There were a lot of things glossed over in the inquest, and it was possible because only the DA could make points. An alert and knowledgeable jury would catch it. The average jury would not.
For example, Scott’s gun was found holstered - so unless the cops tampered with evidence to make themselves look bad, the FACT is that Scott did not unholster his gun. That speaks volumes about intent.
For example, the hammer on Scott’s 1911 gun was down, which normally means there wasn’t even a round in the chamber. No one asked the cops if the chamber was empty, and many wouldn’t know that a 1911 gun would thus need to be unholstered and the slide racked to arm the gun. The only testimony the jury heard was the cop claiming it would be “easy” to shoot the gun from its holster - which is a damn lie, and any cross examination would reveal that...I’d have loved to see Mosher show how he could have fired the gun from the holster.
Also, the time line flashed on the screen by the DA shows that there were only SIX SECONDS from when the cops didn’t know who Scott was to opening fire. It showed TWO seconds from first command to firing. And no one asked, “What happened to justify opening fire in two seconds from the first spoken word? What about his behavior that day revealed he needed to be killed less than 6 seconds after he passed quietly past you without you recognizing him as the troublemaker?”
THOSE are questions that needed to be looked at to see if the LVPD responded correctly. And they were not, nor could they, be asked.
Now, not to get too far in the weeds on this and kick up the hysteria that occurred on past threads, I was more interested in the allegations that the inquest was a dog and pony show. That is the question I had. The Sun followed the testimony each day and described the witness testimony, has any info come out about witnesses that refute those that testified at the inquest? Anything to show the DA refused to have them testify?