GUILTY MI - Renisha McBride, 19, shot while trying to get help, Detroit, Nov 2013

[liljim]

This video shows the beginning of his testimony (10 minutes that aren't shown in the youtube version):

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/way...heodore-wafter-takes-stand-in-his-own-defense

Also I found a couple of other interesting notes in articles while looking for this. He apparently shot her with Buckshot, also he had found empty liquor bottles, syringes, etc...on his property at various times.

Seems to me he was very disorganized, first he goes in the kitchen and holds a baseball bat, then after a while he goes to the bedroom to get the shotgun he had bought 8 years earlier etc... I bet he really didn't know if it was loaded because he had let it sit there for years, he didn't even grab it first when the trouble started.

it is def possible, it is also possible he was more angry than afraid. he made some comments yesterday on the stand and in the police video that are going to be troubling for some jurors, i imagine the prosecution is going to go right into that this morning.

i guess i feel like this def could have played out either way (self-defense or reckless disregard) but the prosecution has to prove it, and i dont think they can to the satisfaction of all jurors. they might get some tho.

i really feel like reasonable people can see this case two totally different ways.

 

[AnaTeresa]

those questions were asked during the police interrogation, they were not brought up in court. (well not yet, he is back on the stand right now).

Sorry, I was unclear in my thoughts - first part of my statement had to do with why police would ask him that, the prostitute angle and whatnot. However, I was thinking also why they would show that question and response in court. Portions of police interviews where questions like that are asked are sometimes snipped and not shown to the jury, because they can be prejudicial. It's not really relevant, so I'm wondering why it was included. Either his attorney thinks it's benign and not worthy of fighting over, or they're going somewhere with it - and I was wondering if we were being walked into something or if there was going to be some sort of on stand bombshell.

 

[liljim]

^it just came up at trial hehe (and ok gotcha, i get what you meant)

not sure if it was objected to, seems prejudicial and of no value.

"Siringas asked Wafer about his comment to police that he never picked up prostitutes because Dearborn Heights police are too good. Wafer said "It's never crossed my mind to pick up a prostitute." He said he doesn't pick up prostitutes."

 

[Sonya610]

Sorry, I was unclear in my thoughts - first part of my statement had to do with why police would ask him that, the prostitute angle and whatnot.

I don't know why people think that line of questioning is "bizarre". It is not strange at all for folks familiar with different cultures.

I am a white woman, if I were shot by a black homeowner in a black neighborhood the FIRST assumption would be that I was there to buy drugs and that is the FIRST thing the police would investigate. If I were a white man then the first assumption would be I was there to buy drugs OR sex.

Does that mean the police think all white women are drug addicts? Nope, but under certain circumstances the likelihood of drugs being involved is extremely high.

It is not racist or prejudice it is just practical since that is the primary reason those meetings/incidents would occur.

 

[Sonya610]

Sorry, I was unclear in my thoughts - first part of my statement had to do with why police would ask him that, the prostitute angle and whatnot. However, I was thinking also why they would show that question and response in court.

Yes I agree on that part, showing that in court would likely be an attempt to prejudice the jury. Since that line of police inquiry lead nowhere there would be NO reason to bring it up in front of the jury unless they wanted to plant thoughts in the juries head.

Honestly from what little I have seen of this trial if he is convicted I can see an immediate appeal.

 

[liljim]

he might be talking himself into a conviction today, they are getting into the nuts and bolts of his state of mind and the actual trigger pull and he is digging a hole for sure.

he just said "i drew first, thats how i see it" - "i shot out of fear" , hmmm and one more thing i cant remember

prosecution is going to go to town with this and the anger comments in closing.

 

[Sonya610]

he might be talking himself into a conviction today, they are getting into the nuts and bolts of his state of mind and the actual trigger pull and he is digging a hole for sure.

Is this being live streamed anywhere? If so please post the link!

 

[liljim]

just tweets/blogs, no live video (tho clips of video are coming out quickly after the fact, he was still on the stand yesterday when HLN started running his earlier testimony;

https://twitter.com/idabeewells

http://www.freep.com/article/20140805/NEWS02/308050051/theodore-wafer-day-8-renisha-mcbride

 

[liljim]

defense requested again for the jury to be able to ask questions, was denied earlier...

something about a juror passing a note to a deputy... that cant be good...

 

[Sonya610]

Somewhat OT but since the subject of shotgun shells came up, and since it was stated he used buckshot (which is appropriate for self-defense) here is an example of the different types of shot. Bird shot is obviously for shooting birds (not good for self-defense unless you expect to be attacked by small birds) whereas buckshot is designed to take down much larger animals/humans.

FYI for folks that buy shotguns and aren't familiar with them, especially women, you have to choose your ammo carefully, buckshot can cause the shotgun to kick back so hard it will hurt/stun smaller framed shooters.

 

[daisy7]

defense requested again for the jury to be able to ask questions, was denied earlier...

something about a juror passing a note to a deputy... that cant be good...

Is the jury asking questions normal for MI? I never even knew they could do this til the Arias trial.

 

[liljim]

which raises an interesting question sonya - if he fired buckshot unexpectedly after just raising the gun from his side, unsupported - that gun should have flown right out of his hands. i wonder if prosecution is going to go there...

 

[islandmixed]

OMGGGGGGGGH he took the stand. Need to get my thoughts and words together before I comment on this one...WHOA

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

 

[liljim]

very short (and awful imo) redirect, no recross, lunch break.

 

[Sonya610]

which raises an interesting question sonya - if he fired buckshot unexpectedly after just raising the gun from his side, unsupported - that gun should have flown right out of his hands. i wonder if prosecution is going to go there...

That is a very good point! I don't think it could be controlled with one hand, IMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That is a very good point! I don't think it could be controlled with one hand, IMO.

It may seem that way but I don't think the gun flew out of his hand. There are multiple youtube videos showing men and women firing a shotgun like this with one hand only when it had the pistol grip. That is the purpose of it having a pistol grip.

If it would fly out of the hand of the person's hand shooting it then the manufacturer would be in deep do and would have been sued by now. This shotgun has a pistol grip because it can be fired like a handgun and also has a regular stock butt attachment that comes with it where you raise it up to your shoulder, aim, and then fire.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

very short (and awful imo) redirect, no recross, lunch break.

I actually prefer short re-directs. She touched on what is relevant to the case. I don't like it when the attorney (Prosecution or defense) tries to re-enter all the evidence that has already been put forth to the jury over and over again anyway.

That is one of the reasons why Juan Martinez is famous as a Prosecutor. His re-directs or the last follow up cross examination is quick and to the point and then he sits down.

All of the things brought out by the state has already been entered in the case ad nauseaum. The jury has already heard it all.

The defense attorney will detail all of the pertinent facts in her closing arguments. Many times rather than bore a jury an attorney knows what to ask and then sits down knowing all of this will be gone over with them in depth during closing arguments.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

OMGGGGGGGGH he took the stand. Need to get my thoughts and words together before I comment on this one...WHOA

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk now Free

On another site I read a post by someone who lives there and she said her local news station said one female juror was crying during Wafer's direct testimony yesterday and another person attending the trial said it was the most heart rendering testimony he had ever witnessed when Wafer testified. I think she said it was on the local Channel 2 out of Detroit. It may be up in a print article later on today. If so, I will link it... so until then just take it with a grain of salt.

Although with this trial only being tweeted I don't think we have a clue how the jury is responding to all of the testimony. Even some of the tweets have the personal interpretation of the tweeter mixed up in them. You can read two tweets about the same piece of testimony and get a different feel of what has been said.

For instance most of the tweeters said Werner Spitz acted goofy and was combative, however; I have read a blog showing part of his testimony and he seems very coherent in his thinking and gives a rational opinion.

That is why I wish the trial was streaming live on line somewhere so each of us could see for ourselves what is truly being said and the reaction from the jury and not having to rely on someone else to spoon feed us information.

When tweets are the only access to information they can be twisted if the tweeter has their own biases or opinions about guilt or innocence. And tweets aren't even the full testimony of what is being said. It is just short tweets of some of it leaving much of the testimony unknown.

Maybe after the trial HLN will air the entire trial. Although I haven't watched HLN for years now ......I would try to stomach it if they showed this trial.

IMO

 

[liljim]

It may seem that way but I don't think the gun flew out of his hand. There are multiple youtube videos showing men and women firing a shotgun like this with one hand only when it had the pistol grip. That is the purpose of it having a pistol grip.

If it would fly out of the hand of the person's hand shooting it then the manufacturer would be in deep do and would have been sued by now. This shotgun has a pistol grip because it can be fired like a handgun and also has a regular stock butt attachment that comes with it where you raise it up to your shoulder, aim, and then fire.

IMO

the purpose of the pistol grip is not so you can fire it like a handgun at all, and have you ever fired it? if you think it wont fly out of your hands if it goes off unexpectedly with buckshot in it you are mistaken. the people you are watching in these videos are expecting to shoot the gun right?

 

[liljim]

I actually prefer short re-directs. She touched on what is relevant to the case. I don't like it when the attorney (Prosecution or defense) tries to re-enter all the evidence that has already been put forth to the jury over and over again anyway.

That is one of the reasons why Juan Martinez is famous as a Prosecutor. His re-directs or the last follow up cross examination is quick and to the point and then he sits down.

All of the things brought out by the state has already been entered in the case ad nauseaum. The jury has already heard it all.

The defense attorney will detail all of the pertinent facts in her closing arguments. Many times rather than bore a jury an attorney knows what to ask and then sits down knowing all of this will be gone over with them in depth during closing arguments.

IMO

in redirect she did not touch one bit on the most important aspects of the case, things that were not discussed at all prior to cross, they could not possibly have been because wafer never said some of them until cross. the redirect still could have been short and rebutted these points, instead she didnt address them at all, she better address them thoroughly in closing but even that cant make up for not letting them hear furhter explanation from wafer's mouth.

maybe she was legitimately worried that she couldnt rehabilitate him on those points and just figured it was better off not to say another word about them.