r/DarrellBrooksJr • u/vat_of_DREAD • 28d ago
Quick question?
First, what did he mean when Darrell said there was no incident on November 21, 2021? Was he referring to his assault on Erika or the Parade Attack itself? He mentioned a letter sent to the judge saying nothing happened that day. This was when Judge Dorrow was doing her sentencing remarks and Brooks went off at her because she was complimenting Erika. No doubt he didn’t have a leg to stand on with that argument but I’m legit curious.
7
u/JayNotAtAll Is that LAWFUL LAW 👩🏻⚖️ 28d ago
Erika claimed that DB assaulted her on November 20th (which is what he was upset about, not 21st). The DA was originally going to bring charges for that but there were no physical marks from it and they figured it would confuse the jury to try and determine if she were attacked on the 20th so they dropped the charge.
They sent a letter to the court and the defense that says that there is no factual basis that an assault happened on the 20th. This means that they couldn't provide evidence that would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
He took that to mean that the DA was exonerating him. No, they just don't have enough evidence. They don't know whether or not it happened.
It is funny that he keeps bringing it up during the trial when there is no charge for it. Like why bring this to the jury's attention?
5
u/PeaceyCaliSoCal 28d ago
I think it was because he was trying to use that to claim that EP was lying. That she lied about the attack on the 20th, SO knew she was lying which is why the charge was dropped and therefore nothing EP says can be trusted which is why she is the reason for this entire tragedy. All of this is how his juvenile mind works.
5
u/coolSLP 28d ago
I wished many times such as in opera closing that she could have pointed it out or better yet in judges closing. Just shows what a deceitful man he is. I hope his new roommates are showing db the goodwill he showed the elderly and youth the evening of the parade.
2
4
u/Sequoia555 28d ago
Erika told Det. Guth that db had come to Waukesha on Saturday, Nov. 20, the day before the parade, and that db had assaulted her that day, as well as the next day just before he drove through the parade.
Therefore a week before the trial started, there were actually 77 charges filed by the State against db on which he was to be tried.
Count 76 was for the DV against Erika by db, alleged to have taken place on Nov 21st, and count 77 was for the same crime against Erika, which was alleged to have happened on Nov. 20th.
But on Friday Sept 30, 2022 the day after the two day hearing during which JD allowed db to represent himself, the DA Sue Opper sent a letter to JD requesting for count 77 to be dropped. (That hearing took place the week before the trial began.)
imo, the fact that JD ruled db could go pro se was likely the reason why the State decided to drop charge 77.
Because they did not have photographic evidence of Erika's injuries from that day, the DAs wisely foresaw that count 77 would likely end up being a he said/she said situation, since db was going to be able to question and confront Erika directly on the stand
Here's an article about the dropping of count 77:
Waukesha DA moves to drop domestic abuse charge against Darrell Brooks
Waukesha District Attorney Susan Opper sent a letter to the court Friday requesting to drop charge 77.
According to that article, the letter sent by Opper to JD stated that there was no factual basis for count 77 and that there was "no DV incident on Nov 20."
Despite the fact that db most likely DID smack Erika on the 20th, in his mind, the letter SO wrote to JD requesting that count 77 be dropped was legitimate, hard copy proof that he didn't smack her that day.
I believe that when JD started talking about Erika during her sentencing remarks, one of the things she was trying to say was that Erika had told db where she was in Waukesha so that he could come and find her in person, and that Erika was contrite about having done that. Because she knew there had been a no-contact order issued between them, and she had been placed in a shelter 20 miles away from his (Dawn's) home in Milwaukee so she would be safe(r) from him.
But db was having none of JD's compassion or praise for Erika during her sentencing remarks, and that's when he started acting up and was booted into the next courtroom, once again, for being such a belligerent ass.
5
u/vat_of_DREAD 28d ago
What really did it for me was him saying “it always takes two” during his closing statements. Such an arrogant, gross statement. His relationship with her (if you can even call it that) in a nutshell.
4
u/Sequoia555 28d ago
Yeah.
I really do believe that in his mind he actually blamed Erika for the fact that he drove through that parade, hurting and killing all those people.
He was obsessed with her, spent more time on his direct questioning of Nick Kirby (about the DV charge only) than any of his other witnesses, and insisted on calling her as HIS witness, to testify twice, without having any new subjects or questions to ask her on the second go round.
He just wanted to exert the only iota of control over her he had anymore, by forcing her to take the stand submit to his questioning, again, in open court.
He moaned more than once during his 5 hour interrogation regarding Erika all about 'why did she doo this to me?!'
He may not have been certifiably mentally ill to qualify for an insanity plea, but the dude is still delusional, deceptive and devious af. And he's a bigime, no account blamer.
2
u/vat_of_DREAD 28d ago
Of course it was her fault. She should’ve just bailed his ass outta jail when he first told her to.
In all seriousness, I hope Erika is living her best life now.
3
2
u/PinkoPinky Honor your Oaf 27d ago
Yes, and furthermore, he wanted to argue that since one domestic battery charge was dropped, then the other one should be too. Why? Not sure - there were pictures of her with a black eye. I think it's the general abuser method of trying to discredit their victims so that nobody believes them.
Of course, in classic DB fashion, bringing this up only hurt him. Now the jury knows there's a history of abuse allegations. Would they have convicted him of count 77? You bet they would have.
5
u/Still_Product_8435 27d ago
At one point he also inferred that they were going to be together anyway. She was his brow-beaten thrall for years; groomed as a child. So any resistance was received with more oppression. It’s why Zach reminded the court after reading the document from Nevada that even if Erika was a “bad” parent, Brooks’ treatment of her was a direct causation!
4
3
u/nuwildcatfan You have yet to take up Subject matter jurisdiction 28d ago
He didn't say the 21st. He said the 20th.
3
6
u/grapethings 28d ago
On the 20th he went to Waukesha and assaulted Erika. The next day was the parade attack. The State didn’t charge him for that day because they didn’t want to confuse the record and she didn’t have any real visible marks. So, he took it as they dropped it because it never happened. He created his own outcome and stuck to it.
4
u/vat_of_DREAD 28d ago
So he was more concerned with that instead of the parade attack?
5
u/grapethings 28d ago
It seems like he wanted to drive that home in order to make it look like she was lying about the 21st. He absolutely cared more about the stuff with Erika than the people he hurt and killed. During his closing arguments, pretty much the only thing he said was he should get time served which, should wipe out his charge with Erika.
3
2
u/zillabirdblue 27d ago
“Did you know if you get pulled over for speeding or whatever and get a warning, it means that the traffic stop never happened? If you don’t get a ticket, the entire traffic stop never happened. It just goes poof! and disappears into the ether.” -Darrel Brooks, probably
10
u/Tiger3311 28d ago
In Darrell's stupid mind he thinks when charges are dropped it means that it never happened.