Tuesday, June 12, 2018

By accident, Missouri cop Scott Harrison admits Carol "may have" been seat-belted in patrol car, blowing to hell cops' theory about Carol breaking her own arm

The cage area where Carol was handcuffed and
seat-belted in a patrol car
A Missouri deputy stated at Carol's "assault" trial that she "may not have" been wearing a seat belt when she was initially detained in the caged area of a patrol car near the end of our unlawful eviction in September 2015. The flip side of Deputy Scott Harrison's statement, of course, is this: Carol may HAVE been wearing a seat belt while detained in the patrol car.

That blows to hell the cops' story that Carol broke her own arm by flailing about in the back seat of the patrol car before transport. (Never mind that a comminuted fracture -- a break in more than two places -- is caused by trauma, as in a car crash and likely is impossible to inflict on one's self, especially while handcuffed and seat belted.) It adds credence to Carol's testimony that she was seat-belted in the back seat from the get-go and could not have flailed about -- even if she had wanted to, and she didn't.

Harrison's slip-up on the stand is proof that telling the truth makes sense -- if for no other reason than it's hard to keep lies straight. This is straight from page 2-3 of Judge Jerry Hamison Jr.'s judgment:

Harrison placed [Carol] in the back seat of the patrol car, and he returned to the residence. He saw her thrusting back and forth, as well as forward and backward while she was in the patrol car with her hands cuffed behind her back. . . . Carol Shuler . . . was transported to the Greene County Jail wearing a seat belt. Upon arriving at the jail, she said for the first time that her arm hurt. A series of photos of her arm were taken over the course of 90 minutes, showing progressive swelling and bruising. On cross-examination, Harrison testified he was wearing a blue polo shirt with GCSO insignia. (False: He was wearing a dark uniform, with bullet-proof vest, and pointed an assault rifle at my head.)
He affirmed Carol Shuler was transported wearing a seat belt. but she may not have been belted when detained in the caged area of the patrol car initially. 

A few obvious questions come to mind:

* Harrison left an un-belted individual in the back of a patrol car and "returned to the residence"? Is that in line with departmental policy? Wouldn't it have been possible for Carol to open the door with her foot and walk away? What if someone who was actually dangerous did that?  Cops in Missouri are really that careless?

* Was Harrison inside the residence when he claims to have seen Carol thrusting about, etc? How far away was he? Were the car windows tinted? How could he tell what she was doing from that distance?

* If Carol was, in fact, flailing about, why didn't Harrison do something about it? Is it departmental policy to do nothing when a person in custody could be injuring herself?

* Aren't Harrison, the Sheriff's Department, and the county civilly liable if they do nothing to protect someone who was in their custody?

* Oh, wait . . . Harrison admits Carol "may not have been belted when" initially detained in the patrol car. That means -- in Harrison's own words -- Carol may HAVE been belted from the outset, just as she testified. Speaking of Carol's testimony, here it is, in relevant part:

[Carol] remembered she needed Baxter's litter box and started to go back toward the residence. She said she was surrounded by officers. She never barreled into Wade. (I, too, testified to this.) She was then grabbed and thrown to the ground by an unidentified officer. (We call him "Mr. Blue Shirt.") She was handcuffed while on the wet ground. She was led to the police car. She sat in the car quietly. She was seat-belted in the car, and she told Harrison her "arm hurts so bad." She was eventually taken to Cox North for an examination (where X-rays revealed a comminuted fracture of her left arm). 

What do we learn here?

(1) Various cop-witnesses stated that Carol showed no signs of being injured and never complained of being hurt. But she testified that she told Harrison her arm "hurt so bad." That sound you hear is cop credibility being shattered.

(2) Carol says she was seat-belted in the car from the outset, and Harrison essentially admits she might be right. Again, cop credibility melts away.

We've shown that cops started concocting a false story about Carol breaking her own arm, and they did it the morning after they learned her arm was broken (if not sooner). Isn't it fun to see Scott Harrison -- because he's too stupid to keep lies straight -- blow the whole story to high heaven?


Anonymous said...

Carol needs a lawyer, pronto. Blog posts are not providing her the relief she needs.

Anonymous said...

I think all people with any sense already knew that "flailing" story was a hoax.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see a copper gets his lies crossed up on the stand, under oath. Shows their utter lack of brains.

Crunch Bar said...

@10:29 --

Yes, anyone who takes a look at the X-rays knows Carol could not possible cause that break herself. But still, it's nice to see a cop eff up on the stand.

Anonymous said...

Makes me wonder if the judge in this case went to the School of Law for the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind.

Affirmed said...

According to the judgment, Carol cooked the cop's goose by asking the right questions on cross-examination. He didn't willingly cough up this information. She forced him to cough it up. Great job, Carol!

Anonymous said...

If the flailing con job is the best story the cops could come up with, that's pretty pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Ha, ha! Carol kicked this guy's ass on the stand. Take that you bloated POS.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Harrison will wind up in a "pound me in the ass" prison. He should enjoy that.

Anonymous said...

As you note, if you don't seat-belt the subject, there is nothing to keep them from using their foot to open the door and go on a hike. That would make for brilliant police work.

Anonymous said...

This doofus makes his own department sound like a bunch of Keystone Cops.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:05 --

Carol would be happy to have a lawyer. Can you recommend one? As you may know, she had a public defender, and the woman cheated her, did nothing to help her case, and then bailed out. Basically cost Carol six months of time. Then jail was taken off the table, removing Carol's right to have a lawyer.

We've found it hard to hire a lawyer who doesn't want to take a case, probably because of pressure from the legal establishment and state bar. We know the state bar is interfering with our cases in Alabama, and the same likely is happening in Missouri -- and that situation probably will lead to a RICO case from us.

Finally, there is the little matter that lawyers like to be paid, often with outrageous sums up front that are beyond our budget. You want to help pay for a lawyer? We'd be glad to have your financial help, to go along with your advice.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me Carol did a pretty good job of lawyering on her own. She got this ding-dong cop to admit on cross-examination that the flailing story is a crock. And she got the so-called "victim" to admit he grabbed her, initiating contact, which means she is not guilty. She also got a ding-dong cop to admit the underlying eviction judgment was interlocutory, so the cops had no lawful grounds to even be there.

How could a lawyer have done any better?

The problem is having a corrupt judge, not the lack of a lawyer.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:05 --

Have you read the judgment, which is embedded at the end of this post. Can you point to anything a lawyer -- even a high-priced one -- could have done differently?

Carol accomplished the following:

* Got the "victim" to admit she did not commit the offense as charged;

* Got a cop-witness to admit the "flailing theory" of Carol breaking her own arm was not true;

* And as @11:46 notes above, Carol got a cop-witness to admit the underlying judgment was interlocutory and that means the cops had no legal grounds to be on the property -- and the "eviction order" they entered as evidence contained no judge's signature and was not authorized by the court.

That's the case in a nutshell, and Carol kicked their ass at every turn. Can you point to how a lawyer could have done anything differently? Can you point to techniques that lawyers have to force a crooked judge to rule according to law? I haven't seen 'em.

Anonymous said...

If these cops really were men, they would cowboy up and admit they screwed up. They should not have been on the property that day, they caused your stuff to be stolen, and they broke Carol's arm. They committed acts of terror, under authority of the state.

Why not just man up and admit responsibility for all of that.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it would not be possible for Carol to open the door with her foot as the interior door handles in the back of police cars are usually removed altogether and a solid plastic wall is used to prevent access to the internal workings of the door. Even if the handles have not been removed, they have been disconnected. Only the exterior handles will open the rear doors.

Anonymous said...

what's going on in the appeal of your eviction?

legalschnauzer said...

@8:12 --

Look it up. It's been reported here multiple times.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:23 --

You know this how? You say door handles in the back of police cars "usually" are removed altogether. That means you have no idea how the doors on this car were constructed.

It's a minor point anyway. The main point is that the cop, under Carol's cross, admitted she might have been seat-belted from the outset -- and she testified she was seat-belted from the outset -- so the whole flailing story is a crock of feces.

Besides, you can't possibly create a comminuted fracture of your own arm. Obviously, you don't want to address that because it doesn't fit your agenda, and whole episode shows cops are gutless liars, even under oath.