Verdict Watch and Big Questions

*though you can find unblurred photos of the kids with Ana online, I don't want to expose them, but you can easily see her love and joy for her children on her face

 In an unexpected move on Thursday we learned that Brian Walshe would not be taking the stand to plead his case in the trial that will determine his guilty in the death of his wife Ana Walshe. As it stands now Walshe has already plead guilty to the dismemberment and improper handling of her body. Now he is asking 12 people to believe that he did that out of panic when finding his wife dead in their bed.

It’s a story that could maybe make a little bit of sense if you don’t know everything else about the case. If you don’t know that in the moments after he supposedly found his wife dead in their bed he searched for how to dismember a body, he also searched for information regarding when she will start to smell badly, and a number of other ghoulish gruesome topics. What he did not search though speaks volumes.

Instead of, well calling 911 for help for his wife he also didn’t search “can my wife be saved if she’s cold” or whatever state she was supposed to be in when he “nudged her” and she “fell out of the bed”. If that sounds a bit familiar, then yes it’s giving flashbacks to Chad Daybell. Not only did he not search for maybe her ability to be saved, if he genuinely was afraid of being accused wrongly it makes you wonder why he didn’t search if cause of death can be found in the autopsy.

I mean, yeah I get it let’s say she suffered a fall down the stairs like in another popular case and she looked like she had taken a beating. It would make sense to be worried that it could look bad for him, but we are talking about a woman he claims died in her sleep. It doesn’t take a doctor or forensic nerd to know that most natural causes of death are determined in an autopsy.

Yet, he didn’t. No, instead he took one of his sons with him to a hardware story to purchase parts of his cleanup kit. Now not only does this child have nowhere to go to visit his mother’s resting place as she was likely incinerated after her remains mixed in with the refuse at garbage sites he chose were picked up by the garbage pick-up crews before authorities could track down what he did with, but this child will one day in the future learn that his father took him along to purchase the very items used to rob him of that right.

I guess, it’s easy to see where I fall on all of this. I hope this man will go down for first degree murder, though second is being offered as well. This is where it will get tricky for the jury. Will they believe that he had planned even a little bit to kill his wife, or if he snapped. Since we are still waiting on a verdict I would guess that this one issue is what is holding up the jury’s decision. Either way let’s hope and pray that no matter the outcome the children in this case find peace and never have to face the man who took so much from them.

A display of true love during the tragic trial against Brian Walshe

 

The trial against Brian Walshe regarding the tragedy surrounding Ana Walshe has been full of grisly searches, DNA results, gruesome findings and very little emotion from the man on trial. Today we saw true emotin, but not from Brian. This morning Gem Mutlu took the stand a man who held Ana and her family close to his heart considering her as a family member as well. 

When Mr. Mutlu took the stand it started as background about his relationship wiht Ana and Brian as well as their children. He spoke of the pride he had in Ana and her recent investment choices, and how the kids were like family to him. As questioning moved on to New Years Eve his emotion was evident. He recalled with what appeared to be nostalgia how Ana invited him to join the family for the night knowing otherwise he would not be doing anything. 

Further questioning touches on her overall mood and health up to the point where her oldest son is mentioned. He was present for the festivities and the man who speaks so fondly of his de-facto famiy was moved to tears. I can imagine just how much this must be affecting him knowing that the kids are not with family right now. He fondy recalls a champagne box that the three signed again becoming emotional. 

The questioning then touches on him confirming that Ana never mentioned a work emergency and Brian later reaching out to him as he could not locate Ana. Mr. Mutlu had encouraged Brian to reach out to the police and get help finding her something he did not do. In regards to Brian's tone after an original objection fromt he defense, Judge Diane Freniere asked him to clarify the tone less objectively. Not that we would be very surprised here, but Mutlu characterised it as "not panicked". 

Okay, I have to add my two cents here. This man is a perfectly credible source with connections to both Brian and Ana who has worked with both in personal and professional capacities. The defense points out that Ana had directed Brian to work with Gem as a "buddy" as part of a buddy system as part of a class they were taking. This in my opinion drives home that Gem is an objective and fair witness. Though Ana directed Brian to work with Gem, she had not actually met him in person until after when they grew close over their knowledge of investments and realty. So, you can see that there is a background of friendship, but when asked about seeing him as a collegue ohhh you could see the judgment that we all have. He paused and said "Brian was not a collegue". 

The defense did take a wise approach in not having Tipton question Mutlu as it would easily come across as too aggressive with such a sympathetic witness. 

The defense kinda pisses me off about now, they seem to be insinuating something other than a mentor mentee or paternal relationship. They are questioning Gem if they texted both day and night as well as weekends and if Brian had any issues with their friendship. I don't think we will like where this is going. 

Gem testifies that Ana basically became his right hand during her employment for him. "She did everything" is his explanation of her professional capacity. He touts her pride in all she did in her job from serving drinks to major accomplishments. Okay, I'm working on adding more from the defense, but I really don't know what they're doing at this point. We do learn during the questioning that Gem Mutlu had been there for the Walshe's during Brian's federal indictment and court proceedings. He attended court with Ana to support Brian. Ugh gross they're focusing on the fact that at one point Gem reached over and held onto Ana's hand for support. I swear on all things if they try to drag this man through the mud I'm driving to MA. The defense mentions that Ana confessed to Gem that she had a crush on him. They are presenting old testimony to refresh his memory as he does not recall making this statement. Yep they're going there with this. 

He does not recall her claims to the crush even after reading what he was presented. Oh yeah they're going hard for it. Each and every objection is sustained, and after Judge calls them to the bench. It does absolutely no good, though because Gem stands firm in his insistence that Ana was like the sister he never had. I can see how she would have a fondness for him, but it really does look like this was a famiial feeling. During the questioning with the defense he insists that Ana was a remarkable person. The defense really didn't know what to say and just thanked him that was awesome lol. Go Gem! 

We do learn that Gem is the person who connected the Walshe's with Will Fasto. Gem had known Will for twenty years round about up to the point when he introduced them. Gem doesn't know much about how well Will, and Brian got along. Ohhh she's trying to make it sounds like a hook up, but again Gem is insitent "I introduced THE FAMILY to Will" he states and oh boy he is on it.    

A little about me

    I kind of just jumped right into my coverage of The Sean Grayson trial without letting all of yall know who I am, and while some may not give a hoot maybe it could be convenient or of interest for others. So, lets’s dive on in!

First off I’m a forty-two year old mother of five, from a small town with a wild family history, and currently majoring in creative writing with a minor in psychology. When I first started college I swear I changed majors multiple times because I just couldn’t decide. If I wasn’t such a hot head I would have gone into law, but I don’t trust myself to be able to keep emotions out of things if I see something wrong. I’d be in jail if I saw a criminal get off due to a technicality or something. 

I should add now, I’m a neurodivergent crazy girl, and when I say crazy I mean PTSD, Depression, Anxiety and all that fun stuff. You’ll find that I often touch on therapy and my past experiences with my mental health journey because I find that being open and honest about these things can help destigmatize mental illness. 

My creative writing is about as eclectic as my personality. I am an avid dark romance reader, so a lot of what I’m working on is in that style, but I have also fallen in love with boots on the ground trial journalism. True crime is a topic that fascinates me. There’s a desire to know the how and why that drives so many of us and I am not at all excluded. 

I balance all of that with the mom life. My oldest two boys live away from home. They’ve grown up and left which is both sad, but also a source of pride for me. They’re following their dreams and it makes my momma heart full. My older daughter on the other hand is still with us while finding the path that best suits her. 

That leaves the two youngest my diva darling pageant girl and my neurodivergent little bean of a boy. Yall, I used to watch Toddlers and Tiaras and swore “never me” thankfully the pageant life is nothing like that hot mess, and I’ve found some amazing moms. It taught me a lot about not judging people before knowing them. 

Well, there’s quite a bit more to go into, but I’ve got enough current work in progress novels so we will leave it at that for now. Buckle up, enjoy the ride and thanks for coming! 

The Verdict and going forward

 It's been a few days, so I suppose it isn't exactly news, but Sean Grayson has been found guilty of 2nd degree murder in the case concerning Sonya Massey. Personally, I feel that first degree would have fit the charges, but I am glad that we at least got a conviction and not a hung jury. I cannot fathom the emotional trauma that another trial would inflict upon Sonya Massey's family. This family has been through so much, and my heart is really with her son right now. This young man should be enjoying his first year of life after graduation, but he has so much hanging over his head. 

If you've followed the case you'll know that her family had hoped for a first degree conviction. I think the thing that really tripped up the jury was some of the instructions and possibly an unclear definition of premeditation. That seems to be an ongoing issue with some cases. The thing with premeditation is that there is no clear cut time frame, window, or exact moment at which the law dictates when premeditation occurs. It can be as small of a window as an officer telling a woman he will shoot her in the face, then doing it moments later, or a long drawn out plan enacted over days, weeks, months and years. 

The next step for Grayson is pre-sentencing investigation and then he will be sentenced January 29, 2026. This is all now in the hands of Judge Cadagin. For the city of Springfield I would not say this story is over. We've closed the chapter on the criminal trial, but hopefully now we are starting a chapter in which we can as a community heal together and facilitate better education on working with someone who is struggling with their mental health. 

This case has touched on everything from the vulnerability of people of color, to potential socioeconomic prejudices based on her location, the struggles women face, and the lack of understanding and acceptance of a community of people with mental illness. Sonya Massey truly deserved so much better. She deserved understanding and the help her mother had begged for her to receive. She deserved respect from officer Grayson, and she deserved to be safe in her home when she called for help. 

I hope for our town we can find a way to take this tragedy and learn more about the people in our community. Sonya's name will never be forgotten, her image is forever a part of Springfield and her legacy has the potential to ignite change. If we choose to allow that ignited spark to become a flame is up to us now. 

Closing arguments Sonya Massey October 28

 Tuesday October 28: The state and defense both rested yesterday and a charge of 2nd degree murder was added. I was worrying that the jury may be hesitant to convict on the 1st degree since premeditation is usually something that people see as planning. That being said, it was the defense that proposed the addition of 2nd degree, so I think they aren’t feeling as confident about their case. 

Marybeth Rodgers is giving the closing argument for the state. She came ready with photos and all. I’ve said before that 2025 is the year of bad ass legal ladies, and attorney Rodgers is proving this. She opens with “I’m sorry” is the last thing Sonya said before “he murdered her” just like he promised. She points out that Sonya was sure the defendant wasn’t going to help her. She continues and states that Grayson got annoyed when Sonya was taking too long. 

Rodgers continues highlighting that Grayson knew how to “slow things down, but he didn’t” further highlighting his lack of care. Rodgers indicates that the moment Grayson let his anger take over is visible and “he can’t, he won’t be stopped”. 

Rodgers tells the jury that Grayson responded to “I rebuke you” with “pure anger”  that while Sonya was in crisis Grayson snapped. Rodgers further notes that while Sonya ducked behind a counter, Grayson did not even take a breath or control himself before shouting to drop the pot “when she wasn’t even holding it” yessss thank you for seeing this !!!!!!

Sonya complied peacefully de-escalation had been achieved but it did not matter to Grayson as he was “a man with a badge, and a gun and a temper”.  She states that Grayson could have left, but wants the jury to believe he was scared which “is not true”.

“Grayson said a lot of things on the witness stand that just aren’t true.” Grayson and Farley did not enter the home together. Farley did things, but not because Grayson had wanted him to. Rodgers notes that “The lies get bigger.” Grayson claimed to hear multiple voices, but he didn’t. He thought Sonya was intoxicated. That is not true. He stated that on the stand because before he testified, he read in the autopsy report that there was something in Sonya’s system. She comments that “his story had to fit” Nothing Sonya did in the house fits that narrative and she was complying with requests. 

Grayson claimed Sonya walked toward him with the pot, she didn’t. “She walked toward the sink.” She comments that what he said makes no sense. Rodgers negates Grayson's statement that he stepped back “the lies keep getting bigger” 

When Sonya made the “rebuke” statement she was not threatening she was complying. He further testified that when she said she was sorry, she knew she did something wrong. “When she apologized, it’s because a gun was pointed at her face. She doesn’t want to get shot.” 

“For the first time ever” Grayson said he was going to cuff Sonya “You don’t have to believe it because it’s not true.” Though it is convenient there is no evidence that Sonya was committing a crime. Rodgers indicates that the biggest lie that Grayson has told is that there was nothing he could do, he had no choice except to shoot. She reminds the jury that the defense had two “paid witnesses” they found that backed it up. These witnesses “had a story to tell you, along with the defendant.”  

Those witnesses noted that following the rules does not matter. “Murder was de-escalation” Grayson knew the tactics used to prevent use of force, but he used them to justify it. 

“You saw it with your own eyes, and you can believe what you see.” Rodgers mentions jury instructions pertaining to “use of force” and how it relates to an officer arresting a subject. “Totality of circumstances isn’t what defense witnesses want you to believe.” “He knew she wasn’t dangerous. He knew he wasn’t arresting her.” 

Rodgers explains the definitions of justified and not justified shootings. She continues that just because Grayson is wearing a uniform “he doesn’t get to use deadly force”. Rodgers confirms that we have a lot of great officers, but they are not expected to create dangerous situations. 

Massy made it “abundantly clear” and “she didn’t want a part ofit” However Grayson advances and shoots three times. Rodgers circles back to how Massey said “I’m sorry” and notes that he had no legal right to go into her kitchen where she was hiding. He had no right to follow her and shoot her. 

Rodgers explains the propositions for first degree murder. Grayson’s anger leading up to the shooting and all of the factors at hand constitute first degree murder. “Sonya didn’t threaten him. At no point in time did she do anything to make him scared.” Rodgers concedes that Massey may have made him angry, but was not a threat. 

“When you threaten to shoot someone in the face, someone who has done nothing to you. That’s first degree murder.” 

That is all for Rodger’s closing arguments. This team has really shown so much passion and sincerity during the trial. They have talked to Sonya’s family frequently. They want to do right by them and by the community. 

It’s now 9:25 am and Dan Fultz will provide the closing argument for the defense. 

I swear it’s such a cliche at this point. It’s like all defense attorneys, killers and their folks love this word and statement. 

“What happened to Sonya Massey was a tragedy, but it was not a crime.” I think my protein bar might come up because dude makes me sick. “We all feel sad for the Massey family” Seriously, just have to remind myself this man is only doing his job. 

Fultz comments on the obvious that it is difficult for them to be in the courtroom (gosh we wouldn’t be here if someone wasn’t a hot headed douchecanoe) “I wish none of us were here today” Fultz asks the jury not to let emotions dictate the outcome. He requests they decide the case solely on the law and the evidence being provided. 

Seems like a bit of attempting to guilt the jury, but that’s what these folks do to make the money and I’ll say this, Fultz is good at trying to work that. “You promised to not make up your minds until you deliberate.” Fultz notes the presumption of innocence  "We know you will live up to that promise.” 

Fultz comments that the choice is not whether the shooting took place, but whether he was legally justified to do so. Instructions will have use of force and justification. 

He reminds the jury that they are not here to decide if Grayson followed every policy/ procedure and best practice (why did you all bring that up in defense then bruh) That’s not what we’re doing here, he says. 

Responding to Rodgers argument he notes that every one of the experts is being paid. “No one got to come in and lie.” “These are professionals who were brought in from all over the country.” Fultz agrees that experts can differ on policy and how it is applied conceding, “that’s just how it works.” 

Thankfully for Grayson Fultz points out that the jury is not here to decide whether they like Grayson. That’s not the issue here. He refers to the way he acted as his bedside manner (so weird) he asks “Do we like his bedside manner” but states that it does not matter. True unlikeable people can be innocent but I mean… Fultz claims this is about the 29 seconds spanning from when Massey left the couch and when she was shot. He wants the jury to look at things as Grayson saw it that night, not necessarily agree it was correct. 

Fultz claims Sonya Massey “brandished” the pot He states that ISP didn’t even collect the pot right away disregarding his side of the story until later when they went to collect it (maybe because they have properly working olfactory senses that detected some strong bull shit). Fultz states this is why we say you shouldn't “make up your mind too soon.” 

Fultz condemns ISP for not collecting all evidence the first time. (I need to revisit the other days’ notes there was never a convention that the pot was held by Massey. By the time they were processing the scene the pot would have cooled and the water was empty I don’t know what physical evidence aside from prints could have been gathered.) 

“Then we have Deputy Dawson Farley who was interesting as he was walking a line about his testimony.” Okay someone hold me the fawk back. Fultz comments that Farley was still in his probationary period when the shooting happened. He wrote after seeing the body cam that they both gave Sonya verbal commands to drop the pot. 

He claims that Farley said he was in great bodily harm when Sonya had the pot. Fultz tries to paint it that Farley declined his first chance to be interviewed with ISP because he knew he wasn’t being truthful. He claims that Farley’s memory “evolved” when Grayson was indicted by a grand jury. He accuses Farley of lying because he didn’t want to be criminally charged calling his testimony a “wholesale abandonment of the truth”. 

Gaaaaahhhhhh!!!!! Farley didn’t break the law he has nothing to be afraid of. Deep breaths don’t throw the laptop, Jessa, you’re a poor hoe and you need it for school. 

Fultz now attacks the pathologist’s findings because he has never had a “living patient from 2014 to 2025” “but he got on the stand and all of the sudden he’s an E.R. doctor”. Fultz then claims that the pathologist could not prove the belief that the injuries were “potentially survivable” on cross-examination. He offered nothing to substantiate the claim aside from referring to literature. Fultz contends that he offered nothing outside of “it’s not a guarantee” 

I volunteer Fultz as tribute for testing it out since obviously Fultz believes that biology studies and human pathology text isn’t as good as if they tested a hypothesis out on a living being. 

Fults regrets that Sonya’s family has to sit through all of this, see autopsy photos, stills and video. “The sad truth is Miss Massey was never going to survive this incident.” Don’t pull a Shabizness, don’t wrestlemania this man. Fultz indicates that Farley did render medical assistance (he leaves out the fact that Grayson said a med kit wasn’t necessary and basically tried to dissuade him but heyyy) 

Fultz denigrates one expert witness who never had testified in a criminal trial before this one. He condemns the expert of being unaware of the use of any pot. He believes the only reason they chose this witness was that he differed from another professor in saying that use of force was not justified. 

Fultz uses the fact that Stoughton during his five years of law enforcement in Florida was never involved in a use of force incident (looks like he knew how to de-escalate). He states that because he had never been in Grayson’s shoes he would not know what it is like to be in that moment. (I’d argue that he never had to be in his shoes because he was good at his job hence him being an expert now) He claims that the fact that Stoughton did not look at SCSO use of force policy is what make him not a credible expert. 

Stoughton did not deny that a pot being over Massey’s head would be a threat. Fultz criticizes Stoughton for referencing his book (but the section that was cited by Stoughton actually was in reference to another scholarly work) 

Fultz refers back to Grayson’s testimony that he claimed he wasn’t angry at Massey. He uses the fact that Grayson classified it as a routine call as another point to him not being angry or annoyed with Massey. He says that Grayson was not yelling, screaming or cursing when he was at the door cough bullshit  He states that Grason only grew concerned when he heard the pot on the stove. He claims that Grayson told Farley to turn off the stove but Sonya “scurried” to the stove. 

Fultz contends that Grayson perceived Massey as being closer to him so he took a step back to avoid the hot water. He claims that “circumstances changed drastically” (well yeah dude you told a woman you’d shoot her in the fucking face) . Fultz refers to “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” as a threat. He states Grayson drew his weapon to gain compliance. Grayson gave clear commands to drop the pot. It’s true the pot was set down at one point. Fultz states that wasn’t the end of it though. He claims that for reasons we will never know she got the pot again and stood up and threw it in his direction thus she was shot. He says we can not wonder why Massey did that, but he “liked” what Rodgers said and quotes her “you can believe what you see” on the body cam. He says that is what happened. 

Fultz is being a petty Betty now, stating that he wouldn’t like his opposing council’s witnesses either if his expert only had five years of experience compared to the defense’s 73 years combined. 

Fultz insists that Use of force tactics can be in conflict with CIT (crisis intervention training) but he states that the incident wasn’t anything other than that until Sonya “transformed it” into something else. He states that his transformation is what necessitated lethal force. “You hope that’s not the outcome,” Fultz opines, but he likened this situation to being faced with no other options “that’s what you do. Grayson felt it was the only option.” Grayson needed to maintain a clear line of sight with the subject. 

When asked what could have been done an expert referenced a number of things, but Fultz insists that Sonya escalated the situation. He states that the outcome is on Sonya Massey. Fultz then mentions “those who can, do.” says his side’s witnesses do. 

Fultz insinuates witness collusion stating that some of the defense witness testimony was “eerily similar” (facts are pretty uniform though so I mean there’s that). Fultz also states that Massey’s actual intent is not what matters, but what it appeared her intent was. 

“We are here because Miss Massey did not respond to clear and direct orders of a law enforcement officer.” He notes SCSO policy again. 

“You told us that you would not find Mr. Grayson guilty unless the state has proven each and every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.” “You don’t guess about whether he is guilty” 

After a story about a trip that Fultz took to the UK and a King who made the court stay in session until he got the verdict he wanted and stating this isn’t that Fultz is done. 

IMO we saw peak petty performance from the defense and as much as it irritated the eff out of me. From the point of view of someone who has taken a few courses on law and debate I must admit that this is when Fultz shines. His questioning tactics were “meh” but he is a good showman and he delivered his closing in a way that wasn’t too boring though typing it out feels like he droned on and on. 

Milhiser takes the redirect at 10:51 am 

“The other side can find people to say there were no policy violations” but he points out that the defense did this via letters. Milhiser contends “this is a murder case,” where you are dictated by the evidence in the case. Mihiser states that it is not just Massey's actions but the actions of everyone including the defendant that plays into what happened. Milhiser points out what I’ve been screaming internally since day one. Saying that you can’t look at the actions of Grayson after the fact is “absurd”. Milhiser claims that Grayson’s actions before and after are just as important and they speak to intent and motive. 

“If anyone was in crisis it was him. He snapped”  I agree 

Sonya’s death was “senseless and avoidable” according to Milhiser. He also contends that there was no lawful justification to shoot Sonya Massey. 

Milhiser plays the video again and this time he has on captions so the jury can not only hear what Grayson said but see it (well done) While it plays a few members of Sonya’s family step out (bless these people I swear they’ve been through it) Her mother stays inside and I swear I have so much respect for her and her father. 

Milhiser said while jurors were told not to let emotions sway their deliberation, Grayson allowed emotions to get the best of him in Killing Sonya Massey (yep this is why our guy is State’s Attorney) 

He points out that instead of sending help when Sonya called 911 Sean Grayson was sent. Anyone else would have kept Sonya alive. 

This is n’t evidence from “cut and paste” reports the defense had, but actual evidence. Defense witnesses used tense, uncertain, and said “Massey attacked.” Milhiser notes that aside from those few instances Davis used “cut and paste of what he puts in his reports” using that to justify the shooting. He also comes back to Kevin Davis stating law doesn’t have much to do with Davis’ consulting business. 

Every time that Massey was told to drop the pot it was not in her hands. The version of what happened from the “good old experts” isn’t true. 

ISP said the case wasn’t what they thought once they watched the body camera, and that is why they returned to gather more evidence. (Personally it appeared that originally the ISP was looking at this is a cut and dry officer involved shooting giving more credit to Grayson initially) 

Milhiser plays the video again and Sonya’s mother becomes emotional when it gets to eh point where Grayson says he wasn’t going to “waste” his med kit on Sonya and paused where Grayson says “This fucking bitch is crazy” then shows the gun to the jury. 

“Massey was staring down the barrel of this gun when she was shot” and that was the end .. oh he ended well!!!! 

Benjamin Crump has arrived and once the verdict is reached there will be a press conference. Instructions are read to the jury and now we wait. 

Grayson takes the stand October 27

Here we go yall it’s a monday, I’m caffeinated, and I do believe we are in the home stretch of this case. We will find out soon if Grayson will take the stand. My money is on him taking the stand. He reminds me a lot of Dustin Duren in the level of self importance. 

Right out of the gate the state has rested. Personally, I believe they have done a stellar job. Let’s hope it is good enough to get the truth to the jury. OPE!!! No need to wait for a spoiler up first is Sean Grayson (the irony that he is on the stand at the same time as Dustin Duren is not lost on me) 

The judge has mentioned Grayson’s right to testify a right that he is exercising today. 

Fultz is questioning Grayson today and we are starting with his experience in policing. Since the defense fought so hard to keep his past misconduct out of this I’m sure the fact that while he was an officer in Kincaid he straight up lied to a person he pulled over by telling him he had an active warrant will not be brought up. Even the judge who dismissed the case admitted that while cops can lie, misleading someone to think that something actually from the courts and signed by a judge is a huge difference. There would have been full on misconduct charges, but by the time it was all coming to light Grayson had dipped and moved to his next police job (my baby brother is a bar tender in Kincaid we get ALL THE TEA).

Oh, yeah he never mentioned any misconduct issues at his previous jobs just now, no shock there. He jumps right into informing Fultz that Sandamon Co sent him to a 14 week training program with Macon County law enforcement as well as two weeks of in-house training. 

Grayson is a native of Virden Il he has been a police officer for four years and was hired part time in 2020 (that was Kincaid) Starting May 1, 2023 Grayson joined Sangamon County Sheriff’s Dept and was there for over a year. 

Now he is going into a typical shift with Sangamon County Sheriff’s Dept. Grayson usually patrolled North Town, which is actually my part of town. The way they divy up the patrols is everything North of Cook Street (a street that runs past the court house if I can get yall a clear to read map I will.) is Northtown and everything south of Cook Street is Southtown. For example on the north side you’ve got the area around the fairgrounds, hospitals and some shopping. It’s a bit of an older neighborhood than you’ll typically find on Southtown side. Southtown includes the mall, shopping, Lincoln Land Community College and extends to Chatham and the lake. 

Both of these areas have diverse populations, incomes, and backgrounds. I would say that in Southtown area there’s less of a medium ground. You’ve got these big new McMansions and houses on the lake and then you have the more rundown neighborhoods and a part of Springfield that tends to see more gun violence. The Cabbage Patch where Sonya was located is a mixed bag it’s near an area with more gun violence, but also situated near the park so you’re getting away from it as opposed to going into it, if that makes sense. There’s a higher crime ratio for the Cabbage Patch as a whole, but there are also worse areas. Grayson does note that there is a higher crime rate on the East side of town, this is true. 

Grayson did not regularly work with Deputy Farley, at that point it had only been 5 to 6 times ( I get the feeling people didn’t like working with him ) 

9:20 am and Grayson is going into the events of July 6. He was working a traffic stop and forgot his new computer system, so he wrote out a physical report. It’s around now that he received a call saying a woman had called 911 about someone outside her residence, but that call was disconnected. 

Grayson left the traffic stop and arrived at Ms. Massey’s home at the same time Deputy Farley did. He explains that Massey lived in the “Cabbage Patch” area of Springfield. Grayson notes that this area is known for high crime.  He does say that he was not upset by the call, though the computer issues may play a part in mood. 

Grayson admits that when Massey answered the door he should have turned on his body camera. He claims he turned it on when he saw the car in Sonya Massey’s driveway, but he didn’t double-check that it was on. I’m calling bullshit on this, but I need to rewatch the video and listen again, because I am fairly certain he made a comment about his body camera after he shot her, but don’t quote me right now. Grayson also states that he did knock harder than Farley did. He could see someone moving in the house but not responding. Dispatch then called and they heard ringing but no answer to the call. He was growing more concerned the longer they did not get inside. 

He comes up with the excuse, I mean he explains that most officers on the night shift turn the lights off and mute their body cameras so as not to alert anyone. My dude, you are arriving to a prowler call, why wouldn’t you want her to know you’re not the prowler. I may end up with a concussion from all of the internal facepalming. 

All eyes are very much on Grayson and taking in EVERYTHING Sonya’s family is giving him the staredown of his life, the jury is a mix. Some are just staring and listening while a few are taking notes, but they’re all definitely dialed in and rocking their poker faces. I have no clue what they’re thinking about him

Grayson now explains the layout of Massey’s yard and the way in which he and Deputy Farley split up to search the premises. Funny how he has not even once mentioned he was being a total buttnugget, but he thinks his farts smell of roses, so I’m sure in his mind he did no wrong. Grayson states that Sonya’s behavior was “pretty typical” for late nights. He thought she may have been on something. 

We’re coming up on 9:35 am and Grayson is talking about how Sonya kept saying she wanted help with something inside. I don’t really recall her asking for help, but okay then. Grayson then states he needed her name so he asked for her license. Grayson states he was under a direct order to get contact information when on calls.  BTW the car in the driveway came back as being in Sonya Massey’s name. 

Grayson states that when he entered he saw a baseball bat in the living room next to her bible. He said he just assumed she had the bat to scare people off. Well, yeah dude she thought she heard a prowler. He did not initially notice the water on the stove. Makes sense I’ll give him that. 

While inside Grayson directed Deputy Farley to search the house, and he states that Ms. Massey was “being cooperative” during the questioning. He categorized her as scatterbrained. That I fully do agree with. It’s about now that Grayson recalls hearing popping and cracking coming from the kitchen. He says the pot turned red suggesting it had been on a while. 

He says he looked at Dep. Farley and told him to check on her stove expecting that he would just turn it off. I think he is trying to justify this by saying Farley was closest to the stove and he was between Sonya and the bat. 

Grayson expresses concern when Massey “jumped up and went behind Deputy Farley” at first I though this was odd wording, but he clarified after a moment that maybe she had an “oh crap” moment.  Grayson says he was concerned because he didn’t know what Massey was doing. He says he didn’t see any food or other cooking material out. Dude she could be making tea, chill. He recalls seeing her turn off the stove top He says he was six feet away then she started going in his and Farley’s direction. He says she rested the pot on the counter and turned on the water but never filled it or did anything else. She was wearing oven mitts. 

It is when they started backing away that she asked, “Where are you going?” That’s when Grayson said “Away from you and your hot steaming pot of water.”

This is the crazy thing to me. He made a mountain out of a mole hill of everything Sonya was doing. Grayson claims that Massey said “I’ll rebuke you in the name of Jesus” (not I rebuke you in the name of Jesus guys even if he was in Kincaid for a small window of time, he HAD to have heard this said in passing before. Kincaid is very Catholic/Christian my whole family grew up in that area and my dad said it like easily a dozen times a day, my grandma used the saying you name it. Also in Springfield with all of our adorable lil ole church ladies and Evangelical folks you’ll hear it there too) Grayson apparently took that as a threat. 

He states that he was trained to use force to gain compliance. Force to gain compliance, let’s just pause there for a minute. Instead of asking what she meant by that, or trying to build rapport with her, Grayson felt the need to gain her compliance. He says he matched Massey’s threat level by drawing his gun. He claims that she was being very stern and meaning what she said. He claims she repeated herself.  He says when someone repeats “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus” that they are serious. Bro, you asked her what she said! 

Fultz now asks why a taser was not an appropriate defense against the pot of water. Grayson answers that he had an older model taser and Massey was wearing multiple layers of clothing which could have made the taser ineffective. (FREAKING SATIN IS NOT THICK EVEN IN 2 LAYERS) He did not want to risk the taser not working. 

Grayson explains approaching her to get a clear picture of what she was doing behind the cabinet.  After Grayson said “I’m going to shoot  you in the fucking face,” and Massey responded with “Okay, I’m sorry.” Grayson felt he had gained that compliance. He had intended to go around the island and cuff her. 

Grayson says that after this he saw Massey grab the pot, raise it above her head and throw the pot at him. He claims he only discharged the weapon when he saw Massey throw the pot at him. 

No further questions and it is 10:00 am

Milhiser is questioning Grayson 

Milhiser asks about his report, and Grayson claims that he did not feel the need to write everything down in his report because it was all shown in the body cam footage.  Milhiser points out that Sonya moving forward was new. He also admits that he didn’t include that he said “I will shoot you in your fucking face” in the report but thinks that he did reference that he told her he would shoot. 

Oh Milhiser points out that no one would have heard that if Farley did not have his body cam on. It’s noted by Milhiser that Grayson did write in the report “I was in imminent fear” and that the Fraternal Order of Police did not give him that language. He also wrote that he asked Farley if he got hit with the liquids and that Farley stated he did not. What really happened though is that after fifty seconds Grayson asked Farley “you good” and it wasn’t right away.  Other new information that was not in his report is that Grayson was approaching forward to put Massey in handcuffs. 

Fultz on redirect - He is then asked if he ever went to ISP after he filed his initial report to change his story (trying to shade Farley) Grayson says no. There are no further questions for Grayson. Dude Milhiser could have gone in on him if you ask me, but I think it would have gone against some of the motions that the defense had won and that annoys me so much. 

Break time  

Back in at 10:20 and the defense calls Sangamon County Deputy Jason Eccleston as their second witness. 

Wykoff is questioning Deputy Eccleston and asks him to share what he saw upon arrival at Massey’s house. When he arrived Grayson looked panicked. Deputy Eccleston recalls that he took Grayson to his car and Grayson started sobbing in the car and Deputy E. had to tell him to calm down.  Furthermore while in Eccleston’s car his demeanor was reportedly up and down. 

Side note Eccleston was actually on North side duty that night, but he heard commotion and “shots fired” over the radio so he went to Massey’s 

Deputy Eccleston being sworn in to the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Dep pictured below 

Deputy Eccleston states that he knows Grayson quite well and that this was not his norm. That’s all for the defense. 

Rodgers takes the lead on cross at 10:35 ish and she asks Deputy about the part in his report where Eccleston told Grayson not to speak to anyone. Rodgers quotes Eccleston as having said “Don’t say a fucking thing to anyone” as well as telling Grayson to turn off his body camera. 

The report mentions that his encounter and Grayson’s demeanor were recorded on Deputy Eccleston’s body cam. Rodgers also emphasizes that Eccleston told Grayson to turn off his bodycam and that Eccleston turned his off as well so his demeanor was not in fact caught on cam. 

On redirect Wykoff reiterates that Deputy Eccleston can still testify to Sean Grayson’s demeanor. I see what Rodgers  did here. She’s going with the fact that Eccleston may have been protecting Grayson and doing a whole blue wall thing. Side note, I’m not saying this is what Eccleston did, but the direction that Rodgers is going with potentially discrediting him. 

The time is approaching 10:40 am and the third witness is being called. Taking the stand is Coweta County Sheriff’s Office St. Glyn Corbitt. Corbitt owns a consulting and training company that consults on use-of-force cases. 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/glyn-corbitt-%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8-382b6158

Wykoff takes the lead in questioning Corbitt and starts by asking about his experience at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center as both a manager and a trainer. GA PSTC follows generally accepted principles and best practices in law enforcement. He managed the Crisis Intervention Training unit .. not bad expertise but imo having the very person who trained Grayson holds a little more weight. 

Corbitt does indeed have experience testifying as an expert in Use-Of-Force  during criminal trials. These credentials qualify him as an expert agreed upon by the judge and state. 

Corbitt reviewed Sangamon County’s use-of-force police and he believes that it falls within the generally accepted principles and best practices. Corbitt says when examining the case, he didn’t think Grayson acted out of line based on said policy. 

Corbitt states that there is no such thing as de-escalation because that is an outcome. (insert all the eye rolls) He states that use of can also be a de-escalation technique. 

It is Corbitt’s belief that Grayson approaching Massey falls within the generally accepted principles as well as the best practices. He also states that it is not uncommon for an officer to get a line of sight of a subject. 

Corbitt describes this as a perceived threat and that if an officer loses sight of that threat they do not know what could happen next. 

Wykoff points out two conflicting yet generally accepted tactics and those are keeping a line of sight and creating distance between you and a subject. Corbitt says you have to “pick the one that’s best for you and your partner.”

Corbitt states that choosing to keep a line of sight on Massey was the right call. 

11:10 am and Corbitt infers that there is a misconception about what de-escalation means, noting that there is a difference between the law enforcement world and the public stating that it isn’t just verbal communication. Communication leading up to the incident leads to the outcome. Um, dude is not a communications expert, but okay. 

Corbitt confirms that it is a generally accepted law-enforcement principle that the receiver’s actions often escalate the event. 

Wykoff asks if Deputy Farley had turned off the stove when Grayson had asked him if that would have possibly de-escalated the event. Corbitt states that at that moment he didn’t think there was an event, but it would have prevented an event. It sounds like he is trying to throw Farley under the bus, jerks. Corbitt continues to state that Massey grabbing the pot escalated the event and that if Massey had put the pot down and poured the water into the sink would it have de-escalated the event. (Grayson literally did not give her a chance to ) He claims that when Massey turned and looked in the direction of the officers she escalated the event because she did not set the pot down. 

Corbitt reiterates that Farley not  being able to turn off the stove was what stated them down the path to escalation. 

Rodgers objects (about damn time) for leading questions, so Wykoff rephrases. 

Corbitt concluded that Grayson tried to de-escalate the situation. (what video did he watch and in what way was that de-escalation). Apparently the crisis intervention perspective of the situation changed to one of a use-of-force incident due to a perceived imminent threat, given the totality of the situation. Corbitt states that Massey’s intention with the pot does not matter, only what the officer's perception is. 

11:35 and Corbitt testifies that he determines Grayson’s use of force was appropriate. He draws this conclusion based on years of experience and training. He states that officers must make difficult decisions and they are not robots. (uhh yeah, so maybe they should understand humans and how they act, but that’s just my own humble lil opinion). 

It is Corbitt’s belief that as a use-of-force investigator one must conduct analysis objectively and shouldn’t look at it through 20/20 hindsight. Wykoff has no further questions and it is lunch time till 1:00 pm 

Lunch notes, I’m a little bit worried. I had hoped that the state could go a bit harder on Grayson. I think it has to do with pretrial motions and maybe they don’t want to look as though they’re bullying a cancer patient. 

We've had a lot of passionate people outside the courthouse these days, and I really want a chance to talk with them at some point. These people have been gracious, peaceful, and respectful to both sides. I personally wonder if it will stay this calm should there be an unfavorable outcome with the verdict. I don't foresee the people out here taking  a turn in that way, but this has been such a divisive and public case, that by the time we get a verdict it could reach further than the peaceful people out here today. I may also ask one of my friends to join me with her professional camera and get some photos, because words don't always do justice.

It's now 1:01 and good Judge Cadagin is very prompt as always with both him and the jury entering right on time. Rodgers will be cross-examining Corbitt.

Rodgers looks like she is ready to get down to business, so let's hope she brings it. Rodgers approaches Corbitt with a synopsis he has written of the case. She questions him about his definition of de-escalation (yes queen thank you) Corbitt concedes that it would be ideal if de-escalation could be achieved through verbal communication, but further contends that it's not always the case.

In his report Corbitt stated that it was “apparent” that Sonya Massey was having a mental health episode. He claims that this is why it made sense for Grayson to use de-escalation techniques (make up your mind on de-escalation dude) 

Rodgers asks Corbitt, how many times he used the terms "generally accepted principles or practices" in his synopsis or full report on the case. The answer is zero.

Corbitt stands by his belief that Sean Grayson achieved de-escalation (he freaking killed her wtf) "You believe shooting Sonya Massey in the face was successful de-escalation?" Corbitt's answer is yes and Rodgers has no further questions. Our queen walks away knowing she freaking ate. I could not see her facial expressions, but I'm imagining full on "bish please" vibes.

Wykoff redirects by confirming that although Corbitt did not address generally accepted practices in his report they are implied because that is what his training analysis already follows. He doesn't touch the question about de-escalation because what's he going to do to fix that? Nada.

Cadagin calls the kids to the office, I mean he asks the attorneys to approach for a quick conversation from about 1:18 to 1:20 ish and we are back at it with Kevin R Davis being called to the stand. Davis is a retired law enforcement officer who worked in Akron Ohio. Davis runs his own consulting and expert witness firm.

I may have ended up down a Silver fox rabbit hole, because if you google “Kevin R Davis Akron OH” you’ll find another Kevin Davis. Just to make sure he definitely 100 percent is not the same person I double checked our rugged guy out from multiple angles and the abs do not match, I mean it’s not the same guy. Nothing against our Kevin Davis, I’ll include both photos, for um, science yeah let’s go with that. 

This is our witness today. Like I said nothing wrong with our guy here. He’s very professional and dressed nicely. Giving professional vibes.

 

This is rabbit hole Kevin Davis. He’s giving Flynn Ryder Smolder vibes 

Now that we have given our brains a minor distraction let’s get to some questioning. Kevin is declared an expert in the use of force and in said investigations. Wykoff is questioning him and asks what conclusion he reached based on the material he received (Sangamon County Use of Force Policy) Davis believes that the choice to employ lethal force was warranted. 

Davis states that the totality of the circumstances analysis ends once the force has been applied or is no longer being used. It is his belief that what happens after is irrelevant to the conclusion one draws in a report. 

Ohhh so this is how they’re going to try and negate the fact that Grayson did nothing to help Sonya Massey, in fact trying to dissuade Farley to render aid as well. It also completely wipes the fact that Grayson called Massey a “fucking bitch” right on out of existence. Maybe I should switch to wearing glasses in case my eyes roll outta my head. 

Davis testifies that de-escalation is a concept that has gathered steam within law enforcement over the last few years, establishing that the use of force is unnecessary in some situations. (yathink?) He states that lethal force is a form of de-escalation as it stops the threat. My flabbers are ghasated because isn’t that kind of the reason for de-escalation, avoiding unaliving. He also refers to policing as a “contact sport” 

Davis says Grayson made attempts to de-escalate the situation, pointing out when Grayson asked Massey to put down the pot of water ( apparently yelling “drop the fucking pot” while a gun is pointed at someone is asking them to put down the pot of water I really hope that the scoff I think was in my head was actually in my head) 

Wykoff asks if it is a generally accepted practice or principle that an officer should create distance between an armed subject for self-preservation. Davis says “yes-and-no” it depends on the circumstances. 

Davis believes that Grayson’s decision to walk toward the counter was to allow him to see Massey’s movements negating the fact that it was a tactical blunder. (dude is tall he could see just fine over the island)

Wykoff now offers a hypothetical: an officer can violate a tactic/CIT policy and violate a de-escalation policy, but still be within the confines of the use of force policy, deploy use of force, and be okay to do so. Basically you can be sanctioned for policy violations, but be okay because you didn’t violate lethal force policy. 

Davis states that the body worn camera’s position won’t capture what an officer directly saw. Davis also emphasizes that the cameras are only one form of evidence and are equipped with a fishy lens that distorts distances. Does it distort the shitty stuff Grayson said as well? Just curious. 

In response to Officer-created jeopardy Davis infers that it is not widely accepted, but a concept that has been developed by academics shifting the responsibility from the subject to the officer. (I mean it’s not always the subject’s fault so that is kind of fair) Wykoff states you won’t find that in Davis’ tenure as an officer and not accepted in police training referring to it as a novel police concept. 

Heavens give me tolerance, because patience will just make me able to wait longer to slap someone. It’s now 2:10 pm and Davis explains that he also extracted individual frames from the footage just as ISP did.  In my opinion this line of questioning is just so the guys can hear themselves talk because Davis now says “The video is the video, the evidence is the evidence.” 

Davis states that we couldn’t know what is going through Massey’s mind. Only Grayson’s mind matters at this point. I feel like this guy is biased on the side of officers. I get it, but that doesn’t make a good witness.  

We are now taking a break before cross. 

Milhiser is questioning the witness this time. He asks Davis about his blog and blog entries. Looks like I have a new link to add. 

https://kd-forcetraining.com/

Davis does not consider his consulting firm’s blog to be for police advocacy. Looking at a 2017 blog entry dealing with politically-correct police policies , and one a few weeks ago about “systems weaponized against officers” it appears these blogs justify the use of force. 

In an entry about the Massey case Davis had written, “the situation deteriorated based on Massey’s actions” He also wrote in the blog that Massey’s actions posed an immediate threat to officers and others. Milhiser doesn’t like this guy. You can tell. 

He points out that his report has a lot of copy and paste from other reports. Davis says he doesn’t cite himself, but he cites others. Milhiser pops back with “facts be damned” but is forced to withdraw it. That was honestly satisfying because I wanted to say something similar. 

Ohhhhh he is pointing out the hypocrisy babes!!! Milhiser asks Davis how many times he says “Massey attacks” in his report. Davis did not count. In regards to Massey’s “i rebuke you in the name of Jesus” he says “I will not attempt to dissect an obviously mentally ill Massey’s thought process.” I know so many mentally sound people who have said exactly this. Please don’t shoot them all. I like most of them. 

Davis is on the struggle bus trying to keep up with his own report, while Mihiser is basically running circles around him. The man is sharp! In the report it is stated that Grayson’s “small movements” didn’t create the jeopardy leading up to the incident. Milhiser points out that there is a lot in the report about Massey’s actions. 

Davis wrote “An officer under attack by a female subject” in his report. Milhiser points out, “that sounds really bad, but it’s really good we have the whole incident” on video.  Milhiser draws attention to six still images of Massey holding the pot above her face, something that Davis considers the “attack sequence”. Milhiser again points out that it is lucky we have the body cam, because Davis did not include anything about her apologizing or putting the pan down. Davis defends this by saying that’s not when the attack happened. 

That about wraps up the cross, and Wykoff comes in with redirect. Davis states that his report is written from the point of a consultant not an investigator. He applied the same general principles form when he was an investigator and a trainer. Davis did author and publish a book with 67 pages about the Massey incident. Ugh he is comparing him to the state’s witness asking if it is safe to say he is not here to generate book sales. 

The defense rest and now we are going into discussion about jury instructions.