Lauren+Robert=LauBert
6 Likes
OH! that’s Great! thank you!
1 Like
total or in addition to what he’s already served?
Does anyone know what time the LK/RG 911 call was made and what time EDs was made. Im wondering about the time differences & would especially be interested in the time of EDs first call to the wrong 911 dispatch center.
5 Likes
I don’t know those answers, but I have to think if they were indicative of any inconsistencies, we would have heard about it from the defense attorney.
He was digging up text messages from years ago through the phone records. I can’t imagine he would have been sloppy on the timeline of the 911 calls.
2 Likes
I think a couple of news articles sourced it as 2:13 pm.
It was generally frustration overall that there seemed to be a lack of timeline for when all the events involved and SM that was read actually occurred.
3 Likes
That is a very interesting detail . I hope a member of the jury picks up on that or that Mr. Blinkus mentions it. I hope he has someone reading this.
2 Likes
A word with regard to the various “legal eagles” of various types following these threads and participating in the discussions.
Many of you have offered really interesting and relevant information about how trials are conducted, rules of evidence and witness testimony, required elements of different charges, etc.
That’s been very interesting and helpful, for the most part.
Some have offered professional impressions of trial dynamics, and why there is tension at times, and how some of it is just a matter of legal tactics, and professionals moving along with the trial and performing their various roles to the best of their ability. and outsiders shouldn’t read too much into it.
That’s been very interesting as well, in my opinion. And contributed to productive discussion.
But then… there are a few legal types who seem to be participating on this thread now to pick apart other people’s general observations and questions. And I get the sense some are just doing what some lawyers do… jumping in and applying technical arguments to other peoples’ posts, people who are non lawyers and not even making strictly legal arguments, but are posting about the broader issues of the actual situation.
That’s really annoying. Many of us who are not lawyers FULLY understand that loads of things aren’t allowed into trials. We are discussing these bits of evidence, background information that is second and third hand or here say, etc etc… because we actually care about what the truth of this situation is. We care about what really happened. It’s not just about who wins or loses at trial.
So please… consider that. Feel free to continue making your points about what evidence is allowed at trial, etc. Just… perhaps also consider you are participating in a much broader discussion, and you come across like a bit of a blowhard if you just jump in and try and pick apart someone else’s post in an arrogant and dismissive way, someone who is not a lawyer, because you identified some legal technicality that means whatever the other poster was saying wouldn’t be allowed into evidence at trial.
Sometimes when you win on a small technicality, you simultaneously lose the room.
The issue of “guilty” or “not guilty” is bigger than just the trial. There’s an entire sporting community looking at this whole thing, trying to make sense of it. That’s also what these threads are about.
27 Likes
all that being true, I think these comments also, counter to his intention, reiterated or underscored how very stressed and fractured MB was at the time. Showing that he was already starting to unravel. People who knew him before called him arrogant…
That he was thinking that way to ask MHG that question says alot to me.
3 Likes
they were, iirc in the house, which has three levels.
JH was in the top level until they took it over.
But they were in the house the first summer there, I believe.
And even if they weren’t in the house, isn’t it possible MR Handyman helped winterize? If they even did that?
1 Like
The judge was so (strict)(combative), not sure of the word I want, but he definitely, imo, has hampered the defenses ability to argue some important points.
9 Likes
Or the rest of us can just ignore those posts and scroll on by instead of responding to them.
Also an option.
9 Likes
I would like to know if this judge is related to the state’s witnesses? Or does he play golf with LK’s daddy maybe? LOL No kidding I have never seen a judge interfere so many times with the defense and hardly one time for the state. Something is not right, I would hire an appellant attorney now [edit]
11 Likes
oh and this is so Pacific Heights a movie with Michael Keaton and that gal is the female version of him
7 Likes
While it seems that the conflicts started a lot earlier than previously acknowledged, and it is interesting that LK testified to having approached the adjuster about fraud, didn’t the insurance adjuster himself testify to not having found nefarious intent with the pipes?
5 Likes
That’s my impression of the judge as well.
I have not yet watched the episode of 48 Hours regarding the previous case involving this judge and the defense attorney. But based on the judge’s attitude in this case, it does seem easy to wonder if his own history with the defense attorney has been playing a role in the proceedings.
Edited to add: He seemed to be a bit less argumentative the second week. So I couldn’t help but wonder if he glanced at the online comments over the weekend, or if someone mentioned them to him on the golf course. Lol.
9 Likes
yeah they call that " projecting" because she might have that type of experience
Welcome to the forum. Are you from a true crime website? We have a lot of back history threads that can be searched if you want to take the time with quite a few posters claiming to be involved.
4 Likes
Fair enough 
I figured it wouldn’t hurt to articulate why it gets a little old.
7 Likes
I think he did, or at least he tried to before the judge shut down that line of questions.
Or maybe Mr. B was headed somewhere else with that line of questions that the judge did not want to allow. As in, if there was gas/heating oil/whatever for the furnace, why did the heat go off so that the pipe froze?
Hard to say.
5 Likes
