Hopefully you are not a member of the jury in this case.

Chamber’s was about Hood’s age, 34 years ago when he was last convicted of a crime. No, he should not have had a weapon. No, he shouldn’t have been driving drunk. The rest will not be determined until the trial is through. It is early and the defense is not even close to starting.

Cruzer, to my knowledge Vause stated his troubles were in South Carolina, not Florida. Also, to my knowledge, Mr. Hood wasn’t here to “escape trouble” from Florida, or any other state.

Chambers’ docmented criminal history:

-1980 Bank Robbery, LA CA
-1976 Extortion, Pasadena CA
-1966 Assault with deadly weapon against a peace officer, Sacramento CA
-1966 Escape with force, Sacramento CA
-1965 Kidnapping for Robbery, Norwalk CA
-1965 Robbery, Norwalk CA
-1965 Robbery (again), Norwalk CA
-1962 Grand Larceny, Indianapolis Indiana
-1961 Robbery, Indianapolis Indiana

Disturbed, thank you for your comment.
.
I am not transcribing the trial. A court reporter is doing that. I am here to report on it. It is an open public proceeding. Any member of the public is welcome to sit in on it. I am sorry that no other news organization has chosen to come to court to cover it (aside from the Times sitting in on opening statements – I invite you to compare their story to mine from that day in terms of thoroughness) – it is a lost art in this day and age and given the paucity of resources our organization has, I am going out on a huge limb doing this, but I feel it’s important. That said, again, as per the word I used today, I am distilling (summarizing, if you wish) key points of what I am seeing and hearing. I have been in here for every minute of testimony since the start of opening statements almost two weeks ago. I am doing the best I can, but of course it is not perfect. I take issue with your contention it is not balanced, however. Keep in mind that we are in the prosecution’s presentation right now. If Mr. Hood’s background is introduced in the defense portion – or the prosecution’s remaining case, for that matter – we will report on it. Otherwise: The only opinion that matters right now is that of the jury, and they are under strict orders to avoid news coverage of any and all kinds.
.
TR

@ cruzer, there really are so many unanswered questions

Is that what really happened? I don’t think so. So far we know that Vause was a drug dealer and I think I read somewhere that Hood had many run-ins with the law in Florida. If this is true, that is certainly a reflection of these men’s lack of character that I feel should not be overlooked in the reporting of a case like this.

While I don’t agree that Mr. Chambers should have shot this man to death or even had a gun in the first place; I wonder if the outcome would have been different had he not had the gun. Would a crime still have been commited? Would Mr. Chambers be the victim?

While I appreciate the reporting by the WSB (this incident happened in my neighborhood after all and I really would like to have some answers as to why something like this would have occurred in our community), I do wish it was more balanced. For example, when writing about Vause’s cross examination: there were instances when we were told what the questions were, but not what Vause’s answers were.

As I mentioned earlier, I find it unfair that Chamber’s character is questioned and determined based on his criminal offenses that occurred over thirty years ago (which get continuously pointed out). How about giving the guy some credit for turning his life around? It sounds like he hasn’t had any offenses in almost 35 years. That’s about how old Travis Hood was!

Many people in our community appreciate and respect the WSB and as a result are influenced by it and form opinions based on the WSB reports. Please make a stronger effort of reporting on the whole story as this case is not as cut and dried as many people have been led to believe.