Yes! She has admitted to lying in her taunting SM posts!
That is not the same thing as lying under oath and perjury.
Under oath she admitted to nasty behavior that most people would have wanted to lie about and deny, but under oath she admitted to the nasty behavior.
It’s not surprising she wanted to avoid testifying: her choices were to admit publicly on TV to her harassment campaign, or perjure herself. I don’t see any evidence she committed perjury.
Those cameras were not placed by anyone involved in the shooting nor were they operated by anyone at the crime scene.
Your point is moot.
shocker. not.
I have to go back and rewatch LK’s testimony, but from my recollection of her testimony vs others was that others might say they didn’t fully remember something or miss a minor detail and have their memory refreshed, while LK would flat out, repeatedly say she didn’t say or do something and the defense would have to show her exactly where she did say the thing she claimed, under oath to have not said.She would then try to deflect the possibility that she was the responsible party when the texts came from her phone. That to me is lying.
It is possible to be paranoid about an actual threat. Of course it is.
Many older people are paranoid about driving at night. Should they be? In many cases yes. But someone could be SO PARANOID that the actions they take are above and beyond just avoidance. They may refuse to be driven by anyone at night. Or to be out after dark.
As well as deflecting to ‘It must have been when JH stole my phone’…
Which I think most reasonable people will not believe that someone stole her phone on several different occasions to make a specific search, and that search only…
As well as the fact that she never made a fuss about this happening in the 2.5yrs prior. She did not tell police that, she did not tell others that.
Doesn’t this make you wonder how often Bob took the phone of someone else to do things on it?
I think some may call this projection…
Or that she was the one who had searched on her phone for bullets or the child protective services phone number. 
Do you realize that your posts come across as co-dependent? You go so far out of your way to justify every action for LK (separate and apart from “being shot”) it just smells bad…
It seriously reminds me of the behavior of women who are so abused they go out of their way to justify how their abuse is ok, even deserved…
@Virginia_Horse_Mom is the only poster who has even bothered to identify the nature of her supposed perjury. Everyone else is acting like it’s an undisputed fact that she committed perjury.
Unless it’s established that she placed bugs in places other than the locker, and unless she said specifically on the stand that she did not, it is not established that she committed perjury.
But it’s standard CoTH procedure to treat it as a CoTH-fact that she has committed perjury.
CoTH-fact - a statement which is bandied about as true, when there is no factual basis other than it was asserted in a post by an anonymous poster, then repeated by at least 6 other anonymous posters.
This! Absolutely true. The refusal to acknowledge any responsibility on the part of LK is telling.
I don’t feel like going back and listening to the full cross of LK just so I can “win” an argument with you on the forums. But… Bilinkas established that her sworn statement under oath following the shooting (I think it was from September 2019 when she medically stabilized) was inconsistent with her sworn testimony during the trial, in many respects.
Was she lying then, or was she lying during the trial?
Or… perhaps… her memory of whatever transpired during and after the shooting is vague, for OBVIOUS medical reasons. However… instead of admitting under oath that her memory is vague on details… she is making up certain things, claiming she remembers them, all in an effort to embellish her testimony to try and get MB convicted.
Do you think it’s acceptable for a prosecution witness in a criminal proceeding to embellish their testimony in a deliberate effort to get someone convicted?
I don’t.
If a prosecutor suspects… or even out and out realizes that the witness they called to the stand is obviously engaging in this behavior… do you think that same prosecutor will later draw attention to it by charging their own witness with perjury?
I don’t. To charge his own star witness with perjury would reflect poorly on the prosecutor’s own professional judgement.
If LK goes forward with pursuing the civil suit after this trial, however, I think there is going to be a THOROUGH discussion of her various different statements, and all their inconsistencies.
I don’t think people are standing by PURJURY.
the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath: false swearing
I think people generally agree that she was IMPEACHED.
to cast doubt on especially: to challenge the credibility or validity of
Tarshus
We heard her on the stand and I refuse to spend my time doing an accounting for someone who won’t acknowledge a thing and will just excuse it away.
We know the truth. We watched.
I bet it is the first time LK was the best at anything.
How does that differ from your statements based on the “movies you see in your head,” or whatever the phrase was? That two or three other posters might agree on?
If she makes a statement on the stand that she did not make to the police 2.5 years ago, that doesn’t make it perjury, either.
Does anyone else remember RG’s testimony, specifically on cross, when Mr B and the prosecutor had a big debate about playing a portion of the secret recording from ED’s office? (I mean, ED sure seemed surprised that meeting was recorded). Anyway, I think they ended up settling on reading that specific portion of the transcript of said recording where RG implied that there were more locations than Bob’s locker or their pockets. I started to look but I have other things going on too.
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
