I thought that the only witness from Friday who was believable was the Gentleman who was identified as the store manager. His statements came across as consistent and forthright. He was also the only person to get up close and actually interact with Scott, other than the police. The one consistent theme that seemed to shine through is that Scott was not violent or abusive, but simply impaired. That comports well with the medical testimony earlier in the proceeding.
I am struggling over one item in Mosher's testimony. Throughout his entire time on the stand, he has been able to vividly tell us the color of the firearm, it's type, the exact movement of the suspect's hands, the suspect's lethargy (or as Mosher put it, he was "out of it") and the glazed, bloodshot look in the suspect's eyes. I can appreciate that part of the testimony and it speaks about being so close to someone that he, a trained observer, takes in a lot about the suspect's demeanor and condition. That close, I'm sure he was probably on guard for any whiffs of alcohol!! I am struggling though to understand how he, of all people, could possibly fail to observe that the firearm was holstered. We know that as fact because it was found on the ground in that condition and at least some of the witnesses have said it was always within the holster.
Other than the manager, the rest of the eyewitness testimony is what real experts probably already expected, contradictory at best, and represents a glowing example why physical evidence is so crucial. Yesterday's witnesses varied the shot count, with one witness saying there were only four rounds fired!! The only witness I saw who got the shot count right was Officer Mosher. None of the witnesses agreed on the placement and movements of Scott's left hand. One witness had his left hand lifting his shirt, another had it down by his left side and another had it out in front at waist level. All of the civilian witnesses have varied on the testimony regarding Scott's right hand, the position of the weapon, whether it was in or out of its holster, whether it was even in a holster, color, etc. Personally, I see many gaping holes in the eyewitness testimony. I hate to say it, but the guy who came across to me as the biggest buffoon was the gentleman eyewitness who testified he was a CCW holder. There was a lot of self-promotion in his testimony, to the point that the prosecutor had to stop him a couple of times and ask him simply to answer the question at hand, wait to hear the entire question, etc. Interestingly enough, his testimony stated that it appeared Scott was trying to surrender his firearm, that the gun was in its holster, not pointed at the officers as Mosher stated, that Mosher's first bullet struck Scott in the chest spinning him 180 degrees, that Mosher's second bullet hit Scott in the back, that the muzzle was pointed more in the witnesses direction and that he would not have surrendered to police in the manner that Scott was attempting. If that part is true, I agree with this guy due to the nature of police training today.
Some interesting questions that came from the jury and "other interested parties", that the prosecutor obviously tried to avoid revolved around the Chain of Custody issue I mentioned earlier concerning the DVR hard drives. It was confirmed that the hard drives themselves were under Costco's control for at least a few days after the shooting and that Costco employees, along with their DVR service company played around with the drives, ostensibly to try to recover pertinent video. The really interesting part of this is that the Costco manager testified that they knew they had a problem with the video shutting down, but that they simply re-booted it each day to get it going again. That begs the question about the extent of the gap on the day of the shooting?? The gap on the pertinent drive extends back 2 days before the shooting, when all the prior gaps are much shorter in duration. Part of the prosecutor's line to deflect criticism there was to elicit testimony that Scott's girlfriend was placed in the same office as the DVR equipment by herself for a couple of hours, so she had the opportunity to screw up the tape!!
I'm back at square one and waiting for the rest of the scintillating testimony before I actually make a firm conclusion in my own mind about this case. Here are the facts as elicited thus far, discounting eyewitness accounts.
1. Scott had legitimate medical issues, but was no doubt impaired by the medication he was prescribed. It was probably a very dumb move to carry in such a condition. Yet to be elicited is what drugs, if any, the paramedics administered.
2. Scott's firearm (well, the one in contention) was photographed by the police, and the DVR once it was re-started, after the shooting on the ground and in its holster.
3. We know that Scott did not have a criminal record.
4. We know that he was identified to the officers as a possible CCW holder based on the dispatch tapes.
5. That shot up the ass is undeniable.
So today took a turn for the weird. A bunch of witnesses didn't show up, including Scott's girlfriend. The family may not have provided a list of witnesses they wanted called. More testimony by Costco employees that makes it seem like Scott was acting mentally ill. There may be some crow-eating in the future.
One (or more, not sure) witness whose story is that Scott began removing his holster.