FL vs Curtis Reeves

[RVInit]

Day 7 Defense Case - Continuation of the video expert

Defense attorney is playing videos, stopping at certain points, circling stuff and asking witness if he was asked to do anything to focus on those areas.

I still have an old broken cell phone taht has a cracked screen and I tried throwing it at something to see if I could get it to deflect sideways like this weird "object" is moving in the video. Not happenng. It hits with a thud and falls straight down. No matter what angle you throw it at. A cell phone is too heavy to hit something like a body and then deflect into a sifferent direction. Hit, fell straight down every single time. I don't think the jury is allowed to do their own "research" but just looking at the video I simply could not believe taht was a cell phone thrown at Reeves. Not only the way this "anomaly" moves on the screen, but also who throws a $600 cell phone at someone? And the place where the cell phone ultimately is found matches exactly what you would expect if Oulsen drops the phone when he gets shot. All this video is tedious. I will say it will definitely give any person who is inclined to find Reeves not guilty all the ammunition (no pun intended) they need.


The prosecution declines to cross examine him.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Next Witness - Joanne Turner - movie patrion

Retired from airline industry, call center
former bank manager

Went to theater with husband, no longer married. Mark Turner was her husband

Previews already playing. Sat very top row last two seats. She was 2nd seat from aisle her husband was on aisle seat. They always sit on the aisle because her husband had a back problem, needed to stand and stretch sometimes

Lighting conditions - dim but could still see. Previews were loud. Did you see someone coming into your row? Yes. Was that Reeves? yes

When came into row, was he careful in getting past? Yes, was a small space. Did not pay attention to him going to his seat. Paying attention to previews

Nobody standing up at that point. At some point saw someone standing up in row in front of back row. Described him tall slim. Was he talking but could not hear what he was saying. He was facing back row. Facing in area of Reeves

While this was taking place sometimes glancing over and sometimes looking at previews. Was interested in previews, some were action packed? Doesn't recall

Tall gentlemen standing facing Reeves saw throwing motion of a mug or thermos making throwing motion toward back row with left hand? Agree, yes I did

After saw throwing motion looked back at previews. Throwing motion was quick motion? Yes

At about between 4-6 seconds passes now you hear loud voice? Yes

Loud voice coming from tall standing man? Agree

Still standing? Agree

Do you remember what he was saying? "I'm texting my daughter if you don't mind"

at that moment did you look over at Reeves? No. looking at Oulsen

Eventually looked at Reeves, when noticed he was sitting "funny" Yes

He was leaning toward his left? Agree

Didn't hear anything from Reeves? Agree

YOu noticed popcorn, heard gunshot and saw ring of fire

Did not see any weapon. After ring of fire, saw Reeves lay a pistol on his right knee

Immediately after that happened noticed Reeves hands going to his head? yes

Got up out of chair? No. A man went up to Reeves, showed him a badge, held out his hand for Reeves gun, then she felt safe to stand up

Got up and shortly after went down steps. A woman who had been injured approached them? Yes, her and husband helped bandage her hand

Went to back door and opened door for law enforcement to come in.

Joined group of people that congregated in theater. Were some of them talking? Yes

No police officer came up to her and told her not to talk about what happened amongst themselves. (Defense is harping on ths a lot)

Ws in that group 10-15 minutes before "relocated". Mr Turner was likewise speaking to people in that group? Yes

Filled out voluntary statement. Husband filled out his statement. Told husband what she had witnessed while in the group? Disagree

Told him what she saw after they were waiting for detective to talk to them. She told husband same thing she just told jury. (this is likely why prosecutors didn't call her as a witness. All the witnesses they called they made sure to ascertain that they had not spoken to others about wht they saw prior to giving statements)

Were people who were waiting to give statements talking among themselves. disagrees that her husband was there - says they were by themselves. 20 or 25 people were there. Did not hear police tell patrons not to discuss what they saw with each other.

Was interview with law enforcement in a cleaning room? Yes. Lasted about 10 minutes? Yes (I witnessed a car accident one time and it took all of about 5 minutes for me to tell police exactly what I saw. I don't know what the big deal is about how long these interviews were. They made a huge deal of how short the off duty detective's interview was and he only saw about 20 seconds of the entire incident. Maybe less than that.)

No more questions

------------------------------------------------
Cross - Prosecution

Lights were dim? Yes. Could see? Yes. Could see up to 10 seats away? yes

So it was light enought to see? Yes

YOu could still hear, correct? If I wanted to, yes

NO difficulty hearing her husband and could hear people if she chose to pay attention to them? Yes

Did hear chattering up to at least 10 seats away? Yes

Not deafening loud? It was loud. Still could hear people? Yes

Reeves appeared to be a large man? Yes

First time saw him, he was coming up the aisle to get to his seat>? Yes

Felt that he was rude, correct? At the time, yes, that is how she described him

he was trying to avoid stepping on feet? My feet, yes

But he appeared rude? He just stood and stared at her expectantly waiting for her to move her feet, never said excuse me, I'm sorry or anything like that. Just expected her to move.

(I don't understand why the judge never instruts the jury as to what objection/overruled or sustained means. She's allowing the person to answer the question, then she's sustaining objections, but not telling teh jury to ignore the answer. I dont' get the point of even objecting and having a judge rule and the jury is never told to ignore what witness had just said. This has happened ever single time in this trial. Seems pointless to object)

Saw teh person who was shot standing? Yes. Learned his name eventually. Chad Oulsen

At that time, you thought they were friends? Correct. The conversation seemed quiet and seemed like between friends. He was only standing in place not leaning over or yelling

First time you see him standing, nothing concerned you? Correct. Not reaching over making threats, yelling, etc? Correct

At some point saw what you thought was object like a thermos? Correct.

A thermos does not look like cell phone? Correct. With certainty can you say it was not a cell phone? Correct

You thought you saw a throwing motion? Correct. But did not see any object actually get thrown? Correct

The object you were talking about seeing was a thermos? Correct

Did you hear defendant say anything to indicate he was hit like "ow" "no no no" "whoa whoa whoa". No

Did he grab his body as if he had been hit? No, did not see aything like that

The throwing motion did you see Oulsen coming over the seat, virtually on top of defendant? No

Did he hold his hand out to prevent getting hit from something? No

Oulsen was not yelling loud? NO

He was firm, but not loud. He even said "do you mind"? Yes

In a firm voice, not threatening or loud said he was just texting his daughter? Correct

(She's helping the prosecution more than the defense actually)

During this time you see the defendant leaning to the left. Yes. Do you know if he was reaching for a firearm? DOn't know. Anythig life threatening at that point? No

Was Oulsen jumping into your row? No. Never heard defendant yell "no no no" or "whoa whoa whoa". Correct. Never saw Oulsen leaning over the defendant? No

At no time did you see Mrs Oulsen fighting with Chad? No only saw her when helping with her hand. Did nto struggle with her husband to hold him back from going over the seat

At no time did you hear the defendant say anything to indicate he had been hit>? Correct

Did you ever see him lean over like he's been struck by anything? No

Only heald his head after the shot was fired. (Corroborated by a couple of other witnesses. Most of what she's saying on cross is same as previous prosecution witnesses)

Regardng throwing motion - is it true you aren't totally sure you saw that? I'm pretty sure

Showing her a deposition. She's reading a couple pages of it. Asking her to read to herself. After reviewing did you indicate you weren't 100% sure? Yes

Has her read more (defense wants additional lines read. now at the bench)

You indicated you aren't 100% sure correct? I'm not 100%

Reading more of the deposition. She agrees she said she "thinks" she saw a throwing motion.

The motion you saw, was it a real quick movement, not a "throw"? Answer: Not a throw. (Boom)

YOu didn't think anything concering was happening and that's why even after this movement, you directed your attention back to the previews? Correct

That quick motion, you didn't even think that was threatening and still thought they were friends? Correct

And you heard the gunshot after the popcorn toss? Correct (Video shows that, too)

Did you see Oulsen walk down aisle and fall down? Yes. Took about 2 or 3 seconds. He walked like two steps then he fell. (Defendant's son testified that he caught him and then "ordered" others to help him guide Oulsen to the floor. But nobody else has said that, they all say he "fell")

After the shooting and police got involved, at first less than 20 people down at the front of theater? Yes. Weren't given any instructions? Yes

Defense asked you if your husband spoke to anyone in the theater? Correct. Did you hear anything he was saying or know wht they spoke about? No I did not

Although people were still in theater, they were scattered? Yes

And you and husband separated from others. yes. And you filled out statement separate from husband? Yes. Would you say it was pretty quiet among the patrons for those couple of hours filling out statements and waiting for interviews? Correct

If other people were talking, did you know what they were talking about? No

No more questions

----------------------------------------------
Re-Direct

You remember having a hearing back in 2017 and under oath? Yes I do

Objection - bench time again. They spend lots of time at the bench during this trial. More than I have seen in most trials, FWIW

Show jury what you think you saw in terms of a throwing motion. (LOL, too funny) She raises her left hand and barely moves it, it's not anything like an actual throw. I can hardly describe it, but there is no way this jury is honestly getting from this witness that Oulsen THREW something. She barely moves her hand)

What was in that hand, you believe was a "dark object"? Agree

You went to watch previews and eventually a movie? Yes

Your focus was to watch previews and movie? Correct

Told prosecution that 10 seats away you could hear what people were saying to each other? No

The reason was because previews were loud? Yes, but I wsn't paying attention trying to hear what people were saying. Defense keeps trying to get her to say that the previews were too loud and she keeps adding that she was deliberately listening to the movie screen and not trying to hear what people were saying.

When Oulsen first stood up and turned around couldn't hear him? No, I wasn't listening to him. Because previews were too loud? Correct, but I wasn't paying attention.

Now he's yelling at his own witness. He's getting really mad at her answers.

You husband seated to your right? Correct.

Eventually got up and went to the platform at bottom of stairs. After that went to exit door. Only afer that, she joined a group that was standing in the theater. And your husband was in that group? Agreed (her husband testified for prosecution)

Talking about the "throwing" motion. Was a dark object in his hand? I'm pretty sure.

No further questions

-----------------------------------------------
Re-Cross

Lighting and sound - isn't it true you could hear and see 10 seats away at time of the shooting/ Correct

no further quetstions

[RVInit]

Day 7 - Defense Case

Police officer - Sgt Windoff

Was asked to interview people. Interviewed a handful of wintesses (none of whom testified so far)

Preference would have been to view evidence first prior to interviewing? Yes

Helps to pose appropriate questions? Yes

You were not allowed to go into theater, right? Says he was not afforded the opportunity, but not prevented from going in

You would have done it without question? He looks puzzled and says yes

He did nto tell peoople not to talk to each other. Does not recall if people were talking to each other.

Familiar with term witness contamination. Agrees ideally you don't want witnesses talking to each other about what they saw. Several deputies there, can't characterize as "large number", there were a number there.

Doesn't know if sheriff was there when he was there. First person interviewed was Mr Perez (did not testify)

You did not even know if he had actually already filled out statement? No
That's always the first thing to look at, right? Depending on the circumstances (most of these people only heard something and didn't see anything as they sat down front). Not necessarily need to read their written statement first.

Why not? You accomplish the same thing with a verbal interview, sir?

Did he come to you without any paperword? Yes

Did not ask him if he filled out a statement? No

They didn't tell him which people had already filled out statmeents? No

Attorney trying to make it seem odd that he didn't want to see exactly where Perez was sitting. Perez was eitht to ten rows in front, never saw anytign, had no idea anything was happening, and heard gunshot. Attorney is making a huge deal that Sgt didn't get a map of exactly where he sat and spend 10 hours interviewing him. This is ridiculous. Gets him to say it would have helped with interview, not sure I actually agree with that as he didn't see a damn thing.

Did not ask Perez exactly which seat this incident occurred at. Sgt has been in this theater many times, some as patron and some working detail. So he was very familiar with the theater

Important to ask witnesses if they had discussions with other witnesses prior to interview because of contamination. I would agree

Normally do it? Yes

But this time? No sir (hint: Not a single witness this guy interviewed actually saw anything, so...)

Interview was brief. He did not ask Perez "who discharged firearm"? I did not. (duh)

Now asking the same questions about another "witness" that did not see anything

Asking about yet another "witness", and another. He keeps ansering the same for each one.

You agree there were about 20 people in concession area? I don't know how many

How long were you at that scene? Doesn't know for sure, at least an hour.

No more questions.
-------------------------------------------

Cross Exam:

I am stunned. They are asking him no questions. I have no idea why they did not just at least ask him if a single witness he interviewed actually saw anything. I know this from a previous hearing, but geesh, THIS jury doesn't know it!!!!!!!!!!!

They are left with the impression that this Sgt is a buffoon. I really hate the prosecutors for doing this. And how the fuck do they think this is helping their case. I'm beginning to think they want to lose. Which they probably already know that Florida is not a state where you are going to convict a cop or former cop for anything short of murdering a white woman. yeah, we had a cop that pulled a white woman over, took her into the woods in the median on I=95, raped and killed her. He was wearing her underwear on the day he was arrested.

Edit: I should say maybe Orlando, south Florida, Palm Beach, a couple of places in Florida we might start seeing bad cops being held accountable, but most of Florida, probably not. I think it will take time before we see widespread holding cops accountable like we're starting to see in some places.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I saw that "throw" today. She held up her hand with middle finger at 12 o'clock. Her palm moved barely to 11:57 or 11:58 with her fingers curled. In the last century you would have called it a very weak "girly" throw.

[RVInit]

I saw that "throw" today. She held up her hand with middle finger at 12 o'clock. Her palm moved barely to 11:57 or 11:58 with her fingers curled. In the last century you would have called it a very weak "girly" throw.

I laughed when I saw it. that was funny.

[RVInit]

Day 7 - Defense Case

Deputy Christina Diemas - canine officer Pasco County

Went to Cobb Theater. Call came out and they decided to go.

Were directed to back of theater. Entered back door. Saw Reeves coming out in handcuffs

Reeves was cooperative. Went into theater. She does not agree it was pitch black, she says she let her eyes adjust and then she had no trouble seeing.

Doesn't remember the lighting conditions exactly that moment in time. the lights came completely on at some point.

Initially asked if anyone needed assistance. they gave her tape and she taped off the area where incident happened.

Saw patrons on ramp area. Did not approach them to tell them not to discuss incident. Did not see anyone else do that.

She waited for whoever was in charge to give her instructions. She agrees througout the entire building there were alot of people. She remembers 10 officers there. she did not know there were 16 theaters in the building.

She says people were talking, she did not hear what they were saying.

How long were you there? Between 45 mins to 1 hour

You wanted to make sure your services were not needed? She was told no more assistance was needed

No further questions
----------------------------------------------------------
Cross

Best evidence for when house lights came on would be video? I assume so

When they told you you could leave, were all the detectives who normally conduct investigations already there? Yes

All investigators were already there? Yes

no furher questions

[RVInit]

Day 7 Defense Case

Dawn Michelle Simpson
Retired

Went to theater to get posters for her daughter's room

Showing her still shot of her at counter talking to manager

Reeves approaches and stands to her left. He does not interrupt her talking to manager. He does not seem angry or upset. From what she could see he seemed courteous toward manager

Went home. Saw law enforcement cruisers on the way. Turned on TV and saw the finish of breaking news, she got on computer and saw it was the theater. She called police after calling her mother first.

They called her back the next day. A detective called her by phone. She only had phone interview. She told detective same thing she told the jury. It was a short interview

-------------------------------------------
Cross exam:

Did Reeves exhibit signs of urgency? No. Did he tell Mr Peck he had an urgent mattr to discuss? No

Did he ever indicate anyone was cursing at him or threatening him>? No. Imminent violence that needed immediate attention? No

He never told Mr Peck that he was "scared shitless". No
--------------------------------------------------
Re-Direct

Was Reeves speaking softly? Normal voice

no more questions

[RVInit]

Day 7 - Defense case

Thomas Peck - Theater manager
Attended culinary school trained as a chef! Cool

General manager of theater. 9 managers under him, 80 employees

Several officers. CineBistro was not open at this time. Stairs or elevator up to CineBistro. General seating can't go to CineBistro, have to pay for that. Not operational at the time of incident

6 theaters at CineBistro. 16 theaters in entire complex

General Manager office near theater 1 - 9. Manager office, Projection/IT office/Server room

Surveillance system in various places. Cameras only covered limited portion of theater 10. Upstairs balcony (that's the one we usually see)

Could see surveillance from various areas to view it - General manager office and IT Projection booth. Upstairs past CineBistro theaters

DVR's, tech PC, and projection equipment in that room. Can monitor cameras from that room

What are some reason to see what is happening? Someone recording a movie, stealing from concession, monitoring POS, cash registers, things like that

DId you use that often? Yes

Familiar iwth operation of it? Yes. Other managers knowledgable? Yes, somehwat. Some non-managers also? Yes

In viewing system, are able to actually see timestamps? Yes

In the past when instances where police need to view you provide access? Yes, we wouldn't refuse it. Law enforcement present sometimes? Yes, on weekends, Friday - Sunday

They had access to IT room? Yes if they requested it

What about Corporate. can they view remotely? Yes, they can dial in

From time to time Corporate did that, but not often

Lighting conditions - there is a segment where commercial are played, what are those called? 30 minutes prior to movie we have MCM to show local advertisement. What is lighting at that time? Level 1 Full house lighting

After commercial, what is next? PSAs then trailers.

PSA for turn of cell phone? Yes. Why is that? To be courteous to other guests

Goal of Cobb Theater? To provide a great guest service experience for all.

Is the PSA for turnoff phone visual and audio? Yes

Is there a monitoring process? Ushers to theater checks, but mostly during main movie

If usher were to see someone using phone in theater? Depending on time, would ask person to refrain. If person refuses? Notify manager

Might come to you? Yes. Other managers? Yes. Were you trained by Cobb theater how to handle that? Yes

What is next step? Manager ask guest to please turn off phone. If customer still refuses, might ask them to please step outside so we can discuss.

What would happen if they refuse? call law enforcement

How long is the announcement? 20. 30 seconds

Having phone out and texting is that still against policy? Yeah at certain times. He indicates they don't strictly enforce during previews, but always during main movie

On Jan 13, 2014 prior to incident was at Guest Service desk right before incident. Asking him to step down to see video. Identifying Reeves in video and in court.

Did you notice anyting during conversation with woman, did Mr Reeves wait patiently? Yes

Did you get any feeling he was angry during your conversation? Not that I recall

Did you have any exchange where you believed he was mad, frustrated? Not that I recall. He doesn't recall specifics but thinks he would remember

It appeared that he looked back, is there a sign that says Theater 10? Yes

Shortly after conversation what happened? Someone came running out yelling "he shot him, he shot him, call 911"

Tried to call 911 on land line and then took cell phone and started walking toward theater calling 911 because land line kept ringing and never connected.

After speaking to 911 operator moving toward theater, calming people down as they were coming out. have staff members helped them, give them water, lots of people were emotional and anxious.

Was guiding them to a chair, talking to them, getting staff members to assiste them

Went to auditorium 10 and started walking up the stairs. To let 911 know what was happening as accurately as he could.

When reached top of stairs, saw Mr Oulsen on floor, saw Reeves sitting in chair with someone standin gnext to him with hand on shoulder. At one point he wiped his brow

In conversation with operator, did you indicate that the assailant was still there? Yes. The weapon is detained and assailant is still there.

Mr Reeves said "don't call me that, I'm not the bad guy". Objectionn 403, approach (I still fail to see the point of objections when the jury is not being told to ignore answers if sustained. That is driving me crazy. End of rant)

Did you contact Corporate? Yes. On cell phone

Advised them what was taking place. Did you go and view surveillance yourself? No

Did corporate use remote to view? yes, I heard they were. I did not witness that

YOu now have police officers arriving, quite a few. Did you summon a police officer to view video? I did not

Why not? Alot was going on. Describes all the chaos, talking to people, guests, staff, directing peoople, answering questions, talking to corporate.

Why didn't you sit down and look at the video? There was a lot going on I wasn't going to stop and take the time to look at the video right now.

Corporate did not want you to turn over the video to law enforcement correct? They did not want me to be involved in that.

Do you agree they made that clear? I believe Corporate said let Seth Gordon and his group deal with it.

How many employees were there? 12 to 15 probably

You became aware that Cobb theater sent Silas to theater late that night to retrieve the hard drives? Yes

Instructions were to fly those hard drives that very night....objection

What did he do that night? Objection beyond scope of his knowledge. sustained

Was Cobb opened following day? NO. next day? I think so, 2 or 3 days later

Went on vacation when came back different DVRs were in place. New hard drives

If an officer had approached you about the video what would you have done? I would have taken them to see the videos?

Even though corporate didn't want you to do that? Corporate didn't say don't do that, now says would call corporate

he is not sure who talked to LE about video. there is a procedure in place to call Corporate about someone viewing video

No more questions
--------------------------------------------------------

Cross - prosecution

Cell phone rules are relaxed during previews? Yes

Case by case basis? Correct

One way into theater 10? Yes

Fair to say goal of Cobb to have patron have an Oscar winning moment? Yes

What doing at service desk? Looking at reports, talking to guests, not terribly busy.

Having trouble with sink upstairs? Yes

Ms Simpson came in asking for posters? Yes

As doing that Reeves comes up and he never exhibited any type of urgency? Correct

Didn't interrupt Ms Simpson with urgent matter? Correct

Never told you someone used the F-word at him? Not that I recall

If he had you would remember? I would think so. Not every day there is a shooting in theater? Correct

You were sued personally as a result of this? Yes

No further questions
--------------------------------------------------------
Re-Direct - he's yelling at the witness during these questions. He always yells at them if they answer any questions in a way he doesn't like. He comes across as a real a-hole

Announcement applied to both previews and movie? yes

You enforce that rule for preview and movies? We try to

You don't tell patrons phone use during previews are OK? Correct

Based on rules in place that the minute the announcement comes on it's telling the patron to turn off phones? Yes

And ushers monitor to make sure theater experience is maintained? Yes

OMG, he's such an ass. The manager is sticking to his guns that they are more relaxed about cell phones being turned on during previews. Defene attorney doesn't like that.

[RVInit]

Day 7 - Defense case

Dr Bernard Adams

Impressive credentials, I skipped past after a while to get to his testimony, but suffice it to say he is quite credentialed

Bringing witness down so he can use exhibits

Photograph of right hand of Chad Oulsen

Showing would created by bullet, gouging out a wound on radial aspect of wrist. The firearm would have been positioned the same as the camera lens in this photo. The purple looking areas are gun powder stippling. Explains what that is

Indicates the gun would be 18 inches - 2 feet away based on stippling
(Reeves leaned forward to shoot the gun. I think the defense is going to try to say it was that close because Oulsen was "coming over" the seat. But the video shows Reeves leans forward when he shoots)

Would you expect to see stipling if fingers were in the line of fire and we don't see that. Those part of his fingers were not in line of path. Fingers were flexed (closed) or he was holding something (he had just finished flipping popcorn, with that same hand. Supposedly the "punch" happened before the popcorn flip you dont see any punch at all in video, so I don't think this is effective)

Defense attorney is asking if it's consistent with a "fist". Answer: yes (also consistent with holding a phone)

Areas of vulnerability. (

Oh brother, so this witness is going to be used to demonstrate how vulnerable poor Mr Reeves, armed with a gun, would be because of his age. I am always amazed at how frightened, vulnerable, scared shitless, and otherwise all these armed white males always are. Especially when they are facing unarmed people. They just feel so disadvantaged they just have to shoot, they just have to)

Attorney tries to get the witness to agree that an open hand slap will cause huge injury, but he's not cooperating with that idea. LOL

I skipped through some of this, I don't see the relevancy and I don't get why the judge is allowing this. Nobody sustained any of the injuries he's talking about. He's using a skeleton model to show different parts of the body that are vulnerable to injury.

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

Cross exam - prosecution

Prosecutor is arguing about the flexed hand. I don't really know why he's making a big deal of this, it's just making the jury think it's more important than it is. The contention is he either punched or threw something at Reeves BEFORE he flipped the popcorn, so why would his hand being flexed after the popcorn flip be any concern for the prosecution? Oulsen was shot within a portion of a second after the popcorn flip, so Oulsen did't have time to flip the popcorn, threaten to punch with the same hand, and then Reeves react to the threat by shooting. It happened too fast.

Honestly, I thought the prosecution did a good job on their case in chief, but they are blowing this part. They are failing to ask quetions when they need to clear things up and now this idiot is helping the defense make a big deal out of a nothing burger. I want to just cry.

Now asking him about vulnerablities of various body parts.

You talked about left and right temporal area. Yes
Orbital sockets? Yes
Nasal cavity? Yes
Neck? Yes
broken jaw? Yes

Having witness step down.

Defense objected to prosecutor bringing out an exhibit to ask questions. Went to bench. Now prosecution attorneys are huddling, so likely they lost that round at the bench.

Oh no. Now he's back to the hand. The defense is hiding his mouth, likely because he's laughing his ass off. This is painful.

Now prosecution is talking about how much he's being paid for his testimony. He's made $1600+ for about half a day work today.

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

Re-Direct

As fully expect, defense took full advantage of prosecutor putting emphasis on the right hand being "flexed" when the bullet hits, Gives the doctor opportinity to go into more detail and we are left with the impression this nothing burger is a big fucking deal.

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

OMG Re-Cross. This idiot doesn't know when to stop
-----------------------------------
Re-re-direct
Slam dunk. I bet the defense can't believe their great good luck on this one.

[RVInit]

Day 7 - Defense case

Judge is explaining to the jury that Friday is probably going to be their long day. They were hoping the scheduling would work out differently, but they are stopping now to let the jury go home.

I believe there is a hearing after this. I'll see if I'm up to listening to it. I'm pretty tired tonight.

[Dave from down under]

Thank you

[RVInit]

Day 7 - Jury is gone - Hearing regarding exhibits based on photos taken by Dr Knox (defense witness)

They've agreed to 99% fo what prosecution wanted.

Ok, I'm sure I will be showing off my IANAL here with my lame attempt to follow this legal hearing. Take with a grain of salt, not a lawyer, I think I understood it on some level, obviously not like the lawyers would though.
-----------------------------------------
Defense:

Two witnesses indicated they saw silhouette caused by backlighting. Defense tried to recreate setting. Mr Knox wanted to capture that lighting and silhouette if a large person like Oulsen were standing in front of mr Reeves so we know what he was seeing.

Mr Knox captured various settings of light in that theater. He may not go into that. I'm not sure the jury needs that. The silhouette is very very important because it captures the perception of Mr Reeves. Talking about a wtiness that said he couldn't tell facial features

Showing a photo that is almost completely black and I'm guessing he's suggesting that's what Mr Reeves saw.

Defense are acting like the only lighting was coming from the screen and that someone standing between you and the screen would cause you to see that person completely in silhouette. I don't think that is true. I've been to movies a lot, I'm a movie buff.

-------------------------------------------------
Prosecution:

Prosecution is showing all the photos Knox took in the theater

Camera lens is not the human eye. Saying this is a Daubert motion where defense has the burden to show the camera captures exactly what the human eye captures.

The human eye absorbs more light when a camera is set at a specific aperture it can't adjust, like the human eye adjusts naturally to lighting conditions.

Defense has not proferred any testimony to say camera captures what the eye can see. I have provided lots of information showing otherwise.

Is this actually an aid to the jury? You don't meet the Daubert standard if not. If going to use a demonstrative aid, have to meet Daubert. It goes to weight and admissibility.

Talking about a case he lost, had one photo, the jury doesn't care about what the photo says if an expert testifies, they take it to heart too much. When dealing with an expert whose proferring it, runs the potential of jury giving it too much weight. You have to think hard about whether to put in front of them

Also, the photos show different trailers. During a trailer the lighting changes from scene to scene and how do we know exactly what scene was being shown at the exact moments of this event.

(I'm following that argument and have to say I agree he's making a solid point.)

Also have the issue if you look at two of those photos have a red line that goes right through the chest and Knox said "oh that's just a string alignment and it's not trajectory" well, what is the jury going to do. They are going to see that line, going to see the mannequins. We don't get past the basic requirement of having it accurate enough for the jury not to be mislead.

And you also have the other one if you look atthe lst one, you have to issue a fourth perspective. Knox in deposition said he had the camera about where Mr Reeves eyes was and you know the nose was so big and the eyese were so big, yo have so many issues that cause state's concern that it's just not accurate.

They don't meet Daubert and it's a 403 argument and they don't meet the requirements under Brown & Pierce (?) as far as doing that type of simulation. So I ask they be removed from the PowerPoint.

-------------------------------------------------
Defense

First of all, not only did we brief the Daubert issue and provided transcripts of Mr Knox's testimony, so, the prosecution goes out there and find some articles and somehow they think that's golden.

They are making arguments that my experts can't talk about some study because they can't cross exam that. he's told you well, this is a scientific fact, we don't even know who that person is. Don't know his competence. He did that with Judge Lewis in the other Daubert motions

Making teh case for prosecution to bring their own witness in. He has done none of that. He has failed miserably on that. All he did was bring his little papers in. I am very comfortable that we have met our burdern.

We had lengthy discussion that Knox sat in that seat and make sure his photos show what he saw with his own eyes. he got upset if he saw that what he was seeing was not in that photo. Mr Knox discarded anything that he didn't think showed what he saw with his own eyes. We can assume that people know what that looks like but we shouldn't do that in a criminal trial especially a murder trial. We can't count on the jury to know exactly the effet of the backlighting on the human body. I think we're on solid basis here.


It's so important this is so unique because the law does not require that the danger be real even. The law does not punish someone as long as they reasonably perceive a danger. We need to be able to five the jury the evidence. I conceede to every thing else.
----------------------------------------------------

Prosecution: asks for 5 minutes


The articles are in the Daubert motion so I can file a legally sufficient motions. Defense is going to rely on Mr Knox sayong that if it looks like what I'm seeing, that is what Mr Reeves saw. That's where we have a problem. What do we know about silhouettiing? It's the human eye. There is ambient light, we don't know if there is a silhouette at any particular time because we don't know if there is ambient light also playing itno it. There's the problem. It's misleading to the jury to present a photo that Knox says matches what he's seeing. I disagree strongly that I needd to do anyting, I did a legally sufficient Daubert motion, they did not address the issues.

---------------------------------------------------
Defense:

Prosecution allegations have to be refuted, but prosecution has to prove their allegations, too. They don't have an expert to say there is anything wrong with this exhibit. What we have done wth sworn testimony is proven reliability of silhouette.

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

Judge:

As far as the Daubert motion regarding Dr Knox (pauses) state is indicating defense failed to refute allegations about the accuracy of the human eye vs camera and that there is no accurate recreateion of backlighting.

Prosecuutor: Correct

Judge: And defense indicating that they want to use these photos as demonstrative aids.

Prosecution: Which is what Pierce and Brown (inaudible)

Judge: I'm glad you brought that up. On Pierce (reading) the state was allowed to use styrofoam heads as demonstrative aid, they stabbed it to recreate. I have a lot of questions I'm not positive that defense has not satisfied Daubert, the statute, the prongs in the statute. So, how is Pierce distinguish from what the defense wants to do here/ How is it a styrofoam head is similar enough, and I'll say a scientific approach to these photos. Obviously they aren't an exact recreateion. So,you gotta go there. How is Pierce diffeent from what we have here?

I understand the backlighting quetions. Looks like several backlighting issues addressed in teh photos, but my first question is how is the Daubert not satisfied by Dr Knox? Which prong is lacking

Prosecution: The camera lens cannot capture an image exactly like an eye can. And he admits that in the depo.

Judge: OK

Prosecution: The styrofoam head is brown for the record

Judge: I was looking for that in Pierce, I apprciate that.

Prosecution: That is the issue because there own witness indicates that it doesn't but then he says this is what Reeves had an opportunity to say (I think he means see). He agrees he can't capture, but he wants to tell the jury this is what Reeves can see. This is his perception. It's a problem upon a problem. I ran the motion so the court understand we have the issue under Daubert that's the scientific part. It's not like the eye.

Judge: I read your articles and i understand the defense argumenat on that. It's been a while since I read the articles. I tdoes seem to be almost common sense and pretty straightforward. What about that Mr Escobar

Defense: He's never going to say the camera can capture exactly what the eye does, but we have that phenomena in photos. Because the standard for photos doesn't say "exactly what the eye..." so then what you are doing is we can't have any photos. That's the problem. If it fairly and accurately depicts that is sufficient under the law to have it introduced. We aren't saying this is exactly what Reeves saw.

now says prosecutor asked Knox questions the defensse was never going to ask him. You have got to look at this issue in the same light as a camera nd a photo. Mr Knox told you it's pretty close

Judge: Ok I understand your srgument, however it's not typically from the standpoint of someone's perception, I know it's a relaxed standard, I'm keeping that in mind. So, I just think that the prongs of the statute have been met and I feel that any issues that state is complaining of can be addressed on cross. And they are demonstrative, they aren't going back. They are different than the previews. That issue can be developed on cross. As long as testimony is not elicited that this is what mr Reeves saw. Not seeing a distinction between this and Brown. we all know demonstratives are just that. I feel the prongs of Daubert have been met. Don't have a strong basis to do so, other than the argument of the eye against the camera. She says "that's not going to happen, RIGHT"

Defense; It's not going to happen.

Judge: I think it's a fair and accurate portrayal of something this expert is able to testify about. I don't think it's misleading to the jury. I'm going to rule for the defense on that one.

Prosecutor: Another issue is about the video, he's not going to do a running narrative.


Now they are talking about that anomaly in the video and discussing it can be referred to as illuminating or reflecting, not what the object is. That would be the proper way to do it. I think we can do it cleanly.

----------------------------------------------------------------
The seating photos, the defense says he's not going to do that.

Defense: want to talk about illuminating or reflective - is it a phone or a shoe (or an insect, it doesn't have to be one or the other) He doesn't want to hide the fact that they were trying to determine whether it's the phone or the shoe. I don't see any harm in Knox saying we were trying to figure out whether it was a shoe or phone

Judge: What do you think about that? I think that's fair.

[RVInit]

I am listening to some additional arguments this morning.

My main thoughts on it are that the defense is going through great lengths to attempt to introduce evidence of what Mr Reeves experienced without actually having to put that lying POS on the witness stand. He's testified in past hearings and basically the judge didn't find his version credible. He will be eviscerated if he takes the stand.

So, they are trying to get an "expert" to represent what Mr Reeves "reasonably saw" as he sat there, with Oulsen "backlit" yada yada yada. So here is my IANAL response to that: "He's welcome to take the witness stand and TELL the jury what he saw and experienced. Nobody is stopping him".

Anyway I'm on a lunch break, gotta get back to work soon, and I will give more details about all of this later on actual arguments being made. But basically, my general takeaway and impression is they do NOT want to get that liar on the witness stand in front of a jury. The defense is very clever. But the prosecutor that is arguing this issue is a more effective prosecutor than the one that appears to be the senior or lead prosecutor. I'm not super impressed with that senior/lead guy, he may have the years and seniority but not necessarily the skill. YMMV.

I would be very interested in hearing what any of the IAALs who are also watching have to say about this. I may be totally off my rocker here and of course, don't have the insight an attorney would have when it comes to arguing points of law and admissibility of evidence and all that stuff. That's why I tried to just type what they were saying, so I'm not putting misinterpretation based on ignorance.

Ok, hope everyone is having a great day! See you later...

[RVInit]

Another brief observation. Almost every defense witness presentation involves far more time going over CV, training, etc and then a relatively very short amount of testimony. Sometimes I glance at the chat as I'm watching a little bit of the trial and this point is not lost on anybody in the chat room. I had to laugh out loud this morning when the defense introduced the first witness and someone in the chat said "here we go again. Six hours of CV for 15 minutes of testimony". A bit of an exaggeration, but that person had a good point.

[RVInit]

One of the defense witnesses passed away so they played a taped deposition. I will try to listen to that and see what i can glean out of that for testimony.

The prosecution tried again to get one of the defense demonstratives thrown out. It was the one I was talking about yesterday at the very end. The interesting thing is the defense all but admitted that they wanted that demonstrative to demonstrate what Reeves might have been able to see as he sat in that chair. And the prosecutor said basically exactly what was on my mind as I was listening to this yesterday. That the only person who knows what he saw is Mr Reeves. The prosecutor said of course he has a right to testify or not, but he is the only one that knows what he saw.

Ultimately the prosecution motion was denied, but he gave it an impressive shot, better than the one who argued yesterday. For a while there I thought the judge was going to agree with the prosecutor.

the prosecutor did manage to get the judge to agree to an instruction to the jury that the demonstrative was only for the purpose of demonstrating the concept of backlighting.

At which point if it was me I would have been inclined to pipe up and say something like "so if we are willing to agree it's only for the purpose of demonstrating the concept of backlighting, that is something within the knowledge base of most adults and why do we need to have an expert with all these exhibits?"

I guess that's why I'm not an attorney. Well, aside from the fact that I lack the education, knowledge, and experience of an attorney.

[RVInit]

Day 8 Defense Case

Dr Knox

I won't go over his CV, it took about 30 minutes or more, like most of the defense witnesses. I notice in the chat sessions that most of the peoople who are watching this trial think it's ridiculous to go over a CV for 45 minutes or more and then have 5 or 6 questions.

Two types of evidence - associative - things with people, things with things, answers "whodunit" what will help me identify who did it. Other is reconstructive - to figure out what happened, not necessarily who (some are both) but this one who is not a question, the real focus is what happened.

What happened is relevant to gathering evidence. How do you go about gatherinmg to try to preserve evidence? Extent of scene and where your evidence is going to be found. But also might need to document where were each person when they saw or perceived (that was done in this case) How far away, what is line of sight, what was lighting conditions because you need to test what they say for accuracy and to have a record of that later.

This is a self defense case? Correct. How important for investigator to determine if thee has been contamination? That is something you would need to know what happened at the scene, if physical evidence is moved or touched. Need to know that, where it came from as well as making sure all evidence is handled such that it won't be damaged. DNA, fingerprints, things like that. If a struggle over a gun, may have DNA or fingerprints


Contamination of witnesses is explained - biggest thing is not wanting them to talk to each other about what happened. (None of the witnesses that testified had conversation, they all saw from a different perspective and it seemed clear they did not get info from each other)

Can they start believe they saw or heard themselves if they hear it from another person. Happens a alot, you aren't getting receollection of that person's view of what actually happened. Have to take what they say and compare to physical evidence (I have to interject here, so far of all the witnesses who were present in the theater the only one whose testimony doesn't match teh physical evidence was a defense witness, the one who said she thought she saw a thermos)

Talking about reliable, if they adopt things they heard from someone else, you might get a piece from one and a difference piece from another. (That's pretty much what we have here with prosecution witnesses)

Separating witnesses is that something you learned early? Pretty much a day one concept. First safety, second if outstanding suspect that person is dealt with, third secure the scene, very close to that separate the witnesses and get them where you can interview them.

If already have talked, the longer you let them stay together the more they might talk to one another. Also ask them in interview if they talked to anyone else at the scene. If they are telling you the same thing, ask them if you actually saw or heard yourself or did you hear from someone else. You can't unring the bell, but you can get a handle on it.

If you have an emotional scene is it worse? In the initial few minutes there is a lot going on, may be alot of emotion, may have to separate them to calm the whole thing down. They will calm down more if they sit quietly.

Tryng to investigate witnesses would you "test" their recollection? It's good to do even without contamination. Sometimes take them to the place where they were to interview them to walk through it because it can help trigger their memory and they are actually looking at the seats. Sometimes they might say they remember something different. (Sounds like Monday morning quarterbacking. Not saying he isn't qualified or have a point, but it's really easy to look at something and later find all kinds of things that could have been done better)

Primary ways to document things is photography, you can take photos from where they were sitting or standing, etc. use a diagram, measurements, etc. Can audio or video record it, completely document

Don't thave to tell them they are recording do they? No.

Talks about most of the time he would let them know he's recording but sometimes they would leave a recorder in the back seat of a police car and leave and see if they talk.

Is it more important to verify what people see if you have a low light situation? When you have atypical lighting conditions it's darker than normal and constantly changing so it become important hwo that might affect what people see.

What about previous being played loud? yes if people are reporting wht they heard.

Are sight and hearing most important? Percipient witness either saw or heard or both. somtimes people might only hear. Sometimes they see and don't hear. But sometimes both

Light and noise can impact accuracy

Would want to understand what the person could see based on lighting conditions.

Tools available to preserve lighting condition? Yes

What tools are available forensically? Lighting conditions can be documented with photography and using a light meter. Sound can be documented by recording and sound level meter. (The defense keeps harping on "preserving" the lighting and sound. That is insane. The detective already testified that he sat in that theater and had the exact previews played with teh exact light levels, which are known and fixed, they have specific levels. So this idea of "preserving" is just crazy. what the fuck does it mean to "preserve" the lighting conditions. if this happened outside are we supposed to save all the clouds in exactly the same size and position they were on the day of? He's driving me nuts with this "preserve" bullshit)

The perception of the accused is extremely important. Should the person's who are investigating have the confidence to investigate self defense case. WEll, one of the things you have to do is know your limits. Those can be based upon on knowledge and training, equipment, experience, practice with process, so you have to consider outside resources. The biggest thing is once you get there you can control it as long as you need to. You may need search warrant or go through hurdles. We have held for five days or longer, if you need to. Once you let it go it's gone. (The only things to collect at the scene wre the popcorn box, popcorn on th efloor, cell phone on the floor, candy wrapper. Everything else at the scene is a permanent fixure, so not sure why he's harping on this)

Where would outside help be available if you need? FL dept of law enforcement has regional laboratories, other LE, FBI, past that you can look to private sector and consultants, people like me

If lead detective not well versed in self defense, hard to find a detective taht does have that? No, at most agencies you have someone who has some experience with that. You probably already know

About perception. Is the environment important? Main issue you have is to understand the constraints, what limits what could take place. People are sitting in rows of seats, most people know what that's like. If you are not at the end of the row, that places constraints, limited space, step down from one level to the next level, have to be able to document those things and how it affects perception.

Lighting and noise. Physical layout - how does that affect perception - has to do with ability to move, to see, to perceive, as well as just general space, movement, react

we had video cameras in theater, is one going to get same perspective from that as from sitting in back row? No

LOL he just said even if he had a video camera right next to his eye, that wouldn' tbe the same. That's going to come back to bite him I think

Location of camera is significant. I talk about video so much example were two different police cars having video and what happens is one camera sees from one vantage point, the other may pick up something completely different.

Document as much as possible to get perspective. Like this, would want to go back to the exact seat and have him explain everything from that seat. You can go through in detail, what could you see, document the best you can with photography and video, want to test the veracity of what you are being told.

Could you go to management and ask them to recreate conditions? Yes. Says he did that. They explained the lighting levels and replayed things.

If they refuse you can subpoena and or/search warrant

Would you sit in that theater and have the lights dimmed and previews played? I would.

Why important/ Several things, you are documenting, you don't know what might come up later, trying to reconstruct that is at the center of reconstructing.

What sort of info would you want from accused to get good perspective of what he was seeing or knowing at the time? YOu want to know what it is they say they saw and want to test it. (Well, they had his statement and he clearly was at a loss to explain why he did what he did. He even said he was second guessing himself. The jury heard that statement. To try to frame this as a self defense case you have to get past the defendant's own statement he gave to police. And that was played for the jury)

Would want to confront the person with "that's not possible" if what they say contradicts. Mentions that it gives them the opportunity to correct their statements if you take them to the place where it happened. You keep testing them on things and if they keep changing their story that tells you something

Have you been involved in police involved shooting. Objection. Yeah, this is not a police involved shooting. Mr Reeves is retired, he was not an on duty police officer. They are at the bench.

If you know the person accused is a retired police officer, would you want to know what the body of knowledge that former police officer had in threat assessment(how would they NOT know). You would. Primarily you need to know their ability to handle a gun, what it is that he's looking at, what he's ware of in terms of cues and indicators to him as to what he's using to assess the threat. You would know better how to document that. (If much of what I'm typing makes no sense it's becuse this witness is making no sense. He's just spewing talking points and obviously been instructed to use certain words over and over again.)

Video is important to document can potentially show you important evidence, timing, you don't know how fast something happened. Witness is giving you estimate but video show you exact timing.


LIke any other evidence you need to secure it immediately to make sure nothing is going to happen to it. Need to watch it immediately because you may see things that direct your investigation you didn't know about. (that is definitely not true in this case, you only see Reeves and hardly any of Oulsen shows at all)

He is making a good point that the detectives failed to secure the video. Some level of assistant may be required but you shouldn't just trust them to give it to them. Don't know what training they have. Could be contaminated (?)

Cyber crime unit can help secure video.

Distance between shooter and person who got shot important because proximity goes to perception of level of threat, within range of being struck. The location itself would document seating, distance, measure distances, looking at video and autopsy results

Not uncommon in shooting case to measure the person who shot, meaure length of arm, how far they can extend. Distance is significant

Exhibit, Powerpoint presentation he prepared for this case. (This is the subject of the hearing. I'm not sure why she's not giving the jury instruction here, they agreed to that.)

Knox is stepping down and moving to the screen.

Went to theater twice. First time went to get photographs, measurements, check lighting levels, get familiar. Took over 200 photos.

Showing photo wide angle showing most of theater and circled area where shooting took place

Next one shows closer view of Oulsen and Reeves seating area. Also got depositions, forensics, police reports, etc. He analyzed all that to determine what to do.

Next photo was taken by forensic investigators with physical evidence still in place

Photo of how he used tape measure to measure things.

1'7" across from end of armrest to back of seat in front of it.

1'3" same measurement with the seat reclined at maximum

3'8" Diagonal measurement top of back row seat to top of seat in row directly in front of back row

3'2.5' from middle of back row seat to top edge of seat in front of it

1'5.5" from back of seat to edge of same seat. 1'3.5" from edge of back row seat to back of seat directly in front of back row seat. 2'9" total distance

Would you do this at every crime scene? Yes, would do this at every crime scene. Teaches this as well

1'8" - width of back row seat

1'10" distance between arm rests

2'0.5" - floor to cupholder

1'4" floor to seat bottom

8.5" - distance between seat bottom and top of arm rest

wall behind seat is just over 5'

Took far more measurements throughout the theater.

Showing photo taken by forensic investigators, now says he understand distance between things in this photo better.

Cell phone is on floor right where Reeves feet were (which matches where you would expect if he dropped it when he got shot)

He also saw autopsy photos and wounds. Also photos of Mrs Oulsen's wounds

explains what backlighting is. Judge is now going to read the instruction: This testimony is being offered only to demonstrate the concept of backlighting and that is what you are to consider it for.

The defense was expressly told they may not try to suggest that the photos are showing what Mr Reeves saw.

Showing various photos of a mannequin that in no way is the same size of shape of Oulsen and camera was placed on floor (not where Reeves' eyes would have been). Basically the defense is hoping the jury will interpret this as being probably what Reeves could see. The prosecutor argued pretty forcibly - the mannequin is not the same height, width, or in any way resemble Oulsen but place approx where Reeves says Oulsen was (towering over him). The camera was place on a tripod in front of the seat Reeves was in, so the lens was nowhere near where his eyes actually would have been. And photos were taken at various times as previews were playing in the back ground.

Sidebar after he witness tried to say something inappropriate.

Now a handful of photos is shown one at a time for a few seconds each without any commentary. (LOL, defense probable attempt at shenanigans foiled)

Back at sidebar

Went to theater at 2 or 3 AM and tried to determine where the anomaly in the video came from and found that the hard drives had been removed from the DVRs and replaced with new DVRs

END of Direct

[RVInit]

Day 8 - Dr Knox Cross Exam by prosecution

What is hourly rate? $250 per hour. Travel? $125 per hour

Billed so far? Really don't know what the numbers are.

In other cases, does opposing counsel pretty much always ask that question? Agrees that it's probably the majority of the time. Continues being evasive

Are you suggesting the measurements indicate where anyone was at any time? No

The presentation we watched was just to demonstrate the concept? Yes, not do indicate what anybody saw in the theater that night.

And the object you chose was a mannegquin, but in reality you could hve used any object to demonstrate the concept of backlighting. Yes, I use mannequins because sometimes it casts a shadow (eyeroll)

You aren' telling the jury the bright white background was actually there at the time of the shooting? yes

Admits it was a different trailer playing during his photography

The camera lens cannot adequately simulate the human eye.

Done, no re-direct


I have to say. They paid a crap ton of money for this witness to come and give a 45 minute CV, not hugely helpful testimony, and I believe foiled in what they more than likely were going to try to do with this witness, which was have him show all these photos and insinuate this is what Reeves likely saw. I bet the defense is not happy with what they ended up with as far as what got in front of the jury.

[RVInit]

I fell asleep while listening to the rest of the trial last night. The defense is mostly CV and not much else, so it's exceedingly boring. I guess they think if they bring impressive people to testify it doesn't matter that they don't really contribute much of anything.

I'm waiting for my morning meeting to start so I started looking at the trial. OMG Reeves is on the stand this morning. I guess since yesterday's attempt to have two different witnesses testify to things in place of having Reeves did not work, if they are going to get exactly what he saw he's going to have to say it himself. I'll report back later. Got to get to work now.

[Fiascoist]

To start off with, I am enjoying your rehash of this trial. And like you, these experts have added nothing except to bore me... and Ithink the lawyers are trying to use educational degrees to try and muddy the waters and confuse everyone. I look forwatd to seeing if Mr. Reeves can maintain his composure under cross.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I listened to a portion of Defendant's testimony. He was trained in de-escalation. If shooting and killing someone in a theater over popcorn and cell phone use is "de-escalation", I don't think he knows what it means.

[Azastan]

I listened to a portion of Defendant's testimony. He was trained in de-escalation. If shooting and killing someone in a theater over popcorn and cell phone use is "de-escalation", I don't think he knows what it means.

And as a lay person, if I were on the jury I'd be SERIOUSLY asking questions about that, and pointing out to the rest of the jury that this is NOT ACCEPTABLE, especially for a police officer who has supposedly been trained to avoid doing this.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[Gregg]

Of course it is!

You see, I yelled, he stood up, he tossed popcorn at me, and I put two in his chest.

He fell down, died.

Situation deescalated.

The thing with the long CVs? Juror asks himself (well, I dunno what he said but it must be important, cause he's an expert. I could ask the other jurors, but then I might look stupid, so I gotta just assume he meant something"

[LM K]

I'm skimming Reeves' testimony. The first 1:35:00 is a review of his police training.

I'm only a few minutes into his testimony about the confrontation. He's claiming that Oulsen yelled "I'm going to fuck you up!". He's not sure those are the "exact words".

Reeves is claiming that Oulsen was screaming lots of stuff. He was so loud that the entire theater heard him!

Well, ALL of that contradicts EVERY other witness' testimony.

What a moron.

[RVInit]

I was able to listen to a large percentage of Mr Reeves testimony, both direct and cross. I will make a more full report with more details later, but here is my initial take.

Reeves is probably more likely to be convicted as a result of testifying than had he not testified. I don't know what the defense was thinking in putting him on. They clearly tried to use some clever methods of having "experts" testify and then as part of their testimony were intending to use them to represent Mr Reeves point of view and that would have allowed him to "testify" without having cross examination. The prosecution didn't get all of the completely thrown out, but they got the judge to limit the experts enough that basically it took away the opportunity for them to claim this is what Reeves saw or this is what Reeves probably experienced. And then a final jury instruction completely took away the defense's probable intention of what they wanted one witness to present because they were restricted to those exhibits being used only to demonstrate the concept of backlighting. I have no doubt the defense was absolutely trying to use that witness to basically show photos and have the jury believe this is exactly what Mr Reeves saw as he sat in that theater. So, good on the prosecutor for effectively stopping that nonsense.

I am watching the feed from a YouTube account called Law&Crime Network. You have to be a member to join the chat and I'm not going to join, but sometimes just for laughs I will browse the chat just a little bit. I had to laugh this morning when they were discussing which prosecutor they hoped would do the cross exam. I have to admit I agreed with all of them on who should do the cross, and I was actually terrified it would be given to a certain prosecutor. But no, they used the one who I think is the best, he is really quick on his feet and picks up on all kinds of little things witnesses say that give them away or give the prosecutor an opportunity to show they are not being maybe entirely truthful in their answers on direct. So, I had to chuckle when someone on the feed, after the prosecutor got up to cross that person on the chat posted "Yeah, Short Stack, you got this!" That prosecutor is not very tall as you may have guessed. I am also vertically challenged, so this made me chuckle I have to admit. When I listen to it I will try to catch his name to give him proper credit as I think he's a fantastic prosecutor and would prefer to call him by name.

So, I will try to post as soon as I can. But my overall impression is that cross completely destroyed him, at one point he got caught off guard (which this prosecutor is VERY good at making that happen) and basically said he changed his story once he had an opportunity to see the video. Oops. My general impression is the prosecutor succeeded in showing he lied, made up new "facts" after he saw the video. Even during the stand your ground hearing he lost that hearing because the judge even said his story doesn't fit the evidence or the video.

[Slim Cognito]