I don't have a problem with position of the gun and angles etc.... now that Balash has explained, and it has been CONFIRMED that the screen panel was out of the frame. If only I had collected dollies as a child, and was as talented as LIMPapa or Trent, I would do a video re-enactment/mash-up with naff music and upload it to You Tube.

However... I did just do a "re-enactment' of sorts.... just to get things straight in my own mind...in order to visualise the situation from Wafer's point of view.

I happen to have a small "porch" at front door... but it was more use for me to stand on that porch (pretend it was house floor level) and have my wife stand on the driveway which is aprox 11" lower level. Imaging myself to be holding a shotgun... it is very natural to be holding it at my chest level... with it pointing directly at her face. Try it yourselves... for those deprived people with no dollie collection, or a spare mannequin to hand... just get a friend or family member to stand in front of you... at a level 10" or so below you.
Further... picturing a screen between... just stand in front of a regular door. Imagine a hole in the dooor a foot or more above the door handle.... very awkward with a downward angle needed as Barash demonstrated... the only way to make sense of it is to imagine the door dropped down.

I have put screen shots from hearing in Reference thread

WAFER / McBRIDE REFERENCE (No Discussion)
viewtopic.php?f=101&t=1109&p=65036#p65036

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

wait a minute here, Is he aiming the gun at the wrong side? 'sorta looks like the outside side not the inside side...

NO... he is correct..... from the inside... Wafer fired though left edge of screen, having opened main door which swung over to his right.

That makes sense too for a RIGHT HANDED person, and it is the edge where McBride would be pulling on door handle and attempting to get (break) in.

The top 3 photos are from the "outside" perspective... but the demos with gun are from inside the house)

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

so....the screen was dropped, he fired from his "waist" area and she was on bottom step or ground...not next to door? well then Now I am wondering, if she was that far away why did he shoot?

More his chest... quite a "normal" stance as I am trying it.

See the hearing vid around 24 min mark

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

"Why did he shoot?"
Is the 6 million dollar question.... self defence? He thought a bad person and/or loon was breaking in and he "feared for his life"

Aroused at 4AM... banging on all doors... dark... and he sees? Someone who has ripped screen out of frame and appears to be about to enter (invade) his home.......

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

I wonder if the hole in the screen was made by thrusting the barrel of the shotgun through it prior to the shot so that the muzzle was "outdoors" when the shot was fired.

That would explain why there wasn't any gunpowder residue or stippling on the screen.

Of course it would also raise all kinds of other questions, like was it intentional or did he stumble or something.

And I wonder if they examined her hands closely to see if she might have grabbed the barrel, possibly pulling it forward and causing the trigger pull.

_________________
Took my time machine into the shop for service and they said they'd get on it first thing last week.

Good thought, Unitron.

Lots of interesting evidence details in this case. Lets hope they are properly investigated and documented (and we see the documents), and not "lost"or made confusing with sloppy forensics.. or hidden by prosecution obfuscation, as they were in the GZ case.

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

I read somewhere (I am sorry, I pop around and don't really know where I went...lol) that the defense wanted to play the interrogation tape but the prosecutor objected unless TW took the stand, so what's up with that??

IANAL ( but that never stops me)
It would be hearsay..... If presented on behalf of defence.... in effect, statements by Wafer heard but no opportunity for State to cross-examine. Now if the STATE wanted to introduce such evidence... they could.. as they did in GZ case. The defence then have the option to call the defendant to clarify.

Defence did try to argue it was an "excited utterance" close to time of a dramatic event.. and so not likely to be subject to contrived version etc

".....the declarant would not have had a chance to reflect upon the startling event, fabricate a purposefully false statement, and then say it."

But Judge David Turfe would not buy that.

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

A yes I see... but still you would think it would HELP the prosecutor... I dunno IANAL too!

Clearly it does NOT help the prosecution... or else they would have introduced it themselves.

Putting on my naive, rose tinted glasses.. I might opine that the Judicial System is supposed to be there to administer justice, based on all the facts (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth)... Blind justice trying to get to the truth of the matter, rather than trying to impose a pre-determined state of guilt or innocence...but of course it is not!! It is an adversarial system where both sides strive to "keep out" facts and evidence that refutes their take on things.

The defence clearly badly wanted to bring in whatever Wafer said when 911 operator rang him back (unbelievably NOT recorded??) and also statements that Wafer made to LE. I would LOVE to know what all that is??

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

911 not recorded?

Seriously?

Are they insane?

_________________
Took my time machine into the shop for service and they said they'd get on it first thing last week.

As I said (as was revealed at the hearing)... Wafer's 911 call was recorded (played twice during the hearing), but it was brief and ended abruptly...911 operator called him back and there was a conversation... but 911 guy (or his superiors) says it was not recorded. Seems nuts to me too...

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

What bugs me is that the screen door went to the basement at Wafer's until it was retrieved by LE. I thought the door had been taken by their "CSI" after the shooting. There is the possibility that Wafer did some damage to that door. Even unknowingly.

And didn't they say that a glass door replaced it during the hearing?

They said that screen was taken to basement after shooting.. and glass put in frame at front door in its place. IF they allowed Wafer to do all that... then they are incompetent CSI people... but that seems quite common in cases we discuss


I assumed that the cops took charge after the shooting and THEY put screen in basement... still daft but not as bad.

They must have "woken up" eventually and collected the screen panel from basement... and the frame from in front of front door

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

It's Detroit. They are broke out there with rapid decline of services.

I think we are seeing the "False Narrative" that was started very early on with "Lawyer for the family" calling for "justice", even going so far as to call for: "....not only an arress, but a conviction......". This false narrative is still open to modifications and tweaks, but the key points are starting to gel and are already IMPRINTED on Traybot Worrier types.

Even though it is hard to specify precisely... they "know" that this case is about race (somehow). Renisha (victim) is black, Wafer (guilty perp) is white. That is enough. They see Renisha's condition (drunk, stoned, concussed perhaps) as irrelevant. The fact that she crashed at high speed into a parked car is irrelevant. The fact that she went missing for several hours is irrelevant. The time of night she eventually showed up at Wafer's house (4:30 AM) is irrelevant. Her car broke down, her cell phone was misplaced/flat battery (pick one) and so she went "looking for help". The fact that she had help from people at the crash scene and police and paramedics were minutes away is irrelevant. The fact that she left the scene and help already there is irrelevant. She simply went "looking for help". All she did at Wafer's house was knock on his door to ask for help... as you do with "neighbours". He turned out to be not only an evil racist, but also a gun nut. They will try and find examples of wafer having past racist comments/ behaviour, but even if there are none... then I am sure he will be labelled a "subliminal racist" as GZ was. Anyway, this racist saw who was at his door and shot her "in the face" as she was leaving. Note the mutually exclusive claims... he could not have shot her in the face if she was turning to leave... hence the narrative STILL has people claiming he shot her in the back of her head. But I am sure if they do need to concede that the shot was not the back of her head, then they will just rationalise (make up) the fact that her intent was to turn and leave, only Wafer shot her before she could turn. They see this as cold blooded, pre-meditated murder.....as is always the case when a black is shot by a white (or a Hispanic provided they are the new "white Hispanic" race). Murder2 is for sure (they say), and some may even demand it should have been Murder1 (as they did for GZ)

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

What I don't understand is what is Wafer's defense? Accidental shooting or a self defense claim?

From my understanding, he uttered that it was "an accident" because he really didn't want to kill her but the state decided that since A. He opened the door and B. He didn't call 911 immediately (I dunno if he had the time to think that if someone is running around banging in your doors, imo) that this was no accident. So probably the defense will claim some sort of castle doctrine. I guess that the state is trying to say he had a duty to not open the "Inside" door, eventho she probably ripped the "outside" door off the frame.

I expect some backlash on the screen being removed and taken to the basement and the glass put in. I am not understanding that at all, it kinda reminds me of GZ. That they didn't arrest or charge him immediately or take in any evidence, because the at first thought the shooting was justified. Then the "false narrative" (tks rump) started.

All I know is there is something to those doors. It bothered me from the get go. I don't know what it is perhaps a red herring!