Michael Dunn testifying livestream today

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Good morning:

The prosecution rested its case yesterday against Michael Dunn.

The defense called Michael Knox, the former Jacksonville Police Department crime scene investigator. Testifying as an expert witness on crime scene reconstruction, he said he had no doubt that “the right rear passenger door to the Durango was open when Dunn opened fire, and it’s his personal opinion that the lower half of Davis’ body was out of the vehicle at that time.”

Dr. Stacey Simons, a pathologist and former medical examiner who autopsied Jordan Davis’s body, testified that he was sitting in the back seat leaning away from the back door when Dunn fired the fatal shot.

The defense is attempting to persuade the jury that Knox is more qualified to accurately inform the jury about Jordan Davis’s position when he was shot.

The jury will have to decide whom to believe.

Meanwhile, Dunn is on the stand now.

Catch the livestream here.

134 Responses to Michael Dunn testifying livestream today

  1. SearchingMind says:

    Breaking news

    Dunn guilty of 1st degree murder!


  2. SearchingMind says:

    Dunn guilty of 1st degree murder!

  3. SearchingMind says:

    The Jury is back!

  4. Nef05 says:

    For any that missed some of the retrial or would like to review portions, here’s a link to 26 videos of the retrial. They’re all on one playlist, but I think you can scroll thru and just play the portions you might want to see.

  5. Malisha says:

    Anybody can call himself an “engineer” and anybody can call himself a “software engineer” and in fact anybody can call himself “not guilty” but it turns out that most of the things Dunn calls himself are … unpersuasive.

    • Trained Observer says:

      And what’s the story with his son Chris? Why didn’t he testify on what a prize pop Dunnster is … or did I miss that?

      • ay2z says:

        TO, I think the story was that daddy Dunn had really nothing to do with his son during his upbringing or as a young adult but got together some time before the wedding invite. (can’t say for sure, that seems familiar though)

    • MKX says:

      A real engineer can wax poetic about physics, thermodynamics, circuits, calculus, and materials science because those are the core topics that “all” engineers must master before they get a degree in their specialty.

      About the only engineering topic that Dunne may be versed in is how to unplug one of his high viscosity tissue fishes that has blocked flow in the trap of the toilet in his cell – sanitary engineer.

      And that other “expert” ex-cop is no better.

      Real forensics requires an understanding of just about every topic science has. It is a profession that has my respect.

      The ex-cop, Knox, is a trained baboon who understands:

      See man

      If man black

      Pull gun and shoot him dead.

      And cops, given all the shooting incidents made public these days, do not understand the concept of conservation of momentum. You know, an object with a high momentum such as a bullet goes in a straight line till it hit something.

      Given Knox’s “logic”, I get the impression that he feels a bullet can zig and zag like a Bee. So holes in doors don’t have to line up or bullets that miss ” a black” will cause no harm because they will just avoid the innocent bystanders. ):

      • SearchingMind says:

        I hope that in the future they let Guy do ONLY opening- and closing statements; he is good with emotions and courtroom theatrics and I admire him for that. But his cross-examination of Dunn (which was a near verbatim repetition of what the cops already did!) and Knox were just below standard, because Guy is very impatient, not cunning and not shrewd; he is always gasping for air as if he is either exhausted or frustrated or both; he is not very attentive and as such did not realize when defense (expert) witnesses (Dunn and Knox) said a couple of stuff that (potentially) destroyed the defense case; he can’t improvise very quickly and rephrase when he doesn’t get the answer he expected on a big point (he just moves on); he can’t smell a defense witness in distress and at the point of breakdown and as such he lets off the pressure all too soon, all too easy. There were numerous occasions in which Guy could have dealt Knox a knock-out death blow right there on the stand and make a nasty public mess of him, but either Guy is too good a guy or he is a weak link. You guys might like him, but I am furious.

        • Malisha says:

          I’m not giving him any accolades. He did much better in this trial but he’s still GUILTY of Fogen’s acquittal.

      • ay2z says:

        MXK, he may have seen an opportunity to get publicity and a guaranteed ‘win’ of another deadlock or NG.

        Not smart! He’s a gambler. Before he does this again, he needs a real camera, shouldn’t rely on his 15 dollar drugstore pinhole for proper representation of dowel angles!

    • SearchingMind says:

      I have no doubt in my mind that Dunn is a little below average intelligence! My evidence? Well, watch the cross-examination by Guy (who is not the most patient and shrewd cross-examiner). After one full prior trial, Dunn still doesn’t understand the logic of the State’s case and can’t even use the easiest of questions put to him to read the mind of his questioner, figure out where he is headed to and know how to calibrate his answers, keep them consistent and to the point. Dunn tries to explain everything away in some of the most insultingly silly of ways, like an over-entitled imbecile. He repeats a couple of short phrases and sentences ad nauseam and in a way that is misplaced, while the internal logic of his argument is just confused. In summary: Dunn is as thick as Stone Mountain.

  6. Tee says:

    I know that he dropped out of highschool for some time. I believe it was said that he took some time to get his life on track. I never heard he then went on to college but, I going to check myself .

  7. ay2z says:

    One news source was describing him as a ‘software engineer’, that would mean a degree in engineering and not on the job training with his parent’s mom and pop software operation, wouldn’t it?

  8. ay2z says:

    Jury came back to Judge, they want the white board and extra writing pads. He had to bring everyone back to say that. The judge has a case now, where sequestered juror replaced one sick juror during deliberations, the case was thrown out by the appelate court.

    The judge says it’s good that he has kept one juror extra sequestered and he will run the risk, if it they lose a juror for some reason (and over defense objections to holding any extra jurors sequestered), and replace with the one extra juror. The judge will run the risk of his decision being overturned, he’ll let the appellate court deal with this situation if it arises.

    Beginning again, juror with white board and extra writing pads in hand.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Defense hoping against hope some fluke will throw this into mistrial. Especially after Guy’s balls=to=the=wall rebuttal. Even the delusional Dunn must know he’s toast by now.

      Did anybody notice how he chattered yesterday about having a Jetta and a concealed carry permit. Wouldn’t the permit be null and void the moment he was convicted. And I thought it was said at the first trial that the Jetta went south to offset legal costs.

      • Malisha says:

        It’s amazing the hubris of these thugs! He’s a felon four times over, he’s a friendless, fiancee-less, penniless failure, and he still thinks he’s something! He went from “shitting bricks” in a jetta to shitting bricks in a jail cell, all thanks to his own brilliant and honorable deeds, and he has delusions of adequacy. SMDH!

        • Trained Observer says:

          Righto … And remember, Malisha (as he mentions to cops and everybody else who will listen) he’s got a pilot’s license. Hot damn! Somethin’ special.

      • ay2z says:

        ‘had’…. it’s funny how people rely on ‘legally allowed to carry’, of course as you observed, he fudged the tense. Doesn’t he have an appeal available to him for the last trial once this is over?

  9. ay2z says:

    Dunn objected to something this morning, was it keeping the extra jurors seqestered in case one is needed?

    Judge Healey decided to keep one of the three extras, logistics of keeping three extras separated from each other was a factor, so he’s keeping one sequestered for the time being, maybe let that juror go later today.

  10. bettykath says:

    Finally watched the ME. She makes the pretend expert look like a piece of chewed up bubblegum.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Doesn’t she though? Very direct, biz-like and on target. Polite but refuses to bullied out of completing her answers. Attempts by defense to shred her expertise or make her look like an amateur were done in by her own polish.

  11. Tee says:

    Guy nearly had me in tears at the end, the state done well this go round, no stone was left unturned. Thank God BDL was not part of this team it would have been a mess.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Guy and the entire prosecution team have stepped up their performances from the first trial. Also helping: The graphics presentations on reasonable doubt as opposed to the cliches. Some jurors can read better than they can listen. Hopefully this batch will get it.

      It also would help if Healey would issue jury instructions tomorrow that don’t confuse or otherwise muck up the works.

  12. Trained Observer says:

    So disappointed nobody ever asked what kind of pizza was ordered for poor Rhonda’s ailing tum-tum. Sausage and onion? Pepperoni and hot peppers? Thick crust? Slices or squares?

    Great rebuttal from Guy!

  13. ay2z says:

    John Guy Rebuttal

  14. ay2z says:

    Intermission, any intolerables up for some really cool hip hop? From someone who is the equivalent of Bach trying out a new genre with an open mind.

    Gotta love this ‘thug’ music/expression!

    Alex and Twitch

  15. I am not favorably impressed by the defense attorney’s closing argument because she lacks passion. There is little power behind her words.

    Despite the presumption of innocence and burden of proof instructions, the defense attorney has to convince the jury that she cares about her client and the outcome.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      instead, she goes out and does her imitation of anesthesia …..

      • ay2z says:

        Anaesthesia, that’s the word to fit the tactic she was using, bore the heck out of the jurors so they zone out and recall a few of her highlights, and become so tired, they won’t listen to John Guy with much attention.

        Hard not to be captured by Guy’s final wrap up.

    • bettykath says:

      maybe the prosecution convinced her that he’s guilty.

    • Trained Observer says:

      She dwelled way too much on a shotgun l everyone knows never existed … comparing an amateur expert like Knox with a knowledgable, presentable medical examiner. .. , worse, she’s got no charisma.

      This jury will need to bend over backwards to let Dunn go on Jordan’s death.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Not when the victim is Black, I think. Corey already bent over backwards in not going for the death penalty. I wonder what thought-process led her to that (odd) decision. If the boys had not fled the scene, Dunn would have shot all of them dead. That’s a hugely aggravating circumstance the weight of which IMO is not being fully appreciated. I will be ok with a life sentence (assuming jurors are not too bigoted to let him off the hook) but imaging Dunn is Black and the boys White.

    • PhillyBoyRoy says:

      Will Dunn go full Aryan in jail?

    • SearchingMind says:

      The only fault I found with the defense attorney is her accent 🙂 (niaw/now; miaam/mam/; einalysis/analysis; erea/area etc.). Other than that, I think she is very professional, businesslike and very good in trying to wrong-foot witnesses, getting under the skin of experts and creating facts out of thin air. Overall I think her brilliance (which manifests itself in, among others, her method of cross-examination) compensates for her lack of passion/emotion. Defending Dunn is not an easy task. Certain circles just cannot be squared – regardless of how brilliant an attorney may be.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I thought she was a pretty good speaker, all told, but did drone on too long and became unconvincing eventually.

  16. Tee says:

    @ faux, am I the women whom you refer you hate to grant anything, or am I misunderstanding you, because I don’t comment often so I’m hoping that it’s the latter.

    • bettykath says:

      Tee, my reading is that he is referring to the defense attorney who pointede out that there was no testimony that Jordan was actually wearing the hat.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      i am referring to waffa hanania, the defense attorney. sorry for any confusion.

      • Tee says:

        Thank you! She didn’t mention it Guy did, when he crosses Dunn
        He showed it to Guy and aske did he ever see that hat before. Jordan was wearing the hat when he was shot.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          the problem is, whatever a lawyer says is not evidence to be considered by the jury.

          i watched every minute of this trial and unless i somehow missed it, not one *witness* said that jordan was wearing the hat at the time. someone not seeing it is a non issue unless there is evidence that it was being worn. this is a problem, albeit minor. fred can likely explain it better than me.

          • Call it the hat that never was. A bright shiny object that distracts attention.

            It’s not relevant (i.e., no probative value), unless he was wearing it during the incident. Even then, it would have little relevance unless offered to show that it made him look too cute to be mistaken for a thug.

            Call it the unthug look.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            yup, about what i figured 🙂

  17. Tee says:

    What gave me pause & that I wish I could hi five Guy for today was when he showed the hat to the jury! OMG! I had never seen the hat Jordan was wearing I didn’t even know that he had on a hat, and that made me think. Dunn kept saying his head cleared the door ” I saw the top of his head’. But he never mentioned the crazy hat Jordan had on. This hat surely would have been mentioned by Dunn with the Pom-Pom ball on the top because that Pom Pom would have been the first thing that cleared the door
    He didn’t mention it because he couldn’t see it because Jordan was inside of the car. Yes I think that will make a very big impact on the jury.

    • Malisha says:

      Yeah and pom-poms aren’t terribly gangsta, either. Not like those thuggish hoodies, can you dig it, homie?

    • fauxmccoy says:

      i hate to grant this woman anything, but she did make a valid point here, one that i kept expecting to hear in testimony and that is that jordan was wearing that hat at the time of the shooting.

      i am hoping that there is evidence somewhere in a police or medical report that it was on the body because no one on the stand ever stated that jordan was wearing it at the time.

    • Trained Observer says:

      First I knew about hat … where was that in first trial?

  18. Malisha says:


    Well he says he’s innocent.
    Well everybody else including his own then-fiancee (and his puppy) say he’s guilty.
    Yeah but he says he’s innocent over and over and over!

  19. J4TMinATL says:

    Looks like instructions will be read tomorrow morning and deliberations will begin.

    • Yes, that’s the way they do it in Florida, but I believe it makes more sense to read them to the jury before the closing arguments. The instructions provide necessary context to understand the relationship between law and facts. Some facts are material to determining the outcome and others aren’t.

      For example, in Washington State where I practiced law for many years, prosecutors and defense attorneys display instructions during their closing arguments. This is particularly useful when discussing the elements of each crime charged and the evidence introduced.

  20. ay2z says:

    He didn’t eat, didn’t sleep. Ok, couldn’t he also have been figuring out what to do while he had time to consider his opions?

  21. ay2z says:

    She just gave a falsehood, what was it? (sustained by Judge Healey)

  22. fauxmccoy says:

    oh lord — know def wants to compare dunn’s credibility versus everyone else’s. i don’t think i can stand this.

    • ay2z says:

      grip your desk, faux…. hang on…. of course she has to do that, Dunn already blamed ‘everyone’ (and everything) else.

      She does have a good voice projection. 🙂

      • ay2z says:

        So it’s like voting for a flat vs round earth, more votes make it true or false. More consistent statements vs inconsistent statements = truth or falsehoods

        • ay2z says:

          Like that’s good logic or logic technique. Sorry!

          • Malisha says:

            Great technique. It’s, “He claimed he was innocent right after murdering that child and he STILL claims he is innocent and he’s entirely consistent; he has NEVER claimed to be guilty! WE WIN!”

          • fauxmccoy says:

            and just like everyone else in the pen (with apologies to those exonerated by project innocence) HE WILL STILL BE PROCLAIMING his innocence until his dying breath. cause that’s what guilty cons do.

  23. Trained Observer says:

    Is this defense attorney out of her gourd? She keeps talking about a gun .. a gun … a gun. She’s a female Walter Mitty.

  24. fauxmccoy says:

    solid closing statement by wolfson as well. while i think her presentation is on the bland side, i can see that if i were a juror, that might be preferable. corey can be too strident/shrill and as much as i like john guy, he slips into thespian mode too easily. while that may work well on cross exam, it’s not quite as effective for closing arguments.

    i like that wolfson gave very specific examples of the legal terms, i.e. what a real threat is, what a reasonable person is etc. she provided a good framework in which to judge dunn’s actions.

    i am assuming that the state will get another brief shot after the defense bloviates for 2 hours. i’m not sure i can make myself sit through that though.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      PS — i loved wolfson’s power point presentation of all of dunn’s inconsistencies.

      • ay2z says:

        Yes, excellent. Ms. Defense lawyer (I can’t spell her name!– not that I’ve really applied myself to getting it right) is now attacking those inconsistencies with her Dunn consistencies.

  25. fauxmccoy says:

    i think that john guy has done a great job here today on many fronts. his objections were timely and relevant. his cross exam of dunn was brilliant and the rebuttal case looks like perfection to me.

    showing almost the entire interview at the time of arrest was brilliant. it allowed the cops to propose common sense questions that any juror could relate to their own questions. as an attorney, guy could not have asked those questions (not that he did not try to sneak in a few) but also in that manner, repeatedly. the tape of the interview got to drive home the fact that dunn was simply making shit up.

    in other news: lawyer for dunn’s family tweets that ken lescolet just shared prayer with Jordan’s parents and said he wish he had never met dunn.

    his disgust on the stand was palpable.

  26. Have they wrapped up for the day?

  27. girlp says:

    SYG again

  28. girlp says:

    More cop TV dialog

  29. ay2z says:

    Have to wonder what good those aero acres flying breakfast club people did for Dunn. (besides make it plainly obvious, that no circle of Dunn, was included, nor was his own adult son, Christopher, there for his father. (we know why on that question)

    • Trained Observer says:

      Yes, essentially just his parents’ cronies … and the Berry woman came off like a belligerant dummy with her refusal to give a percentage on make-up of some of the aero-social soirees. The other old goat who said “he was here last year” apparently meant at the first trial, which donchaj ust know happened to be this year, not last. I hope this geriatric set doesn’t fly without younger people in the cockpit. Too many small aircraft j accidents in Florida. Not to mention unjustified fatal shootings.

      • bettykath says:

        I don’t think Ms. Berry wanted to testify. I think she was doing what she was told to do but refused to lie. I saw no enthusiasm from her for what she was doing.

  30. SearchingMind says:

    Ultra-modern English

    Now = Niawn

    Mam = Miaam

    Analysis = einalysis

    Area = Erea

    You know .. = ewnkniow…

    Scenario = senyario

  31. Lunch break @ 12:20 pm EDT.

    Court will resume at 12:45 pm EDT.

    Looks like closing arguments will be this afternoon.

  32. SearchingMind says:

    Dunn feeling really sick like someone who just tasted very sour poison after the testimony of Mr. Ken Lescalet. I am surprised that this witness not called during the first trial.

  33. Two sides to a story says:

    I can understand a vigorous defense – I will never understand defense promoting lies as truth and why this is tolerated in the courtroom. Give him a few extra years for lying!!

    • SearchingMind says:

      Haha, TSTAS.

      Anyway, the only one on the defense table who knows with certainty what are lies and what are not, is Mr. Dunn. The defense attorneys can use their common sense to make logical inferences/deductions based on available fact, but they can never know for certain what are lies and what are not. My opinion is that what you, my very attentive friend, consider lies are an essential part of the contest to establish the truth. Look at lies as a counter-proposition to a proposition posited by another re ‘what is the truth?’. When a proposition is contested in the light of a counter proposition, the truth emerges (depending on the strength/quality of the contest).

  34. The jury has been excused. The court and the lawyers are discussing jury instructions.

  35. Next witness: Ken Lescalet.

    He’s the neighbor who called Dunn. He’s retired from a position he held at the US Department of Agriculture.

    He called Dunn on Saturday morning around 8:30 am to let him know that he and his wife were going to return to Maryland where they maintained their year-round residence.

    Dunn never mentioned anything about a shooting or wanting to talk to him.

    • ay2z says:

      Yes, and he testified that he saw Dunn walking his dog and they waved to each other. No mention at that earlier encounter, there was any chat of a shooting or mention of having an important chat out of earshot of the puppy.

      Dunn has underestimated Rhonda Rouer, she comes across as credible to me.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Mr. Atkins, Ms. Rouer and Mr. Ken Lescalet hanged Mr. Dunn. Together they forced Dunn’s lies close up to our faces – right under the nose.

  36. Tee says:

    Ken , just showed Dunn to be a liar!,

  37. She’s positive that Dunn never told her that he saw a gun and she’s certain she would have remembered it if he had.

  38. She testifies that the neighbor called Dunn, not the other way around, and Dunn never said he wanted to talk to him or about the shooting.

    She also denies that she told Dunn to leave the gun in the car after they arrived at the hotel.

  39. Defense rests following Dunn’s testimony.

    With the jury excused and following a lengthy sidebar with the sound muted, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal.

    Motion denied.

    Prosecution starts its rebuttal case by calling Rhonda Rouer.

  40. ay2z says:

    Rouer, what will they bring out?

    Thug music and ‘saw a gun’.

    AND the phonecall by Lescalet (sp).

    Lescalet may also be called– noted audio of state saying something about ‘may be two’ witnesses (for rebuttal).

  41. ay2z says:

    I posted on the old thread, that the audio as cameras were shut off for morning break, something about another witness by the state.


    Renewing request for prima facia case of self-defense to move for judgement of acquittal.

    Corey says jury is entitled to assign weight to Dunn’s statements.

    Judge says renewing his reasons to deny after state rested, state has to this point in a light most favorable to them, a prima facia case…. DENIED judgement of acquittal once again.’

    Jury back in.

    Defense rests now ‘officially’ with jury.

    State calls Rhonda Rouer. (we knew taht!)

  42. Tee says:

    Guy, tore Dunn a new one!

  43. Dunn is smoother and more glib this time around. His lawyer has obviously worked with him quite a lot to prepare him for this cross.

    But he’s too glib.

    Two examples:

    1) “I was in imminent fear of death when I fired my gun.” He is not a lawyer but he’s speaking like one in the language of the statute.

    2) He testified that he feared that he had been followed by thugs with murder in mind, but he left his gun in the car when he parked it in the hotel garage. Then he took the dog for a walk outside without retrieving the gun. When Guy asked him to explain that, he said he knew the hotel had good security.

    Yeah, right.

    • Malisha says:

      If the hotel had good security they would not have allowed HIM to register!

    • girlp says:

      Mr. Slick

      • ay2z says:

        Notice the slick click of double finger snapping he did, to explain, teach, show his firearm coolness, re trigger control techniques and how to do a ‘double tap’ (not applicable for him that night anyway, he blasted).

        Oh yeah, he didn’t venture far from his car that night when he took the LE stance to shoot at the back of the car. (what about his own car and it’s gas tank, wouldn’t he clear that area?)

    • ay2z says:

      Excellent, add to that what Guy brought out on cross, that Dunn had spend hours watching out the window for the red ‘thug’ vehicle (Dunn repeated he was in fear of that ‘thug’ retaliation).

      Jamming his foot farther in his mouth. But ‘thug’ wasn’t in his vocab that night, to Rhonda, nor his mind, if you take his drift.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Yes, he sounded rehearsed to the max.

      Coulda been worse: “I was in immediate fear of imminent death when I discharged my firearm.”

      (Off the stand, Fogen always yakked about his “firearm” … and he certainly got off.)

      I wish he’d been asked why he didn’t just fire up the old engine (presumably keys were in the ignition) and get the hell out of there, calling Rhonda to tell her to stay in the store until he had a chance to notify cops of

      • masonblue says:

        Crane here. Hmm. Immediate fear of imminent death… That sounds verbatim like a statute, kinda. Plus, it’s a tongue-twister. “Scared shitless,” on the other hand- would sound a bit more real, just my .02. (Maybe that’s why I am not a lawyer, LOL!)

  44. Come on, John. You’ve got Dunn checkmated, so spring the trap.

    Tell us how Jordan Davis was able to get out of the Durango when you couldn’t get out of your car because the two vehicles were parked too close together.

  45. masonblue says:

    C-S here. This looks like checkmate. Guy’s got him, and I do not think Dunn even realizes it. If Dunn could not get out of his car, because the cars were too close, neither could Davis. Soooo…

    • ay2z says:

      But…… or should I say ‘butt’, he was fat back then, and a big boned man, and Jordan Davis was a skinny kid.

      Oh yeah, not a ‘kid’ at 17, Dunn clearly stated his philosophy that having a gun makes someone ‘a man’. Suppose that’s about himself.

  46. masonblue says:

    Crane-Station here. I love alcohol math. The cups only had a half a shot each so I only had one drink. Actually. This is the alternate version of the 2-5-I.
    I had two beers five hours ago, and I was just minding my own business when [insert the rest here].

    the 2-5-I with SODDI:

    I had two beers five hours ago and I was just minding my own business when these two dudes came up to me and started beating/robbing/hassling me.

    “I wasn’t doing nothing and the cops came and arrested me:”

  47. Malisha says:

    I think I might know what caused the break-up of that match made in heaven (Dunn and Rouer): He was pissed that he didn’t lie for him in the first trial. He wanted her to say, “He told me those guys had weapons and were trying to kill him, and they had screamed at him that they were going to kill him and he said he was shitting bricks. That’s why we hightailed it out of there and bought pizza, so he would shit pizza instead of bricks. Bricks HURT!”

    But she wouldn’t.

    Now he’s even madder because it looks likely that she will not perjure herself for him at this trial either.

    • bettykath says:

      I think you’re right. I also think that their relationship was based on “drinking buddies”, with their conversation mostly about “how much coke do you want with your rum?,” and “red wine or white?” Those options wouldn’t be available in the visiting room at the jail.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Malisha — I’m thinking she might be targeted in any “big tent” civil lawsuit the surviving teens and Jordan’s parents might bring against Dunnster. She knowingly left the scene of a shooting with him, she knowingly did not all cop, and after she turned out the shooting had resulted in a fatality, she still kept her mealy mouth shut.

      She may have broken the engagement and ended any pen-pal relationship to distance herself from that threat.

      Personally, I think she should have called cops the moment she found out on the news that a kid had died.

      Thanks be for that homeless guy in the truck who had the presence of mind to memorize Dunnster’s tag number. Otherwise cops might still be wondering who shot Jordan.

      I regret that the homeless guy is now doing so much time in jail, and think the courts ought to give him a break.

      • ay2z says:

        I’m thinking that the homeless guy will get his due credit and then some, in the future. Hope so, wish someone like that, well.

  48. masonblue says:

    “Did you tell her you saw a bazooka, a bayonette, a machine gun?”

  49. masonblue says:

    Crane-Station here- Hello everyone.

    How about that for an argumentative question- “Were you shooting at an armored vehicle?”

Leave a Reply to masonblue Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: