FL vs Curtis Reeves

[LM K]

Reeves' testimony contradicts his wife's testimony.

https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 909#p84909

[LM K]

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.

The defense has tried so hard to convince the jury that the witnesses altered each other's perception of the event because they may have spoken to someone else (no witness did).

Now Reeves lies ... repeatedly on the stand. They aren't little lies, either. They're whoppers!

[RVInit]

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.

The defense has tried so hard to convince the jury that the witnesses altered each other's perception of the event because they may have spoken to someone else (no witness did).

Now Reeves lies ... repeatedly on the stand. They aren't little lies, either. They're whoppers!

Yes, to both of your posts! OMG. The judge's comments when she gave her opinion in the stand your ground hearing are interesting. She basically says he lied without saying "he lied". I think once he testified there, he had to at least more or less tell the same story if he testified in front of the jury because he must know the prosecutor is going to compare the two.

Just by the way, I'm having some dinner, took a quick break and reading some posts while I eat. I'm almost done with Reeve's direct testimony which I will post shortly. Then will do a separate post for the cross - that will be entertaining, I think, he got tripped up quite a bit.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

[RVInit]

Day 9 Defense Case - Defendant Direct exam

I will skip the 1.5 hours of experience and training they went over. Just like all the other defense witnesses, the vast majority of the testimony was actually just droning on and on and on about their education and training. Then a small amount of testimony. Reeves had about 1.5 hour of background, life experience, training, and less than 30 minutes of testimony about what happened in the theater.

Went to theater after buying popcorn. Sat on very last row almost in the middle, there was a wall, right up against the wall. Lights were on, previews had not started.

Oulsen's were already seated. How long bfore previeww? 10 minutes maybe don't know exactly, we got there rather early

mr Oulsen was using his phone. Did not tell him to stop using the phone until after the previews started.

Texted his son to tell him hwere they were sitting. At the end of the ads the "turn off cell phone " announcement came on

Previews then started. Was looking at previews. Thought his wife was looking at them. Used trailers to decide which movies wanted to see.

Noticed the light from Oulsen's phone. It was shining in my face. I tried to adjust my seating position but still shining in my face.

I waited for a while, don't know long to see if he would put it away, it never went away.

I leaned over and requested he turn his phone off "would you mind please turning off your phone"

Was only communicating with this guy and leaned over so I wouldn' thave to yell. Previews were loud, lights were down, it was darker that's whatI remember

OUlsen said "fuck off, get the fuck out of my face", he wasn't facing me, just facing forward as he said that

I sat back in chair still thinking he might put it away. I heard him talking because he was talking loudly. Think he was talking to his wife or just to the theater, perceived his wife reached over and my thought was she was trying to get him to quiet down.

I waited to see if he would turn his phone off. Did not try to hear what was being said between Oulsen and his wife. It was loud only picked up a word now and then, didn't hear her, only him

half to three quarters of a minute later light was still shining in my face. It was between him and the theater (that's ironic) because it was their policy, I just leaned over and I said "you leave me no alernative other than to notify the management". He responded he didn't give a fuck what I did

That was pretty loud, he was still facing away from me. He was saying other things, he was being kind of loud, picked up a few words so I handed popcorn to my wife and started down the aisle.

Why didn't you just move? Well I kind of thought he was just being mouthy, it didn't persent a threat to me, I saw no threat to it at all. I went to the manager's office

I didn't want to bump people's chair, used the wall behind me to steady myself and went out.

Went out front to ticket taker and he pointed me to counter. Someone else was at counter. Waited his turn to talk to him

Told manager "I apologize, feel strange doing this, a guy complaining about another guy. The guy in front of me is using his cell phone I asked him to put it away and he used a lot of profanity. I don't feel comfortable talking to this guy again, could you help me out" (not what the manager testified to. Some yes, but manager does not remember him saying the guy used profanity or that he was uncomfortable dealing with the guy)

He said he would take care of it. Went back to theater.

Was not mad. Was not grumpy (a witness said he was). Told manager where he was seated. Got back to my seat. Took popcorn back and sat down

Heard Oulsen (loud) saying something about the manager and theater. I didn't hear every word. He had been staring in my direction. Interpreted as accusing Reeves of turning him in, relaying that he was not happy.

I tried to defuse the situation and said "if I had known that you put your phone away I would not have involved the manager" (all witnesses contradict this)

As I sat down he's still talking loudly, facing away from me, can't pick up every word, a movement caught my right side and I turned and almost immediately he was on his feet and I had something between me and the theater screen that I saw a fraction of a reflection off of*. And then everything went kind of fuzzy. Believed at that point had been hit. I think I was hit on my glasses on the top left side, that's where I felt the impact I think. And I wasn't sure how it had happened because I didn't think he was that close to me, it had to be something else. It was like a flash, it didn't compute, I had no idea what it was at that time. At that point I noticed that he was standing up, yelling a lot of profanities, threats, and uh "who the fuck do you think you are, I was texting my fucking daughter". The f-word seemed to be his primary vocabulary. "who the fuck do you think you are, I'm going to fuck you u**...that's not exact becauase I'm picking up bits and pieces because this guy is very volatile and active, he's trying to come over the seats.

I was in a seated position and when first detected the profanity and stuff he was trying to come over the seat, I felt like he was trying either that or to get to me. It appeared to me I had never been in that kind of position before and I realized immediately and I don't know how, whether he got on his seat and I'm sitting down in a completely defenseless position I'm looking up at this guy and he looked like a monster standing there. He was mad, his he explosive behavior both verbally and physically and I had seen his wife try to control him when he jumped up and at that point I wa focused on him.

Why focused on him? He was a threat, that was very close to me. And the closer is the less time you have to react to anything that happens, I tried to get further away from my wife because he was after me, so I leaned all the way to my left and I had kind of straightened my right leg out toward where my wife was sitting*** and again I didn't want to hit his chair. He just appeared to me like he was out of control. It was like his wife was kind of hanging on to his arm or shoulder it was kind of peripheral I was focusing on him, he was leaning and trying to come over the seat again. It was at that point I couldn't get up I was trapped, I couldn't go left or right, and beyond I was seated and this guy was standing right in front of me. I'm leaning to the side completely defenseless I couldn't defend myself.

Did you decide to pull your weapon? At some point after he's reached, either trying to come over the seat or tried to hit me at some point I made decision that I had no alternative, in my opinion he's completely out of control, he's not settling down, and his wife is trying to hold him back or appeared to be trying to hold him back or control him, I guess that would be the right word. And I could, I've never been encountered by someone exhibiting that uncontrolled anger or rage in all the perceptors you can imagine, whether it's verbal phyical, expression. At some point I had no other choice and I reached for my pistol.

After reaching for pistol, do you see hands coming in your direction? I uh, pretty much zeroed in on him and I know I made some comments here it was very quick I know in my mind the event itself was very fast and I didn't think I had enough time to respond and I think at that point I was concerned he was so much above me and so full of rage I guess you could say that he was going to strike me with all the strength that he had or he could put together. I figured that this was the end of the line for me, I thought at the very least I would be seriously injured if not killed.****

Did you feel you could ward him off with your bare hands? I was pretty sure I couldn't do that. In the position I ws in there was no way I could have done that. Fired one shot.

As soon as he turns away he's no longer a threat, so I layed down my pistol and I'm trying to figure out how bad I'm hurt, then I realized that the reason everything is blurry is because my glasses were askew. He indicates to the jury that the left side of his glasses were hanging down on his cheek.

He is wearing the same glasses as he had on that day 8 years ago. He takes them off when defense attorney asks. Prosecutor asks if he can look at them. Are the "old men glasses" that can bend and flex in every direction? yes

Did you want to shoot Chad Oulsen? I didn't want to shoot anybody. I came to the theater to enjoy a movie with my family, not to be attacked by some guy that's out of control.

Now he's talking about anybody whose not in control, their rage is so powerful their thought patterns are in my opinion only towards whatever they feel anger toward. They're not influenced by anything that's surrounding them.

Never in his whole life saw anyone act this way inside a theater or anywhere else. It was a shock that anyone would actually do that. and this passed through my mind right away was why is someone acting like that over such a trivial thing, I still haven't figured that out. (you mean like shooting someone because he flipped popcorn at you and wouldn't jump at your command?)

Why were you trying to create distance at some point in time? Any time you are involved in something like that the first thing you want to do is get away from the individual, then whatever may happen might not happen. I had nowhere to go and no way to get there. (I bet he rehearsed that line a few times).

Happened in my mind like the blink of an eye it was over.

Once you fired the shot, did you say "throw popcorn at me will you"? I had no knowledge at all about the popcorn. I never saw the popcorn until I saw it on the floor. I had no idea what had happened to the popcorn. (The camera goes to his wife and she's staring straight at him and she purses her lips at this)

Did you shoot him because of popcorn? I shot mr Oulsen becuase I thought he was going to seriously injure me or potentially kill me.

Showing him an exhibit. Looks like photos of Reeves. He saw himself in the mirror in the front seat of the SUV. My eye was still bothering me, and i wantedt to see if I could see anything in it. He agrees the photos are a fair representation. Says he can see the left corner of his eye is red.

He put the firearm on his lap because he didn't want anyone else to think he was a threat to anyone, didn't know if anyone else in the theater was armed. That comes from l.e. training. Thinks it was his left knee he put it on.

As I was adjusting my glasses a deputy walked up I heard him say he was a deputy and I pointed to my pistol that was on my leg and so he picked it up.

As I put my glasses back on (the deputy says his glasses were sitting on his face normally after the gunshot, and that when he got to mr Reeves and took the gun, Mr Reeves pushed his glasses up to his forhead with both of his hands, and then pulled them back down onto his face in the normal position. Nobody saw Reeve's glasses "askew" as he claims)

He noticed the cell phone between his feet. Now being shown another exhibit. It's the cell phone taht was between his feet.

Was arrested right there at the seat. Was taken out to a police cruiser. Then was interviewed by Detective Proctor and Koenig. Recorded interview.

He answered all questions, he encouraged them to ask him any question they needed. (That was at the end of his interview. I remember my impression of what he said, and he seemed to be encouraging them to see things his way, not like "if there is anything else I can answer let me know" it was more like he was pleading with them to interpret everything in his favor. Also immediately started talking to them as if they were lifelong pals and buddies. That was really telling to me.)

Told them he wanted to cooperate (no, they asked him and he agreed, he did not offer)

No more questions.

*this is completely made up after he saw the video and has had 8 years to come up with a story which he has fine tuned and embellished each time he has testified.

**This was also added to his story later, most likely he realized at some point he has to show a threat of some type was made.

***He had to lean to his left to extend his right leg out so he could reach into his pocket and get the gun.

**** He doesn't even sound convinced when he says this, he says it almost sheepishly. I think he realizes how ridiculous this sounds but he pretty much has to say he thought his life was in danger, even he seems to at least understand at this point that you can't just kill someone because they didn't follow your orders. I have to admit I started wondering about something at this point and I bet most of you can guess what I started wondering about

[Gregg]

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.

I know its Florida, but do even they have capital punishment for saying "fuck" loudly?

[RVInit]

Day 9 - Defense Case - Defendant Cross Exam

Do you have 20/20 vision with your glases on? yes

And that Jan you had 20/20 vision? Yes

Same glasses? Yes

May I approach? Publishes glasses to the jury.

Your testimony is you intentially shot Oulsen? Yes sir

Not accidental, intentially pulled trigger? correct

Did you kill him out of rage? No. Blind fury? No, sir I killed him out of fear

didn't snap and kill him? No sir

YOu had brought your firearm in a holster that has been admitted? Yes. In your right pocket? Yes

At the time retired 20 years? yes

Attendend academy in late 60's? Yes

Had about 320 hours of training to become le? Yes

are you aware now it's abouty 770 hours? I don't know

Would it surprise you? Everything changes

Over 2x longer now. OK

You testified about punches do you rememeber that testimony? Punches?

yeah, you've investigated cases where people punch? yes

That's a crime of battery? Yes. Misdemeanor? yes

And the mere fact that someone touches you, you can't kil them? No sir

Even if they throw something? I think it depends on what it is you throw

I understand. let's say tossed a cup of water on you? No

Based on extensive conversation regarding your background, isn't it true if non-deadly object is thrown, you can't kill a person? That's kind of a hard question to answer

If someone throws a plastic water bottle it hits and falls to ground. you can't kiil for that? No

As a civilian you can point a gun at someone and just hold them there as self defense? Yes sir

And you indicated you had been trained in deescalation tactics. yes

Reduce intensity of conflict? Yes

Using words? Depends on circumstances

Simply point gun and hold it? I don't think that's a good idea, you have no idea, they could take it away. At a distance? No

Could do a combination? You testified you are trained in all of this? As a le, yes

Are you saying those deescalation tool you learned as le, you can't use as a civilian? I don't think I would point a gun...

you leanrd in all your training how to deescalate? he finally says I could I suppose

(His wife looks worried, she should be)

In the past you've held someone at gunpoint and told them to drop their weapon, correct> yes

You give them every opportunity before you fire a shot/ Absolutely

Because shooting is last resort. Correct

And i think you indicated at Busch gardens also trained in deescalation? Yes. You dealth with civilian? yes. As security? Yes. So used deescalation techniques as a civilian with other civilians. Doesn' twant to answer, but finally says it's universal

You can use these techniques to calm things down, even in movie theater/ Correct

You were on several units, patrol, surveillance, fugitive warrants, SWAT/ Yes

All adrenaline filled units? Yes

You liked those dangerous type of activity? Didn' tshy away from that. You gravitated toward that. Says the opportunity came up

Nobody forced you, you volunterred? Yes

Also, applied and ended up in position of command? Yes. Says he wanted t o make more money. But also yu were in control? Yes. (He's smirking now)

How do yuou prevent shooting your other hand when you shoot from the hip? Talks about putting hand at side. Stay perpendicular, put left hand a little out in front

If you are sitting, you shot with right hand. you place left hand close to body? No I wasn't trained in that, never did it that way.

What did you do in this case. Doesn't have any idea. Thought he had a bag of popcorn. When you fired shot, you didn't put it close to your body to avoid shooting your own hand? No, not intentially

Had a license? February of 2013

had to shoot a 40 round course? yes

Qualified on two firearms? Yes

80 rounds total? Yes

In 2013? Yes

talks about how he had to pull down the spring to load every bullet.

80 rounds total, gun holds how many rounds, had to load each one

you heard daughter testify? Yes

Talked about your road and mountain bike? yes. Even with balance problems you could ride bike? Yes

Had to pick it up, put on car, drive over, unload bike? Correct

On 5 or 6 times you shot sporting clays with daughter? Yes

Everything she said about loading and shooting was correct? Basically yes, one difference

If you were having balance problems it wouldn't be a good idea to shoot clay? I never had a balance problem when I hadnled a weapon (LOL, he talked profusely about all his ailments including balance problems on direct)

You walked the course instead of using golf cart? yes

Kayaking, walking, pulling granddaughter in wagon, yard work, all that stuff, right? Yes

Lighting wise, you could find your seat? Lights were on when we came in

But you left during previews? Yes

Could see when coming back? The majority of light was coming from the screen

But enough for you to find your way back to your seat? yes

you could see fine? Yes sir

when left you didn' thave concern about leaving your wife there? Yes

Wasn't any issuue with Oulsen at that time? he didn't pose any threat to me or anybody else (his wife testified that she was terrified of him at this point. oops)

Lighting were safe enough that you could lean forward and tell Chad to turn his phone off? Yes, ok

When leaned over there wasn't safety concern, the first time? No I didn't

Reason leaning in because he had the phone on? Shining in my face

It was bothering you? Yes

If you wanted, yu could have spoken to manager at that time right? it wasn't enough of a problem at that time

If you felt you were vulnerable, we heard from Dr Cohen that maybe you felt vulnerable, you could have avoided any direct contact with Oulsen and gone to manager. That wouldn' tmake sense you would just ask the person. Eventaully admits could have done that

6'2" 270 pound? Weeklong hunting trip? Yes

Sat in car for trip? Yes

Could walk 100 yards to hunting spot? Yes

Climbed 10 ft in tree stand? Yes

Would someone who perceived themselves as vulnerable wouldn't climb 10 feet into a tree to hunt? I knew what my abilities hwere

you testified about your disks, your back, your shoulders, your knees, your legs everythings broken but you were fine enough to climb in a tree stand. It's very easy to do and you have a safety belt on, not much can happen

On that day go to theater, you drove? yes. Walked into theater from parking lot? We parked the closest available that wasn't handicapped

You chose very back row? Correct. Middle seats? Yes close to middle. No concern for health or stability knowing you had to walk all the way to the back? No I didn't

And you have to go past people if you have to leave? Correct

Oulsen is in front of your wife? Yes. One row down and one seat to the right of you. yes. During the entire event. no sir

Was he off to the right of you? His seat ws off to the right of me when he jumped up.

So you lean forward the first time and tell him to turn his phone off? i asked him to turn it off.

That's when you leaned close to his face? I did not lean close to his face. Well the video would be the best way to tell? Correct

You had a loaded firearm in your right pocket. Correct

When you leaned forward Oulsen cursed back at you? Correct

At this time you know at that moment this is someone you shouldn't reengage with. That's why I went to the manager (contradicting himself, he did not go to the manager at this point, even according to himself)

Even though he cursed at you and told you didn't want to have contact. he did not tell me he did not want to have contact

Prosecutor makes the point that according to Reeves, Oulsen said "get the fuck out of my face". Yu didn't take that as not wanting you to bother hm? Says it's up to interpretation, and it's just mouthing off. Now saying not concerned at that point

Now Reeves is stumbling over words. But he told you to get out of his face, he's telling you he didn' twant to have contact. Reeves says "and I didn't. (but that contradicts what he said bfore, and he will also contradict himself again)

So you went to the manager? No

I asked him to turn his phone off. And he responds like you said? And you waited 30 seocnds.

You decided to engage him again, didn' tyou? I told him he left me with no alternative.

But you did not have to lean forward to say that to him. You could have as a form of deescalation just gotten up and gone to the manager. I think the whole contact I had was an attempt at deescalation.

But instead of just getting up you re-initiated contact with him. Admits to this

You could have moved, if you felt vulnerable you could have moved like your wife wanted to. Admits to this

And you wife mentioned it to you. Admits to this

And you heard your wife. I believe so

You did hear your wife and you told her you weren't moving. I didn't tell her anything

You've already had two contact with Oulsend when you went to manager

Walked past two sets of people. The Roys and Turners. yes correct

At the manager's desk you told him Oulsen doesn't have the attitude that you could talk to him again. Basically agrees

And told the manager that Oulsen told you to f-off. You could have waited for manager to go back with you. Th emanger told me I could return to my seat

Says at that point there was no issue with Mr Oulsen

Now when you et back you have another initiation with Mr Oulsen to tell him you told on him. He was staring at me and speaking out loud, I don't know to him, trying to proclaim that he was concerned

So he was staring at you? yes. It was important? It caught my eye but not important.
'
Well, you said the reason you said something to him was because he was staring at you. Reeves is now fumbling around because doesn't want to admit

Pointing out that with all the background in deescalation he's already had conversation with Oulsen where it was clear Oulsen didn't want to talk to him, why didn't you just quit talking to him, just let the manager handle it? Reeves has no good response to this, fumbles around

He admits he re-initiates again because Oulsen was looking at him

Did you tell Proctor Oulsen was staring at you/ I don't recollect. gives him both statements, they ask for page, and prosecutor says there is no line, he want to know if he EVER told detectives that Oulsen was staring at him. Reeves keeps saying I'm not sure, so prosecutor says I don't want you t gues, take your time and find in your statement if you ever said that. Eventually Reeves admits he can't find where he told detectives that Oulsen was staring at him. (This was particularly entertaining by the way)

Reeves is smirking again.

You told Proctor you had contact with Chad to turn the phone off, had another contact, went to the manager, and initiated yet another contact? "To deeescalate, yes sir" (he never uses that word until prosecutors brought it up)

You say to deescalate? Yes. But in your statement you say that YOU re-initiated contact with Oulsen, correct? "Because he was talking about me going to the manager" (ok, so now it's NOT because he was "staring" at you?)

Reeves is getting flustered, but he looks at someone and smiles then smirks again.

Now being directed to his statement,a particular spot. He read to himself.

So, when you came back, as you walked by Oulsen you said "so I see you put your phone away"

Now he's really flustered and trying to explain and sayng again I guess I ws trying to deescalate.

Prosecutor points out again that in the statement there is nowhere that he ever told Proctor that oulsen had said anyting or looked at him. he admits that HE is the one who initiated contact again.

He admits he never told detectives anything about trying to deescalate anything.

You obviously did not see yourself as a vulnerable person, because this is the third time that you initiated contact with Mr Oulsen (who according to you has cursed at you).

"I don't think it had anything to do with being vulnerable" (

LOL he just busted his whole defense case right there. To which the prosecutor responds "I agree with you" LOL, if my bladder were full I'd be peeing on myself right now, this is too funny

Reeves looks like he just ate a turd. I think it has dawned on him that he fucked up. The whole damn trial his defense team has hammered over and over how vulnerable he was and that is the whole reason he had to shoot and they paid a shit ton of witnesses to sing that chorus over and over and now Reeves says it has noting to do with it.



I will post this now and then continue so you can start reading

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

This is truly riveting.

[Dave from down under]

[LM K]

Until today, I thought Reeves was likely to be acquitted. But his testimony is so different from every other witness, including his wife.

Reeves didn't help himself at all.

[Phoenix520]

"it depends on who the people are".

The ones with guns, ma'am.


I just can't even...

I’m still on testimony from Day 3. What screams out at me is that Reeves is a bitter ex-cop who knows all the cop and perp tricks of his former trade and had no problem using any of them, whether on his victim or himself. He apparently lied to the cops right after the incident. He knew what to say to make himself the victim and the shooting justified.

I have zero sympathy for him.

ETA Still haven’t read it all, but his testimony today doesn't make me re-think my opinion.

[RVInit]

Day 9 Defendant Cross Exam continued

Staring off when Reeves realizes he fucked up.

When you came back, Oulsen had turned off his phone. I have no idea. It says here he had put it away.

So he did exactly what you wanted him to do? yes sir

So at this point everything is fine. As far as I was concerned yes

You were wearing sneakers that had reflective material on it. yes

They agree to which parts of the shoes are reflective. Outside, where the gray is, the back, sides

They go over the video with the prosecutor showing that when he crosses and uncrosses his legs, the light hits his shoes and reflects. he asks Reeves if the light appears to move exactly when his leg moves. He admits that it appears to be (he tries to mumble something about the experts should be answering this or something like that, LOL)

Again he admits that you see the reflection moving exactly when his leg moves.


When you sat down, you once again put your right leg over your left leg. He tries to bring up the phone now. Then says "I have no idea". Of course, the prosecutor doesn't let it go. Keeps making him look at it until he admits that every time he crosses and uncrosses his legs it corresponds with the reflection in the video.

Now he gets to the suggestion that Reeves is hit with a cell phone. Reeves says I don't think it's a suggestion, it's a reality. "We'll talk about that"

He keeps trying to avoid answering the question about the reflection because he knows his attorneys are tyring to say that's a cell phone that was thrown at him. He keeps trying to say that this time when the reflection shows Mr Oulsen has moved his arm. prosecutor points out that in the first series of video clips, whenever Reeves moves his leg, the light source moves. And Mr Oulsen wasn't in those frames. Reeves finally gives it up and agrees.

Reeves is very smug and smirks a lot. But he is definitely not smug and smirking at this point. This part is crucial to his defense and it's falling apart. The "I'm so frail and vulnerable" is pretty much out the window at this point as the prosecutor led Reeves right to that door and he went through it. This is all they have left

The prosecutor is pointing out that every single time Reeves moves that is when we see reflected light moving in the frame. He tries to say "I was backing away from Oulsen". Prosecutor says it doesn't matter WHY you ar moving. when you are moving, coincidentally every single time that light source also moves.

His wife is hanging her head way down, she really looks worried.

Based on what we demonstrated at no time was a cell phone thrown at your face. That is simply a reflection that appears every single time cross and uncross your legs or move your feet.

Reeves says there's nobody that can answer that but me, and I got hit in the face.

On direct I believe you said that you apologized to Chad for telling on him. Did you say "I'm sorry". I don't know exactly what I said, it ws an effort to defuse the situation.

You never told Proctor anything about trying to defuse or deescalate. Did you use any word whatsoever to indicate that to Detective Proctor. I don't think so.

How many times are you saying that Mr Oulsen attacked you? Twice? I feel very strongly that I got hit by the phone. You saw him grab the popcorn, which I was not aware at the time, and then he pitched it back but I did see him coming over the seat with his fist the instant he got shot (that is also brand new, the coming over the seat with the fist. That didn't appear in any of his statements or testimony until one of his experts said when the bullet grazed Chad's hand, his hand must have been flexed because of the lack of stippling on certain areas)

I'm asking you how many attacks there were. Based on what you are saying, there were TWO attackds. he agrees

And the very first one was after you came back from the manager. And that's the time you are sayng you strongly believe it was a phone. So you are saying he hit you hard enough with the phone that Mr Oulsen was a danger to you. If he tossed or dropped the phone that wouldn't be an attack. "He hit me in the face and I saw him as a threat at that point and I tried to get out of his way"

Ok. So he hit you in the face, your testimony is, with a cell phone. Yes

Now, isn't it true you told detective that you weren't sure it was a cell phone, and in fact you only put two and two together when you looked down and saw the cell phone. Yes sir, that's accurate.

so today you say I'm fairly certain it was a cell phone. But on the day, you just saw the cell phone and thought maybe it was a cell phone. "At the time I interviewed I had not seen the video".

(yes, you read that right. He had not seen the video, to which prosecutor says)

Why would you need to see the video? You lived it. "stammer stutter stammer.... my impression at the time that I was hit was perhaps he was too far away for a fist, when I saw the cell phone I put two and two together. He hit me in the face with his cell phone"

So a minute ago you hadn't seen the video so you aren't telling us you are tailoring your testimony to what you are seeing in the video, are you? "I think the video is supporting my position". (Even the judge totally disagreed with that. In fact that was the biggest reason he lost his stand your ground hearing - the evidence doesn't fit his story)

Even though the video shows the reflection is your shoe. 'I don't think in every instance it's been shown that way'.

So let's talk about only your post Miranda statement with detective Proctor: You indicated that you came back from the manager, that you re-initiated with Oulsen even though he had put the phone away, correct. I think so, yeah, that ws prtty much it.

And obviously you could have just sat down in your seat and not said anything to him. "Except that I heard him complaining about me going to the manager".

we've already established that's not in yoru statement. That's correct

So, you come back from the manager and you sit down. The words you used to detective Proctor were "Chad turns around in his seat" do you recall that" yes. And the word "in" means he's sitting down. "In my statement I believe I was interrrupted by a deputy who brought me a drink...and when he turned in his seat he stood up"

Directing him to a page and line in his statement (Reeves is trying to add words to his statement that he didn't make because it doesn't match what he is now saying)

OMG. So the prosecutor mentions that he assumes the statement is in chronological order, and now Reeves says "no it wasn't" So now he's claiming that he explained to detectives what happened but not in the orer in which it happened. (Insert eye roll here) " I think if you read the whole thing I was probably in shock about what just happened and I think there's a lot of things that are injected in different places"

With your background, training, and experience you are now saying that you weren't telling detectives what happened in chronological order in a case where someone was shot and dies?

(His initial statement is BS but it's closer to what actually happened according to the video. He had to add a shitload of stuff later to justify the shooting)

Prosecutor reads from his initial statement:
You indicate you came back to the movie, the guy put his phone away, when I went by I told him "I see you put it away, so I told the manager for no reason." In other words, I went and ratted him out. If I would have known he had put it away, I wouldn' thave ratted him out. Detective proctor says "right, makes sense". And he turns around in his seat, and then you talk about a drink.

Now talking about the point at which in the statement he said Oulsen jumps up and turns around, which is different than his current story.

Reeves: I would say it was probably all one motion, he turned around and stood up all in one motion. (that is hard to do. If you turn in your seat to face someone behind you and then stand up while you are still facing the person, that is hard to do. You can get up first and then turn around. But his initial statement he said he turned around IN HIS SEAT and then eventually got up)


Asks him to step down to go over two defense exhibits. They are looking at them together. Noting timestamp. They agree which one is first.

One photo is the one where Reeves claims the cell phone hit him. Was he standing at this time? Reeves is unsure, whether he stood and turned or turned and stood, I don't know whether he was standing. (That is problematic. This is the photo where supposedly Chad throws something that hits him in the left eye. Chad is on his right, and he doesn't know if Chad is standing at this point)

Showing him a deposition or statement - he's reading to himself

Back to exhibits, prosecutor is pointing out to him that the defense exhibits, which he has agreed on the order, based on the timestamp (they are still shots of the video) Oulsen's position is consistent with the statement he made to detectives, and inconsistent with his current verion of events.

Reeves is trying to say that the angle of the camera is misleading. Prosecutor points out that the stills are from the same video camera, not a different camera. And the first shot Oulsen clearly appears to be sitting and the second one he clearly appears to be standing.

You told the detective that the moment he stood up, the popcorn went by the wayside almost immediately (important because how cn he throw a phone at him 8 seconds earlier if he's not even standing up at that point and is on the wrong side to throw at him unless he's facing him)
. He finally admits he remembers saying that.

after the popcorn fell, you told Detective he was virtually on top of you. Yes. I was seated, he was leaning over, he was giant, that would be my interpretation of someone whose attacking me.

Going over how many reports Reeves has written and as a supervisor he reviewed reports, he knows how important it is for them to be accurate, very detailed because you know attorneys and police are going to rely on it. He admits all of this. He admits the words that are chosen are critical and should reflect accuracy. His response is "35 years ago, yes" So, now you don't think it's importnat to be accurate? I use different words now.

You are describing an event that you believe was a life and death struggle. Someone was shot and killed. Wouldn't you agree with me that the words you chose, the content is incredibly important? He tries to make an excuse and then finally says everything is important

Today you say "leaning over" back in the day you said "virtually on top of me".

Now you say yoru left hand is out and you are yelling "no no no". I am trying to dissuade him from coming across and I think my hand is in front of me.

Isn't it true you indicate that when you had your hand in front you actually touched him? "In retrospect I think maybe that's when he grabbed the popcorn maybe he hit my hand".

Now he admits to what the prosecutor is saying. oops.

Suddenly your head is to the right, something hit yor face. "Or something was thrown at me' (Another oops. Now he's got the popcorn throw and the supposed cell phone throw in the wrong order. uh-oh)

He's having trouble reconciling the difference between his original statement and his new statement. He finally admits that he can't account for why his statement to detectives is so different from today's story. Now saying he was "excited, scared".

The prosecutor now asks him if he agrees that the powers of observation fade over time? He agrees

So, we are 8 years past the time of the shooting, It's kind of interesting that you've added a second attack that supposedly happens 8 seconds prior. Are you trying to justify the shooting? Says he never put the two together.

The stories are very different. He says we are dealing with microseconds. Prosecutor points out that it's actually 8 seconds when you look at the video, that is not microseconds.

Now he can't account for why in his statement he claimed to have his left hand out in front and even said to detectives "I'm surprised I didn't shoot myself" Today's story is different and he admits he can't account for that. "Perceptual distortion"

He looks really tired now.

Based just on Proctor's statement said he got hit on the left side of his face. Now saying over his left eye. He keeps insisting it's basically the same "I never thouht about the distinction between the two" (WHUT?) Admits "my statement ws completely different, I didn't see a difference"

you were hit so hard you were dazed - in that taped statement. said he bruised easily.

A 6'4" man full of rage, virtually on top of you, hits you with something so hard that you were "dazed" and yet there was not a single mark on your face, that is what you want this jury to believe. "Yes, I do"

Not a single swelling or red mark other than the corner of your left eye lid (where detectives saw him constantly rubbing)

You remember your own witness who talked about how in bony areas even a slight hit will make a mark and yet you have the barest minimum of redness in a very tender area after being hit so hard you were dazed. "I disagree with the single mark comment" (there are photos)

Prosecutor: And none of this is corroborated by the video.

Answer: It was a perception on my part. I was scared, this guy was completely out of control, didn't seem to be acting rational. I was so scared to where I did not know exactly where he was but I felt he was attacking me.

Your perception was an attack that never occurred. "It would be a mistatement to say it never occurred."

Well, the video is in evidence and the jury can review the video

And you believed you were in a life and death struggle prior to the shooting? Yes sir

(Not sure why he asked him that. seems like a bad move, unless they have something planned. This prosecutor hasn't made mistakes, so we'll see)

There is a break, then more cross exam to come......

[RVInit]

Day 8 Defense cse - Defendant Cross Exam part two

I still wish someone would call this prosecutor by name, he is really talented, I wish I could credit him by name.


Reeves is already tired, and he's got more cross exam coming up

State exhibit - video

Shows Reeves coming back. Sitting down, crosses legs. He stops the video at the point where the current story is him being attacked. He points out Oulsen and says to keep an eye on Oulsen - you see him swiveling at the hip looking back at you. (matches first statement) Reeves doesn't want to admit what is showing right on the screen

he's trying to say "I'm being attacked right now" because of what I have been referring to as an anomaly. It's actually the light bouncing off his reflective shoe. Defense it trying to say that light that's moving is a cell phone that hit him, so he's "being attacked".

Showing the video and looping at exactly the same loop the defense exhibit. Reeves is tryingt to say when Oulsen is off the screen and can't see him, that is when he's "attacking him". There is no part of Oulsen's body visible at this point. You are telling the jury that Chad Oulsen threw a several hundred dollar iPhone at your face. "That would be a reasonable explanation".

And obviously for you to fear for your safety so much that you had to shoot him that cell phone had to be thrown pretty hard at you. "yes it was"

but you don't have a single mark. You don't have any injury consistent with being hit so hard in the face. "Perhaps it was a glancing blow, I don't know, I just know my glasses were askew and i had the sensation or belief I was hit"

The glasses rest on your nose, but you didn't have any markings on your nose from the part that sits on your bridge. No

Is your testimony that Nicole was trying to hold him back because he was raging at you? Yes

Was there a fight happening in the theater as you were walking in th theater? No

And yet the motion activated camera picked you up as you and your wife were walking casually into the theater. admits this

You want the jury to believe that Nicole is holding Oulsen back and he's raging coming at you, and yet the motion activated camera never goes off (the defense is trying to say there are "missing frames" that didn't get picked up, so there was all this action where Oulsen was raging but for some reason the cameras never pick it up, but yet they pick up when the popcorn is tossed and gun shot happens)

Judge keeps having to tell the defense no standing objections. That attorney has an anger management problem)

There was testimony by your witness that there is "unrecorded activity" happening during the time where our video screen is blue. Is it your tstimony that during this time period Nicole Oulsen is trying to hold a raging Mr Oulsen back from attacking you? " she had a hold of him when he first jumped up, I would assume she still had a a hold of him"

Showing him previous testimony. Chad Oulsen was trying to get to you in a fit of rage, leaning over the chair. And yet the camera system does not pick anything up at all. It's capturing nothing at all. Reeves admits he has no idea how the motion detectin works and can't explain why Oulsen is raging and it's not picking it up. he has described that Oulsen was leaning all the way over trying to come over seat, which would put him absolutely within the motion detection for that camera. When his hand actually DID come into the row, it triggered the camera, so if his hand triggers it of course his upper body coming over the seat would have triggeed it. Basically, it did not happen.


Establishes that Reeves got the popcorn from his wife when he came back from telling the manager abut Oulsen. Even though he's stuck so hard with a phone it doesn't cause any of the popcorn to spill from his hand, in fact, you only see his leg cross or uncross, the reflected light (which they are trying to say is the phone) and no movement of Reeves body at all in spite of having been allegedly struck by a phone so hard it dazed him.

Oh lord, he had karate training, self defense, that's why he had no reaction whatsoever when the phone hit him.

You second guessed the very fact that you were even hit with anything. Reeves says "oh yeah, you second guess everything, if you don't there's something wrogn with you, something this important blah blah blah.". Give me a break. Lame excuse for what is captured on audio he absolutely said he did not know if anything hit him. He saw the cell phone at his feet, where Oulsen likely dropped it when he got shot, and is trying to come up with an excuse for shooting. Even when detectives ask him why he shot Oulsen he struggled to come up with any excuse.

[Dave from down under]

[LM K]

"it depends on who the people are".

The ones with guns, ma'am.


I just can't even...

I’m still on testimony from Day 3. What screams out at me is that Reeves is a bitter ex-cop who knows all the cop and perp tricks of his former trade and had no problem using any of them, whether on his victim or himself. He apparently lied to the cops right after the incident. He knew what to say to make himself the victim and the shooting justified.

I have zero sympathy for him.

ETA Still haven’t read it all, but his testimony today doesn't make me re-think my opinion.

Exactly.

He kept rubbing and rubbing his eye after he shot Oulson because he knew he had to create the appearance of a self defense shooting. He never could create the appearance of a true injury, but he did try.

If Reeves had been hit in the face, there would absolutely be a bruise. The cheek/eye area bruises easily. Especially on people that bruise just by touching something.

How can a 72 year old near invalid climb 10 feet in a tree without bruising and tearing his paper thin skin?

[RVInit]

Exactly.

He kept rubbing and rubbing his eye after he shot Oulson because he knew he had to create the appearance of a self defense shooting. He never could create the appearance of a true injury, but he did try.

If Reeves had been hit in the face, there would absolutely be a bruise. The cheek/eye area bruises easily. Especially on people that bruise just by touching something.

How can a 72 year old near invalid climb 10 feet in a tree without bruising and tearing his paper thin skin?

Those tree stands like his son described are not easy for a supposedly frail person to operate. He claimed that since he had a safety belt that is all that was necessary. OMG. just getting onto it so you can start to operate it takes effort, flexibility and strength.

[Dave from down under]

He is so full of hot stinking gas that he just floats up to it...

[Patagoniagirl]

PLEASE keep RV in mind when the Fogbow nominations are voted on in September. Not even sure what the categories are, but RV's play-by certainly belongs in a "best of" cat.

Bravo!

[sugar magnolia]

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.

Wasn't there a recent trial where there was a retrial/mistrial because the prosecutor commented on the defendant not testifying? Is that a bright line to comment on or is there some wiggle room on pointing it out?

[Azastan]

How can a 72 year old near invalid climb 10 feet in a tree without bruising and tearing his paper thin skin?

Those tree stands like his son described are not easy for a supposedly frail person to operate. He claimed that since he had a safety belt that is all that was necessary. OMG. just getting onto it so you can start to operate it takes effort, flexibility and strength.

I helpfully included a video (a page or two back now) showing how this type of tree stand is accessed. It's not nearly as easy as he's trying to suggest, and I would expect that at least one person on the jury knows this and would be busy explaining this to the rest of the members of the jury.

[Foggy]

... I would expect that at least one person on the jury knows this and would be busy explaining this to the rest of the members of the jury.

I hope not, because that's what they call "evidence that wasn't admitted in court during the trial". The jury is supposed to consider only the evidence that was admitted in court, so if I have experience with tree stands and "testify" about those facts in the jury room (and give my opinion, basically as an expert witness), it would be nice if nobody ever finds out about it, because that's ... uncool.

[LM K]

How can a 72 year old near invalid climb 10 feet in a tree without bruising and tearing his paper thin skin?

Those tree stands like his son described are not easy for a supposedly frail person to operate. He claimed that since he had a safety belt that is all that was necessary. OMG. just getting onto it so you can start to operate it takes effort, flexibility and strength.

I helpfully included a video (a page or two back now) showing how this type of tree stand is accessed. It's not nearly as easy as he's trying to suggest, and I would expect that at least one person on the jury knows this and would be busy explaining this to the rest of the members of the jury.

Azastan's post

[RVInit]

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.

Wasn't there a recent trial where there was a retrial/mistrial because the prosecutor commented on the defendant not testifying? Is that a bright line to comment on or is there some wiggle room on pointing it out?

Yeah, I'm sure it would be a super no no to make any comment like this in front of the jury. This was during motions, so no jury was present. And it wasn't said in such a way to suggest anything, but just that it seemed pretty clear the defense was trying to get "what did Reeves see when he sat there" into testimony by an expert witness and not Reeves himself.

[RVInit]

I had forgotten all about this because it's been such a long time since the incident happened. Reeves had a history of initiating complaints against moviegoevers. And none of them describe him as saying in a nice soft voice "excuse me, but...". Both of these couples indicate he "barked", "ordered" or otherwise demanded them to stop doing whatever they were doing. One couple was texting, like Oulsen, the other were talking softly to each other during previews.

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/regi ... testifying

[RVInit]

PLEASE keep RV in mind when the Fogbow nominations are voted on in September. Not even sure what the categories are, but RV's play-by certainly belongs in a "best of" cat.

Bravo!

You are being too kind. We've had lots of people that actually went as far as BOTG, I think didn't one time you do that yourself? That is going way over and beyond. For some reason in my old age trials seem interesting to me, so I figure as long as I'm watching I can take notes. I got a little carried away this time maybe!