Defense Attorney Critical...

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Good thing Prater wasn't the DA.

Is that armory in Allen still in use? I was a member of that unit from 1990 to 1994 after I left the Regular Army.

 

[jwv]

It's my understanding that it was moved to Ada.The Allen High School now uses the building for their agriculture class & shop. I thought it was always used as a storage for ammunition & M16 rifles, but I"m not sure what really was stored in there.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

All that was in there was a couple of M60 machine guns and enough M16s for a platoon of Infantry, plus TA50. No ammo to my knowledge.

 

[Pharmerholt]

In this case, I've always asked the question; "Is it possible to murder a dead person?"

The black kid was actively bleeding through the gunshot wounds to the chest, meaning his heart was still beating. Technically, he was still alive, but probably would have died if left alone. The human heart can beat on it's own for sometime without nerve impulses. Sucks for Ersland. Moral of the story is destroy your video tapes, then your word is law.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Don't destroy evidence. That's obstruction of justice. Don't have cameras around in the first place unless you are too incompetent to defend yourself. Or turn them off during business hours to save disc space. Then turn them on when you close to catch burglars.

 

[jwv]

After the first shot and the black kid is on the floor we don't know what he was doing or not doing. The video does NOT show it. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with that? If you don't know for sure if he was still moving or not and you can't prove it, that settles it for me. If the kid was still alive then he was still a threat, the ME said there was a possibility that there still could have been movement. Box could only get one witness for Ersland, it's no wonder it was a slam dunk for the DA.

 

[BadgeBunny]

After the first shot and the black kid is on the floor we don't know what he was doing or not doing. The video does NOT show it. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with that? If you don't know for sure if he was still moving or not and you can't prove it, that settles it for me. If the kid was still alive then he was still a threat, the ME said there was a possibility that there still could have been movement. Box could only get one witness for Ersland, it's no wonder it was a slam dunk for the DA.

Evidence at the scene (and presented at trial) proved that Parker was not moving.

Why is the fact that Box "could only get" one witness for Ersland evidence of a "slam dunk" for Prater?

 

[jwv]

What evidence? Are you going by? the ME testimony, the blood splatter expert? If your saying he was NOT moving ,then was he already dead? How do you kill a dead guy? When the jury gets to hear mostly all the reasons for conviction and all the experts , that gives Prater a big advantage over one witness.

 

[BadgeBunny]

What evidence? Are you going by? the ME testimony, the blood splatter expert? If your saying he was NOT moving ,then was he already dead? How do you kill a dead guy? When the jury gets to hear mostly all the reasons for conviction and all the experts , that gives Prater a big advantage over one witness.

Evidence (including Ersland's own statements) which were presented at trial ... I'm going by all of the evidence I have seen. ALL of it, not just the parts that suit my interpretation of what probably happened -- which is well documented in the thread I linked below.

Plenty of evidence was presented that Parker was not moving AND that he was still alive.

I never said that it was possible to kill a dead guy.

I'm not even sure what to say about your comments regarding the jury and what they heard. Both sides had the same set of facts to work with. Both sides put on what they considered to be the most truthful accounting of those facts. The jury obviously believed that Prater met his burden. I tend to believe the jury got it right. Others don't feel that way.

This has all been discussed at length here:

http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?111034-Latest-in-the-Jerome-Jay-Ersland-saga.

 

[_CY_]

BB is correct... evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt shot thug never moved again after hitting floor. which would support thug was instantly dead from first shot. It's totally possible for heart to be still beating 30 seconds after being shot brain dead.

defense went with thug was alive and still a threat so following shots were justified. since you cannot have it both ways. they lost. this supported DA's assertion that thug was alive, but didn't move. prosecution had their cake and ate it too.

defense was handicapped by the non-stop mouth of Ersland and his merry pack of lies. Defense should have known by trial time which way to go.... pure forensic or he said, she said evidence. To me this was incompetence by the defense.

it's only possible to determine time of death with the broadest of strokes. for the medical examiner to state thug was alive 30 seconds after first shot. this means she determined time of death did not occur within 30 seconds after first shot.

it's impossible to nail down time of death within 30 seconds. it just cannot be done.
since it's impossible to know with 100% certainty if shot thug was alive or dead at time of five shots.

doubt will always be there if thug was alive or dead when shot 5 more times.
sorry but the benefit of doubt has to go to Ersland.

safe to say that above information is not common knowledge to Jurors. but NO way ME didn't know this. IMHO it's incompetence for defense not to know above and share that information with the jurors.

please do let me know if there's any holes in above logic....

The black kid was actively bleeding through the gunshot wounds to the chest, meaning his heart was still beating. Technically, he was still alive, but probably would have died if left alone. The human heart can beat on it's own for sometime without nerve impulses. Sucks for Ersland. Moral of the story is destroy your video tapes, then your word is law.

After the first shot and the black kid is on the floor we don't know what he was doing or not doing. The video does NOT show it. I don't understand why people have such a hard time with that? If you don't know for sure if he was still moving or not and you can't prove it, that settles it for me. If the kid was still alive then he was still a threat, the ME said there was a possibility that there still could have been movement. Box could only get one witness for Ersland, it's no wonder it was a slam dunk for the DA.

Evidence at the scene (and presented at trial) proved that Parker was not moving.

Why is the fact that Box "could only get" one witness for Ersland evidence of a "slam dunk" for Prater?

What evidence? Are you going by? the ME testimony, the blood splatter expert? If your saying he was NOT moving ,then was he already dead? How do you kill a dead guy? When the jury gets to hear mostly all the reasons for conviction and all the experts , that gives Prater a big advantage over one witness.