here's why you should switch fo to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs

and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. lots of things happening in court, but not yet. hearing from the michigan mom who is going to be cross-examined today for her potential role in the school shooting that left four people dead. her son, the accused. we are going to get the latest from inside the courtroom. the cross-examination has not quite happened yet. we'll bring it to you live. the scorching, hot jobs report, relentlessly good

economic news and some evidence that people are starting to feel it. the search is on right now and widening for a group of mie gr migrants accused of brutally attacking new york police officers and while officials believe some of them are on their way to mexico right now. i'm kate bolduan with sara sidner and john berman. this is "cnn news central." ♪ all right. court is just about to resume after two breaks in the trial of the michigan mother who is facing involuntary manslaughter. the judge is trying to decide if a major piece of evidence, text messages between jennifer crumbley and her attorney, will be allowed in trial, which the defense says could get a -- set a dangerous precedent in the case, but she opened up the door. the judge is looking at that now. the case is already historic in its own right.

jennifer crumbley is charged with involuntary manslaughter after her son shot and killed four students at oxford high school in 2021. he will spend the rest of his life behind bars, and now his mother, jennifer, trying to avoid jail time herself. she took the stand yesterday, shifting blame to her own husband, but saying this about the violence that's transpired that day at the hands of her son. >> i've asked myself if i would have done anything differently, and i wouldn't have. >> if you could change what happened, would you? >> oh, absolutely. i wish he would have killed us instead. >> wow. with us now, jean casarez. what difference would the evidence make in the case of these text messages between her and her attorney, busting open the attorney/client privilege? >> right. well, the issue is all about flight. because after the mass shooting, the couple stayed in a motel in the area of where they lived for a couple of nights and then went

to detroit and stayed with a friend in an industrial building, actually. they are saying they got threats and they were scared for their life because the community, obviously, to have this mass shooting in oxford, michigan, which is part of pontiac, suburb of detroit, was huge. so, yesterday on the stand, jennifer said, you know, we were going to turn ourselves in, and i was texting with my attorney, you, she says, shannon smith, and we were taking your advice on what to do. we were going to turn ourselves in on saturday around 8:30 in the morning, but the prosecution doesn't believe that. they thought there was -- that they were fleeing the jurisdiction, and so they want those texts. the judge says, look, the attorney/client privilege is absolute, in my opinion, and i don't want to do this, but i feel i have to review these texts. there aren't too many of them. early morning hours of december

4th. sara, it is right before law enforcement stormed in to arrest them, and the judge said, "i won't take long if there's not that many to look at." we're waiting to see what the judge says and what will happen next. >> these are two almost unprecedented things happening at the same time. the charging of the parents in this case and now the potential breaking open of the attorney/client privilege. i just want to let you know, we have seen jennifer crumbley enter court, and we are now seeing the judge re-enter court. this could get under way very quickly. we're going to listen in as soon as the judge is seated and the folks in the court are seated. let's listen to what the judge has to say because we may hear the decision right here, right now, about that issue of attorney/client privilege and what she is going to do. here we go. >> 22279990. >> morning. >> good morning. >> i have review ed these -- th

prosecutor reviewed all the texts. i had a copy for ms. smith. ms. smith, do you have an objection to anything in the text chain? >> no, i don't. i would ask if the text chain is used that it be admitted, as well. >> yeah, okay. so i am going to maintain a copy of the text chain in my personal file, all right, and i maintain a copy for the prosecutor, all right? >> okay. >> thank you, judge. >> can we continue the trial? >> absolutely. >> just a minute to look at it? >> okay, yeah. it won't take you more than a minute but yes. >> jean, i know you're listening intently. we're trying to hear. it's hard to hear.

did she hand over the text messages to the prosecution? >> yes. >> and the defense attorney said she had no objections, is that correct. >> for the prosecution to look at them. that's the next step in the process. prosecutor has never seen them, so now he is reviewing them. sara, there's a few pages there, not just one page. >> okay. we're waiting for the decision. the attorneys are literally looking over these text messages. john, this is incredible to sort of watch this play out in court right now. >> again, i have my eyes on the screen right now. sara, i'm trying to wait and see what is said. the prosecution looking over those text messages. now, i think leaving the courtroom again. >> looks like they're leaving court. >> i want to bring in roa crimil defense attorney to talk about this. robert, big picture, what is happening here, is because yesterday on the stand, jennifer crumbley testified about a conversation we had -- she had

with her lawyer, an exchange she had with her lawyer prior to going to a warehouse where she was ultimately arrested. because she volunteered a conversation with her attorney, what door does that potentially open up here? >> a massive door, john. the bottom line between the attorney/client privilege, it is sacrosanct between the client and the lawyer. however, the caveat that every attorney knows is that if any communication is made in the presence of a third party or if the client reveals that information to a third party, they've waived the attorney/client privilege. while beyond the witness stand, it has to be the worst position in the world. you're allowing the conversation between your lawyer and your attorney to now get out into the public domain, and now prosecutors have a right to cross-examine now on that information. they can't be left -- as a former homicide prosecutor, i'd be screaming and yelling, "she can't say something on direct

examination about a communication and now i'm unable to cross-examine her on it." she opened the door for those to be released. >> we're watching in real time the judge here. no judge wants to pierce attorney/client privilege. you're predisposed not to do that, but this was an obvious moment which begs the possibility of seeing more communication. right now, what the judge has done, has taken text messages that exist between the crumbleys and this attorney and given them to the prosecution to review. the prosecution has left the courtroom and is looking at those text messages, presumably to figure out if they want to pursue questions along that line. can you explain that? >> john, in my opinion, what's happening right now, and i've been in this situation, which i'm now taking the text messages outside. i'm going through with my team of prosecutors. i'm saying, these following text messages are relevant, both maybe substantively to the crime or to attack her credibility on what she said on the witness stand. i'm going to identify what those

text messages are, and in all likelihood, going to go before the court, because the court will be very careful, as you suggest, and say, "your honor, based upon what i've reviewed, i think these are relevant and we should be able to bring this out before the jury," and the judge will make an ultimate determination if they're going to allow the prosecutors to use it. >> okay. so this is happening in real time, right now. while this is happening, and i have one eye on the screen here to follow it, the jury is not in the courtroom right now. the jury, i think, thought it was going to hear the cross-examination of jennifer crumbley, the defendant, today. aside from these text messages and the communications between the attorney and the defendant here, which may or may not come into evidence, what is it the prosecution wants to do in its cross-examination of ms. crumbley? >> clearly, what the prosecution wants to do, and this is a very novel, in my opinion, prosecution here. >> it is. >> so they want to try to tie as much conduct to the parents to say that they knew or should

have known that this was an ultimate outcome, that the mental health issues with the son, the fact that he had a weapon, that they were on alert. that's very difficult because the law requires -- typically, the law is dealing with the actions of what an individual does to another person, not a third party who refuses to intervene in what another person is going to do. prosecutors are trying to show that it was so grossly negligent to allow him to stay in school, knowing his mental health condition, knowing that he had a weapon, that, therefore, under their theory of the case, again, a novel theory and maybe a little bit of a dangerous one going down the road, they want to hold the parents accountable for their son's actions. >> thank you so much for helping us understand everything happening here, rob bianchi. there's so much emotion in this trial, but there is a legal question here which, to an extent, is very dry and precedent setting and will

matter very much beyond this trial going into the future. thank you so much for explaining it so well. we are going to watch this very closely. we have an immediate decision on what evidence will be allowed and potentially, kate, the testimony, the cross-examination of the defendant. >> absolutely. you see jennifer crumbley standing up right now, it looks like. let's just sit on this together. >> she is taking the stand. >> going back to the stand, john. let's listen in. >> they are bringing in the jury to this courtroom now. we are about to see the cross-examination of the defendant, jennifer crumbley, in this case.

this is a moment that a lot of people have been waiting for in this trial. it promises to be emotional and promises to be, probably, fairly confrontational. again, the jury being brought in here. the outcome of the technical question about how much of the exchange between the defendant and her attorneys will be allowed in, i don't know that we learned the outcome of that, but that is something that presumably will come up over the next probably several hours as this testimony takes place, kate. >> one thing that you both were discussing is the precedent-setting nature of this first-of-its-kind trial. this is part of that. what we know is that the defense attorney tried to neutralize some of -- or lesslessen, maybee blow of what we heard from prosecutors, and the multitude of witnesses they brought to the

stand before this. >> all rise for the jury. >> we're going to wait for the jury to come in. and now, this is, as you said, i would not be surprised if this was confrontational because this is going to get to text messages. it is going to speak to the die nam ni dynamic in that family. what she thought, felt, did or didn't do, john. >> remember, one of the things crumbley testified to yesterday, she said she wouldn't change a thing. let's listen to the judge. >> as i described for you, sometimes things come up. you need to take care of the issues. i usually try to do that while you're not waiting for us, but that's not always possible. i appreciate your patience. we are going to continue on with cross-examination. ms. crumbley, raise your right hand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> you can put your hand down. state your name for the record and spell your first and last

name. >> my name is jennifer crumbley. j-e-n-n-i-f-e-r. c-r-u-m-b-l-e-y. >> go ahead, prosecutor. >> thank you. mrs. crumbley, i'd like to talk about you as a parent. before i do, i want you to understand the oath you just took. >> i do. >> okay. you understand you took the stand under oath, and you have to tell the truth. >> i do. >> you understand that was the rules yesterday, as well? >> correct. >> all right. we'll come back to that. now, you have been described by your attorney as a hyper-vigilant parent. >> correct. >> do you agree with that? >> i do. >> in fact, you called yourself a helicopter parent before. >> yes, i was. >> so you spent a lot of family time together. >> we did. >> now, i'd like to talk to you about what your digital footprint shows. >> okay. >> what the evidence on your phone shows. >> okay. >> now, it's true, you'd agree with me that having horses is a time-consuming hobby. >> it can be. >> okay. it was for you.

>> it can be. >> that's what you said yesterday. >> yes. >> okay. and you were at the barn for between three and five times a week. >> more like three times a week. >> three times a week for a couple hours a trip? >> sure. >> okay. it's also an expensive hobby. >> it is. >> so your banking records show in the year 2021, you spent over $20,000 on the horses, is that correct. >> probably. >> okay. that's not including cash, that's just from capital one and flagstar bank. >> correct. >> in fact, you cold a coworker that half of your salary, basically, goes to the horses? >> i might have, yes. >> now, accept on rare occasion, you didn't bring your son with you to the barn? >> he was not into horses. i would ask every time i went to the barn, but he didn't want to go. >> the answer was no. >> no. >> okay. as far as your horses being boarded in june of 2021 to november of 2021, your son never went with you, is that correct?

>> i think he went once when my in-laws were in town and we met them at the barn. >> okay. but there was nothing stopping you from taking him. >> no, he just didn't want to go. >> okay. it is a family atmosphere. >> it can be. >> okay. like the halloween party, that was for families. >> yeah, most of the kids there are young. >> okay. in the winters, you were on ski patrol, as well? >> correct. >> okay. and that can be a time-consuming hobby. >> it can be. >> all right. and you would be on ski patrol between one and two times a week? >> total of ten hours a week. >> ten hours a week. how many days? >> i did doubles on saturdays, so one day a week for me. >> okay. so you told us here yesterday you depicted your affair with mr. melage as a one time a week meet-up at a costco parking lot, is that correct? >> correct. >> is that your testimony? >> yes. >> it wasn't just that, was it? >> no. >> in fact, there are numerous

photographs sent to mr. melage? >> okay. >> yes or no? >> i'm sure there was. >> numerous messages exchanged with him. >> correct. >> it wasn't just during the week, monday through friday, was it? >> no. >> no. in fact, that's what you said yesterday, but, in fact, it included trips? >> there were actual business trips that he met me on. >> okay. it included other individuals? >> yes. >> what's adult friend finder? >> you can go on and meet people who meet certain tastes that you're looking for. >> and you have the adult friend finder on your phone. >> i don't believe i had the app. >> it was found on your phone. >> then i guess it was on my phone. >> there were messages from you to other individuals. >> correct. >> your honor, i would object. this is going outside of the scope of the affair with brian, but, i mean -- >> i don't think the court is ruling on just the extramarital affair with brian melage.

>> i guess with regard to mr. melage, i determined that the defense opened the door. i don't know i would determine that the defense opened the door as to other relationships. >> she depicted herself as having one extramarital affair for a six-month period of time where she met with him one time a week. that was her testimony yesterday. we have evidence to the contrary. i think it is important. >> this is getting exciting. >> i -- >> all right. well, go ahead. >> i won't delve too far into it, judge. >> yeah, really, this jury has been here a long time. >> i respect their time, judge. i'll be brief. >> so, mrs. crumbley -- i'm sorry, in the not a laughing matter. mrs. crumbley, on adult friend finder, we see messages from you in august of 2021, august the

4th, 2021. >> okay. >> you don't dispute august the 10th of 2021. >> no. >> 11th of 2021? >> no. >> november 21st, 2021. >> no. >> more important than that, november 28th, 2021. >> no. >> you don't dispute that evidence was found on your phone? >> i don't dispute it. >> okay. and you don't dispute that it wasn't just you and mr. melage meeting after work hours, it was you and mr. melage arranging with other individuals to meet after work, as well? >> no, i only met with brian during work hours. the times we were at the hotel, i was on business. we did arrange for other people to meet us there. >> so november the 28th, do you remember that day? >> hmm -- >> it was the day after you took your son to the shooting range. >> i don't remember it. >> you don't remember that day? >> no. >> two days before the high school attack. >> no, i don't remember what i did that day. >> you were specific in what you did on november the 27th with the firearm.

you remember that? >> correct. >> all right. november the 28th, 2021, you spent your time arranging a meet-up with somebody on adult friend finder. >> i never met anybody on adult friend finder that day. >> arranging a meet-up. >> oh, okay. >> i'm not just talking about the time you spent physically with somebody. i'm talking about the time you spent and devoted your energy to setting that up. >> okay. >> you'll agree with me, it's not just the time period, the costco parking lot, or the time period at the hotel, or the time period on the trip, correct? >> that's the only time i met with people. >> right. but that's not the only time that you devoted your own, personal time and energy and focus to it, is it? >> i guess i don't understand what you're asking. >> okay. well, these meet-ups didn't just happen by themselves. you had to set them up? >> correct. >> you weren't driven there. you weren't dropped off there. you set them up with somebody else? >> correct. >> and that took your time and your energy and your focus to do so? >> i don't believe it took too much time and energy, no.

>> now, you told this jury that when your son text you, that he was seeing demons and bowls flying off the shelves. that was in the spring of 2021. you recall the evidence, correct? >> correct. >> you don't dispute it was on your phone? >> no. >> at some point, you read those messages, you don't dispute? >> no. >> you don't dispute your son at least one time, can you please text me back? >> correct. >> okay. you don't dispute that when you're at the barn, your other messages show that you could take pictures, send pictures, and receive pictures? >> usually at the barn, if i take pictures and try to send them, they don't go through right away or i won't send them until i hit a spot where i was service. >> so in exhibit 423, the facebook message chat between you and james, the chat you deleted, there are a number of pictures that james sent to you from the barn of a horse in a

conversation about that particular horse. do you dispute that? >> okay, no. >> in fact, dozens and dozens of pictures. >> i'm sure, yes. >> you're sure, okay. and those pictures were sent to you with the timestamp on that facebook message chat. >> okay. >> do you dispute that? >> no. >> no, okay. and then you responded in that same timeframe, do you dispute that? >> no. >> no. so that conversation with that picture that was taken at the barn was occurring while one of you were at the barn? >> i'm sure it was. >> okay. now, you don't deny that your son wrote in his journal that he asked his parents for help? you don't deny the evidence that was in there. >> no, i don't. >> you don't deny he wrote in his journal that he now had access to the 9 millimeter handgun? >> i don't deny that. >> you don't deny that was the murder weapon.

>> i don't deny that. >> you don't deny that gun was gifted by you and your husband on november 26th. >> describe gifted. >> how about when you posted on instagram, "his new christmas gift." >> correct. i explained it was for him to use at the shooting range. we didn't hand him a gun as, "here you go, son." it was something he could use when we went to the range as a family together. >> you don't deny that on april of 2021, you described your son as being depressed? >> i didn't describe him as being depressed, but he was acting depressed. >> you used the word depressed. >> he was acting sad, depressed. >> you know what depressed means. >> it means a lot of different things. >> to you, it meant depressed, and you wrote that. >> right. >> you don't deny in april of 2021, the evidence shows that your son told his only friend that he had asked you for help? >> no, i don't deny that. >> okay. you also don't deny he told his only friend that you laughed at him. >> i do not deny that.

>> yesterday, you told us that you took those messages in the spring of 2021, which, by the way, is that the same time you started your affair with m mr. melage? >> around that time. >> okay. in the spring of 2021, when you sent those -- or when you received those messages, you indicated it was messing around? >> it was. >> it was messing around in your mind. that's what your testimony was. >> yes. >> even when he said, can you please text me back? >> i didn't see his text message, so i didn't text him back. >> even when your phone logged missed calls? >> can you ask that again? >> even when your phone log showed missed calls from your son in that time period? >> no. >> now, you said yesterday about these messing around texts, you'll agree with me that there's no indication in any text message, either between you and your son or any facebook

message between you and your husband, in any of those exhibits, in fact, anywhere on your phone, that indicated that any of those messages were a joke? >> no, there weren't. >> there weren't. we're talking about hundreds of messages between you and your son and thousands of messages between you and your husband. >> correct. >> and you don't deny that you never once, never once took him to see a therapist or counselor. >> no, i do not. >> you do not. now, you testified that -- actually, mr. melage testified you'd meet during work hours. you were permitted to leave as you pleased? >> correct. >> your boss actually testified that, no problem for you getting time off? >> correct. >> if there is a family issue, no problem, you could go? >> correct. >> if you were sick, no problem, stay home? >> correct.

>> in fact, you could work from home on an as-needed basis? >> correct. >> in fact, november 30th, you didn't even ask your boss if you could leave, you just told him you were leaving? >> correct. >> you told him when you were coming back. >> correct. >> and you told him when you were coming back after receiving a phone call from the school asking for an immediate meeting. >> correct. >> that was at 10:05 a.m.? >> around that. >> okay. now, ahad you ever been called - can i have the cdm, please, ms. williams? have you ever been called -- >> it takes time for all three -- >> sure. i have a few other questions to ask. >> go ahead. >> have you ever been called to the school for an immediate basis before? >> no. >> had you ever been told that your son had suicidal ideation before? >> i was never told he had suicidal ideation before. >> that's your testimony. you'd never been called to the school once for a meeting, "i need to see you now," correct?

>> correct. >> okay. >> we're listening to the cross-examination of jennifer crumbley, the mother of the michigan school shooter on trial right now. we're going to take a quick break and get right back to this important moment.

we are watching this case against mother, jennifer crumbley, on trial for involuntary manslaughter. this is the prosecution's meat of the case, talking about the drawing that she saw that her son made of a gun and the words "help me" and there's blood. she said she didn't recognize the gun, but she did get

concerned when she saw the words "help me." she is being cross examined, and this is a really big part of the prosecution's case. let's listen in. >> in september, at least august, july, june, may -- >> of 2021, correct. >> 2021, thank you. now, he left on halloween, and you knew that your son was planning to hang out with him on halloween? >> yes. >> okay. but his friend didn't show. >> we texted -- i had texted his friend's mom the day before, trying to confirm if he was still coming over. that's when we found out that he was driven to wisconsin and taken to that school. >> so you're telling us you found out the day before halloween? >> yeah. >> okay. that didn't stop you and james from going to the halloween party at the barn? >> i don't believe it was on halloween. >> that's what kiera testified to. >> it was the friday before halloween. >> there was a picture with a date stamp on it, would you deny? >> no. >> okay. it didn't stop you from after you left that party without your

son, you went to another halloween party? >> we did. >> and your son was home alone at that point? >> yes. >> so can you talk to us about your son's hobbies in 2021. let's start with november the 1st, 2021, you know the hobbies were non-existent. i'll go one by one. >> okay. >> so you told us about bowling. >> correct. >> bowling wasn't -- the team wasn't in session that point in time? >> at that point in time, he decided he didn't want to do bowling that year. >> he stopped bowling his sophomore year. wouldn't have been bowling season anyway. >> i guess not, no. >> one hobby you talked about yesterday, that was not in existence in november 2021? >> correct. we did still go to the bowling alley with him. >> okay. and you said that he worked, but would you be surprised to learn he only worked a few shifts post-covid? >> no, not surprised at all. >> okay. so he wasn't at work every day? >> no. he worked tuesdays and thursdays

and sometimes saturday mornings. >> okay. but not very often? >> no, not very often. >> a handful of shifts post-covid, which, of course, march 2020 is when things shut down. >> he was working on a weekly basis. >> you knew he didn't have any friends? >> that's not the right way to put it. i knew he had friends but, no, he didn't have many friends. >> you'd never met another peer his age who he referred to as a friend? >> he actually had friends that used to come over prior to 2021 that he was still in contact with. >> we went through defense exhibits yesterday from 2019 to 2020. 2021, the time period where he sent you a message that he saudi mo -- saw demons in the house. >> 2021, the only friend was the one on the thing. >> you knew to be true in november 2021 that he had no peer support? >> i don't know what he had in school. he told me he had friends in school that he talks to. >> okay. you never met them, though? >> no. >> okay. and he didn't have any clubs at

school he was a part of? >> no, not that -- >> so you told us yesterday that your son wanted to design video games? >> correct. >> okay. he wasn't in a robotics club or coding club at the high school. >> he did take a coding class prior to 2021, and he was in the robotics after-school activity in middle school. >> talking about 2021. >> i'm telling you, he's been in that before. >> now, despite what you have called yourself as a vigilant parent and helicopter mom, you never decided in at least november of 2021 to look at his phone. >> no. >> no, okay. that's despite what happened in the spring of 2021, right? >> what happened the spring of 2021 did not concern me. >> okay. now, the one thing that seemed consistent to your son, to you at least, was his desire to obtain the weapon, is that right? >> i don't -- i wouldn't say that, no. >> he had a consistent desire to

obtain a weapon? >> not to me, he did not. >> okay. you didn't know about the 9 millimeter? >> i knew about it. >> okay. you didn't know about the 22s? >> i knew about them. >> in fact, you posted on instagram that he got himself a 22. >> correct. >> in june of 2021? >> correct. >> from that time, up until the november 26th, '21 purchase, he was wanting to get a 9 millimeter? >> i know him and my husband had discussed getting a 9 millimeter. i'm not part of those conversations. >> but you knew about it. >> i knew, but not that he was so -- however you described it. >> i said he consistently had a desire to obtain a weapon. >> i know they consistently talked about it, correct. >> he talked about how he wanted the gun. you don't deny that. >> no. >> november 26th, you said you weren't there for the gun purchase? >> no, i was not. >> okay. but are you telling us you didn't know what was going to happen? >> i did not know they were going to the gun store that day,

no. >> okay. but you knew that you were going to eventually get him a 9 millimeter? >> no, i did not know that. >> so you're telling us that that was a surprise purchase to you? >> it was a surprise to me they went to the gun store that day. it was not surprising to me they purchased a gun that day. >> it didn't upset you they bought a gun? >> no. >> it upset you it cut into the christmas tree shopping time, but it didn't upset you they bought a gun. >> correct. >> okay. and you told us that it was, in your words, james' responsibility to take care of the gun? >> correct. >> okay. now, you don't deny that, at least according to the cell phone evidence, the photographic and video evidence, you're the last adult to have possession of that gun? >>. >> correct. >> okay. you weren't with him at the range on november 27th? >> correct. >> you saw your son shoot the weapon? >> correct. >> you saw him shoot the last practice round before the shooting on november 30th?

>> at the range? >> yes. >> yes, correct. >> you saw how he stood. >> honestly, that didn't mean anything to me at the time until this case came about and i learned what a shooter stance is. >> he knew how to use the gun. >> yes, he's used one before. >> he showed you how to use the gun. >> correct. >> okay. the stance he took, you saw from the oxford high school video, it was the same. you saw that, right? >> i don't know. i can't compare it. i don't know. >> but you entrusted this responsibility -- will you agree with me that owning a firearm involves a great deal of responsibility and trust? >> i do. >> okay. and you entrusted this responsibility to your husband, james? >> i did. >> if you look at exhibit 423, that's the facebook chat thread between you and your husband. it's pretty clear you didn't trust james with much. would you agree or disagree? >> depends on what you're

talking about. >> okay. you didn't trust him to get out of bed on time? >> correct. >> you didn't trust him to cut the grass when it was time to cut the grass. >> he would cut the grass when it got to a length i didn't like. i didn't trust him. >> you didn't trust him to update you on his whereabouts. >> there is a reason behind that. >> you didn't trust him to not turn off or turn on the ring camera in your home. >> correct. >> you didn't trust him to keep track on your son. >> oh, i trusted him to take track of my son. >> in the messages in exhibit 423, asking him, where is your son? over and over and over again. does that signify trust or distrust to you? >> that was when my son was walking home from school, not that i did not trust my husband with my son. >> okay. and you didn't really trust your husband to hold down a job. >> it's not that i didn't trust him to hold down a job, he had a hard time holding one down after covid. >> in the messages, you are constantly asking him about

work, how much money he is making, and what he is doing to obtain employment. >> correct. >> okay. >> you have been listening to the cross-examination of jennifer crumbley. the prosecution is pressing her hard on what she knew about the gun that was given to her son as a gift. she did acknowledge it was a gift. also, a lot of questions about exactly how she spent her time and how much time she was fo focused on her son. this is important testimony, and we'll continue right after the break.

we'll take you back to michigan where jennifer crumbley is on the stand, being cross-examination, and right now being pressed about her family dynamics. specifically, at this moment, how many times or not she and her son expressed "i love you" to each other. this is a mother charged with gross negligence over the horrific crimes her son committed. let's get back into this testimony. >> you told us that -- >> he asked if the testimony was a year earlier, and the other two were -- >> the day of the shooting. >> i know. >> those have been admitted into evidence. >> do we know -- >> what's the question? >> he is asking about the texts overall which have not been admitted into evidence. i don't know that the text chain has all the texts.

there is no foundation that what mr. keast is looking at is all the texts. >> is that wrong? would you argue with it? that's what he's asking. >> i know. she just doesn't know what -- >> hold on. counsel can't testify. >> you know, there are people having other conversations. >> i know that. >> okay. >> there are people who know, right? he is asking what's normal for them, and would she be surprised, how many times. >> i get that. i get that it's not common. i'm just asking -- >> judge, this is argument. counsel can argue whatever she wants. >> what period are these texts from? >> you have redirect. >> she doesn't know what he is basing these questions on. >> is it appropriate for counsel to suggest that she does or does not know? >> she can say "i don't know." she can also say, "i don't understand the question." you can say that, too.

plz c mrs. crumbley, if you don't understand the question, ask mr. keast to clarify. >> thank you. >> you talked about going to planning mode? >> yes. >> that was in reference to counsel asking you about emotions and how you express emotions. >> correct. >> okay. so i want to talk to you about in planning mode and your priorities from the time you were arrested. >> okay. >> now, your phone calls were recorded from the time that you were arrested until now, is that you know that? >> correct, yes. i knew that. >> you know that, okay. your priority on the first phone call, december 4th of 2021, was on your animals and the cash recovered from the art studio. do you deny that? >> i don't deny it. >> do you deny that it wasn't until ten days later, 14 calls later, that you mentioned your son? >> i was --

>> do you deny it or not? >> i don't. i was under the impression i couldn't mention him because i could get flagged at the jail. >> when you mention him in later conversations -- >> i did. >> in fact, in one a year later, march 25th of 2023, you said, "he just needs to man up." do you recall that sf. >> i do not? >> do you deny you said it? >> it sounds like something i'd say. >> in december of 2021, your concern was about a gofundme. do you remember that? >> no, i do not. >> okay. i'm going to play this for you. ms. williams, can you have the volume, please? >> is this submitted as an exhibit? >> this is impeachment, judge.

>> gofundme to help -- >> well, there's no -- jennifer, that's -- >> with the lawyer, i have my horses, and so, i mean, i'm just -- i'm up against the wall. >> what's that? >> that was between you and your dad? >> correct. >> you asked him to set up a gofundme to pay for the board of your horses? >> i did, yes. >> you were concerned about other things related to yourself around that time, weren't you? >> yeah. >> was it still planning mode? >> i believe so. >> you were arrested december 4th. this is december 22nd. >> okay. >> oh, oh. >> okay. >> did you consider how many calories are in a baloney

sandwich with white bread? >> how many calories in a baloney sandwich with white bread? >> american cheese. >> mayonnaise on it? >> no, just mustard. mustard. peanut butter and jelly on white bread. >> and peanut butter and jelly on white bread. i'm looking it up right now. is that what your dinner is? >> for the most part, yeah, and other stuff, my cereal is -- >> american cheese you have. >> yeah. >> and an apple and a banana. >> okay. >> they're carb loading me, and i want to make sure they have at least -- >> i know they have 100 calories. >> okay. >> the sandwich is under, about 240 calories.

>> okay. then -- >> yeah, peanut butter and jelly on white bread? >> yup. >> still planning mode? >> well, i wasn't planning there, no. >> okay. now, we're talking about how you described planning mode. you described that in context to statements you made to the police on november 30th, 2021. right? that's the context you used the words "planning mode" in relation to. >> correct. >> okay. so you told us that the last phone call on december 31st, that was still you in your planning mode. i want to make sure we have an accurate depiction of what that is. here's one from january 15th, 2022. >> no, no, no, it's not that you shouldn't have it but -- no, that shouldn't be. you've had issues with the online stuff, issues with all kinds of stuff.

the bank -- >> i think that child deposit thing. >> the what? >> am i still going to get a deposit of $600 for the child thing the government does? >> you know, i have -- i just got -- i just got -- it's on both -- >> yeah. >> basically, it's hard to see there, but we lost that stuff. it took me -- i lost that a couple days before christmas. >> yeah. >> okay. >> is that still planning mode? >> we were talking about filing my taxes, if you played the whole thing. >> you were asking about your child tax credit. >> correct. >> you're still getting the $300. >> my dad was doing my income taxes for me.

>> now, when we started, we confirmed that you understood the oath that you just took? >> correct. >> same oath you took yesterday? >> correct. >> okay. you don't deny you had $6,000 in cash in your purse the night you were arrested? >> no. >> you don't deny that your purse with the cash, of course cell phones, were in a plastic tote? >> no. >> you don't deny the plastic tote was in a different plastic tote? >> correct. >> you don't deny your backpack with clothing items was in a different plastic tote in a different area of the studio? >> correct. >> okay. and you don't deny that you knew you had been charged with involuntary manslaughter? >> correct. >> in fact, as early as december the 1st, 2021, at 6:10 p.m., you

were talking about how you were being charged with involuntary manslaughter. >> that was what i was being told by family that was texting me. that's what the charges might be announced as, correct. >> okay. and one is to mr. meloche. there is a text to your cousin about you are being charged with involuntary manslaughter. you don't deny receiving that? >> i don't. >> that's wednesday december 1st, right? >> correct. >> you saent your neighbor a message at 6:55 p.m., december 1st, that you were reading, they may charge us? >> correct. >> okay. december 2nd, 2021, you wrote, they're saying involuntary manslaughter. >> correct. >> you don't deny that? >> no. >> of course, you looked at different news articles about that the next day. >> yeah. >> later on that day. >> jennifer crumbley, the mother

of the michigan mass shooter on the stand right now. she is charged with involuntary manslaughter. she's answering questions about her reaction to the news that she was being charged with this. the prosecution seems to be leaning into the notion that she was maybe unphased or unconcerned by this. again, also trying to make it seem that she did not pay adequate attention to her son. this cross-examination will continue right after this.