|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 02 August 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Beyond Whitechapel - Other Crimes: Who Killed Kaitlyn Arquette?:
Archive through 02 August 2002
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 10:50 am |        | Friends of Casebook outside of the US (or indeed, within the US) may not be familiar with this case...
Kaitlyn Arquette, 18, was murdered in Albuquerque on July 16, 1989. Albuquerque police dubbed the shooting a "random drive-by" and refused to investigate any other possibility. Kait's family believes she was assassinated because of her knowledge of organized criminal activity in Albuquerque and that local law enforcement is actively protecting these activities.
Kaitlyn's mother is the acclaimed author, Lois Duncan (I Know What You Did Last Summer, Daughters of Eve, Don't Look Behind You). Her books have been favorites of children and adults alike, and have been published in multiple countries and languages. Several of her books have been turned into feature length films.
Ms. Duncan published a book entitled "Who Killed My Daughter?", an account of the death of Kait, which included much of the information that they had gathered in support of their belief that Kait was killed because of her knowledge of staged car accidents in California and the drug activity in New Mexico. When the Albequerque Police Department shut down the investigation, the Arquette family turned to the Internet for assistance.
The Vidocq Society has entered the case, providing tremendous amounts of support and expertise, and they have received additional leads and assistance through the internet. However, the APD refuses to either reopen their own investigation or allow an outside agency to take over. Why?
Kait's story has been featured on several programs, including "Unsolved Mysteries" (occasional repeats of the broadcast pop up on Lifetime TV) and "The Crier Today Show" on Court TV.
At this time, the Arquettes are holding back much of the new information gathered in the event that the case is reopened. You can view some details (including that which the APD released to the public) at http://kaitarquette.arquettes.com/ but I highly recommend reading Ms. Duncan's book and the updates posted on their website.
Please, take the time to review and comment. Of course, if you have any information that may assist the Arquettes in their quest, please post it through their website.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 03:14 pm | | The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) covers Federal matters. Each state has their own laws. In Georgia it is known as the open records law in Louisiana it is known as the Louisiana Freedom of Information Legislation (La. FOIL ). Basically they all state the same legalese. If the police have CLOSED the investigation then the case records are available tot he public. If the police have not closed the investigation then it remains open and the public is only entitled to the initial investigation, which is usually the cover sheet.
In certain situations, a case may be closed but some of the information may not be readily available because it may contain information pertaining to other on-going investigations. If the names of mobsters, gang members, informants etc.. Etc... are mentioned or are directly involved in the case then the case information can be withheld.
To automatically assume that any conspiracy, let alone a police conspiracy, is at hand is pretty much pushing the envelope of common sense. Believe me I know about police conspiracies, I worked for New Orleans Metro. The more likely scenario, I’ve seen it a hundred if not a thousand times, is that the investigation has crossed jurisdictional boundries. These jurisdictional boundries could involve the APD Gang and Narcotics Units. All gang and narcotics maintain massive intelligence information that often cross state lines. Sometimes deals are struck with other agencies or even the local prosecutors. This can become even more complicated if federal agencies become involved, DEA, ATF, FBI, INS, US Border Patrol etc. (Just for your general info the DEA is the heavy handed agency, they carry far more stroke than the FBI can even imagine).
My main question is...if Kaitlyn had all of this information what was her role in all of it? Sweet innocent bystander, surely she is not.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 26 July 2002 - 03:58 pm | | Initially reading skimming over the information on the sight, I see a case that reminds me of my first homicide. The case involved Donna Dooley a stripper who was also the old lady of Kenny O’Bannion the state enforcer for the Sons of Silence Motorcycle club. She was mad at Kenny and threatened to go to the police and hand over a folder that contained, names, addresses, bank accounts, the whole works, implicating the Sons in contract killings. loan sharking, trafficking fo stolen vehicles, narcotics trafficking and everything else you can imagine. The last anybody ever saw of Donna Dooley was her leaving the Cowgirls Strip Club with a strange man.
Donna and Kaitlyn’s mistakes
Bad move one: Getting involved with a person who is a member of a gang. And saying ....”well I-I (sniff, sniff) didn’t know doesn’t cut it nor does it buy a lot of sympathy.
Bad move two: Threatening to break up with that person. (Well maybe I’ll give him one more chance.)
Bad Move three: Telling the person you are breaking up with them.( I gave you another chance and now you blew it!)
Bad Move four: Telling the person you are going to get back at them by telling the cops everything you know about their criminal activity. ( I am so gonna break up with you and this time I mean it and I am going to tell the cops everything)
Bad Move Five: Procrastinating about telling the cops what you know. (Flowers : ) he still loves me, I’ll give him one more chance. After all I never meant that whole thing, about going to the cops. )
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Peter Wood
Saturday, 27 July 2002 - 12:50 pm | | Did you guys ever see that Mel Gibson film "Conspiracy Theory"?
I'm sure you are aware of the tag line from the Will Smith film "Enemy of the State" ...
It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 27 July 2002 - 12:56 pm | | Dear Scott:
The family admits that since they have found out that Kait was not entirely truthful about her relationship and activities with the car wreck scams, they realize that she was not an innocent.
She was living with her boyfriend at the age of 18, and they didn't like that. But she was an adult and they couldn't stop her from doing so. This boyfriend was involved in the car wreck scams and he involved Kait in at least one of them: she used her parent's credit card (with their permission) to rent a car when they made a trip to California. The information is a little fuzzy on this, because the police report on the accident claims that Kait was driving, but the insurance company told the Arquettes that the boyfriend was driving. This information must have come from Kait. The Arquettes spoke to Kait's friend Sharon(?) about the wrecks. Sharon stated that she knew about them and that Kait wasn't even in the car at the time of the wreck.
Kait was also sneaky about what she was doing the last day of her life. She left her parent's home at 6:15 to go to visit Susan. Susan said that she came to her house sometime after 9:00 (I forget the exact time). When she left Susan's house was when she was shot. So where did Kait go between the time she left the Arquette's home and ended up at Susan's home? The Arquettes now believe that it had something to do with this drug ring.
The case has been transfered to the Cold Case detectives, that stated that if they receive information that would merit reopening the investigation that they would do so. But they turned around and stated again that they had no intention of opening the case. They refused to accept the the information that the Arquettes gathered, and refused to follow up with tips from others.
The Arquettes are not releasing all the details that they have uncovered, in the hopes that the case will be reopened, and they do not want to jeopardize the case with giving heads up to the people that are involved.
I agree with you, Scott. I don't think that there is a conspiracy within the APD. But I do think that they are protecting an investigation into the drug ring. APD removed letters, notes, and many of Kait's things for evidence that were then lost. Then APD denied ever having them in their possession, then they were rediscovered 8 years later, but still being held as evidence. There was a bundle of letters that the Arquettes turned over to the police which were in Vietnamese. The detective said that they would have them translated and failed to do so. The Arquettes offered to pay to have them translated and the APD refused. I think it is possible that the Homicide detectives did not want to jeopardize the drug investigation and labeled Kait's death as a drive by shooting. But why don't they tell the Arquettes to stop their activities, that they can't do anything now because of the drug investigation?
What about the cop that told the Arquettes about the conspiracy, though? Is it more likely that he is a disgruntled employee trying to wreck the reputation of his employer?
I wish that the website contained as much information as Casebook!
Thanks for your input, Scott!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 27 July 2002 - 02:29 pm | | Dear Peter:
Yes, I saw "Conspiracy Theory"... I was disappointed with the end. And while I agree that most people that believe that "they" are out to get them have other issues to deal with, there are some that probably are justified in their fears.
But then again, I believe everything that my government tells me to, whether I want to or not. They wouldn't tell me to if it wasn't in my best interest, right?
Apparently the Arquettes have gathered "evidence" on the APD Conspiracy. I hope they are right, for their sake. It does them no credit to make these accusations without something to back it up.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 02:35 am | | Greetings all:
Just a little update for you...
I advised the Arquettes that I had posted a discussion thread regarding Kaitlyn's death here at Casebook. Here is Ms. Duncan's reponse:
"I will definitely visit the message board on that web site. Thank you for telling me about it. If you're posting there, I wish you would also tell people about our "Real Crimes" web site at http://www.realcrimes.com . We are far from the only family in Albuquerque with a murdered child whose death has been covered-up by local law enforcement."
I did look at the information posted at Real Crimes, and did a little reading on the Arquette's website. Perhaps there is something to the conspiracy theory, perhaps not. It is a very serious allegation, not to make lightly.
So, for all you True Crime fans out there, you may want to check out their Real Crimes website and read up about other murders outside of Whitechapel. I noticed that it was originally related to certain cases in New Mexico, but now includes cases from other parts of the US.
Kait's story was seen recently in a rebroadcast of "Unsolved Mysteries" on Lifetime Channel. As the show says: "Maybe you can help solve a mystery...".
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: I'm not sure why I have followed this case since the beginning. Perhaps it was because I enjoyed reading Ms. Duncan's books in my youth. Maybe it's because Kait would be my age if she had lived. The only thing I do know is that things just don't add up, and that is more than enough to lure me in. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 09:00 am | | I remember reading Lois Duncan as a kid ( My favorite was the Third Eye and I am sure I have a battered copy around here somewhere). I also remember reading Who Killed My Daughter and don't remember a dang thing from it except I wasn't all that impressed by something..don't remember whether it was lack of proof of conspiracy or a "well you play with fire you get burned" mentality. I will check out the site and see what if anything I remember. In all probability, even if it was deliberate murder, they are never going to find the person who pulled the trigger.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 11:43 am | | Dear Diva,
As I said in another thread, the hardest murder to solve, and the type of murder that goes unsolved more than any other, is the gang related murder. Most gang related hits have been planned in detail. They rival military planned strikes as far as the planning goes. There are certain clues to look at and I would be more than willing to help if the family asked, however they are seriously behind the eight ball and have been there for some time.
I would be willing to bet my life, that the car used to make the hit was stolen. In drive by shootings this is a give me. It is of vast importance that the car be recovered within 24 hrs. after the shooting, if any hopes of recovering trace evidence exist. Gangs usually have a car detail shop available to them. The detail shop is owned either by the gang or someone affiliated with them. They use the shop to launder money and to detail and paint the vehicles before and after the shooting. Usually after the shooting the vehicle is detailed, painted and ditched far from the scene.
After the shooting the gun or guns used go through an intricate throw down process. In this process, the gun will be passed from gang member to gang member until it is well out of the area. It is then destroyed and disposed of.
Police conspiracies, to the extreme that people think, do not exist, for many reasons far to many to post here. Just touching on few though, to think that the conspiracy extends all the way to the chief is nuts. This would have to mean that pretty much every police officer and police employee is involved, from the Chief to the 911 operator who took the call to the dispatcher who dispatched the officers to the first officers on the scene. This leaves far too much room for errors. The other reason is that the more people involved the more witnesses that one has to worry about. These witnesses have to either be bought off or eliminated. Remember, people love to talk far too many people want to publish their memoirs and their dirty little tell alls.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 12:46 pm | | Hi Ally, Scott:
Well, I'll let Ms. Duncan speak for herself:
"The reason we can't accept the very logical theory offered by the detective from New Orleans, (which was our first theory also), is that there is strong evidence to indicate that a police cover-up started at the scene, and forensic evidence appears to have been altered before the field investigators ever got there. Officer Merriman, who allegedly "stumbled onto the scene" minutes after the shooting, called in a report of "an accident with no injuries," allowed a witness with a long record of violent assaults upon women to leave the scene without questioning him, and then left the scene himself. When an ambulance arrived, responding to a routine 10-44 call, they found no cops, no police cars, no witness, just Kait, all alone in her car with two bullet holes in her head and a bullet hole in the car door frame -- ("holes," because, although there were no exit wounds, allegedly no projectiles were found in Kait's body or in her vehicle)."
This was something that was NOT published in Ms. Duncan's book.
I think another interesting point is that there is some connection between Kait's death and the death of Peter Klunck. Klunck was a small-time drug dealer that was shot in the back in January 1989, (allegedly in self-defense) by APD Officer Matt Griffin and two fellow police officers, Officer Robert Valtierra and Sgt. Paul Heatley. More than one witness to the shooting reported Peter was unarmed.
Griffin was revealed to be "The Ninja Bandit," a notorious bank robber who dressed all in black like a Ninja and leapt over counters during robberies. He always made his getaways in stolen sports cars.
A VW Beetle fled the scene of Kait's death and headed to that body shop where Klunck did some body work under the table, and where Griffin and other cops were known to hang out at.
On July 10, 1989, Matt Griffin was arrested for multiple bank robberies and the murder of a witness.
One week later, Kait was chased down and shot to death.
Curioser and curiouser...
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 01:32 pm | | Dear Diva,
I am a little stumped what was my theory? I didn't give one. I mentioned similarities and typical scenarios, profiles for lack of a better word.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 01:44 pm | | Dear Scott:
Ms. Duncan was refering to your statement:
"The more likely scenario, I’ve seen it a hundred if not a thousand times, is that the investigation has crossed jurisdictional boundries. These jurisdictional boundries could involve the APD Gang and Narcotics Units."
The Arquette family originally believed that this was what happened. But with some of the information that they have discovered, they now believe that there is more to the story and it does not exclusively relate to jurisdictional boundaries.
Hope that clarifies things!
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 03:39 pm | | Diva,
I don’t know what Officer Merriman’s actions were at the scene. I, as a detective, have stumbled across traffic accident, people driving intoxicated, pwople driving reckless etc... If there is no need for me to stop at the scene, I will just call it in and let the proper divisions handle the scene. If it is serious then I will stop, call it in and offer any assistance, to include writing a supplemental report, until the investigating officer arrives. In the case of drunk drivers and minor traffic violations, if the person is not posing an immediate threat I will call it in and let the proper division handle. If the person is posing a threat, I will execute the stop and call it into whatever district where the stop takes place. New Orleans PD has a strict policy regarding to unmarked units stopping vehicles. This policy is shared by other agencies across the U.S. Policy states that the unmarked unit will call for a marked unit to initiate the stop as unmarked units do not have vehicle markings and more importantly top lights, which can be seen from all directions. From time to time the criminal element of society will use these mounted dash lights, that are used by unmarked units, to get their victim to believe they are being stopped by the police. The perp will stop their victims on secluded roads thus leaving the victim at the mercy of the armed criminal.
If Officer Merriman did stop at the scene, then dispatch records will reflect this. If there is no written record then Merriman did not stop or he never radioed dispatch to inform them he was stopping and getting out of his unit.
*******************************NOTE*****************************************
ANYTIME AN OFFICER LEAVES HIS UNIT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY DISPATCH. FAILURE TO COMPLY TO THIS REGULATION USUALLY RESULTS IN SEVERE DISCIPLINARY ACTION. UP TO AND INCLUDING SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY AND/OR TERMINATION.
******************************************************************************
If he had a person at the scene, then he should have at the very least collected the driver’s information and hand it over to the investigating officer upon his arrival. This does not mean he would have called in to records for a criminal records check. This is usually done for a variety of reasons. Did he personally know the subject and know of his criminal back ground? Did he have reason to suspect criminal activity? If not then he probably would not have called in requesting this information.
*****************************NOTE*******************************************
CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER RUNS YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSE NUMBER, THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT SHOWS UP IS YOUR DRIVING LICENSE INFORMATION AND DRIVING RECORD. CRIMINAL HISTORY DOES NOT SHOW UP. OTHER INFORMATION SUCH AS WARRANTS, INSURANCE DEAD BEAT PARENTS ETC. MAY NOT SHOW UP DEPENDING ON YOUR STATE.
CREDIT RATING, CREDIT INFORMATION, SOCIAL SECURITY INFORMATION AND OTHER PERSONAL INFORMATION WILL NOT SHOW UP AND IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT AVAILABLE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITHOUT SIGNED CONSENT, COURT ORDER OR SEARCH WARRANT.
BECAUSE THE PUBLIC THINKS THAT A PERSON’S DRIVER’S LICENSE REPORT CONTAINS CRIMINAL HISTORY, WARRANTS AND PERSONAL HISTORY POLICE OFFICERS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY .
******************************************************************************
Once Merriman checked for injuries, if he did, and noticed that Kait shot he should have handcuffed the suspect for his personal protection, not place him under arrest, and inquire from there.
As far as the missing bullets go, there is no such thing as “ice bullets” however, there are meat bullets. To say that the police took the bullets out of the body and the vehicle is really stretching it. Usually bullets are found after long, lengthy ballistic searches, removing them is harder and sometimes involves damaging the surrounding tissue, wood or metal. It would be interesting to see what the Medical Examiner’s report said.
All in all I would start with requesting copies of any and all training videos, materials, books, records of Merriman, Griffin et al and a copy of the APD Policy and Regulations in its entirety. A possible lawsuit may stem from policies and regs not being adhered too. If a suit is filed then the attorney can subpoena other information such as the investigation records, disciplinary records of the officers and if luck is with them maybe even the confidential informant list. I WOULD NOT HIRE AN ATTORNEY FROM THE ALBUQUERQUE AREA.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 03:59 pm | | Hi, Scott
Are police cars in New Orleans equipped with a device that records the car's activities? I've got a buddy who's a patrol officer here in Nashville, and he showed me a device located in the trunk of his squad car. He's given a disc at the beginning of his shift and all his movements are recorded on it.
Best,
Dave |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 05:08 pm | | David,
Before I left the department in 1998, there was talk of installing those monitors, I forget the technical name for them. However, at the time all units, marked and unmarked and those used for admin use were equipped with a tracking device that enabled central dispatch keep up with each vehicle. Dispatch has a huge wall size map of the city. The individual units show up as lights. As the unit moves so does its corresponding light on the map. The unit’s speed is also recorded. If a unit is stopped too long then a call goes to the unit to ensure the officer is alive, and in most cases AWAKE.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 10:29 pm | | Diva read this.....
OK. I am a believer. I just left the real crimes site and Albuquerque PD has a problem. I don't think its department wide though. i think its a case of rogue cops and homicide detectives not knowing their a$$ from a bullet hole.
The Arquettes told of criminal activity in which the gangs were involved. Computer chip theft is a hall mark of Asian gangs among other things. This would, in all likely hood not be known by the general public or police officers not involved in gang related crimes.
Judging from the picture of the bullet hold in Kait's car, (and this is just a picture and not a detailed one) i would have to say that she was run off the road and the killer exited the vehicle and fired the shots into the car while standing behind her. This is based on the height of the bullet hold and the apparant angle of strike.
NOW HERE IS THE KICKER.....
The killer was a police officer. This is based again on the angle of strike and placement of the bullet hole. For the bullet to strike at this angle position the killer would have been standing behind Kait just in the exact place a police officer would be trained to stand when effecting a traffic stop and holding a gun as only a police officer would have been trained to do so. The killer was a police officer, the Arquettes can take that FACT to the bank. I'll bet anybody my life on it.
Peace,
Scott
Feel free to give the Arquette's my email. I will email you my telephone number and address to give to them. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 31 July 2002 - 11:29 pm | | Dear Scott:
Thank you for that information. I am forwarding a copy of your post to the Arquettes, and your email address.
I really hope that you can help them in their investigation. I have the greatest respect for you; I know that it wasn't an easy conclusion to come to. But I had a gut feeling if I posted a thread here that maybe someone would come up with an important observation or clue.
You can email me your information and I will be happy to send it to Ms. Duncan and her family.
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: in reply to your earlier post, the first officer on the scene observed a vehicle close to Kait's car, and got information from a man (the witness with a criminal background) that was in the vicinity. He took his name and number (which turned out to be incorrect).
PPS: Which do you prefer: chocolate chip or oatmeal raisin? I'll bake you a batch of cookies, you wonderful man, you! |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 11:13 am | | Greetings all:
Lois asked me to post this message on her behalf:
The fact that Scott, (with nothing more to go on that a photo of the bullet hole), arrived at the conclusion that Kait was forced off the road and, then, shot by a police officer, blows our minds. That's a theory we've entertained ourselves, but have been reluctant to voice, because we were afraid we'd be damning ourselves as paranoid nuts.
There are two pieces of addition[sic] evidence to support Scott's theory:
(1) There was unexplained rear-end damage to Kait's car. (Police shrugged it off as "old damage," but we owned that car, and we know for
a fact that the damage was not there when Kait left our house that evening.)
(2) We were contacted by a witness from out-of-state, who was visiting Albuquerque for a family wedding on the weekend of Kait's death. She
says she was in a car with other members of the wedding party, returning to her motel after a late dinner, and drove past the scene minutes after the shooting, (apparently before APD Det. Ronald Merriman "stumbled upon the scene"). That witness reports seeing Kait "upright but tilted to the right" behind the steering wheel. (She comments on "the bloody blond hair.") The witness states that a marked police car was at the scene and a uniformed officer was standing next to the open driver's door of Kait's car, scanning the road as if waiting for somebody. The driver continued on, under the assumption that there had been a traffic accident and there was no need to stop, because a police officer was
already there and had summoned an ambulance. It wasn't until the next day, when the story hit the TV news, that she realized that she had seen
a murder.
The officer this woman saw could not have been Det. Merriman, as Merriman was off-duty, in plain clothes, driving an unmarked car. Merriman also contends that, when he arrived at the scene, Kait was lying prone across both front seats with her had against the passenger's door, and that he opened the passenger's door to look at her, never
going to the driver's side.
This witness has signed a notarized affidavit. Our P.I. has confirmed that the witness was, indeed, in Albuquerque for a family wedding on the date of Kait's death and was staying in a motel only blocks from the scene.
Lois Arquette |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 02:57 pm | | Oatmeal rasin....heavy on the rasin.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 03:12 pm | | Dear Scott:
You got it, sweet cheeks!
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Garry Wroe
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 10:18 pm | | Hi Scott.
I haven't been following this thread too closely, so please forgive me if the following comment appears a little asinine. But it strikes me as strange that a police officer (presumably highly trained in the use of firearms) could have stood close to a stationary vehicle, shot at the car's occupant and hit the door jamb rather than the intended target. The possibility of 'staging' did occur to me but, as I have already indicated, I know next to nothing about the circumstances of this case and have no wish to cloud the issue with idle speculation.
Best wishes,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: brad mcginnis
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 10:55 pm | | Hi Garry,
I think Scott may be dead on here. Remember, a handgun is tricky to be accurate with and there is a big adrenilene factor. I dont care who you are if youre in a life/ death situation, youre going to be shaking. Unless the trigerman has done this before alot, (or is a psycho) he's going to have hand tremors.
Yours, Brad |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 01 August 2002 - 11:32 pm | | Greetings, all:
I was wondering, is it possible that the person fired while walking up to the vehicle? It is much harder to fire a handgun accurately while walking. At least, it was for me.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Garry Wroe
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 07:46 am | | Hi Brad and Divia.
I do, of course, take on board your observations regarding the shaking hand and the walking gunman. But, according to the above diagram, the entry wounds are closely distributed, this providing a strong indication that the shooter was both stationary and composed when discharging the weapon. And whilst I would not discount the possibility that the 'stray' bullet was fired as the perpetrator was approaching the vehicle, this is a scenario that doesn't appear to accord well with Scott's initial interpretation of events.
Given Scott's undoubted police-related expertise, anything he says in this context must be taken seriously. But I also have immense respect for all of those police officers who perform their duties with absolute integrity. It is for this reason that I would have to be certain of my facts before calling into question the probity of any police officer. And at the moment, I am anything but certain.
Regards,
Garry Wroe. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 09:03 am | | Gary, Brad and Diva,
Like most major police departments, New Orleans has its own officer’s assigned to the training academy. However since the academy is only run 2-3 times a year, the academy staff is minimal. At down times they host training seminars fro other agencies and of course constant on-going training for its own officers. Even during cadet training they will bring in other officers to train the class in their own areas of expertise or help out with the training due to the sheer number of cadets.
In the past, I have always helped out with the Officer Safety/Survival phase. The portions I taught were traffic stops and weapon retention. First and foremost every officer is taught no matter what situation, there is always one gun involved, that’s the one strapped to your hip. Keep track of it, your life depends on it. It is also interesting to note that Louisiana leads the nation in officers killed in the line of duty.
The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the car is the extension of the house, therefore it is legal for the occupants to have a gun anywhere in the vehicle, to include on themselves. In 1996, Louisiana also passed a concealed weapon law, allowing people to obtain, from the state, a permit allowing them carry a concealed weapon. These two laws, added to the problem of officer safety. After the Louisiana Supreme Court ruling, most states adopted the same law.
There two techniques that officer use at traffic stops. One allows for the officer to go to the car. Which, due to the two laws stated above, is hardly ever done in Louisiana anymore, but is still done in other parts of the country. The other is to have the person exit the vehicle and come to you. This affords the officer the protection of being inside his unit, giving him metal between him and his stop along with the opportunity to beat retreat with 5.0 liters. The latter is the more commonly used technique in use in Louisiana. The officer will have the person step to the rear, passenger side of the vehicle.
The technique that calls for the officer to come to you is completed as follows.
1) approach the car blading yourself to the vehicle.
This means stepping to the car and upon approaching the car turn sideways so that you are facing the car, if you are right handed, away from the car if you are left handed, and begin to side step. The officer’s hand gun hand is on his gun.
2) If there are passengers in the back seat, stop at the rear 1/4 panel just behind the rear door handle. If it is a two door, stop where the windshield meets the rear of the car. This is where you will communicate to the driver. The officer should be scanning the inside of the car and the passengers for contraband and weapons.
3) If there are no passengers in the back seat, then stop at the door post of the car if there is one, usually seen on four door models, or behind the front seat if there is no post. Again the officer scans the inside of the vehicle and the occupant(s) for contraband and weapons. This is where you will communicate with the driver.
4) When speaking with the driver, DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE PLACE YOUR UNBLADED BODY IN FULL VIEW OF THE DRIVER’S WINDOW. In other words, don’t shove your head into the vehicle. Instead lean forward, keep you firing hand on your weapon and speak with the driver. You should place your non-firing hand on the vehicle. This is done for support and to place your finger and hand prints on the car. Should something happen, your prints will be on the car and will serve as proof that you actually stopped the vehicle.
5) Should a lethal force confrontation arise, the officer will quickly side step 2-3 steps while keeping himself firmly bladed against the car, draw and fire into the vehicle.
So in essence, yes he is moving and firing at the same time. Only not in the way one would be used to thinking. The officer is shooting while back pedaling. He is taught to shoot until the engagement is over. This means, shoot until your target drops dead. The officer will have rounds that strike the vehicle in the place where Kait’s car was struck. There is no way around it. In live fire training, I have seen officers shoot as few as one to as many as 15 rounds into the car, this depends on their marksmanship ability. In cases of multiple rounds fired, all cases showed the officer striking the car in the place where Kait’s car was struck.
So, with that in mind, Kait was run off of the road by the VW. The officer sees it and approaches the scene as he would at any stop or traffic accident. He then goes through the motions should anyone be looking and fires into the car.
Peace,
Scott
PS Please excuse any typos, i am already behind the 8 ball |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 09:40 am | | | The "Vampire of Anglesey, a 17 yr old teenager who killed a 90yr old woman and cut out her heart and drank her blood, has been sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's Pleasure, to serve not less than 12yrs!!!! compare with train robbers sentence! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 09:43 am | | | I'm sorry, I think I put that on the wrong board, please excuse. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 10:21 am | | The killer is 5'7" tall ± 1 inch.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 10:42 am | | Dear Scott:
Thank you for posting that, it was very helpful and informative. It made me think about when I was pulled over in Shreveport (I'm from there originally, but was only pulled over once, darn no-delay red light!).
This makes me wonder about the connection between the auto body shop, the cops that have been identified as hanging out there, and the possible "Ninja Bandit" connection as well.
I think the Arquettes sold the car, but it would have been interesting to see what prints would have been found (if any) on the car.
Warm regards,
Divia
PS: Scott, I'll be doing some baking this weekend, I promise! |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 10:52 am | | Dear Scott:
Wow, I think it's great that you can figure out how tall the shooter was! That narrows it down a bit... I think you deserve TWO dozen oatmeal raisin cookies!
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 11:43 am | | Well don't get to excited. The heights are based on the person wearing shoes, so any legal action needs to stree that. Secondly, with the error factor the killer is anywhere from 5'6" - 5'8" which falls in the average range. If the killer were 6'4" or even 5'3" then we would have a lot more to go on. Right handedness or left handedness would require more data (measurements) pulled from the car. These are measurements that I, or some one I had the most extreme confidence in to, would have to personally pull.
Peace,
Scott
P.S. When you pulled over in Shreveport, did the officer come to you or did he/she have you exit the vehicle and step to the rear? |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 11:45 am | | Its also fun to watch Los Angeles drivers get pulled over. They automatically throw the keys out of the window and put their hands out of the window. I personally pulled over a driver from L.A. once, and he threw his keys out of the car and straight into the Mississippi River.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 12:05 pm | | Hi Scott:
It was during rush hour, in the morning, and the officer came to me, but I remember he stood a back a little from the window (about where the door frame was) so I had to turn to look at him. I was driving a two-door vehicle. He was nice to me "Where's the fire?" and was sympathetic to my plight (I was cramming for exams the night before and just didn't realize that the light turned red when I went under it). He let me off with a warning, but he did run my license. He made a comment about "making sure you aren't a mass murderer or something" which was funny.
Yes, I realized that the measurements fall within the average height, but it's still exciting, isn't it? I mean, the forensics behind the investigation. Well, maybe not to you, but I think it's pretty neat.
I just read Lois' email, and I think it is highly suspect that they would not hold the car in evidence. Unfortunately, the Arquettes took APD's advice and scrapped the car. To cover up any further evidence, perhaps?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 01:11 pm | | Now, picture the officer standing where he was and having to draw, back pedal and fire.
Peace,
Scott
Cramming for exams......UNL? Now known as U LA Mo. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 02 August 2002 - 10:30 pm | | Hi Scott:
I was going to the LSU-Shreveport. That's where I studied Nursing. I never finished, thanks to a very bad car accident; I'm lucky I can walk! I never completely recovered though.
Warm regards,
Divia |
|
|
|
|
