So, I’m sure this has been asked and answered in the previous mammoth thread, but Taylor’s reason for excluding the zillions of texts and SM posts is that it is “hearsay,” right? But is it? Is it putting the victim on trial? I think it speaks 100% to the defendant’s state of mind and what drove him to the extremes he took. Is it possible that a different judge would have allowed some of that into evidence? I don’t think Taylor is biased against MB, I think he hates Bilinkis and wants to stick it to him.
If Bilinkas is constantly using those techniques (asking questions he knows will not be permitted to get it into the ears of the jurors, intentionally distorting a response and asking the witness to agree, etc), the judge needs to shut it down each time. Is the judge supposed to shut it down 10 times a day if Bilinkas uses the technique 50 times a day?
Schellhorn did not play those games, so the judge did not need to shut him down repeatedly.
Obviously Bilinkas will try to find a basis for appeal.
The judge is stating that self defense has not been met. This was what had the Veretis trial reversed but she was in her home. In this instance since he allowed them to live there more than 30 days and they had tenant rights, it is their home as well. They were under no formal, legal order to leave. The eviction was a notice, it had not yet been filed so the clock to leave had not started. The agreement to leave was tentatively reached by the ear witness had just called LK to tell her the terms so she could agree or not agree when she was shot.
Barisone has suffered from depression for a long time. It can settle in like a cold, greasy fog on a moonless night and you can’t see the stars. It can whisper in your ear and take the seeds of your worst fears and make them bloom.
Is there anyone here who has NEVER (not once!) worried that someone they loved didn’t love them as deeply? That their appearance wasn’t ‘good enough’? We have entire markets that are designed to install insecurities, prey upon them and then offer to ‘fix them’ - for a price. Ongoing or one-time only.
Now have a pair of vicious people (LK & RG) on your property whose only real skills lie in finding others’ weaknesses and tormenting them - and with plenty of funds and unlimited time as they don’t work - and a target they wish to destroy.
Those two (possibly three or more) live to pull the wings off of butterflies. Michael wasn’t immune.
It is required in New Jersey to plead not guilty by reason of insanity and not guilty by reason of self-defense together; in other words, if you plead to one, you must also plead to the other.
So I’m going way out on a limb here - but I’m wondering (and maybe giving too much credit to him) if that is why RG referred to the house as “our property”. Maybe trying to insure the Castle doctrine couldn’t be used…which would point to MB using the gun in self defense with no duty to retreat?