This is still very much a “he said, she said” story about what happened late one Friday night on Highway 51.
If Senator Bundgaard is telling the truth, Ballard will likely be prosecuted heavily for any number of crimes. But if Senator Bundgaard is lying, this will be the end of his political and professional career.
This is likely going to the courts but before it does, expect local media to run back and forth between Bundgaard’s attorney and Ballard’s spokesman.
That is not an evidence bag. It would be in forensics for up to two or three months. Bundgaard is clearly lying and desperate.
Happy for Chris that he has some place to take out his personal dislike for Bundgaard. But the police gave the gun back to Bundgaard that same night, so it couldn’t be in forensics for up to two or three months. So go back to watching CSI late-nights Chris. You are clearly lying and desperate. Even the police aren’t disputing that they bagged the gun and gave it back.
If he told Police at the scene she pointed or pulled the weapon on him the pistol would have been taken as evidence.If she did and he didn’t tell the police at the time he has last that avenue of complaint.
This whole incident has legs because it was handled terribly by Bundgaard from the beginning.
How about it has been handled terribly by the Phoenix Police Dept?
From what is coming out now, the Police had the entire story but much was left out of the initial report. Now Sgt. Thompson is saying the next report will be very interesting.
Seems to me like they wanted the Senator to be destroyed by the liberal media. It kept their scandal off the front page!
And that is a ‘evidence’ bag. If you watched channel 15 that night, the very next story showed Phx PD carrying a gun from a crime scene in an identical bag.
So what would you have done differently Walt? Let her pull the gun? Let her steal the car? Let her drink and drive into some innocent family? Or would you remove her from the car, lock it, and call family to come back and help take her home?
Any speculation as to what I would have done is just that, speculation. Continuing to feed the media information to justify his response, after his initial statement, has caused this story to continue to grow more politically damaging. If he would have stayed moot after his initial statement instead of feeding the media frenzy he would not have, in my opinion, hurt further his position.
The police report was not damaging but his allegation regarding the weapon does not match with the police investigation that was published. If the published police report was incomplete that further exacerbates the situation. That the weapon was not taken as evidence tends to show it was not reported at the time as being used in a crime. This does not tend to substantiate Bundgarrd’s statement.
Your above statement”Not True” do not fit the facts as presented.
Reminiscent of Mel Gibson v Gregorieva, Charlie Sheen v World. LOL
We should get out own gritty HBO political drama. I know some fabricators over at the New Times that would be itching for a shot at that.
This woman looks familiar. Didn’t she dance at the Highliter?
Isn’t it HiLiter? Don’t judge…
So, they lost because she wanted to do the rhumba, but he insisted on the two-step and now they’re both stuck trying to get rid of each other’s dance cards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9bwuhe6_50
And now we know something else odd about Scott, and if not in his own words then from his attorney and this video: he’s not using hollow-points. And the two loose rounds in the bag is also confusing. One comes from the chamber when the cops unload it, the rest stay in the mag…so where does the second one come from? And did he really say that Scott “threw” a loaded weapon? Finally, notice how her spokesman doesn’t say she didn’t touch it, just that she didn’t “brandish” or “point” it. I get the CSI jokes, but look at the evidence before you listen to the parties.