Fogbow

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:03 pm The alternates are 15, 17, 10, 4, 9. Juror 2 is deliberating.

Bringing the goods! Thanks, RV!

ETA: too bad the teacher is an alternate. But who really knows.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:05 pm

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:03 pm The alternates are 15, 17, 10, 4, 9. Juror 2 is deliberating.

Bringing the goods! Thanks, RV!

ETA: too bad the teacher is an alternate. But who really knows.

So true. Especially these cases that become media circuses. Those are the cases where I often am shocked at the jury verdict. Cases where you never heard of the person the jury tends to find what you would expect based on the evidence. The media circus trials are problematic for sure.

Jury dismissed for the day.

She was found guilty for involuntary manslaughter all four kids.

Guilty of manslaughter.

Right. On.

Hopefully this will send a message.

All right!!!!!!! I watched part of this. Perfect verdict!

The jury foreperson spoke. She said it was a difficult decision (as it should have been) and both sides were well represented. She said the final issue that convinced the "not guilty" group to change their viewpoint was that Jennifer Crumbley had been the last adult to have the gun in her possession. That was all she said. She wouldn't give her name or answer any other questions.

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 8:59 am The jury foreperson spoke. She said it was a difficult decision (as it should have been) and both sides were well represented. She said the final issue that convinced the "not guilty" group to change their viewpoint was that Jennifer Crumbley had been the last adult to have the gun in her possession. That was all she said. She wouldn't give her name or answer any other questions.

I wonder if the Dad is now regretting that they severed the trials. Under that scenario he may well have been acquitted.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:28 am

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 8:59 am The jury foreperson spoke. She said it was a difficult decision (as it should have been) and both sides were well represented. She said the final issue that convinced the "not guilty" group to change their viewpoint was that Jennifer Crumbley had been the last adult to have the gun in her possession. That was all she said. She wouldn't give her name or answer any other questions.

I wonder if the Dad is now regretting that they severed the trials. Under that scenario he may well have been acquitted.

Yeah. But they have the same attorney. It seemed pretty clear during the trial that the plan was for Jennifer to throw James under the bus and I'm assuming James was going to throw Jennifer under the bus. It was really obvious that they planned all the under bussing, it was palpable. I'm thinking for James' trial they will go ahead with this plan. Although I saw a new interview with the foreperson this morning after I posted and she gave more information. Basically each juror came to their own reasoning, so they were not all in agreement that this was the issue. The initial interview did not make it clear she was only speaking about herself when she made that statement. She was more clear this morning.

Mine would have been that the parent's didn't take the least little bit of care to secure a gun that they knew their son was obsessed with. The cable lock that was supplied with the gun was still in it's original packaging, unopened. All they had to do was to attach the cable lock and then lock those keys in their gun safe having only the keys to the gun safe itself to worry about hiding and keeping out of his hands. Had they done that much I would have said they had done due diligence to keep the gun secured, even though I am very much bothered by their appalling lack of even a smidgeon of actual parenting. But leaving a gun unlocked, bullets unlocked, and seeing a note showing a person shot and bleeding out, a gun that looked like the Sig Sauer, with the words "The thoughts won't stop. help me". And then a laughing emoji underneath the body that is bleeding out. Good grief. These were appalling facts in this case. Still, I was kind of surprised there was a guilty verdict. Apparently it was quite contentious and hard fought though.

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:39 am

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:28 am

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 8:59 am The jury foreperson spoke. She said it was a difficult decision (as it should have been) and both sides were well represented. She said the final issue that convinced the "not guilty" group to change their viewpoint was that Jennifer Crumbley had been the last adult to have the gun in her possession. That was all she said. She wouldn't give her name or answer any other questions.

I wonder if the Dad is now regretting that they severed the trials. Under that scenario he may well have been acquitted.

Yeah. But they have the same attorney. It seemed pretty clear during the trial that the plan was for Jennifer to throw James under the bus and I'm assuming James was going to throw Jennifer under the bus. It was really obvious that they planned all the under bussing, it was palpable.

Right. I guess what I’m saying is here there was an actual jury that considered the fact that she was the last one with the gun as a determinative factor of guilt. If they had been tried together, that might’ve resulted in an acquittal for him. Now that they’re being tried separately, he can make that same argument to the jury, but this new jury might not give a shit about it and might hang liability on something else (like the lock, as you mention).

We now know, but only in hindsight, that this jury was likely his best chance at acquittal. Not saying he would have been, but who knows. The defense counsel don’t have a crystal ball. They don’t know what the jury is going to do, and you never know what fact is going to loom largest in the jurors’ mind.

I once got an acquittal at the trial level one time, where the jury picked up on a fact impacting the credibility of the star witness that neither I nor the prosecution ever noticed or mentioned. But the jury noticed it, and afterward, during voir dire of the jury they were like, after we discovered that fact, we didn’t believe a thing that witness said. As discussed elsewhere on this forum, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 12:47 pm

RVInit wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:39 am

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 9:28 am

I wonder if the Dad is now regretting that they severed the trials. Under that scenario he may well have been acquitted.

Yeah. But they have the same attorney. It seemed pretty clear during the trial that the plan was for Jennifer to throw James under the bus and I'm assuming James was going to throw Jennifer under the bus. It was really obvious that they planned all the under bussing, it was palpable.

Right. I guess what I’m saying is here there was an actual jury that considered the fact that she was the last one with the gun as a determinative factor of guilt. If they had been tried together, that might’ve resulted in an acquittal for him. Now that they’re being tried separately, he can make that same argument to the jury, but this new jury might not give a shit about it and might hang liability on something else (like the lock, as you mention).

We now know, but only in hindsight, that this jury was likely his best chance at acquittal. Not saying he would have been, but who knows. The defense counsel don’t have a crystal ball. They don’t know what the jury is going to do, and you never know what fact is going to loom largest in the jurors’ mind.

I once got an acquittal at the trial level one time, where the jury picked up on a fact impacting the credibility of the star witness that neither I nor the prosecution ever noticed or mentioned. But the jury noticed it, and afterward, during voir dire of the jury they were like, after we discovered that fact, we didn’t believe a thing that witness said. As discussed elsewhere on this forum, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Yes, I get what you were saying. I see that I started a sentence with the word "but" and realize that changed the tone of what I meant. I really do need to start trying to get more sleep.

I agree with you 100%, based on what the foreperson said, yes, this jury may very well have found Mrs guilty and acquitted or hung on Mr. It will be interesting to see if Shannon Smith uses what this jury foreperson said as a strategy to get him off, given that it seems like her plan was to separate the trials and have each throw the other under the bus anyway. Now she has some actual words and specifics she can use for Mr's trial - Mrs was the last adult with the gun.

It was fascinating to me that Mrs C would try to completely put all the responsibility for the gun on her husband when it seemed clear that she controlled everything else, including what time Mr C had to get up and what time he had to pee. She claimed to know absolutely nothing about guns and said she locked the gun in the trunk of her car after she and Ethan returned from the shooting range and that it was entirely her husband's responsibility to get the gun out of the trunk and lock it up. Except she admitted they didn't HAVE anything to lock it up in, and "locking it up" simply meant "hiding it somewhere". So, not sure why she needed Mr to hide the gun, it's not as if hiding a gun requires expertise. Maybe she was alluding to the cable lock, but she never said that, and, the prosecution proved they never even opened the packaging for the lock. Her testimony was remarkably contradictory in every way possible.

What did I miss about her telling hubby when to pee?



I have totally lost something-

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:20 pm What did I miss about her telling hubby when to pee?



I have totally lost something-

From the reporting it seems the wife micromanaged the husband's life, she held the keys to the household so to speak...

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:20 pm What did I miss about her telling hubby when to pee?



I have totally lost something-

Ditto, do tell!

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:24 pm

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:20 pm What did I miss about her telling hubby when to pee?



I have totally lost something-

From the reporting it seems the wife micromanaged the husband's life, she held the keys to the household so to speak...

Exactly what I meant by "she told him when to pee". I am not 100% sure that there is actually a text message specifically telling him "go pee now", but after seeing the degree to which she micromanaged him it would not surprise me one bit if there actually is such a message.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/james ... r-BB1jwMBl

PONTIAC, Mich. — The father of the teenager who fatally shot four students at his Michigan high school had his jail communication privileges limited because he made "threatening statements," authorities said Thursday.

James Crumbley, 47, is on trial for involuntary manslaughter in connection with the killings his son carried out at Oxford High School in suburban Detroit in 2021.

Crumbley's jail phone and electronic messages have "been limited due to threatening statements he made while on the phone and in electronic messages," the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office said. A spokesperson did not provide more details about whom the alleged statements were made toward.

A court order signed Thursday by the judge overseeing his trial stipulates that Crumbley's communications are now revoked, except for with his lawyer or legitimate clergy or for using his tablet for research.

Jury is coming in now. Count 1, guilty. Count 2, guilty. Count 3, guilty. Count 4, guilty.

Kendra wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:20 pm Jury is coming in now. Count 1, guilty. Count 2, guilty. Count 3, guilty. Count 4, guilty.

Sucks to be him...

Bye off to prison...

He threatened the prosecutor while his wife was on trial. Not sure if he made threats toward anyone else, but at the least it was a prosecutor that he threatened. The prosecutor revealed that after the verdict was in.

Michigan school shooter's father allegedly threatened to destroy the prosecutor in the case against him
The Oakland County prosecutor's office said Wednesday that James Crumbley threatened the prosecutor by name, warning her what was going to happen to her when he is released.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mi ... rcna143995

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 12:47 am

Michigan school shooter's father allegedly threatened to destroy the prosecutor in the case against him
The Oakland County prosecutor's office said Wednesday that James Crumbley threatened the prosecutor by name, warning her what was going to happen to her when he is released.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mi ... rcna143995

What a great parent. I wonder what they can do, if anything, about a threat like that. Even being in prison doesn't mean he can't do (instruct others) something.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 9:10 am

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2024 12:47 am

Michigan school shooter's father allegedly threatened to destroy the prosecutor in the case against him
The Oakland County prosecutor's office said Wednesday that James Crumbley threatened the prosecutor by name, warning her what was going to happen to her when he is released.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mi ... rcna143995

What a great parent. I wonder what they can do, if anything, about a threat like that. Even being in prison doesn't mean he can't do (instruct others) something.

To be honest, I am pretty sure the prosecutors and office have procedures in place for things like this. This would not be first jailhouse threat lobbed at a DA.

The greater short-term damage will be at his sentencing hearing.

Their son was doomed.

Sitting in the waiting room at the car dealer. Fox News is showing the sentencing hearing of the parents live. Seems strange. Why show it live?