Breaking news in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shooting story.
Here's the lede from the Standard-Examiner's 5:30 p.m. story:
OGDEN -- The Weber County Attorney's Office has charged Matthew David Stewart with aggravated murder and eight other felonies in connection with the shooting last week that killed Ogden Police Officer Jared Francom and wounded five other officers.Read the full S-E story here:
There's more from the Salt Lake Tribune's Nate Carlisle:
The gist of it? Weber County Attorney Dee Smith reportedly alleges, among other things, that the suspect, Matthew David Stewart, " fired on police "from a concealed position at close range with a Beretta 9mm semi-automatic pistol, and that, according to the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant that Stewart's actions were premeditated, as set forth in this hearsay paragraph:
17. Since the shooting of January 4, 2012 officers investigating this case have learned that the defendant had previously made statements to an acquaintance during the summer of 2011 that if police attempted to stop the maijuana [sic] cultivation he would "go out in a blaze of glory and shoot to kill."We'll continue to update this story as the situation develops.
So much for the rumors however that Stewart had been armed with a dreaded AK-47, with a thirty-round magazine, however.
3 comments:
The dreaded "bomb" is markedly absent, too.
Four days and a BATFE statement later the headline still reads:
http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/01/08/shooting-suspect-had-bomb
Also, as a minor aside, if the description in the affidavit (.pdf linked in STE story) is chronological (as it seems to be), that's a storyboard I cannot block out and keep my sanity. Have a look and see what you think. Pay attention to where the officers described and the suspect are supposed to be--and in the order that they're supposed to be there. I might be whistling in the dark on this one, but I can't make it make sense.
Remember the Keystone Cops?
Seems they're doing an Encore Performance in Ogden
The county attorney and with the cooperation of the S-E has made a valiant effort to try this case in the court of public opinion. How dare anyone attempt to find out the facts as opposed to the information presented so far. Even suggesting their might be some sort of alternative explanation or disputed facts will slow down the verdict that has already been determined.
Post a Comment