It really doesn’t matter what the TV viewers think. As for the jury members at the civil trial? It’s a safe bet the lawyers will make it very, very clear how incongruous all that is.
I suspect the non-equestrian viewers will have or know someone who has been cyber bullied and will be able to identify with Michael. Think of parents who may be watching who’s children have been bullied horribly!
On the comments for the sneak peek, someone did bring up that USDF records have her showing in June and August of 2020. No idea if 48Hours reads their comments,
I’m curious about the general public’s reaction to this case. We (on the COTH forums) have been immersed in the “horse person” reaction to it all. And so many of us have biases. Either we come to it with background knowledge related to the Dressage community, or we have had lots of experience with crazy boarding or crazy client situations. And of course, there are actual lawyers weighing on these threads. As well as survivors of violence. So we all have a lens through which we view this.
I’m curious to see the initial impressions and reactions from a wider pool of society. I’m admittedly a bit of a weirdo, and get curious about how different people from different walks of life view cases or situations.
There are a few obvious horsey people commenting. But… it doesn’t seem flooded with it at all.
My guess is that whoever runs the FB page heavily moderates the comments for all 48 Hours posts, as well they should, given that many of them involve criminal cases where family members and friends of the participants could make all sorts of wild accusations.
I don’t expect the reception of any of the participants to be favorable among the general public, TBH. Unless it’s a heartwarming story (like horse-helps-child), lots of people get weirdly triggered involving anything involving spending lots of money on horses. Even more so than other rich person sports and hobbies, I mean.
I assume the trial, but maybe you assumed that much already.
When I read AFs post I automatically put an s on the end of statement so it was opening statements.
Laugh.
Now I too want to know which one they are listening to.
Did I imagine reading it in Deningers motion saying he subpoenaed the moderator to confirm it? Did I totally misread the motion brief whatever it’s called?
Just what’s believed to be true, since Kirby Kanarek has an account here and IM was spouting off things that her husband would be aware of, as he’s paying the bills for Lauren’s civil suit. As I said, it’s equally possible that IM is Emily Kanarek, Lauren’s sister, who would also have complete access to inside information about the case.
It was confirmed that Kirby Kanarek has an account here, due to the use of matching e-mail addresses. It was not confirmed that her husband has one, only that it is believed he does, based on what has been posted by the account believed to belong to him.