Barisone Trial Starting Monday, 3/28

[frugalannie]

@Scribbler, thanks again. Unfortunately she’s still a teen at age 50, but I truly appreciate your insight.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Prosecution is doing a POOR job of controlling this witness on cross. Dr. Hasson is doing quite a bit of editorializing.

[EADoug]

@Jealoushe

This is really standard for either side to attack an expert witness especially psychologists. They both would be well versed in this.

I watched one trial where they had an expert bone/forensic anthropologist witness and they questioned her incessantly about how she knew it was a human bone vs deer bone. It was brutal and the defense looked like fools by the end, but they have to try or aren’t doing their job.

Again, confirming my goal to finish my career having never been called to court to testify as a witness.

Also, giving me a bit of background on some of the “fear tactics” used by my professors during my schooling on the importance of accuracy in my notes and documenting my clinical judgement as they are legal documents

[Callista17]

I thought it would be interesting to be on the jury- now I’m glad I wasn’t.
I’d probably be giving opinions left and right and be in trouble.

[Syrynx]

I’ve been surprised there hasn’t been more of “please just answer the question”.

[RegentLion]

Dr. Hasson seems aggravated at Schellhorn’s questions…

[Warmblood1]

@caffeinated

Family members and certain other parties can and do put people on psych holds if they’re showing suicidal behavior. With multiple parties saying they were very worried about this, calling the police on that basis would have been possible.

Sort of. The person must admit they are suicidal, not merely if someone claims them to be. Differs a bit from someone who is homicidal where proof is presented - the person doesn’t have to agree that they are homicidal.

[DownYonder]

I think this has been covered but the answer is escaping me.

What are the jury’s choices for verdict on the attempted murder charges? Guilty, not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity? Or just guilty/not guilty?

And if they decide guilty (only), will MB be allowed to received psychiatric treatment in prison? Because that poor man is going to need counseling and probably even medication to help him get past this (no matter where he is).

[EADoug]

@RegentLion

Dr. Hasson seems aggravated at Schellhorn’s questions…

I’m pretty aggravated as well. I’d hazard a guess most people in the psych world would be smirking a bit on the questions.

Hasson could be answering the questions a bit better. He’s certainly not as eloquent as Simring.

[RegentLion]

Prosecution is trying to pull this out of context. Hasson keeps trying to put it back in.

The poor jury.

[Callista17]

Well he is trying to twist what he’s said and change his answers.
I love when he said “no, I don’t agree with you.”

[atl_hunter]

OMG, this is like trying to explain dressage test scoring to the prosecutor. You don’t judge the entire test/performance on ONE score from a single element.

You look at the cumulative score for the overall impression.

[MorganSercu]

@DownYonder

Wouldn’t they have had to get a court order? And on what grounds?

No. In my area it is often referred to as a Baker hold (vernacular). It doesn’t need a court order.

allows doctors, mental health professionals, judges, and law enforcement to commit a person to a mental health treatment center for up to 72 hours if they display certain violent or suicidal signs of mental illness.

The purpose of the Baker Act is to allow time for a mental health evaluation to be performed and to de-escalate a crisis. This evaluation will confirm whether the individual is experiencing a mental health issue, and if the person is determined not to be a danger to themself or others, they will be released after the holding period.

In order to temporarily commit someone to a mental hospital they must meet the following criteria:

• The person is mentally ill (or is believed to be mentally ill).
• The person refuses a voluntary mental health evaluation or doesn’t understand why one would be necessary.
• The person is a threat to themself or others, or the person is incapable of caring for themself.

A person may also choose to a voluntary Baker Act, but they must be willing and able to consent to treatment.

[Ghazzu]

@EADoug

100% agree. I see the prosecution is trying to discredit him as an ‘expert’, but (while not a juror), most knowledgeable people can agree that someone with this length of experience can certainly be an expert without a fellowship, awards, or publications. Experience counts.

I really think this whole line of cross-examination is a mistake.
The psychologist has testified abou his credentials, which are significant, and the DA thinks his quick cramming regarding tests is going to be more believeable than the expert’s?
To me, it makes him look like some combination of arrogant and desperate.
(now back to my lecture on movement of water through soil…)

[Angela_Freda]

This is redundant, the picking at the tests the expert chose, why, etc.
Why didn’t the Pros use their own expert to assert their own interpretation?

[Jenerationx]

@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

They claim RG was on top of MB who was face down on the ground when the dog was “nipping everywhere.”… the tears on MB’s pants are high on the left groin area. How did the dog bite there while he’s being pinned on the ground under RG?

[hut-ho78]

@iberianfan

In all seriousness, what weakness did MB play upon? It seems to me that, while he had problems, he was the tortured one. I don’t see that he reciprocated.

I don’t think it’s been established (and this was discussed upthread) who started the tit for tat complaints to SafeSport and changing the original agreements. It looks like it started to get murky when she bought JT, brought in other horses, RG working for board, MB not being very careful about permits and occupancy (people were living in the barn before LK and RG arrived, the house was divided into 2 known domiciles with BI but used as 3 with a shared kitchen which may be the basement with one egress. MB stating he would scare her away. What’s that old line - never get involved with anyone crazier than yourself.

A little more kindness instead of back and forth could solve a lot of problems. It’s easy to get sucked into word play and trash talk. It can really go to extremes. I’ve been trying to figure out social media trash talk and wondering why I’m posting. That an what happened with MB shooting LK. So sad.

I actually quit for a while, removed all my posts here, etc. Then the forums were hacked and recreated and almost all of them reappeared. I didn’t even realize until I logged back in to make a comment on another thread and started seeing likes for some old posts. The owners that stayed gone were I think in some numbers that look to have been deleted by moderators.

Nothing posted on the internet is ever really gone.

[DownYonder]

@caffeinated

The exact process, who can initiate, etc, varies a bit by state. But generally if police are called with a situation where someone is actively suicidal they have the authority to bring them to an ER or other facility.

Yes, I can see that if the person is actively suicidal, there would definitely be cause for authorities to intervene. But MB wasn’t “actively suicidal,” was he? I mean, certainly some members of his inner circle were worried about him, but did any of them think he was truly “actively suicidal”?

I do think it is possible that his intent was “murder-suicide” when he drove down to the barn to confront his tormentors, but was he displaying enough “suicidal” tendencies before then to elicit cause for concern? And wouldn’t MHG or RC or his other friends have called 911?

[EADoug]

@Ghazzu

@EADoug

100% agree. I see the prosecution is trying to discredit him as an ‘expert’, but (while not a juror), most knowledgeable people can agree that someone with this length of experience can certainly be an expert without a fellowship, awards, or publications. Experience counts.

I really think this whole line of cross-examination is a mistake.
The psychologist has testified abou his credentials, which are significant, and the DA thinks his quick cramming regarding tests is going to be more believeable than the expert’s?
To me, it makes him look like some combination of arrogant and desperate.
(now back to my lecture on movement of water through soil…)

Agree, I’m trying to pull back as someone knows a bit more than the average Joe in this area…

How would this play to the jury?

I know the prosecution lost all credibility for me on this line of questioning with his books, random reports, and weird choices on these questions.

[SlamDunk]

I think they will in a rebuttal witness? There was speculation that if they call a rebuttal witness it will be their own expert on MB’s mental state