Posted on 08/29/2010 8:31:02 AM PDT by FoxPro
A Devil’s Deal? August 20th, 2010
More than a month after Erik Scott was gunned down in front of the Summerlin Costco, only Las Vegas METRO officers and their allies have seen Costco’s video-surveillance data and heard the contents of a 911 call made by a Costco security employee. That call set off a massive overreaction by METRO officers, and ultimately led to Erik’s death.
METRO’s Sheriff, Douglas Gillespie, and his spokesmen have stated, from the first day of this nightmare, that video surveillance data the police department immediately seized has a “glitch,” and might be “unusable.” Those Costco video data (stored on computer hard drives) were shipped to a forensics lab in Los Angeles. That decision, in itself, is surprising.
As Bill Carns related in detail during a recent Dave Champion radio show (August 10th, 2010), one of the best computer-forensics experts in America is a Las Vegas METRO employee. He’s a founding member of an anti-computer-crime interagency task force based in Las Vegas at the U.S. Secret Service office. So, why would the Costco surveillance video files be sent to Los Angeles for “forensics” work, when one of their own is extremely well-qualified to undertake exactly the same forensics investigation? Could the decision to send those critical data disks to California have been an intentional move to prevent Costco’s video data being subpoenaed by anybody in Nevada?
It appears that METRO wants to make sure nobody, especially our team of attorneys and computer/digital-data experts, has an opportunity to examine the Costco video data. Why? My opinion: Because the surveillance video imagery shows that Erik Scott was not “acting erratically,” was not throwing merchandise around, was not arguing with a Costco employee and manager, and did not constitute a threat to employees or other customers.
Ultimately, unaltered surveillance video would prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Erik did not have a gun in his hand, did not try to draw it from a holster tucked inside the back of his pants’ waistband, and did not “make a furtive movement” that justified Officers Mosher, Stark and Mendiola shooting Erik to death. The video also will prove that Erik’s pistol was still in its holster, after my son was on the ground, dying, as the three METRO officers fired another five rounds into his back.
Sheriff Gillespie believes he cannot afford to have that video seen by our family’s legal team, let alone by the Las Vegas citizens he hopes will reelect him in November. Costco’s video data are far too incriminating. If seen by the public, that imagery could trigger a revolt by outraged Vegas citizens, who would finally rise up and shout, “Enough killing of innocent civilians, Gillespie!” He and a truck-load of undersheriffs, deputy sheriffs and captains would be fired immediately, and dozens of overly aggressive METRO patrol officers would be looking for jobs as security guards at local casinos.
Costco executives in Issaquah, Washington, are running just as scared as Gillespie is in Las Vegas. If the July 10th emergency 911 audio tape were revealed for public scrutiny, Costco Chief Executive Officer Jim Sinegal and three other members of the company’s Office of the President would be subject to intense criticism by both customers and shareholders. How could Sinegal possibly justify such an incredible overreaction by the Summerlin Costco store’s manager and young undercover security guy, “Little-S,” the only security person on-duty that fateful Saturday? The potential liability associated with the Summerlin-store employees’ decisions and actions is staggering. Hence, Sinegal and his team believe they cannot afford to have the contents of that 911 call revealed.
Which brings us to the possibility of a “Devil’s Deal.” Suppose Costco’s attorney had a “non-conversation” with Sheriff Gillespie and his METRO legal team. Maybe they agreed to a simple pact: “You don’t reveal the video surveillance data and we won’t release the 911 tape.” Nice. No video data. No audio tape. Everybody skates. Or so they’d like to believe.
Without those two critical sources of information, the Scott family’s team must rely on eyewitness reports, and METRO’s officers are already putting the squeeze on many of those. Similarly, Costco employees have been warned to not speak with anybody but METRO officers.
Any intelligent observer must ask: Didn’t Costco executives learn anything from British Petroleum’s disaster in the Gulf this past spring and summer? Opting for damage control, rather than forthrightness, caused BP’s stock price to crater and forced-out the company’s top executives. What will be the impact, Mr. Sinegal, when millions of Costco customers cut up their membership cards and go to Sam’s Club? How will you explain to irate shareholders, including those all-important institutional investors, that you withheld critical evidence associated with Erik Scott’s killing? How will you then arrest a sell-off that drives Costco’s stock price down from the mid-50s to near zero in a matter of days?
And both Mr. Sinegal and Sheriff Gillespie should be asking themselves: Who will go to jail for suppressing and/or altering evidence that is absolutely critical to exposing the truth about Erik Scott’s brutal slaying?
If a few ounces of integrity still exist in corporate America and in the Las Vegas sheriff’s office, then we can look forward to several responses within the next weeks, prior to the September 22-23 coroner’s inquest hearing into Erik’s death: Costco will give our attorney, Ross Goodman, an unaltered copy of the appropriate Summerlin-store surveillance-video recorded on July 10th. We know another copy exists, archived offsite, per Costco’s insurance requirements. And METRO’s Sheriff Gillespie will release the 911-call audio tape, at least to Ross Goodman, if not to the Las Vegas media.
Anything less will be disastrous to both Costco and Las Vegas METRO.
William B. Scott
Which brings us to the possibility of a “Devil’s Deal.” Suppose Costco’s attorney had a “non-conversation” with Sheriff Gillespie and his METRO legal team. Maybe they agreed to a simple pact: “You don’t reveal the video surveillance data and we won’t release the 911 tape.” Nice. No video data. No audio tape. Everybody skates. Or so they’d like to believe.
Seems plausible...
Yeah. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Can you say "cover up"? Good, I knew you could!
Erik Scott Ping
I hope this family can get justice. It would be nice if this case would get the exposure it deserves.
This man should not die in vain.
Sounds like what they are covering up is nothing less than murder.
Tort case history revealed the off-site requirement?
On TV the other day a show had the 5 year Katrina look back. They focused on a police officer beating a couple of dudes who brought a shooting victim to the station. Turn out the shooting victim was shot by police earlier. An officer jumped in the car of the wounded victim and drove off. Later the car was found burned out with the victim inside.
“Law enforcers” have a long history of burying their mistakes.
Justice would be well served if some “right minded” person were to obtain a copy of the backup and do a widespread release to the public. Releasing it to one agency/organization alone would do no good and just might result in the truth being denied for all time.
How can they be illegally suppressing evidence when no trial or inquest has begun?
In the late 1970’s while living in Cincinnati I had a cop point a pistol at me for having a headlight out on my car. I stopped trusting cops then and my distrust of them has only grown over the years.
why is this outrage allowed to continue? Where are the people of LV? The Governor? The feds? Anybody? The people in LV should mob the police station and demand answers.
After being stopped and blowing a zero, then being arrested for DUI, it is all over for me.
Found out that the $600 towing charge, to get my car back, was being paid to an impound lot owned by the cops brother in-law.
I am afraid to drive anymore.
All cops scare the hell out of me.
If true that the off-site copy exists due to previous suites (court of record), then should remain as is until ordered released to the Scott lawyer by authority of a court.
I think the question is rhetorical.
And someone presumably could be found guilty of tampering with or suppressing evidence for actions that occurred before an inquest or trial.
—can’t post it but Vin Suprynowicz’ column in the Las Vegas R-J on another situation is worth a read-—
This whole situtation is outrageous. Isn’t there one honest person between the two institutions?
I think this is what rellimpank was referring to. Cut-and-paste:
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.