If he recognizes people have breaking points, why did he allow, facilitate, maybe encourage his daughter pushing MB (and the rest of the people on the farm*) towards that point?
*they had no idea if someone around MB might take matters into their own hands.
Because they have a history of bullying people into doing what they want so to them a breaking point is where the person gives in to their demands.
What? The 3D chess player didnāt for a moment imagine this outcome? Never imagined her plot wouldnāt work? Didnāt anticipate this possibility?
And now that someone snapped, they still havenāt learned.
Its crazy.
A lawyer - an officer of the court - calls THE JURY INSANE while MB states his plan to put his world back together. To persevere.
Gee I wonder why the public is overwhelmingly pro MB?!
Hold the phone here, I thought the Kanarekās were celebrating and drinking champagne or something after the verdict, not feeling āshocked and dismayed.ā
You know that clip is going to be featured in the civil trial. Why he ever said anything about a trial his client was involved in that ended poorly for her is mystifying.
That certainly shows that they are two different types of people, arenāt they?
I am just going to leave this right here regarding one of the characters in this whole saga.
There is a certain - uh, affliction - that results in fluid retention and bloating and a tendency to fly off the handle every so often (i.e., go into āragesā of various sorts).
Make of that what you will. 
Man, Nagel, heās something else.
But he has not done it only once, he has now done it twice!
He seems to have a slim grasp on honesty too, so I guess I would expect nothing else from him.
Guess it was a lie? Are you surprised?
Iām betting it was his office. I certainly hope he didnāt invite anyone connected to this case to his home.
No, not surprised.
IM has always been full of it (heās the one who said it).
Didnāt Jonathan Kanarek post here about their champagne drinking and party? I wonder if that is still here.
Not to some, some people here insist that Jonathan Kanarek is the one telling the truth. Sigh.
I think he kept coming across in his delivery like he was inspiration for the Tony Soprano character. I also found it interesting that he was the one controlling the narrative for his side (other than their trial lawyer, but at least the lawyer didnāt blatantly lie when asked questions about evidence that didnāt exist).
Yup. After the NGRI verdict, when people were criticizing Nagel for his comments about the jury during a CourtTV interview, āInigo-Montoyaā popped on the forums to say that the attorney was headed over to the Kanareks house to have champagne with them, because somehow the NGRI verdict meant that the lawsuit would be a slam dunk for them.
It was ridiculous.
Some questionable (read: FAKE) user accounts are now showing up on the FB commentary this late morning, trying to nudge the needle back towards Lauren, by discrediting Michael and disregarding her actions. Keep an eye on the latest comments by using the Newest sorting.
What? Someone from the Kanarek family is lying? No? It could not be.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
