The only comfort I take in this trial is that LK and RG have exposed their own true characters.
It is my hope for anyone who commits to a partnership with these two that they have the foresight to look into their backgrounds.
I’m also very confident LK has ruined any real chance for real advancement in the dressage community. In believing she was limitless, she has now limited herself profoundly.
You get what you sew.
Fair enough, I seem to remember LK/RG saying that VK had not come back to the farm after the second winter in FLA but I very well could have misunderstood her and/or not remember correctly.
For some posters - see how this works? I’m admitting that I very well may be wrong. Some others could benefit from this practice as well.
I understood the post by Rothmpp to say that VK was at the farm (with MB and MH) in summer 2018, when LK would have been there. Perhaps I misunderstood her post.
I believe this was after he had talked about going to the barn at night to “wrap/unwrap the horse with cellulitis.” So it sounded like he was in the barn, and heard the dryer running, and then said something to Cassandra (A worker? Working student?) about the dryer.
But it was pretty hard to keep up with his story, considering how much it seemed to change all the time.
Also, I don’t think it’s any one’s business what the conditions of MB, his ex-wife and MHG’s relationship were. I don’t think it’s fair to label MHG as a “home wrecker” as LK has tried very hard to convey, having no idea what the conditions of the relationship were. I think MHG is an immensely talented rider and I hope she continues pursuing her passion.
Well for sure, it would not take much of a google search at this point.
Some of it may be due to trial rules. Trials are conducted in a set pattern
Opening statements
Prosecution Argument
Defendant Cross
Now the Defendant cross can only be to witnesses the Pros has testifying and about what that testimony said.
Then eventually the Pros rests its case. That means the Pros is done with the presentation of their side of the story.
Then the Defense gets its turn to call its witnesses to testify. The Pros can then Cross examine them on that testimony.
Eventually the Defense rests. Each party does their closing arguments (which are always theatrical to get in last lasting points)
The jury begins deliberation.
The jury renders a decision.
A not guilty releases the defendant. A not guilty by mental disease or defect (insanity) will place him in a secured mental facility.
A guilty or insanity guilty Then must have sentencing to determine the length of incarceration for each charge that guilt is established.
Multiple sentences can run consecutively or concurrently meaning either at the same time or when one finishes the next begins.
Does anyone else here remember IM’s first post? It was before he presented himself as the reliable sees-both-sides insider. He posted that it was “just his theory” that SafeSport and others were watching these threads, knew all the real identities, and was taking it all down for future action.
Those of us not in the know were just being introduced to LK at the time, and having seen just a few of her posts, my first thought (obviously changed as things moved along and he became a regular) was that this was an alter — it seemed to have the same sort of conspiratorial grandiosity.
Edit: typo
I’m pretty sure those other guns were admitted into evidence as the guns recovered by police from MBs gun safe.
That could be. I just did not hear the secondary prosecutor or the gun expert say that when those guns were being discussed.
We shall see how LK upped the ante in ways most people would never fathom doing this week. Enough to drive a man to do things he would not normally do. The lack of police testing on the gun still leaves open a lot of doubt, add to that two witnesses/victims that have given conflicting stories and admitted to lying on social media and you get reasonable doubt. LK upped the ante every time she posted on SM and the actions she took, she played a dangerous game of poorly played chess.
Ok. I haven’t participated on the various Barisone threads over the last few years, except for a few comments early on. I have had a few interactions with Lala on the forums… but have avoided any confrontations with her… because she makes me nervous. 
But… now that the trial has started, I watched some of the testimony, and have waded through this thread for the last few days.
And at this point, I’m pretty surprised by both the prosecution and the defense’s strategies. The prosecution’s case for attempted murder relies upon the testimony of two VERY problematic witnesses. Prosecutors deal with people who have addiction, harassment, criminal, and other related issues ALL THE TIME. The prosecutor had to know these two witnesses were problematic.
Can one of the legal people following this whole thing comment on whether it might have made more sense to pursue an assault with a deadly weapon charge, instead of attempted murder? Would that have had a better chance of successful prosecution, given the general lack of forensic evidence from the police? For whatever reason, it seems like the police just didn’t gather a significant amount of forensic evidence immediately following the crime - that evidence MIGHT have shed more light on this case, and made it a much more clear cut matter when deciding what to charge (or what not to charge ). But… the evidence wasn’t gathered. Soooo… is the prosecution stretching with the attempted murder charges in this situation given their two witnesses?
As far as the insanity and self-defense arguments… we haven’t seen the defense’s case yet. So I’m withholding judgement, except to say that insanity is VERY hard to prove. And even though Barisone was clearly harassed, depressed, and now appears to be a completely broken man… that doesn’t necessarily mean he is not guilty by reason of insanity. The self defense argument makes more sense to me, and seems more within the realm of possibility… but mainly because I do not have any idea right now as to what exactly transpired when he arrived at that house the day of the shooting, and the confrontation ensued. I don’t believe the testimony of the two other witnesses. Two many inconsistencies, and they are both obvious liars. So… I think it is POSSIBLE he acted in self defense, and they are both lying about what happened that day. But… I have yet to see what sort of evidence the defense can present to support their case.
The two things that REALLY trouble me right now about this case…
The video camera at the house being turned off (I think it was turned off?) by RG literally within the hour immediately prior to the confrontation. That is really bothering me. I don’t buy RG’s explanations… at all.
MB choosing to take RC’s gun with him when he drove down to the house that day. It seems like the defense has essentially admitted that he is the party who took that gun to the scene, on some level, by pleading self defense. But other comments on this thread seem to be saying that it’s POSSIBLE LK somehow obtained that weapon, given her alleged access to the office, m and it was with her and RG at the house before MB showed up. I don’t know. I find that theory a bit outside of the realm of reasonable for me. But… the defense has yet to make their case.
Anyway… the whole thing is tragic. And bizarre. The major takeaways I have from it all right now:
Be very careful when managing evictions of any kind. Follow legal processes, document everything, and be prepared for a long and ugly process. And safety must come first. Safety of people involved, and safety of animals.
There are some people in life that are best avoided. Period. No exceptions. Because they are “wired” differently than other people. If you’ve ever gone through prolonged stress and conflict with one of these sorts of people … you know what I am saying. They lie and gaslight and think nothing of it. They do not feel guilt or remorse or other things that normal people feel. They do not operate within the same boundaries of normal human behavior as other people do. Do not EVER get into an escalatory conflict with one of these sorts of people. Take measures to deescalate until you can completely walk away.
Last thing… some insight as to how some of the male jurors might be thinking right now.
My DH was watching some of LK’s testimony over my shoulder last night, just out of curiosity. He knows absolutely ZILCH about this case, and is not a horse person (except for what he has learned over the years by virtue of our relationship). After a few minutes of watching her go back and forth with the defense attorney, he commented, “Holy $hit. That lady is the sort of person you walk by in the grocery store, and you get a cold shiver up your spine before she even opens her mouth, because you just KNOW that something wicked this way comes.” I then explained to him that she is actually the VICTIM in this case, and when the camera panned to Barisone, I explained that he was the “perpetrator.” My husband looked at him and said, “Wow. Poor ba$tard. That guy is utterly wrecked. He seriously was an Olympian? He’s clearly destroyed.”
Anyway… just some food for thought.
The issue is not whether VK came back in 2019 (after the second winter). It’s whether she returned to the farmhouse in 2018 when LK was there as well.
Oh the safe sport
LK’s lovely attempts to weaponise them and turn the threads regarding SS to support pitiful her…didn’t land as well there…
The defense gives their closing argument last, correct?
I think the prosecution…
I thought so as well. I watched his testimony but only a portion and while doing other things…
Alright folks!
Law school learnin’ incoming. I’m punchy because it’s the weekend.
Let’s talk about what the purpose of cross examination is: to test the credibility of the statements made on direct examination. Because that is what it’s for, you can’t ask about things that weren’t raised on direct. You can expand on subjects but the direct examination has to enter the subject into the record.
What you are seeing on cross at this point in the trial is not the defense presenting their case
The only goal is to introduce doubt. It doesn’t matter how many questions he can’t ask or how much he annoys the judge by trying to get as far as he can. If they can tip the scales such that a juror believes that what they have heard from that witness has the possibility of not being true - the purpose is achieved.
can I email you a bottle of wine?
The next element to Judge Taylor’s allowing certain testimony is the idea that the victims are not on trial.
I don’t really get that part. We know they are not ON trial but their testimony is certainly being evaluated.
And we can all think of a rape case and how the actions of the victim are used all the time to lend doubt to the rape. Like her being drunk and going up to the Rock stars hotel room at 4 am “to hang out”.
So I’m hoping more evidence will be allowable during the defenses turn.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
