Barisone- New Thread

[FitzE]

There is absolutely zero anger in that post. Not a scintilla.

I asked a really straightforward question that you continually evade. Put yourself in the shoes of someone related to a person in MB’s position. Choose whomsoever is meaningful to you. Then take the following into account:

• no forensics were done on the weapon
• no testing was done on anyone’s hands at the scene
• the only ‘evidence’ presented was the mismatched stories of two people who were demonstrated to have lied while under oath

In that situation, would you feel that it was correct if your loved one was found guilty? If you were on the jury, would you look at the evidence presented and convict your loved one?

It’s a simple thought exercise and a really straightforward question asked politely and honestly. In fact, I’m genuinely struggling to see where you identified ‘anger’ in that question at all.

[anon6923113]

Bob Abooey is having a HARD night with certain YouTube commenters…

[Rhythm_Pace_Impulsion]

Did you see the angry macaroons comments yet

[Joanne]

I am wondering why “Bob” doesn’t come here.

[EADoug]

I transcribed the section of instruction almost word for word. I gave time stamps for when certain topics were mentioned.

I’m a legal nobody. I don’t even know where the parking lot is, nevermind the vacuum.

[RND]

@MHM

Insulting every lawyer who posted on the thread and calling people cockroaches counts as a model of decorum?

Interesting point of view.

This is funny coming from someone who has posted pictures of snowflakes in response to countless people here over many months, even when the snowflake reference made absolutely no sense.

[MHM]

@Fat_Dinah

Or is her testimony sufficient?

If she had already declared a full blown plan to ruin the life of the person she accused, then no.

The declared plan to ruin the person’s life would make the accusation less credible if there is no corroboration of the accusation.

[Fat_Dinah]

I looked it up. Diminished capacity remove s the premeditated issue. But it does not absolve the defendant of liability. It is not a “get out of jail” card like insanity. So, maybe they can’t find assault proven but also find insanity? That could be true.

[MHM]

@RND

@MHM

Insulting every lawyer who posted on the thread and calling people cockroaches counts as a model of decorum?

Interesting point of view.

This is funny coming from someone who has posted pictures of snowflakes in response to countless people here over many months, even when the snowflake reference made absolutely no sense.

Perhaps you just don’t grasp the significance of the snowflake, although many people here do.

[anon6923113]

Perhaps “Bob” has been recently banned from the COTH forums, and not yet figured out a workaround.

[Fat_Dinah]

It’s two counts of possession for an unlawful purpose. Under your reasoning, what is the unlawful purpose?

[RND]

@EADoug

I transcribed the section of instruction almost word for word. I gave time stamps for when certain topics were mentioned.

I’m a legal nobody. I don’t even know where the parking lot is, nevermind the vacuum.

Sorry I am not attacking you and I did not see whatever you linked to. I should have been more clear that I was not challenging you in my post, I was just wondering something beyond what you posted. In this instance, I was projecting.

[Joanne]

@anon6923113

Perhaps “Bob” has been recently banned from the COTH forums, and not yet figured out a workaround.

A workaround is pretty easy to find. Since “Bob” is “a retired lawyer,” I assume “he” could figure it out. I think “Bob” is afraid to face COTH.

[FitzE]

@EADoug

From the flow chart Taylor gave the jury, if they are asking to review Dr. Simring, I would lean towards they found the State DID in fact prove their case, and they are now considering the insanity claim. Still not putting money on anything, but it would fit with the flow chart.

I’ve been thinking about this, too. The other alternative is that they’ve decided the State did NOT in fact prove their case on the attempted murder charges and are now examining the possession changes. I think that fits in the flow chart as well, but not sure.

[ekat]

Bob is also, according to another comment, a forensic psychologist. One would think he would have lots of resources at his disposal.

[Knights_Mom]

@RND

@MHM

Insulting every lawyer who posted on the thread and calling people cockroaches counts as a model of decorum?

Interesting point of view.

This is funny coming from someone who has posted pictures of snowflakes in response to countless people here over many months, even when the snowflake reference made absolutely no sense.

@MHM

See? When one wants to be offended even snowflakes become offensive!

Clearly some of us are about the truth and others not so much. Legal concepts are twisted, liars words become gospel.

[BatCoach]

Curious, what do you think Means?

[FitzE]

@caffeinated

Fair, and the jury has to sort that out. To my mind, the simplest and most direct explanation is MB pulling the trigger because the only evidence available points in that direction. (And no, that’s not me hoping he’s “put away” or being an LK fan, LOL)

Oh, I absolutely understand you’re not hoping he’s put away/an LK fan, no worries!

The thing is, the jury isn’t supposed to think of the simplest and most direct explanation. They are supposed to see if the one provided by the prosecution is supported by evidence such that they have no reasonable doubt.

I do think it is hard for people, including jurors, not to fall into that very typical and reasonable behaviour (to put a lot of weight behind the simplest, most direct explanation). Instead, they have to put aside what is most likely to have happened and instead focus on: did what they say happened actually happened as they say it did and did they provide me evidence of their version of events such that I have no reasonable doubt.

[anon6923113]

@Joanne

A workaround is pretty easy to find. Since “Bob” is “a retired lawyer,” I assume “he” could figure it out. I think “Bob” is afraid to face COTH.

“Bob” should be more worried about what the heck all of “Bob’s” barn mates are thinking.

I wouldn’t want to stay at a barn with “Bob” after watching this trial. No.Way.

[Rhythm_Pace_Impulsion]

@Fat_Dinah

It’s two counts of possession for an unlawful purpose. Under your reasoning, what is the unlawful purpose?

It is the mere possession of an illegal weapon that is the crime. There can be no assumed legal purpose if the weapon itself is considered illegal.