Exhibits‎ > ‎

P1

 Part one:  MY FIRST TWO WARNING SHOTS-    (and the pause)

Although, the prosecutor through the police investigator that took measurements and diagramed the scene told the jury (at TR: 137-8) that these first two shots were at “eye level”, “hairline” and would have just missed hitting anyone coming in that doorway, in the head. 
This first shot is 8 [eight] feet over the porch, up through the awning
the second was actually going a little higher but hit and lodgerd in the wall, there. 
 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -    -Then a Pause-  
     Then the next two shots with me backing up and away (in a serious, serious fear/panic now)
                                            (also see next page, Part two
   
SO IN FACT THESE ARE ACTUALLY, AND CLEARLY TWO WARNING SHOTS, 2 1/2 TO 3 FEET DIRECTLY OVER THAT FIRST ASSAILANT’S HEAD AS HE IS COMING AT ME, IN AND THROUGH MY DOORWAY. 
-Just as I testified to[1], and as shown by these photos.  Not “eye level” or at any one’s hairline.  So the jury was lied to and duped [once again] by both the police and prosecutor
 
And why a pause?  If my chosen objective was to shoot/kill cops.  and why, only shoot 4 of my six shots that I have available to me? (2 then 2)  Why, because I was showing restraint about not wanting to have to shoot anybody, not even some punk-ass clowns wanting to rob me.  But if my chosen objective was to scare off and protect myself from these two would be thug, punk robbers/assailents, it all makes perifict sense; bam, bam [don't mess with me, I'm not the one] a pause [hoping that works] bam, bam [get out of here, I'm not fucking around, don't force this, as I'm retreating] and then two more shots for [if you persue this, 'a man has to do what a man has to do'].  

 The prosecutor then uses all this [false] “eye level”/ “hair line”, head shot theory testimony [and Stevens other lies] in his closing arguments, (at TR: 254) that you heard the investigator.  “That very first shot was within inches of Steven’s [head], he [Steven’s] literally avoided both/[death] by a matter of inches.”  And [it was so close that] “He/[Steven’s] felt the bullet-debris powder/residue from that shot.”[2]  (TR: 256) “If someone is going through the front door there is an intent to hit… not an intent to warn… an intent to hit.”  (But the truth is, they were/are warning shots.) 

Is this police investigator, officer J. Prior intentionally lying and misleading the jury here for this conviction[3] /(or just “conveniently” this sloppy and stupid in “this case”[4]) or is he really this incompetent in most cases and/or with other lives and convictions?[5]  

Part two: deals with more and more specific intentional false/ perjured testimony by K. Stevens, intended to obstruct justice.  And further goes to the heart of witness credibility in this case and thus the credibility and confidence in this conviction (and all [police] testimony in general). 

 

                                                                             


[1] And he testified to entering my home, [in across my threshold] gun out front, just like in that picture

[2] Which is a physical impossibility/lie in this case (see footnote 7 of Part two)

[3] Everyone else/ (all the other cop/government employees) seem to be intentionally lying in this case.  See next, second part of this Part two, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 7

[4] And if so, at or by who’s request?

[5] That should be easy enough to figure out; see if he has been fired or he’s been promoted and raised up through the ranks, like the other good-lying/ stand-up cops in this case.   

Comments