By SAM CALDWELL and TREY GARRISON
Waukesha, WI – On the eighth day of the trial of the accused anti-White terrorist Darrell E. Brooks, the court continued to hear the testimony of victims who took part in the Waukesha Christmas parade, namely spectators gathered around the iconic coffee shop “Steaming Cup.” During the many harrowing recollections of the day’s events, we received first-hand accounts of permanently disfigured children, bodies flying off of the hood of a red SUV, and the hunt for missing kid’s shoes which contained tire streaks across them.
Despite the incredible testimonies and increasingly frequent objections, Brooks continued to be coddled by Judge Jennifer Dorow, who allowed his antics all the way up until the court was dismissed. Time and again, Brooks forced the victims to engage in a twisted inquisition of sovereign citizen legalese, maximizing their suffering by scoffing, deriding them for excess “commentary,” and in some cases, laughing.
Brooks, a black career criminal, and a registered sex offender is charged with intentionally driving his SUV through the annual Waukesha Christmas Parade on Nov. 21, 2021, striking dozens of White spectators and participants. Six White people died, and 61 were injured and maimed as the self-described anti-White terrorist accelerated into the barricaded parade route and veered into crowds for five blocks.
The state’s more than 70 felony charges against Brooks include six counts of first-degree intentional homicide with a dangerous weapon, 61 counts of recklessly endangering safety with a dangerous weapon, six counts of hit-and-run involving death, and two counts of bail jumping.
The prosecution has still not mentioned or questioned Brooks’ extensive, documented history of anti-White statements and hate, which preceded the terror attack on the Waukesha Christmas parade.
Before the jury was brought in, Waukesha County Circuit Judge Jennifer Dorow ruled against a number of Brooks’ attempts to subpoena the state of Wisconsin, which is part of his continued pseudo-legal “sovereign citizens” strategy. “Sov cits” assert that only individual people can bring legal action in court, not governments acting on behalf of their citizenry in the form of municipal, state, or federal prosecution or action for criminal or civil allegations. Brooks attempted to utilize this strategy by repeatedly asking who the plaintiff was in the case.
Brooks: “Are they or are they not the plaintiff?”
Brooks: “My accuser is the state of Wisconsin?”
Brooks tried to make an appeal before being told by Dorow that this wasn’t an appeals court, then repeatedly claimed his sixth amendment rights were being violated. He claimed he could not face his accuser, but Dorow told him he’d been able to cross-examine every witness, and that he didn’t understand the difference between criminal and civil law.
Brooks, who is representing himself, would make these frivolous arguments throughout the day.
First Witness: Stefanie Bonesteel
The first witness was Stefanie Bonesteel, a White bank employee who marched in the parade. She described what she witnessed when Brooks allegedly plowed through the crowd striking White victims, recalling that one of her colleagues, Jane Kulich, was killed that day.
She recounted marching near her two children—10 and 13—before feeling like something was out of place. She looked behind her and saw car headlights rapidly approaching. She was uninjured due to being in the street, and not on the curb where the red SUV drove by.
She recalled looking to her side and seeing a member of her group running through the street, trying to reach safety.
Bonesteel: “I remember seeing the vehicle moving at a high rate of speed towards the person who was running.”
She testified that she never saw the car engage its brake lights as it struck the person, making a “very, very loud thud.” After the vehicle passed, Bonesteel said her first instinct was to locate her two children, which she eventually did. At that point in time, her husband Adam found the three of them, and they all moved up into the safety of a cigar bar on the side of the street.
During cross-examination, Brooks implied that the barricades prevented him from exiting the parade route, but officers on the scene had noted that had he attempted to slow down they would have been able to move them. However, the vehicle never attempted to slow down but sped up.
He attempted to undermine Bonesteel’s eyewitness testimony by casting doubt on her ability to see the vehicle, the license plate, and the driver of the car. He continued his trend of asking every witness if they consider themselves a party in the matter, a noted sovereign citizen tactic. At one point, he even asked them to point out the state of Wisconsin in the room.
Second Witness: Adam Bonesteel
Her husband, Adam Bonesteel, then took the stand. Adam actively participated in the parade as the driver of the float for Citizens’ Bank. He testified to both seeing and hearing the impact, stating he heard the roar of an engine, and that it sounded like someone had hit a deer.
He said that he saw a body fly off the hood of an oncoming vehicle and was afraid the body was that of his wife. He testified that he immediately parked the float and ran to check on her. Notably, Bonesteel says the incident felt like an act of terror. As Bonesteel testified, Brooks suddenly began to have an emotional episode and apparently cried under his covid mask. He could also be heard muttering “get it together” to himself over the court microphone.
As Brooks cross-examined Bonesteel, he argued over semantics regarding the meaning of the words “he” and “she,” and once again attempted to cast doubt on witness testimony regarding the sights, sounds, and ability to see the driver. During redirect, Bonesteel was asked if he ever saw the driver of the red SUV stop or get out to check on the victims, to which he replied that he did not.
It’s notable that despite Bonesteel likening the attack to an act of terror, both the prosecution and defense seemed uninterested in even acknowledging this possibility, and quickly moved onto the next witness.
Third Witness: Matthew Harris
Matthew Harris was the next witness to testify, stating that he was attending the parade with his two daughters and wife. They were all spectating the event as part of a group that had arrived from a local soccer game and gathered by the Smoking Cup. As he was watching the parade, Harris noted that the area around him was packed with people. He then noticed a red SUV heading straight towards him at alarming speeds, which then clipped the corner of the street where they had been standing, causing it to veer directly into the Dancing Grannies group.
Harris: “I remember screaming ‘get back because all of our children were right there.”
Harris testified that his 7-year-old daughter had her foot run over, resulting in fractures in four toes, her fibula, and her tibia. At the time, he tried to downplay his daughter’s injuries to her to keep her calm and confident that she would be okay. He stated that he wanted to take his daughter to the hospital but saw a notification on his phone that the hospital was on lockdown, and instead took her to his wife, a nurse practitioner.
He recalled returning to the scene the next day, only to find his daughter’s shoes at the site of the impact, covered in tread marks from the vehicle that struck her.
During cross-examination, Brooks had the audacity to question Harris over why he would ever downplay his daughter’s injuries as a father. He continued attempting to cast doubt on witness testimony and making multiple invalid objections. After a brief redirect, state prosecutors asked if there was anything that would have prevented the “red SUV” from stopping, to which Harris replied, “no,”
Fourth Witness: Heather Ricciotti
The state then brought Heather Ricciotti to the stand, a spectator who attended the parade with her three young children, ages 7, 5, and 2. While they enjoyed the parade standing by the Steaming Cup, she testified to being near Harris’ group, and that one of her children was also injured in the alleged attack.
During cross-examination, Ricciotti appeared to be more hostile with Brooks than most other witnesses, giving curt answers accompanied by glares in response to Brooks’ now typical array of invasive, irrelevant questions.
Fifth Witness: Daniel Knapp
Daniel Knapp was the day’s final witness and testified to attending the parade with his three young children, ages 11, 7, and 3. He recalled seeing Brooks purposefully drive around the floats, targeting the parade participants and children, including his own. He testified hearing the sounds of screams as the red SUV drove through the parade.
“In my recollection, there is a difference between laughing and having a joyful time,” he said during direct examination. “Compared to screaming out of fear or terror.”
Knapp testified that his young daughter suffered a tear in her spleen, a broken nose, a significant road rash, and cuts to her face that required surgery. He stated that her face was permanently disfigured because of the attack.
Knapp recalled being able to see the driver of the vehicle clearly and that the perpetrator was a black male, and at the time, the eyes drew him in. “They were completely wide open,” he said. At one point, when Knapp gave an answer to one of Brooks’ inane questions, Brooks could be heard laughing while muttering the words, “that was a lot of commentary.”
Brooks’ cross-examination strategy remained unchanged, though he pushed Knapp on his earlier report, claiming the driver was a black male with long hair and facial hair. Brooks attempted to string the witness up on his own words and argue the semantics of what is considered “light-skinned” or “dark-skinned.”
Brooks: “Is it safe to say the man you identify today does not have a dark complexion?”
Knapp: “I guess it depends on your definition of dark.”
After that, Dorow advised the court they would break early due to a tornado warning in the area, and the proceedings would resume Thursday morning.
A live stream of the trial is available here. For background on Brooks and his alleged anti-White hate crimes, read a summary report by Justice Report’s Jack McKraken. To view the National Justice Party/Media2Rise documentary on Brooks and the Waukesha attack, click here.
The Justice Report’s ongoing reporting of the trial of Darrell Brooks will continue to be updated every day until sentencing.