- Status
Irven box was 1 of 4 attornies on the defense team, his age had nothing to do with the verdict. he was found guilty because the evidence proved he was guilty.
Those were the voices in his head...
I'm also wondering if Emanuel Dewayne Mitchell and Anthony Devale Morrison will now seek appeals based on the fact that Ersland's has now been convicted. BTW, their sentencing is scheduled the same day as Ersland's.
Prater initially did not charge those two scumbags with murder under the Felony Murder Rule but then after some research on the law decided to go ahead. I think he argued that the escape was part of the crime and that Ersland's actions were during the escape of Ingram and the two adults.
JB do you have any insight there? Does it make any difference how Parker died at all?
Ersland convicted himself.
we all know Ersland is a scumbag and a liar. so NOTHING he says can be depended on.
back to looking at the evidence only. which is thug never moved again after hitting the ground.
above fact has zero to do with what Esrsland loud mouth says... and yes totally agree his mouth is responsible for where he is today.
what anyone does 30 seconds into the heat of an armed robbery be considered premeditation is beyond me???? then factor in he was on Opiates and probably doped up when this happened.
yes the jury convicted him on the evidence that was presented.... but the question is did Ersland get a competent defense? for having 4 attorneys on his defense, they sure put up a weak case.
the evidence that proved thug never moved again after hitting the deck should be enough alone to prove a reasonable doubt exist that he was dead when shot 5 more times.
with four defense attorneys ..... working on his defense... how in the world did they have such a weak defense?
they all knew going in Ersland was a liar and scumbag... but his loud mouth doesn't change the forensic evidence.
Box sure did his part in grand standing I'll give him that...
quoting within a quote makes it harder to respond to comments
back to looking at the evidence only. which is thug never moved again after hitting the ground.
above fact has zero to do with what Esrsland loud mouth says... and yes totally agree his mouth is responsible for where he is today.
what anyone does 30 seconds into the heat of an armed robbery be considered premeditation is beyond me???? then factor in he was on Opiates and probably doped up when this happened.
yes the jury convicted him on the evidence that was presented.... but the question is did Ersland get a competent defense? for having 4 attorneys on his defense, they sure put up a weak case.
the evidence that proved thug never moved again after hitting the deck should be enough alone to prove a reasonable doubt exist that he was dead when shot 5 more times.
with four defense attorneys ..... working on his defense... how in the world did they have such a weak defense?
they all knew going in Ersland was a liar and scumbag... but his loud mouth doesn't change the forensic evidence.
Box sure did his part in grand standing I'll give him that...
quoting within a quote makes it harder to respond to comments
Sorry... here it is without quotes:
"if one looks at only the evidence that's slowly peculating out. then let's ignore the grandstanding from:
1. Ersland
2. Box
3. the Judge
4. Prater
5. media
6. shot thug's mom
7. Medical Examiner
did I leave anyone out?
yes totally agree Ersland no way should have taken the additional five shots. and that he's guilty of a serious charge, but not murder 1.
1. what if downed thug was already dead when additional five shots was taken?
Then Ersland is still a fool and an idiot, but not legally a murderer. The problem is Ersland didn't use this as a defense and it's also difficult to prove. I do think if Ersland hadn't painted Box into a corner with his statements, then Box could have found an expert witness to call this into question.
2. evidence shows thug never moved again after going down. thus supporting the possibility thug was already dead when 5 additional shots was fired.
Same answer as above
3. dispite ME's testimony thug was alive when second fire shots were taken. facts say otherwise, as it's impossible to determine of death within 30 seconds. it just cannot be done.
I think they went with the cause of death being the torso and internal injuries and the amount of bleeding inside the chest cavity being consistent with a beating heart, etc... I know you brought up how just the pressure in the blood system might have caused that much bleeding too. It's an interesting point you raise though and once again, if Erlsand hadn't maintained that Parker was up cussing him and trying to climb the case and threatening him, then we might have heard that line of reasoning.
4. Box is 70 years old and highly likely way past his prime. His defense of Ersland was weak at best, incompetent at worst.
Box one only one of the attornies. His son argued many of the points with witnesses as well. I don't think they put up much of a defense at all and I wonder if it's more of a case of not having much to work with and perhaps Box is smart like a fox and setting up for the appeal rather than trying to win over a jury. Who knows...
5. have not read the transcript, but reading notes from folks that was at the trial. it's evident Judge's rulings were slanted grossly in DA's favor. seems either Box was incompetent and/or Judge's rulings were biased.
Elliot is purported to be the absolute fairest judge in the court. Seems to me Box tried to push the envelope many times during the whole course of events and it's likely that his wife's ordeal with Elliot and his obvious personal issue with Prater may have caused him to be out of line many times. Doesn't speak well for him as an attorney if he let's himself get worked up like that. Again though, mabye that's all part of the game?
6. managed to suffer through half of Ersland's initial interview before I couldn't stand any more of Ersland's bald face lies. what also came out was Ersland while being interviewed was STONE FACE HIGH on drugs. compare his speech patterns in his jail house interviews, where we know he's not on opiates. evidence points to Ersland being Stoned out of his mind on drugs (opiates) during his interview and likely when he shot the thug . just like a drunk will make outrageous statements. so did Ersland only on tape, under a microscope
I'm also sickened by Ersland's statements and behavior in the interviews. I think some of it can be attributed to his painkiller addiction and some of it is just plain old Rainman. I half expected him to say the detective was very sparkly and exclaim what an excellent driver he is. He's obviously an intelligent man or he never would have become a pharmacist, but that doesn't mean he can't still be some kind of idiot savant.
7. media has managed to whip folks up into a frenzy.... a good portion of stories posted all over contains factual inaccuracies. but that's never stopped a good story...
You're right. Media is the media... I think it's just mostly common for them to get their facts wrong. This is a sensational case and trial and therefore they're going to play to that for sure.
8. it would be a gross injustice if dead thug's mom ends up profiting from her son's death. where was she when her son started running around with the wrong crowd?
Fully agree. I did see a news article the other day where the insurance was divorcing itself from Erslands actions, but if the pharmacy owners knew he had guns on site, then they could be in trouble anyway. Parker's mother in my humble opinion should be lambasted for her negligence with her child and we haven't heard hardly anything from his father. I think one statement. I don't know the full story there, but obviously there wasn't any parenting going on.
have tried sticking to only the evidence and ignoring all the grandstanding.
please let me know if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the evidence.
See my comments in RED
1. Ersland
2. Box
3. the Judge
4. Prater
5. media
6. shot thug's mom
7. Medical Examiner
did I leave anyone out?
yes totally agree Ersland no way should have taken the additional five shots. and that he's guilty of a serious charge, but not murder 1.
1. what if downed thug was already dead when additional five shots was taken?
Then Ersland is still a fool and an idiot, but not legally a murderer. The problem is Ersland didn't use this as a defense and it's also difficult to prove. I do think if Ersland hadn't painted Box into a corner with his statements, then Box could have found an expert witness to call this into question.
2. evidence shows thug never moved again after going down. thus supporting the possibility thug was already dead when 5 additional shots was fired.
Same answer as above
3. dispite ME's testimony thug was alive when second fire shots were taken. facts say otherwise, as it's impossible to determine of death within 30 seconds. it just cannot be done.
I think they went with the cause of death being the torso and internal injuries and the amount of bleeding inside the chest cavity being consistent with a beating heart, etc... I know you brought up how just the pressure in the blood system might have caused that much bleeding too. It's an interesting point you raise though and once again, if Erlsand hadn't maintained that Parker was up cussing him and trying to climb the case and threatening him, then we might have heard that line of reasoning.
4. Box is 70 years old and highly likely way past his prime. His defense of Ersland was weak at best, incompetent at worst.
Box one only one of the attornies. His son argued many of the points with witnesses as well. I don't think they put up much of a defense at all and I wonder if it's more of a case of not having much to work with and perhaps Box is smart like a fox and setting up for the appeal rather than trying to win over a jury. Who knows...
5. have not read the transcript, but reading notes from folks that was at the trial. it's evident Judge's rulings were slanted grossly in DA's favor. seems either Box was incompetent and/or Judge's rulings were biased.
Elliot is purported to be the absolute fairest judge in the court. Seems to me Box tried to push the envelope many times during the whole course of events and it's likely that his wife's ordeal with Elliot and his obvious personal issue with Prater may have caused him to be out of line many times. Doesn't speak well for him as an attorney if he let's himself get worked up like that. Again though, mabye that's all part of the game?
6. managed to suffer through half of Ersland's initial interview before I couldn't stand any more of Ersland's bald face lies. what also came out was Ersland while being interviewed was STONE FACE HIGH on drugs. compare his speech patterns in his jail house interviews, where we know he's not on opiates. evidence points to Ersland being Stoned out of his mind on drugs (opiates) during his interview and likely when he shot the thug . just like a drunk will make outrageous statements. so did Ersland only on tape, under a microscope
I'm also sickened by Ersland's statements and behavior in the interviews. I think some of it can be attributed to his painkiller addiction and some of it is just plain old Rainman. I half expected him to say the detective was very sparkly and exclaim what an excellent driver he is. He's obviously an intelligent man or he never would have become a pharmacist, but that doesn't mean he can't still be some kind of idiot savant.
7. media has managed to whip folks up into a frenzy.... a good portion of stories posted all over contains factual inaccuracies. but that's never stopped a good story...
You're right. Media is the media... I think it's just mostly common for them to get their facts wrong. This is a sensational case and trial and therefore they're going to play to that for sure.
8. it would be a gross injustice if dead thug's mom ends up profiting from her son's death. where was she when her son started running around with the wrong crowd?
Fully agree. I did see a news article the other day where the insurance was divorcing itself from Erslands actions, but if the pharmacy owners knew he had guns on site, then they could be in trouble anyway. Parker's mother in my humble opinion should be lambasted for her negligence with her child and we haven't heard hardly anything from his father. I think one statement. I don't know the full story there, but obviously there wasn't any parenting going on.
have tried sticking to only the evidence and ignoring all the grandstanding.
please let me know if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the evidence.
See my comments in RED
again... totally agree that Ersland has a BIG mouth and in no way am I defending his actions.
but doesn't change the facts on the ground. which is thug never moved again after hitting deck.
it's impossible to nail down time of death within 30 seconds. so ME's statement he was alive has to be bogus.
heart beating or not beating... involuntary muscle movements can include heart... residual blood pressure after being brain dead, when brain tissue show externally massive trauma has occurred, ... etc, etc.... back to the fact it's impossible to nail down time of death within 30 seconds.
no matter how you slice it or dice it.... according to forensic evidence there's a reasonable doubt thug was alive or dead at time of additional five shots. NO one knows ... the only evidence that is for sure is thug never moved again. that points to he was already dead when he hit the deck.
but doesn't change the facts on the ground. which is thug never moved again after hitting deck.
it's impossible to nail down time of death within 30 seconds. so ME's statement he was alive has to be bogus.
heart beating or not beating... involuntary muscle movements can include heart... residual blood pressure after being brain dead, when brain tissue show externally massive trauma has occurred, ... etc, etc.... back to the fact it's impossible to nail down time of death within 30 seconds.
no matter how you slice it or dice it.... according to forensic evidence there's a reasonable doubt thug was alive or dead at time of additional five shots. NO one knows ... the only evidence that is for sure is thug never moved again. that points to he was already dead when he hit the deck.
"if one looks at only the evidence that's slowly peculating out. then let's ignore the grandstanding from:
1. Ersland
2. Box
3. the Judge
4. Prater
5. media
6. shot thug's mom
7. Medical Examiner
did I leave anyone out?
yes totally agree Ersland no way should have taken the additional five shots. and that he's guilty of a serious charge, but not murder 1.
1. what if downed thug was already dead when additional five shots was taken?
Then Ersland is still a fool and an idiot, but not legally a murderer. The problem is Ersland didn't use this as a defense and it's also difficult to prove. I do think if Ersland hadn't painted Box into a corner with his statements, then Box could have found an expert witness to call this into question.
yet more proof Box put on an incompetent defense ... Box knew going in Ersland has a non stop loud mouth. but that still doesn't change the forensic evidence.
2. evidence shows thug never moved again after going down. thus supporting the possibility thug was already dead when 5 additional shots was fired.
Same answer as above
3. dispite ME's testimony thug was alive when second fire shots were taken. facts say otherwise, as it's impossible to determine of death within 30 seconds. it just cannot be done.
I think they went with the cause of death being the torso and internal injuries and the amount of bleeding inside the chest cavity being consistent with a beating heart, etc... I know you brought up how just the pressure in the blood system might have caused that much bleeding too. It's an interesting point you raise though and once again, if Erlsand hadn't maintained that Parker was up cussing him and trying to climb the case and threatening him, then we might have heard that line of reasoning.
it's Box's job to find the best defense
4. Box is 70 years old and highly likely way past his prime. His defense of Ersland was weak at best, incompetent at worst.
Box one only one of the attornies. His son argued many of the points with witnesses as well. I don't think they put up much of a defense at all and I wonder if it's more of a case of not having much to work with and perhaps Box is smart like a fox and setting up for the appeal rather than trying to win over a jury. Who knows...
defense looked pretty weak
5. have not read the transcript, but reading notes from folks that was at the trial. it's evident Judge's rulings were slanted grossly in DA's favor. seems either Box was incompetent and/or Judge's rulings were biased.
Elliot is purported to be the absolute fairest judge in the court. Seems to me Box tried to push the envelope many times during the whole course of events and it's likely that his wife's ordeal with Elliot and his obvious personal issue with Prater may have caused him to be out of line many times. Doesn't speak well for him as an attorney if he let's himself get worked up like that. Again though, mabye that's all part of the game?
according to all the feedback from folks that attended the trial. the judges rulings favored the DA in terms of pure numbers for and against
6. managed to suffer through half of Ersland's initial interview before I couldn't stand any more of Ersland's bald face lies. what also came out was Ersland while being interviewed was STONE FACE HIGH on drugs. compare his speech patterns in his jail house interviews, where we know he's not on opiates. evidence points to Ersland being Stoned out of his mind on drugs (opiates) during his interview and likely when he shot the thug . just like a drunk will make outrageous statements. so did Ersland only on tape, under a microscope
I'm also sickened by Ersland's statements and behavior in the interviews. I think some of it can be attributed to his painkiller addiction and some of it is just plain old Rainman. I half expected him to say the detective was very sparkly and exclaim what an excellent driver he is. He's obviously an intelligent man or he never would have become a pharmacist, but that doesn't mean he can't still be some kind of idiot savant.
Ersland is a total idiot!!!
7. media has managed to whip folks up into a frenzy.... a good portion of stories posted all over contains factual inaccuracies. but that's never stopped a good story...
You're right. Media is the media... I think it's just mostly common for them to get their facts wrong. This is a sensational case and trial and therefore they're going to play to that for sure.
8. it would be a gross injustice if dead thug's mom ends up profiting from her son's death. where was she when her son started running around with the wrong crowd?
Fully agree. I did see a news article the other day where the insurance was divorcing itself from Erslands actions, but if the pharmacy owners knew he had guns on site, then they could be in trouble anyway. Parker's mother in my humble opinion should be lambasted for her negligence with her child and we haven't heard hardly anything from his father. I think one statement. I don't know the full story there, but obviously there wasn't any parenting going on.
have tried sticking to only the evidence and ignoring all the grandstanding.
please let me know if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the evidence.
See my comments in RED
1. Ersland
2. Box
3. the Judge
4. Prater
5. media
6. shot thug's mom
7. Medical Examiner
did I leave anyone out?
yes totally agree Ersland no way should have taken the additional five shots. and that he's guilty of a serious charge, but not murder 1.
1. what if downed thug was already dead when additional five shots was taken?
Then Ersland is still a fool and an idiot, but not legally a murderer. The problem is Ersland didn't use this as a defense and it's also difficult to prove. I do think if Ersland hadn't painted Box into a corner with his statements, then Box could have found an expert witness to call this into question.
yet more proof Box put on an incompetent defense ... Box knew going in Ersland has a non stop loud mouth. but that still doesn't change the forensic evidence.
2. evidence shows thug never moved again after going down. thus supporting the possibility thug was already dead when 5 additional shots was fired.
Same answer as above
3. dispite ME's testimony thug was alive when second fire shots were taken. facts say otherwise, as it's impossible to determine of death within 30 seconds. it just cannot be done.
I think they went with the cause of death being the torso and internal injuries and the amount of bleeding inside the chest cavity being consistent with a beating heart, etc... I know you brought up how just the pressure in the blood system might have caused that much bleeding too. It's an interesting point you raise though and once again, if Erlsand hadn't maintained that Parker was up cussing him and trying to climb the case and threatening him, then we might have heard that line of reasoning.
it's Box's job to find the best defense
4. Box is 70 years old and highly likely way past his prime. His defense of Ersland was weak at best, incompetent at worst.
Box one only one of the attornies. His son argued many of the points with witnesses as well. I don't think they put up much of a defense at all and I wonder if it's more of a case of not having much to work with and perhaps Box is smart like a fox and setting up for the appeal rather than trying to win over a jury. Who knows...
defense looked pretty weak
5. have not read the transcript, but reading notes from folks that was at the trial. it's evident Judge's rulings were slanted grossly in DA's favor. seems either Box was incompetent and/or Judge's rulings were biased.
Elliot is purported to be the absolute fairest judge in the court. Seems to me Box tried to push the envelope many times during the whole course of events and it's likely that his wife's ordeal with Elliot and his obvious personal issue with Prater may have caused him to be out of line many times. Doesn't speak well for him as an attorney if he let's himself get worked up like that. Again though, mabye that's all part of the game?
according to all the feedback from folks that attended the trial. the judges rulings favored the DA in terms of pure numbers for and against
6. managed to suffer through half of Ersland's initial interview before I couldn't stand any more of Ersland's bald face lies. what also came out was Ersland while being interviewed was STONE FACE HIGH on drugs. compare his speech patterns in his jail house interviews, where we know he's not on opiates. evidence points to Ersland being Stoned out of his mind on drugs (opiates) during his interview and likely when he shot the thug . just like a drunk will make outrageous statements. so did Ersland only on tape, under a microscope
I'm also sickened by Ersland's statements and behavior in the interviews. I think some of it can be attributed to his painkiller addiction and some of it is just plain old Rainman. I half expected him to say the detective was very sparkly and exclaim what an excellent driver he is. He's obviously an intelligent man or he never would have become a pharmacist, but that doesn't mean he can't still be some kind of idiot savant.
Ersland is a total idiot!!!
7. media has managed to whip folks up into a frenzy.... a good portion of stories posted all over contains factual inaccuracies. but that's never stopped a good story...
You're right. Media is the media... I think it's just mostly common for them to get their facts wrong. This is a sensational case and trial and therefore they're going to play to that for sure.
8. it would be a gross injustice if dead thug's mom ends up profiting from her son's death. where was she when her son started running around with the wrong crowd?
Fully agree. I did see a news article the other day where the insurance was divorcing itself from Erslands actions, but if the pharmacy owners knew he had guns on site, then they could be in trouble anyway. Parker's mother in my humble opinion should be lambasted for her negligence with her child and we haven't heard hardly anything from his father. I think one statement. I don't know the full story there, but obviously there wasn't any parenting going on.
have tried sticking to only the evidence and ignoring all the grandstanding.
please let me know if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the evidence.
See my comments in RED
Last edited:
Given what you just stated, it's clear that Ersland had no idea if the guy was dead or alive either when he retrieved a second gun and put five more into the guy. Dead or not dead, Ersland's actions show that he tried to (at best), or did (at worst), execute the guy.
Also, the ME's statement doesn't have "to be bogus" just because the time of death isn't known down to the second. It may be his professional opinion that the guy was still alive, but if he can't prove TOD exactly, the neither can you, which means your statement is just as likely to be as 'bogus' as his.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Handheld Digital Scanners - Worth it or stick to Broadcastify.com?- Latest: BallisticGuy
-
-
-
-
-
-
