and I did not see that in the video or evidence in this trial. Um, so, um, I think that evidence refutes the claim that there was the first attack as it's been called, and the lack of any marks somewhat, I agree not enough on it's own, but even in Reeves own statement he says he's not sure if he got hit, he's second guessing himself, and, I think uh, with all of teh evidence that's been presented, the state has overcome the judgement for acquittal. I will deny it.

Anything else we need to talk about today?

Deny motion in entirety as to both counts.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Thank you!!!!!!!!

[RVInit]

Thank you!!!!!!!!

You are welcome. I had to install new software on my work laptop so I had time today to listen and take notes while installing everything.

[RVInit]

Here is something I can share that happened at Reeve's Stand Your Ground hearing. That hearing took place back in 2017.

His wife, Vivian, took the stand. In this hearing the defense had the burden to prove this incident qualified as a "stand your ground" issue. As expected, she trashed Oulsen and the fact that he deigned to use his cell phone during the movie previews.

So, the prosecutor asked her about whether she ever noticed the sign on the door at the theater they attended. The sign he was referring to is a big circle containing a drawing of a gun and a knife and the circle has a big slash through it - no guns or knives allowed. The prosecutor was using this questioning to compare the idea that the theater asks people to silence cell phones during the movie, and also asks people not to bring guns and knives into the theater. She testified that she was aware her husband carried a loaded gun in his right pocket and that he had that gun with him as usual. She was aware of the theater policy regarding no guns or knives and she agreed that she never suggested to her husband that he leave his gun at home or in the car when they go to the theater.

When asked if she thought the theater had a right to ask people not to bring guns into the theater her response was "it depends on who the people are".

Privileged much?

[Gregg]

"it depends on who the people are".

The ones with guns, ma'am.


I just can't even...

[Ben-Prime]

Isn't this Pasco County?

The place that even on "Live PD" stuck out the the most white trash county in a very tough competition?

Hell, I know people in Broward County with teeth (plural) and who wear shoes.

Yeah, I should have been clearer that *I* live in Broward County (when, you know, I'm home in the U.S. for 4 to 7 weeks every 2 to 4 years at this point in my career), and but for 8 total years in NYC and Gainesville for undergrad and grad work between '87 and '95, I have done so since '77, we're not really like the rest of the state, as most know. That was my thought process, but in fairness, I tend to post at the two extremes of 5:30am my time and late in the day my time, and my brain isn't always firing on all cylinders.

[Ben-Prime]

Isn't this Pasco County?

The place that even on "Live PD" stuck out the the most white trash county in a very tough competition?

Hell, I know people in Broward County with teeth (plural) and who wear shoes.

yeah, I would say Pasco County is different than Broward. The general population of Pasco County is probably not as enlightened or "woke" as Broward. Of course, you always have people that don't fit in with the majority.

Yeah, my 27 year old goddaughter, who was likewise a Broward resident for more than half her life, finally decided she was too rednecky and conservative (she's basically a Blue Dog Trump-leaning Democrat who probably thinks Joe Manchin is her kind of politican) even for the rednecky Broward County suburb of Davie and moved to Polk County with her baby daddy last year. Now that I think about it, being a cop was her dream, but for some medical issues which prevented it. So, okay, there you go. Back to being semi-topical.

[RVInit]

Day 5 - Defense Case Begins

Detective Smith

11 year experience in New Hampshire detective prior to moving to Pasco County Florida

In New Hapmshire assisted homicide in two cases, not much experience with homicides, neither case involved self defense

Moved to Florida, hired as patrol officer, for 2 years worked as patrol officer county wide. He was assigned to Medal Point area for about a year of that time. in 2012 went to detective division, Major crimes, but mostly in missing persons

In 2013 moved to Major Crimes - Homicide. Same squad but different assignments. Threat assessment and use of force he had normal training. Assessing of danger is complex.

Sidebar for several minutes (this trial has had quite a few sidebars, this was initiated by prosecutor. They seem to be the "winner" of most sidebars based on how the questioning commences once the sidebar is over, but sometimes it seems to come out in the defense favor)

You are taught in your profession how to respond to life threatening situations? Yes

There are a number of "cues" to look at? Yes. Environmnet? Yes. Dark area? Yes. Close proximity? yes Age and size? Objection/sidebar

You would agree taht it takes time to react to those cues? Yes. Yu need time to react? Yes

We talked about the size, facial expression, fighting stance? Yes

Also if actions are out of character for location? I don't think that the phsyical surrounding makes much difference

So someone getting up and yelling profanities in church is not alarming? Yes it's alarming

Yu need to asses if person is out of control? Yes

Out of control individuals are much more dangerous. They can be yes. (note: the lawyer seems to be testifying rather than asking questions, he's not giving the voice inflection that normally denotes a question, surprised there's no objection)

And you agree hands can kill? Yes. Can cause great bodily harm? Yes. And particularly dangerous? can be

Head is most vulnerable to injury? Yes. If your head is exposed to danger (objection, overrules) more critical situation. Can be

You had simulated training? yes. In many you fail? Yes. It's not a good feeling? Yes. In real life, you die? You could

you also are aware physiologically things go on...objection, sustained

Let's talk a little if we can, your day that day you were called to go over to the theater. yes. You had already been out on something else? yes

got there at 2:30-ish

First assignment was not to be lead, but to interview witnesses? Was asked to interview Mrs Reeves and their son

You were asked by Harris? Yes, acting Sgt at that time

So, at time arrived you had only been the crime scene detective on one scene before Yes. And not the magnitude of this one? I don't understand the qustion

More time involved, and number of witnesses were greater

Yu were brand new in dealing with homicides? I wouldn't say that. He agrees his main assignment was missing persons, but we normally would have a role in homicides. Only had one self defense homicide case before this one.

In your experience as police officer you realize the value of video evidence. Yes, It's critical? If available it's important. Depending on what it captures it gives you a view of what happened without any opinion involved.

If you are able to view the video before you interview witnesses that can help you interview the witnesses? he agrees that it can be helpful and can possibly help direct your questioning

Attorney is trying to get the witness to agree that the witness interviews would be better if you see the video first. Witness only says that the video can be beneficial depending on what it captures.

When arrived, the general rule was that you are not to be the lead detective on a case until you have taken a certain test? He says that is not strictly policy, but that is generally what they followed

When you arrived at theater, you had not taken course yeat? No, not yet

Training receiveed so far was whatever assistance you provided on other cases? yes

and shadowing Detective Proctor? I had had multiple trainings on processing crimes scenes, interviewing witnesses, names other areas, gets interrupted

I'm talking about strictly homicide there's no formal classroom training, you basically get someone to shadow, etc. Witness says they have formal field training which he completed. Attorney is trying to characterize it as being substandard. Making a point that he would be evaluated by Detective Proctor. (I see where he's going. he spent all morning yesterday trying to show Proctor was a bumbling idiot. I don't think he succeeded, but that's where he's going I think)

You started to do interviews, so I would imagine taht you had your tape recorder with you? No, I did not. Agrees it would be important. Can be useful for capturing emotions, pauses, etc. He says they rely on the written reports, not playing witness statements in court.

You did not go into the crime scene. I'm going to call it the crime scene, but it's really the incident scene. Objection. He calls it crime scene

For this case and most cases like this, we limit how many peoople go in and out. He did not go into theater 10 prior to interviewing Mrs Reeves

Did anyone give you a complete outline of what, you know other officers were there? Yes. Harris was in there? I'm not sure, I assume. So you did not get any briefing as to what specifically was in that room prior to interviwing Mrs Reeves. Response: I received a synopsis and briefing but not told specifics about everything regarding the crime scene.

Recorders are important but you didn't have one? Correct. You don't think you had it in your car? I did not check. Making a big deal of it. In hindsight I should have asked another officer for a recorder

First to interview - Mrs Reeves. She was visibly upset? Yes, she was crying, shaking. Attorney makes a point of her "small frame"

Did you ask Mrs Reeves what the lighting conditions were? Starts to tell what she said, objection hearsay. Lawyer is demanding if HE asked HER what the lighting conditions were. (Clearly she told him, but this lawyer want the jury to think he has to ask her everything and she can't volunteer anything)

He doesn't remember if he asked her or if he found out because she volunteered that information. He knows they discussed that it was a "darkened" movie theater. He does not recall specifically asking her about the volume either.

You know what backlighting is? yes. He was aware that Oulsen was between Reeves and the movie screen, making a big deal out of the detective not specifically asking Mrs Reeves was there "backlighting" (oh, brother)

You know what backlightng does to the person sitting in the chair, yada yada. Detective says it's possbile the body obscures the backlighting affect.

Did he ask specifically what the movies that were previewed because they would be different volume, insinuating poor questioning because he didn't ask this question.

Learned that Reeves' son was a police officer as well. You interviewed him without a recorder. Correct

You also asked him to draw a diagram. No, I drew the diagram and I asked him where he was. Asked if interviewee drew on teh diagram. Response: no

Now attorney is saying you know that is a piece of evidence that can't be destroyed, right because you could show it to the jury? He agrees that if the interviewee had given him a diagram that interviewee had drawn he would have kept it. But says HE drew the diagram, not Matthew Reeves

OY, this is tedious.

Matthew was apparently one of the people that tried to catch Oulsen as he was falling. Now attorney is saying you know the interviews with Mrs Reeves and son were short. He answers they were about 30 to 40 minutes probably.

He found out Reeves was a retired police officer. Objection to all the stuff detective would have known about Mr Reeves' specific training. Sidebar. Reeves is smirking and smiling again. Yeesh, that is a real turn off to me, I have no idea if the jury is seeing this or what they may think. I will also say Mr Reeves has some pretty snazzy ties! They are not conservative as you might guess an 80 year old former Florida rural police officer would wear.

Apparently we are moving on. Both Mrs Reeves and Matt Reeves the interview was very general, you just basically let them tell you a story. He explains that this is how law enforcement are trained to interview - you allow the person to tell their story as much as they remember as they remember it before you start interrupting them with questions to clarify anything.

I'll interject here something - this witness is doing a good job of deflecting all the different ways this defense attorney is attempting to use him to show this investigation was poorly done. He is not getting flustered. He conceeded when he needed to, but he's dispelling all the other crap without being snarky, getting upset, or showing anger. He is very calm, has a great demeanor and honestly I believe he's helping the prosecution more than helping the defense. I'm not sure why this attorney isn't just moving on to another witnesses, he's giving him too much opportunity to explain things to the jury in a way that makes sense and helps show the police as being competent.

LOL. Now comes out the deposition. ha ha ha, just when I said how great this witness is. We'll see how this goes.

He's pointing out that in the deposition he answered a question about the interviews and in that deposition he was asked about how long the interview was. I don't see any real difference. In the depo he is specifically asked how many questions he aksed the Reeves' but today he wasn't asked taht same question, so I don't know what the point was, except that if teh jury isn't paying attention it may not occur to them that he's constantly asking witnesses questions different today gettting an answer, then bringing out the deposition where he asked a different question or a more or less nuanced qustion than what he asked today. So, the answers aren't really different just what you would expect for differnt questions.

I think Reeves is going to get a great deal of benefit from the fact that he's had a million (Ok, little bit of exaggeration there) hearings, and this attorney can find so many instances where he can ask a slightly different question today and then make a big deal out of a slightly different answer in the deposition. I'm sure some of the jury will fall for it. Roughly half the population is below average as they say. Or something sort of like that.

Now discussing the firearm, witness is agreeing that at the time a certain statute was written the intent was probably to allow more trained (even if retired) officers roaming around in public. I think this goes to why nobody should be concerned that Reeves brings his gun everywhere he goes. But here's the problem with their whole defense. If he's so darned vulnerable, and so completely disabled, hands don't work, back is practically broken. legs don't work, feet don't work - why the hell do we want this broken man with arthritis in his hands to be able to pull a loaded gun out of his pocket on a whim?

Q: You never told Sgt Harris that both Matt and Mrs Reeves told him the theater was dark and the preview volume was high. Never told Sg Harris that

A: I don't remember making those specific statmements

Q: he was the superviso and you already told the jury this is important

A: It's important in deciding actions, yes

Q: But you didn't tell him this.

A: I told him about my interviews with them and what they said, but I don't specifically remember if I specifically told him this at very instant at the scene

Q: Those were the instructions, right? A: As a general practice we meet periodically and communicate to each other.

Attorney making a big deal about this

Q: But you told him that you interviewed them and at this point in time you were assigned the lead crime scene detective. A: Crime scene detective, yes. Harris had to decide who was going to be assigned which roles

Q: Important role, yes? A: One of, yes

Q: One of your jobs was to assess the possible distractions that individuals were experiencing inside that theater. That's an important issue, right/ Distractions. A: I guess it's a difficult question to answer, I wouldn't know what all the distractions would be. Q: Evidence is various forms. like Noise and light A: Yes Q: You are trying to recreate and preserve the scene as it was A: Not recreate, we certainly want to know about conditions but not actually recreate.

This is super tedious. I may just generalize from here on out, I will never finish otherwise.

Attorney trying to ping on possible missing evidence. I am impressed with this witness. He's not giving him this

He does not recall specifically who or what time he learned that Reeves thought he had been hit with a cell phone.

Attorney keeps talking about "preserving" the lighting conditions and haranguing the witness that he didn't do that.

("You keep using that word...")

Witness indicates he believes it's important to understand what the lighting conditions were, but doesn't understand what you mean by "preserve". LOL

Did you ask management to put the lighting exactly as it was. (This detective did not do that, but Proctor did, and he explained that to the jury)

Now asking if he used a light meter, and insinuating that they should have used a light meter or noise meter. Insinuating this should be shown to the jury or else you did not capture adequate evidence. OMG. Every single witness describes the lighting and noise conditions pretty much the same way, more than adequate to understand what could reasonably be seen and heard.

Now on to video equipment. Attorney asking about the view of the video camera installed up high vs point of view of witnesses in the room. Agrees it's a different point of view

Forensics - asking who they got their orders from. He did not direct them what to do, they got direction from others. Why didn't YOU give them specific instructions. A: measurements are normal part of crime scene, we had general discussions, but they are trained and know how to measure crime scenes.


End of Direct. FINALLY

[RVInit]

Day 5 - Detective Smith - No Cross Exam (Prosecution)

Not sure why the prosecution declined to interview this witness. I thought he did an excellent job of deflecting everything the defense tried to insinuate, and I guess the prosecution agreed. I have never seen this before. They took lots of notes during his testimony and honestly I think it was a good decision to leave it right here. That's how good this guy was in not allowing the defense to really score anything.

Next witness: Detective Anthony Lusonne(?)

Became law enforcement in 2000, 13 years experience at time of incident
2005 promoted to detective. 4 years. 2009 transferred to major crimes unit
Took courses in investigation of homicide. Goes over courses
2013 became member of cyber crime unit. Gave his training

LOL he's already undermining the whole reason he was brought. This defense lawyer was trying to insinuate that because they didn't bring a "cyber crime" specialist for Reeve's case, taht somehow that makes the video evidence insufficient in some way. This guy just defined what a cyber crime is. Guess what? Reeves didn't commit a CYBER CRIME and it doesn't take a cyber crime specialist to collect a copy of video surveillance from a business.

Talking about witness contamination. He says everyone has to be separated so they don't talk to each other. It's already been pointed out that these witnesses were sitting at diffrent locations, they saw different things and their statements reflect these minor differences in what they saw and heard. So, I don't think this is effective, if the witnesses all gave the exact same story, yes, that wou

Going over the fact that in 2013 this unit was set up. He did get the witness to say that sometimes the cyber crimes unit would assist homicide in collecting evidence.

He was asked to come to the theater to assist in collecting evidence in whatever way they needed.

Said Sgt Cessa took him into the crime scene. He does not agree this is necessarily normal for him. He's using this witness to make his case that you can't interview witnesses effectively if you haven't seen the crime scene first. (I disagree. I once was a "witness" for the FBI, though not a good one because I really didn't have any useful information for them. But here's the thing. They interviewed me at my place of work. Then later when they got more information they called me at home and asked me a couple more questions. Nothing is wrong with that. It seems like it would be normal)

Talking about video now and that it could be possibly enhanced. As long as it's not distorted. Sgt Cessa asked him to "capture" any video evidence. He took that seriously. He approached manager and said he wanted to view video and visit IT room. Management had him wait while he checked on things.

At some point another detective (Smith) came over and told him that he had been assigned to take over getting the video. He knows him and took his word for it. But he stayed just in case anyone needed any help. Thinks another member of cyber crimes was also available if they needed help.

He says they would have needed the assistance of the company but he would have collected the video. He would have documented the video system and DVR. he never had the opportunity to go to the video room because it was taken over by Det Smith.

The theater had proprietary software. Says most have an export function. He says they can view it. He agrees they CAN make a copy of the hard drive. He's stressing the word CAN. He says Det Smith later came to him and asked him to image some hard drives.

Has he been able to make a copy of videos, he says one way or another, sometimes you need to have passwords. Attorney asks about search warrant and seizing the system. he says that can be done.

Might private industry have a different interest in the video than law enforcement. He agrees. he is preserving evidence for prosetor, defense, and community and system of justice

How many hard drives did Det Smith give you? 10. He had no way of knowing these were the exact hard drives collected in this case

Did Smith every come to you with an issue of an iPhone? No. he agrees this is also an area of expertise he has

Is there a right way and wrong way to preserve evidence on a phone? Yes

Want to block incoming signals, no network infiltration. not turn off the phone. want to collect evidence first if possible. (I don't know what the point is, everyone agrees Oulsen was using the phone to browse Facebook, that is not in dispute, even his widow admits it)

Now talking about fingerprints or other evidence could be on that phone. He's asked about DNA with other witnesses, too. I have a hard time believing any DNA from Reeves could be on that phone. I believe that phone was dropped by Oulsen when he was shot.


End

No questions from Prosecution.

Judge called counsel to approach the bench. Not sure why. Ah/....lunch break

[RVInit]

Day 5 - Defense Case

The camera is on Reeves as the jury is coming in. He's definitely making eye contact and kind of smiling at them.

John Silis(?)

for some reason they aren't asking defense witnesses to spell their names. They are being sworn of course, but they skip the part of asking their name and to spell it.

Owner of Innovative Surveillance, Melbourne FL - they installed the video equipment for the theater.

Asking about phone call from theater. As a result of conversation went to Cobb theater. Was aksed to go to IT room and remove all hard drives from recorders. He was asked to do this ASAP.

Did you agree to go to Alabama to deliver drives to Alabama

Arrived at theater during evening. Many police officers were there. Had to speak to officers to gain entry to theater.

They seemed to know ahead of time he would be there, they let him in. Went to server room. Doesn't remember who unlocked the room.

(Note: the defense is asking all their questions as leading questions)

Was familiar with the system because he built it. He also maintained it. He took over from another company so didn't know exactly which camera was attached to which camera. The cameras were older, the hard drives newer. Removed all the hard drives from 5 DVRs. 2 for video and 1 for operating syste. So 15 hard drives total. He packed them up and gave them to someone from Cobb Corporate that night.

He brought over some replacement equipment so they could operate once they reopened.

He doesn't recall if the system was upgraded before or after

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CROSS EXAM: Prosecution

(Prosecutors are having a pow wow I guess discussing what should be asked of this witness. It can be interesting to watch those IAALs. LOL, you guys are pretty interesting)

15 hard drives total? Yes. 5 DVRs? Yes. He's pretty sure they all had 3 hard drives, he's about 90% sure. Operating system have no video

10 video and 5 operating system hard drives. From entire theater complex. Didn't know exactly how many cameras were in theater 10.

Prosecutor establishes that those 10 hard drives were for video for the entire theater complex - including all the theaters. ticket area, concession area, hallways, etc.

Nothing Further.

[Slim Cognito]

RV is a rock star!!

Thank you, my dear!!

Seconded!!!

[RVInit]

Day 5 - Defense Case

Jennifer Shaw

Curtis Reeve's daughter. Vice President for large national bank

She's here to talk about her physical observations of her father over the years. Sidebar


During sidebar Reeves is smiling at his daughter and then looking over to the jury. He is definitely working the jury (or attempting to) and seems like he at least believes he's got a friend over there. he keeps looking over there, sometimes trying to do it surreptitiously

Back from sidebar

What sort of activities did they do. Mostly outdoor things, camping, hiking, fishing, bicycling, dad was active in Boy Scouts and soccer.

He ran, started having trouble running so switched to cycling becuse less impact on his body. She married a police officer from same department. Divorced.

Visited parents regularly and they still did family vactions even after married. Went to mountains. Noticed her father has old man hands at some point. Moved into their house April 2013. She had a one year old child. They went kayakking the month she moved into her parents home. She noticed he could not pull the paddle apart. She starts crying.

They had motorcycles when she was married and her father had motorcycles. They rode together. She was frightened watching them try to get on the motorcycles at some point.

(Another sidebar. he's smiling at her again and seems to check the jury for reaction. Oh boy. Knowing what I know about Pasco County Florida this jury may just not only acquit, but hoist him up onto their shoulders and carry him outside for a parade. I truly do believe after all these hearings and all this time this guy is going to get off)

She's crying again talking about the harsh reality of watching her parents not able to do things. She says they wanted to live and enjoy things...objection

He was not using a cane back them. He was still active. They did things like mow the lawn (ride mower), trim hedges, still able to work around the house. Reeves enjoys sporting clays, shoots clay pigeons. Taugtht her how to do that. They did that together sometimes. He was still able to do that. Could still walk the course. he bought a lighter gun more easy to handle for sporting clays.

Her daughter was also living there. One year old at the time. They all walked around the block together. He could ride a bicycle.

When living there and seeing them every day did you notice more about their aging process.

Did he bruise more easily. yes, tissue thin skin. (Me, too. Do I get to shoot someone?)

She's crying again because now she started to see more often doctor appointments. Her dad would reach down and sometimes could pick up her daughter and sometimes couldn't. She saw occassionally his finger would lock up. Sometimes had a hard time eating cereal because fingers would "lock up"

(Oh boy, let's put a fucken gun in this guy's pocket!!!!!)

he had to steady himself slightly when first gets up.

Did your granddaughter mimic her grandfather's "ailments". Objection. Sustained

-------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS

You were pretty upset talking about your father's ailments, but also talking about 2013 they led a fairly active lifestyle. She agrees

She's getting angry

Do other older people move slower? Yes

Did you ever see how fast he was moving when he fired that shot? She's angry

Asked if she saw how fast he moved in that video? Making a point he had to lean back, reach into his pocket, get the gun out, put his finger on the trigger, and pull it.

Prosecutor is asking her is she saw the video whre he fired the gun. yes. Did you notice how fast he was able to pull the gun out, aim and shoot it? She tries to say she doesn't know what would be required to fire a gun in a seated position.

Oh my, what an exchange.

he's being slightly aggressive, but I think it's effective as she is turning nasty. Not a good look for her.

prosecutor is pointing out she just painted a picture of a man who was so deteriorated that she's crying about it, yet the video shows a man who reacted with lightning speed.

Do you think it's a good idea for a man with the conditions you are describing to carry around a loaded weapon? Objection. Sustained

You were taling abotu how easily he bruised. Yu said his skin is like paper. Most of the time on their arms and legs. Would you agree that the face is a pretty fragile area? I think the skin is different, yes. (she doesn't want to say it's thin on the face becuse he's claiming to have been hit in the face and yet their is no bruising or marks to show that)

She's denying knowledge of how thin the skin is. Asking if something was thrown really hard at his face would you expect to see bruising? Objection. Overruled. May be approach


(Smiling at each other again. well, he's smiling at her, she's got a sour look on her face. She's not happy about these questions)

he bruises easily just by touching something? Now, she's saying no, only if he "banged" it on something. So she's changing her answers for sure. Earlier she was crying becuse all he had to do was barely touch somethng and he's all bruised. Oops.

OMG, she just got snarky with the prosecutor. She said "you bruise differently on differnt parts of your body. You know that." and gave him a smart ass look.

Now, he's game to talk about that. So, your skin near your cheekbone is fairly thin, you can feel the sharp bone? She doesn't want to answer.

If the defendant was punched on the face, would you expect to see a bruise on his face. objection sustained.

April 2013 started living with parents. In those 10 months you were able to notice what he can and can't do. It sounds like normal aging issues. She doesn't know.

Talking about glasses now. Doesn't know if his vision was 20/20. His back wasn't very good.

On a scale of 1 to 10 what did you observe about how bad his back was. She says 5 or 6.

Could he stand for extended periods of time? Yes

Could he sit for extended periods of time? Yes. he's doing that now. (oh my, but she is pissed)

Did he have arthritis in 2013? yes 2014? I assume so? Did his fingers lock up in 2013? I don't know I'm not a doctor.

Did he have difficulty doing things with his hands? Yes, I don't know if it was due to arthritis or other issue. (she says this very angrily)

(The prosecutor has toned himself down now that she's good and angry and acting like an ass. She's still acting like an angry snarky asshole)

Based on the issues you are describing did they downsize so they wouldn't have to do as much maintenance? Her response is interesting. They moved in 2015 to a 2500 square foot house (for two retirees) on an acre of land. So not exactly downsizing and less maintenance. he'll use that in closing for sure

You indicated something about mowing. did he have a lawn maintenance company? No, they did it themselve. Now she's saying her mother did it. Prosecutor points out on direct she said her father did it. Now she's saying they both did it. Your mother that is deterioriating as well? Correct

A riding mower for an acre of land. Would take some time. Bouncing, sitting, forward, reverse? She agrees. She agrees lots of turns. She's giving the stinkeye sriously

Did he have to mow frequently. Now she says she doesn't know how often becuse she is at work. But on direct she said she would leave in the morning and come back and see the yard work was all done.

I think her biggest problem is that she tried so hard to paint him as being practically dead. But also wanted the jury to know what a great, active, super trooper he was. So, she really asked for this kind of cross.

he had archery area set up. He had recurves and compound bows. It was one of his favorite hobbies, but she's saying way less frequently then before. Did he still hunt in 2013? Yes. And would practice archery? yes. she brings up stamina and he says we will get to that

When he cut the hedges it requires shoulder strength because you have to hold it up? Yes

Power wash? Yes

Large patio, power washing? Yes

Fairly tedious job, right? Yes

Even the biggest nozzle takes some time right? I wouldn't know.

Have you ever helped him? Yes.

To pressure wash you hold the nozzle you are using the hands moving teh stick up and down back and forth? Yes

How many cars? Two, each had one

What type? Ford Explorer, SUV

Other car? Honda Accord

Who washed? Dad, with long handled brush. He would have to put soap on it, use the hose, takes shoulder movement, have to stand a while, use yoru back, fingers to grip, bending down to do the tires? Yes

Would he wash yur mom's car? Yes

Did he dry it? I dry mine by driving around the block, don't know how he did it.

He's 6'2" weigh arund 270 at the time of the shooting.

Was it difficult for him to get in and out of the Honda Accord with hs back issues? I don't know

Did they go out and do things? They were active, I don't know what kidn of things. Oh out comes church, I was wondering when that would be mentioned.

Would your father mostly drive? Yes. Most of the time? Yes

She did not observe him having difficulty using steering wheel, turning on windshield wiper, various knobs and controls in the car.

He could dress himself? yes. She remembers that they talked about him having trouble buttoning the buttons on his shirts.

Are you saying he wasn't self sufficient? I didn't say he didn't get it done. Just about everything he's done he's accomplished, may have spaced it out. She's furious again giving very angry looks at the prosecutor.

Reeves is smirking and smiling at her.

Was he able to put on his own shirt? To my knowledge yes
Pants? same answer
Shoe? most of the time, but at time I think he had difficulty
Tie? same answer

Do you remember being asked that question at a prior hearing about tying his own shoes? I don't remember. he shows that she had said yes, without any other explaaation as she's now answering

They both carry in groceries, even today. He did not complain about his back when sitting for long periods.

They went camping just a couple of months before the shooting. It's about an 8 hour drive. He drove those 8 hours. When all together who did the driving? My dad. Doesn't remember if her brother ever drove. Predominantly her fathr drove. They rented a house.

She doesn't remember how much fishing they did. Out comes the deposition. (prosecutor is looking through it)

he brings it up to her. Asks her to read to herself. OK. Does it refresh your memory? Yes. Q: Your father and Matt did a lot of fishing on that trip? That's what i said in that deposition.

You also did hiking, shopping, lots of walking. Half a day or less than that? She's saying they aren't the kind of people who spend a half a day shopping on vacation, we love outdoor. Out comes deposition

Bring it to her to read. Now she admits she said they would walk around shopping half a day.

(the prosecutor is making much more effective use of the depositions that defense did)

On direct you talked about bicycling and indicated he would do some biking. He had a road bike with downturned handlebars, as well as a mountain bike

That road bike he road several times per week. He rode several times per week. He put it on a rack. Picked it up, put it on the rack, drove, unloaded, and put it away.

Also had a mountain bike. He owned two different kayaks. Single kayak where one person had to paddle themself. It takes several hours to go from Weekie Watchie to Rogers park (where you either have a car parked or take a shuttle back to your car)

Kept kayaks on trailer in back yard. Could he put the trailer on the SUV hitch himself? She admits he could

That's when you first got emotional, when you talked about how he needed help with the paddles. She starts yacking aboout boohoo you see your dat, yada yada yada.

Wasn't the reason the paddles couldn't come apart becuse they were stuck? I dont....he is looking at the depoistion and asking her questions and now she's hemming and hawing and can't rmember. I think she knows the drill by now. He's going to show her where she said they had to both tug on it. In other words, it wasn't that her dad was getting old, even she was unable to take them apart herself. On direct she had boohooed about this being the defining moment that she knew her dad was losing ability.

he shows her the depoisition and has her read to herself and let him know when she's done. So, talking about that incident. the way you wwere able to get the paddle apart was by tugging and pulling for 10 minutes.

She's now saying I don't know if it was exaclty 10 minutes, she knows it was ABOUT 10 minutes.

so, my question to you is that on direct exam yo cried because you realized at that point that your dad could no longer get the paddles apart by himself due to his losing physical abilities. But the reality is it's not his deterioration that caused it. The two of you had to struggle with it for several minutes to get it apart. Now she says that those are the same paddles he uses all the time and that's the ONLY time he ever had trouble getting them apart to my knowledge.

HOLY SHIT. She is admitting she LIED and put on a show in direct exam. She's so full of arrogance she doesn't even realize that.

LOL, she tried to be snarky about it and the prosecutor pointed out that he had no trouble struggling with it for 10 minutes. She doesn't even get how that comes out. If he's so bad off and can't do anything, but yet has the strength and stamina to struggle with paddles that need serious twisting to get them apart. Right over the head.

Sporting clays - where would you go to do the sporting clays? About how manmy times. 5 or 6 times. Can you explain what you do. It's a clay pigeon, a machine slings it into the air. What type of firearm? We used a 12 gauge shotgun

Never more than 50 rounds. Three courses. 50 rounds would mean both of you would have to load 50 shells. There is a spring that you push it in, right? She doesn't know, but yes you have to push it in.

How long does it take to do the course? It all depends. Best scenario, about an hour? Yes

Is the court a dirt trail? Yes, hardpacked trail. Did you walk it? Yes

As opposed to using a cart? Yes

Some stations have stairs? Yes

You have to walk with the gun? Grip with hands? yes

Where do you hold ammunition? I don't remember if vest or pouch that snaps around your hips.

Is there any difference in comfort? I don't know always used a pouch.

Was it loose or in a box? It depends. She doesn't remember

You go the station, what happens next? You say pull, the other person you are with pushes the button. She doesn't remember where he held the gun as he was waiting for the pigeon.

He's pointing out that whether you are in ready position you have to hold the gun up using arms and shoulders, if the gun is down, you have to raise it and find the target. Either way seems like it's a bit of work for someone she was describing on direct.

Using fingers and hands to do all those things? I don't know if the shells auto ejected or not. (That's not what he asked. She does this a lot, tries to use language that she thinks the prosecutor doesn't understand, but he always comes back with even more knowledge of what she's talking about so this is just making her look like an arrogant smart ass. Wonder where she gets that from)

No more questions

-------------------------------------------------------
REDIRECT

You know he uses a cane now to walk? Yes (so what, he didn't at the time)
Handicap placard? I don't know
she's crying again

He still mows the yard? Yes

The last thing you would want to see is him get hit with anything? Yes
It might kill him, right? Yes

If he got hit in that movie theater he could be seriously injured or killed, right? Yes

END of this witness questioning.