#TheodoreWafer trial resumes today at 9 am

Monday, July 28, 2014

Good morning:

Today is Crane’s birthday.

Happy birthday, Crane!

The Wafer trial resumes today at 9 am EDT. The prosecution will resume presenting its case-in-chief. I am expecting more testimony from cops.

Our source of information is twitter.com


See you in the twittersphere.

73 Responses to #TheodoreWafer trial resumes today at 9 am

  1. Brandy says:

    Here is the latest scoop in the world of GZ. Georgie got a job as a security guard in a gun Shop. Why am I not surprised by this?

  2. Brandy says:

    Belated Happy Birthday Crane! Hope you had a great day 🙂

  3. crustyolemothman says:

    Another link: Without the clutter and back and forth discussion…


  4. Dave says:


    Live blogging by Detroit Free Press Reporter.

  5. crustyolemothman says:

    Professor, Good morning? Have you abandoned ship in the middle of the trial? No comments from you about the case since you posted this article yesterday morning could lead us to think you are reaching a point of burn out in the blog world, I hope not because you and Mz. Crane Station would be greatly missed…

  6. shyloh says:

    Happy belated birthday Crane!!!

  7. Malisha says:

    At best, Wafer made a tragic rush to judgment.

    At worst, he is a callous self-centered prick.

    Actually, “callous self-centered prick” is only worse, not worst.
    Worst is a “callous self-centered prick and a murderer.”

    • volgaknight says:

      “I agree” with what, Mr. Leatherman?

      I have been trying to make the case that if Wafer’s attorney is able to convince the jury that Wafer truly, and, honestly believed that the person standing on his porch and pounding on his door meant to do him serious bodily injury, or, inflict death, they could find him, “not guilty.”

      I didn’t say he should be found not guilty, I didn’t say I wished him to be found not guilty, I didn’t say I believed he would be found not guilty. Yet poster after poster makes ridiculous claims that, somehow, my reading of the law should be interpreted that I believe the inhabitant of a house is legally entitled to shoot their mailman if he comes to the porch delivering mail.

      I would think that after the tragic Zimmerman verdict my attempt to point out the possibility of how Wafer’s jury might interpret the law would be met with reasoned discussion, and, not emotional, accusatory, out of context nonsense.

      I really wish I knew what it is you “agree” with?

  8. fauxmccoy says:

    this is a relative repeat of what i wrote at xena’s blog, so apologies to those who have read this twice.

    it would appear that from today’s tweets that the prosecution eliminated the possibility of someone pounding on the side door via eye witness testimony and forensics. pound another nail in wafer’s defense. the eye witness also presented compelling evidence that there was not a gang of folks surrounding the house.

    this, combine with previous testimony of peep hole in working condition and no signs of B&E are making wafer look pretty bad.

    i would also like to add my own thoughts regarding the law and porches. there is a very distinct difference between a fully enclosed porch with a door and a stoop, such as wafer had. i cannot believe that any person (mail carrier, solicitor, friend, etc.) is breaching the security of the home by steeping upon stoop, which is only a brief awning over a couple of steps and knocking. this is the only access to knocking on a door and we cannot kill folks for knocking on our doors, no matter how emphatically. an enclosed porch with it’s own door is another matter entirely, if someone were to open such a porch door, then it is within the realms of possibility that a B&E were occurring. if wafer’s storm door showed signs of a B&E, that too would be another matter. from the evidence so far, the only thing that would suggest a B&E is wafer’s imagination.

    • crustyolemothman says:

      fauxmccoy, I posted a link to the Michigan law on the castle doctrine in a post above. I don’t know how anyone who reads the law can construe that stepping upon an open porch to beat aka knocking, could be construed as an act of B&E… It will be interesting to see how the defense attorney twists the actions of an inebriated person drunkenly hitting on the door into a criminal act of B&E… The only damage that I have seen to the door is to the screen (and that looks to have been from the inside) and also to the door and its frame just above the door knob, but unless she had hands of steel and shaped like a pry bar, it will be difficult to blame that damage on her. I’ll predict that if TW walks on the crime, there will be a rash of murders in the near future, what better way to get rid of that person you don’t like? Especially if you know you can get away with it…

      • fauxmccoy says:

        agreed, mothman. in fact, i am hard pressed to refer to the steps/miniscule awning leading to his door as a ‘porch’ in any way. it’s a stoop.

  9. fauxmccoy says:

    happy birthday ms. station! 😉

  10. Dave says:

    A very Happy Birthday to you, Crane!

  11. crustyolemothman says:


    “Your last statement sums up how all too many Americans think.”

    Could the problem actually be that “Too many Americans Don’t Think”? Instead of using any measure of reasoning they simply respond. It really gets ugly when the only way they choose to respond is with a gun. The new American way is to prevent a bruise and avoid a fist fight by shooting instead…

    • MKX says:

      Humans, having primal tendencies, will lash out in response to the fight or flight impulse before the rational side of the mind can sort things out.

      The legal language being pushed by gun right activists leaves no time for the rational mind to do the sorting.

      I also think there is a “macho” aspect to this.

      The first thing a good martial arts class teaches is to do everything possible to avoid a conflict to the point of concession because the skill learned can be lethal. So they actually teach concede your ground, unless cornered.

      The stand your ground mentality leads to tragedies such as the man who killed another man with a gun in a theatre because he was hit by pop corn. The shooter could just not walk away and go to another part of the theatre because that would be “conceding”.

      And there is the hierarchical aspect of our authoritarian society.

      Dunne did not have to take any back talk from “those people”. That would be a blow to his sense of self-entitlement. So he pulled out his gun.

      • Annie Cabani says:

        The stand your ground mentality leads to tragedies….

        Yes. Today’s “tragedies” are yesterday’s crimes!

  12. Malisha says:

    You can’t apply Castle Doctrine to the shooting of a person on a porch, that’s crazy. What letter carrier or census taker would survive under such an interpretation? That’s patently ridiculous. I don’t care what the law “says” about it, didn’t even read the law. You do not “invade” people by walking on their porch and even banging on their door — how about people trying to warn the residents that there is a hazard in the back of the house!! Saying, “You can kill people banging on your door from outside” would be like saying, “free-card; kill.” All you’d have to do to get rid of someone you don’t like would be to tell them to come by at a certain time and ask that they bang loudly to wake you up — and then stand on your rights and dispense justice, make us who we really are, a bunch of possession-crazed dangerous lunatics.

    • MKX says:

      Your last statement sums up how all too many Americans think.

      Look at the guy in Staten Island who refused to give shelter to a black women and her children during Hurricane Sandy because they might be a danger to his possessions. And it was tough shit that they were out there in the storm when they were warned not to be.

      I believe both her children drowned.

  13. crustyolemothman says:

    Crane-Station, Whoops, I failed to wish you a happy 29th birthday…
    Happy Birthday and wish for you to have many more in the future!

  14. volgaknight says:

    None of these points matter. Michigan has its own variation of the castle doctrine/stand your ground law. The jury will be instructed to consider the action (the shooting) from Wafer’s point of view. Whether McBride was sick, traumatized, in need of help……immaterial.

    A porch is considered part of a house, and, she invaded it. Technically, he had a right to shoot her. The only thing that may save the prosecution’s case is, “the locked door.” He was in no danger, and, I don’t see how he gets around that.

    Don’t get me wrong, I think he should spend the rest of his life in jail. But, I thought the same about Zimmerman. From all the reading I’ve done about this case, and, the debates and observations by Michigan lawyers that I saw discussing this case, it’s far from a slam dunk.

    • crustyolemothman says:


      “A porch is considered part of a house, and, she invaded it. Technically, he had a right to shoot her.”

      Actually I spent several hours reading a discussion between several lawyers that were based in Michigan, and the point was made that unless she breeched the outer door (the screen door) that the theory of the porch being part of the castle was not applicable. Their opinions were that the house (as far as the castle doctrine) ended at the locked outer door. I would suggest that is why TW’s attorney is trying so hard to make the jury think the door was pulled from it’s hinges… The only saving grace that the state has at this point is the photo’s showing the door intact and still locked…

      • volgaknight says:

        the U.S. Supreme Court, in Florida v Jardines specifically named a front porch as a prime example of curtilage (the area “immediately surrounding and associated with the home”)

        • crustyolemothman says:

          volgaknight, You’re comparing apples and oranges in using that case as an example. If you look at the Michigan law the use of appurtenant structure under definition is not a porch but a removable structure such as a storage building. To attempt to apply a ruling about the use of a drug dog to search a porch to justify your reasoning is absurd at best… Quite frankly about the only way that the castle doctrine defense is legitimate would be if they could show she either forced the door open or had the tools available to do so, she did not breech the security of the locked door nor could her hitting the door be construed as an attempt to break it down…

          • volgaknight says:

            @crustyolemothman………I appreciate your response, and, I certainly hope your version is the one used. However, I don’t understand your “apples/oranges” example. I don’t think the Supreme Court meant for the definition of “curtilage” to mean one thing in a drug case, and, something else in a murder case.

            Read the S.C. definition of a porch not only being an example of what’s a part of a house, the area (“immediately surrounding and associated with the home”) but, a PRIME example.

            Where’s the ambiguity, where’s the exception?

            I sure hope I’m wrong, but, I don’t see it.


          • crustyolemothman says:

            The Supreme Court holds that the Fourth Amendment protects homes and their curtilage from unreasonable searches without a warrant. However, curtilage is afforded less protection than a home. Absent “No Trespassing” signs or fences with locked gates, it is considered reasonable for a person (including a police officer) to walk from a public area to the obvious main entrance to the home using the most obvious path in order to “knock and talk” with a resident. But otherwise, government agents need consent, a warrant, or probable cause of exigent circumstances to enter a home’s curtilage.

    • Dave says:

      If people had a right to shoot anybody who “invaded” their front porches there would be a whole lot of dead Jehovah’s Witnesses. As a general rule, it can be assumed that anyone who breaks into an occupied dwelling has either the intent or at least the willingness to kill anyone inside so you can use whatever force is reasonably necessary to end that threat. If someone is outside of your house you can’t assume that he is a threat to your life unless he does something explicitly threatening such as brandiishng a gun or making verbal threats to shoot or set fire to your house.

      • crustyolemothman says:

        Dave, I suspect that someone is attempting to misapply the meaning of the law. The part that they are attempting to use is the part found in Michigan 780.951 Sec 1 (3) c. They are attempting to use the term “appurtenant structure” to define the porch. However the courts in Michigan have ruled that the “open” and “common” porch is not covered under the law.


        • crustyolemothman says:

          Try this link instead, I suppose the other one is broken.. sorry.


        • Dave says:

          Sorry, Crusty. That link didn’t work. Here’s how FEMA defines “Appurtenant Structure”:

          Pursuant to 44 CFR 59.1 [Title 44 — Emergency Management and Assistance Chapter I — Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security], the term appurtenant structure means “a structure which is on the same parcel of property as the principal structure to be insured and the use of which is incidental to the use of the principal structure.”

          In other words, it could be, for instance, a garage or a shed–a building with walls and a roof.

          • Dave says:

            Correction. Crusty’s link tells us that in the Michigan self defense statute the Castle Doctrine applies to the dwelling and ATTACHED appurtenant structures, e.g. an attached garage.

          • crustyolemothman says:

            Dave, Sorry I suppose our messages crossed and I was in the process of giving a good link when you sent your comment… Whoops. The Michigan law definition is quite similar to what FEMA uses, but specifically mentions that awnings are not covered in the definition. However, (but I have not found my notes yet that cover this) that a porch is by definition a common area that is not enclosed and frequently used by visitors when approaching the home. To imply that someone is “fair game” simply because they step upon the porch and strike the door or the area near the door with their hand is simply unrealistic and as was noted an open invitation to commit legalized murder… If not such a serious subject it would cause most people to laugh at the suggestion..

          • Annie Cabani says:

            @ Dave, If we’re reading the same provision [780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions]:

            What about the “breaking and entering” requirement before for any “rebuttable presumption” would arise that Wafer had “an honest and reasonable belief” of imminent death or great bodily harm?

            Have you seen anything saying that being on the front porch and knocking on the door could constitute a “breaking and entering” (or even a B&E in progress)?

          • Dave says:

            Well, if someone was knocking on the door with a nine pound sledge hammer, I might call that a B&E in progress.

            Whether Ms. McBride or her companion (if there was one) actually attempted to break in, it’s not totally inconceivable that one or the other said or did something that a reasonable person might interpret as an immediate threat to life or limb. I want to hear the defendant’s sworn testimony and it better be damn convincing!

          • Annie Cabani says:

            Dave – OK, thanks. Apparently we weren’t talking about the same thing.

      • MKX says:

        here is what I believe is the relevant language from the statute:

        (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

        (b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).”

        Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2009/08/michigans-castle-doctrine-law-and-you/#ixzz38tQDlCvW
        Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
        Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


        So the issue of McBride trying to rip open the screen becomes critical.

        However, common sense would indicate that pounding on a door is knocking to get attention.

        And a home invader is an inebriated small women with no tools to break the inner door?

        So, even if the screen, came lose from pounding, I would say that Wafer did not make a reasonable assumption.

        But, there would be jurors who would say he did.

        So that could lead to a hung jury.

        So the prosecution better do a good job with explaining how the shotgun blast creates reactive torque in a screen. And the fact that the outer door remained locked must be pushed. Home invaders use a metal pry bar to crack the outer door quickly and then big guys or a really big guy kick the inner door open by breaking the frame via a huge impulse force.

        That’s why I posted a link to homes on Bentler, in Detroit, where invasions do frequently happen. The flimsy out door seen in the Wafer home is replaced by a strong iron framed outer door with a bar that locks into the concrete of the porch.

        And Wafer could be acquitted based on McBride just being on the porch banging away.

        There was that black male college student shot on a porch in Wisconsin.

        Sad, how some of us let fear and paranoia rule our lives.

  15. MKX says:

    She was “under the influence”, had suffered the trauma of a rather hard impact, and was out in cold rainy weather for three hours before she knocked on Wafer’s door.

    IMO, it would be logical to expect McBride in a state of shock wherein it is remarkable she could even stand up.

    At best, Wafer made a tragic rush to judgment.

    At worst, he is a callous self-centered prick.

    I had car trouble on I-94 and spent hours out in a cold late October night trying to get help. I foolishly dressed for my car, not the weather. All I can say is that it got me, and I do not drink. I got so desperate, I took a chance getting a ride home from a stranger who did have quite a few too many.

    So I hope to God that the prosecution points out that McBride was in a “desperate” situation.

    I see some similarities with what Wafer did to that guy in Staten Island who did not offer shelter to a black women during Hurricane Sandy. At least the guy in Staten Island did not shoot on sight.

    • Dave says:

      We don’t now where she was between the time of the crash until she arrived at Wafer’s door. There are about four hours unaccounted for. After the crash she was seen walking south toward Warren. Is it likely that she wandered around aimlessly all that time without being noticed and ended up just half a mile away? I doubt it. I think it far more likely that she walked to the bar at the corner of Warren and Outer Drive (about midway between the crash site and Wafer’s house and the only business in sight that would have been open). She probably asked to use a phone and the ladies room. Maybe she stayed until closing time and maybe she left with one of the bar patrons.

      • MKX says:

        The investigation would turn up witnesses at the bar, I would hope.

        • Dave says:

          I hope that they asked some questions there. Of course bar employees might be reluctant to admit that they served a 19-year old or allowed her to hang around.

          • MKX says:


            And what if some of the other patrons leaving the bar at closing came on to her such that she ran for help?

            Why would she go down Outer Drive to bang on a door?

            Was she being followed?

            Were those following, the others that Wafer thought were part of a crew?

            Pure speculation, but I have to see all sides of this.

          • Dave says:

            Yep. There are a lot of things that could have happened. I just don’t believe that she wandered around aimlessly for 3 or 4 hours with nobody noticing. Somebody knows what she did and where she went and they aren’t talking.

        • crustyolemothman says:

          Actually, I don’t think she was at the bar.. With the level of alcohol she consumed along with the injuries she sustained in the accident, IMO it is more likely she was actually passed out somewhere nearby. I originally “assumed” like many others that she was still drinking, but from what little I have been able to find out about the effect of cold (lowered body temp.) and the reduced level of breathing during a coma type condition, her BAC reading could well have been incorrect. I have not been able to find a good study that gives any good data as to effects of Marijuana and any effect it also could have made in the BAC level that may or may not have been accurately tested for. Regardless of any of this, she absolutely committed no criminal act that was punishable by death at the hands of a middle aged rage filled man… The more that I look at the lies and distortions that have been provided by this man and his defense attorney, the more that I am leaning toward murder one. I can easily envision him being woken from his sleep by noises in the night, and being angry for that, he choose to go to his room grab his shotgun, loaded it and went to the front door and swung it open determined to once and for all end the incessant beating upon his door, he then saw a figure, aimed, fired, closed the door and calmly called 911 to report he had shot someone on his porch. He intended to kill the person making the noise on his porch and IMO is guilty of murder one….

          • fauxmccoy says:

            i look forward to hearing the state of her clothing from the ME. it is not easy for me to envision one in her state (alcohol poisoning, shock, and possible head injury) walking into a bar. more likely to me would be her sleeping or passing out for a bit.

            mind you, i have no knowledge of the area, but i cannot imagine too many bartenders serving alcohol with an obvious head wound who is already staggering and slurring her speech. there is serious liability in doing so.

  16. Diamonique says:

    So she was drunk. Is that a capital offense? And so what if she was? He was behind a locked door. If he hadn’t opened the door the drunk woman would have simply wandered off elsewhere. The fact that she was drunk doesn’t indicate to me that she presented a great threat.

  17. ay2z says:

    (reminder note that on Wednesday, July 30, heads of argument for the state in the ‘other’ male shoots and kills through closed door. And on Monday, August 4, the heads of argument by the defence will be heard.

    Haven’t read anything about a rebuttal by the state, if that’s possible in South Africa, or not)

  18. ay2z says:

    Crane’s birthday???!! Oh yeah!!! ……

  19. girlp says:

    Happy Birthday Crane…. :))

  20. Annie Cabani says:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: