During cross‑examination, the witness admitted that the surveillance video did not show a visible gun. He described the object as long, concealed or in a bag and stated that, based on his training, it could be a firearm. The testimony highlighted uncertainty about the presence of a weapon in the footage.
Investigators noted that the suspect’s limp or unusual gait was no longer visible after the shooting. This change in movement was mentioned as a detail observed by the witness. The absence of the gait was considered relevant to the investigation’s timeline.
Following the incident, investigators used campus video to locate a wooded area that might contain evidence. The area was secured, and a gun was later found there. The discovery was linked to the suspect’s alleged entry into the woods.
The witness testified that a rifle was uncovered in the same wooded area where the suspect had entered. He confirmed the suspect was seen entering the woods at least twice: during a second campus visit and again on the day of the shooting. This repeated presence was cited as part of the investigative findings.
At approximately 12:30 a.m. on September 11, surveillance footage captured a vehicle identified as the suspect’s at an intersection near campus. The vehicle interacted with an officer from a local security detail, prompting a license‑plate check. The plate matched registration to the suspect and his mother.
The witness described the individual he spoke with as a male he believed to be the suspect. This identification was based on the vehicle’s registration and the officer’s observation. The testimony linked the suspect to the vehicle seen after the shooting.
Judge Tony Graf imposed sanctions on media members after an exhibit was inadvertently shown and broadcast during proceedings. He ruled that no further exhibits would be displayed for the remainder of the day, though a final video compilation was later permitted as an exception. The decision aimed to prevent premature judgments before a full review.
Graf scheduled oral arguments for the preliminary‑hearing evidence on September 1 at 10 a.m. The suspect has not entered a plea. The hearing will address the evidence presented against the defendant.
Following the Friday hearing, the victim’s family urged the judge to expedite the case, citing overwhelming evidence and the approaching one‑year anniversary of the death. They emphasized that the defendant has been in custody for ten months. The family called for a prompt determination in the interest of justice.
The family’s attorneys stated that the defendant is entitled to a fair trial and must receive one. They also argued that the criminal justice process should not be unduly delayed. The statement underscored the balance between a defendant’s rights and the need for timely proceedings.
