They SHOULD get a copy of everything the judge just read. Or at least that’s how my court does it.
1 Like
What other location? He was on the same property the whole time.
10 Likes
Yes, I have watched the trial.
I still think the jury might agree MB fired the gun.
4 Likes
True! I’m not 100% sure if he’s charged with that or this one. I think with unlawful possession, even the intent to threaten would be enough of a crime? It doesn’t mean they have to find him guilty of attempted murder
N.J.S. 2C:39-4(a) Possession of a Weapon for Unlawful Purposes: Firearm. In New Jersey, it is a crime to possess a firearm with the purpose or intent to use it in an unlawful manner against another person or their property. Such possession is a second-degree crime and is punishable by 5 to 10 years in prison .
There is evidence to suggest it. The sworn statement LK gave shortly after the shooting differs SIGNIFICANTLY from her sworn testimony at trial.
How do you explain that?
One explanation would be that she has gaps in her memory. Or that her memory had changed.
Did she testify to that?
Nope. She claims she DOES remember the period after the shooting. But her sworn statement and sworn testimony are inconsistent.
Kinda problematic.
13 Likes
I know the judge does sound like Charlie Brown, but you are correct, he did just go to great length explaining the elements of the gun charges and talked about possession with the purpose to commit an unlawful act being one of the 4 elements.
2 Likes
The judge was wildly optimistic that his remarks would take an hour.
5 Likes
I think so, and that’s why she and RG are dancing around inventing different versions of events.
4 Likes
Highlights of prosecutor’s closing statement:
[I had time to go back and listen to the rest so I am posting the entire thing in one place in case others are interested.]
Verdict needs to be about the evidence, not personal feelings about MB, witnesses, lawyers, etc. No jury ever told how to deliberate. Pros will give blueprint for how to apply facts to law.
Start with pros burden to prove MB guilty. Then address defense burden to prove NG by insanity.
Jury instructions say use of deadly weapon allows you to infer that def’s purpose was to cause death. Def didn’t use shovel, tire iron, etc in his truck or rake, flowerpots, chairs, etc in patio area. MB picked deadly weapon before he even drove there, out of his safe. Shows gun. MB had his own guns. One had no firing pin, there was no ammo for another one, and a third was a single-action revolver (longer to load, have to cock each time, can only hold 6 rounds). Shows pic of safe with open box of 9 mm right under Ruger case, with orange safety magazine next to case. This shows MB didn’t choose the gun when he arrived at the house.
2 things to prove WRT att murder:
-
def’s purpose was to cause death
-
def took substantial step
MB and LK hadn’t even seen each other that day. Shooting happened 1/4 mile away from barn where the gun was.
Re: credibility of the witnesses, jury is sole determiner of credibility.
LK had two bullet holes in chest/clothing and there was one hole in house. Def says one of those two bullets somehow then went through the house–is this reasonable? Analysis shows bullet that hit house was fired somewhere along line near bush.
When police arrived, gun found underneath 6’4" MB. RG literally struggling for his life, waiting for help to arrive. Heymer is the one who says, “If you move I’ll f’ing kill you.” 911 call corroborates LK/RG. They didn’t have time to run around planting evidence. MB’s cell phone was on table right near the bush. Isn’t it more probable that one of the many people on scene moved LK/RG’s phones than that LK/RG ran around staging the scene?
Scene got compromised by pouring rain. Def says they didn’t look for fingerprints on the soaking wet shell cases. GSR is just a tool, doesn’t show who shooter was.
Back to credibility… When LK is bleeding out her memories of time might not be accurate–probably felt longer than it was. Is LK acting during 911 call? Def closing argument is not evidence–your recollection of what LK testified to is what matters.
Re: the dog. You heard “Cujo” barking, yapping on 911 call. Isn’t it logical that during the struggle after the shots is when the dog bites occur?
Re: Steven Tarshis. Very prepared, professional, knowledgeable. On direct he testified that he sent a letter. It wasn’t until cross that he said the letter was not a real eviction notice and that MB wanted to scare LK into leaving. Must question everything every witness said, not just LK/RG.
In texts MHG said LK still hadn’t been asked to leave. MB replied, “Monday morning,” but his response was to send a fake eviction notice.
What was happening on the farm leading up to this was all about emotions.
Discussion of the various levels of riders. Mary Di Franco a person with means to own many horses, Tarshis an “enthusiast” with realistic ambitions, LK and MHG with higher aspirations, and at the top PD, BM, and AB (people with power in the sport testifying on MB’s behalf). MB tells MHG he is out to get LK a lifetime ban, and here testifying on his behalf are people at the top of the sport. MB was doing same things to LK that LK was doing to MB.
WRT insanity defense, def must convince you that MB had mental defect affecting his ability to know what they were doing was wrong. Defense experts relied on false, inaccurate, incomplete info. Hasson not as qualified as the other two because:
-
Hasson testified that feigned amnesia is not a term that appears in the DSM, but-- [Objection by defense because the DSM is not in evidence. Overruled because it was discussed by the experts.] DSM says: “Feigned amnesia is more common in patients with legal problems.” Hasson’s reply was that publisher must have made a mistake.
-
RC testified that gun was unloaded when she gave it to MB and then never saw it again. Hasson said he and MB never discussed how MB obtained the gun because it wasn’t relevant.
-
Hasson left results of the tests out of his report when they didn’t fit his diagnosis (ex: “malingering is likely”).
-
Hasson relied on incorrect facts about: why DCP&P was there (was not sexual abuse), LK’s social media posts, whether MB believed LK had weapons (even though he didn’t mention weapons when asked in 911 calls)
Simring testified that he and MB relied on social media posts, but one of them was a private message turned over to defense in discovery (so MB couldn’t have seen it before the shooting).
There is no memory disorder in DSM that causes amnesia only during the commission of a crime.
Other part of insanity defense is that def didn’t appreciate nature/quality of acts.
What makes the delusion click on 8/7? He sees caseworker there and acts impulsively and purposefully in that moment. MB is frustrated, seething, desperate, but emotions are not delusions. MB is reaching his breaking point because 2 days before, his mentor GM was given a lifetime ban. He imagines that LK must have reported him for sexual abuse–that’s not what happened, that’s what he imagines. He gets MHG and caseworker out of the office, kisses MHG, gets the gun, and goes to confront his enemy.
Don’t return verdict based on sympathy, disgust, or emotion–base it on reason, facts, law.
9 Likes
Who is to say that he didn’t take the gun for self protection. He may have just gone to the house to tell them finally to leave.
5 Likes
You were making a claim about reasonable doubt, so I just asked if there was any reasonable doubt that he illegally possessed a firearm (one of the charges against him).
1 Like
I am pretty sure they tested MB hands for GSR and it was positive. She had some on her shirt (plus the bullet holes). The complaint here was they didn’t test anyone else for GSR or do fingerprints.
1 Like
I guess I noticed it from being employed in Neurology for 19 years lol
2 Likes
Here are the model jury instructions for insanity in NJ that he’s reading
1 Like
They later clarified that they had a warrant tot test, but did not actually test anyone.
21 Likes
I am very sure you are wrong.
Go back and listen again.
Yes, they had a warrant to test MB, but they admitted they never did. They did not test him so it could not be positive.
18 Likes
Right. If they find him guilty of that charge alone, the sentence could be 5-10 years in prison.
3 Likes
Not guilty because the police failed at investigating the scene. Also, a lack of substantive evidence.
16 Likes
The judge saying, “Mr. Bilinkis” and some of Mr B’s statements and questions are living in my head like an ear worm song…
3 Likes
I just think about how hard it is to get three people to agree to which movie to see and which restaurant to eat at on the way to the movie.
I am having trouble believing not one juror will not have a reasonable doubt.
15 Likes
