Day 2 - Afternoon - Alan Hamilton - Retired Sumpter County Sheriff's Dept
Sworn deputy on day and time of the shooting. Allowed to carry firearm on and off duty? yes
Married to Angela Hamilton, previous witness. Spur of the moment decision to see a movie. Movie theater had a cinema bistro.
Describes lighting conditions, low light, but could easily see. Doesn't recall if commercials or previews were playing but something was playing that was not th emain movie.
Liked to sit higher ground, close to the aisle. Those seats were available, sat in seats in last row, one seat in from aisle.
Could you see othe rpeople coming in? Yes. Could see whather male or fmale? yes. Basically establish same as othe rwitnesses, they can see fairly well and hear fairly well anyone close by.
After previews came on did the lights go up or down? Down. When the lights changed, could you still see people two three or four rows in front? Yes,. Basically establishing that it was still easy to see things even down to the aisle on the other side of the row.
Could you carry on a normal conversation and hear your wife? yes. Could hear people talking, but not necessarily what words were being said. All witnesses have been consistent on this.
At some point he learned the shooter's name and Mr and Mrs Oulsen's name. Does he recall seeing the Oulsen's walk in? No
Had he ever met the Oulsens or Reeves? No. Asking him how his attention was drawn to an event. His wife told him something is goin gon. Establishes that he sat up straight in his seat and stated watching the Oulsens and Reeves. Did he ever take his eyes off that area? No. He saw Mr Oulsen propped up on his chair.
Prosecutor asks him to come down to show them how much of Mr Oulsen's body he could see. He demonstrates that when he said the words that Mr Oulsen was "propped up" on his chair what he actually saw was Mr Oulsen was standing up facing the back of his chair and he had one hand on the back of his chair. Almost simultaneously Mr Oulsen said "I was just texting my f-ing daughter", his right had did a quick short motion and popcorn was in the air. Mr Hamilton describes that this all happened in an instant. Almost instantaneously he saw the muzzle flash and heard the gunshot. The camera moved to the defendant right after this testimony and Mr Reeves looks very uncomfortable and lets out a huge sigh.
He attributes the f-word to Mr Oulsen and says he only used that word one time. Witness reiterates timing of all this. He never sees Mr Oulsen stand on his chair, try to crawl over the chair, or showing any sign of a physical threat. He saw no object objct actually thrown, he saw nothing in Mr Reeves actions to show that Mr Reeves thought he was stuck by anyhing or acting as if he was trying to defend or deflect any incoming threat. The popcorn was just flicked and went up in the air, not actually thrown at Mr Reeves.
After shooting Mr Oulsen, Mr Reeves just sat there and set his gun on his knee. Did Mr Reeves ever have his hand up and out as if defending himself and yelling "no, no no no". That same questions was actually asked of every witness and I have a feeling we are going to see Mr Reeves' police interview. The prosecutor in the opening made a point they would be presenting evidence that Mr Reeves' police interview contradicts evrything others have said and particularly that he characterized the encounter as Mr Oulsen attacking him and he had to defend himself.
Did you keep your eyes on the firearm after the shooting? Yes. He went over to Mr Reeves and immediately took the gun off his knees. Establishes that Mr Reeves eyeglasses are on his face in perfectly normal position. He leaned back and pushed his glasses up above his eyes, but they had been normal. He said he thought he had something in his eye. Then he put his glasses back down.
Mr Hamilton identified himself as law enforcement and put the firearm in his pocket. Says Mr Reeves was cooperative as he was taking the gun from him. Showing a photo of the gun for identification.
Right after the shooting, Ms Oulsen was a seat or two away from mr Oulsen. Some patrons were trying to help Mr Oulsen and some were leaving the theater. Did he hear Mr Oulsen say anything as he walked over to Mr Reeves? Heard him say "I can't believe he shot me". The lights came up. No injuries on Reeves. No blood, no cuts, no abrasions on Reeves.
Did he look where Reeves feet were? yes, saw popcorn and a cell phone. What did Mrs Reeves do? She had moved away from Mr Reeves and eventually got up and left the theater. When law enforcement arrived he gave them the gun and introduced himself as a Sheriff's deputy.
He and his wife filled out a statement. No specific instructions were given about the statement. They were together but he did not help her write out the statement and did not provide her with any facts for her statment. They did not discuss their statements with each other. He does not remember anyone talking to each other as they were filling out statements. They were both interviewed. He was with her during her statement, but never spoke, she was upset and he was thee for moral support. He sat behind her, could hear questions and answers and he never spoke at all. He never tried to correct her and she could not see him as she was answering questions. His interview was before his. She was in the room also for his interview. They did not discuss what each of them saw prior to either the written statement or interviews.
FL vs Curtis Reeves
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 2 - Afternoon - Alan Hamilton - Retired Sumpter County Sheriff's Dept - Cross Exam
Both Mr and Mrs Hamilton seemed sad to be testifying. Their demeanor is very subdued and somber, more so than other witnesses. I wonder if it's because the defendant is a former police officer.
Confirms that as a police officer he liked to be seated where he could see everything. Confirms he and his wife were further from Mr Reeves than some other patrons.
He agrees that when previews came on the lights went down somewhat. He remembers several times the announcement tells them to put yor phone away. Defense attorney asks if movie volume in theater is more than you might play at home.
He agrees he couldn't tell hat color Mr Oulsen's eyes were. Admits he couldn't see features. He admits to using the word "yelling" to describe one sentence Mr Oulsen uttered. Attorney is yelling at witness. I think he's mad about the witness not saying what he wants him to say. Mr Reeves is smirking.
Attorney trying to make the witness say Mr Oulsen was leaning over the back of his seat. Apparently he used that term, but he also used the work "propped up" but when he demonstrated what he meant he stood straight up and put his hand on the back of the chair.
He admits at one point he wanted to know "who was raising hell" after his wife nudged him and brought his attention to the fact that something ws happening. He admits that he did not see the entire exchange because he was watching the previews. This attorney is really badgering the witness. Trying to get him to say Mr Oulsen was "using the f-word". Witness says he used it one time.
The witness is allowing the defense attorney to get to him a bit. He has described that he can see the two of them mostly in silhouette. From what I can tell by the seating chart he is seeing Mr Oulsen more from a side view, so he can see his hands and arms when they are slightly in front of his body. And he saw the flick of the hadn adn popcorn, again, he's seeing a side view and the arms are slighly in front of Mr Oulsen. But he's seeing Reeves more from a front angle view. So when Reeves has the gun in front of him, he can't see the gun until the flash. The witness is not able to articulat this very well and the defense attorney is taking advantage of that. I hope the prosecutor clears this up.
Now he is bringing up witness contamination and how it's important to separate the witnesses. The police did not tell anyone to do that. He points out there were several police there. He is making a point that each of them heard each other's interview.
Tries to get witness to admit they discussed the case without the tape recorde on, but witness said that did not happen. Now I can see this is a super poor witness. The attorney makes the point that this witness' recorded statement is only 5 minutes long. And attroney says this is bad, and witness agrees. I'm stuneed. Of all the witnesses that testified so far, this witness saw the least amount of the encounter. he only personally witnessed about a minute of the whole exchnage. Why would his interview take more than 5 minutes. The gunshot went off within a minute of Mr Oulsen standing up. By the time this witness looked over, Mr Oulsen was already standing. He is really a poor witness, getting flustered. You would never have done that in a homicide investigation. No sir. Because it requires thoroughness, Yessir. My God, he's helping Reeves.
no further questions. Thank goodness.
The prosecution is not even going to try to save this witness. Hard to say, maybe they fear a re-cross will be even worse, but I think they should at least point out that if he only witnessed a minute of an encounter he didn't need to have a three hour interview. Maybe when they put the detective on they will discuss that. Perhaps it's best to get this witness off the stand. Reeves looks very pleased. He should after that. Oh boy.
Both Mr and Mrs Hamilton seemed sad to be testifying. Their demeanor is very subdued and somber, more so than other witnesses. I wonder if it's because the defendant is a former police officer.
Confirms that as a police officer he liked to be seated where he could see everything. Confirms he and his wife were further from Mr Reeves than some other patrons.
He agrees that when previews came on the lights went down somewhat. He remembers several times the announcement tells them to put yor phone away. Defense attorney asks if movie volume in theater is more than you might play at home.
He agrees he couldn't tell hat color Mr Oulsen's eyes were. Admits he couldn't see features. He admits to using the word "yelling" to describe one sentence Mr Oulsen uttered. Attorney is yelling at witness. I think he's mad about the witness not saying what he wants him to say. Mr Reeves is smirking.
Attorney trying to make the witness say Mr Oulsen was leaning over the back of his seat. Apparently he used that term, but he also used the work "propped up" but when he demonstrated what he meant he stood straight up and put his hand on the back of the chair.
He admits at one point he wanted to know "who was raising hell" after his wife nudged him and brought his attention to the fact that something ws happening. He admits that he did not see the entire exchange because he was watching the previews. This attorney is really badgering the witness. Trying to get him to say Mr Oulsen was "using the f-word". Witness says he used it one time.
The witness is allowing the defense attorney to get to him a bit. He has described that he can see the two of them mostly in silhouette. From what I can tell by the seating chart he is seeing Mr Oulsen more from a side view, so he can see his hands and arms when they are slightly in front of his body. And he saw the flick of the hadn adn popcorn, again, he's seeing a side view and the arms are slighly in front of Mr Oulsen. But he's seeing Reeves more from a front angle view. So when Reeves has the gun in front of him, he can't see the gun until the flash. The witness is not able to articulat this very well and the defense attorney is taking advantage of that. I hope the prosecutor clears this up.
Now he is bringing up witness contamination and how it's important to separate the witnesses. The police did not tell anyone to do that. He points out there were several police there. He is making a point that each of them heard each other's interview.
Tries to get witness to admit they discussed the case without the tape recorde on, but witness said that did not happen. Now I can see this is a super poor witness. The attorney makes the point that this witness' recorded statement is only 5 minutes long. And attroney says this is bad, and witness agrees. I'm stuneed. Of all the witnesses that testified so far, this witness saw the least amount of the encounter. he only personally witnessed about a minute of the whole exchnage. Why would his interview take more than 5 minutes. The gunshot went off within a minute of Mr Oulsen standing up. By the time this witness looked over, Mr Oulsen was already standing. He is really a poor witness, getting flustered. You would never have done that in a homicide investigation. No sir. Because it requires thoroughness, Yessir. My God, he's helping Reeves.
no further questions. Thank goodness.
The prosecution is not even going to try to save this witness. Hard to say, maybe they fear a re-cross will be even worse, but I think they should at least point out that if he only witnessed a minute of an encounter he didn't need to have a three hour interview. Maybe when they put the detective on they will discuss that. Perhaps it's best to get this witness off the stand. Reeves looks very pleased. He should after that. Oh boy.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 2 - Day 2 - Amy Parish -
She was a forensic investigator at the time of the shooting. She no longer works in that field.
Discusses protocol for evidence integrity. Other forensic investigators were also there. She was asked to handle the actual theater and also a few vehicles. She was also asked to take photographs a couple days later.
Her testimony is just standard forensic, but she photographed vehicles, and she is testifying that Mr Reeves car has no handicap placards and no handicap plate. The car is not parked in a handicap spot and was parked a good walking distance from the theater. This testimony will help undermine the defense contention that Reeves was so terribly handicapped that he was especially vulnerable. Even today, 8 years after the incident, as he sits at the defense table he does not appear to be old and especially vulnerable.
CROSS EXAM:
The defense attorney is asking her if wasn't told this was probably a self defense case, she wouldn't be looking for whatever was used to attack the person. He is getting her to say that if she knew someone may have been hit with something, she would look for things that could have been used to strike the person.
She says did not have any information that something had been thrown at the shooter. She did not know the lighting situation.
Getting into the weeds about Mr Oulsen cell phone DNA. There was a stipulation made on day one that the cell phone was examined for DNA and there was found a mixture of at least three individuals. Chad Oulsen couldn't be excluded, Mr Reeves couldn't be included. Basically the DNA on the phone is useless for anything having to do with this crime, but the defense may be trying to just muddy the waters with BS. There is no evidence that the cell phone was thrown or used as a weapon against Reeves. Not sure why the defense even thinks the cell phone is of any interest. Everyone has admitted that Oulsen's use of the phone is what set Reeves off.
Transfer DNA. She did not save the glove that she used to pick up the cell phone so she can't say whether DNA was transferred from the phone to the gloves.
Witness subject to recall
She was a forensic investigator at the time of the shooting. She no longer works in that field.
Discusses protocol for evidence integrity. Other forensic investigators were also there. She was asked to handle the actual theater and also a few vehicles. She was also asked to take photographs a couple days later.
Her testimony is just standard forensic, but she photographed vehicles, and she is testifying that Mr Reeves car has no handicap placards and no handicap plate. The car is not parked in a handicap spot and was parked a good walking distance from the theater. This testimony will help undermine the defense contention that Reeves was so terribly handicapped that he was especially vulnerable. Even today, 8 years after the incident, as he sits at the defense table he does not appear to be old and especially vulnerable.
CROSS EXAM:
The defense attorney is asking her if wasn't told this was probably a self defense case, she wouldn't be looking for whatever was used to attack the person. He is getting her to say that if she knew someone may have been hit with something, she would look for things that could have been used to strike the person.
She says did not have any information that something had been thrown at the shooter. She did not know the lighting situation.
Getting into the weeds about Mr Oulsen cell phone DNA. There was a stipulation made on day one that the cell phone was examined for DNA and there was found a mixture of at least three individuals. Chad Oulsen couldn't be excluded, Mr Reeves couldn't be included. Basically the DNA on the phone is useless for anything having to do with this crime, but the defense may be trying to just muddy the waters with BS. There is no evidence that the cell phone was thrown or used as a weapon against Reeves. Not sure why the defense even thinks the cell phone is of any interest. Everyone has admitted that Oulsen's use of the phone is what set Reeves off.
Transfer DNA. She did not save the glove that she used to pick up the cell phone so she can't say whether DNA was transferred from the phone to the gloves.
Witness subject to recall
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 2 - Day 2 - Steven Bunner
Deputy Sheriff in patrol operations
He lives near theater. Heard chatter on the radio, he headed to the theater.
Also took Reeve's vehicle into evidence. No handicap stickers anywhere, no handicap license plate. Measured distance from theater to the Reeve's car parked in parking lot. Distance from car to box office average 132 yards.
Cross Exam:
He took the measurement this year, not the same year. Based on the photograph showing where the Reeves had parked. He does not know how long it took the Reeves to walk from the parking spot to the front door back in 2013
Done for the day!
Deputy Sheriff in patrol operations
He lives near theater. Heard chatter on the radio, he headed to the theater.
Also took Reeve's vehicle into evidence. No handicap stickers anywhere, no handicap license plate. Measured distance from theater to the Reeve's car parked in parking lot. Distance from car to box office average 132 yards.
Cross Exam:
He took the measurement this year, not the same year. Based on the photograph showing where the Reeves had parked. He does not know how long it took the Reeves to walk from the parking spot to the front door back in 2013
Done for the day!
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
-
Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Sure seems to me that there were more than a few guns in that theater.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
-
LM K
- Posts: 3144
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
- Location: Oregon
- Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
- Contact:
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
The defense is faced with an interesting dilemma.
Allegedly, Mr. Reeves didn't start feeling afraid until Oulsen turned and asked him if Reeves had reported him to theater staff. The event progressed very quickly; less than 15 seconds based on my interpretation of the video posted below.
Allegedly Reeves has physical limitations.
So how did Reeves get his gun so fast?
Reeves left the theater to get staff to deal with Oulsen. Reeves returns to his seat 3-4 minutes ... without any theater staff. Everyone who witnessed Reeves' return mentioned that he was very irritable. Reeves either couldn't find help or staff told him they couldn't do anything at that time.
Reeves gun was in his pocket. His pocket was covered by his untucked shirt. How did a man with physical limitations in his hands so quickly pull and shoot his gun? How did he do that in less than 15 - 20 seconds?
..... Reeves took his gun out before Oulsen turned around.
Video of the shooting:
Allegedly, Mr. Reeves didn't start feeling afraid until Oulsen turned and asked him if Reeves had reported him to theater staff. The event progressed very quickly; less than 15 seconds based on my interpretation of the video posted below.
Allegedly Reeves has physical limitations.
So how did Reeves get his gun so fast?
Reeves left the theater to get staff to deal with Oulsen. Reeves returns to his seat 3-4 minutes ... without any theater staff. Everyone who witnessed Reeves' return mentioned that he was very irritable. Reeves either couldn't find help or staff told him they couldn't do anything at that time.
Reeves gun was in his pocket. His pocket was covered by his untucked shirt. How did a man with physical limitations in his hands so quickly pull and shoot his gun? How did he do that in less than 15 - 20 seconds?
..... Reeves took his gun out before Oulsen turned around.
Video of the shooting:
► Show Spoiler
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
From "Take the Money and Run"
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
LMK makes lots of good points. I will have to find out about whether the enhanced video is approved for entering into evidence. If so, I do think the prosecution is in trouble in this case. My overall impression after Day 2 is Reeves has great representation. His lawyers are doing a good job of muddying waters. That said, they soundly lost a Stand Your Ground hearing that was previously held. But, they are making a point of Oulsen's cell phone, which was found in Reeve's row somewhere near his feet. They are also pinging on the forensic on whether they might have collected additional evidence if they had known that someone "threw something at the defendant". They got both of them to say "yes" to that question. They also got the officer that you see in this video all discombobulated and pretty much turned him into a defense witness. His name is Hamilton, see one of the prior postings for that discussion. Just in case you watch - he looks WAY different at this trial than he does in this older video from CNN. There were tons and tons of hearings in this case, which helps the defense I think because they are also pinging on every single time the same witness testified, wrote a statement, gave an oral statement, gave a deposition, and used a slightly different word to describe something. They are keeping prosecutors rushing around putting out those fires.
Here is what I don't understand. In the video from 2014, the officer testifies that Mrs Reeves made the comment that "that was no reason to shoot someone" and that Mr Reeves scolded her. For some totally unexplained reason this same officer testified yesterday and the prosecutor did NOT ask anything about that.
Maybe that testimony was for one of the other hearings, but for trial that is considered to be hearsay, so this witness can't say that at the actual trial? If any IAALs are reading this thread, can you shed some light?
At any rate, that officer that seems so confident in the CNN video was a lump of mush by the time the defense got done with him. He visibly deflated as the questioning went on and on. Ouch.
I do think the way the trial is going Reeves has a good chance of at least one juror letting him off the hook. Especially since this trial is taking place in the middle of RWNJ Florida territory. The jury pool is made up of the same kind that let Zimmerman off, when the evidence was clear that Trayvon tried to defend himself against a man who first chased him from a car, then got out and chased him on foot. And that person chasing him had a gun. But boy that jury thought it was A-OK for an armed man to shoot an unarmed kind after chasing him, but god forbid if that kid realizes he's going to get shot and TRIES to save himself. Apparently self defense only applies to armed people. Unarmed can just be executed. But I digress. But only a little.
Here is what I don't understand. In the video from 2014, the officer testifies that Mrs Reeves made the comment that "that was no reason to shoot someone" and that Mr Reeves scolded her. For some totally unexplained reason this same officer testified yesterday and the prosecutor did NOT ask anything about that.
Maybe that testimony was for one of the other hearings, but for trial that is considered to be hearsay, so this witness can't say that at the actual trial? If any IAALs are reading this thread, can you shed some light?
At any rate, that officer that seems so confident in the CNN video was a lump of mush by the time the defense got done with him. He visibly deflated as the questioning went on and on. Ouch.
I do think the way the trial is going Reeves has a good chance of at least one juror letting him off the hook. Especially since this trial is taking place in the middle of RWNJ Florida territory. The jury pool is made up of the same kind that let Zimmerman off, when the evidence was clear that Trayvon tried to defend himself against a man who first chased him from a car, then got out and chased him on foot. And that person chasing him had a gun. But boy that jury thought it was A-OK for an armed man to shoot an unarmed kind after chasing him, but god forbid if that kid realizes he's going to get shot and TRIES to save himself. Apparently self defense only applies to armed people. Unarmed can just be executed. But I digress. But only a little.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
-
Tiredretiredlawyer
- Posts: 8176
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
- Location: Rescue Pets Land
- Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
- Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
The witnesses are being subject to recall in case the prosecutors need them in their rebuttal case. This prevents the witnesses from sitting in the trial and becoming disqualified to testify.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 3 Morning - Craig Deyoung
Driver/Engineer Paramedic Pasco County -- 5 years experience at time of incident
Drove to the back of the theater. Parked near the near exit doors to the theater. Went into the theater, Mr Oulsen was being put onto a spine board and was being helped already, so he made his way back outside to the parking area behind the theater.
He becamse aware there was an individual that may need medical attention because of something in his eye. (Hamilton yesterday said Reeves told him he had something in his eye). Deyoung went over to the squad car where Mr Reeves was inside. They brought him out of the cruiser, he was handcuffed.
Reeves was wearing glasses and said he thinks he has something in his eye. The parramedic checked his eye and did not see any indication visually that something was in his eye. No redness, no object, etc. He then took out a solution to irrigate his left eye. That was the only eye that Reeves said something was in his eye. Irrigation was done two or three times. Reeves then said he still thought something was in his eye. his glasses were then put back on his face.
I will mention that the video from inside the theater did not show Reeves in any way reacting to anything that he thought was in his eye or anywhere else on his face. After the popcorn flies, he just raises the gun and shoots. There is no indication by any other body movement that he felt like he got hit by something.
Cross Exam:
Mr Reeves and paramedic were both standing up. Paramedic doesn't specifically remember having to make any accomodation for differences in height. He flushed from the inside of nose to outside. He did not look into Reeves' eye using a light. Did not manipulate his eye in any way. He took off Reeves' glasses first.
He did not write a report because policy is that one paramedic is responsible for writing the report, the others review it for accuracy.
No more questions.
Driver/Engineer Paramedic Pasco County -- 5 years experience at time of incident
Drove to the back of the theater. Parked near the near exit doors to the theater. Went into the theater, Mr Oulsen was being put onto a spine board and was being helped already, so he made his way back outside to the parking area behind the theater.
He becamse aware there was an individual that may need medical attention because of something in his eye. (Hamilton yesterday said Reeves told him he had something in his eye). Deyoung went over to the squad car where Mr Reeves was inside. They brought him out of the cruiser, he was handcuffed.
Reeves was wearing glasses and said he thinks he has something in his eye. The parramedic checked his eye and did not see any indication visually that something was in his eye. No redness, no object, etc. He then took out a solution to irrigate his left eye. That was the only eye that Reeves said something was in his eye. Irrigation was done two or three times. Reeves then said he still thought something was in his eye. his glasses were then put back on his face.
I will mention that the video from inside the theater did not show Reeves in any way reacting to anything that he thought was in his eye or anywhere else on his face. After the popcorn flies, he just raises the gun and shoots. There is no indication by any other body movement that he felt like he got hit by something.
Cross Exam:
Mr Reeves and paramedic were both standing up. Paramedic doesn't specifically remember having to make any accomodation for differences in height. He flushed from the inside of nose to outside. He did not look into Reeves' eye using a light. Did not manipulate his eye in any way. He took off Reeves' glasses first.
He did not write a report because policy is that one paramedic is responsible for writing the report, the others review it for accuracy.
No more questions.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 3 morning - Detective Todd Kanaig
21 years with Pasco County Sheriff's office, 16 years at the time
Major crimes unit, any crime against persons
On duty on that day. Requested to respond to the theater. Arrived at 1:40 PM. This case has a unique case number and all reports and evidence are referred back to this case number. Met up with Det Proctor, who was going to be lead detective. Proctor asked Kanaig for assistance to interview Mr Reeves.
Interviewed him in the vehicle. The interview was recorded. First, going through observations. Reeves was in front passenger seat of the cruiser, the detective sat in the back passenger seat. There is a vanity visor and the detective noticed it was pulled down. He could see Reeves in the mirror in the visor. The vehicle was a large Buick Enclave. 2 1/2 to 3 feet between the two of them. He leaned over in order to observe Mr Reeves during the interview. He saw Reeves face, including the left side . At times he could see the right side as well. But mostly the left side.
Detective did not notice anything that indicated injuries. During the interview did you see him touch his face? yes. Was he wearing glasses? Yes. he was handcuffed in front at that point. As he was talking about having something in his eye, he was rubbing his eye and the temple rigt beside the eye. He did this several times.
States he could actually see the eyelid. He saw his face prior to the interview because he helped him out of the first vehicle, changed the handcuffs to front and then put in second vehicle. He did not notice any redness on Mr Reeves eye area during the time they were getting him out of the first car and changing his handcuffs. But during the interview once he saw him touch tha area seveal times, he looked and now it was red.
He became aware that paramedic had already flushed his eye before they moved him from the first car. He also said his shoulder was hurting from sitting in the first patrol car with hands cuffed behind him. But no other complaints of physical pain or injury. He said he felt dazed at one point because he thought he got hit. (Note, they are not playing the actual interview, at least not at this point)
Hanaig observed the forensics people photographing him after bringing him back into the theater for that purpose.
To protect media from seeing him, they had moved the car closer to the theater because their were helicopters overhead. he observed Reeves rubbing his eye. He asked forensics to photograph the eye because of that. Mr Reeves did not ask for any other medical attention. Eventually detective left while forensics was still photographing and collecting items from Reeves. Another detective came in to take his place.
Cross Exam:
Today you are telling the jury you saw Mr Reeves rubbing his eyelid. But what you actually saw he was rubbing the corner of his eye. Big difference isn't it? Detective says he does not believe he misled the jury. Defense attorney is now getting out previous testimony. Oh lordy, once again, minor differences in wording are making this attorney angry. I'm not sure how effective this will be because of the extreme anger this attorney is showing. I think some people could take it as badgering while others will high five the attorney for making points. Keep in mind, this is a jury that comes from rwnj majority general population. Mr Reeves looks quite pleased. Prosecution called for sidebar, so camera went to Reeves. Each time his attorneys yell at the witnesses, Reeves smirks and smiles and looks very pleased with it all.
Just as a note, I rarely see a defense attorney show this much anger and volume when yelling at a witness. There is no mistaking this for explosions of anger by this attorney. This is the same defense attorney that has done it every time. Again, hard to say how the jury with take it, but the rwnj that live around me would be high fiving and glad that the defense is "owning" the prosecution witnesses. Mr Reeves is probably a good example of fellow citizens in his county. Sadly. Oh wow, he is just outright smiling at the different people in the courtroom. I cannot tell how they are reacting in response, teh camera doesn't show them.
Sidebar over.
This detective didn't know anything about what was going on prior to arriving. he does not have a medical or paramedic degree. Another sidebar as defense trying to ask if the detective knows anything about Mr Reeves glasses - what kind they are. Back now. He did nothng to try to coordinate the glasses with the redness. Did not try to tell if the glasses were causing the redness.
Vehicle had two bucket seats in front, bench seat in the back. He was seated behind Reeves. Common practice for detective to be in back seat for safety. The redness was in that corner area. That is why he had forensic photograph area.
Subject to recall no further questions.
21 years with Pasco County Sheriff's office, 16 years at the time
Major crimes unit, any crime against persons
On duty on that day. Requested to respond to the theater. Arrived at 1:40 PM. This case has a unique case number and all reports and evidence are referred back to this case number. Met up with Det Proctor, who was going to be lead detective. Proctor asked Kanaig for assistance to interview Mr Reeves.
Interviewed him in the vehicle. The interview was recorded. First, going through observations. Reeves was in front passenger seat of the cruiser, the detective sat in the back passenger seat. There is a vanity visor and the detective noticed it was pulled down. He could see Reeves in the mirror in the visor. The vehicle was a large Buick Enclave. 2 1/2 to 3 feet between the two of them. He leaned over in order to observe Mr Reeves during the interview. He saw Reeves face, including the left side . At times he could see the right side as well. But mostly the left side.
Detective did not notice anything that indicated injuries. During the interview did you see him touch his face? yes. Was he wearing glasses? Yes. he was handcuffed in front at that point. As he was talking about having something in his eye, he was rubbing his eye and the temple rigt beside the eye. He did this several times.
States he could actually see the eyelid. He saw his face prior to the interview because he helped him out of the first vehicle, changed the handcuffs to front and then put in second vehicle. He did not notice any redness on Mr Reeves eye area during the time they were getting him out of the first car and changing his handcuffs. But during the interview once he saw him touch tha area seveal times, he looked and now it was red.
He became aware that paramedic had already flushed his eye before they moved him from the first car. He also said his shoulder was hurting from sitting in the first patrol car with hands cuffed behind him. But no other complaints of physical pain or injury. He said he felt dazed at one point because he thought he got hit. (Note, they are not playing the actual interview, at least not at this point)
Hanaig observed the forensics people photographing him after bringing him back into the theater for that purpose.
To protect media from seeing him, they had moved the car closer to the theater because their were helicopters overhead. he observed Reeves rubbing his eye. He asked forensics to photograph the eye because of that. Mr Reeves did not ask for any other medical attention. Eventually detective left while forensics was still photographing and collecting items from Reeves. Another detective came in to take his place.
Cross Exam:
Today you are telling the jury you saw Mr Reeves rubbing his eyelid. But what you actually saw he was rubbing the corner of his eye. Big difference isn't it? Detective says he does not believe he misled the jury. Defense attorney is now getting out previous testimony. Oh lordy, once again, minor differences in wording are making this attorney angry. I'm not sure how effective this will be because of the extreme anger this attorney is showing. I think some people could take it as badgering while others will high five the attorney for making points. Keep in mind, this is a jury that comes from rwnj majority general population. Mr Reeves looks quite pleased. Prosecution called for sidebar, so camera went to Reeves. Each time his attorneys yell at the witnesses, Reeves smirks and smiles and looks very pleased with it all.
Just as a note, I rarely see a defense attorney show this much anger and volume when yelling at a witness. There is no mistaking this for explosions of anger by this attorney. This is the same defense attorney that has done it every time. Again, hard to say how the jury with take it, but the rwnj that live around me would be high fiving and glad that the defense is "owning" the prosecution witnesses. Mr Reeves is probably a good example of fellow citizens in his county. Sadly. Oh wow, he is just outright smiling at the different people in the courtroom. I cannot tell how they are reacting in response, teh camera doesn't show them.
Sidebar over.
This detective didn't know anything about what was going on prior to arriving. he does not have a medical or paramedic degree. Another sidebar as defense trying to ask if the detective knows anything about Mr Reeves glasses - what kind they are. Back now. He did nothng to try to coordinate the glasses with the redness. Did not try to tell if the glasses were causing the redness.
Vehicle had two bucket seats in front, bench seat in the back. He was seated behind Reeves. Common practice for detective to be in back seat for safety. The redness was in that corner area. That is why he had forensic photograph area.
Subject to recall no further questions.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
-
Patagoniagirl
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Thank to soooooo much for people like me who cant bear to follow it live.
❤
❤
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 3 morning - Susan Miller
Filed a report. Supervisor in forensics and human remains canine handler, supervisor for 7 years
On day of incident - she was not a supervisor. She was promoted a year later. Nancy Stephens also promoted at same time.
Had 1000 hours experience as well as the educational requirements at time of incident.
She was assigned a particular camera on that day. She collected evidence that day - only photographs. But not any other evidence from theater 10, the sceene of the incident.
She was a forensic investigator. Called to the scene. Arrived 2:29 PM. Given assignment to back of theater 11 to meet with Det Proctor. While there, she was to document Mr Reeves. Her intention was to photograph and collect swabs, GSR kit, fingernail scrapings and cuttings, and collect clothing.
She took a buccal swab. Mr Reeves shoes were collected, put into bag, sealed. Clothes were collected, he was put in a tie-back suit. She took photos before she took his clothes, so the photos show what he was wearing during the incident.
She used digital camera. Metadata is also recorded, date/time stamps, shutter speed, ISO, etc. The time set on the camera was consistent with time zone where photos were taken. She had lighting set on automatic. She used external flash, controlled by auto setting.
She looks at photographs and verifies that these are photos she took of Reeves on the date of the incident. Marking exhibits. Prosecutor want the jury to understand the metadata, so she's explaining where it is on the pages where the photo is printed.
Photo of left side of face is shown. Right side is also shown. Photo sitting is shown. Other photos were taken after clothes seized, pointing out why clothing looks different in some photos.
She went to medical examiner's office two days later to collect evidence. That was to pick up items collected during autopsy, which is normal procedure. Chain of custody is kept. medical examiner uses different number for cases, they are cross referenced to the police case number.
They are introducing the forensic and medical examiner evidence.
Cross Exam:
Same lawyer that has yelled at other witnesses.
He's trying to make a big deal that on the day of the incident she did not know the theater number of the one that was used when she took the photos, but today she knows the number because prosecutor told her. She answered that her instructions were to go to the theater to the "east of theater 10" and she went to the right place even without necessarily knowing whether it was number 9 or 11. Yeah, this defense attorney is gong to have quite a closing, bringup up all this smoke and mirrors.
She preserves the clippers and the nails so that any transfer material might be on both. She did both hands of Mr Reeves. Attorney seemed not to know that. Buccal swap is kind of flat and wide. She says looks like a large Q-tip and has quite a bit of substance, she's not letting him say it's absolutely flat.
The two detectives directed her to which theater to enter to collect samples from Reeves. She noticed redness on the side of the eye of Reeves independently. She doesn't believe the detectives pointed it out and she doesn't recall Reeves pointing it out. he's making a big deal about earlier hearing she said he "did not" point it out. Today she said I "believe he did not" point it out. It was her observation taht led her to photograph the eyelid.
Well, I will say here, this complicates things quite a bit for the prosecutor. On the one hand if he had been hit in the eye at teh time of the incident, I would think the video would show him reacting. I can not for one minute imagine that if someone threw something at me and the fact that something hit my eye I would not have been able to stop at least one of my hands going up to my eye. That never happens in the video. mr Reeves shows no reaction whatsoever as if something actually hit him. he simply grabs his gun and shoots. It's not until a few minutes later that the first witness mentions that Reeves claimed to "have something in my eye". Also, nobody noticed redness in his eye until after he was already seen to have been rubbing it several times. But still, the defense it definitely clouding things up.
Filed a report. Supervisor in forensics and human remains canine handler, supervisor for 7 years
On day of incident - she was not a supervisor. She was promoted a year later. Nancy Stephens also promoted at same time.
Had 1000 hours experience as well as the educational requirements at time of incident.
She was assigned a particular camera on that day. She collected evidence that day - only photographs. But not any other evidence from theater 10, the sceene of the incident.
She was a forensic investigator. Called to the scene. Arrived 2:29 PM. Given assignment to back of theater 11 to meet with Det Proctor. While there, she was to document Mr Reeves. Her intention was to photograph and collect swabs, GSR kit, fingernail scrapings and cuttings, and collect clothing.
She took a buccal swab. Mr Reeves shoes were collected, put into bag, sealed. Clothes were collected, he was put in a tie-back suit. She took photos before she took his clothes, so the photos show what he was wearing during the incident.
She used digital camera. Metadata is also recorded, date/time stamps, shutter speed, ISO, etc. The time set on the camera was consistent with time zone where photos were taken. She had lighting set on automatic. She used external flash, controlled by auto setting.
She looks at photographs and verifies that these are photos she took of Reeves on the date of the incident. Marking exhibits. Prosecutor want the jury to understand the metadata, so she's explaining where it is on the pages where the photo is printed.
Photo of left side of face is shown. Right side is also shown. Photo sitting is shown. Other photos were taken after clothes seized, pointing out why clothing looks different in some photos.
She went to medical examiner's office two days later to collect evidence. That was to pick up items collected during autopsy, which is normal procedure. Chain of custody is kept. medical examiner uses different number for cases, they are cross referenced to the police case number.
They are introducing the forensic and medical examiner evidence.
Cross Exam:
Same lawyer that has yelled at other witnesses.
He's trying to make a big deal that on the day of the incident she did not know the theater number of the one that was used when she took the photos, but today she knows the number because prosecutor told her. She answered that her instructions were to go to the theater to the "east of theater 10" and she went to the right place even without necessarily knowing whether it was number 9 or 11. Yeah, this defense attorney is gong to have quite a closing, bringup up all this smoke and mirrors.
She preserves the clippers and the nails so that any transfer material might be on both. She did both hands of Mr Reeves. Attorney seemed not to know that. Buccal swap is kind of flat and wide. She says looks like a large Q-tip and has quite a bit of substance, she's not letting him say it's absolutely flat.
The two detectives directed her to which theater to enter to collect samples from Reeves. She noticed redness on the side of the eye of Reeves independently. She doesn't believe the detectives pointed it out and she doesn't recall Reeves pointing it out. he's making a big deal about earlier hearing she said he "did not" point it out. Today she said I "believe he did not" point it out. It was her observation taht led her to photograph the eyelid.
Well, I will say here, this complicates things quite a bit for the prosecutor. On the one hand if he had been hit in the eye at teh time of the incident, I would think the video would show him reacting. I can not for one minute imagine that if someone threw something at me and the fact that something hit my eye I would not have been able to stop at least one of my hands going up to my eye. That never happens in the video. mr Reeves shows no reaction whatsoever as if something actually hit him. he simply grabs his gun and shoots. It's not until a few minutes later that the first witness mentions that Reeves claimed to "have something in my eye". Also, nobody noticed redness in his eye until after he was already seen to have been rubbing it several times. But still, the defense it definitely clouding things up.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
-
W. Kevin Vicklund
- Posts: 2492
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:26 pm
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Wondering if GSR (burnt gunpowder) could have been what Reeves got in his eye.
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Probably by rubbing his eye after he shot the victim. May be able to see when he starts in the video.W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 4:37 pm Wondering if GSR (burnt gunpowder) could have been what Reeves got in his eye.
-
Slim Cognito
- Posts: 7533
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
- Location: The eff away from trump.
- Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
- Verified: ✅
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
My thought was he'll claim the dead guy got either popcorn or salt in defendant's eye. Voila! Stand Your Ground.
May the bridges I burn light my way.
x5
x5Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Kind of difficult since he was wearing glasses. Wonder if they checked his glasses for gun residue?Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:26 pm My thought was he'll claim the dead guy got either popcorn or salt in defendant's eye. Voila! Stand Your Ground.
-
Tiredretiredlawyer
- Posts: 8176
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
- Location: Rescue Pets Land
- Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
- Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
I read somewhere and perhaps on this thread but my eyes is too old to find it right now, BUT the judge ruled Stand Your Ground is not a defense in this case.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/us/curti ... index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/10/us/stand ... index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/us/curti ... index.html
Pretrial hearing link:After 8 years, a retired Florida police captain is standing trial for killing a man in an argument about texting in a movie theater
The case garnered widespread attention at the time of the killing, in part due to the defendants' self-defense claim under Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law. The claim was ultimately denied by a judge, who said after two weeks of pretrial testimony in 2017 the law did not apply in this case, forcing it to trial.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/10/us/stand ... index.html
Judge denies ‘stand your ground’ defense in movie theater shooting
Reeves, then 71, confronted Oulson about texting during the previews prior to the movie, according to a criminal complaint. Reeves left and complained to a theater employee, and when Reeves returned to his seat, he and Oulson argued.
Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, the complaint says, at which point Reeves, a former police captain, took out a handgun and fired, fatally wounding Oulson, who was taken to a hospital, where he died. Oulson's wife, Nicole, was shot in the hand.
. Reeves and his attorneys have argued Oulson threw a cellphone at Reeves' head and was aggressively leaning over a chair toward him when the shooting occurred. In pretrial hearings in 2017 over his "stand your ground" defense, Reeves testified he "perceived" Oulson was about to punch him, WFTS reported at the time.
In audio prosecutors played in court of Reeves talking to detectives shortly after the shooting, he said, "If I had to do it over again, it would have never happened. I wouldn't have moved. But you don't get do-overs."
In Reeves' case, however, defense attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the second-degree murder charge under the state's "stand your ground" statute, which would have given Reeves immunity from prosecution.
But Judge Susan Barthle expressed doubt the defendant was acting in self-defense and rejected the claim. The judge was unwilling, she said, to "come to the conclusion that these circumstances are those envisioned by the Legislature when the 'stand your ground' law was enacted."
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
-
Dr. Caligari
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:39 am
- Location: Irvine, CA
- Occupation: retired lawyer
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Yes, very well done. Thanks!W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Tue Feb 15, 2022 9:19 pm i agree. Well done, giving us pertinent info without getting lost in minor details.
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Law
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 3 morning - Dr John Russel Fogmartin
Medical Examiner District 6
Largo Florida is where building is located. Crime lab is also located there. To be designated accredited there are building standards, staffing standards, board certifications for staff, timely work turnover history. Periodically audited. Today it's accredited, also was accredited at the time
Dr Fogmartin - impressive credentials both educational and experience.
Board certified in all three areas of pathology. Clinical, anatomical, forensic
Cause of death was gunshot wound. One of the most common causes of death in his experience. (Florida, well well, what do you know!)
He will be able to explain the path of the bullet and damage it caused to the jury. Autopsy means to see for yourself using external and internal examination to find why a person is deceased. Forensic pathologist is medical doctor and expert at evaluating injuries in the human body, usually with deceased persons. Full death investigation includes autopsy but also context. Circumstances, autopsy, certifies the cause and manner of death. Also has public health role - problems in community that contribute to death.
Documenting autopsy, he is dictating as he is examining the body. Include report, photographs. Is it acceptable and common practice to use photographs to derive certain information as if looking at body itself? Certain aspects yes, in case a medical examiner passes away and another doctor has to present in court. It's common practice to take photos.
It's not very often that a non-decedent to be looked at by someone like medical examiner, but sometimes it happens. What about one gunshot hitting a different person as well as decedent. yes. Legs, doors, jewelry, pockets, whatever else the bullet penetrates. Even sometimes a bullet goes through a wall and kills someone on the other side.
Is he allowed to render opinion as to cause of death, manner of death? Manner of death only five - based on context - natural, homicide (one person kills another), accident, suicide, cannot be determined used because unsure of exactly what happened
Perforating bullet hole- comes in and goes out. Entry and exit wound
Anterior - front of body, posterior - rear of body
Extremities - anotomic position is used, assuming palms up for purposes of identifying anterior vs posterior
For wound description you have to keep in mind that it's anatomic, but in reality people are moving, what their position was when injury occurred
Grazing wound doesn't enter the body, creates a trough wound on the surface
He is amazing at explaing this stuff, I can't type fast enough, but he is definitely explaining very effectivly to the jury, I believe.
Stippling - powder tatooing - hallmark of intermediate range gunshot wound. When gun is fired out comes bullet, but ignited gunpowder that has been heated, the unburned powder also comes out and if close enough the powder will hit the skin and make a pattern like a tatoo. It gets actually in the skin. 1 to 18/24 inches is intermediate depending on the gun itself. the closer you are the closer together/tight is the pattern. Further away the stippling cones out more spread out.
Sufficiently far away, the momentum is not enough to push it into the skin. Fainter and fainter and more spread out as the distance is further. This helps make an educated theory as to how close the gun muzzle was to the victim.
Stipulating individual who was shot is Chad Wayne Oulsen and that he is deceased
Dr reviewed notes, autopsy, photos, reports, etc.
Did he also review information about the hand of Nicole Oulsen. Did he know the facts included one gunshot. Did he know Mrs Oulsen's hand was also injured. yes, he had heard that anecdotally. One of his investigators was notified that the doctor as the hospital had pronounced Oulsen dead. The body was transferred, exam was conducted,
Going through all the details of autopsy, I will leave out most of it, just anything that I think might come into play by defense. His wound was pretty much right in the middle of his chest. He knew it was gunshot wound before internal exam. The bullet hit at least two other targets before hitting his chest (not counting passing through clothing). So, tissue from his own hand that was hit first, or his wife's hand which was hit also, was pushed into his body and caused an
abrasion. The bullet would be tumbling by the time it hit him because it hit two other targets before hitting his chest. he was hit in the right hand with a grazing wound
Bullet went through skin, under fourth rib, through heart, the jacket was in his heart, the bullet core ended up in his right lung. It went from front to back, slightly right to left because deflected by hitting other things. A medium caliber jacket and core were removed during autopsy.
Dr is describing the bridge of the nose and other places on your face would be injured if something the size of a cell phone was thrown at your face. He's being shown photos. he does not see any injury in the photograph. In the first two photos he says one eyelid looks slightly more red than the other side. He's explaining if there is any actual injury it's subtle and not apparent. The eye has no injury. The eyelid is a fragile part of the body. It is there mostly to protect the eye from debris. The eyelid is not very strong. The blood vessels are so fragile in the eyelid that if you are strangled, those blood vessels typically rupture.
Hard to describe this testimony, but basically Dr is being asked questions about what kind of injury you should have if cell phone is thrown at your face. he's describing that if glases are intact, anythng beyond the glasses are more protected, not less protected by the glasses. Also agreeing that you can cause your eye tissue to turn red easily by rubbing it. The eyelid is one of the easiest places to cause redness just by rubbing it. His testimony is definitely throwing cold water on the defense idea that Reeves was hit in the eye by the cell phone in spite of the fact that his glasses are not damaged and they are "between" the cell phone and the part of the eye supposedly struck.
No injuries anywhere on Reeves face at all. Should there be swelling or abrasion showing in photos by the time in the photos? yes. The passage of time between the shooting and the photos would be sufficient that swelling or other bruising should be showing if he was struck in the face by anything of significance.
Cross Exam:
Explaining when the first time he saw a photo of Mrs Oulsen's hand. He had seen one side of her hand before his deposition and at the deposition he saw the other side which helped clarily some things. It helped him see what angle her hand was when the bullet hit.
In this case there is absolute certainty as the Mr Oulsen's cause of death.
Now talking about the cell phone and hypothetical about as to whether an iPhone was actually thrown. He has insufficient information to answer any question as to whether Reeves got hit by an object.
He can only say what he sees on the photo not what was on the person. The person who sees something first hand has better information than if that person just saw a photograph.
Re-direct
Making clear that the defense brought up the word "dazed" and the medical examiner is not comfortable using that word, or testifying to it. It's not a medical term.
If the head was hit sufficiently to cause concussion would you expect to see obvious injury? Yes, for a phone to cause concussion it would have had to thrown with great force.
Re-cross
Judge is warning that we aren't going to go back and forth on this idea ll day long. defense is trying to get the doctor to agree that Reeves could have gotten a concussion from the supposed throwing of an iPhone. it's not happening like defense wanted, pure dud here.
Medical Examiner District 6
Largo Florida is where building is located. Crime lab is also located there. To be designated accredited there are building standards, staffing standards, board certifications for staff, timely work turnover history. Periodically audited. Today it's accredited, also was accredited at the time
Dr Fogmartin - impressive credentials both educational and experience.
Board certified in all three areas of pathology. Clinical, anatomical, forensic
Cause of death was gunshot wound. One of the most common causes of death in his experience. (Florida, well well, what do you know!)
He will be able to explain the path of the bullet and damage it caused to the jury. Autopsy means to see for yourself using external and internal examination to find why a person is deceased. Forensic pathologist is medical doctor and expert at evaluating injuries in the human body, usually with deceased persons. Full death investigation includes autopsy but also context. Circumstances, autopsy, certifies the cause and manner of death. Also has public health role - problems in community that contribute to death.
Documenting autopsy, he is dictating as he is examining the body. Include report, photographs. Is it acceptable and common practice to use photographs to derive certain information as if looking at body itself? Certain aspects yes, in case a medical examiner passes away and another doctor has to present in court. It's common practice to take photos.
It's not very often that a non-decedent to be looked at by someone like medical examiner, but sometimes it happens. What about one gunshot hitting a different person as well as decedent. yes. Legs, doors, jewelry, pockets, whatever else the bullet penetrates. Even sometimes a bullet goes through a wall and kills someone on the other side.
Is he allowed to render opinion as to cause of death, manner of death? Manner of death only five - based on context - natural, homicide (one person kills another), accident, suicide, cannot be determined used because unsure of exactly what happened
Perforating bullet hole- comes in and goes out. Entry and exit wound
Anterior - front of body, posterior - rear of body
Extremities - anotomic position is used, assuming palms up for purposes of identifying anterior vs posterior
For wound description you have to keep in mind that it's anatomic, but in reality people are moving, what their position was when injury occurred
Grazing wound doesn't enter the body, creates a trough wound on the surface
He is amazing at explaing this stuff, I can't type fast enough, but he is definitely explaining very effectivly to the jury, I believe.
Stippling - powder tatooing - hallmark of intermediate range gunshot wound. When gun is fired out comes bullet, but ignited gunpowder that has been heated, the unburned powder also comes out and if close enough the powder will hit the skin and make a pattern like a tatoo. It gets actually in the skin. 1 to 18/24 inches is intermediate depending on the gun itself. the closer you are the closer together/tight is the pattern. Further away the stippling cones out more spread out.
Sufficiently far away, the momentum is not enough to push it into the skin. Fainter and fainter and more spread out as the distance is further. This helps make an educated theory as to how close the gun muzzle was to the victim.
Stipulating individual who was shot is Chad Wayne Oulsen and that he is deceased
Dr reviewed notes, autopsy, photos, reports, etc.
Did he also review information about the hand of Nicole Oulsen. Did he know the facts included one gunshot. Did he know Mrs Oulsen's hand was also injured. yes, he had heard that anecdotally. One of his investigators was notified that the doctor as the hospital had pronounced Oulsen dead. The body was transferred, exam was conducted,
Going through all the details of autopsy, I will leave out most of it, just anything that I think might come into play by defense. His wound was pretty much right in the middle of his chest. He knew it was gunshot wound before internal exam. The bullet hit at least two other targets before hitting his chest (not counting passing through clothing). So, tissue from his own hand that was hit first, or his wife's hand which was hit also, was pushed into his body and caused an
abrasion. The bullet would be tumbling by the time it hit him because it hit two other targets before hitting his chest. he was hit in the right hand with a grazing wound
Bullet went through skin, under fourth rib, through heart, the jacket was in his heart, the bullet core ended up in his right lung. It went from front to back, slightly right to left because deflected by hitting other things. A medium caliber jacket and core were removed during autopsy.
Dr is describing the bridge of the nose and other places on your face would be injured if something the size of a cell phone was thrown at your face. He's being shown photos. he does not see any injury in the photograph. In the first two photos he says one eyelid looks slightly more red than the other side. He's explaining if there is any actual injury it's subtle and not apparent. The eye has no injury. The eyelid is a fragile part of the body. It is there mostly to protect the eye from debris. The eyelid is not very strong. The blood vessels are so fragile in the eyelid that if you are strangled, those blood vessels typically rupture.
Hard to describe this testimony, but basically Dr is being asked questions about what kind of injury you should have if cell phone is thrown at your face. he's describing that if glases are intact, anythng beyond the glasses are more protected, not less protected by the glasses. Also agreeing that you can cause your eye tissue to turn red easily by rubbing it. The eyelid is one of the easiest places to cause redness just by rubbing it. His testimony is definitely throwing cold water on the defense idea that Reeves was hit in the eye by the cell phone in spite of the fact that his glasses are not damaged and they are "between" the cell phone and the part of the eye supposedly struck.
No injuries anywhere on Reeves face at all. Should there be swelling or abrasion showing in photos by the time in the photos? yes. The passage of time between the shooting and the photos would be sufficient that swelling or other bruising should be showing if he was struck in the face by anything of significance.
Cross Exam:
Explaining when the first time he saw a photo of Mrs Oulsen's hand. He had seen one side of her hand before his deposition and at the deposition he saw the other side which helped clarily some things. It helped him see what angle her hand was when the bullet hit.
In this case there is absolute certainty as the Mr Oulsen's cause of death.
Now talking about the cell phone and hypothetical about as to whether an iPhone was actually thrown. He has insufficient information to answer any question as to whether Reeves got hit by an object.
He can only say what he sees on the photo not what was on the person. The person who sees something first hand has better information than if that person just saw a photograph.
Re-direct
Making clear that the defense brought up the word "dazed" and the medical examiner is not comfortable using that word, or testifying to it. It's not a medical term.
If the head was hit sufficiently to cause concussion would you expect to see obvious injury? Yes, for a phone to cause concussion it would have had to thrown with great force.
Re-cross
Judge is warning that we aren't going to go back and forth on this idea ll day long. defense is trying to get the doctor to agree that Reeves could have gotten a concussion from the supposed throwing of an iPhone. it's not happening like defense wanted, pure dud here.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
-
Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
This is Florida, the dead guy is as likely to be convicted as the defendant.Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 5:26 pm My thought was he'll claim the dead guy got either popcorn or salt in defendant's eye. Voila! Stand Your Ground.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 3 morning - Allen Proctor
Retired from law enforcement, now works in pest control
Made contact with Alan Hamilton, the one who retrieved the gun. He met with Alan and his wife to interview them. Why did you speak to him off-tape? After talking to witnesses he wanted to know if Alan would be able to articulate what happened before talking to him. Did he say the same thing on tape as off tape? Yes. Where was his wife when you talked off tape? Outside. During the on tape interview was Angela Hamilton present? He says no, he's positive. This conflicts with what Hamilton said. I would believe this guy before Hamilton. Also this questioning seems to suggest that there was something about Hamilton that made Proctor believe it was possible that Hamilton would not be sufficiently able to express what he witnessed. That is interesting because if you look at my notes I describe him as being a poor witness.
Mrs Hamilton was traumatized. He allowed Mr Hamilton to be in the room because of how upset and traumatized she was. He sat behind her, no eye contact, no conversation, she could not see him at all. He also spoke to her off tape first then on tape. This is how he conducted all his interviews.
Proctor says Hamilton knew NOT to say anything to Mrs Hamilton. She gave the same statement on and off tape.
Were the statements identical between the two? No, and that is typical, they both saw different things. He admits the practice of allowing Mr Hamilton in the same room is frowned on, but he allowed it because he felt Mrs Hamilton would be able to be more calm if Mr Hamilton was in the room. If his taped interview had not already taken place, he would have not allowed Mr Hamilton in Mrs Hamilton's interview
Was defendant in Tyvek(?) suit when you first saw him? No. Originally in Gondack's vehicle? Yes. Transferred him to Proctor's vehicle at some point. He believes he had an SUV but doesn't rmember the make/model for sure. Full size SUV.
He was behind the theater. Contacts Mr Reeves, who is placed in the front of his car and put the handcuffs on his hands in front of his body at that time. Put him into the front of the SUV. Asked him if he had anything else on him, he says no.
Read his rights prior to interview. Reeves agreed to speak to him and it was taped. Also there was a transcript prepared. Does it match the audio tape? Yes.
Loading up the audio tape. Reeves is looking a little bit like he might be tapping his foot or something like a nervous tik. I haven't noticed this before. He is breathing hard now. The tape is apparently going to be played.
Hands witness CD, he recognizes his handwriting and the acoompanying chain of command sticker. He does not know when Property and Evidence placed a white sticker on it, but that is consistent with what they do.
Oh, we aren't going to hear it I guess. Darn. This seems unusual to me, usually this kind of thing would be played for the jury at this point.
Cross Exam: (correction, apparently the judge is allowing defense to ask the following after a long sidebar prior to playing the taped interview iwth Reeves)
Looking at the evidence bag, tell the jury what is the date on that bag. He asks if he can see his property report. yes, they are getting it for him. What date is listed on the bag itself. 1/24/14. That is 11 days later than the incident. He put the CD in the bag 11 days later? Yes. What does the white label say on the bag? Case number xxxxx PR#406004 PSO CLS;MED 4AP City interview with Angela Hamilton. The contents indicate should be Angela Hamilton's interview. But what does the CD say? CD says Curtis Reeves has date, original date, verified date. Verified means he verified the contents for court. He opened this package to verify the CD for court. He believes property and evidence made the mistake on the label on the back. But the property receipt and the detective's notations on the bag are correct.
I think I understand what is going on. So, there was an extended sidebar when the Reeves interview was going to be introduced. The judge must have allowed the defense to ask this question even though it's still direct exam. So this wasn't actually "cross examination" just the judge allowing the defense to point out that someone put the wrong white sticker on the back of the envelope.
After Recess: Judge is reading to the jury - you are about to hear recorded interviews, they are proper evidence. You will also be furnished transcripts. The recordings are the evidence, the transcripts are not evidence, they are provided to help you follow. Any differences you must rely on what you hear.
You will hear statements and opinions stated by detectives that are only for the purpose of eliciting reaction and statements from interviewee. You are not to take these statements by detectives as as true, but only to establish context for Mr Reeves reactions.
I will put the interview separate from this post.
Retired from law enforcement, now works in pest control
Made contact with Alan Hamilton, the one who retrieved the gun. He met with Alan and his wife to interview them. Why did you speak to him off-tape? After talking to witnesses he wanted to know if Alan would be able to articulate what happened before talking to him. Did he say the same thing on tape as off tape? Yes. Where was his wife when you talked off tape? Outside. During the on tape interview was Angela Hamilton present? He says no, he's positive. This conflicts with what Hamilton said. I would believe this guy before Hamilton. Also this questioning seems to suggest that there was something about Hamilton that made Proctor believe it was possible that Hamilton would not be sufficiently able to express what he witnessed. That is interesting because if you look at my notes I describe him as being a poor witness.
Mrs Hamilton was traumatized. He allowed Mr Hamilton to be in the room because of how upset and traumatized she was. He sat behind her, no eye contact, no conversation, she could not see him at all. He also spoke to her off tape first then on tape. This is how he conducted all his interviews.
Proctor says Hamilton knew NOT to say anything to Mrs Hamilton. She gave the same statement on and off tape.
Were the statements identical between the two? No, and that is typical, they both saw different things. He admits the practice of allowing Mr Hamilton in the same room is frowned on, but he allowed it because he felt Mrs Hamilton would be able to be more calm if Mr Hamilton was in the room. If his taped interview had not already taken place, he would have not allowed Mr Hamilton in Mrs Hamilton's interview
Was defendant in Tyvek(?) suit when you first saw him? No. Originally in Gondack's vehicle? Yes. Transferred him to Proctor's vehicle at some point. He believes he had an SUV but doesn't rmember the make/model for sure. Full size SUV.
He was behind the theater. Contacts Mr Reeves, who is placed in the front of his car and put the handcuffs on his hands in front of his body at that time. Put him into the front of the SUV. Asked him if he had anything else on him, he says no.
Read his rights prior to interview. Reeves agreed to speak to him and it was taped. Also there was a transcript prepared. Does it match the audio tape? Yes.
Loading up the audio tape. Reeves is looking a little bit like he might be tapping his foot or something like a nervous tik. I haven't noticed this before. He is breathing hard now. The tape is apparently going to be played.
Hands witness CD, he recognizes his handwriting and the acoompanying chain of command sticker. He does not know when Property and Evidence placed a white sticker on it, but that is consistent with what they do.
Oh, we aren't going to hear it I guess. Darn. This seems unusual to me, usually this kind of thing would be played for the jury at this point.
Cross Exam: (correction, apparently the judge is allowing defense to ask the following after a long sidebar prior to playing the taped interview iwth Reeves)
Looking at the evidence bag, tell the jury what is the date on that bag. He asks if he can see his property report. yes, they are getting it for him. What date is listed on the bag itself. 1/24/14. That is 11 days later than the incident. He put the CD in the bag 11 days later? Yes. What does the white label say on the bag? Case number xxxxx PR#406004 PSO CLS;MED 4AP City interview with Angela Hamilton. The contents indicate should be Angela Hamilton's interview. But what does the CD say? CD says Curtis Reeves has date, original date, verified date. Verified means he verified the contents for court. He opened this package to verify the CD for court. He believes property and evidence made the mistake on the label on the back. But the property receipt and the detective's notations on the bag are correct.
I think I understand what is going on. So, there was an extended sidebar when the Reeves interview was going to be introduced. The judge must have allowed the defense to ask this question even though it's still direct exam. So this wasn't actually "cross examination" just the judge allowing the defense to point out that someone put the wrong white sticker on the back of the envelope.
After Recess: Judge is reading to the jury - you are about to hear recorded interviews, they are proper evidence. You will also be furnished transcripts. The recordings are the evidence, the transcripts are not evidence, they are provided to help you follow. Any differences you must rely on what you hear.
You will hear statements and opinions stated by detectives that are only for the purpose of eliciting reaction and statements from interviewee. You are not to take these statements by detectives as as true, but only to establish context for Mr Reeves reactions.
I will put the interview separate from this post.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
-
Gregg
- Posts: 5502
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
- Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
- Occupation: We build cars
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
I'm sorry but is everyone in Florida retired law enforcement?
My major takeaway from all this is that everyone involved except the dead guy and his wife was either a retired cop or carrying a gun, or both.
My major takeaway from all this is that everyone involved except the dead guy and his wife was either a retired cop or carrying a gun, or both.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Day 3 - Afernoon - Curtis Reeves interview
These are my impressions, I will try to do word for word if I can, but it might get a bit much.
Asks Reeves how he is. No audible response
Are you alright? Tells him to sit in the front seat. No audible response from Reeves
Cuffing him in the front. Reeves calls the detective "my friend" during brief conversation
Detectives introduce themselves. They read rights to him. He says he understands and he wants to talk
He says his throat is dry. What movie - he answers, can't understand
How long were the lights down. Quite a while, he has no idea the concept of time.
They say they are going to get him something to drink
How long retired? 20 years
You started as a young man? Oct 1966
He's telling them about his retirement.
I can hardly hear anything he is saying. Says the lights wre down, the guy was playing with his cell phone, says he asked him to turn it off
Says he went to talk to the manager. What manager? Can't hear the response, it's a heavy set guy wearing glasses
comes back in. I said "I see you put it away". He turned around in his seat and said something about if it was any of your fucking business I was texting my daughter. His wife was holding him back. he jumps up and stands in his seat and as he pushes on the back I leaned back because I had no place to go. he kept hollering at me, and led me to believe he was going to kick my ass. So I know I can't go anywhere. He's virtually on top of me, I'm stretched out trying to get away from him. I think I'm saying "no no no" suddenly my head was to the right and he hit me with something, I assumed it was his fist. Something was wrong with my left eye. I think he had his cell phone in his hand because I saw the screen. And I got my left hand out in front of me and my glasses were pushed sideways, there was a young deputy that came over.
Detective asks "so your glasses were off"
Reeves: "No, they were kind of sideways, so I pushed them down on my head again.And uh, for a while there I was kind of dazed and it had to be from the strike. I felt like I had something in my eye, I still do. Anyway, I'm leaning back, there was some kind of contact with my hand, it's dark in there, the trajectory of the bullet should be upward because I came out of my pocket with it. I didn't mean to do it. I've counselled cops about it.
How many rounds did you shoot? One
Detective says something I can't make out
Reeves "I guess I was scared shitless.I have arthritis in both hands, my back, a freaking wreck, I was on SWAT for 15 years like I'm Superman and now I'm a physical wreck.
Detctive asks where the gun was
Reeves; It was in my right front pocket, you can see the pockets stretched out here. I'm stretched out on the seat like this. I'm yelling 'no no no' he says again he got hit in the face
Any idea where you shot him at? No. I heard somebody say I shot him in the chest.
Detective: you seem (inaudible)
Reeves: Uh, I think he had his cell phone. When he turned away from me I looked down and the cell phone was laying at my feet so I think that's what he hit my face with.
Where was your wife at? She was at my right hand side. If she's paying attention, bless her heart, she's you know, there is no justification for what heppened there. (detective says "right".
Note: Reeves seems very calm, his voice is clear, there is no indication that anything out of the ordinary has happened. That shocks me, I am surprised at how calm and matter of fact he is.
Where was your son at? He wasn't there, we saved a seat for him but he didn't show. (this is weird, I have no idea how the detective knew about his son, this has never come up during this interview)
Detective; And this guy is sitting directly in front of you?
Reeves: No,his wife I think, or whoever was with him directly in front of me, he was off to the right side. If he had been right in front of me I would have been just whipped, I couldn't do anything.
Detective; Right side in the row in front of you. Just want to be sure.
Reeves: yeah
long silence
Reeves: what's the status?
Detective: we don't know yet, we have peoople down there, it's not looking good.
Reeves: All over a stinking phone
Detective: Yeah. Did uh...
Reeves: Whoever was with him was trying to hold him back
Detective: what was he saying to you:
Reeves: Fuck off, get out of my face, fuck you, uh, he was sittin there playing with it and what he said to me was that he was texting his daughter. Well he wasn't, he was, scrolling uh, so, I think when I leaned over and asked him to turn his cell phone off he told me to get the fuck out of his face and so I knew right away...(get interrupted)
Detective: What about just before the shot, what was he saying to you?
Reeves: mumbling and takes a while to asnwer. I think that's when he said he was texting his daughter. There was "fuck" in there three or four times, it was none of my fucking business and I'm going to kick your ass, whatever he was saying ... I gotta be candid I don't remember much.
Ok
It ws enough for me to try to look for a way out. And my wife was saying, when I got up to tell the manager she said we should just move. And she's absolutely right, that's what we should have done. So. But's it something like, when he jumped up and turned around it was like no problem just a guy being mouthy. When he came over the seat that's when....
Detective: You say 'when he jumped up' did he come over the seat or was he still on his row?
Reeves: His feet were on the seat, at least one of them was, and he was pushing back with his hand and he was coming over the seat. He was coming over into my area where I'm sitting.
Detective: OK, (starts to talk gets interrupted)
Reeves: and I say "whoa whoa whoa it's just a cell phone. I don't know if I was sayng no no no or whoa whoa whoa. So he's pushing off and I had a hold of somethiing with my left hand, I assume it was his chest, I don't know.
Detective: Did you actually make contact with him?
Reeves: I made contact with something, his arm, his chest, shoulder I'm saying no no no whoa whoa whoa
Detective: Like they say in the books, it happened so fast
Reeves: As soon as I pulled the trigger I said ooooh shit. This is too (inaudible) but I can't I'm 71 years old (inaudible)
How old was he? I don't know. 35, 40 I don't know
Detective: Did you think he had something other than his cell phone?
Reeves: I had no idea what he had, I mean all I know is the guy is coming after me, it's dark, the shows on, I don't know him, I see that he's very explosive, unnecessarily, I dont' know what his motivation is I don't know why he wants to pursue something that's not worth pursuing
(I have to interrupt here. This is ironic in the first. When he got back from complaining to the manager, the phone was off. REEVES is the one who nagged at Oulsen by saying "I see you turned off your phone". he was the one unnecessarily keeping this thing going. Even HE admitted that. There is no disagreement that the phone was off when he got back and that Reeves is the one who continued to nag)
Reeves: Like I said when he jumped up, it was not a big deal, but when he went for me and started yelling I though crap, it scared the crap out of me...inaudible, and after he hit me...
Detective - you keep saying he hit you but what did he hit you with?
Reeves: (I think he says 'the cell phone') more inaudible mumbling
Detective: OK. Fist? (actually not sure if the detective said the word fist or if Reeves said it)
Reeves: Like I said after he hit me my face went sideways, I was stretched out in my seat kind of like this with my left hand out and when I shot, hell, it should have been pretty darn close to contact.
Detective: OK
Reeves: I know we're trained not to stick it out in front of us but I was afraid I'd shoot myself. I don't know why it happened so fast. I'm thinking this guy is doing, could be, some bad stuff. If I had to do it over again, it would never have happened. But you don't get do-overs.
Detective: So, what made you shoot him?
Reeves: Well, I guess uh, it scared the hell out of me.
Detective: OK
Reeves: I thought the guy was fixin to beat the shit out of me
Detective: OK
Reeves: I don't know how else to say that.
Detective: he never told you that, right?
Reeves: he said something that led me to believe and then the guy starts coming at you with the aggravated position, the contored face, the fuck you's and stuff like that, uh, I don't think I've ever had anybody get in my face like that. It scared the crap out of me, if I was 15, 20 years younger I might have just wrestled it out with him (he pronounced it wrassled)
(I wonder how many times in an encounter with a suspect this guy had the contorted face and fuck you's and angry voice.)
He continues mumbling stuff something about being surprised he could shoot because of the arthritis in his hands.
(Wow, that should make people feel safe this guy carries a gun around with him while claiming he doesn't know if he can even shoot properly)
Detective: Alright, what else can you tell me?
Reeves: I don't know.
Other detective starts now: I want to be clear. You say he came at you in an aggravated manner?
Reeves: facial expresseion....
detective: let me ask you this, if you could do it over do you think you could have taken him if you didn't have a weapon?
Reeves: No, I'm 71 years old I couldn't take that guy. Repeats stuff about Retired, gained 30 pounds, arthritis, me knees, lists every part of his body that is broekn.
Detective: Do you think you could have prevented by (inaudible)
Reeves: I, I, there's no way that me or anyone else could speculate about that. If I thought I wasn't going to get beat up I never would have done it. I was pretty confident after being hit one time that he wasn't going to stop.
Detective: We got to figure out what we're going to do, and we have to figure out
Reeves: You got a lady that was sitting one seat over, she should have seen everything. (describes where his wife ws, empty seat, this other lady)
Detective reminds him he knows they will talk to everyone, you've handled these kinds of investigations
Reeves: Oh, I know. Let me put it this way, if I wasn't afraid of getting hurt, getting beat up, I never would have pulled the pistol. And I trained cops when I was on duty. Alot of things are different. I tell peoople make sure you are 1000% right and they other peoople are 1000% wrong. I still hang around with SWAT guys.
They ask if he's intoxicated. Says he doesn't drink or take drugs. I drank part of a coke and had popcorn
Reeves talk about the deputy coming over and taking his gun, he saw popcorn on the floor, he saw the cellphone on the floor thought it was his, but then now he's thinking that's what hit him. Describes his gun
Makes a comment about his gun being "good stuff".
Detective: Let's go back to that question. What would you expect us to do?
Reeves: Well, I was, and I hate this term because I read the news, but I was defending myself. It don't make it any easier to accept it. The guy was very aggressive, certainly younger,
Detective: If this guy dies, do you think your actions, was it worth it?
Reeves: inaudible, I think he said "nothing's worth it"
Detective: But (inaudible mumbling something about taking a life)
Reeves: (lets out a heavy sigh) I would like to say "no". I would hope the answer to that question would be no, but unfortunately, it's yes, I felt, I mean I got a bruised arm that takes too much to heal, I don't want to be blind or any of those other things when I get older. I haven't been scared. Since I've been retired nobody has ever scared me. This guy scared the shit out of me.
How old was he? I want to say 30 or 40
Ok, How old did you say you are? 71
Detective: I need all your information, spell your name Alright sir. What else.
Detective explains what they are going to do with collecting forensics. Asks him if he has any questions.
Reeves: Do this, too, before you leave. Get all the questions you want because if he scared the shit out of me (inaudible)
Detective: Well, believe me, you know the system as well as we do.
There is alot of cross talk but they basically tell him they are going to be fair and do what they have to do. he starts talking to him like they are his pals, it seems like he is trying to influence them to handle this to his benefit. I can't hear all the words, but enough of them see that's what he's hoping will happen due to his camaraderie and making sure they understand that he is one of them. He's surprisingly upbeat. I really think he thought they would just take his word for everything because he's a retired police officer.
They tell him they will take it one step at a time. he seems concerned that they are going to talk to his wife because she would never see any justificaiton in this. (at a previous hearing, the detective that took his gun said Reeve's wife scolded him and told him he was not justified. He also testified that Reeves shook his finger at her and told her to shut up. For some reason, the prosecution did not elicit that same testimony from him during this trial. I'm not sure why)
He tell them again he has something in his left eye. They look and tell him they don't see anything. He says the medic rinsed it out but he still feels it. They are talking as they are driving closer to the door, there is a media helicopter in the air they are trying to avoid Reeves being photographed by media. Now you hear the helicopter when they open the car door.
End of recording.
These are my impressions, I will try to do word for word if I can, but it might get a bit much.
Asks Reeves how he is. No audible response
Are you alright? Tells him to sit in the front seat. No audible response from Reeves
Cuffing him in the front. Reeves calls the detective "my friend" during brief conversation
Detectives introduce themselves. They read rights to him. He says he understands and he wants to talk
He says his throat is dry. What movie - he answers, can't understand
How long were the lights down. Quite a while, he has no idea the concept of time.
They say they are going to get him something to drink
How long retired? 20 years
You started as a young man? Oct 1966
He's telling them about his retirement.
I can hardly hear anything he is saying. Says the lights wre down, the guy was playing with his cell phone, says he asked him to turn it off
Says he went to talk to the manager. What manager? Can't hear the response, it's a heavy set guy wearing glasses
comes back in. I said "I see you put it away". He turned around in his seat and said something about if it was any of your fucking business I was texting my daughter. His wife was holding him back. he jumps up and stands in his seat and as he pushes on the back I leaned back because I had no place to go. he kept hollering at me, and led me to believe he was going to kick my ass. So I know I can't go anywhere. He's virtually on top of me, I'm stretched out trying to get away from him. I think I'm saying "no no no" suddenly my head was to the right and he hit me with something, I assumed it was his fist. Something was wrong with my left eye. I think he had his cell phone in his hand because I saw the screen. And I got my left hand out in front of me and my glasses were pushed sideways, there was a young deputy that came over.
Detective asks "so your glasses were off"
Reeves: "No, they were kind of sideways, so I pushed them down on my head again.And uh, for a while there I was kind of dazed and it had to be from the strike. I felt like I had something in my eye, I still do. Anyway, I'm leaning back, there was some kind of contact with my hand, it's dark in there, the trajectory of the bullet should be upward because I came out of my pocket with it. I didn't mean to do it. I've counselled cops about it.
How many rounds did you shoot? One
Detective says something I can't make out
Reeves "I guess I was scared shitless.I have arthritis in both hands, my back, a freaking wreck, I was on SWAT for 15 years like I'm Superman and now I'm a physical wreck.
Detctive asks where the gun was
Reeves; It was in my right front pocket, you can see the pockets stretched out here. I'm stretched out on the seat like this. I'm yelling 'no no no' he says again he got hit in the face
Any idea where you shot him at? No. I heard somebody say I shot him in the chest.
Detective: you seem (inaudible)
Reeves: Uh, I think he had his cell phone. When he turned away from me I looked down and the cell phone was laying at my feet so I think that's what he hit my face with.
Where was your wife at? She was at my right hand side. If she's paying attention, bless her heart, she's you know, there is no justification for what heppened there. (detective says "right".
Note: Reeves seems very calm, his voice is clear, there is no indication that anything out of the ordinary has happened. That shocks me, I am surprised at how calm and matter of fact he is.
Where was your son at? He wasn't there, we saved a seat for him but he didn't show. (this is weird, I have no idea how the detective knew about his son, this has never come up during this interview)
Detective; And this guy is sitting directly in front of you?
Reeves: No,his wife I think, or whoever was with him directly in front of me, he was off to the right side. If he had been right in front of me I would have been just whipped, I couldn't do anything.
Detective; Right side in the row in front of you. Just want to be sure.
Reeves: yeah
long silence
Reeves: what's the status?
Detective: we don't know yet, we have peoople down there, it's not looking good.
Reeves: All over a stinking phone
Detective: Yeah. Did uh...
Reeves: Whoever was with him was trying to hold him back
Detective: what was he saying to you:
Reeves: Fuck off, get out of my face, fuck you, uh, he was sittin there playing with it and what he said to me was that he was texting his daughter. Well he wasn't, he was, scrolling uh, so, I think when I leaned over and asked him to turn his cell phone off he told me to get the fuck out of his face and so I knew right away...(get interrupted)
Detective: What about just before the shot, what was he saying to you?
Reeves: mumbling and takes a while to asnwer. I think that's when he said he was texting his daughter. There was "fuck" in there three or four times, it was none of my fucking business and I'm going to kick your ass, whatever he was saying ... I gotta be candid I don't remember much.
Ok
It ws enough for me to try to look for a way out. And my wife was saying, when I got up to tell the manager she said we should just move. And she's absolutely right, that's what we should have done. So. But's it something like, when he jumped up and turned around it was like no problem just a guy being mouthy. When he came over the seat that's when....
Detective: You say 'when he jumped up' did he come over the seat or was he still on his row?
Reeves: His feet were on the seat, at least one of them was, and he was pushing back with his hand and he was coming over the seat. He was coming over into my area where I'm sitting.
Detective: OK, (starts to talk gets interrupted)
Reeves: and I say "whoa whoa whoa it's just a cell phone. I don't know if I was sayng no no no or whoa whoa whoa. So he's pushing off and I had a hold of somethiing with my left hand, I assume it was his chest, I don't know.
Detective: Did you actually make contact with him?
Reeves: I made contact with something, his arm, his chest, shoulder I'm saying no no no whoa whoa whoa
Detective: Like they say in the books, it happened so fast
Reeves: As soon as I pulled the trigger I said ooooh shit. This is too (inaudible) but I can't I'm 71 years old (inaudible)
How old was he? I don't know. 35, 40 I don't know
Detective: Did you think he had something other than his cell phone?
Reeves: I had no idea what he had, I mean all I know is the guy is coming after me, it's dark, the shows on, I don't know him, I see that he's very explosive, unnecessarily, I dont' know what his motivation is I don't know why he wants to pursue something that's not worth pursuing
(I have to interrupt here. This is ironic in the first. When he got back from complaining to the manager, the phone was off. REEVES is the one who nagged at Oulsen by saying "I see you turned off your phone". he was the one unnecessarily keeping this thing going. Even HE admitted that. There is no disagreement that the phone was off when he got back and that Reeves is the one who continued to nag)
Reeves: Like I said when he jumped up, it was not a big deal, but when he went for me and started yelling I though crap, it scared the crap out of me...inaudible, and after he hit me...
Detective - you keep saying he hit you but what did he hit you with?
Reeves: (I think he says 'the cell phone') more inaudible mumbling
Detective: OK. Fist? (actually not sure if the detective said the word fist or if Reeves said it)
Reeves: Like I said after he hit me my face went sideways, I was stretched out in my seat kind of like this with my left hand out and when I shot, hell, it should have been pretty darn close to contact.
Detective: OK
Reeves: I know we're trained not to stick it out in front of us but I was afraid I'd shoot myself. I don't know why it happened so fast. I'm thinking this guy is doing, could be, some bad stuff. If I had to do it over again, it would never have happened. But you don't get do-overs.
Detective: So, what made you shoot him?
Reeves: Well, I guess uh, it scared the hell out of me.
Detective: OK
Reeves: I thought the guy was fixin to beat the shit out of me
Detective: OK
Reeves: I don't know how else to say that.
Detective: he never told you that, right?
Reeves: he said something that led me to believe and then the guy starts coming at you with the aggravated position, the contored face, the fuck you's and stuff like that, uh, I don't think I've ever had anybody get in my face like that. It scared the crap out of me, if I was 15, 20 years younger I might have just wrestled it out with him (he pronounced it wrassled)
(I wonder how many times in an encounter with a suspect this guy had the contorted face and fuck you's and angry voice.)
He continues mumbling stuff something about being surprised he could shoot because of the arthritis in his hands.
(Wow, that should make people feel safe this guy carries a gun around with him while claiming he doesn't know if he can even shoot properly)
Detective: Alright, what else can you tell me?
Reeves: I don't know.
Other detective starts now: I want to be clear. You say he came at you in an aggravated manner?
Reeves: facial expresseion....
detective: let me ask you this, if you could do it over do you think you could have taken him if you didn't have a weapon?
Reeves: No, I'm 71 years old I couldn't take that guy. Repeats stuff about Retired, gained 30 pounds, arthritis, me knees, lists every part of his body that is broekn.
Detective: Do you think you could have prevented by (inaudible)
Reeves: I, I, there's no way that me or anyone else could speculate about that. If I thought I wasn't going to get beat up I never would have done it. I was pretty confident after being hit one time that he wasn't going to stop.
Detective: We got to figure out what we're going to do, and we have to figure out
Reeves: You got a lady that was sitting one seat over, she should have seen everything. (describes where his wife ws, empty seat, this other lady)
Detective reminds him he knows they will talk to everyone, you've handled these kinds of investigations
Reeves: Oh, I know. Let me put it this way, if I wasn't afraid of getting hurt, getting beat up, I never would have pulled the pistol. And I trained cops when I was on duty. Alot of things are different. I tell peoople make sure you are 1000% right and they other peoople are 1000% wrong. I still hang around with SWAT guys.
They ask if he's intoxicated. Says he doesn't drink or take drugs. I drank part of a coke and had popcorn
Reeves talk about the deputy coming over and taking his gun, he saw popcorn on the floor, he saw the cellphone on the floor thought it was his, but then now he's thinking that's what hit him. Describes his gun
Makes a comment about his gun being "good stuff".
Detective: Let's go back to that question. What would you expect us to do?
Reeves: Well, I was, and I hate this term because I read the news, but I was defending myself. It don't make it any easier to accept it. The guy was very aggressive, certainly younger,
Detective: If this guy dies, do you think your actions, was it worth it?
Reeves: inaudible, I think he said "nothing's worth it"
Detective: But (inaudible mumbling something about taking a life)
Reeves: (lets out a heavy sigh) I would like to say "no". I would hope the answer to that question would be no, but unfortunately, it's yes, I felt, I mean I got a bruised arm that takes too much to heal, I don't want to be blind or any of those other things when I get older. I haven't been scared. Since I've been retired nobody has ever scared me. This guy scared the shit out of me.
How old was he? I want to say 30 or 40
Ok, How old did you say you are? 71
Detective: I need all your information, spell your name Alright sir. What else.
Detective explains what they are going to do with collecting forensics. Asks him if he has any questions.
Reeves: Do this, too, before you leave. Get all the questions you want because if he scared the shit out of me (inaudible)
Detective: Well, believe me, you know the system as well as we do.
There is alot of cross talk but they basically tell him they are going to be fair and do what they have to do. he starts talking to him like they are his pals, it seems like he is trying to influence them to handle this to his benefit. I can't hear all the words, but enough of them see that's what he's hoping will happen due to his camaraderie and making sure they understand that he is one of them. He's surprisingly upbeat. I really think he thought they would just take his word for everything because he's a retired police officer.
They tell him they will take it one step at a time. he seems concerned that they are going to talk to his wife because she would never see any justificaiton in this. (at a previous hearing, the detective that took his gun said Reeve's wife scolded him and told him he was not justified. He also testified that Reeves shook his finger at her and told her to shut up. For some reason, the prosecution did not elicit that same testimony from him during this trial. I'm not sure why)
He tell them again he has something in his left eye. They look and tell him they don't see anything. He says the medic rinsed it out but he still feels it. They are talking as they are driving closer to the door, there is a media helicopter in the air they are trying to avoid Reeves being photographed by media. Now you hear the helicopter when they open the car door.
End of recording.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall
Re: FL vs Curtis Reeves
Pretty much. Seems to be a right of passage down here. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a current or former police officer. And everyone who hasn't been a police officer wanted to but were far too scary even for a Florida police department to hire.
Well except for me, neonnx, slim, p0rtia (honorary Floridian), Orlylicious, and other Boogle who live in Florida.
"It actually doesn't take much to be considered a difficult woman. That's why there are so many of us."
--Jane Goodall
--Jane Goodall