Now that I’ve been given the badge of honour of being put on ignore (after a mere 16 total posts to her 80-something - I didn’t know my strength! 
), I feel no need to even attempt politeness regarding the deathless sealioning nonsense she’s had us wading through.
The condescension coupled with lack of comprehension, reading and otherwise, was wearing.
Hope still springs eternal that we’ll get a robust discussion of the admissibility issue. Calling all litigation experts!
Of all people to put on ignore though 
If you read the statutes and case law, intent to murder, as opposed to assault, is generally based upon where the injury is inflicted. It’s not likely to kill someone if you shoot them in the leg or the arm, if you break an arm or a leg, etc. Intent to murder is overwhelming when you shoot center mass or in the head. Or if you bash someone in the head with a heavy object. Edit to add: intent to murder can be other things like building a bomb, trying to poison a person, etc. I was referring to intent to murder with a firearm.
Some people have made a big deal about only 3 bullets in the clip (although according to the police, he also had a full clip in his pocket). Since RC has said she gave the gun to MB a couple days before the attempted murder, it’s possible MB did a little target shooting a day or two before to see how the gun handled, hence a few bullets gone from the clip. Or maybe he just didn’t check the load. Most criminals are sloppy, it’s why they are usually caught or their plan foiled.
It was clear from the hearing with the first responding officer that the defense intends to challenge the assumed chain of custody on the gun.
Was that hearing before or after RC cut a deal with the prosecution?
Or maybe there was never intent to murder.
I’m thinking a murderer would shove in the full clip if it were a planned thing.
Before. But nothing they asked makes what is released about what RC said irrelevant or less accurate…just not the whole picture.
Doesn’t matter one bit.
They didn’t know anything about what RC knew about the gun at the time of the hearing, so of course whatever they asked has no effect on what she said.
How are you so sure about that?
Yup I’m sure. Because nothing precludes the topic being discussed and adjudicated in court. RC will testify whatever she will and defense will cross examine. Should anything said by any witness or D.A. be questionable, the defense will object and the Judge will either sustain or deny that objection.
Your wrong. They have police statements from the time of the shooting.
Well right, of course. My point was along the lines that the defense’s assumptions at that time of the hearing regarding chain of custody could be nullified depending on what RC revealed to the prosecution when they cut their deal, which was after the hearing.
According to what we know about RC’s interview, MB was the last person to have possession of the gun. Unless he (or someone else) can show at least some evidence that someone else took possession of the gun in between the time RC gave it to him to “have a look” and the responding officer finding it underneath MB after the shooting, the chain of custody question does not seem terribly complicated.
RC was interviewed after the hearing, where she provided enough information that the prosecution decided to cut a deal with her to drop her charge in exchange for her testimony at the criminal trial. The information she revealed in that interview could not have been known by the defense at the time of the hearing, which took place before the RC interview.
That she was aware of. Why did she insist on going into the apartment? Why did the 1st cop not find a full magazine on Barisone, but the 2nd one did…it’s not like he had a lot of clothes on. I’m not speculating anything but there are some gray areas that need filling in at the trial.
And I don’t think RG’s disappearance even for seconds, is going to fade away into the background, or his announcement that it was all recorded. This isn’t any speculation of what happened, but unanswered questions that any competent defense attorney is going to question. Again. And again. And again.
Yes, according to RC, MB was the last person to have possession of the gun. You don’t need to add the words “that she was aware of” because that is covered in the phrase “according to RC”.
Then there is the part where I said “Unless he (or someone else) can show at least some evidence that someone else took possession of the gun in between the time RC gave it to him to “have a look” and the responding officer finding it underneath MB after the shooting…”, which indicates again that it is possible that RC’s understanding of the situation is incomplete or incorrect.
I really think the rest of your post is repeating tiny little pieces of information that came from questionable sources and has been embellished, added to, twisted, and repeated over and over to fit the narrative that is most often expressed in these threads, and I just don’t have an interest in getting involved in that kind of nonsense. The facts will come out in the trial, and until then I just don’t care who went where for how long, how much the dog weighed, how many bullets were in the gun, or whether or not tapes that may or may not exist are legal or not.
Still wrong. But that’s ok. No biggie.
If you aren’t capable of forming an intelligent response, that’s ok, but you will look less ignorant if you simply ignore the posts.
It is a fact that the defense did not know at the time of the hearing what was said during RC’s interview that led to her cutting a deal with the prosecution, which occurred after the hearing. Continuing to say that is wrong will not ever make you right.
She was interviewed at the time of the shooting. Everyone on the farm was. And they’ve released very little about what was actually said in those interviews. I bet she said a lot more than the 2 or 3 sentences released by LK, JumpinQueen, and the news article.
Ooh…interesting question to be answered….did the magazines belong to the same gun or possibly to a different gun?
Do you think she was asked the same exact questions, and nothing more, on the day of the shooting and on the day of the recent interview that led to her deal with the prosecution? Do you think that it’s impossible that the prosecution could have gathered additional information and evidence between August 7, 2019 and November 2021 that would lead them to ask a completely different line of questioning in the second interview compared to the first?
Not necessarily to Sdel but…Not being into guns asking…does the gun MB got from RC come normally with two magazines? Are we sure there were 2, conflicting reports. Gun owner usually keep a spare? Why would he have 2 with him, why would she give him the gun to look at with also the extra magazine? How many bullets do they hold? When the police said there were three bullets in it was that after the shooting?…meaning actually 6 in it when before it was shot, enough to kill a couple of people.
One could admire the tireless persistence of several posters here in their continuing effort to twist any news and to create fantasized theories, all in defense of MB, even after two of the people closest to him, that know him and probably what happen, have deserted him and even turned state evidence.
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
