David Wright with the Kansas Bureau of investigations testified in the trial of Theron Thomas Kent this afteroon and said that ballistic evidence in the case was determined to be inconclusive.
Wright testified that he examined bullet fragments taken from Beau Arndt's body and based upon examination determined the evidence to be inconclusive. Wright said he could neither identify or eliminate that the bullet fragments came from the gun submitted as evidence.
Later in testimony, Wright said while the bullet fragments were determined to be inconclusive, the bullet jacket, which is a coating that covers the actual bullet was detmined to have been shot from the rifle submitted in evidence. Another examiner verified that there was an agreement for the cartage case when compared to test fires with the rifle. This dermination wasn't reached until the final comparisons were done.
Stay turned for further details on the trial.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by OutsiderJ (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If there is one thing that gets this guy a not guilty, I'd bet it will be this evidence. It is a shame. In a way its also why the system works. Reasonable doubt, and good defense attorneys are the reason the legal system has withstood so long, but my heart goes out to that young man's family.
Posted by EsqEB (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IF he was truly a man he would have taken a plea deal. He recklessly acted that morning and needs to own up to the fact that when you act like a stupid redneck and unethical owner of a firearm(NOT A HUNTER) people can die from your actions. If he does get away with this young mans murder, I hope the young man's parents sue him for every dime his hand has ever touched.
Posted by Deepthoughts (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on Esq. He's setting a great example for his kid about how to deal with mistakes you make. If there is no conclusive evidence, deny it and hope to get off. I would think his kid would have lost all respect for his father. Isn't the bullet jacket good enough evidence?
I would like to know how he sleeps at night.
Posted by funston (anonymous) on June 26, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The burden of proof is less strict in civil court so EsqBB is right. If he he has a pot to piss in, then take his money away from him.
My father and cousin where both county attorneys here and they were very good at taking peoples money away from them. Anyone who challenged them left court pale as a ghost like a shadow through the tomb. I seen it!
My father once described himself as "Constitutional Lawyer" and as a "hired gun."
Get a "hired gun" when all else fails, but he was a big city lawyer in a small town. Just ask Virgil Basgil. When Emporia couldn't get a job done, they went to Frank Funston Eckdall, Esquire.
Even I was afraid of my father. But I loved him just the same for holding me to a higher standard than the rest, i.e. commoners.
Posted by goodoleboy (anonymous) on July 1, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who are these commoners you speak of? Do you condone elitism?
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)