GUILTY SC - Walter Scott, 50, fatally shot by North Charleston PD officer, 4 April 2015 - #2

[i.b.nora]

Here is a link to a Fifth Estate program that aired last evening - it gives a very fair (imo) look at all aspects of the use of videos in such cases - be it body/dash cams or bystander video. The last segment, beginning at the 30 minute mark (of 45 minutes) is about the Scott shooting.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2016-2017/police-shootings-caught-on-camera

The segment centers on a documentary by a Toronto filmmaker titled 'Frame 394' - it has just been short listed for an Oscar. Maybe this doc has been posted already - not sure.

The filmmaker has enhanced and slowed down the video - the view is very good. The filmmaker also gives his perspective on the shooting, however I don't really see his point of view, nor do I understand why he changed his mind after viewing the video with more clarity. At the 39+ minute mark, the lawyer for Slager states (while speaking to his client) ' ... we want your video to be the best it can be ...'
However the defense now wants the video excluded altogether.

Caution - there are as many ads in this viewing as there are watching cable TV.

Thank you for linking us to that Fifth Estate program. I also came away from the Fifth Estate viewing not understanding the abrupt shift in opinion or the significance of frame 394.

So, I found this YouTube of the full "Frame 394" video. Much of it was actually shown in the Fifth Estate program.

Frame 394: Toronto Man Entangles Himself In Police-Involved Shooting | Oscar for Documentary Short

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GZSb00oSzuY&feature=youtu.be

I think Daniel Voshart first thought he saw the Officer Slager throwing or flinging the taser backwards. Further manipulations of the video caused him to believe that it was actually Walter Scott flinging the taser towards Slager with Slager not realizing that Scott had released the taser. Therefore, Voshart decided that Slager was justified in shooting Scott in the back as he was running away because Slager thought Scott had the taser.

With that said, I can think of at least one fact from the original film that doesn't necessarily back that theory up.

Anyhow, I now somewhat understand a little incident that occurred in court on Friday. Andy Savage was cross examining Saldana and attempted to show him a still shot from what he said was Saldana's video. Scarlett Wilson, the prosecutor, wondered from “which film” the still shot came? I didn't understand that, now I do. The still shot seemingly came out of nowhere, had not been previously shown or talked about, etc. The judge ruled that without more information the photo could not be shown to either Saldana (or the jury).

So, my guess is that the still shot was of frame 394 in the enhanced video in the possession of Andy Savage.

I am also thinking there is something a little too convenient about the making of "Frame 394".

 

[Woodland]

In the original shaky, grainy video I was pretty sure I was seeing Scott run away from Slager - therefore posing no immediate threat to the life or well being of Slager or anyone else - and Slager took aim with his gun and fired at Scott, hitting him in the back numerous times until Scott hit the ground. I'm pretty sure I then saw Slager drop something near Scott as he lay on the ground and soon after, picked it up.

Now I'm really sure that's what I saw. Thank-you to the filmmaker of 'Frame 394'.

 

[bluesneakers]

Thank you for linking us to that Fifth Estate program. I also came away from the Fifth Estate viewing not understanding the abrupt shift in opinion or the significance of frame 394.

So, I found this YouTube of the full "Frame 394" video. Much of it was actually shown in the Fifth Estate program.

Frame 394: Toronto Man Entangles Himself In Police-Involved Shooting | Oscar for Documentary Short

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GZSb00oSzuY&feature=youtu.be

I think Daniel Voshart first thought he saw the Officer Slager throwing or flinging the taser backwards. Further manipulations of the video caused him to believe that it was actually Walter Scott flinging the taser towards Slager with Slager not realizing that Scott had released the taser. Therefore, Voshart decided that Slager was justified in shooting Scott in the back as he was running away because Slager thought Scott had the taser.

With that said, I can think of at least one fact from the original film that doesn't necessarily back that theory up.

Anyhow, I now somewhat understand a little incident that occurred in court on Friday. Andy Savage was cross examining Saldana and attempted to show him a still shot from what he said was Saldana's video. Scarlett Wilson, the prosecutor, wondered from “which film” the still shot came? I didn't understand that, now I do. The still shot seemingly came out of nowhere, had not been previously shown or talked about, etc. The judge ruled that without more information the photo could not be shown to either Saldana (or the jury).

So, my guess is that the still shot was of frame 394 in the enhanced video in the possession of Andy Savage.

I am also thinking there is something a little too convenient about the making of "Frame 394".

Agree.

 

[i.b.nora]

Live Blog: Day 3 of trial:

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

 

[Woodland]

Testimony from Tuesday, 8 Nov 2016 -

A state crime scene investigator testified Tuesday that he was concerned when he examined the body of a black motorist shot by a white police officer because what he saw didn't jibe with what he was told about how Walter Scott died.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/wa...tor-says-he-was-concerned-when-he-saw-n680306

 

[Woodland]

From testimony today -

12:30 p.m. Robert Downey, a SLED agent with a vice canine, said his dog did not find any narcotics on the inside or outside of Scott's vehicle.

At 12:15 p.m., MUSC forensic pathologist Dr. Lee Marie Tormos, who performed the autopsy on Scott, takes the stand to describe the man's injuries, including five gunshot wounds and other bruises and abrasions.

2:30 p.m. Dr. Lee Marie Tormos said the autopsy revealed that the bullets that hit Walter Scott all came from behind. They hit the back of his body closer to his right side than to his spine.

Defense attorney Andy Savage challenged Tormos on the definition of the human back, saying it varies depending on the person offering the definition. Tormos said she was using the medical one.

"But they were in the back," she said of Scott's injuries.

Tormos said the wounds were consistent with the video showing Scott running away when he was shot.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

UBM - this part stood out for me, however words to concisely describe why escape me.

 

[minor4th]

Anybody following this trial today?

 

[i.b.nora]

I have the trial streaming but to be honest I couldn't possiby tell you what has happened today. They just recently started their afternoon session. There is a female SLED agent on now.

http://www.wltx.com/news/local/live-michael-slager-trial/351684380

 

[ohiogirl]

Thanks i.b.nora. I have just been reading the blog. It seems to me the defense attorney is trying to get information in that should be coming from the defendant. We will see if he testifies, but I doubt it. Mind, I haven't been watching, just reading.

 

[Woodland]

LIVE BLOG / DAY 9:

4:15 p.m. The state has rested its case again Michael Slager after 32 witnesses and 9 days of testimony.

4:30 p.m. Judge Newman denies defense's motion of directed verdict of acquittal. He said that the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that Michael Slager killed Walter Scott with malice.

The defense sought a dismal, arguing that the state could not prove evidence of malice, a requirement of a murder charge. However, the prosecution argued that shooting Walter Scott in the back and alleged lies to authority are evidence of malice.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

The date is not part of the live blog, so not exactly sure what day the State rested. Possibly Wed, 16 Nov 2016.

 

[Woodland]

The defense is presenting their case - believe this is from yesterday.

LIVE BLOG / DAY 11:

3:40 p.m. A H, a Charleston attorney specializing in family court case, took the witness stand to testify about child support. Walter Scott owed thousands of dollars in back child support when he died. He had a warrant out for his arrest.

4:15 p.m. Family law attorney A H continued to testify as an expert on Walter Scott's child support case. She was allowed to offer her opinion over prosecutors' objection that labeled her testimony as inadmissible and irrelevant character evidence.

The defense argued that the prosecution had brought up Scott's court case at the trial's beginning and should be permitted to address it.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

 

[bwt42]

LIVE BLOG / DAY 9:

4:15 p.m. The state has rested its case again Michael Slager after 32 witnesses and 9 days of testimony.

4:30 p.m. Judge Newman denies defense's motion of directed verdict of acquittal. He said that the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that Michael Slager killed Walter Scott with malice.

The defense sought a dismal, arguing that the state could not prove evidence of malice, a requirement of a murder charge. However, the prosecution argued that shooting Walter Scott in the back and alleged lies to authority are evidence of malice.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

The date is not part of the live blog, so not exactly sure what day the State rested. Possibly Wed, 16 Nov 2016.

The judge found him guilty before the defense put up their case? wow

 

[Woodland]

I don't see that the judge has declared guilt so far.

Imo, the judge has said the State has met their burden in the case they presented - answering the defense motion that the State did not meet that burden.

 

[bwt42]

I don't see that the judge has declared guilt so far.

Imo, the judge has said the State has met their burden in the case they presented - answering the defense motion that the State did not meet that burden.

That might be what he meant but if he said that the prosecution proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before the defense put on their case the verdict will surely be thrown out. jmo. words are important.

 

[Woodland]

From today - LIVE BLOG / DAY 12:

11 a.m. Jurors got a 3-D computer-generated glimpse at officer Michael Slager's perspective in the Walter Scott shooting. Crime-scene reconstruction expert Eugene Liscio showed an image that put the view in Slager's shoes, depicting him taking aim at a figure representing Scott, who is running somewhat sideways rather than straight away from Slager.

Liscio estimated the distance between the men when the first shot was fired to have been about 18 feet. A prosecution expert had estimated 17 feet.

Note this is not the recreation by the filmmaker of 'Frame 394'.

11:30 a.m. Prosecutors asked that defense expert Eugene Liscio be barred from opining about the location of Michael Slager's Taser at the end of the confrontation with Walter Scott. The prosecution's motion was denied until the judge could hear some of the testimony in question.

Liscio showed a 360-degree view of the point where Slager and Scott separate. Using computer software, he hovered over the Taser and combined that view with the bystander's video of the shooting. The motion of the Taser, which was seen bouncing behind Slager, isn't consistent with where the officer's hands were at the time the stun gun appears moving on the footage, Liscio said.

12:10 p.m. On cross-examination, 9th Circuit Scarlett Wilson had defense expert Eugene Liscio, who re-created the Walter Scott scene through 3-D imaging, measure out the distances at which Michael Slager shot at Scott, starting at 18 feet.

"Let’s go to 37 feet," Wilson said, referring to an approximate distance Scott was when the last shot was fired.

Liscio stood in the gallery seating and Wilson near the jury box, both holding an end of the measuring tape. It was the third time in the trial that the prosecution pulled out the tool.

"It doesn’t take technology to see that, correct?" Wilson said. "This is real life. This is 37 feet in real life."

But defense attorney Donald McCune had Liscio do the same display at 27 inches, the estimated distance that separated the men as Slager pulled out his gun.

"Twenty-seven inches is 27 inches, right?" McCune said.

The witness agreed.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

 

[Woodland]

It seems the defense wants to make the location and perceived location of the taser a main point of defense.

It seems rather obvious (without any video) that if the taser was thrown or knocked away from Slager and Scott when they were struggling it would be Scott that threw/knocked it away.

So Slager doesn't have his taser after using it on Scott and Scott runs - sideways, straight or whatever.

Slager pulls his gun out when Scott has run 27 inches away, first fires when Scott is 17 or 18 feet away and continues firing until Scott drops to the ground at about 37 feet away - if I have today's testimony correct.

It still comes down to was this a justified shooting at a man running away or not.

Court will resume on Monday, 28 Nov.

 

[minor4th]

This is the slowest moving, most boring trial I've ever tried to follow lol

 

[Woodland]

From day 10 -

Noon. Court has been a bit of a slog this morning as the jury has been in and out while lawyer argue over just how much information will be given to them from Fredericks' presentation. Defense wants to put the words on the screen but the state objects.

From day 7 -

5 p.m. FBI video analyst Anthony Imel said the witness video of Walter Scott's shooting was unclear with a lot of motion blur. Jurors were shown portions of the enhanced slow-motion footage and some still images, but little can be discerned from them.

Minutes before 5 p.m., the judge was delivered a note. "The jury says they’re tired,” Judge Clifton Newman said.

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

Very boring for such an important case imo.

 

[Jax49]

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_05443c1c-b525-11e6-91f0-6b1e86cc0947.html

After one of his old co-workers said Monday that police officers are trained to shoot a fleeing man in the back “if it’s needed,” Michael Slager is expected to give his own explanation for opening fire on Walter Scott.
Slated for Tuesday, Slager’s testimony in his murder trial will cap a parade of four officers from the North Charleston Police Department who came to his defense a day earlier.

 

[Woodland]

Have been sitting on my hands since reading last evening what you have posted Jax49.

And this from Day 14 (Mon 28 Nov 2016) -

3:30 p.m. North Charleston police Lt. Walter Humphries continued testimony, mainly relating to training.

Addressing why Slager was captured on video picking up his Taser and dropping it near Scott's body, Humphries said it's common for officers to secure loose weapons at a crime scene. Slager probably realized that a holster is a safer place for the Taser than next to a suspect, Humphries said, so the officer picked it up again.

“I would say it’s autopilot more than anything,” he said. “Officers have this weird thing about not wanting to leave a weapon lying around.”

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/...cle_48ba1684-a10b-11e6-a639-a3b9a114da5f.html

These officers are giving opinions on their interpretation of their training imo. How were they vetted as experts to even be testifying?

Slager thought that dropping the taser near Scott was a way of securing the weapon? This is common?

My opinion of the testimony fwiw, these officers are talking down to the paying public - the paying public has no business having an independent view on their actions and they will tell you what you should be thinking. So just follow along and consider this as the way we protect you.

The blog doesn't state if the DA objected to any of this opinion - if not, then imo the DA is not out to secure a conviction.