Posted on 02/04/2014 6:24:59 AM PST by NautiNurse
Don’t be ridiculous - that would be the correct, logical and just thing to do.
You don’t actually expect our justice system to be correct, logical and just do you?
Your theory may be correct. fyi—apparently, there is video from two different angles inside the auditorium.
HMMM. Suspicious?
One angle is probably the camera aimed at the emergency exits, which means the action might be at the margin and of very little value. Keeping tabs on the E-exits to prevent peeps from sneaking in is generally priority one. Those doors have alarms on them to let you know they’ve been opened, but then you need cams to figure out who the guilty parties are, sitting serenely in the audience as if butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths.
I wonder if they have a camera angled directly at the viewing audience from the theater front (where the screen is) or if it’s from the back angled down to catch illegal video cams?
I've been leaning toward prosecutorial PIA power play. They tipped their hand with "we don't have enough time to produce the evidence," when they were planning all along to use it tomorrow.
Interesting and reasoned speculation.
I was a theater employee in high school. The E-exits were the main source of trouble, kids, drugs and alcohol come in the back door. Before the era of cheap electronics and high minimum wages this was the main duty of an usher.
Let's see if the defense feels the same way about it tomorrow after spending a night watching it.
Do NOT throw that popcorn at me or you are a DEAD cookie monster, LOL!
Will there be previews before this video?
How about a live webcam?
I agree. If the retired cops’ movie experience was worth defending with manslaughter or likely worse...then how close the exit would he have been sitting? => Probably not close.
One question, if it were sealed for a criminal case would that by default seal it in a potential future civil case? Just curious.
I think it has been stated in various articles that the shooter was seated in the farthest back row and the victim in the next row (2nd from the back).
And no, it won’t remained sealed after the trial is concluded. Evidence in a trial is public info (except for double secret Obama tribunals).
Not in this current paradigm, no.
This is bullshit. Just cut the vids to a DVD. It's not that hard.
You were absolutely correct. The judge stated he watched the video 15-16 times, and the quality is very poor. He said that had he not already known a shooting occurred, he would not be able to determine the event from the video. Judge states there are gaps in the video.
Judge went on to say that due to the poor quality of the video, he is leaning toward release of the video to the media because he can't see a reason not to.
The defense argued that due to the inconclusive nature of the video, it does not fairly and accurately depict the event and should not be released to the public. Defense also argued the time stamps are not accurate. Video is spliced, providing false impression of sequence timing of events. Video does not capture both Oulson and Reeves. Only Reeves.
Prosecution argues to show the video in court today because the video does not show deceased striking the defendant. Prosecution states gaps in video are due to motion activated.
Judge argued to state attorney that motion activation is not always reliable.
Live video of today's court proceedings show a spectator in the 2nd row with a big SLR camera prepared to capture photos of the theater video. WTSP.com
In a motion for bond filed last week, Escobar argued that two objects were thrown at Reeves by Chad Oulson prior to the shooting: popcorn and an “unknown” item, which was referred to in the arrest affidavit.
Investigators have said popcorn was thrown, leading many to assume that was the unknown object. The bond motion, however, separates the two.
Defense attorneys in the documents described Reeves as an elderly man with health problems, who feared for his life and his wife’s safety after having the items thrown at him in a darkened theater....
FOX 13 News asked Escobar to elaborate about the second object.
“I think if you read my bond motion, it’s self-explanatory. It is describing facts that are alleged in the criminal report affidavit,” he responded.
But the affidavit is not quite that clear, and fails to define the “unknown” object.
“He can allege all the facts that he wants as far as what was thrown but there’s no reason for this guy to feel that he was in fear for his life in order to pull out a gun and shoot someone,” said T.J. Grimaldi, Nicole Oulson’s lawyer.
Nicole’s attorneys have indicated she might testify during the bond hearing. The defense is also expected to call several witnesses.
Is anyone else watching the hearing:
http://www.wtsp.com/video/livestream/
Who threw the bag of popcorn is still now in dispute.
The last text Oulson sent was he said I’s just texting my 2 year old before Reeves left to see the manager. That was the only text.
I do like the judge — he’s reasonable and involved and right on top of things.
The judge is not sequestering the video. It will be shown in the courtroom and anyone is allowed to tape it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.