UPDATE: Pinal County Sheriff's Office Closes Deputy Puroll Shooting Case--Again

Categories: News
If you read this blog, odds are that you know that the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) crime lab found no gun powder residue on the bloody t-shirt worn by Pinal County sheriff's deputy Louie Puroll on the afternoon last April 30.
purollshot.jpg
​ 
Sheriff Paul Babeu announced the finding at a heavily attended press conference late yesterday afternoon down in Florence. 

The sheriff then pronounced the controversial case "closed" yet again, and concluded that the findings should clear his deputy from suspicion once and for all.

Not so fast.

We published a story on the case after a four-month investigation a few weeks ago entitled "Pinalcchio,"

Here it is, if you haven't checked it out yet.


As noted in the story and in follow-ups, the T-shirt was but one piece of an evidentiary puzzle that has brought Puroll's account into serious question. 

The absence of "gun powder residue" at this point in time (and with the chain of custody issues that we touched on in a recent follow-up story) is proof positive of nothing, other than exactly what the lab wrote in its three-sentence report.

Louie Puroll himself spoke at length to the media, angrily denying any wrongdoing out in the Vekol Valley on that crazy afternoon and chiding anyone and everyone (especially us) who would have dared question his bona fides.

We introduced ourselves to the deputy after the formal part of the press conference ended.

"You're the guy who's calling me a liar," he told us. "I hope you sold a lot of newspapers with that B.S."

After that gentle start (we explained that the paper is free), the two of us actually settled into an intense, but cordial chat of about 45 minutes that covered just about every aspect of the case.

That included the lack of shell casings at the crime scene, the business with the backpack, the timing of everything, the escape of the smuggler/shooters and disappearance of the marijuana, and so on (you'll have to read the original story to get caught up to speed on all this, but it is critical).

We explained that we hadn't been "expert shopping," as his boss Babeu has suggested, when we sent the photos of his grazing wound to nationally renowned forensic pathologists for analysis. (Two of the pathologists said it looked like a "contact" or "near-contact" wound to them.)

"I don't have any problem with you doing your homework," Puroll replied. "But you weren't there. I was. And I'm not making anything up. Take it or leave it."

We found ourselves really enjoying the give-and-take with the 14-year veteran of the sheriff's office, and we are quite sure he did too.

But we still have big questions about his account.

"If this was 20 years ago or whatever, I might have been knocking you on the seat of your pants instead of talking to you right now," Puroll told us, to which we replied, "You might have. But it wouldn't have ended there."

We both chuckled at that point, and agreed to subdue our testosterone levels for the duration of our chat.

We told the deputy--who is very fast on his feet--that our issues with his account didn't spring up overnight, and it took months of legwork to sort out what we could.

"You like to fish, I know you do," Puroll said. "I fish, too. I fish for humans out in the desert. You fish for stories. But you shouldn't tell tall tales, fiction."

We told him that, while some folks might not agree, facts are where we roll.

"Yeah, but it's what you do with those facts," the deputy countered.

Ain't that the truth?

More to come on this in the coming weeks.


My Voice Nation Help
44 comments
Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

"Shadow_man75" wrote:

"Still gotta love those "renowned forensic experts" that the New Times consulted. Issuing professional judgements based on a photograph. No scienitific examination of the shirt, or the wound, just a simple photo. As a scientist myself, I am ashamed that those forensic "experts" are considered men of science."

When the former chief medical examiner for New York City -- not exactly a backwater -- has no problem committing himself on the basis of such photographs, it suggests that it's because the photographic evidence is clear:

* * *Dr. Michael Baden, co-director of the New York State Police Medicolegal Investigation Unit and former chief medical examiner for New York City, analyzed police photographs of Puroll's gunshot wound and concludes:

"I don't see what the problem is in calling this a close-contact wound. I don't know who did it, but the weapon was either touching this man or was within a couple of inches. It's pretty straightforward. It clearly is not a shot from a distance."* * *

You say that you're a "man of science". Sorry, but exactly what does that mean? What are your bona fides for asserting that photographic examination was insufficient for a judgment in this particular case? Are you a forensics expert with extensive experience with gunshot wounds, like Dr. Baden?

Shadow_man75
Shadow_man75

More BS from the New Times. Trying to dampen the blow caused by the DPS lab report.

Still gotta love those "renowned forensic experts" that the New Times consulted. Issuing professional judgements based on a photograph. No scienitific examination of the shirt, or the wound, just a simple photo. As a scientist myself, I am ashamed that those forensic "experts" are considered men of science.

Typical calibre of reporting from a liberal rag.

Captain Obvious
Captain Obvious

The T-shirt has come back from being tested for gun powder-- a substance that won't dimension with time.

The shirt was gun powder FREE. Meaning? The deputy was telling the truth, and you, Mr. Rubin, were fanning the flames of hate once again. I think that has pretty much put the final nail in your writing career as a fabricator... just a fancy way of saying LIAR. You attack the police with supposition and ZERO proof. Case is closed, Mr. Rubin, perhaps you should return back to your previous life of writing Denny's menus inserts instead, no?

What was the real cause of your story? LET ME QUOTE:

"Sheriff Paul Babeu, an anti-immigration...."

Wrong, he's an ANTI-CRIME person. Nothing the Sheriff has done would indicate he's anti-immigration. Not a single statement he has ever made.

Keep fanning the flames of your career's own demise, I'm finding it quite entertaining to watch you squirm. Are you and Lemons roommates, by any chance? LOL!

Tina
Tina

I just listened to the tape of Louis Puroll's monologue to PCSO investigators and am still scratching my head about a number of things. Supposedly Puroll and his assailant were facing each other, with the assailant being down in a gully or at any rate much lower than Puroll. Yet the gunshot wound to Puroll's lower back on the left side is horizontal. That doesn't make sense to me. Seems it would have been on an upward angle. Also weird to me is that the wound would be in that location at all (his lower back) if I understood Puroll correctly that they were facing each other.

Yes, we've read that that T-shirt that was sent to the DPS crime lab for testing was "gunpowder free" (no gunpowder residue) and that DPS wrote a 3-sentence report to PCSO that indicated those results of the testing.What really makes no sense is the color photo of the T-shirt which the ID tech photographed on May 5, FIVE DAYS after the reported shooting incident. Yet (as Emil P. pointed out) it shows moist red blood with some dried blood surrounding the bullet hole in the shirt. If you accessed the link that Emil provided about blood coagulation, and recall that Puroll waited for over an hour to be rescued, at which time the blood from the wound would have already coagulated, that photo of the T-shirt -- which is the one sent to the lab for testing -- is inconsistent with Puroll's reported facts.

Can you -- or anyone -- explain that incongruity with science?

Tommy Collins
Tommy Collins

Ah, Captain Oblivious, you do prevaricate. The results of the testing of the tee shirt for gunpowder residue simply indicates that shirt may not have been in direct contact with gunpowder. The test is not conclusive as to the range from which a bullet was fired. Nor did that test determine extent of injury or probable direction of travel of the round. There is still ONE MORE SHIRT missing from this investigation. What happened to the long sleeve uniform shirt?

Babeu has ended this investigation simply because it would not be politically advantageous for an investigation to find fault with Puroll.

I can only opine that until a complete investigation is conducted by an unbiased professional law enforcement agency (MCSO exclusive) I will have to assume that Babeu doesn't want to know what really happened (or didn't) on the night of the supposed attack on Puroll.

Dear Captain, Mr. Rubin didn't cause injury to Puroll in any form. Mr. Rubin only threw out a lot of questions that need to be answered, and likely won't be. Don't put the onus on Mr. Rubin, put it on Babeu and Puroll for not cooperating with any unbiased investigation.

I believe the fiction in this case belongs to Babeu. No public library is big enough to contain such fiction.

davetheman
davetheman

Puroll's job is half search and rescue and half homeland security, and he denies ever hearing of 1070. Guess he is taking lessons from Babeu and becoming a professional liar. You can do better than that Louie.

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

Tina, don't forget that Puroll also said he had never even heard of SB 1070 until after the shooting, "because he doesn't follow the news".

http://www.azcentral.com/news/...

This from a Deputy in Pinal County working an area his boss has called a smugglers paradise. He's never even HEARD of SB 1070, not from any of his colleagues, not from the television or radio, not from the front page of a newspaper, not from a neighbor asking his opinion, not from his supervisors preparing their agency to enforce the law. Nothing.

This three-monkeys-like ignorance seems to be a standard line of his. Does this make his other statements any more credible?

Tina
Tina

Yes, Emil, I do distinctly remember him saying that he'd never heard of SB 1070 until after the shooting. All in the same sentence he said he learned of it from watching TV news the night of the incident and continued to say that he never watches the news, doesn't read the newspaper, doesn't follow politics and blah, blah, blah.You, however, brought up all these other probabilities demonstrating that his claim of never hearing about SB 1070 is not plausible. Here are some of his actual statements:“Until this shooting happened, and I got home that night and was watching the news, I never heard of 1070. I do not watch the local news. I don't read the newspapers and I don't care about politics,” said Puroll. (Channel 5 news)

A July 8, 2010 Arizona Republic article by Dennis Wagner reports on Puroll's initial interview by PCSO, Puroll's detailed account of how it all came down. 

It states, "At that moment, Puroll said, two unseen subjects began firing from 25 or 30 yards off to his left, one with a rifle and the other a pistol. Puroll dropped down."

If the subjects were "unseen," how was Puroll able to identify the weapons (a rifle and a pistol) they were using? I believe at his press conference with Babeu last Thursday he said he was shot with an AK-47.

I wish I could remember where and in what paper I read this, probably the Trib or Republic a couple weeks after the "shootout in the desert" incident. But it was in a brief news article wherein a male teacher or scout leader related his account of Puroll guiding him and his young charges through very rough terrain, how knowledgeable Puroll was about the area (apparently the group had been lost) and the man was most appreciative for Puroll's guidance and assistance. The man also related how Puroll was quite a story teller and kept the group captivated, telling them of many of his past on-the-job experiences in colorful detail.

In a TommyC comment on a previous NT article, while not accusing Puroll, he brought up characteristics of pathological liars, that they wind up believing their falsehoods themselves. I think Puroll is a weird duck. His demeanor was very assertive, confident and accusatory of others at that Thursday press conference, to the point that I was seeing vestiges of Russell Pearce, with one-way-street mannerisms and aggressive delivery to convince others of the "truth" that they are expanding upon.

Tina
Tina

This is of no consequence, but I just found that where I'd read of the man (a Mesa Community College professer, Bruce Peterson) and his group being in the boondocks with Puroll, described as an expert guide and storyteller, was on page 4 of Paul Rubin's lengthy "Pinalcchio" report.Here it is in pertinent part:

"Louie is an expert in the back country," Peterson says, "and he's as honest and honorable as the day is long. He just has a way of telling the truth in a very graphic manner, and he's a great storyteller."

Peterson wrote in a journal after the expedition, "Everyone stayed up listening to Louie's colorful stories of African goldmines, wilderness rescues, and border crossings and smuggling."

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

"Rule of Law" wrote:

"A Facebook blog ? Really ? I've owned and operated http://usbordernarcoticsintell... for years, and I have never, ever been a Facebook member, or have time for such social dribble."

Then this must be a remarkable coincidence:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/...

Note that the fake "badge" is identical to that displayed on your blogspot homepage. The added border even says "Arizona territory". Note also that wordpress.com is a free blog website, so to say that you have "owned and operated" such a blog for years is deliberately misleading. This is exactly the sort of compulsive, pathological lying that can be observed in many militias, Tea Party, and secessionist nuts. So, too, the threats of lawsuits.

"Rule of Law" wrote:

"In less than 2 weeks you and the New Times and the Village Voice Media will be served the Notice of Claim(s). Your defensive and delusional actions indicate you must be employed and/or involved in the frivilous and slanderous attack "Emil". If so, we will be meeting face to face in Court someday soon."

What frivolous and slanderous attack? Against whom? Presumably you mean Deputy Puroll. Nobody has libeled (not slandered) Puroll here. And you have no standing to bring a lawsuit. Anybody can file one, of course, if they pay the fees and fulfill the technical obligations, but frivolous lawsuits (and that's what yours would be, if it were real, instead of merely the usual Internet rhodomontade) are nearly as easy to dismiss as to file.

As for your silly claim that I am somehow connected with Phoenix New Times, that's nonsense. I have no employee, contract, consulting, or shareholding status with them, and never have.

Save it for the rubes, bub, you don't impress me.

Rule of Law
Rule of Law

A Facebook blog ? Really ? I've owned and operated http://usbordernarcoticsintell... for years, and I have never, ever been a Facebook member, or have time for such social dribble.

In less than 2 weeks you and the New Times and the Village Voice Media will be served the Notice of Claim(s). Your defensive and delusional actions indicate you must be employed and/or involved in the frivilous and slanderous attack "Emil". If so, we will be meeting face to face in Court someday soon.

Tina
Tina

How's that again, "Rule of Law"? You, an anonymous commenter on the internet, are going to file a Notice of Claim in less than 2 weeks against Emil P., New Times and Village Voice Media supposedly claiming that you, Mr. Anonymous, have been damaged from a "slanderous attack"? (I think you meant to say "libelous" not "slanderous.") I also clicked on that website that you lay claim to, but could not find any name of a person whose website it is. What IS your given name?

Be sure to let New Times readers know when you file that Notice of Claim and please provide a copy of it when you do file it. The stated grounds for same should prove interesting......and amusing.

Tommy Collins
Tommy Collins

I can only assume Rule of Law will have the able assistance of someone of the ilk of Lisa Aubuchon to write the claim for relief. That person, of course, will need to use some very 'creative writing' skills. By the way, Rule, just who is Emil P.?

Tina
Tina

This dialogue that Paul Rubin had with Louis Puroll after Puroll's and Babeu's press conference on Thursday is particularly intriguing with respect to statements and inferences Puroll is saying throughout their chat.

Such as, "You're the guy who's calling me a liar," he told us. "I hope you sold a lot of newspapers with that B.S." And,"If this was 20 years ago or whatever, I might have been knocking you on the seat of your pants instead of talking to you right now," Puroll told us.

At the end of one of the TV news reports that evening (can't remember if it was Ch. 5 or Ch. 12) and after the news lady gave her report of the press conference, the anchor woman asked if she had asked Puroll for his comment about the New Times story. She said she did, and that Puroll replied that he never read it.

I thought to myself, "What??!!"

I then went to the websites of Channels 5 and 12, and read their written reports of what Puroll was saying:

"He said he hadn't even read the initial report on the gunfight because 'I don't have to read about it -- I was there'"Also, "When I want to read fiction, I'll go to the library."

Is that flaky, or is that flaky? DiID Puroll read Paul Rubin's "Pinalcchio" story or did he NOT read it? For someone who claims not to have even read it, because "I don't have to read about it," Puroll certainly has some strongly stated negative opinions about the contents of Rubin's investigative report.....stated right to the reporter's face, at that.

Puroll also very assertively said, "I have answered every single question asked of me by every single investigator involved in this."

Is there something we don't know? Last we heard Puroll wouldn't talk to DPS investigators, an independent and experienced law enforcement agency, that Babeu put the kibosh on that; and that the only "investigation" that occurred was of Puroll giving a half hour monologue of recounting the incident to PCSO law enforcement people with no questions asked of him.

So what gives? Have OTHER investigators from some other law enforcement agency formally been asking Puroll questions in their capacity to do so?

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

"Rule of Law" wrote:

"Please read today’s news account of the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s results on the gunpowder residue test. . .Thus debunking Phoenix New Times slanderous articles."

The hyperlink given belongs to a facebook blog, not a news media source.

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

P.S. Also note that nobody has said that the shot was fired from "a yard away". Some of the forensic experts consulted said they had no problem calling it a contact wound, and others were more comfortable giving themselves a bit of leeway and said "within a yard". Read the original article.

Also don't forget that Puroll's rifle was on a strap hanging from his body; furthermore, nobody knows whether the shot came from that weapon, or if it did, whether it was actually hanging on his body at the time. So all of this stuff about 7 foot arms is kinderspiel. Amateur hour. Please stop being such an insufferable ass, Rule of Law.

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

"Rule of Law" wrote:

"Twist away Emil. The report states only 7.62 casing were found on the scene, and 2 AK-47 magazines (empty). An AR-15 or M-16 does shoot either a 223 or a 5.56 round, true. But the muzzle flash, from 1 yard away, as the "experts" testified to, would still cause third degree burns."

The only one twisting here is you as you attempt to squirm out from under the facts and your own errors. You're obviously here for spin-control but you're not very good at it. NOBODY suggested that Puroll was shot at point-blank range with an AK-47; not Puroll, not New Times, not the expert forensic scientists they consulted. If the wound was self-inflicted accidentally it would not be from such a weapon, because Puroll was not carrying such a weapon. You tried to argue that the wound could not be self-inflicted because the discharge gases from a 7.62 round would necessarily cause third-degree burns. You got the caliber wrong, and now you're embarrassed.

There numerous shells found at the scene, including those from Puroll's guns, but only a FEW of AK-47 caliber that Puroll says the smugglers were armed with and which he says were used in the major firefight he described.

You persist in the false claim that third degree burns are unavoidable from a muzzle flash. I don't think the shot was fired from a yard away; I think it was fired with the muzzle in contact with the skin, because there is a tail of burned (puckered) skin starting at the rear of the bullet wound, which curves up and to the left, which does not follow the trajectory of the bullet and which curves far too much and too irregularly over its inch of length, to be caused by a bullet; but it is consistent with a hot muzzle jerked away from the body and/or vice-versa. I don't know the caliber of the weapon used, because I don't know the weapon used. I don't presume that the weapons described by Puroll were the only ones at the scene, either.

In any case, don't you think that the author of the textbooks Handbook of Forensic Pathology and Gunshot Wounds and retired chief medical examiner of San Antonio's Bexar County, and other forensic experts cited, would know whether elementary considerations like muzzle flash would make close contact wounds impossible without third degree burns? What, exactly, are YOUR bona fides?

Rule of Law
Rule of Law

When this story first surfaced a few weeks ago our organization read all available articles and accounts we could find on the original shooting incident involving Pinal County Sheriff’s Deputy Louie Puroll..Deputy Purolls account of the incident was logical to our organization as well as the investigation by the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office.

When Phoenix New Times and Village Voice Media First reported that they had experts look at pictures of the gunshot wound on Deputy Puroll and the conclusions from experts in the field of forensics,name in the business that carry a lot of credibility,red flags went up immediately and some investigating on our own began,the findings of which is not yet complete.

It is our opinion that Deputy Puroll and the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office have been damaged by this and should in our opinion call these experts and Phoenix New Time on the carpet.Please read today’s news account of the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s results on the gunpowder residue test done on Deputy Puroll’s shirt he was wearing at the time of the shooting..It TESTED NEGATIVE FOR GUN POWDER RESIDUE!!

Thus debunking Phoenix New Times slanderous articles.

http://usbordernarcoticsintell...

Guioi767
Guioi767

Good Christ you sure are ignorant. It's called libel, not slander.

You officially have ZERO credibility.

Kirk Dooley
Kirk Dooley

My guess is that this is what might have happened:

The Deputy actually was tailing some drug smugglers, but then had either a call of nature or more likely some hunger pangs. After going behind some rocks to relieve himself or else finishing off his coffee and donuts (this is, after all, a cop we're talking about), he returned to find the folks he was tailing has tailing had vanished. So he may have faked a gunfight, shooting himself (albeit in such a manner as to only cause a minor wound that could have looked as if he'd taken a hit from a bad guy) in an effort to cover his ass. That's bad enough. What's even worse is that Babeau has fallen for it, using it as a means to follow his own political ends (which the deputy probably had no intention of doing at all).

The way things are going, the Pinal County S.O. will become almost as disfunctional as the MCSO has been for decades. (The MCSO was a mess long before Joe decided to give up a fruitful career as a travel agent, and will remain so long after he's gone.)

Ross
Ross

Anyone know anything about smokeless powder? More to the point, does Deputy Puroll know anything about it?

"When it burns under pressure, as in a cartridge fired in a gun,smokeless powder produces very little smoke, a small glow andleaves very little or no residue."

http://www.saami.org/specifica...

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

"Rule of Law" wrote:

"The most insulting part of the frivilous story is expecting anyone with an IQ above 50 to assume that a man could shoot himself in the back, with a weapon that averages 38 inches in length, from a distance of one yard from his backside."

Nobody at New Times has claimed that they identified the weapon or even the shooter. They did suggest that the totality of evidence was more consistent with a close-contact wound than from a wound received according to Puroll's story. As one of the forensic pathologists remarked, " cannot tell you who held the gun and who pulled the trigger, but in theory, an individual could cause this wound to himself". Why New Times should be "in trouble" (from whom?) for quoting multiple eminent experts in the field, as well as the suspicions of other police investigators (current or former), and offering interpretations alternative to the official one issued by PCSO, I don't know.

So, nobody knows what the weapon was; it might even be a weapon not reported to have been at the scene. Nobody knows who fired it, and whether it was fired deliberately or accidentally. IF it was from Puroll's rifle, the rifle may not even have been hanging from its strap on his body. He states that he removed his pack and was digging around for his GPS.

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

"Rule of Law" is wrong in nearly every particular.

The original article describes Puroll's rifle as an M-16. M-16 rifles don't fire 7.62 x 39 ammo: they fire 5.56 x 45 ammo. In each case, the energy depends on the mass of the bullet and the number of grains it's loaded with (there are multiple varieties of 5.56 x 45 ammo). Take a look at the small size of 5.56 x 45 ammo compared to .30-.30 and 7.62 ammo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

The energy of a bullet is not a predictor of how bad discharge burns ("powder burns") are. Again, energy is a function of the mass of the bullet and the amount and type of propellant. The M-16 5.56 x 45 caliber was derived from Remington .223 ammunition. The round is much smaller than a 7.62. A small bullet that travels at high velocity may have the same energy as a larger bullet that travels slower. Kinetic energy = 1/2m(v^2) where m is mass and v is velocity.

In any case, the energy of a bullet does not determine the destructiveness of discharge gases as they leave the muzzle. That depends on such things as the quantity of gas coming into contact with the skin, the temperature of the gas, and how much time the gas spends in contact with skin (less time for higher velocity gas); it also depends on the angle of the muzzle with respect to the skin. Dicharged gases fired from a muzzle perpendicular to the skin can enter the wound and explode it; gases fired from a muzzle parallel to the skin (as one would expect to be the case in a close-contact grazing wound) are not nearly as destructive.

Rule of Law
Rule of Law

Twist away Emil. The report states only 7.62 casing were found on the scene, and 2 AK-47 magazines (empty). An AR-15 or M-16 does shoot either a 223 or a 5.56 round, true. But the muzzle flash, from 1 yard away, as the "experts" testified to, would still cause third degree burns.

Still leaves the indisputable fact that no human being is capable of shooting themselves with a weapon that averages 38 inches in length, from "a yard away" {experts, ha] in the back.

This one tops almost all of the other ridiculous conspiracy theories you imbeciles have concocted.

Mistalee
Mistalee

"But the muzzle flash, from 1 yard away, as the "experts" testified to, would still cause third degree burns."

Pure horsecrap. I've been that close to a 7mm magnum when it discharged. Ringing in the ears, sure, but no burns, of any degree.

Stop making shit up.

AzDude
AzDude

....."my gut feeling tells me that something is wrong."

Thats likely the chorizo you had for breakfast.

Investigaton continues
Investigaton continues

Louie Purroll should not be angry with the media. He should direct all his anger at Babeu. Unfortunately Purroll and the other deputies bear the burden for their boss’ ego. Any incident that involves Babeu will always come under scrutiny. As for Purroll my gut feeling tells me that something is wrong.

Azdude
Azdude

LOL, egg on the face of the "experts" with an agenda...

Tommy Collins
Tommy Collins

How do you figure? Validate your statement. We're all curious and willing to learn.

Newwest
Newwest

Rule of law...go fuck yourself, we don't need more apologists for whackjob, publicity hounds like Babeu and his deputy Puroll. Many questions are still unanswered and the timing of the alleged incident was too coincidental with the 1070 controversy. Why would any deputy be alone in the deseret in the middle of the night chasing drug smugglers? He was more likely there to make a deal himself and something went bad.

Rule of Law
Rule of Law

The mentality of a goldfish, exemplified.

Theoldman
Theoldman

I don't think they "proved" anything by having DPS test the shirt months after the incident. Was there anyone at the news conference asking about what the Pinal County Sheriff's office rules of evidence are? Why did Babeu initially ask DPS to investigate the shooting, then quickly tell DPS only to look at the supposed crime scene?

Or was Puroll's story assumed to be true, so no gathering of evidence (other than the shirt) was needed.

It makes me wonder how they would have ever prosecuted anyone for the shooting, even if they had caught a possible shooter. I wish someone in the press would think to ask that.

Rule of Law
Rule of Law

The New Times is in deep trouble. Spoke to a PI last light, although I am not at liberty to discus the evidence discovered, it will soon be revealed. Also, CBS 5 (KPHO) fueled this slanderous allegation, exaggerating the alleged "facts" the New Times sponsored "experts" disclosed in their fictitious report.

All the reports, from the Deputies account, DPS report and even the New Times report all state he "was on patrol alone". CBS 5 (KPHO) went on the alleged the Deputy's wound appears to be self inflicted".

All one needs is common sense and limited knowledge of a 7.62x39 mm round to realize these "experts" assessment was impossible. The "experts" claimed the round was fired from a distance "no greater than one yard away from the wound". A 7.62 round has a Muzzle energy rating of 1,480 ft·lbf, which would caused third degree burn to flesh from two yards (six foot) in distance. The Deputy would of spent a week in a burn ward from this flash burn.

The most insulting part of the frivilous story is expecting anyone with an IQ above 50 to assume that a man could shoot himself in the back, with a weapon that averages 38 inches in length, from a distance of one yard from his backside. I've seen this Deputy, and his wound (typical grazing wound). This Deputy's arms would need to be at least 7 foot long, and must also be a contortionist. But the readers and sheep that rags like the New Times attract do not possess the common sense God gave a goldfish.The left wing has created a new low for deception tactics. You see, the truth can only be told once, but a blatant, hate filled slanderous lie can be told and expanded many times over, which helps sell all the smut advertising that litters the communist rag known as the New Times.

Mistalee
Mistalee

Good grief you are gullible. You have nothing, apart from Puroll's story, to prove that the bullet causing the wound was a 7.62 39 round. He could just as easily have shot himself with his service pistol. Get a clue.

Tommy Collins
Tommy Collins

What makes you think he might have actually shot himself with an AK47 or similar weapon? How about a .45 or similar caliber semi-auto pistol? For someone who purports to know law you seem to have no common sense. Puroll said he was shot AT by AK47s. How he would know that is beyond belief.

Rule of Law
Rule of Law

Maybe because of the two empty AK-47 magazine and the dozens of 7.62 casing found 40+ yards away, exactly where the Deputy stated the attack originated from.

Tommy boy, ye of little common sense. I suggest you do some research, shoot yourself with a .45 or similar caliber round this weekend. Experience the third degree burns you'll receive. Maybe, just maybe that will teach you a valuable lesson, if you can get your dopey head out of the sand long enough.

Mistalee
Mistalee

You poor imbecile. You are using a circular argument. "Puroll could not have lied because he could not have shot himself with the AK that he claimed made the wound."

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

P.P.S. Remember, there wasn't a whole lot of blood on this t-shirt to coagulate. In fact, the size of the bloodstain is itself a bit peculiar given the wound itself and the wicking effect of fabric. Look at the way the wound is still bleeding, in long drips (some of which have been wiped off by medical personnel, with one remaining) in the photograph of Puroll's bare back in the original Pinalcchio article. Puroll was airlifted out 80 minutes after his 911 call, according to that article. That's 80 minutes of bleeding. Why isn't the blood patch on the t-shirt considerably larger? If the answer is that Puroll took the t-shirt off immediately at the scene, then why didn't the blood coagulate?

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

P.S. Even if the t-shirt had been placed in an airtight plastic evidence bag, there should have been no wet blood after five days. It was also exposed to air (and deprived of fresh blood) during the entire time between when it was removed from Puroll's torso and the time it was placed in an evidence bag. Even if it were placed in such a bag on the scene, as it was removed from Puroll, there was air in the bag itself as it was sealed.

Emil Pulsifer
Emil Pulsifer

Mr. Rubin wrote in an updated in Thursday's issue:

"The ID tech didn't photograph the shirt until five days had passed, on the morning of May 5...The stain on the shirt consists of both dried and seemingly moist blood."

I wish you had published this information in the original article. I saw the wet bloodstains in the photograph in the published edition but assumed that the photograph had been taken shortly after it had been removed from Puroll's body.

"Normal clotting time of blood ranges from 3 to 15 minutes in healthy individuals." (see link below)

There is plenty of air in a storage locker, and even with the shirt folded or balled up, there would be no wet bloodstains after five days. Could it be that this is not the original t-shirt?

http://books.google.com/books?...

an Arizonian
an Arizonian

I saw part of the news conference but had to change the channel really quick. He came off as one of those ultra right wing tea baggers. If there was any doubt that he made this up, he shot it all to hell. I am now definitely convinced that this is a hoax he created. This man is a liar with no equal, except of course for Sheriff Joe and Babeu.

Ross
Ross

If you put something over the barrel of a gun before you fire it (say, the finger from a glove, or maybe even a condom would work) how much gun powder residue will then reach another piece of clothing a few inches away?

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...