Oxford School Shooter’s Parents in Shock as Prosecution Surprises with Disturbing Video Evidence Ahead of Trial

ROCHESTER HILLS, Michigan – As the trial approaches for the parents of the Oxford school shooter, they are fighting to prevent the introduction of a video showing their son carrying out the massacre. The defense argues that the footage is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to their cases. Adding to their objection, the defense claims they were unaware that the video would be used until last week. The prosecution, however, insists that the defense has long been aware of the video and intends to use it as evidence against the parents.

According to attorney Shannon Smith, who represents the shooter’s mother, the video of the shooting is “one of the most prejudicial and inflammatory pieces of evidence.” Smith expressed shock over the prosecution’s intention to present the video at trial. The defense believed that there had been informal discussions suggesting the video would not be used.

The prosecution countered, stating that the defense had knowledge of the video’s existence and its relevance to the case. Assistant Oakland County Prosecutor Marc Keast argued that the video is crucial in proving that the four students were killed by the shooter with the gun provided by his parents. Keast maintained that the defense’s claim that the video is inadmissible is untrue and offensive.

Despite the defense’s objections, Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews ruled that the school shooting video would be admissible at trial. The defense, however, filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider the decision, citing a misunderstanding about which surveillance video would be used.

The defense claims that the school video footage they expected to be used shows the parents entering and leaving the school on the day of the shooting. The parents had been summoned to the school due to their son’s troubling behavior, which included drawing a gun and disturbing images on a math worksheet. The defense argues that this video is relevant as it shows the parents’ whereabouts and timing.

The prosecution has emphasized that the Crumbleys, as parents, could have prevented the shooting if they had disclosed to school officials that they had bought their son a gun. The defense opposes the prosecution’s plan to call witnesses directly affected by the shooting, arguing that their testimony is irrelevant and could unduly influence the jury.

The Crumbleys are charged with involuntary manslaughter and face up to 15 years in prison if convicted. Their trials are set to begin in two weeks. The parents maintain that they had no way of knowing that their son would commit a school shooting and assert that the gun was properly secured in their home.

In summary, the defense and prosecution are at odds over the admission of a video showing the Oxford school shooting. The defense argues that the video is prejudicial and irrelevant to the parents’ cases, while the prosecution maintains its relevance in establishing the parents’ culpability. The trial is expected to shed light on the parents’ actions and inactions leading up to the tragic event.