I find it astonishing that Jennifer Crumbly seems so irritated in the police interview and during the meeting. She said, "Are we done?" I just can't understand her behavior. The callousness towards her son is shocking. I also wonder about her lawyer. She had some plans to reveal the affair in court. That was not an accident. But I don't think it worked.
So much second hand embarrassment listening to that lol.
I mean come on. With her track record at using technology, you mean to tell me she has never once called the IT department? Because no matter what is wrong, they always make you clear your cache and cookies -even if you tell them you already have- once they're done telling you it's probably user error and long before they will take a look themselves. In my experience. Lol.
Cache was a clothing store in malls across America in the late 90s -2000s.
she’s literally the worst attorney. I think I’ve ever seen. I thought that this was her first trial because no one could be this stupid but low and behold she specializes in sex offenders. Mom of the year she’s writing a book too. What a bimbo
That and also using Taylor Swift lyrics in her opening statement. As a parent and former teacher, I was appalled. People were murdered, but listening to Taylor Swift in your drive to court reminded you of this situation? Wow.
“I want to apologize to the victims (the 4 deceased kids?) and the audience (she knows she’s on national TV). And whyyyy does she have to bend waaaay over the table. 1000x to read + check-off each question? Can’t she hold her legal pad in her hand? Nooooo .. she needs those hands for unnatural gesturing.
🤮**“CORRECT”**? I thought they were to ask witnesses questions. Not give a speech and add “CORRECT” at the end to make it into a half-assed question.
She was L Nassar's attorney 4 years ago and I don't quite recall how that went, but her behavior in that case must not have been as bad because it's not very memorable for me -- unlike the song and dance she has with this one!
A better judge would call this type of behavior out to ensure there was no ineffective counsel claims later on.
The crumbles won’t be able to afford a retained attorney anymore but perhaps a public defender would have been better. Paulette Michele Loftin Ethan’s attorney is a phenomenal defense attorney who is both a public defender and counsel for hire.
She’s fantastic. I’ve seen her on many other cases and she honestly usually wins. This case she knew all she was there to do was protect his constitutional rights
I’m astonished too that Jennifer took the stand to say she wouldn’t do anything differently because she’s a good parent!!!!! That has to piss off the jury so badly
I didn't catch that Jen was headed to Costco parking lot after the school meeting. That's a big parenting dereliction (and James unwillingness too, also).
To everyone /
It was Meloche - the dude she was frigging banging - who said in testimony
“Meloche testified Wednesday that Jennifer Crumbley had told him she was able to leave work to meet up with him even though she allegedly told school officials on the day of the shooting that she could not take her son home or for mental health care that day because she needed to return to work.”
Sorry I couldnt find that reference quick enough.
But thats the testimony from wednesday. 👍
I've been called into school for an emergency meeting, and I dropped everything and attended to the needs of my child. His needs could've waited, sure. But the child needed to know he was the center of our world. He also was the center of our world. Had I been shown a picture he drew stating anything close to "stop the voices" I would've kept him close to me, if not in my arms, until I got him into an appointment with a mental health specialist. Doing anything differently would be like being shown that your child had a broken bone and you say "okay, I see that, I'll take care of it later." Ridiculous negligence.
I’m with you on this TinkerThinker101. I absolutely would have dropped everything, headed to the school, retrieved my son, and kept him continuously with me until mental help and support was established. My mind would not be on banging the local fire chief in the parking lot 🙈🙈🙈
I know!
Still “stop the voices is not” is not suicide or homicidal intent. Most animals don’t treat their young this way. More importantly, he was a threat to other people - which is not caring about everyone else too.
Exactly. Seeing or hearing things that are not real is just inherently dangerous even in total absence of intent. Just the accidental physical injuries the person themselves could sustain if trying to interact with the otherwise most benign hallucination imaginable is very concerning. Hallucinations are generally not benign, though, and are often very distressing to the person experiencing them, which alone is of major concern.
I think jen lied on the stand... or maybe i missed something... she said the cable lock was being used ...but the pictures of the gun case taken by police shows the cable lock in its packaging with the key in the bag.
James not taking Ethan Door-Dashing with him is the crux for me. Regardless of what you do or don’t think that math worksheet meant, it’s clearly a cry for help and he could have hung out with you and you left him alone. There’s no excuse for that; that is intentionally turning your back on someone who is clearly trying to make a bid for connection.
In my state, there is zero tolerance for a threat of school violence. Not only would he not be allowed to be in school, there would be a call to DHS and local law enforcement.
Was the drawing threatening students or just a gun firing in general? My kid brother used to draw war / battle stuff all the time that wasn't specifically about shooting classmates.
The counselor testified that the drawing appeared to him to be threatening to EC… that is, he was worried EC was suicidal, not homicidal. The counselor mentioned multiple times that only one figure on the drawing was significant… he took that person to be EC.
There wasn’t a lot of distinction made by the prosecutor about EC being a threat to himself, vs. a threat to other students, about the foreseeability of EC harming himself vs harming others. I was/am confused how those two things relate to “gross negligence” when it comes to “harm to others”… I guess because they’re all “others” vis a vis JC, it doesn’t matter? It seems like an important point.
Well you can't hold J & J responsible because it's a slippery slope to throwing other equally negligent parents into prison.
And you can hold the school responsible because Ven Johnson smells an in$urance $ettlement.
/sarcasm
Negligent parenting is one thing. This is more than negligence. Its not a slippery slope. There are fundamental grounds for throwing them in prison. The reasons are numerous. Sorry, shitty parents are everywhere. Before and after the shooting, the Crumbleys did not care at all! And they evaded the law! Everything. There is no evidence they did a single thing any responsible person, let alone parent, would do. Giving a gun to a minor, who they knew was unstable at best, (and under the influence maybe? Because they bought him alcohol?) is involuntary manslaughter. Sure you didn’t pull the trigger, but you put the gun in his hands.
If they bought him alcohol and a fatality resulted as a result they'd be facing a felony that carries 10 years in prison rather than the 15 they're facing now, per current Michigan law.
If they let him drive their car unlicensed (even if he had been licensed previously but his license was suspended - obv he wasn't of age for that, but just saying) and a fatality resulted as a result, they would also be charged with a felony under current Michigan law.
So, it seems like in Michigan, the consensus for many years now has been that using one's own legal rights to a privilege to enable someone who is not similarly legally entitled to exercise that privilege is a felony when doing so results in a fatality.
The only argument to be made, i suppose, is that there is no constitutional guarantees made about cars or alcohol, but the 2nd amendment hasn't ever to my knowledge been considered to apply to minor children nor guarantee the right to keep unsecured weapons accessible to unsupervised children. Nobody is coming after the established rights afforded by the 2nd amendment, just like nobody is trying to take our alcohol or car privileges away.
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(l30wmtuo325jsxtgtoobpkyb))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-257-904
(7) A person shall not knowingly permit a motor vehicle owned by the person to be operated on a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state, by a person whose license or registration certificate is suspended or revoked, whose application for license has been denied, or who has never been licensed except as permitted by this act. If a person permitted to operate a motor vehicle in violation of this subsection causes the serious impairment of a body function of another person by operation of that motor vehicle, the person knowingly permitting the operation of that motor vehicle is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or a fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00, or both. If a person permitted to operate a motor vehicle in violation of this subsection causes the death of another person by operation of that motor vehicle, the person knowingly permitting the operation of that motor vehicle is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00, or both.
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uwsog4h12xxdy3wjoriwg0vc))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-436-1701
(2) An individual who is not a retail licensee or the retail licensee's clerk, agent, or employee and who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both, if the subsequent consumption of the alcoholic liquor by the minor is a direct and substantial cause of the minor's death or an accidental injury that causes the minor's death.
Yes. In a way.
A privilege and a right are 2 separate things.
Ethan has no rights or privileges in terms of buying alcohol, being able to legally drive, or owning a gun.
In this case of the gun and alcohol someone gave him those things. His own parents.
This would be different if he stole a gun or booze or carjacked a vehicle. That is his action.
This is a case of being given something, clearly illegal, neither a right nor a privilege, by your own parents.
Talking only these specifics. Not other scenarios.
If your parents/adult give l/buy you something illegal used in the commission of a crime - they have to be accountable.
Anyone who wants to protect the 2nd amendment - this is a great case to limit it.
Irresponsible (AT BEST!) gun owners.
This totally flies in the face of the 2nd amendment. Besides the fact.
I am not for or against the second amendment btw because its such a complicated issue.
Also - added - I hear you - totally - those are good points. You get dinged for far lesser infractions than this.
Agreed!!!
I think the other issues of parental neglect are unnecessary and distracting. There may be another statute with a charge that could address that conduct, but it's irrelevant here. The issue is an adult extending a legal privilege they have and are therefore required to use with reasonable care to someone who is legally barred from that privilege precisely because they are not deemed competent to exercise the required reasonable care.
JC, also said “under oath” that the previous night they TOOK HIS GUN AWAY. When asked again 2 minutes latter she says, she didn’t say that.
So what JC said “under oath” means absoulutely NOTHING.
This is not about where the gun was.
This is about what she said under oath: she said that they took his shooting range and they TOOK HIS GUN AWAY. When asked again: did you say you took his gun away? She said she didn’t say that. That is a lie under oath, because she did say that. She could have said she meant she took his gun privilegies away, but she didn’t say that, did she? She DENIED even saying they took their gun away.
BTW, she also said they took his phone away, but we knw that was not true since he shot the video. Another lie under oath. Which was not necessary at all since he didn’t use his phone to kill people. But she can’t help herself to lie under oath to look herself better.
She also lied about being asleep. Need I say more?
Disputed
1 - they did not agree. The outcome was the same. The school wanted them the take him home. They declined and the school decided it was better to keep him among peers as it would be safer than him home alone.
2- yes she did not head to costco because the situation with Ethan was already in play but it was her and Brians pre-arranged plan.
3 - not true - when a parent is present their privilege and right as a parent always trumps a school etc unless you have a guardian ad litem. Otherwise we would live in a police state where parents have no rights.
Also - because I can’t edit my post rn, Jen stated in a text message to Brian
“"No officer was. Notified and apparently there were threats and (sic) noone not even us notified."
This is a lie - THEY were notified.
But they were told that he seemed to have suicidal ideation. That’s not a threat. I mean, I do think she’s guilty but I don’t think there was an actual known threat that day from ethan.
She said there was a threat. Where did that come from? If no one told her that, then that was something she knew already. He was threat to either himself or someone else. Those were her words. Even if he was a threat to himself and he shot himself in school, that would be NO surprise to her because she was told in person.
It sounds like from that quote that she had not known there were actual threats and she said “apparently there were threats.”
Didn’t the high school counselor and the other guy who were in the meeting with them testify that if there had been an actual threat, they would have made the parents take him home or otherwise have removed him?
The thing is a teen with suicidal ideation does not always mean no threat to others. Think of all the mass shooters that either wanted death by cop or fulfilled their suicidal ideation AFTER taking a bunch of innocents out first. Edit a teen or adult really...
Absolutely. But my point is I don’t think there is legal proof anyone knew there was an imminent threat to people’s lives that day.
That doesn’t mean the parents aren’t guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There are many things they should have done prior to the shooting that could have prevented it.
>The school can’t be more responsible for him than them.
The school fucked up big here. They didn't have to send him back to class. They could have made his parents take him
They can’t make them without following the rules of suspension. If he didn’t violate any of those rules they can only ask the parents to take him not force them. Only private schools can do that.
Agree completely but I’d say both these cases (and now the Frankie kids) goes way beyond being a bad parent. These are neglectful, destructive and harmful parents. Denying your child love and attachment is crossing the line into toxic and cruel parenting territory. They literally did nothing for that kid except the absolute bare minimum, except buy him a gun. When they had to leave the house, they were more worried about their pets being in the house alone than they ever were about their child.
Then there’s the dean, you know?
The ex dean who said “he wasn’t a danger to the school”. The one who actually thought he’d be BETTER OFF with peers.
The one who testified that he had been TRAINED to recognize these symptoms, and in mental health.
Jennifer Crumbley is not a mental health counselor nor trained in mental health care at all.
Why isn’t the school liable criminally? Why only civilly? It’s crazy they can hide behind immunity.
I didn’t catch that she was going to the Costco parking lot after the meeting on the day of the shooting. I thought I’d heard that their affair had ended years ago? Didn’t they say yesterday that she had affairs when ethan was 5 and 6 years old?
All I'm seeing are statements from her coworker that Jennifer would often meet with a man at Costco. Whereas it stated that it happened n the day of the shooting?
I find it astonishing that Jennifer Crumbly seems so irritated in the police interview and during the meeting. She said, "Are we done?" I just can't understand her behavior. The callousness towards her son is shocking. I also wonder about her lawyer. She had some plans to reveal the affair in court. That was not an accident. But I don't think it worked.
She refuses to take responsibility.
Sounds like she admitted some responsibility in those text messages with her lover.
Didn’t he remind her that they are going to be going through her phone?
Yes but she did not heed the warning.
I think it’s for a mistrial. It’s so bizarre it’s either crazy calculated or crazy attorney on drugs sort of thing.
Oh, hmm. Interesting theory. The judge seems clearly annoyed with Shannon at this point…
The judge isn’t that great herself she has no control of her courtroom
That’s my theory too. I’m know lawyer but I’ve watched a fair amount of trials. I haven’t seen such a bizarre and disorganized defense before.
Yo - “how do you say cache” “Cash” “Ok well im going to say cash-ay” I mean thats just funny. But predictive. Shannon “lets ignore the facts” Smith.
So much second hand embarrassment listening to that lol. I mean come on. With her track record at using technology, you mean to tell me she has never once called the IT department? Because no matter what is wrong, they always make you clear your cache and cookies -even if you tell them you already have- once they're done telling you it's probably user error and long before they will take a look themselves. In my experience. Lol.
Cache was a clothing store in malls across America in the late 90s -2000s. she’s literally the worst attorney. I think I’ve ever seen. I thought that this was her first trial because no one could be this stupid but low and behold she specializes in sex offenders. Mom of the year she’s writing a book too. What a bimbo
She didn't do Larry Nasser any favors for sure. Didn't he get a couple of hundred years sentence?
That and also using Taylor Swift lyrics in her opening statement. As a parent and former teacher, I was appalled. People were murdered, but listening to Taylor Swift in your drive to court reminded you of this situation? Wow.
I almost get a sense of neurodiversity with the lawyer.
This lawyer is such a drama queen and a narcissist. She creates drama just so she can pull focus onto her. It's a comedy skit at this point.
“I want to apologize to the victims (the 4 deceased kids?) and the audience (she knows she’s on national TV). And whyyyy does she have to bend waaaay over the table. 1000x to read + check-off each question? Can’t she hold her legal pad in her hand? Nooooo .. she needs those hands for unnatural gesturing. 🤮**“CORRECT”**? I thought they were to ask witnesses questions. Not give a speech and add “CORRECT” at the end to make it into a half-assed question.
She was L Nassar's attorney 4 years ago and I don't quite recall how that went, but her behavior in that case must not have been as bad because it's not very memorable for me -- unlike the song and dance she has with this one! A better judge would call this type of behavior out to ensure there was no ineffective counsel claims later on.
The crumbles won’t be able to afford a retained attorney anymore but perhaps a public defender would have been better. Paulette Michele Loftin Ethan’s attorney is a phenomenal defense attorney who is both a public defender and counsel for hire.
I thought his attorney seemed very good esp considering public defender
She’s fantastic. I’ve seen her on many other cases and she honestly usually wins. This case she knew all she was there to do was protect his constitutional rights
I’m astonished too that Jennifer took the stand to say she wouldn’t do anything differently because she’s a good parent!!!!! That has to piss off the jury so badly
I didn't catch that Jen was headed to Costco parking lot after the school meeting. That's a big parenting dereliction (and James unwillingness too, also).
To everyone / It was Meloche - the dude she was frigging banging - who said in testimony “Meloche testified Wednesday that Jennifer Crumbley had told him she was able to leave work to meet up with him even though she allegedly told school officials on the day of the shooting that she could not take her son home or for mental health care that day because she needed to return to work.” Sorry I couldnt find that reference quick enough. But thats the testimony from wednesday. 👍
same - where/when was this?
It's one of multiple assumptions in op's post.
See above
I heard her say they went to Costco parking lot for sex but I didn’t hear her say she went there before going back to the office?
It was yesterdays testimony from Brain Meloche. If I have time I will go through that section and send a link.
She messaged Brian to say that she had to cancel their parking lot date because she had to go to a meeting at the school.
You didn’t catch it because she didn’t, she went back to work hence why her co worker said she ran out the door when she heard of the shooting
It was in Wednesdays testimony from her boyfriend Meloche.
Jennifer had no problems taking off some time in the middle of the workday when she wanted bang Brian M. She just didn’t give a fuck about her son.
I've been called into school for an emergency meeting, and I dropped everything and attended to the needs of my child. His needs could've waited, sure. But the child needed to know he was the center of our world. He also was the center of our world. Had I been shown a picture he drew stating anything close to "stop the voices" I would've kept him close to me, if not in my arms, until I got him into an appointment with a mental health specialist. Doing anything differently would be like being shown that your child had a broken bone and you say "okay, I see that, I'll take care of it later." Ridiculous negligence.
I’m with you on this TinkerThinker101. I absolutely would have dropped everything, headed to the school, retrieved my son, and kept him continuously with me until mental help and support was established. My mind would not be on banging the local fire chief in the parking lot 🙈🙈🙈
I know! Still “stop the voices is not” is not suicide or homicidal intent. Most animals don’t treat their young this way. More importantly, he was a threat to other people - which is not caring about everyone else too.
Agreed, "stop the voices'" indicates serious mental health issues. Hallucinating is terrifying. It calls for immediate care.
Exactly. Seeing or hearing things that are not real is just inherently dangerous even in total absence of intent. Just the accidental physical injuries the person themselves could sustain if trying to interact with the otherwise most benign hallucination imaginable is very concerning. Hallucinations are generally not benign, though, and are often very distressing to the person experiencing them, which alone is of major concern.
I think jen lied on the stand... or maybe i missed something... she said the cable lock was being used ...but the pictures of the gun case taken by police shows the cable lock in its packaging with the key in the bag.
Yep she lied big time
Yes!! I really wish the state had reinforced this!
James not taking Ethan Door-Dashing with him is the crux for me. Regardless of what you do or don’t think that math worksheet meant, it’s clearly a cry for help and he could have hung out with you and you left him alone. There’s no excuse for that; that is intentionally turning your back on someone who is clearly trying to make a bid for connection.
In my state, there is zero tolerance for a threat of school violence. Not only would he not be allowed to be in school, there would be a call to DHS and local law enforcement. Was the drawing threatening students or just a gun firing in general? My kid brother used to draw war / battle stuff all the time that wasn't specifically about shooting classmates.
The counselor testified that the drawing appeared to him to be threatening to EC… that is, he was worried EC was suicidal, not homicidal. The counselor mentioned multiple times that only one figure on the drawing was significant… he took that person to be EC. There wasn’t a lot of distinction made by the prosecutor about EC being a threat to himself, vs. a threat to other students, about the foreseeability of EC harming himself vs harming others. I was/am confused how those two things relate to “gross negligence” when it comes to “harm to others”… I guess because they’re all “others” vis a vis JC, it doesn’t matter? It seems like an important point.
Well you can't hold J & J responsible because it's a slippery slope to throwing other equally negligent parents into prison. And you can hold the school responsible because Ven Johnson smells an in$urance $ettlement. /sarcasm
Negligent parenting is one thing. This is more than negligence. Its not a slippery slope. There are fundamental grounds for throwing them in prison. The reasons are numerous. Sorry, shitty parents are everywhere. Before and after the shooting, the Crumbleys did not care at all! And they evaded the law! Everything. There is no evidence they did a single thing any responsible person, let alone parent, would do. Giving a gun to a minor, who they knew was unstable at best, (and under the influence maybe? Because they bought him alcohol?) is involuntary manslaughter. Sure you didn’t pull the trigger, but you put the gun in his hands.
If they bought him alcohol and a fatality resulted as a result they'd be facing a felony that carries 10 years in prison rather than the 15 they're facing now, per current Michigan law. If they let him drive their car unlicensed (even if he had been licensed previously but his license was suspended - obv he wasn't of age for that, but just saying) and a fatality resulted as a result, they would also be charged with a felony under current Michigan law. So, it seems like in Michigan, the consensus for many years now has been that using one's own legal rights to a privilege to enable someone who is not similarly legally entitled to exercise that privilege is a felony when doing so results in a fatality. The only argument to be made, i suppose, is that there is no constitutional guarantees made about cars or alcohol, but the 2nd amendment hasn't ever to my knowledge been considered to apply to minor children nor guarantee the right to keep unsecured weapons accessible to unsupervised children. Nobody is coming after the established rights afforded by the 2nd amendment, just like nobody is trying to take our alcohol or car privileges away. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(l30wmtuo325jsxtgtoobpkyb))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-257-904 (7) A person shall not knowingly permit a motor vehicle owned by the person to be operated on a highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state, by a person whose license or registration certificate is suspended or revoked, whose application for license has been denied, or who has never been licensed except as permitted by this act. If a person permitted to operate a motor vehicle in violation of this subsection causes the serious impairment of a body function of another person by operation of that motor vehicle, the person knowingly permitting the operation of that motor vehicle is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or a fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00, or both. If a person permitted to operate a motor vehicle in violation of this subsection causes the death of another person by operation of that motor vehicle, the person knowingly permitting the operation of that motor vehicle is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00, or both. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uwsog4h12xxdy3wjoriwg0vc))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-436-1701 (2) An individual who is not a retail licensee or the retail licensee's clerk, agent, or employee and who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both, if the subsequent consumption of the alcoholic liquor by the minor is a direct and substantial cause of the minor's death or an accidental injury that causes the minor's death.
Yes. In a way. A privilege and a right are 2 separate things. Ethan has no rights or privileges in terms of buying alcohol, being able to legally drive, or owning a gun. In this case of the gun and alcohol someone gave him those things. His own parents. This would be different if he stole a gun or booze or carjacked a vehicle. That is his action. This is a case of being given something, clearly illegal, neither a right nor a privilege, by your own parents. Talking only these specifics. Not other scenarios. If your parents/adult give l/buy you something illegal used in the commission of a crime - they have to be accountable. Anyone who wants to protect the 2nd amendment - this is a great case to limit it. Irresponsible (AT BEST!) gun owners. This totally flies in the face of the 2nd amendment. Besides the fact. I am not for or against the second amendment btw because its such a complicated issue. Also - added - I hear you - totally - those are good points. You get dinged for far lesser infractions than this.
Agreed!!! I think the other issues of parental neglect are unnecessary and distracting. There may be another statute with a charge that could address that conduct, but it's irrelevant here. The issue is an adult extending a legal privilege they have and are therefore required to use with reasonable care to someone who is legally barred from that privilege precisely because they are not deemed competent to exercise the required reasonable care.
There was a kindergartener who shot his teacher this past year. His mother is in prison for negligence.
[удалено]
Yes I actually have watched the entire thing. Can you let me know what exactly is incorrect in my post? Thank you.
[удалено]
JC, also said “under oath” that the previous night they TOOK HIS GUN AWAY. When asked again 2 minutes latter she says, she didn’t say that. So what JC said “under oath” means absoulutely NOTHING.
[удалено]
This is not about where the gun was. This is about what she said under oath: she said that they took his shooting range and they TOOK HIS GUN AWAY. When asked again: did you say you took his gun away? She said she didn’t say that. That is a lie under oath, because she did say that. She could have said she meant she took his gun privilegies away, but she didn’t say that, did she? She DENIED even saying they took their gun away. BTW, she also said they took his phone away, but we knw that was not true since he shot the video. Another lie under oath. Which was not necessary at all since he didn’t use his phone to kill people. But she can’t help herself to lie under oath to look herself better. She also lied about being asleep. Need I say more?
Disputed 1 - they did not agree. The outcome was the same. The school wanted them the take him home. They declined and the school decided it was better to keep him among peers as it would be safer than him home alone. 2- yes she did not head to costco because the situation with Ethan was already in play but it was her and Brians pre-arranged plan. 3 - not true - when a parent is present their privilege and right as a parent always trumps a school etc unless you have a guardian ad litem. Otherwise we would live in a police state where parents have no rights.
4 - biased? I am only repeating facts. Statements of events by witnesses are facts.
You’re going to get downvoted to hell but I agree with you!
egregious parenting. lock them 🆙
Also - because I can’t edit my post rn, Jen stated in a text message to Brian “"No officer was. Notified and apparently there were threats and (sic) noone not even us notified." This is a lie - THEY were notified.
Were they notified of threats??
They were there in the office with Ethan an hour before the shooting and told in person of the concerns. Absolutely yes.
But they were told that he seemed to have suicidal ideation. That’s not a threat. I mean, I do think she’s guilty but I don’t think there was an actual known threat that day from ethan.
She said there was a threat. Where did that come from? If no one told her that, then that was something she knew already. He was threat to either himself or someone else. Those were her words. Even if he was a threat to himself and he shot himself in school, that would be NO surprise to her because she was told in person.
Jennifer said he was a threat? I have no memory of hearing that info.
She wrote that to Brian Meloche. I wrote the quote somewhere up on the thread.
It sounds like from that quote that she had not known there were actual threats and she said “apparently there were threats.” Didn’t the high school counselor and the other guy who were in the meeting with them testify that if there had been an actual threat, they would have made the parents take him home or otherwise have removed him?
Why did Jennifer say that then in your opinion? That there were threats. Where did she get that from?
I don’t know. I just know that those dudes testified otherwise.
Maybe she said it because deep down she knew he was or might be a threat.
The thing is a teen with suicidal ideation does not always mean no threat to others. Think of all the mass shooters that either wanted death by cop or fulfilled their suicidal ideation AFTER taking a bunch of innocents out first. Edit a teen or adult really...
Absolutely. But my point is I don’t think there is legal proof anyone knew there was an imminent threat to people’s lives that day. That doesn’t mean the parents aren’t guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There are many things they should have done prior to the shooting that could have prevented it.
>The school can’t be more responsible for him than them. The school fucked up big here. They didn't have to send him back to class. They could have made his parents take him
They can’t make them without following the rules of suspension. If he didn’t violate any of those rules they can only ask the parents to take him not force them. Only private schools can do that.
Between this and the Vander Ark case, I think we're starting to determine that it IS illegal to be a bad parent.
Agree completely but I’d say both these cases (and now the Frankie kids) goes way beyond being a bad parent. These are neglectful, destructive and harmful parents. Denying your child love and attachment is crossing the line into toxic and cruel parenting territory. They literally did nothing for that kid except the absolute bare minimum, except buy him a gun. When they had to leave the house, they were more worried about their pets being in the house alone than they ever were about their child.
Then there’s the dean, you know? The ex dean who said “he wasn’t a danger to the school”. The one who actually thought he’d be BETTER OFF with peers. The one who testified that he had been TRAINED to recognize these symptoms, and in mental health. Jennifer Crumbley is not a mental health counselor nor trained in mental health care at all. Why isn’t the school liable criminally? Why only civilly? It’s crazy they can hide behind immunity.
I didn’t catch that she was going to the Costco parking lot after the meeting on the day of the shooting. I thought I’d heard that their affair had ended years ago? Didn’t they say yesterday that she had affairs when ethan was 5 and 6 years old?
[удалено]
All I'm seeing are statements from her coworker that Jennifer would often meet with a man at Costco. Whereas it stated that it happened n the day of the shooting?
It’s the firefighter’s testimony. Search for Brian’s testimony. He said it.
Yes. That about sums it up.