Barisone Trial Starting Monday, 3/28

[MHM]

@Ambitious_Kate

No horse people, no former trainers,

They didn’t even get her current trainer to come in to say that she showed up for her lessons to contradict the defense.

And she’s got five or six horses in his barn right now.

[Knights_Mom]

@SlamDunk

It’s been brought up by a flailing defence. I haven’t been convinced it’s relevant. It’s not disputed that the dog bit both MB and RG after an altercation. The defence would need to introduce evidence that the dog attacked before he shot to support a self defence claim

No he doesn’t. The defense has to bring forth reasonable doubt as to when the dog groinage mauling took place.

It’s more probable the physical altercation happened with the dog biting prior to the shooting and its entirely possible that the gun discharged in the struggle.

How was the dog even out if both LK and RG were outside? The testimony isn’t even clear as to who was in the house or upstairs.

Under oath both LK and RG claimed the other made the identical statement regarding working things out.

There are just too many discrepancies and holes.

[SlamDunk]

Maybe because whether or not LK shows up for lessons is irrelevant to an attempted murder trial?

[MHM]

@Joanne

Just saw the post here that said that La-LaPoprider is suspended. Maybe it was on purpose so she wouldn’t rage post? or wanted to come here without people knowing?

If she didn’t want anyone to know she was looking at the posts, she would not need to sign in to her account to read them. She could just read the posts without logging in.

[Knights_Mom]

I feel like I’m involved now in an alter-cation.

[MHM]

Maybe.

[Sdel]

@SlamDunk

However, I am only talking about what the trial and what the defence has proved.

The defense doesn’t have to prove anything, just raise doubt…

[Joanne]

@MHM

If she didn’t want anyone to know she was looking at the posts, she would not need to sign in to her account to read them. She could just read the posts without logging in.

True. But maybe she didn’t know that.

[Knights_Mom]

@SlamDunk

If you’re talking about me I’ve been posting here for years, the fact that I’ve come to a very different opinion on the trial than the echo chamber on here does not make me an alter. I completely agree that LK and RG are terrible, terrible people. She probably has a personality disorder, and has some degree of culpability in the situation ending in her being shot. However, I am only talking about what the trial and what the defence has proved.

You? No I wasn’t. Why would you assume that?

[eggbutt]

@SlamDunk

There were two expert witnesses today (although I don’t really understand why they were called). A psychiatrist from the jail and a psychologist I believe. I hope, for Micheal’s sake, that there is another expert witness called tomorrow that can help prove the insanity defence

I will say it again, with more clarity this time. Two bona-fide, credentialed, high level psychiatric experts will testify tomorrow. One of the bona-fide experts is Dr Stephen Simring, a renowned psychiatrist specializing in forensic psychiatry. Let’s wait and chat more about expert witnesses tomorrow evening, okay?

Dr. Steven Simring - Author, Psychiatric Expert, Psychotherapy

[SlamDunk]

I’m glad that the defence has some good experts to call, truly. I don’t think it’s out of line to discuss how unhelpful the ones who were called today were though. I hadn’t seen it discussed anywhere else.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Sdel

The defense doesn’t have to prove anything, just raise doubt…

Exactly.

It would be nice to get a coherent theory of what happened from the defense, given the facts that have been established at trial, that still fits with their theory of self defense plus insanity (he had reached his mental breaking point).

I have no idea what rules apply to what the defense can say in their closing statements, and if they can speak to an alternative theory of events, even though they haven’t put MB on the stand.

[RegentLion]

Regarding the defense producing evidence of another theory…
-MB can’t remember
-The camera didn’t record or was deleted
-Law enforcement didn’t process the scene in a way to suggest anything other than the prosecution’s stance ( which is a failure on their part, IMO).

So where could the defense gather evidence?

[Sdel]

@SlamDunk

I’m glad that the defence has some good experts to call, truly. I don’t think it’s out of line to discuss how unhelpful the ones who were called today were though. I hadn’t seen it discussed anywhere else.

Those witnesses did everything they were supposed to do…show that MB has been claiming no memory from the beginning and that he was genuinely confused at the time of the incident.

[MHM]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

And in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, with LK in surgery and medically unable to testify, it’s pretty easy for RG (who is the sole witness the police are going to at that time) to drive a specific narrative with his statements to the police that MB was the only crazy person at the scene, and he engaged in attempted murder. And the police dutifully just go in a specific direction when “investigating”

Um, ok. That’s a lot.

I do think it could have been a very different scene from the one LK/RG presented in their conflicting testimony, and one that blew up in an unexpected direction. And then they could have improvised to slant things in the best possible direction for themselves, especially since it turned out that MB does not remember anything. Maybe they thought that just the word of two against one would be enough before that happened.

As I said (I don’t even know how many posts ago), I do think that people who have life experience in a certain direction are going to be a lot better in those situations than most people who have not had similar experiences.

[eggbutt]

I don’t disagree with you and I suspect the two witnesses today were called simply to indicate MB has shown generally the same level of mental state from the time he was taken into custody. The two experts tomorrow will go into depth the extent of his mental state at the time of the shooting based on the trauma, stress and anguish he had been subjected to by three manipulative individuals, one of which ordered, “finish the b**tard” just hours before the shooting.

[MHM]

Really? Who’s in an altercation?

I thought we were having an interesting discussion regarding the testimony in the trial and what it has proven (or not) so far. Per the moderator’s recent posts.

Edited to add: At first glance I missed the significance of the hyphen in the post I replied to. So mostly, never mind. Lol.

But still:

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@MHM

Um, ok. That’s a lot.

I do think it could have been a very different scene from the one LK/RG presented in their conflicting testimony, and one that blew up in an unexpected direction. And then they could have improvised to slant things in the best possible direction for themselves, especially since it turned out that MB does not remember anything. Maybe they thought that just the word of two against one would be enough before that happened.

As I said (I don’t even know how many posts ago), I do think that people who have life experience in a certain direction are going to be a lot better in those situations than most people who have not had similar experiences.

It is a lot

I tried to think through how to reconcile some details of what seem to be established facts, with my own gut belief that MB did not take RCs gun to the house that day to either:

1. shoot anyone intentionally
2. Use in his own self defense

It would have made more sense for him to have taken one of his own legal firearms, that were also in that gun safe, for self defense.

He did test positive for gsr on his hands… and RCs gun is the weapon that shot LK. Soooo… those facts need to be explained by some theory.

More generally, I lean toward some sort of melee broke out at the farmhouse that day, and he did shoot in perceived self defense.

[Bogey2]

he was not a great communicator.

[RegentLion]

Weren’t the two handguns in the safe rendered inoperable?
I don’t recall for sure and am not well versed in firearms, so the testimony of that gun professional didn’t stick with me.