There are definitely texts between the parents that suggest they knew EC was in a precarious position. And the text from JC to EC saying “don’t do it.” But the state doesn’t focus on those nor do they use them to argue that they knew something was up. I don’t know why that is. They also don’t spend too much time on what happened the night before - the argument between the parents and EC where he goes out to the shed and makes a video saying what he’s gonna do. I think that was a trigger point for EC. The video was not allowed in evidence but I think that still sets up a scenario where they could’ve argued they knew what he would do. I would’ve hammered that throughout the trial and asked her about it repeatedly on the stand regardless of her answer. Jmo
GUILTY MI - 4 students killed, 6 injured, Oxford High School shooting, 30 Nov 2021 *Arrest incl parents* *teen guilty* #6
- Thread starter dotr
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2018
- Messages
- 9,438
- Reaction score
- 72,912
I think you're probably right on that! I just dislike her so much, I am not always objective.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Agree.
I should have followed the pre-trial motions - maybe then I'd understand why his selfie video didn't come into trial ( Where he's also saying that he'd asked his parents for help, in the video posted night before)
OTOH the state did raise the point that JC lied when she said night of fight, she'd take away his phone and shooting range because in reality he's still got access to the phone ( how else could he make the video that night or have the phone on his person when he's arrested next day)
----
Pre-trial motions
Here's an example of different evidence which Judge Cheryl Matthews ruled shouldn't come in:
why would you reply ' dead' if you didn't know your son was killing birds or collecting them?
is it unfairly prejudicial to ask JC that question?
this is the judge's justification which seems overly-emotional and bizarre to a non-lawyer like me.
Photos of dead human victims are allowed but dead birds risks inflaming the passions of a jury. Wut?!
Is it just me who thinks that her ruling makes no sense?
Crumbley mom spared from salacious past being used against her in school shooting trial
Judge rules that Jennifer Crumbley's affair and her son's torture of birds won't be allowed as evidence at her trial.
eu.freep.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,977
- Reaction score
- 19,096
I admit I did not watch the trial nor followed this case on WS, but have kept up with news/evidence coming out from her trial and watched the closings. I think it was brilliant of Shannon Smith to close her defense case and send it to closing arguments to surprise the prosecution. It caught the prosecution off guard which was evident in their closing. Defense closing was very effective; it forced parents on the jury to question "Could I be charged for all actions of my child?" I just don't see criminal culpability here. Aside from the segment on charging juveniles for adult crimes, this Op Ed is my position. "The Crumbleys are the first parents to face homicide charges for a school shooting by their child." The jury isn't there to find causation of school shootings.
www.nytimes.com
"The prosecution seems to be motivated, at least partly, by the grief of a local community and the ambient desperation of a country trapped in the recurring nightmare of mass shootings. Our politicians are ineffective; the courts don’t make headway; we can’t even agree on what’s causing the bloodshed. Parents are worn brittle by daily awareness that their children’s school could be next. We can’t fix the interlinked failures behind the slaughter — but we can sue schools and parents and, now, we can drag the unsympathetic Crumbleys into criminal court. We crave villains to blame, a case to try, something tangible to do. Maybe, at least, it will make us feel better."...
'An involuntary manslaughter conviction, however, requires much harder evidence. Prosecutors need to prove that the Crumbleys knew there was real danger of their son attacking his schoolmates, but were indifferent to that result and wantonly neglected to intervene."
----------------------------------------------------
I believe the correct verdict is Not Guilty.
Opinion | What Is This Mother Really Guilty Of?
Jennifer Crumbley’s teenage son killed classmates with a gun she gave him. But she should not be tried for homicide.
"The prosecution seems to be motivated, at least partly, by the grief of a local community and the ambient desperation of a country trapped in the recurring nightmare of mass shootings. Our politicians are ineffective; the courts don’t make headway; we can’t even agree on what’s causing the bloodshed. Parents are worn brittle by daily awareness that their children’s school could be next. We can’t fix the interlinked failures behind the slaughter — but we can sue schools and parents and, now, we can drag the unsympathetic Crumbleys into criminal court. We crave villains to blame, a case to try, something tangible to do. Maybe, at least, it will make us feel better."...
'An involuntary manslaughter conviction, however, requires much harder evidence. Prosecutors need to prove that the Crumbleys knew there was real danger of their son attacking his schoolmates, but were indifferent to that result and wantonly neglected to intervene."
----------------------------------------------------
I believe the correct verdict is Not Guilty.
@legalmomma wow! I was watching when defense surprised the state by ending her case and I didn’t put 2 and 2 together. McDonald was totally unprepared to do her closing and that’s why it sucked! As soon as Smith said defense rests McDonald jumped up to complain defensively. She was caught off guard. She said they would need to incorporate what JC testified to but still. She came to court that day expecting to finish defense’s case and do closings today! Smith has played the state from beginning to end.
JMO
JMO
Thrust or no trust she was texting Kira within 1.5 minutes of leaving the school parking lot about her riding lesson later in the day( she didn't cancel it) and asking if the vet had been there yet for Billy's leg.
It's a prime example of where her priority was immediately after leaving the school meeting.
I don't remember if the state grilled her and got any answer from her on what "stupid" and "dumb" thing was she in fear that her son would do?
She did testify that she gave James the papers to start looking for mental help for EC.
She did know what time EC got home from school and James told her that she was a few minutes off and it wasn't the time yet.
She texted James asking if EC was home yet like 3 mins before his expected time.
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
"Could I be charged for all actions of my child?"
Obviously the answer is no. If the jurors are so gullible that they think that is the question, then this case shouldn't have been a jury trial
Obviously the answer is no. If the jurors are so gullible that they think that is the question, then this case shouldn't have been a jury trial
I think SS really does get confused and is disorganized, has trouble keeping track. It wonder if it’s possibly ADHD. Regardless of the cause of her behavior, it must be frustrating to the judge, definitely the prosecution, and the jury. JMO.
Who knows that their kid gets home from school at “3:16”? Thats awfully precise!
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,431
- Reaction score
- 35,710
Appeal court - during a Court of Appeals hearing that occurred in March 2023
The appellate judges did not say definitively then if they believe James and Jennifer Crumbley could have foreseen the mass shooting carried out by their son. At least two of the three judges did say, however, they believe causation would be easy to prove in this case.
“We’ll grant you that you have to show factual cause and proximate cause. I think factual cause, at least under probable cause standard, is not even worth discussing today,” the judge continued. “But, in terms of proximate cause: Isn’t it just simply a question of foreseeability? And, as Judge Murray says, something beyond negligence can be foreseeable, and it seems to me these sorts of facts are exactly where it would be foreseeable.”
The legal issue of “negligence” is broken down into a few sub-categories, including “causation.” There are multiple types of causation, including factual and proximate.
Factual causation determines if the incident -- in this case, a mass shooting -- would have occurred without the action or inaction of the defendants. The appellate judges seemed to agree that factual causation is obvious in this case, saying that it’d be easy to prove that if the parents had taken their son out of school the morning of the shooting, the Oxford shooting wouldn’t have happened.
Proximate causation determines if there is a cause behind the incident that can hold the defendant legally liable in that incident. Proximate cause was also debated in March. The prosecution said then that in the lower court’s hearing of the case, the court focused more on factual causation than on proximate causation.
The defense argues that there isn’t any argument for any causation between the Crumbley parents and the Oxford shooting.
www.clickondetroit.com
bear in mind the obvious point that none of the judges could foresee the quality of arguments at the actual trial.
The appellate judges did not say definitively then if they believe James and Jennifer Crumbley could have foreseen the mass shooting carried out by their son. At least two of the three judges did say, however, they believe causation would be easy to prove in this case.
“We’ll grant you that you have to show factual cause and proximate cause. I think factual cause, at least under probable cause standard, is not even worth discussing today,” the judge continued. “But, in terms of proximate cause: Isn’t it just simply a question of foreseeability? And, as Judge Murray says, something beyond negligence can be foreseeable, and it seems to me these sorts of facts are exactly where it would be foreseeable.”
The legal issue of “negligence” is broken down into a few sub-categories, including “causation.” There are multiple types of causation, including factual and proximate.
Factual causation determines if the incident -- in this case, a mass shooting -- would have occurred without the action or inaction of the defendants. The appellate judges seemed to agree that factual causation is obvious in this case, saying that it’d be easy to prove that if the parents had taken their son out of school the morning of the shooting, the Oxford shooting wouldn’t have happened.
Proximate causation determines if there is a cause behind the incident that can hold the defendant legally liable in that incident. Proximate cause was also debated in March. The prosecution said then that in the lower court’s hearing of the case, the court focused more on factual causation than on proximate causation.
The defense argues that there isn’t any argument for any causation between the Crumbley parents and the Oxford shooting.
Judge grants request from Oxford shooter’s parents to have separate trials
A judge has granted the request from the parents of the Oxford High School shooter to have separate trials for their involuntary manslaughter charges.
bear in mind the obvious point that none of the judges could foresee the quality of arguments at the actual trial.
Thinking about that IIRC: when asked about EC doing something dumb or stupid on the way home from school I think she said something about EC stopping at an ice cream shop or some place like that which made no sense to me.
Does anyone remember this line of questioning?
Trying to keep up with jury instructions:
Jury must find beyond reasonable doubt:
1. (Improperly?) Storing a firearm & ammunition
2. That in doing so, defendant acted in grossly negligent manner.
Theories - one or both to be true
1. Failure to perform legal duty to take care (exercise reasonable care to control & prevent minor child from intentionally harming others), etc. or minor child conducting himself in a way that prevents mc from causing bodily harm & defendant knew
2. Defendant was grossly negligent by failure to perform legal duty
Gross negligence:
1. Defendant knew of danger requiring her to take ordinary care to avoid injury to another
2. ?
3. failed to take ordinary care
Jury must find beyond reasonable doubt:
1. (Improperly?) Storing a firearm & ammunition
2. That in doing so, defendant acted in grossly negligent manner.
Theories - one or both to be true
1. Failure to perform legal duty to take care (exercise reasonable care to control & prevent minor child from intentionally harming others), etc. or minor child conducting himself in a way that prevents mc from causing bodily harm & defendant knew
2. Defendant was grossly negligent by failure to perform legal duty
Gross negligence:
1. Defendant knew of danger requiring her to take ordinary care to avoid injury to another
2. ?
3. failed to take ordinary care
Was it legal in Michigan for the parents to buy their 15 yr old a gun?
I know that EC's testimony was not admissible but he said that his money was used to buy the gun and the gun wasn't secured.
I know that EC's testimony was not admissible but he said that his money was used to buy the gun and the gun wasn't secured.
Ethan Crumbley: I gave my dad money to buy gun used in school shooting
The teenager contradicted his parents' story that the gun used to kill classmates was locked up and says he gave his dad money to buy the weapon.
www.freep.com
Yikes, talk about wasting time.
Or am I missing the purpose?
The jury can replay a witness's testimony but they can't fast forward the video to look for the question/answer they want replayed.
They have to listen to the full video, or until they arrive at wanted line of questioning.
Or am I missing the purpose?
The jury can replay a witness's testimony but they can't fast forward the video to look for the question/answer they want replayed.
They have to listen to the full video, or until they arrive at wanted line of questioning.
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
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
JC told Keast that she trusted James giving EC the gun and securing it etc.
Then Keast listed all the things that she didn't trust James with, like getting up for work on time.
Anyone remember what other things Keast listed off that JC agreed with?
Then Keast listed all the things that she didn't trust James with, like getting up for work on time.
Anyone remember what other things Keast listed off that JC agreed with?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 96
- Guests online
- 2,593
- Total visitors
- 2,689