It seems to me that Wafer is doing well testifying.

The prosecution playing tapes of early police interviews is only HELPING the defense as far as I can tell.


I am STILL of the opinion that charges should not have been laid

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

oralandar brand-wms
police asks wafer anything else he can think of why a woman wld be banging at his door.

Re-news It
WTF?

Rumpole
Women bang on MY door all the time, but I say "get out of here you brazen hussy!"

Ref: Peter Cook & Dudley Moore (In the pub)

(Offer some examples of women banging on bloke's doors... and responses)

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

At end of police interview, Wafer asked....

"So is it okay for me to take the screen off my house now"

Police said it was OK!!!

So they obviously thought "case closed"... no need for that "critical" part of evidence. Also why they did not bother to take prints etc for day.

It looks like pressure was applied (BGI / political) to force trumped up charge where none should have been laid.

I hope Jury "get it"

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Me too

H/T Mimi for vid link

Web extra: Porch shooter testifies

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Half the comments being made over on CNN are perverts saying they would have taken advantage of a 19 year old woman who showed up at their door drunk in the middle of the night...

Which makes me wonder if that's where she was for the missing three hours and why she was three times the legal BAC and so frantic three hours after her accident... was she trying to get away from someone who was trying to take advantage of her?

I did opine on twitter... what might have happened if she had assailed some other home occupant? No doubt there are some heavy "not so nice" people around. She may well have met the same ultimate fate, and "worse" beforehand

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Yep, it's all Ted's fault

He shouldn't have opened the door however, if he did he should have invited the person in for a spot of tea on a cold night

If the person appeared to be a threat he should have told them I have a gun and will blow your head off first and see if they continue to make entry. He also needs to ask them if they're unarmed or if they're a teen. If they don't meet any of that criteria he can blow their heads off.

Oh and He should have stayed in his car.............."Fu$king Punks!!!!".........."Azzholes"

The Lawyers and Judge are discussing Jury instructions.

There is no live feed, but tweet reports suggest it is bizarre to say the least. The Judge and prosecutor seem to b deciding what the evidence shows, rather than leaving that to the Jury? Where there is a lack of evidence due to shonky investigation she is giving benefit to prosecution IMO. Even talk of adding lesser included charges... clearly the State has failed on the charges presented. They have now introduced "gross negligence" and... wait for it...." making false exculpatory statements" "... this is Bull Shit...

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Hopefully the entire jury will see through the BS to acquit Wafer or at a minimum enough to result in a hung jury.

That's it...??? The defense has rested...???

How did the prosecution prove malice?

false exculpatory statements ... that's a new one on me???

https://www.courtlistener.com/michctapp ... v-dandron/

In the above case that set the precedent for Michigan law, it would seem that the statements have to be demonstrably false... man claimed he chased the real burglar away but there was only one set of prints in the snow (his), another cited case the man claimed he was relieving himself, but there was no urine.

""It is true that exculpatory statements made to law enforcement officials, when shown to be false, are circumstantial evidence of guilty consciousness and have independent probative force." 329 F2d at 470. (Emphasis supplied.) "The trouble is that appellant's statement * * * was not shown to be false by other evidence. * * *"

This seems to be the same old chestnut that animates Traybot Worriers still to this day in regards GZ case. Scanning initial statement to police looking for SMALL discrepancies and blowing them up into some sort of case? As has been pointed out many times, it is normal (and human) to remember/relate an event slightly differently with each telling. Especially a "traumatic event". Word perfect every time is more of an indicator of a fabricated story than are small discrepancies. We have not got to hear or see transcripts, but I am not aware of major discrepancies. My guess is Prosecution are banging on about whether it was accidental discharge or deliberate shot fired. I don't have a problem with "It was a little of both" and besides that does not alter the overall situation where Wafer was in extreme fear and acted in self defense

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Has anyone seen the judge in any other case take the responsibility of stating what has been proven or not proven?
Isn't that up to the jury to decide?

Wow can't believe this judge. He should walk but I fear he won't.

Sorry if dup: From interr video @ PD "Officer says McBride didn't look look like a prostitute but they do work in the area"

Mimi. I guess......

dup = duplication

interr = Interrogation

@PD = By police

Twitter has taken over your mind

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Closing arguments to begin Wednesday in Dearborn Heights porch shooting trial
Oralandar Brand-Williams,The Detroit News
August 5, 2014 at 8:03 pm

Detroit — Closing arguments are expected to begin Wednesday in the murder trial of Theodore Wafer, charged with shooting a woman on his porch in the early hours of Nov. 2.

Wafer, 55, of Dearborn Heights spent a second day on the stand Tuesday where prosecutors pointed out several inconsistencies in his accounts of the chain of events to police, a 911 dispatcher and during his testimony Monday.

During instructions to jurors Tuesday, Wayne County Circuit Judge Dana Hathaway referred to parts of Michigan’s self-defense law, called the Castle Doctrine, which states people’s homes are their castles and homeowners do not have a “duty to retreat” from a perpetrator if they feel they are in threat of harm or death. Hathaway also told jurors a porch is part of a person’s home.

Each side will be given an hour for closing arguments.

From The Detroit News:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2014 ... z39aDVAoK1

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I find it really odd that the judge is giving jury instructions prior to closing arguments. But then again I also find it odd that a judge would stop the trial to deal with another case, then come back to the trial when she is done. All in the same day. But then again this is Michigan and NOTHING I have ever seen here seems normal LOL