baldeagle wrote:puma guy wrote:The prosecutor stated that the disc had failed two days previously but had not been replaced. I don't know if there will be expert testimony regarding the drive. I would assume that there will be.
With no collaborating testimony isn't that simply hearsay? I would assume there would have to be a Costco employee -security -tech type to be available to cross examine. I am beginning to hear the theme to "Fantasy Island"
Keep in mind that this is the first day of testimony in an inquest scheduled to run through Friday. And from the looks of it, it may run well into next week. Secondly, the prosecutor made these statements in his opening statement. So far testimony has centered around the coroner's report, Erik's doctors and one eyewitness. The inquest has just begun. The one eye witness is a Costco employee who claims she saw Erik draw his weapon and point it at an officer, at which point he fired. She knows absolutely nothing else. She did not hear any other officers, did not see any other officers and didn't even see Erik fall after being shot. She seemed very solid on that one point and amazingly fuzzy on everything else. She never even mentioned Erik's girlfriend, who was standing right beside him at the time he was shot.
As to the woman who was an eyewitness to the shooting... I think it's strange that she mentioned Erick reaching with his right arm behind him, lift his shirt, pull the gun from waistband, and draw on the officer, but can't remember anything else even the color or accurate size of the gun (she did state the gun was medium sized but didn't specify exactly what medium sized was in her opinion). I know in a situation like that, I would have "tunnel vision" as well, but I would be focusing on the person (LEO within 10 feet of her) with the gun already drawn and pointed (apparently in low ready and pointed directly at Mr. Scott, but that seems to be "fuzzy" as well
). The questions in followup seemed to make me suspect that the gun that she said Erick drew on the officer wasn't even the one he had In his waits band, but in fact the BUG he had in a zippered pouch. They asked her if she saw him unzip the pouch and pull the gun, she said no, he just pulled it from his waistband. I thought that after the shooting they saw his second gun still holstered in his waistband (I might be off here, since it's been a while since I've read anything on this, if anyone can clarify I would appreciate it.) I have no idea how she saw all of this from the area where she was standing. In all her testimony didn't shed any light on the situation IMHO.
Does anyone know what armpit was shot? If Erick quartered toward the LEO while drawing and aiming a weapon, it seems to me that the officer may have shot him in that area (not necessarily if he had his hands raised). So for that to be correct it would need to be his right armpit according to the woman who saw him draw his gun.
I understand getting the facts and letting some things about Mr. Scott's character be known, but some of this is absurd. This is not a trial, although it is turning into one. One way or another, Erick was shot multiple times in the back while he was down which seems to be of little importance so far. I think we are going to see this man executed twice before it's all over.
We have a very long road ahead until we start to clearly see what actually happened. If this process keeps going the way it is, we might not ever really know what happened.
