Fogbow

IANACrL.

Why the fuck is this relevant testimony?

Defense is trying to establish, in part, that due to his weakened state he was reasonably in fear of serious injury.

Day 5 - Defense Case

Matthew Reeves - Defendant's son

Tampa police department 19 years, assigned to patrol. Previous Air Force

Hunting trip right before incident

North Florida, panhandle area. Was a paid hunt, included place to stay, private property, find place to hunt on property. (this is a big thing in Florida. They are all lawbreakers. They put out feeders and you shoot deer as they come to feed. They leave the feeders out throughout the summer months and the deer learn to trust it. Happens all the time. When I lived on property I managed I could see feeders on the property next door. They don't even try to hide it.)

Cots in large open room. Doesn't recall the town. They paid for a few days. Hunted deer and hogs. Archery hunting. (OK< that takes skill. Don't tell me he's a frail old man)

Used a recurve and compound bow. Easier to use compound bow. Now says he used the compound bow, but earlier he said his father used both. He said he set the new bow to be easier to pull back

To prepare tried to practice multiple times per week. In his or father's backyard. Used targets. Shoot a few dozen arrows into targets. Leading up to trip did you practice together? Sometimes

Father was only shooting about a dozen in practice where he used to shoot a couplee dozen. Leading up to the trip he contacted him about the legality of using a crossbow. That would be easier

Once they got there we scouted. he says they walked about 100 yards (yeah, they drive them right to the damn feed sites)

Says they are looking for tracks, trails, and rubs (well, that's what you do when you are not on one of these paid thingys where they guarantee you are going to kill something because you are shooting animals as they are eating the pellets set out for them)

Talks about tree stand, using brush to make a blind. Climbing tree stand. defense attorney describes how it works and Matthew says "yes" to all the steps

How did he hunt on this trip? Once in the tree stand, the rest in the blind.

Did he go up the way described? Yes

He was unable to go higher than 10 feet. He doesn't know why. Trying to get him to say he physically couldn't do it, but Matthew says he doesn't know why he only went up 10 feet

When younger they both went higher, maybe 30 feet up.

The other way, a blind? Popup tent. Matthew carried it. When younger dad would have carried all his own equipment

Tree stand was within 100 yards from the road

Father did not shoot anything. Matthew shot a deer. Dad did not help him drag the deer. Last time dad tried to drag his own deer he hurt himself. that was 5 years before this trip.

On day of incident, parents called or texted him to meet at movie. Was getting his outside work done from the trip (the imprssion is the hunting trip was right before the movie, withina day or two of getting home)

Matthew was running late to the movie. He did not know where they were going to sit because he had turned his phone off. Bought his ticket when he got there, went straight into the theater.

Asks if witness can step down to show an exhibit. Showing where he came in. When he got into the theater what is going on? He says the previews were on and the theater was nearly pitch black

(this is completely different than any other witness has said. Also, the lead detective testified that he asked the manager to put the same previews on and create the same lighting conditions. he agreed with all the other witnesses that during the previews the lights are not turned off like they are for the main movie, and that you can see people, the rows, the aisles, etc. Even the video shows a difference as the lights get dimmer the camera has to switch to infrared, where at first it's on normal lighting)

Could you see people within a few feet? Yes. Did you look around the theater could you see your mom and dad? he says no. he's showing the jury on the diagram where he walked in.

He says a preview came on as soon as he started looking for them. Most of the people were paying attention to the preview, so I turned and watched the preview. Shows where he was at that point.

Did you hear anything unusual? Not till after the preview. he turned and started looking for his parents again. Still didn't see them.

he heard something. He heard his dad say "get out of my face or get off me"
(this also contradict all other witnesses. Nobody, including Reeve's own wife who was sitting next to her husband, heard anythng like that. He's a cop so this jury is likely to believe every word he's saying)

that was in between previews

He recognized his dad's voice. He sounded "alarmed" and it alarmed Matthew

he could tell it was somewhere near the back toward the middle. He looked in that area. Previews were still on. Nearly pitch black. Couldn't see anything initially because it was too dark

At some point started moving toward the voice, he was working his way up stairs. Then heard a gunshot, saw the flash.

He saw a silhouette standing. The person who was standing took a large "exagerrated step down"

(he's trying to give the impression that Oulsen was standing on the chair, which also is denied by all other witnesses. Also, the video doesn't suggest he was standing up on the chair because if he was standing up, he's more than 6' tall, and yet his arm reaches over and grabs popcorn at about the height you would expect if he's standing on the ground. The arm comes almost straight across, not at the sharp angle it would have had to be if he's standing on the seat. BS on this witness)

He went over to Mr Oulsen, doesn't remember which row that was. He was first to get to Oulsen. Was able to put the scene together and new was happened. he heard a gunshot, saw silhouette standing and then moving away. He went to help him. Mr Oulsen started to slump over, he assessed that nobody was still shooting, ascertained if Oulsen had a weapon, put his hands on Oulsen.

Ordered someone to help place him on the ground. He's on the row between the seats, his head was away from the aisle. Tried to render first aid. Pushed the shirt up, saw the bullet hole. Put direct pressure on it, Spoke to mr Oulsen. Didn't hear his father say anything else.

Applying pressure to the wound to try to limit the bleeding. Trying to keep Oulsen looking at him and talking. Still breathing. Someone handed him a shirt and notified him a nurse was present and then he moved out of the way. he went up to where his father was. At that time he could see them.

He says ambient light allowed him now to see. Came to his mother first, she was a few seats away from his father. Went straight to his father first. he asked his father where the gun was. He found out the deputy had taken the gun.

Saw father's hand on his face or cheek. Can't remember which hand. Kind of holding his face or cheek. he says his father's glasses were not straight on his face, one of the lenses was "out of alignment"

(the deputy who took the gun had said the glasses were perfectly straight on Reeves' face during the incident until a little while aftter the deputy took his gund, then Reeves pushed them up and then started saying he had something in his eye, then pushed his glasses back down)

They were sitting crooked on his face according to Matthew. Did not do anything else in regard to his dad. he said he needed to get cleaned up and wanted to get his mom out of the theater. He got cleaned up first. Then took his mother out. She was in shock. She wasn't crying initially. He took her between theater 10 and the concession area.

Saw deputies. He told them he was an off duty officer and the gun was secured with another off duty officer

peoople were seated at small tables. Saw forms being handed out to people in the lobby. Heard people discussing the incident. Told his mother they needed to get away from those people. Heard someone say "I think this was all over some popcorn" and his mother started crying.

Police took them to another room away from other peoople. They wre separated for separate interviews. Doesn't recall who was inerviewed first. He was not present for his mother's interview. She was not present for his.

Did you draw a diagram? Provided a statement, drew a diagram where he was at and gave a statement. His mother stayed during the investigation until they were released.

Originally they wre going to tow his mother's car but they changed their mind and did not tow it. He drove her home

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

CROSS EXAM

Tells the witness he's going to go topic by topic and may not be in chronological order. The lead prosecutor is doing this cross. Uh oh!

Saw two people sitting at the table and they were discussing what? What did they say?

Something about popcorn

Gives an example of football game where a kick off happens and someone cathces and runs all the way to the other end of the field and every person in the stadium sees the whole thing. Would he agree that everyone would have the opportunity to see this. Yes

Would they probably all be watching that event. If they both had the opportunity to see something just because they talked about it would you discount the fact that they all saw it? He doesn't want to answer but finally says "no".

You were casually dressed? Yes. Describes what he was wearing. he agrees

He approached Mr Oulsen, had blood on his hands, had a brief conversation and left. At the time at the bottom of the stairs you said it was "near pitch black" and couldn't see where mom and dad were.

Then during direct exam you indicated when the previews came on you saw that everyone else was watchning the previews so you turned your head and watched the previews. He answers that he didn't want to interrupt everybody (he's missing the point that he just said it was pitch black couldn't see anything but he could see that eeryone was watching the previewe)

You saw people watching the theater just like they were. So you could see people, right? He says yes, people around me, yes

Contact with Oulsen. When you went up there you began to place your hands on Mr Oulsen you said the words "I ORDERED people to help place him on the ground, those were your words. Yes

At that point, you went in to police mode? You expected people to carry out your orders? Yes (Just like his father, right? He ordered Mr Oulsen to put his phone away)

And that is what police officers do, whether you are on duty or off duty when you order people to do something you expect them to do it. Objection. LOL

Overruled

Sidebar. Well, the prosecutor made his point. Reeves is smirking again. That man is insufferable. I can't even stand to look at him at this point.


Now on the hunting trip. Was that within a week of the incident? Yes

Mr Michael's asked you about going out into the woods. You drove on the service road, got out and walked. Asking him about the foliage, He agrees there are pines and oaks, pine needles and oak leaves on the ground, it's in early January.

The climing sit stand is about 18/19 pounds, he's describing it. Prosecutor gets a chair and is using it to demonstrate the motions tht have to be made to inch it up. He says you have to bring your knees up a little. Your hips, back, leg muscles, and then have to use the same muscles to stand up. Then you use your arms, biceps, shoulders, etc. Effectively describing all the different muscles that have to be used in order to move the sit stand up the tree. Witness agrees

Your father went up about 10 feet. If you are only going up 6 inches at a time, you have to do this 20 times to get up 10 feet. To get down you have to do the same thing another 20 times? Yes

Your father did this approximately one week before the incident, right? Yes

And it was his choice to use the sit stand? Yes

Did he relay to you any apprehension about using the sit stand? he didn't need to.

Did he relay to you I don't want to do this because of my physical limitation? No

Then he also had to get his bow attached to a rope and pull it up? Yes

There has been testimony that he is 6'1" and 270 lbs. That is the man that used the sit stand to pull himself up a tree? yes sir

You told the jury you saw the man take a large exaggerated step down. He answers that he thought he could have stepped down a row, but he's not sure, he took a large step. That's your testimony? Yes. Clearly that's what you saw? yes, Like he was stepping off a chair, right? yes, That's the impression you want to leave the jury. Yes. OK

(I think he's going to use that to show the jury how impossible that is and to destroy his credibilty. we'll see)

Now, your contact with Mr Oulsen, and you said your contact with your father his glasses were askew, you remember that testimony? Yes

From the time you heard the shot to the time you got up there was at least a minute? Answer: Maybe more

(oh, lordy. Like sister like brother. Here again he has no idea what's coming. LOL. )

And when you got there you saw the off duty officer standing next to him, you knew he had the firearm? Yes

And while you wre standing there talking to him his glasses were askew and one lens was below his eye? Yes sir

And the entire time you were there your father never re-adjusted his glasses to put them back on his face straight. I don't recall

That's your testimony, they were askew. Yes sir

Are you still a firearm instructor? No

in 2014 where you a certified law enforcement firearm instructor? No

There is a specific course? Yes

40 hour course. yes

In that course you are taught not only to be proficient and taught to make sure the range is safe. Sidebar

Prior to 2013 did you go shooting with your father? Yes

Your sister talked about your father's hand locking up. Did that ever cause you concern about your father handling a firearm with his hand where the fingers would "lock up". Response: it's more like he can't bend it.

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

Redirect:

First five questions - objection - sustained - now they want to approach the bench. The judge is vigorously talking to the defense attorneys, not happy at all. I haven't seen her lose her cool at all

Defense tries something else, now we are at sidebar again.

Back to the tree stand. He bought a replacement tree stand, tries to talk about weight and easier to use.

nothing else.

Subject to recall.

Counsel at the bench again. witness leaves almost running outta there.

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 10:39 pm


Now on the hunting trip. Was that within a week of the incident? Yes

Mr Michael's asked you about going out into the woods. You drove on the service road, got out and walked. Asking him about the foliage, He agrees there are pines and oaks, pine needles and oak leaves on the ground, it's in early January.

The climing sit stand is about 18/19 pounds, he's describing it. Prosecutor gets a chair and is using it to demonstrate the motions tht have to be made to inch it up. He says you have to bring your knees up a little. Your hips, back, leg muscles, and then have to use the same muscles to stand up. Then you use your arms, biceps, shoulders, etc. Effectively describing all the different muscles that have to be used in order to move the sit stand up the tree. Witness agrees

Your father went up about 10 feet. If you are only going up 6 inches at a time, you have to do this 20 times to get up 10 feet. To get down you have to do the same thing another 20 times? Yes

Your father did this approximately one week before the incident, right? Yes

And it was his choice to use the sit stand? Yes

Did he relay to you any apprehension about using the sit stand? he didn't need to.

Did he relay to you I don't want to do this because of my physical limitation? No

Then he also had to get his bow attached to a rope and pull it up? Yes

There has been testimony that he is 6'1" and 270 lbs. That is the man that used the sit stand to pull himself up a tree? yes sir

In case there's anyone out there who has not seen one of these tree stands being used, here's a video which demonstrates how a hunter gets up the tree. Starting around the 7 minute mark for the actual climb, but interesting to watch the first part of the video because you can see where someone with severe arthritis could have a lot of difficulty with grasping things.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Su ... &FORM=VIRE

Many thanks for the transcripts
And the commentary

I hope you are wrong about the jury…

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 7:31 pm

LM K wrote: ↑Thu Feb 17, 2022 1:25 pm RV is a rock star!!

Thank you, my dear!!

Seconded!!!

You are too kind. I hope it's readable, OMG, some of it has been hard to listen to, especially the defense.

W. Kevin Vicklund wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 9:12 pm Defense is trying to establish, in part, that due to his weakened state he was reasonably in fear of serious injury.

Yes, this is exactly where the defense is going with this. They lost a stand your ground hearing. So, this idea that he was in fear for his life is the only real chance they have with the jury. From their opening statement I caught that they plan to bring in aging experts to talk about how aging makes a person more and more vulnerable. We'll see if it works for the jury. I think the evidence tends to support that he shot the man in anger because he didn't turn of the phone when ordered to do so and then flipped the popcorn at him.

chancery wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 8:54 pm IANACrL.

Why the fuck is this relevant testimony?

I think maybe to establish someone connected to someone in this case was never in law enforcement.

But her ex was.

I'd also like to make a personal observation that there are way too many guns in Florida, and too many people in Florida who really shouldn't have a gun have a gun or 30.

I have a friend in Homosassa Springs with a secure gun room that the Commander of an Infantry company would envy.

Popcorn flipping - a crime so heinous that like walking on lawn or playing in a park requires summary execution…

I will be later in getting Day 6 report, as I had a super busy day today and I have a deployment tonight will have to sit in on. I may listen to the trial or I may bang some code out, depending. But I'm starting it now, so my first update should come in a little bit

Day 6 Defense Case

Starting with arguments in front of the judge. The defense wants the next witness to give a "dissertation" instead of answering questions.

Dr Donna Cohen
Professor Emeritus, University of S Florida
Department of Child and Family Studies

Aging is a lifespan phenomenon. Recruited to chair this department. Study of aging and mental health was her area.

Graduated with a degree in Zoology BS
Masters in study of Chromosomal Changes in Aging Adults
PhD Evaluation of Spatial and verbal abilities in people over age 60

I couldn't listen to her entire CV but seems impressive.

Aging is natural process that involves changes in every area of life. Genetic and wear and tear. Aging begins at about age 25 - 30 progreess at different rates in different people

Bio/Psycho/Social changes

Talked about aging of the eye - lens can become stiff, these are changes that people often notice first.

Decrease in muscle mass - also affected by changes in physical activity. Mucles involved in contraction slow down with age. Nerve conduction velocity changes with age. Reaction time sare slower as we age.

Problems in mobility. Changes are gradual and cumulative. Not on our radar screen.

Don't necessarily impact ability to drive a car, go to work, etc. Increased risk for disease. (prosecutor is likely to use this I'm predicting)

Functional impairment = trouble doing stuff. Loss of capacity, but might be compensated for. Example break your right wrist, use your left hand instead.

Why she got involved in this field? Duke was one of few Universities that had an Aging Center. They had 65% of NIH budget for aging research. She needed a job as undergraduate, became a passion for her.

Why need education of public? Objection - relevance - you guessed it they at the bench

Bio/Psyco/Social interact with each other - aging is dynamic

Changes in ability to learn things quickly, changes in short term memory, long term memory, problem solve, control emotions, ability to behave appropriately in different circumstances, personality remains largely stable unless you have pathologic problem, psychological function changes, blood vessels, brain cell loss can affect behavior

Vulnerablity of the aging - latin word meaning "to wound" - in a position to be physically or emotionally hurt or attacked. Rises directly out of the kinds of diseases, injuries, illnesses = become more vulnerable, can't resist or protect themselves.

Is there heightened awareness of vulnerability - doesn't reach your radar screen until you hit early old age. Young old = 65 to 74 Mid Old = 75 - 84 - Old Old = 84 and older - (I think he was 71 at the time, so he would have been in the Young Old category)

Idea of awareness of vulnerability how does it dovetail with how an older person would react to stress?

You can be young and have severe injury and be aware of vulnerability. what makes older person different is awareness of not being able to do things as well as in the past. You know it's not something safe to do. Older people without cognitive disorder have an awareness and chane behavior to overcome impairment

If person who is aware is presented with risk situation...objection = sidebar

Heightened awareness among the aged. Would you agree that as an aged person encounters situations they make decisions based on limitations? Yes

If an aged person is faced with an obstacle, tell about the thought process in making a decision? Walk us through that situation. Objection - sidebar

(He wants her to just sit there and give a lecture instead of answering questions I think. Prosecutor is not having it)

As we age does it affect the way we see the world? Absolutely

How? Aging again can be acoompanies by disease so affects how we see ourselves, how we see other people in terms of being afraid or happy, affects our being in social situations, if we lose someone we love, also has lot of experiences and this history affects how they see themselves

Even affect where they live? Yes, large amoutn of literature - objection sustained

Does process of aging affect choices of where to live based on self? Objection - sidebar

As we get older and realize limitations does it affect choices we make in life? Yes (she tries to bring up literature again, defense tell her to talk about her own studies or experience)

The choices that are made have to do with every life circumstance you can imagine. Am I gong to move to safer environment, wht can I do if I have financial concerns, whole range of decisions. Comes from my reserch and interviewing people and some of the research...objection...sustained

Choices? Influences almost every choice you make. The challenges you are facing are based on condition. She keeps mentioning vulnerability to do illnesses, which doesn't apply here

No futher questions! Surprised me. I think the defense had intended her to give a huge lecture and really wasn't expecting to be limited to asking specific questions. That's the impression I got. He kept trying to introduce questions in a way to allow her to give paragraphs of answer, but got foiled every time.

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

Cross Exam:


Everyone ages differently? The population ages differently

So everyone individually ages differently? Not every individual person. The aged are less alike than any other age group. Unrespive. Eventually she says no not everyone ages differently

Now she's having to admit that some people age at one pace and some at another pace. She is very reluctant to say this, but eventually she does.

You gave us a general eduction of aging process? Yes

How much charging for your time? $425 per hour

So far over $2000 in this case? Yes

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

Redirect

Does everyone age? Yes

End

I’d have asked “Do some people become more intolerant of others as they age?”

Because I know I have..
But not to the extent of killing someone over popcorn

Just want to say that some people become more tolerant as they age. My mother went from homophobic to adoring her gay hairdresser and although she was sad when he left to marry his partner, she was thrilled he could marry the love of his life (this was before SCOTUS made it legal in all 50 states). So I hope the jury doesn't decide that age-related intolerance is an acceptable defense for murder.

Mrs Reeves testimony coming soon

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:20 pm Just want to say that some people become more tolerant as they age. My mother went from homophobic to adoring her gay hairdresser and although she was sad when he left to marry his partner, she was thrilled he could marry the love of his life (this was before SCOTUS made it legal in all 50 states). So I hope the jury doesn't decide that age-related intolerance is an acceptable defense for murder.

Same here.

Day 6 Defense Case

Mrs Vivian Reeves

she's 75. She was 67 at the time. Married 54 years, back then 46 years

During that time, fair to say they were growing old together. 2014 did you look older? yes

Things that she was feeling - arms and hands - did they age since married? Yes

Did you bruise more easily? Yes, I could hit something and get dark bruises. thin skin has scars from hitting things

Hand - had difficulty opening jars. Felt stiff, pain in hands at various times of day.

Breathing = had difficulty breathing walking up stairs, sought treatment, sent to Moffitt for treatment

She was limping back then, had pain in one knee. Sought treatment.

Fell down at the house. Curtis was there, husband tried to pick her up and couldn't do it.

He looks older too. In last 10 years prior to 2014 looked older and older. Gained weight. His skin also bruised easily. Used to work with wood and metal and always hurting himself. Picking up oak sticks skin would break

She tried to treat it by buying ointments, doesn't work well. Uses a powder for cuts. Using it prior to 2014.

He kept fit when he worked. Stopped running at some point. Then worked for Busch Gardens had to buy better shoes then what he had, had to have orthotics for thoses. Getting injections and using TENS machine, wore a back brace when worked outside. Had several over time. (I use a back brace too, but probably won't shoot anyone)

Sometimes had trouble with buttons.

On the day of the shooting - dressed himself, tied his shoes, in the morning had returned from a hiking trip, wanted to see the movie and Matt and Curtis wanted to go and she decidd to go. Matinees are cheaper. Curtis drives. Planned to meet Matt at theater.

Got to theater and didn't park right in front - doesn't remember why. No problems walking to theater.

Got to window, Curtis bought tickets, went to lobby. Once in lobby bought popcorn and one drink to share

Did not plan where to sit, but like to sit in middle part way up. This was first time they sat all the way up. Didn't sit in middle section because wanted 3 seats together plus extra seat separating on either side. So five seats together. That's how ended up on back row.

Got there before previews started. Oulsen's were in row in front. Mr Oulsen in front of her, Mrs Oulsen in front of Curtis.

When sat in seats, noticed Oulsen's phone screen lit. Not talking on it that she heard.

Curtis had popcorn and she took a ziploc bag for her portion

At some point message telling people to put away phones. Any communication between husband and Oulsen.
Curtis leaned forward and spoke so softly that she did not hear only thinks she heard the word "phone". Couldn't hear her husband.

Oulsen was very loud. Curtis spoke first. Oulsen responded in loud and ungly voice. Used f-word and he was "texting his daughter". She's not certain of the exact words.

Previews were on at that point. She heard Oulsen's voice over previews. It was louder than previews. Possible trailers were playing

When heard response, how did it make you feel? It scared me/ Objection irrelevant. Sustained

You heard those words tell me what happened next. Doesn't know how long it took, but curtis stood up and said "I'm going to get the manager".

Oulsen had not turned around. She told him "let's just move". Doesn't know if he heard her, did not respond. Did he appear to be angry> No Mumbling? no

Then slowly made his way down the aisle. She was not looking at Oulsen, could see the screen was lit, did not want to be there.

Reason you didn't get up and move? She thought Matt knew where they were sitting, so she didn't move

When Curtis came back took popcorn from her. Didn't say anything. Sits down to her left.

Once he sits down he leans forward and she did not hear what he said. She observed both men speaking, doesn't know who spoke first.

Did you hear Oulsen say anything? Objection, not for truth of the matter - bench again.

Now answers - something to the effect "you told on me, who the f do you think you are"

Loud enough to hear. previews were on. She's trying to remember if he was sitting at the time, not sure. Then stands up and turns around. He's right in front of her. He leans towards Curtis. Objection summarizing testimony

Bench again

Seemed like his whole upper body was leaning toward Curtis. I thought he was coming over and freaked me out, I was terrified. She's trying to make tears come, but not succeeding. Briefly saw Curtis leaning backward with right leg stretched out. She did not see him reach for his gun. She didn't think about whether he had his gun.

Once he leans back and stretches out his leg. says she either closed her eyes or turned her eyes to the right, she did not want to look. (insert eye roll here)

She did not personally witness anything else that Oulsen or her husband did - did not see the shot. only heard the shot.

Once she heard the shot what did you do? At some point I moved a couple of seats away, but I couldn't do that until after people moved away

(During an earlier hearing, I believe it was 2014, the off duty detective under oath said that when he approached them to take the gun, Mrs Oulsen scolded Mr Oulsen with something like there being no excuse to shoot him. He said Mr Oulsen responded by shaking his finger at her and telling her to "shut your damn mouth". He said she moved a couple of seats down after that exchange. This did not come in during this trial. Hearsay probably?)

Her emotional state didn't know what happened.

Were you afraid because Mr Oulsen came toward your husband? That's when it started

After the shot she eventually looked over at her husband. He had his hands up to this area (forehead). Saw cell phone between Curtis' feet and popcorn

(I will stop here and say the "enhanced" video shows something bouncing off him and landing quite a way over to the right, not between his feet. I believe the cell phone simply dropped out of Oulsen's hand as he got shot and if fell straight down as you would expect. The "object" that seems to bounce off Curtis in the enhanced video hits him at mid area, not his face or eye area and then land quite a bit to his right)

She did not know whose phone it was. She thought it must be his. She did not see him get hit with anything. She agrees she saw nothing after "Oulsen leaned over the seat"

Eventually she saw her son. He had blood on his hands and clothes (she cries at this point, the blood was from Oulsen not her son). He left to get cleaned up and then came back. He comes back and takes her to the tables by teh concession stand. While there, she thought he went out again, but people started coming out and talking. She does not remember anything anyone was saying. She was so upset she didn't know.

At some point spoke to police. Two detectives interviewed and recorded it. She initially had spoken to a different detective unrecorded. She knew who said the "f-word". Apparently a detective said she didn't know. she did not tell anyone Curtis refused to move seats.

Asking for exhibit. . Showing Curtis' shoe. That is the kind of shoe that doesn't tie. His brand, his size. The laces are not the kind you have to tie. (I guess that proves he too old to not shoot someone)

Will post cross exam separately. State is getting their ducks in order.

Day 6 Defense Case

Mrs Reeves - State cross exam

As you walked to your seats yu saw OUlsen on his cell phone.Yes

No preview. Not then

Once I sat down, did not see his phone. Did not see light emitting from the phone after sitting down. (LOL, I was waiting for that!)

He was not talking on the phone either. (in other words, the phone was not bothering ANYONE, by actually BEING turned on, only that Curtis KNEW it was on and had to order him to turn it off)

Sitting right behind Oulsen, defendant sitting behind Mrs Oulsen

Small confined place. Oulsen's 2-3 feet away. Yes to both questions

Husband made contact? Yes, verbal

And is that after the screen showed to put phones away? Yes

You would agree your husband initiated contact? Yes

Could not hear husband, not sure if she heard the word "phone" when husband talked

During conversation, Oulsen never turned around? Yes. Trying not to look at him (oh brother, he was such a threat)

Mr Oulsen's face was facing the screen? Yes. Never saw his face? Yes. Never turned around at that time? Correct

Never place arms and legs over back of seat? Correct

Did you ever hear words of violence directed at your husband? I didn't

You were right there? yes sir

Mr Oulsen never made any movements at that time? Correct

There comes a time when he says "going to see the Manager"? Yes

Now, you indicated to me that you were afraid, right? Now, she's getting uncomfortable. After answering the last few questions I can see why. It was ridiculous for her to "be scared"

She says she was scared when Mr Oulsen said what he said. I was more "ticked off" (now some honesty) that this was happening.

I was uncomfortable.

YOu had every opportunity, you could have left with your husband. During that time Mr Oulsen never said one word to you? NO. Never threatened you ? No. Wasn't rude to you? No.

Had his phone out? "I don't know I couldn't see" (holy shit, she's making the whole point FOR the prosecutor. The phone wasn't actually disturbing anyone. she clearly doesn't even realize the point she's helping prosecutors make. Just like her kids when they testified, they had no clue, probably still don't)

In fact he didn't say one word to you that whole time. Right

Mr Reeves comes back and initiates contact with Mr Oulsen AGAIN. "After he sits down and takes his popcorn, yes" (She's angry now. She just might be figuring out something just now. LOL)

The three times he has contact with Mr Oulsen, your husband initiated that contact, right? I don't remember but two, and Curtis initiated them.

Let's go through them. Still claims she could not hear anything Curtis said.

Admits she never heard any threats. Prior to him coming back, Mr Oulsen never turned in his chair to face either you or the defendant. Correct'

Husband sits down, at some point he's leaning to his left, with hsi right leg extended. You knew he had a pistol? She says she actually did not know that.

Every time he went out he always carried the pistol. She says she did assume so but she never asked and they didn't talk about it.

Based on her life's experience she assumed he carried it. She claims not to know if he always took his gun. Now saying some places you "can't" take a gun in. (She's using that to show WHY she doesn't know he always has it. But, the theater is one of those places you "can't" bring a gun, and yet he did)

YOu see him leaning back with his right leg extended. You say Oulsen was standing. Did you see him HIT the defendant? No

Did you hear a punch? No sir

Did you see Oulsen throw a phone or anything? No. I wish I had. I couldn't handle it.

Never say any type of object thrown at defendant. No

As he was leaning (defendant) you never heard him say "no no no" "whoa whoa whoa". No sir (Curtis told police he said this)

you never say Oulsen's left hand out, did you? No, I wasn't just staring at him. Says it was very fast even though happening right in front of her.

You indicated that you closed your eyes, correct? I don't know if I turned away or closed my eyes, but I didn't see anything.

You indicatd you saw Oulsen standing up. Correct

You indicated you had seen your husband leaning back with his right leg out. yes

Do you remembering being in a previous hearing? Yes, I was at stand your ground. (I'm glad she said this, now the jury has to know they lost a stand your ground hearing)

Page 709, line 4 - do you recall this question? "Did you see anything after Mr Oulsen was lunging over the seat coming after Curtis? And your answer 'no, I wish I had'? (Not sure why preosecutor would ask this)

I don't remember that specifically. I took a brief glance and after that, I don't know anything until after the gunshot.

So you would agree with me that you never said anything about seeing him leaning back and extending his right leg, did you? I don't know, I don't remember

You would agree with me that you said "No, I wish I had". Yes sir

(Not sure where they are going with that except it seems rather like she's saying she wishes she had seen or heard something that she would be able to help her husband. I guess it suggests that she's sorry that she can't say anything to help get him off the hook. And she said the same thing today, which really suggests she wishes she could get him off the hook)

This is the first time you've said you saw him leaning back and extending his right leg? No sir.

She's reading from the previous hearing. Sidebar


This is strange. Now, the defense attorney is up at the witnesss box, she's standing up, it's only the two of them and he's telling her something. She seems to indicate that she understands what he's telling her. Is this for real? He can give her tips on how to answer something? They talked out of range of her microphone of course


Now jury is coming back. They had left for a short recess

Prosecutor is back at the witness stand. She indicates it was asked afer Oulsen stood up, you said he lunged and you didn't see anything. She again admits she said "I wish I had".

Now defense wants prosecutor to read more for the jury. Saying improper impeachment, he needs to read it right then and there.

Witness is reading to herself. Apparently she gave two contradictory statements. Earlier she said she wished she had seen it and then later she said she saw him lean back. Now she's saying she said she wished she had seen it referring to the popcorn thrown.

honestly, I don't know where the prosecution is going with this. I don't see how it helps them to keep hammering away at this point.

Did you at any time ever see Mr Oulsen in your aisle? No

Never saw him climb over a chair did you? No sir

--------------------------------------------------------
Re-direct

Did you see his upper body leaning into your aisle? Yes

he's trying to get away? Yes, I thought that's why he was leaning so far back (No, he was leaning so far back and stretching out his right leg so he could pull the gun out, which was in his right pocket. You can't sit upright and pull the gun out)

You knew he was trying to get away from Mr Oulsen? Yes, that's what I thought

Done.

I doubt it would be safe for her to testify against her husband… or even for him to think she was..

Day 6 Defense Case

Now they have a big screen out. I think they are going to show video

Bruce Koenig

MS - Physics and Mathematics,
Masters in Forensic Science
Worked for the FBI at some point

Going over his CV and courses he doesn't seem to explain his training very well in terms of how he communicates. I will be interested in how he comes across when answering questions.

Forensic authentication of video and audio - talks about how technology is so different and now audio and video overlap

Learned how to autheticate images. He can tell if something was photoshopped using metadata, used examped that Adobe puts their name all over the metadata.

You can take background and copy over a person. He actually does a good job now of explaining how they can tell if a certain set of pixels appears in more than one place in a digital image which indicates that section had been copied and pasted over something else that may have been in the image.

Signal and image processing for scientists and engineers - another course he took.

Video analyst system training course

Blah blah blah. The guy is super boring and I doubt the jury is getting much out of all this. I think he's establishing credentials so he can be asked questions in different areas (?)

he's pretty geeky, still not sure how well he will be able to actually testify.

Name dropped Ken Starr! Talked about the recordings made between Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp

Talking about other big cases he worked on. Assassination of JFK. Says are no audio recordings of the shooting on that day.

Robert Durst case, lots of videos and audio. He did all the enhancement and authentication of the audio and video. Testified for government in that case.


OMG. So far he's not answered one question on this actual case. Just on and on and on of what he's done in the past.

I'm skipping ahead to find if he actually did any work in this case. Good grief

They sent the jury on a break and apparently now after about 30 minutes he's actually going to give some testimony on this case.

He's talking about how to enlarge video, demonstrates nearest neighbor on whiteboard

The attorney sitting behind Reeves keeps looking over at the jury, but sneak peek type looking.

Now demonstrating a non-forensically acceptable method of enlarging

Interpolation - the algorithm is interpreting what these pixels should be

Why don't companies give you their algorithms? They'll give you general formulas, but they are mathematical but the numbers don't tell you what the picture is. Every company uses their own. He's trying to say it's proprietary, I think, I can't tell what the hell he's saying.

Can interpolation take place by other means? Yes, if you tell the screen to make it larger it will.

You know the size of the video here. It's 320 x 240. 76,800 pixels.

He says basically you can't trust any enhancement because they are going to use who knows what algorithm.

I think the defense and this witness want the jury to believe he's the only person who can possibly do an enhancement or copy a video and have any confidence in it. Will be interesting to see how the prosecutor deals with this guy. All they really need to do is bring in their own expert that is able to make sense for the jury. I'm kidding here. This is a Florida case, Florida jury. Think - Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman...I would be very surprised if this jury convicts a 71 year old retired cop for killing a somewhat rude man who used the f-word which caused an old lady to be so scared she couldn't look at him. We'll see.

.avi is a container format. He's explaining what the player is. says it has limited capabilities. GraphStudioNext - this is what he used to play the .avi, pull off uncomressed, it's a huge file, that can be used to make video and still images.

Is there a reason used his own tools? yes, because their tools couldn't pull the video "perfectly" with no loss. His tool is perfect and has no loss. Everything is there.

Defense exhibit AA - do you recognize? Yes

What is that? A .mov file shows a timeline that defense specified

Did that come from the Q6 Cobb Theater hard drive? Yes

He's talking about the clocks on the Cobb theater system that each camera was not synchoronized to the exact same time (so what, there is only one camera in one theater that we care about. I think that was supposed to start putting doubt in the jury mind about the video. The video does not support Reeves' story, and it does support all the prosecution witness version of events.)

They are playing video from the concession area. Not sure why. I think the Reeves are shown in that video walking up to the concession stand.

The cameras are motion sensored and that is why the camera didn't pick up much of anything between the time Reeves left the theater and came back. (Reeve's activity of leaning forward to pester Mr Oulsen, getting up and coming back is pretty much why we have this video at all. The cameras apparently didn't pick up anything from the time Reeves left till he came back. So obviously the whole time he was gone nobody else thought it was important enough to pester Mr Oulsen about his phone)

They are showing video without asking any more questions. I guess maybe they will go back and ask questions, I have no idea. Without questions I really don't see the point in any of this.

Now being asked about another exhibit. It's another from Q6 hard drive.

This is enhanced and played at 1/4 speed and magnified 100%

The angle they are playing the stream is not picking it up very well, there is a glare on the screen.

I could see this one better. Even at this speed you can see how fast Reeves had that gun out and shot after the popcorn. he had the gun out already before the popcorn was flicked as far as i could tell.

Next video - Camera 11 on right side of theater. inserted black frames to indicate passage of time between frames, overlaid the time on screen.

Now showing a still shot of an area of the video defense thought important.

Now playing same video, seems to be the second right before and including teh shooting

The enhanced video allegedly shows something hitting Reeves and bouncing off to the right. 8 seconds pass between that and the popcorn throwing. Not even a second passes between popcorn throwing and the gunshot. I can see why the defense wants so hard to get the jury to believe something was thrown at Reeves. Otherwise they are stuck with the fact that Reeves took out the gun before Oulsen flipped the popcorn at him.

If that was a cell phone that hits Reeves (it was proably an insect or something, I have cameras that I used extensively out on the preserves and you would be amazed how large a flying insect appears on a nigttime video where the infrared lighting source kicks in. A moth would appear as large on that video as this supposed phone appears. Mrs Reeves would have been hit by that thing if it was a cell phone bouncing off Mr Reeves)

Now, magnified, enhanced and centered over that area.

The forensic expert just said he cannot tell what the object is. Here are more thoughts on it. Mr Reeves is sitting to the right of Ms Reeves, Oulsen if sitting in front of Mrs Reeves. So Oulsen is to the right of Mr Reeves. If he threw an object at Reeves, it would have had to move across the screen from right to left prior to hitting Reeves. It doesn't. It moves from Reeves direction toward Oulsen's direction, left to right.

The attorneys are all up at the bench.

They are going to stop for today and she doesn't want to keep them late. She's telling them they will start at 8:30 AM and may work a little later tomorrow. Not sure if that means they think they can wrap tomorrow.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 10:09 pm I doubt it would be safe for her to testify against her husband… or even for him to think she was..

For sure. It can be interesting when you know things that the jury isn't allowed to hear. Such as the conversation that took place between them where she told him he had no reason to shoot and he told her to "shut your damn mouth". Unless she was willing to say she said that to him, its hearsay if the other person who overheard the conversation says it. So, it didn't come in. For some reason it did come in for a prior hearing, that's how I know about it. But for the jury trial, nope.

Side note: My best friend in the world was not an attractive girl when we were young. At some point a man took interest in her for the first time in her life, and she married him. I was her matron of honor and I could not stop myself from getting emotional during the wedding and it was NOT tears of joy. It was one of those things where I tried to stop myself and that made it worse. The pastor was so puzzled as to why I would be crying as if this was the worst thing ever. It's because it was the worst thing ever!

I'll cut to the chase now. Eventually she testified against him at his murder trial.* Yes, you read that right. Hardest thing she ever had to do, and she was scared to death in case he was acquitted. Thank goodness he was found guilty. He got the death penalty. Florida, of course.

*He left the house one night to meet someone and came back an hour later covered in blood. He told her he killed the guy he was meeting and threatened to kill her if she ever told anyone. She went right to the police the next day instead of going to work. Pretended like everything was normal, left the house, stopped at a friends house (this was way before cell phones) and called her supervisor to tell him she wouldn't be in that day and went straight to the police department.

Thank you a THOUSAND TIMES, RV!

Patagoniagirl wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 11:16 pm Thank you a THOUSAND TIMES, RV!

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:22 pm Day 6 Defense Case

Starting with arguments in front of the judge. The defense wants the next witness to give a "dissertation" instead of answering questions.

Dr Donna Cohen
Professor Emeritus, University of S Florida
Department of Child and Family Studies

Aging is a lifespan phenomenon. Recruited to chair this department. Study of aging and mental health was her area.

Graduated with a degree in Zoology BS
Masters in study of Chromosomal Changes in Aging Adults
PhD Evaluation of Spatial and verbal abilities in people over age 60

I couldn't listen to her entire CV but seems impressive.

I just read her CV. She has published extensively. She is a good choice as an expert in this case.