Ersland Trial Begins

[PennyQuilts]

Had some major fireworks erupt with the police officer on the stand. Went something like this....
Irvin Box (defense) kept asking questions he knew would be successfully objected to, but he simply wanted the jury to hear the questions. The questions were basically asking the officer if its OCPD police that if you fire your weapon your intent should be to kill, not simply wound. The others had to do with the state of mind a person would be in if being confronted by an armed robber.

Prater (prosecution), finally called Irvin on the purpose of his questioning and described it as poisoning the jury and "slimy." Irvin responded with something like "Why don't you call me slimy to my face Mr. Prater." Prater didn't back down and then Irvin made some comment about how should try to hit him, because he doesn't have M.S. (reference to the defendant in the previous trial that attacked Prater).

Judge Elliot cleared the jury out of the room and admonished both attorneys.

This went on in front of the jury?????? Admonishment was kind. They are lucky it wasn't worse.

[PennyQuilts]

EMSA arrived within 10 or so of the police and their medic did check more thoroughly for vitals. Of course, that doesn't prove when Parker died. Yes, the initial ME's report said the first shot was not fatal. Reports by other ME's only varied by how fatal the first shot was..... As in, would he have died without immediate treatment or could he have ultimately survived if he got help in a reasonable amount of time. I believe all ME reports would agree the first shot was not immediately fatal and that there is absolute medical evidence Parker was alive when he was shot 5 more times - how long hev would have lived after the first shot is in question.

I'm thinking the jury will hang a hat on that for a reduced charge or an acquital if they can convince themselves that despite his bad acts, it didn't change the fact that the child would die from the first shot. Just my thoughts without knowing more of the facts and how it will play. So basically, my opinion is worthless, I realize. I should think the bullet holes to the chest wouldn't have been bleeding like you'd expect if he'd already been dead for several minutes. Any testimony on that?

[Thunder]

Very nice, Penny. If he was brain-dead, then chances are the heart stopped pumping and the blood stopped flowing. All the multiple shots into his chest should have blood racing out if he was alive. If there was no blood coming out in that way, he was dead. I wonder if the defense attorneys are reading this thread. They can question the ME about this. Its more likely that he was dead already.

[PennyQuilts]

Very nice, Penny. If he was brain-dead, then chances are the heart stopped pumping and the blood stopped flowing. All the multiple shots into his chest should have blood racing out if he was alive. If there was no blood coming out in that way, he was dead. I wonder if the defense attorneys are reading this thread. They can question the ME about this. Its more likely that he was dead already.

I'm fairly certain this has already occurred to them.

[BBatesokc]

Very nice, Penny. If he was brain-dead, then chances are the heart stopped pumping and the blood stopped flowing. All the multiple shots into his chest should have blood racing out if he was alive. If there was no blood coming out in that way, he was dead. I wonder if the defense attorneys are reading this thread. They can question the ME about this. Its more likely that he was dead already.

Hmmm, I'm no doctor, but if you're brain dead and your heart isn't pumping, I'm pretty certain that qualifies you as just plain dead. Matter of fact, I think it just comes down to the heart - when it does the brain follows pretty quickly. But, not necessarily the other way around.

Like I said, there is ample evidence Parker was alive when he was shot the final 5 times.

[Dana]

Basically the defense was editorializing and getting into topics that are not to be brought up in opening remarks (but could potentially be brought up in closing). Opening remarks should be limited to summarizing what FACTS that are directly pertinent to the case that are going to be presented. The defense was getting into things like the original ME being fired not long after do the autopsy on Parker.

Closing arguments are all about editorializing and swaying the jury (within reason).

Well given the fact that in 2009 the ME’s office lost their accreditation and then all the problems with the ME’s office like botched investigations. Like as in the Kelsey Briggs case where that poor little girl’s body was dug up twice because they didn’t do it right the first time. Add to that the strange investigation by DHS employee Jill Kinney who was paid to investigate the ME’s office. However during her so called investigation it was proven that she destroyed documents pertaining to more than one case.

[MikeOKC]

Well given the fact that in 2009 the ME’s office lost their accreditation and then all the problems with the ME’s office like botched investigations. Like as in the Kelsey Briggs case where that poor little girl’s body was dug up twice because they didn’t do it right the first time. Add to that the strange investigation by DHS employee Jill Kinney who was paid to investigate the ME’s office. However during her so called investigation it was proven that she destroyed documents pertaining to more than one case.

Dana, Your past few posts have told me you have a big beef with the county/state system of justice in our state. I went back and read some of your previous postings and read how you feel you have all this evidence, you are being denied your legal rights, etc. You mentioned an attorney in one of the posts, has he or she ever mentioned the possibility of going to the U.S. Attorney's office and discuss investigation of possible violations of federal civil rights laws? If things are really as strong and black and white as you make them sound - maybe even present the evidence to a federal grand jury? I mention that specifically because you talked of having recordings in your possession, yet judges will not allow them to be heard. This is where the grand jury system can be of help because they can hear, see, just about anything (that otherwise wouldn't be admissible in court) and if the evidence is as clear as you say - act on it. There are ways to get justice if you feel the ones in charge of seeing that justice is done are not doing their jobs. Just food for thought. Best of luck.

[Dana]

Dana, Your past few posts have told me you have a big beef with the county/state system of justice in our state. I went back and read some of your previous postings and read how you feel you have all this evidence, you are being denied your legal rights, etc. You mentioned an attorney in one of the posts, has he or she ever mentioned the possibility of going to the U.S. Attorney's office and discuss investigation of possible violations of federal civil rights laws? If things are really as strong and black and white as you make them sound - maybe even present the evidence to a federal grand jury? I mention that specifically because you talked of having recordings in your possession, yet judges will not allow them to be heard. This is where the grand jury system can be of help because they can hear, see, just about anything (that otherwise wouldn't be admissible in court) and if the evidence is as clear as you say - act on it. There are ways to get justice if you feel the ones in charge of seeing that justice is done are not doing their jobs. Just food for thought. Best of luck.

Yea this all sounds good in theory but have you ever tried as a citizen to get access to the Grand Jury? First you have to go through the Attorney General which getting to him is almost impossible just ask Jim Hall he has been trying like me for several years. His judge got so mad at what DHS did to him he did something that has never been done before when it comes to DHS. He filed a public order for the whole world to see and now 3 years later we still can't get that public order to the Attorney General because it disappears right after it gets there so the AG never gets to see it.

[MikeOKC]

Yea this all sounds good in theory but have you ever tried as a citizen to get access to the Grand Jury? First you have to go through the Attorney General which getting to him is almost impossible just ask Jim Hall he has been trying like me for several years. His judge got so mad at what DHS did to him he did something that has never been done before when it comes to DHS. He filed a public order for the whole world to see and now 3 years later we still can't get that public order to the Attorney General because it disappears right after it gets there so the AG never gets to see it.

That's why I suggested the U.S. Attorney. Get the political process involved in the judicial process. Have their friends insist they listen. There's always another step to take. No, it's not easy, but the squeaky wheel....well, you know all that. Good luck. Believe me, I know it's imperfect.

[Dana]

That's why I suggested the U.S. Attorney. Get the political process involved in the judicial process. Have their friends insist they listen. There's always another step to take. No, it's not easy, but the squeaky wheel....well, you know all that. Good luck. Believe me, I know it's imperfect.

Once again all I did was state the facts and once again I am personally attacked. I can't help it if you can't deal with the truth as the old saying don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.

[MikeOKC]

Once again all I did was state the facts and once again I am personally attacked. I can't help it if you can't deal with the truth as the old saying don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.

Excuse me? Did you read my post? You must have misread something somewhere. I certainly didn't attack you and, in fact, was trying to be encouraging.

[PennyQuilts]

Once again all I did was state the facts and once again I am personally attacked. I can't help it if you can't deal with the truth as the old saying don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.

Huh? I thought he was exceptionally nice and trying to be helpful. How did you twist that to a personal attack? Am I just misunderstanding your response?

[Dana]

He implied that I was anti government and I am not I am only against criminals hiding behind their government position. So maybe he misunderstood me and I intern misunderstood him but the fact remains that my questions are valid and my facts are truthful now if I could just find an honest person that works for our government it would be great. Afterall if they have nothing to hide then what is wrong with exposing it?

[MikeOKC]

Dana, I'll only say that you seriously misread my posts. I was trying to be helpful.

[BBatesokc]

I've still never seen Dana justify the opinion DA Prater is a 'crook.'

Well given the fact that in 2009 the ME’s office lost their accreditation and then all the problems with the ME’s office like botched investigations. Like as in the Kelsey Briggs case where that poor little girl’s body was dug up twice because they didn’t do it right the first time. Add to that the strange investigation by DHS employee Jill Kinney who was paid to investigate the ME’s office. However during her so called investigation it was proven that she destroyed documents pertaining to more than one case.

All that little rant did was show you don't know the legal boundaries of an opening statement during a criminal trial are either. And certainly didn't address your beef with the sitting DA.

[ljbab728]

I've still never seen Dana justify the opinion DA Prater is a 'crook.'



All that little rant did was show you don't know the legal boundaries of an opening statement during a criminal trial are either. And certainly didn't address your beef with the sitting DA.

As shown in the past, all of Dana's posts are based on a personal situation. I have no idea if that is justified or not but it's very obvious.

[BBatesokc]

Gotta do some real work this morning for a new client, so I won't be there when the trial resumes this morning. Hope to get there this afternoon.

[Roadhawg]

Sounds to me like somebody has watched too many reruns of the X Files

[Dana]

I've still never seen Dana justify the opinion DA Prater is a 'crook.'



All that little rant did was show you don't know the legal boundaries of an opening statement during a criminal trial are either. And certainly didn't address your beef with the sitting DA.

For one thing I never commented on the opening statements of the trial so your comment about that doesn't effect me. Now for David Prater:Malicious Prosecution is supposed to be against the law arresting somebody and keeping them in jail for 2 weeks even though they did not commit a crime and then refusing to let them bond out while people who really do commit crimes like severe child abuse are allowed to bond out for $900 dollars I have a problem with that.

[Dana]

As shown in the past, all of Dana's posts are based on a personal situation. I have no idea if that is justified or not but it's very obvious.

Yes you could say it is personal. I have a problem with Oklahoma's children being abused and murdered and nobody cares or will do anything to stop it. To make matters worse the state takes offense to people who really try to advocate for these poor little innocent children. While at the same time the convicted felons are allowed to continue working for the state and using their jobs to bully people who have never committed a crime. Not that this has anything to do with the subject at hand but that explains why corruption in our government is so personal for me. If you people only knew what was going on but then you would have to spend years of investigating like I have.

[Dana]

Sounds to me like somebody has watched too many reruns of the X Files

Actually I never watched the X Files I am too busy dealing with reality.

[BBatesokc]

For one thing I never commented on the opening statements of the trial so your comment about that doesn't effect me. Now for David Prater:Malicious Prosecution is supposed to be against the law arresting somebody and keeping them in jail for 2 weeks even though they did not commit a crime and then refusing to let them bond out while people who really do commit crimes like severe child abuse are allowed to bond out for $900 dollars I have a problem with that.

That's all well and good - however, unless you are actually going to post a case number or identify the criminal defendant and case then I call B.S.

[Dana]

That's all well and good - however, unless you are actually going to post a case number or identify the criminal defendant and case then I call B.S.

I am thinking you want the case number for one of the felons who still works for the state so here you go once you look into this I want you to then tell me I'm wrong CF-2007-7331

[Dana]

Ok I answered your question however I noticed that nobody still wants to address my original statement about the ME's office losing their accredidation.

[BBatesokc]

I am thinking you want the case number for one of the felons who still works for the state so here you go once you look into this I want you to then tell me I'm wrong CF-2007-7331

Seriously? That's your beef? She used her computer for personal use to help in a political campaign? Exactly what would you have the outcome be? She was charged and convicted and given a deferred sentence. Did you want her sent to prison over this petty thing? You're more off base from reality than I originally thought.

While working at Children's Hospital I had video of my boss (Jake Lowrey) using a state computer to view hardcore porn in the presence of other state employees in his office. All the while making lewd comments about the images and women in general. I turned it over to authorities and they did nothing because they didn't want to upset the privatization of the hospital. That's alot worse than your example and I'm certainly not obsessing over it.