GUILTY MI - 4 students killed, 6 injured, Oxford High School shooting, 30 Nov 2021 *Arrest incl parents* *teen guilty* #6

[arielilane]

@cathyrusson

JURY QUESTION #2: Can we infer anything from witnesses or evidence that the prosecutor did not bring, specifically not bringing in the shooter or other people.


1:35 PM · Feb 5, 2024

 

[legalmomma]

I am thinking there is a hold out, after reviewing the jury makeup.

 

[LMDlong]

Smith trying to use answers that sway to defense side.

 

[LMDlong]

I am thinking there is a hold out, after reviewing the jury makeup.

No . Answer only to question asked.

 

[GRT]

I honestly don't know how this is going to go - apart from believing there will not be an acquittal.

But I would also be surprised if there was a Guilty verdict - just because I appreciate that things are so polarised when it comes to guns and parenting responsibilities vs rights. ( My personal view based on watching the trial is different)

Also IDK the implications of the alternates. If the alternates, as numbered by the judge just now , do correspond to the media's initial lists of jurors, it could be good for JC
( IDK if the jury seat arrangements matches across both sources - day of selection and today's date)

Yeah, it's a tough call.

I feel as though they should have charged her with something other than involuntary manslaughter.

Lousy parenting isn't a crime, in and of itself, but not keeping EC's gun secure was a crime. But, it was a misdemeanor.

I've heard legal opinions both ways.

For me, personally, I could not find her guilty because I don't believe if she had acted differently, EC would not have shot up the school. I think he was going to do it, if not that day--another day. And, who knows? There might have been a larger death toll on a different day.

I feel as though EC had made up his warped mind and short of physically restraining him--they weren't going to stop him. I think his mental illness was deep-seated but no one took the time to notice. And, even if they had, we don't punish people before they commit a crime, so I doubt anything could have been done.

All just MOO.

 

[GRT]

I am thinking there is a hold out, after reviewing the jury makeup.

I'm guessing they're fairly evenly split at this point.

We could see a hung jury.

 

[legalmomma]

No . Answer only to question asked.

I am not speaking about the question asked by the jury. I am thinking there is a juror that is wanting a NG verdict and these questions are to try and clarify for that juror(s) that want a NG verdict.

 

[Weki]

IMO that second question is can we judge the lack of evidence. Absolutely they can!

 

[cottonweaver]

they weren't given a copy of 2.9 which the judge says she read them on the first day of trial which was about ' evidence admitted in the case... and anything else I told you which can be classed as evidence..' ( paraphrasing)

Judge then reads 3.5 again ( which they do have a copy of and says something similar about what is classed as evidence)

Scary to me that a few hours in, juror/s don't understand what is trial evidence for deciding guilt and what cannot be considered. ( I've seen jurors ask this question before but still....)

First jury question seemed inevitable to me. Way it was drafted as clear as mud to lay people

 

[LMDlong]

I wonder if what the jury is trying to understand is that they cannot infer anything said by JC and EC in texts with Jennifer because they did not testify.
imo that could be confusing .

 

[Cryptic]

For me, personally, I could not find her guilty because I don't believe if she had acted differently, EC would not have shot up the school.

For me, what EC may of done would not matter.

Rather, I would find her guilty simply because she ignored a whole string of blatant warning signs that her son was an active danger, yet still facilitated his access to weapons.

What puts me over the edge to "guilty" is the sheer number of warning signs. In short, this was not a bad parenting issue of: Left a weapon unsecured. Then it was stolen by another teenager visiting the house.... .

 

[LMDlong]

IMO If they go by the letter of the law then she is guilty. Jennifer, who this trial is about did not fulfill her legal duty as a parent.

 

[LMDlong]

JC has used excuses , grandmother death, death of pet, friend leaving. She should have acted then. His actions then were red flags . IMO

 

[GRT]

For me, what EC may of done would not matter.

Rather, I would find her guilty simply because she ignored a whole string of blatant warning signs that her son was an active danger, yet still facilitated his access to weapons.

What puts me over the edge to "guilty" is the sheer number of warning signs. In short, this was not a bad parenting issue of: Left a weapon unsecured. Then it was stolen by another teenager visiting the house.... .

I think most parents will think she's a complete nut who should never have had children. For sure, she left the weapon unsecured, and from what I posted about MI law, that's a crime. But, just a misdemeanor. Not a felony.

But, when I read the two legal descriptions the jury has to pick from to find her guilty, I don't think either applies. I don't think the state made a good case for either.

However, if the jury goes mainly by how they feel about the woman, they may find her guilty.

It will be interesting to find out. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised to see a civil case.

 

[cottonweaver]

For me, what EC may of done would not matter.

Rather, I would find her guilty simply because she ignored a whole string of blatant warning signs that her son was an active danger, yet still facilitated his access to weapons.

What puts me over the edge to "guilty" is the sheer number of warning signs. In short, this was not a bad parenting issue of: Left a weapon unsecured. Then it was stolen by another teenager visiting the house.... .

an aside

one of the scary, risky things to me, was when EC is describing his paranoia about visual hallucinations.
In texts to his mom, he says wtte of ' somebody just came in and used the bathroom... switched on the lights... threw bowls around ... etc etc ( she doesn't reply until the next day)

with him having ready access to unsecured guns, and his mental state spiralling, I did wonder whether he might end up shooting his parents by mistake or another visitor who dropped by unexpectedly even if he hadn't shot up the school.

 

[Boodles]

For those who’ve followed this case from the very beginning (including EC’s guilty plea), why was EC not called to testify? The jurors wonder, and so do I. Was it a legal reason or just judgment by prosecution and defense?

 

[cottonweaver]

For those who’ve followed this case from the very beginning (including EC’s guilty plea), why was EC not called to testify? The jurors wonder, and so do I. Was it a legal reason or just judgment by prosecution and defense?

'
Jennifer Crumbley's manslaughter trial continued on Friday with Judge Cheryl Matthews saying she will prohibit the defense from calling her son, school shooter Ethan Crumbley, to the stand because he intends to plead the Fifth Amendment on the stand.

Ethan Crumbley's attorneys have also said they have asserted privilege over his medical records, keeping them from being admitted as evidence.'

Ethan Crumbley, who intends to plead the Fifth, will not take the stand in his mother's trial

Jennifer Crumbley's son, school shooter Ethan Crumbley, will not take the stand in his mother's trial because he intends to plead the Fifth, the judge said.

abcnews.go.com

better link
The judge presiding over the trial of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley’s mother said she would not allow the gunman to testify if he invokes his Fifth Amendment right, as his attorneys have previously indicated he would.
The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The amendment is often invoked to avoid answering specific questions during testimony.
“It’s not that I’m saying you can’t call him as a witness, but two of his attorneys have said in no uncertain terms that he’s taking the Fifth,” Judge Cheryl Matthews told defense attorney Shannon Smith in court Friday.
“I am going to prohibit you from putting any witness on the stand who takes the Fifth in front of the jury, that is strictly prohibited,” the judge said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/us/ethan-crumbley-fifth-amendment-testimony/index.html

 

[Sundog]

So factual causation is based on the drawing and them being told to take him home, had they taken him home, no shooting. So if there was no drawing and no reason to call the parents and he had done the shooting that day or the next, no factual causation?

Then there’s the issue of not securing the gun. Could they still be charged because of that? Is that proximate causation?

Very confusing imo

Regarding the storing of the gun, I don't think that locking a gun was legally required in Michigan at the time of the shooting. I may be wrong about this, but IIRC, that is the case.

Also, IIRC, I think it was established at JC's trial that James C. was the parent who failed to secure the gun, not JC.

 

[legalmomma]

IMO If they go by the letter of the law then she is guilty. Jennifer, who this trial is about did not fulfill her legal duty as a parent.

I'll bite...what is set forth in law as our legal duty as a parent?

 

[LMDlong]

Regarding the storing of the gun, I don't think that locking a gun was legally required in Michigan at the time of the shooting. I may be wrong about this, but IIRC, that is the case.

Also, IIRC, I think it was established at JC's trial that James C. was the parent who failed to secure the gun, not JC.

I don’t believe it was a law at the time of the shooting , but common sense should have been used. Especially after all the school shootings in this country.