I’ve said before and agree now that LK, RG, and the ear witness all agreed on the fundamentals. It all worked for one basic story. LK’s differences could easily be understood by nearly dying -50% blood loss, flat line, oxygen deprivation, two surgeries (one to stop the bleeders leaving a large scar under her arm from front to back) and one to allow her intestines more room from sweeping so she could breathe, pain meds, coma, etc.
I’m sure the prosecution used Mustache as he obviously likes to put on a show, and with a problematic (for the prosecution) diagnosis from a psychiatrist that the prosecutor has used before, he was trying a bit of slight of hand.
Color me jaded, but when Mustache has his very own IMDB page, I’m going to think he cares more about his next TV interview/show/book deal than being a expert witness.
I fully admit, I am being unfair to half of the state. At least. I think my negative experiences on the Jersey Turnpike, visits involving the Jersey in-laws, and exactly one visit to the Jersey shore broke my slightly southern brain
I hope you get to enjoy living in one of the nice parts of the state, that my husband continues reminding me do exist.
I may be wrong - the lawyers here can correct me if so - but I think it is unusual for a defendant to take the stand in a criminal trial. It’s the prosecution’s job to prove the defendant guilty, not the defendant’s job to prove themselves innocent.
That and LK flatlining after bleeding out 50% of her blood.
While I believe MB may have no memory of the specific event, the examples given by the various posters who lost memory both support and not support a specific short term memory loss. I think his prior concussions and aging may have a lot more to do with his consecutive spectacularly bad decisions into the current situation.
The defendant cannot be compelled to testify, and the jury is instructed to draw no inference as to whether the defendant does or does not t estify.
Rittenhouse did testify, and I think it was compelling testimony.
If Baris one did testify, he could offer a different scenario of the shooting. Without that, as a juror, I would accept the testi mony given by LK, RG and ED.
On the blood, most of it would be internal at first. And the exit wounds were on the back so not visible facing her.
As a victim of LK I will freely admit extreme bias in this case. Other than Barisone being acquitted Monday afternoon/Tuesday morning, I am thrilled the world sees these people for what they are.
Didn’t she say here that idea that she was shot didn’t become real to RG until she was crouched over MB’s head, beating him with her cell phone, while RG held him down and could see her “bloody exit wounds”….
He testified quite differently than that…and it paints a very interesting picture of what could have happened that fit with the facts of bullet trajectory….
But they might also think they managed the ex without attempting to murder her. They might see him as weak, that he let a woman drive him to ruining his life. Hopefully, the jurors will make a just decision based on the evidence, not their feelings.
I don’t remember any testimony about exactly why the farrier wouldn’t shoe LK’s horses that day.
Was there specific testimony that it was an instruction from MB? Or was it part of total board package, that was in contention at that point? Or was it an issue with respect to the farrier himself? Farriers can be testy… and there was a lot of tension at the farm.