GUILTY WI - Darrell Brooks Rams Car Into Holiday Parade Crowd - 6 dead/61 Injured - Waukesha #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
katydid23 said:
I think she is afraid of a mistrial. This defendant is is horridly disruptive and manipulative that placing a co-attorney into the mix could implode the trial. This guy is too unpredictable and he could assault the guy, or do something to make things go sideways.

This is the last day of witnesses and then it goes to closing statements and jury instructions. Bringing in another attorney at this point could backfire in so many ways. JMO
Click to expand...
Yes, let’s get thru this.
 
steeltowngirl said:
Had to grab a call. Is this witness on now with the long red hair the mom of 4?

Why is he badgering her about why she said his name?

HE IS SADISTIC
Click to expand...
I gasped a little when she said his name. He thought he had something and went after it. As she was carefully answering his questions, I realized that her first subpoena was from the state. Calling a witness for your defense that you didn't know was on the state's list was not the wisest move. But then again, I don't understand to point of any of his witnesses.

Edited to add: just watched video interview with defense witness A.L. He said that he was suprised that he was called as a witness for the defense after the state had called him first.

 
Last edited:
Opening statement by Mr Brooks:

"I don't have a prepared statement...I will speak from my heart...."

" There's two sides to every story....this incident was not planned, was not intentional....it's easy to form opinions on something of this magnitude...its easy to forget the other side of the coin....ther's been a lot of suffering in this incident, obviously with the families....with the community, [sniff sniff, tears,] lots of misunderstanding, and suffering,

I just want you to keep in mind everything that will be presented, there's no telling the power that you have, I believe uh, that should escape your knowledge, this has been a long process for everybody.....

and what I believe is when its time for you to make your decision, I pray that its the right decision, that all the factors are weighed, there's been a lot of words thrown out there about the alleged, and the ridicule, words like demon, words like monster... [sob, sniffle] ...I know a lot of the time u see me with my mask on but I feel now is the time its important for you to see me for who I am, no mask, this is the moment for that...[sobbing,...]

Your eyes and ears need to be as open as possible, understand that you alone decide this matter, the power is in your hands, all of you to determine for yourselves what the truth is....Thank You."...[more sobbing and sniffling]
 
Woke up feeling a little worried about this. Please hear me out. DB is charged with first-degree intentional homicide 940.01. I feel like DB’s game in bringing some of the witnesses may be to demonstrate that public outcry led to overcharging.

He is creating a circus-like atmosphere to distract from the state‘s case to demonstrate intent - (a la the Casey Anthony case).

Legal folks: If the jury cannot find for intentional homicide, will the jury be able to choose to convict on 940.02 - reckless homicide?

WI statute:

Wisconsin Legislature: 940.01

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

DB charges:
 
steeltowngirl said:
Woke up feeling a little worried about this. Please hear me out. DB is charged with first-degree intentional homicide 940.01. I feel like DB’s game in bringing some of the witnesses may be to demonstrate that public outcry led to overcharging.

He is creating a circus-like atmosphere to distract from the state‘s case to demonstrate intent - (a la the Casey Anthony case).

Legal folks: If the jury cannot find for intentional homicide, will the jury be able to choose to convict on 940.02 - reckless homicide?

WI statute:

Wisconsin Legislature: 940.01

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

DB charges:
Click to expand...
I think the jury will find for intentional homicide. He drove right into the parade, past the barriers, and accelerated INTO a crowd of women and children. :mad:
 
katydid23 said:
Solitary would be utter torture for this narcissist. It would be the worst thing of all to him. Life wouldn't bother him because he can be a 'king' in prison and enjoy his ratchet life. I'd vote for death though. He is a vile, coldhearted monster with nothing to offer this world anymore. JMO
Click to expand...
unfortunately DP not an option. I would vote for DP for this guy however I agree about solitary.
 
steeltowngirl said:
Woke up feeling a little worried about this. Please hear me out. DB is charged with first-degree intentional homicide 940.01. I feel like DB’s game in bringing some of the witnesses may be to demonstrate that public outcry led to overcharging.

He is creating a circus-like atmosphere to distract from the state‘s case to demonstrate intent - (a la the Casey Anthony case).

Legal folks: If the jury cannot find for intentional homicide, will the jury be able to choose to convict on 940.02 - reckless homicide?

WI statute:

Wisconsin Legislature: 940.01

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

DB charges:
Click to expand...
i have the same concern and never trust a jury. Are lesser charges on there...?? He has been working on that and I think got the thought from previous public defenders...that is why certain witnesses were called. One thing in common to their testimony was horn blowing which he thinks means non intentional. That might work for initial crash but how about all the others? With those last witnesses he was trying to imply others in the car. He has done that consistently with the questions on tinted windows etc. again clearly a tactic from the public defenders. Every single witness put him in driver's seat so absent a remote control driver from back seat don't think that will go far! I think if even one juror had any doubts his courtroom behavior cannot be ignored...judge can admonish them to disregard his comments but come on...can't unring what we saw and can you imagine what this is like in person? Judge mentioned pages and pages of instructions and charges but with so many victims.
 
Question...I am going to go back and watch the first week this weekend but one thing that seems missing in State's case is having not just those with injured family/friends on the stand but what about the same from those who were killed? Maybe it was a time when I got interrupted. I thought the woman with 4 children was a great witness and evoked so much sympathy but what about those that lost family? Did I just miss them?
 
steeltowngirl said:
Woke up feeling a little worried about this. Please hear me out. DB is charged with first-degree intentional homicide 940.01. I feel like DB’s game in bringing some of the witnesses may be to demonstrate that public outcry led to overcharging.

He is creating a circus-like atmosphere to distract from the state‘s case to demonstrate intent - (a la the Casey Anthony case).

Legal folks: If the jury cannot find for intentional homicide, will the jury be able to choose to convict on 940.02 - reckless homicide?

WI statute:

Wisconsin Legislature: 940.01

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

DB charges:
Click to expand...

I remember when this first occurred and before I had a chance to see additional footage, I was questioning whether he tried to avoid people (as I thought maybe he did). Once I saw more and/or full video, there was no doubt... he drove "into" the victims. IMO, when jurors view ALL the evidence... intent will be clear. *As I say on every trial thread... jurors make me nervous. But, this time, I feel a little more confident.
 
Last edited:
fred&edna said:
I remember when this first occurred and before I had a chance to see additional footage, I was questioning whether he tried to avoid people (as I thought maybe he did). Once I saw more and/or full video, there was no doubt... he drove "into" the victims. IMO, when jurors view ALL the evidence... intent will be clear. *As I say on every trial thread... jurors make me nervous. But, this time, I feel a more confident.
Click to expand...
yesterday he did get one witness to say he "swerved around some kids" and he picked up on that just a bit but she then confirmed he plowed right into the next group of parade people.
 
fred&edna said:
I remember when this first occurred and before I had a chance to see additional footage, I was questioning whether he tried to avoid people (as I thought maybe he did). Once I saw more and/or full video, there was no doubt... he drove "into" the victims. IMO, when jurors view ALL the evidence... intent will be clear. *As I say on every trial thread... jurors make me nervous. But, this time, I feel a little more confident.
Click to expand...
If you shoot 30 rounds in a crowded theater, your intent was committed when you walked into that room intending to empty the magazine full of bullets.

If you drive down a parade route with reckless abandon and without concern about anyone but yourself, you intended to hurt or kill anyone in your way.

Just my thoughts.

Otis
 
I watched the entire replay of yesterdays "trial" last night before going to sleep. ( Not recommended by the way)

Towards the end, Brooks was in the other courtroom ranting. He is desperately trying to keep this trial from the inevitable, keeping his big monster toes in the way of the door being shut. And, he's loosing the battle.

He actually said.." It's four against one!", (while internally screaming for Momma!!)

If Momma does indeed show up in court on Monday, on behalf of and in defense of her son, I expect a day like yesterday. I can see DB attempting to slay the dragon that he thinks is EP through Mommas testimony. The state and the judge will not allow that, and the tantrums will continue. Delay the end at all cost.
Then the decision of whether he takes the stand....?????
Dude will not agree to either.....There will be no decision given freely by DB, IMO.

Hopefully, Judge Jen is getting some rest this weekend. Along with some strong legal advice on the way to proceed moving forward. This isn't over. And, Momma warned us all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fred&edna said:
I remember when this first occurred and before I had a chance to see additional footage, I was questioning whether he tried to avoid people (as I thought maybe he did). Once I saw more and/or full video, there was no doubt... he drove "into" the victims. IMO, when jurors view ALL the evidence... intent will be clear. *As I say on every trial thread... jurors make me nervous. But, this time, I feel a more confident.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are so many videos of the incident and around the time of the incident that it is overwhelmingly clear that he was the one operating the vehicle and drove intentionally into the parade. There is video of the vehicle before the incident without damage and after the incident with heavy damage and video of him leaving the vehicle on maple Street. He really has no case to prove himself innocent when there is so much evidence to the contrary. He has had many run ins with the law and is a violent man that really needed to be removed from society prior to this incident. It's clear who the guilty party is here, however, he shows no empathy or remorse for anything he has done. So he gets in an argument with an ex and decides to drive past marked and barricaded streets into innocent bystanders? Just as his actions then make no sense, his testimony in court will also not follow reason. He just wastes people's time; I think the jury can see that. It is all smoke and mirrors in the courtroom coming from him but in the end justice will be served and he will be answering to his crimes.
 
FunkyMonkey said:
Parenting is the main issue in creating this, IMO. Not holding children accountable for 18 years and wondering why they continue into adulthood. I’m not speaking of all parents, but those who excuse, enable, and promote defiant and aggressive behavior without consequences. At the point they reach the age to be involved with judicial systems as adults, the monster has been created and unleashed. MOO
Click to expand...
For sure! That’s why it rankles me that the mother isn’t there in the courtroom. I don’t think it’s bc she’s a potential witness. She’s choosing not to be there. She should be there behind her son. <modsnip: not victim friendly>
OtisC said:
If you shoot 30 rounds in a crowded theater, your intent was committed when you walked into that room intending to empty the magazine full of bullets.

If you drive down a parade route with reckless abandon and without concern about anyone but yourself, you intended to hurt or kill anyone in your way.

Just my thoughts.

Otis
Click to expand...
right! And the testimony of the officers who tried to stop him also completely undercuts his “unintentional” argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
katydid23 said:
I think the jury will find for intentional homicide. He drove right into the parade, past the barriers, and accelerated INTO a crowd of women and children. :mad:
Click to expand...

He seems to think that the fact people have testified they heard a horn honking absolves him of everything, but he’s honking the horn and running over people!
The fact he didn’t stop when he had the capability makes it intentional in my opinion and nobody has testified he tried to stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 175 more.
Total: 1,808 (members: 176, guests: 1,632)

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
1,632
Total visitors
1,808
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,017
Messages
18,102,672
Members
230,969
Latest member
Mr Eric
Back
Top