Oxford, Michigan, School Shooting

[RVInit]

Oh, here are some more suppressed gems - when his room, which his mother cleaned, was searched, right out in the open is an empty bottle of booze and a half full bottle of booze, hard liquor. He's 15 years old. So, yeah, great parenting going on here. And again, the photos were suppressed because the judge is concerned about Mrs Crumbley being shown as a "bad parent". Bad parenting is the whole freaking negligent thing.

Just for those of you not watching the trial, don't be totally baffled if she is acquitted.

Well, not entirely. She’s charged with a specific negligent act. The danger is that she would be convicted of some other negligent act that she’s not charged with, or just for being a bad parent or a bad person in general.

The exception to the rule making “prior bad acts” inadmissible is large enough that the rule often only exists at its edges; the government can almost always find a reason that the evidence is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. It gladdens my little defense-attorney heart to see a judge actually apply the rule.

Thanks for that clarification. During trial testimony, I tend to rely on the Judge's decisions on admissibility of evidence. They know the rules and facts and law much better than the general public, and what seems ridiculous to us may be perfectly valid law. The viewing public's take on things is colored by our extraneous knowledge gleaned from media reports (whether factual or not) and is quite possibly completely irrelevant to the charges. I have to believe that, in most cases, the jury is relying only on admissible evidence heard during trial and reaches a verdict based on how the testimony and evidence apply directly to the crime charged.

"Well, s/he might not have done this thing, but s/he damn sure did something to be punished for and this is our chance to do so" is a hell of a way to get a guilty verdict.

Even this judge has admitted that now that "more things have come out" she's "not sure I would rule the same way" on this matter. She made this statement during the whole debacle where the defense attorney opened the door to the affair coming out. You can hear the judge make this statement around the 2:49 mark on this clip. This judge is a flake and a wet noodle.

Edit - just by the way, this clip does not contain all the drama that happened in front of the jury. This is after the jury has been removed. And everything the defense attorney says in this clip is nonsense as the witness makes clear. After all the drama this attorney really made a fool of herself and her client and the jury heard it all. So, this judge is not helping the defense one bit. At all. Being a wet noodle is allowing the jury to see what a complete and utter train wreck Shannon Smith is. Having said that, enough of Ms Crumbleys failure to parent her son is being left out that she could get acquitted. I think there is about a 50/50 chance. Not super good, not bad either.

[Maybenaut]

Some defense counsel don’t know how to take yes for an answer. They want to keep something out, the judge says yes, it’s out, then they open the door to bring it (or something just as bad) in.

[RVInit]

It's becoming a habit for big drama to happen at the end of each day. I wasn't planning on writing anything about this case, but damn. Just had to click on it.

So yesterday's drama was Mrs Crumbley is on the stand. She actually did very well in my opinion, her answers to questions sounded very reasonable and even believable. But, she hasn't been cross examined yet, and to my awareness she did say at least one or two things easily impeachable, which is going to be bad. Of course, the prosecution knows even more than I do about what she may have lied about. When they looked at her burner phones, one of the state attorneys was looking at screen shots and one of them that popped up he saw the time stamp on it that was 11:16 PM. Then he noticed at the top of the photo it was apparently a screen shot of a text message to the Crumbley attorney. At that point he closed it and informed the court and the defense that he did not read the actual text that was on the photo (I have accidentally taken photos of my phone screen so I know that can happen). But he did report that he inadvertently became aware that on this date and time Ms Crimbley sent a message to her attorney.

In direct testimony Ms Crumbley said that she and Mr C each took 4 Xanax and fell asleep at 11 PM on Friday night and were going to turn themselves in the following morning to the court. In a follow up question she answered "I was waiting on information and instructions from you" (her attorney). So, now she is using her attorney client privilege as a defense against the evidence that they were trying to flee. So the judge now has another bag of worms to look into. The prosecution is asking the judge to look at certain items they have identified to see which of them may now be admitted. If you watch this discussion you can see the judge seems to have difficulty even understanding what the prosecution is asking her to do even though they are stating what they want very clearly. Just asking her to look at the items and make a determination if the prosecution is entitled to look at them, and then have a discussion as to which if any can be addressed in cross examination. This discussion takes place at the beginning of this video. I have noticed the judge often is very confused and the prosecutor has to repeat over and again until she finally understands what they are asking. She tends to go five steps ahead in her mind and completely miss out on the fact that the prosecution is asking her for something very simple. One step at a time. And she just can't seem to do that. She is way too concerned about what might happen to just slow down and take one step at a time. I think this case is too big for this judge. It is clearly getting to her.

[RVInit]

Some defense counsel don’t know how to take yes for an answer. They want to keep something out, the judge says yes, it’s out, then they open the door to bring it (or something just as bad) in.

Yes, the defense should take as a win everything they have managed to get suppressed because it's quite a bit. And the gamble she took on exposing the affair is really bad because the prosecution is chomping at the bit to show how often she left work to meet her lover and then said she had to go back to work on the day her son drew a very disturbing picture clearly showing a gun and a dead person with the words "The thoughts won't stop. Help Me".

In case anyone is wondering why the school didn't make him go home is because they interpreted the drawing as suicidal ideation and they were concerned about sending him home alone. They knew the Crumbleys were insisting they were going back to work, so if Ethan left school he would be by himself. He only had one friend and that friend was sent to a rehab for "OCD". A lot of people are trying to blame the school, but their testimony clearly stated what they are legally allowed to do and I don't think they have any culpability based on their limited understanding of Ethan's life and circumstances.

[RVInit]

Shannon Smith is representing both Mr and Mrs Crumbley. She is throwing him and her son under the bus. I am fully expecting Mr C to throw her and his son under the bus. One email thread between attorneys and Mrs C came in and it's clear that they were not asleep (as she testified yesterday) when the police showed up at the warehouse. She says in the text message that she was "outed". That was on the burner phone. She is now claiming that she was asleep and that must have been her husband doing the texting. This is after the prosecution has gotten testimony from her that basically showed she was in charge of everything including making sure her husband got out of bed in the morning. She did not trust him to take care of anything in his life according to all the texting where she is telling him to do the most minor things that any adult should be able to do without their spouse telling them to do it. But.....she trusted him completely to make sure Ethan didn't have access to the gun. Oh, almost forgot. He posted on Instagram a video of him playing around with a gun that his father left on the dining room table. Mom and dad are home at the time.

I think the worst thing she said on the stand was during direct when she says after all is said and done there is nothing she would do different if she had a chance to do anything over again.

I wasn't super impressed with the cross exam, except that it did show a couple of times that she flat out lied to the jury, which might be all he really needed to do.

[RVInit]

One more thought since I'm on a roll.

What annoys me about this trial is the same thing that annoyed me about the Kowolski trial. Once the judge decides that certain evidence can't come in I don't understand why that gives the "winning" side the right to outright lie on the witness stand. Since the judge is the very one that made the decision to suppress the evidence, the judge KNOWS that the witness is lying on the stand. Mr K was particularly bad about this and the judge did not allow the defense to enter any evidence AT ALL to show that he lied multiple times to the jury. This judge let a small amount in, but it really irks me that in this case the defense is deliberately getting her client to lie about things that she knows the judge has eliminated the evidence that would prove her to be lying.

Just a rant. Carry on.

[raison de arizona]

One more thought since I'm on a roll.

What annoys me about this trial is the same thing that annoyed me about the Kowolski trial. Once the judge decides that certain evidence can't come in I don't understand why that gives the "winning" side the right to outright lie on the witness stand. Since the judge is the very one that made the decision to suppress the evidence, the judge KNOWS that the witness is lying on the stand. Mr K was particularly bad about this and the judge did not allow the defense to enter any evidence AT ALL to show that he lied multiple times to the jury. This judge let a small amount in, but it really irks me that in this case the defense is deliberately getting her client to lie about things that she knows the judge has eliminated the evidence that would prove her to be lying.

Just a rant. Carry on.

It seems to me that such lying would "open the door" to admit contrary evidence, no?

[Rolodex]

I listened to the cross exam of Mrs C this morning. Lots of time on extraneous stuff, IMO.

Two things that stick out: she says she was a "helicopter mom." That doesn't comport with her actual actions. He didn't want to go to the barn with her, so she didn't make him...so what, as a helo mom did she do to know what he did instead? And the biggest helicopter error is her not taking her son to an emergency doc when she got called to school. She was already gone from work...if he had broken an arm would she just go back to work and let him go home or back to class? This is no less an emergency esp in context with prior behavior. Not buying the "helicopter mom" defense.

Second thing: she was talking about punishing him for something (I forgot what) and she said "we took away the firing range and his gun." A few minutes later the prosecutor says "and you took away his gun"? She straight up says, "no I didn't say that. We didn't take his gun." Yep lady, you did. Just roll that beautiful bean footage.

She's flakey, but that's not a crime. I think there's no question she knew her kid had mental health problems, did not supervise him or get him help, and contributed by buying him a gun which he used to kill people.

[Maybenaut]

One more thought since I'm on a roll.

What annoys me about this trial is the same thing that annoyed me about the Kowolski trial. Once the judge decides that certain evidence can't come in I don't understand why that gives the "winning" side the right to outright lie on the witness stand. Since the judge is the very one that made the decision to suppress the evidence, the judge KNOWS that the witness is lying on the stand. Mr K was particularly bad about this and the judge did not allow the defense to enter any evidence AT ALL to show that he lied multiple times to the jury. This judge let a small amount in, but it really irks me that in this case the defense is deliberately getting her client to lie about things that she knows the judge has eliminated the evidence that would prove her to be lying.

Just a rant. Carry on.

It seems to me that such lying would "open the door" to admit contrary evidence, no?

Yes, but the other side has to ask the judge to let it in. The time to do that is during the case in rebuttal. I’m talking generally, not necessarily this case. I don’t know what the prosecution is likely to do.

[Rolodex]

The court is currently in recess so the state can decide if they want a rebuttal. they're also reviewing jury instructions. The defense said they rested. I hope she meant that. She jabbers a lot, even talking over the judge.

[sugar magnolia]

In reference to my earlier post, I just read an article that said the Detective testified that they had no way to know or prove that the mother was even aware of the journal, so I can see why the Judge wouldn't allow testimony related to that.

[RVInit]

One more thought since I'm on a roll.

What annoys me about this trial is the same thing that annoyed me about the Kowolski trial. Once the judge decides that certain evidence can't come in I don't understand why that gives the "winning" side the right to outright lie on the witness stand. Since the judge is the very one that made the decision to suppress the evidence, the judge KNOWS that the witness is lying on the stand. Mr K was particularly bad about this and the judge did not allow the defense to enter any evidence AT ALL to show that he lied multiple times to the jury. This judge let a small amount in, but it really irks me that in this case the defense is deliberately getting her client to lie about things that she knows the judge has eliminated the evidence that would prove her to be lying.

Just a rant. Carry on.

It seems to me that such lying would "open the door" to admit contrary evidence, no?

In the Kowolski case, it didn't. Mr K lied over and over again and the defense were wholly unsuccessful in getting the evidence that proved his lies admitted into evidence. Which will become part of the appeal process I am pretty sure. In this case, a limited amount of the contrary evidence was reluctantly admitted by the judge, but it took quite a bit more effort than I would have thought reasonable.

[RVInit]

In reference to my earlier post, I just read an article that said the Detective testified that they had no way to know or prove that the mother was even aware of the journal, so I can see why the Judge wouldn't allow testimony related to that.

I wasn't mentioning anything about the journal. Mrs C tried to use her attorney client privilege to show she was not trying to flee. She claimed to be waiting on her lawyer. That evidence did get put in, but quite limited, to show she was lying.

[RVInit]

Some of you might be interested in what the appeals court had to say about allowing this case to go forward to trial. I will try to attach the whole file, but I think it may be too large. But this excerpt addresses the two big questions. The first is whether the parents could even possibly be responsible. The second addresses the slippery slope question.

In closing, the defense appealed to the 50% of society that is fear driven - telling them that if they ever said even one little thing like "My kid is crazy today" that they will be prosecuted if their kid does something. She ranted on and on for at least 20 minutes with fearmongering that every parent has to worry now about being charged for their kids' crimes.

Here is what the appeals court said about that and the issue of why this case could go forward:

But here, as we have explained, the evidence showed the opposite. Defendants’ actions and inactions were inexorably intertwined with EC’s actions, i.e., with the intervening cause. This connection exists not simply because of the parent-child relationship but also because of the facts showing that defendants were actively involved in EC’s mental state remaining untreated, that they provided him with the weapon used to kill the victims, and that they refused to remove him from the situation that led directly to the shootings. In this circumstance, a reasonable juror could conclude that defendants’ “conduct ‘increase[d] the foreseeable risk of a particular harm occurring through . . . a second actor,” State v Pesquiera, 235 Ariz 470, 477; 333 P3d 797 (App, 2014) (citations omitted), and that what EC did at Oxford High School that day was foreseeable.12


Finally, we share defendants’ concern about the potential for this decision to be applied in the future to parents whose situation viz-a-viz their child’s intentional conduct is not as closely tied together, and/or the warning signs and evidence were not as substantial as they are here. But those concerns are significantly diminished by several well-established principles. First, the principle that grossly negligent or intentional acts are generally superseding causes remains intact. We simply hold that with these unique facts, and in this procedural posture and applicable standard of review, this case falls outside the general rule regarding intentional acts because EC’s acts were reasonably foreseeable, and that is the ultimate test that must be applied.13 Second, our decision is based solely on the record evidence, and the actions and inactions taken by defendants despite the uniquely troubling facts of which they were fully aware. And this point is important, as although the judiciary typically recognizes that a decision’s precedent is limited by the facts at issue, it is particularly true when the court expresses that limitation. See, e.g., People v Carter, 503 Mich 221, 229-230; 931 NW2d 566 (2019); People v Dabish, 181 Mich App 469, 478; 450 NW2d 44 (1989); Duvall v Goldin, 139 Mich App 342, 352; 362 NW2d 275 (1984), and Crawfis v Gardner, 65 Mich App 502, 504-506; 237 NW2d 509 (1975). Third, our decision is premised upon a deferential standard of review, and is based only upon the record established at the preliminary exam. Whether a jury actually finds that causation has been proven after a full trial, where the record will almost surely be more expansive (including evidence produced by defendants), is an issue separate from what we decide today.

[RVInit]

Here is Dr G (psychiatrist and body language) take on Ms Crumbley's testimony, portions of direct and portions of cross. He points out quite a bit about what she says as well as some commentary on how she says it, facial expressions and other interesting elements of how she speaks.

[RVInit]

Uh oh. The jury has come back with a question and it doesn't sound very good for the defense. We may be headed for guilty verdicts. She is charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. I think we might know soon, based on the jury questions.

[RVInit]

There is another jury question. Now I am thinking there is a single or small number of holdouts. This new question is something about "can we infer evidence based on the prosecutor not bringing in the shooter or evidence of how the shooter got the gun".

Honestly, I believe they have enough evidence to figure out that the parents simply GAVE him the gun and he was keeping it in his room. Text messages show that Mrs C texted Mr C as to what time and place he needed to pee. He is a Door Dasher, not a regular job. They have text messages showing her texting him about if he's going to Door Dash. He indicates he's leaving soon. That is AFTER Ethan left for school in the morning. Ethan had the book bag and gun with him at school. So, he already had the gun before dad got out of bed in the morning.

When Dad got the shooter alert he immediately went home. He called Mrs C and they had a seven minute conversation. When the police showed up, the open gun case was on the parent's bed. Ok, so, he left for school WITH the gun, Dad was asleep, but at the meeting Dad said NOTHING about an empty gun case on his bed when he awoke in the morning. I think it's pretty easy to determine, when you consider all the inappropriate behaviors between parents and son, such as telling him it's OK to search for bullets during school, just don't get caught, a single example.

I think it's highly probable that Ethan was keeping his gun in his room and that Mom probably told dad to move the empty gun case to their bedroom before calling the police.

Why the prosecution didn't point this out in closing is beyond me. I really think they MISSED it, because to me this timing of leaving for school vs dad still asleep vs gun case "found empty on parent's bed" seems problematic and suspicious. Also, why in the hell would the parents keep "their" guns, which included a .22, which is almost a toy gun, locked in a gun case, but the 9mm was "hidden in their dresser drawer". WTF? Just that alone is negligent, given Ethan's singular obsession with guns.

[RVInit]

If the jury is arguing over how they got the gun, they may come back with not guilty based on the judge telling them they can only use the evidence at hand. But I honestly don't even think the prosecution themselves even noticed the evidence that I pointed out in my post above. Because, if they did notice it, they sure as hell should have made it clear in closing and also made it clear as they were putting the evidence on. I do have a tendency to remember what one witness said and then a few days later hear something else, and then remember and tie the two together, but I have noticed not a lot of people have that tendency to do that. I'm sure there are things that I miss, but this was, IMO, kind of big, and I was stunned that the prosecution didn't see this issue of timing that is right in their own evidence in their case. Or forgot to point it out to the jury. As much as they prepare for closing I doubt they forgot it, I think nobody put those two things together, which were presented days apart.

[Rolodex]

This is sort of a long article, but it does have descriptions of each jury member. Maybe something about them will tell us why they're asking the questions they're asking.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 339826007/

[RVInit]

This is sort of a long article, but it does have descriptions of each jury member. Maybe something about them will tell us why they're asking the questions they're asking.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 339826007/

Interesting. Juror number two seems possibly deceptive to me. Stays away from social media but DESPISES TikTok. That is an awful strong word to be using about something he claims to stay away from. Maybe he means he despises the idea of TikTok, but somehow I think he meant exactly what he says. I wouldn't want him on this jury if I was the prosecution. I don't know if they announced which jurors are alternates, I will see if I can find out.

[Rolodex]

I think alternates are chosen at random. I didn't watch this morning so I don't know if that was on video. I was intrigued by the comments by/to the engineer - binary black/white thinkers. He might be the one who inspired the questions. Overall, it looks like a good jury.

ETA: re the doctor. That could go either way. The good doctors are the ones who know what they don't know. The bad ones are the ones who don't know what they don't know (dumb) or don't think it's possible they don't know everything, don't like their authority questioned on anything. I wonder what kind of practice they have if they can be gone for so many days. I'm married to a doc in clinical practice, and they've done everything possible to not do jury duty. It would displace so many patients in a two week time, for example, that rescheduling them would be a nightmare.

[sugar magnolia]

If the jury is arguing over how they got the gun, they may come back with not guilty based on the judge telling them they can only use the evidence at hand. But I honestly don't even think the prosecution themselves even noticed the evidence that I pointed out in my post above. Because, if they did notice it, they sure as hell should have made it clear in closing and also made it clear as they were putting the evidence on. I do have a tendency to remember what one witness said and then a few days later hear something else, and then remember and tie the two together, but I have noticed not a lot of people have that tendency to do that. I'm sure there are things that I miss, but this was, IMO, kind of big, and I was stunned that the prosecution didn't see this issue of timing that is right in their own evidence in their case. Or forgot to point it out to the jury. As much as they prepare for closing I doubt they forgot it, I think nobody put those two things together, which were presented days apart.

I doubt seriously they simply forgot to mention something to the jury or that they didn't realize the importance of something. More likely, there is a reason they did things the way they did, whether it be a legal reason the general public is unaware of or for another perfectly legitimate reason.

[sugar magnolia]

This is sort of a long article, but it does have descriptions of each jury member. Maybe something about them will tell us why they're asking the questions they're asking.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... 339826007/

Interesting. Juror number two seems possibly deceptive to me. Stays away from social media but DESPISES TikTok. That is an awful strong word to be using about something he claims to stay away from. Maybe he means he despises the idea of TikTok, but somehow I think he meant exactly what he says. I wouldn't want him on this jury if I was the prosecution. I don't know if they announced which jurors are alternates, I will see if I can find out.

As much publicity as tiktok has gotten for their stupid "challenges" that are hurting and killing people, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that someone who only knows that aspect of it would assume that's all there is to it and "despise" it for that reason.

[Rolodex]

I agree about the Tik Tok thing. I'm don't have that app, but I know a lot about it through osmosis! There is a lot of "news" about it because of the Chinese ties. And maybe that person has a friend or family member who talks about nothing but TT or who posts incessantly. Could be a lot of reasons.

[RVInit]

The alternates are 15, 17, 10, 4, 9. Juror 2 is deliberating.