Crumbleys’ defense: How are we to blame?
Parents point to finding that he was not mentally ill
When it comes to Ethan Crumbley’s mental health, his parents and the prosecution are saying the same thing: He wasn’t mentally ill, insane or delusional, and gave no signs of being so before and during the deadly mass shooting he carried out at Oxford High School.
That’s precisely what the prosecution argued last month in convincing a judge that Ethan Crumbley is eligible for a sentence of life without parole. It’s also what the parents are saying in a new court filing that raises what they and their lawyers view as a perplexing question: If our son isn’t mentally ill, knew what he was doing and pleaded guilty to all his crimes, then how are we to blame?
“It is noteworthy that many of the positions the parents have taken in this case are consistent with the prosecution’s arguments against the shooter,” Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman argue in a new court filing in the involuntary manslaughter case of James and Jennifer Crumbley. “For example, as the parents have argued all along, the shooter was not suffering from mental illness and … (the Crumbleys) did not have any reason to believe that the shooter had mental health concerns that would necessitate mental health treatment.”
They acknowledge that their son was experiencing sadness over the loss of his dog, his grandmother and a friend who had recently moved away. However, evidence claiming that the shooter was asking his parents to get him to a doctor or get him help was sent in text messages to the shooter’s friend — this was not information that either parent knew he was claiming, and the parents deny that he ever asked them to seek treatment for him.”
But the prosecution has argued just the opposite in the novel case against the parents, alleging they ignored a mentally ill son, failed to get him help and bought him a gun instead — the same one he used in the 2021 mass shooting that left four students dead and six students and a teacher injured.
‘Their parental rights have not been terminated’
“Put plainly and simply, the prosecution
cannot have it one way in one case and another way in the other,” the defense argues in a new motion that details how the Crumbleys, the first parents in America charged in a mass school shooting, plan to fight this unprecedented case. According to the filing, it’s a two-pronged strategy:
The Crumbleys want to dissect their son’s mental health records — only they need a judge’s order to get them from the prosecution. According to the defense filing, the prosecution does not object to turning over the requested information, but needs a judge’s approval to do so.
The Crumbleys also note that despite being jailed, and prohibited from talking to their son, they’re still his parents.
“It should be noted that although they are incarcerated, Mr. and Mrs. Crumbley have been involved in decisions regarding the shooter’s mental health. Specifically, they have signed off on medication requests from the jail,” the defense writes. “Further, the caseworker at the jail has routinely met with the parents to inform them about the shooter’s medications, well-being, behavior issues and to ask other health-related questions as it pertains to their son.“
In its filing, the defense stressed that one key issue has not changed for the Crumbley family.
“At this time, it is clear that Mr. and Mrs. Crumbley remain the parents of the shooter. Their parental rights have not been terminated, nor has a petition been filed against them for the same,” the defense writes, stressing the parents have a right to their child’s mental health records.
The Crumbleys’ defense strategy
With their trial scheduled to start in January, the Crumbleys, according to their filing, also plan to discredit much of what has been said about their parenting and their son’s childhood, including an allegation that Ethan Crumbley had to bury his own dog.
“This information is absolutely false, provably untrue, and blatantly incorrect,” the defense said in its filing, which challenges a psychologist’s testimony that Ethan was “tasked” with disposing of his dog.
“When the dog was nearing the end of his life, Jennifer Crumbley posted on Facebook to find veterinarians who would come to the Crumbleys’ home to euthanize the dog,” the defense writes.
“Ultimately, when the dog did pass, the Crumbleys had the dog cremated and still have the ashes. There was never a time where the shooter was ‘tasked’ with disposing of the dog. He never took the dog to the shed, and he never buried the dog.”
According to courtroom testimony, that’s what Ethan Crumbley told a psychologist who visited with him multiple times in jail. The parents now want copies of that psychologist’s findings, reports and any information that was provided to him about their son, all of which they believe will help their case.
In a 53-page motion posted Tuesday, the Crumbleys’ attorneys asked for copies of all reports, psychiatric evaluations and materials that were supplied to psychological experts who testified at Ethan Crumbley’s four-day Miller hearing over the summer. That was the mandatory proceeding that helped the judge determine that Crumbley is eligible for life without parole.
Psychological evaluations ‘crucial’ to parents’ defense
The Crumbleys’ lawyers maintain that the exhibits from that hearing and testimony of mental health professionals who evaluated their son “was highly relevant” to his mental health, and is a contested issue in the parents’ case.
“The shooter’s mental health will be a paramount issue in the parents’ trial,” the defense writes, stressing the materials it is seeking are equally crucial. “Clearly, in this case, the parents of the shooter do not intend to harm, annoy, intimidate or embarrass their son. The information is important and material to their defense.”
Perhaps more notably, the defense argues in its filing, the Miller hearing contained “an abundance of relevant information to how Mr. and Mrs. Crumbley were as parents to the shooter, which is obviously the crux of this instant case.”
The Crumbleys maintaining that some information presented at the hearing about their son’s childhood was “very inaccurate.”
“(S)ome of the experts, doctors, and witnesses drew conclusions from erroneous information that the Crumbleys will need to fight in their own trial,” the defense states in its filing.
The Crumbleys’ lawyers describe the information they are seeking as exculpatory evidence — or evidence that can help their clients. They argue the parents have a constitutional right to obtain this information, maintaining:
“Mr. and Mrs. Crumbley are the parents of the shooter and should be entitled to this information as he is still a minor.”
The psychiatric evaluation performed on their son is equally important to their clients, the defense argues.
“The report is in the possession of the same prosecutor’s office prosecuting this instant case and the report will contain relevant information to (the Crumbleys) … as the shooter was clearly found competent.”
The defense also vowed to keep confidential any and all mental health information provided to them about their son.
The prosecutor’s office cannot comment on this issue as there is a gag order prohibiting both sides from publicly discussing the parents’ case. However, in court, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald has addressed the difference between the parents’ and son’s cases, arguing the parents are charged for their “gross negligence in buying the obviously troubled son a gun, for not securing it safely, and then for not doing anything about it when they saw the (son’s) drawings on the day of the shooting.”
Hours before opening fire, Ethan Crumbley had drawn on a math worksheet a picture of a gun, a bleeding person and the words, “The thoughts won’t stop, help me.” The parents were summoned to the school over the drawing, but went back to their jobs, left their son in school and promised to get him help in the following days.
“They are not charged for being bad parents, and no one is saying they pulled the trigger,” McDonald has said in court. “What we’re saying is they had an obligation to the students who died, and their gross negligence resulted in those students’ deaths.”
Defense: Shooter’s hallucinations, demon references ‘out of context’
The Crumbleys’ court filing also offers more context into the troubling text messages that Ethan Crumbley was sending his mom and a friend about “hallucinating” and seeing “demons” in the months before the shooting.
The defense cites the testimony of a psychiatrist who testified that Crumbley was not psychotic when the “hallucinations” were put into context. Specifically, this psychiatrist — a prosecution witness — noted that Crumbley sent texts about hallucinating when he was alone watching horror movies, but ‘this doesn’t mean he’s psychotic.”
The psychiatrist further explained that the claims that sounded like “hallucinations” by the shooter, when put in context, do not “clinically lin[e] up with what a true hallucination is.”
This psychiatrist also testified that Crumbley did not meet the criteria for major depressive order and that he actually showed evidence that led her to conclude he did not suffer from mental illness — “he was working several days a week, hanging out with friends and doing things he enjoyed, like coin collecting and model rocketry.”
However, another psychiatrist who met with Crumbley within days of his arrest testified that the shooter claimed hearing “internal” and “external” voices that got worse two weeks before the shooting, complained of having a depressed mood, poor appetite, couldn’t sleep and felt hopeless. She diagnosed him with depression and an adjustment disorder with anxiety, though she did not diagnose him as psychotic.
Crumbleys question if son lied to psychologist
The Crumbleys also took issue with the testimony of psychologist Colin King, who tested their son over six sessions and testified that Crumbley was often left home alone and walked to neighbors’ homes in thunderstorms, that he would text his mom at age 10 with no response, and that he spent countless hours on adult game sites.
The Crumbleys argue King has not explained how he got that information.
“King’s testimony is replete with erroneous information, whether that was because he relied on unreliable materials or because the shooter lied to him. It is critical for the parents to know the basis of his opinions and findings,” the defense writes.
The Crumbleys’ lawyers also have taken issue with King diagnosing their son as a “feral child” with major depressive disorder and psychosis, arguing those conclusions were based, in part, on text messages from one day about seven months before the shooting.
“Notably, these are the same texts that the prosecution has used against the parents in alleging that the shooter was mentally ill,” the defense writes. “However, at the Miller hearing, conveniently, the prosecution pointed out during Dr. King’s cross-examination that he was cherry-picking very few texts from thousands and thousands.”
It was also King who testified that the shooter’s dog was his “soulmate,” and that when the pet died, the shooter was tasked with having to remove the dog, take it to the back shed and figure out how to dispose of the body — which he allegedly researched. The Crumbleys maintain none of that is true.
The defense also alleges more inconsistencies by the prosecution, noting that in the parents’ case, it has argued the shooter’s comments about demons and posting of demon images on Instagram to be evidence of mental illness. However, it argues in the latest filing, the prosecution’s own witness “confirmed that the shooter was in no way trying to say he was a demon or referencing a demon, but demon was a reference to his ‘idol’, the Parkland School Shooter.”
The Crumbleys, who are facing involuntary manslaughter charges for their alleged roles in the deaths of four students killed by their son, have not seen or talked to their son in almost two years. All Crumbleys are being held in the Oakland County Jail, but are prohibited from talking to one another per a court order. The parents were recently denied in their request to attend Ethan Crumbley’s sentencing Dec. 8.
The Crumbleys are scheduled to go to trial about six weeks after their son’s sentencing.
They have long maintained that they had no way of knowing their son would carry out a school shooting, and that they kept the gun he used in the shooting in a secure and locked place in their home. If convicted, they each face up to 15 years in prison.