It worked for her the day before (when she backed him up into his truck and refused to let him leave) so after being served papers stating she had to leave on the 7th (per the agreement with daddy) AND after finding out her horses were no longer going to be shod, she was MAD! Way more mad then his previous visit and SHE snapped! She didn’t know he brought a gun this time (bc last time her badass self was enough for a man who was on the brink of breaking)
I mean, I’m not a lawyer but I prefer to focus on the facts and evidence and when I post that’s what I’m referring to. If I use that in my replies to people it’s to explain my stance.
I don’t care if other people want to speculate and move away from facts, but that’s what I prefer myself. Why aren’t posters who feel this way allowed to participate the way they like to?
I probably did a poor job of articulating what I was trying to say.
I’m not arguing against talking about facts and evidence. I’m just saying that if someone makes a post that says something like:
“We have learned about fact 1-9 in relation to LK, RG, MB and this entire situation. And gosh, it seems so overwhelming like a lot of parties behaved horribly. And gosh, it really seems like this situation is a mess all around, and there is a ton of doubt about what really happened that day. I hope MB doesn’t go to jail for 30 years, given these circumstances.”
And then someone else responds:
“You are ignorant of the legal process. Only fact 1, 7, and 8 matter. Those are the only ones admitted into evidence. So it doesn’t matter what outsiders think or feel or know. It doesn’t even matter how the jury feels. Given only fact 1, 7 and 8, he’s totally guilty. It’s silly to argue otherwise.”
Well… the point is that the two different people are arguing slightly different things. And it’s just my impression that some of the people making points about the legal technicalities are just being a little over the top when interacting with other posters.
Just my opinion. People are free to discuss whatever they want, however they want. Of course.
Stachehat as I think of him testified to a number of things as facts that weren’t, they were just suppositions he made like the ones about LK being bright and creative. He should be given no weight.
I might be mistaken about the timing but I thought that the incident where LK backed MB up all the way to his truck and then refused to let him leave was on July 18th or thereabout. I may be confused about this but would like to know if anyone else remembers the date of that confrontation.
No, I believe the first cop on the scene said he was only a mile or so away when he got the call, and that it only took him a minute or two to get there, if that.
I honestly haven’t followed the case closely enough as a juror or judge would to have to, to make a decision on such a complex chain of events or the mental heath issues at play here. (How is that for a reasonable, boring NJ person?) It’s possible for a crime to have been committed, even though the victim may have been a terrible and badly behaved person. Or not, given the difficulty of parsing the phone call.
But I do hope when it’s all over, selfishly, there is a good true crime podcast on it, and whoever writes the schlocky true crime novel on it all (if those are still a thing) knows something about dressage. And that there’s diagrams, bios, and a full breakdown of every hour. Then perhaps I can make a better judgement.