Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The People Of The State Of California v.

The Preliminary Hearing case started today for the person charged with killing my Son, Jamiel A. Shaw, II, (Jas). The Hearing is scheduled to last two days. It was really hard being in court and sitting across from the accused. It's truly draining on the body.

The Prosecution opened with six witnesses. They are expected to call 10 or 11. The first witness was my son's little girlfriend. She was talking with him on the phone when she heard a voice ask, "Where are you from?". Then she heard a wind sound and the phone went dead. She cried on the witness stand when she talked about how the next day in school she learned that Jas was murdered. The Defense tried to ask questions about some gang crap. The Prosecution objected and the Judge sustained it.

The Second witness was a neighbor down the street. She said that she saw a Latino man walk up to my Son and shoot him once and then he walked around my Son and shoot him again in the head. She said the Latino man ran to the car, got in and they drove off. She talked about how she froze and just stood there in shock. She too cried during her testimony.

The Third witness was the driver. She was driving her brother's car. The driver and a female friend were out getting tattoos when the defendant called her on her cell phone. She then dropped the girlfriend off and picked up the defendant and his friend that evening. They drove to the bank and she tried to withdraw some money from her account. She wasn't able to get money out of her account, so the defendant gave her directions to take him where he could get some money. According to the driver, the defendant had a friend that owed him some money.

The driver took the defendant to our next door neighbor's house. That's how they came to be in our neighborhood. The neighbor's son wasn't home. According to the driver, the defendant walked back to the car on the passenger side and said, "I'll be right back". The next thing she heard was a gun shot and someone scream. The driver of the car said that the defendant came running to the car telling her to take off. She also said the defendant started telling his friend in the back seat what he just did.

To make a long story short, the driver dropped the defendant's friend home and her and the defendant went to Culver City Park to hang out. She said she was scared and didn't know what to do. It was after 9:00pm and the park was closed to the public. The Culver City Police saw the driver and the defendant in the car and approached them. The driver had identification but the defendant did not. Culver City took the defendant's name and made a notation of the license plate number to the car they were in.

The fourth witness was the Deputy Medical Examiner. He talked about the two gun shots and how the shot to his head was the fatal shot. He also spoke about how one of the bullet's struck my son in the hand and broke his knuckel.

The fifth witness was the next door neighbor. He spoke about how the defendant came to his house looking for his son. He said when he told the defendant that his son was not home, the defendant went back down the driveway. Then seconds later he heard two gun shots.

The sixth witness was the LAPD Detective assigned to the case. According to the Detective, when the defendant left the next door neighbor's house, the defendant said, "tell him Pedro stopped by". The Detective was also questioned about a Police line-up that never took place.

And that's the short version!

Stay tuned...

Jamiel Sr.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mr. Shaw,

If I were in your position, I don't think I could be in court all day with the killer of my child.

My prayers and positive energy to you, Sir.

June 19, 2008 10:24 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mr. Shaw may the lord provide you the strength needed to sit through the trial of your son's killer.

Many of us have have read your story and support you 100%. Do not let the city officials such as the stupid council members who interrupted you and your family at city hall when speaking about your son's death and subsequent effort to pass Jamiel's law.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=GbYsUlG00P4

June 19, 2008 11:19 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

keep up the fight

June 19, 2008 1:20 PM  

Blogger Nancy said:

Mr. and Mrs. Shaw, Your son Jas is proud of you. He knows you are on his side fighting for punishment for the low-life animal who murdered your son. Thank you for posting your story. Take care of yourselves so you have the strength to send this scum away for good.

June 19, 2008 5:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

One of the witnesses was the girl who drove the getaway car -- says she didn't know where she was asked to go or why, and that much seems true -- but according to the Times, after the murder they all drove to Culver City Park to hang out, and she "made out" with Espinoza anyway. A known killer. That's what's chilling -- it was just another day for these people, so cold they're not human.

So from the testimony: Espinoza was sent to "hit" Jamiel's neighbor who wasn't home, so he got Jamiel.

Sounds like he'd had a "shot call" from jail before he left day before and he felt he HAD to get "someone" or be in trouble himself.

June 19, 2008 9:51 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

9:51 that goes to the fact that Jamiel was not a gang member but the wrong black guy in the wrong place in the wrong time.

June 20, 2008 10:17 AM  

Blogger mary whoopee said:

Why hasn't this stupid chola (aka "The Driver") and Espinoza's male gangbanger pal going along for the ride been charged w/ being accomplices to a racially-motivated murder? 10:17AM-- you're making this calculated assasination sound like an arbitrary bolt of lightning, unavoidable by the victim. There IS nothing "wrong" with walking down your OWN street at ANY time of the day or nite. If so, we're all doomed. Best wishes to Jamiel Sr. and the entire Shaw family. We're w/ you.

June 20, 2008 2:38 PM  

Blogger Nancy said:

Rita, I wondered the same thing. Aren't the two friends accessories or accomplices or whatever the legal term is? And then I thought that they were probably offered some sort of lesser charge for cooperating.

June 20, 2008 9:12 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement