OXFORD, Mich. – The second day of the James Crumbley trial brought us several key moments, such as information about the number of shots fired inside Oxford High School and the father’s movements on that morning.
Day 2 started with defense attorney Mariell Lehman’s cross examination of computer crimes expert Edward Wagrowski and continued with testimony from four additional witnesses.
📄 READ: 4 new developments from Day 1 of James Crumbley trial
Here are some of the key moments that stood out.
Prosecution: James Crumbley never stopped home
Prosecutors are fixating on Crumbley’s movements on the morning of the school shooting -- Nov. 30, 2021.
As they did in the trial for Crumbley’s wife last month, prosecutors established the timeline from that morning, showing that the parents of the shooter arrived at Oxford High School for a meeting and left the parking lot at 10:57 a.m.
Edward Wagrowski was a computer crimes expert for the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office at the time of the shooting. He testified that Crumbley went straight from the school to the nearby Meijer parking lot and logged into his DoorDash app at 11 a.m. He then started making deliveries.
The prosecution outlined each of Crumbley’s four delivery routes between 11 a.m. and 1:11 p.m., which is when he returned to the Meijer parking lot after his fourth delivery.
While walking jurors through those maps on Thursday, assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Marc Keast carefully clarified that Crumbley never stopped at his home, despite passing by several times during the course of those deliveries.
During her cross examination on Friday, Lehman pointed out that there’s nothing wrong with Crumbley immediately logging into work after leaving the meeting at the school. She said he clearly worked during the entire period between the meeting and the shooting.
But prosecutors are preparing to make a larger point.
During the trial for Crumbley’s wife, prosecutors called law enforcement experts to testify about the math worksheet drawings by the shooter on the morning of Nov. 30, 2021. That worksheet was the reason the Crumbley parents were called to the high school for a meeting.
Those experts will likely be called later in this trial and testify that the gun drawn on the math worksheet has a close resemblance to the SIG Sauer 9 mm handgun that Crumbley bought on Nov. 26. That’s the same weapon used in the school shooting.
Prosecutors will likely argue that Crumbley should have seen the resemblance between the SIG Sauer -- which the shooter referred to as his “Christmas gift” -- and the gun drawn on the math worksheet. They’ll likely suggest that the least Crumbley could have done was stop home after seeing the drawing and make sure the gun was secured.
They might reiterate that after Crumbley learned about the school shooting, he rushed home to find the gun missing.
50 bullets found in school
Another familiar witness was called to testify on Friday: Oakland County crime scene supervisor Robert Koteles.
Koteles talked about the evidence found at the high school and walked the jury through the shooter’s path.
After hearing from nearly two dozen witnesses during the trial for Crumbley’s wife, a particular detail from Koteles’ testimony stood out on Friday: the number of bullets brought to the high school.
Koteles said 32 shots were fired inside Oxford High School, and 18 unfired rounds were also recovered.
Why is it significant that police found 50 total rounds? It’s linked to evidence presented during the mother’s trial.
The shooter went to the gun range with his mother on Nov. 27, 2021, to shoot the SIG Sauer. Remember, this was the day after the gun was purchased at an Oxford gun store.
When they arrived at the gun range, the shooter and his mother bought 100 rounds of 9 mm ammunition, but they only fired 50 rounds before leaving. Surveillance footage from the range showed the shooter’s mother leaving with the unopened ammunition.
The prosecution is likely establishing that the shooter went to the school that day with the leftover bullets from Nov. 27, 2021.
Cable lock debate
When Crumbley bought the SIG Sauer handgun, he was also given a cable lock that’s provided by the firearm manufacturer with the purchase of a gun.
During the mother’s trial, prosecutors showed photos of the cable lock after the purchase and compared them to photos taken during a police search warrant after the shooting. Their argument was that the cable lock had never been taken out of the baggie from the store.
Defense attorney Shannon Smith argued during the first trial that “as far as Mrs. Crumbley knew, there was a cable lock on the gun at all times.”
Lehman might be taking a different approach. During her cross examination of Cammy Back -- the employee who sold the SIG Sauer to James Crumbley -- Lehman clarified that there’s no law requiring a gun owner to use a trigger lock.
Lehman also pointed out that James Crumbley was never asked to indicate on any of the gun purchase forms that he intended to use a cable lock.
Could this be a sign that instead of arguing Crumbley used the cable lock, the defense is going to argue he wasn’t required to use a lock at all? We probably won’t know the answer to that question until Lehman’s closing argument.
Keast responded swiftly during redirect, asking Back, “Whose responsibility it is to actually make the gun safe?”
“The buyer,” Back replied.
Texts about horse barn
If you followed the trial for the shooter’s mother, you know that the horse barn is one of the prosecution’s favorite themes.
Prosecutors have already shown quite a bit of evidence to demonstrate that the Crumbleys spent a significant amount of time tending to or riding horses.
Lehman took her first stab at diminishing the importance of those horse barn visits on Friday during her cross examination of Wagrowski.
Wagrowski testified that from January 2021 to the day of the shooting, there were 86 text messages exchanged between the Crumbleys about going to the horse barn.
Lehman said 86 text messages across 333 days is only 25.8%. But Wagrowski replied that the parents didn’t talk about much else, other than going to work.
During redirect, Keast painted those statistics in a different light.
“So a quarter of the year they were discussing meeting at the barn?” he asked. Wagrowski confirmed.
Keast asked if those messages ever included discussions about bringing the shooter to the horse barn. Wagrowski said no, never.
Context surrounding ‘I love you’ shouts
The prosecution showed a video of the Crumbley parents being interviewed by Sgt. Joe Brian and his partner at the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office substation in Oxford immediately after the shooting.
After speaking to police for about 17 minutes, the parents were led into another room, where their son was handcuffed to the wall. They watched as Brian asked their son for some information, and then told police they didn’t have any questions.
As his parents left the room, the shooter said something, and his mother asked, “Why?” James Crumbley started saying, and then shouting, “I love you” to his son.
During her cross examination of Brian, Lehman put great emphasis on that moment, trying to establish that James Crumbley was clearly concerned for his son. But Keast offered a different perspective during redirect questioning.
Keast asked Brian whether the shooter was saying, “I did it” at the same time as his father said, “I love you.” Keast was implying that James Crumbley only said “I love you” to try to drown out his son admitting to a crime.
Brian confirmed that those statements were made by James Crumbley and his son at the same time. Keast asked if James Crumbley’s voice rose in volume, and Brian said yes.
