http://newsok.com/evidence-of-faked-gunshot-wound-okd-in-okc-pharmacists-trial/article/3562001?custom_click=lead_story_title

What a piece of work if the allegation is true. I hope they add an obstruction of justice charge.

It does go to credibility, doesn't it?

Geez, the DA really looking bad here. It is going to hurt his re-election chances.

Thunder, really?
That's your take on this particular news article? You think it makes the DA look bad?
Just a suggestion, but you might consider going back and reading the article again.

Geez, the DA really looking bad here. It is going to hurt his re-election chances.

How in the world do you get that from the story? The only person who looks bad is Ersland and Prater doesn't have to worry about elections for a long time.

I still say Ersland himself is his own biggest obstacle to being found not guilty.

Prater is the DA and he's just as corrupted as it will ever be. I wonder how much he paid the so-called nurse. Can anyone find out the name of the hospital? After all this time, they come up with an elaborate story of fake gunshot wound. Right...

Prater is the DA and he's just as corrupted as it will ever be. I wonder how much he paid the so-called nurse. Can anyone find out the name of the hospital? After all this time, they come up with an elaborate story of fake gunshot wound. Right...

Yet, you have ZERO evidence to back up ANY of your statements. That goes to your credibility too. You and Ersland were made for each other.

Brian, I don't need evidence to back up my opinions. You do know that opinions do not require evidence?

I just don't buy Prater's elaborate tricks. This was not confronted a long time ago. Why now? Oh, I see, Prater wanted to wait until his wound completely healed before pulling the rat out of the hat. And the judge had the balls to allow it. LOL!

Prater is the DA and he's just as corrupted as it will ever be. I wonder how much he paid the so-called nurse. Can anyone find out the name of the hospital? After all this time, they come up with an elaborate story of fake gunshot wound. Right...

I don't believe it said a hospital but rather medical treatment in Chickasha.

Brian, I don't need evidence to back up my opinions. You do know that opinions do not require evidence?

I just don't buy Prater's elaborate tricks. This was not confronted a long time ago. Why now? Oh, I see, Prater wanted to wait until his wound completely healed before pulling the rat out of the hat. And the judge had the balls to allow it. LOL!

You're not just expressing your opinion ("I don't like Prater"), you are forwarding direct assertions (that's he's corrupt and paid someone to lie) that have zero basis in reality and certainly no foundation of truth.

You are also showing your lack of simple knowledge on the topic. The prosecution knew about the faked wound quite a long time ago, as it appears in other court reports. This article is simply stating that a judge made a decision on the topic recently. Just because the media didn't report or overly report the faked wound doesn't mean it wasn't well known to the prosecution. Personally, I'm surprised the prosecution has released as much information as they have.

Now, if someone wants to complain about the fact it looks like Ingram was given a deal by Prater that would free him from custody when he turns 18 - that's a valid gripe that can be argued. It really bugs me that Ersland and the two adult scum bags face life in prison but the robber with the gun may walk soon.

You're not just expressing your opinion ("I don't like Prater"), you are forwarding direct assertions (that's he's corrupt and paid someone to lie) that have zero basis in reality and certainly no foundation of truth.

You are also showing your lack of simple knowledge on the topic. The prosecution knew about the faked wound quite a long time ago, as it appears in other court reports. This article is simply stating that a judge made a decision on the topic recently. Just because the media didn't report or overly report the faked wound doesn't mean it wasn't well known to the prosecution. Personally, I'm surprised the prosecution has released as much information as they have.

Now, if someone wants to complain about the fact it looks like Ingram was given a deal by Prater that would free him from custody when he turns 18 - that's a valid gripe that can be argued. It really bugs me that Ersland and the two adult scum bags face life in prison but the robber with the gun may walk soon.

Does it also bug you that the brain is not fully developed in adolesence? There is a reason that liquor laws and pistol laws require you to be 21.

Does it also bug you that the brain is not fully developed in adolesence? There is a reason that liquor laws and pistol laws require you to be 21.

I know lots of folks over 21 whose brain has never fully developed lol

Does it also bug you that the brain is not fully developed in adolesence? There is a reason that liquor laws and pistol laws require you to be 21.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point ~ but if your suggesting he should get a pass because of his age, I strongly disagree. He knew full well what he was doing was wrong and illegal. The only way my opinion could be swayed would be if it's revealed that he was physically beaten, or threatened if he did not comply. Otherwise, I 100% support a prison sentence of 20-life.

Brian, with your background and interests, I know you are more aware than many that a prosecutor often doesn't find a nun or a priest hanging out with unsavory elements. Thus they make their bargains for testimony from those who are actually present. From their perspective, the gun toting young robber was apparently the lesser of the evils still standing after all the bullets had been fired that day. I'm not real shocked at holding the adults involved to a higher standard. I imagine if they felt a solid enough case could be made without him, he'd have been sitting next to the adult recruiters instead of appearing on the state's witness list.

You're not just expressing your opinion ("I don't like Prater"), you are forwarding direct assertions (that's he's corrupt and paid someone to lie) that have zero basis in reality and certainly no foundation of truth.

You are also showing your lack of simple knowledge on the topic. The prosecution knew about the faked wound quite a long time ago, as it appears in other court reports. This article is simply stating that a judge made a decision on the topic recently. Just because the media didn't report or overly report the faked wound doesn't mean it wasn't well known to the prosecution. Personally, I'm surprised the prosecution has released as much information as they have.

Now, if someone wants to complain about the fact it looks like Ingram was given a deal by Prater that would free him from custody when he turns 18 - that's a valid gripe that can be argued. It really bugs me that Ersland and the two adult scum bags face life in prison but the robber with the gun may walk soon.

Ingram may walk soon?

Brian, with your background and interests, I know you are more aware than many that a prosecutor often doesn't find a nun or a priest hanging out with unsavory elements. Thus they make their bargains for testimony from those who are actually present. From their perspective, the gun toting young robber was apparently the lesser of the evils still standing after all the bullets had been fired that day. I'm not real shocked at holding the adults involved to a higher standard. I imagine if they felt a solid enough case could be made without him, he'd have been sitting next to the adult recruiters instead of appearing on the state's witness list.

I am fully aware of their justification for the deal. I do however disagree they had to give the youth such a sweetheart deal to get his testimony. He was facing life. There are many available plea options before agreeing to give someone 3-years for their part in an armed robbery that resulted in a death.

The DA's office of late seems more than happy to cut soft on crime deals to make cases go away. The deal given to the two drive-by cops comes to mind.

Ingram may walk soon?

When he turns 18. That's a three year sentence for murder. Reminds me of when Lane settled for a 10-year sentence for Crider after he murdered his teen step daughter.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point ~ but if your suggesting he should get a pass because of his age, I strongly disagree. He knew full well what he was doing was wrong and illegal. The only way my opinion could be swayed would be if it's revealed that he was physically beaten, or threatened if he did not comply. Otherwise, I 100% support a prison sentence of 20-life.

Not a pass, but mitigating the punishment. There is a reason for punishments to have a range. This is one of them.

Not a pass, but mitigating the punishment. There is a reason for punishments to have a range. This is one of them.

I didn't see anything in the affidavits that put that much value into the testimony of Ingram and I actually read the documents and have been popping in and out of the trial. I'd bet if they offered him 15 years (taking 15-life off the table) he would have took it. There is no justice in a 3 year sentence for getting someone murdered.

People have too much trust in our system of prosecutors and judges some times. Often their decisions make no sense. Just the other day I watched a blind plea where an admitted gang member and his buddy were caught on tape (very clear tape) outside a home taunting the occupant to come outside. The gangmembers had semi-automatic weapons in their hands. When the occupant didn't come out one of the gang members opened fire on the house. The shooter took an early plea deal and got 15-years. The other gangmember decided against a plea deal (15-years) and blind pled instead. He literally admitted to the judge if the guy would have came out he would have killed him. But didn't want to waste bullets if the guy wasn't in front of him. On a blind plea he was given 10 DEFERRED even with the prosecutors standing there begging for prison time. It just makes no sense what goes on downtown.

I heard today that one of the masterminds of this crime{and i use the term mastermind loosley} attacked and physically assaulted prater in court today.

On a blind plea he was given 10 DEFERRED even with the prosecutors standing there begging for prison time. It just makes no sense what goes on downtown.

I believe that's an illegal sentence. Six years used to be the maximum term the court could defer a sentence, so unless that's changed...

^From what I hear about Macy, that sort of thing never bothered him.

I believe that's an illegal sentence. Six years used to be the maximum term the court could defer a sentence, so unless that's changed...

10-years is the legal max for a deferred sentence.

I heard today that one of the masterminds of this crime{and i use the term mastermind loosley} attacked and physically assaulted prater in court today.

I read that. In front of the jury, no less.

I read that. In front of the jury, no less.

He really had nothing to lose at that point. He was already guilty and life in Oklahoma means at least 35 years. I'm sure he got lots of street cred for punching the DA.

10-years is the legal max for a deferred sentence.

Thanks - didn't have a codebook handy when I responded. Six used to be the max years ago, but some DA's offices routinely disregarded that provision. Looks like 991c finally changed.