I keep thinking about the magazine (photographed) that was already in the back of the car when officer #2 placed the gun there. Who put it there? Weren’t there only a very few people on the scene at that time?
7 Likes
You’re welcome.
2 Likes
Go to YouTube and type in Law & Crime and a bunch of options should come up for you to view.
2 Likes
I’m very sorry for your loss.
3 Likes
Just getting a chance to watch the videos today on L&C now. I have nothing to do with the legal system but must say how frustrating I find the whole procedure.
Many times, when the judge is cutting off Bilinkas and not allowing a question, it seems that what Bilinkas is trying to highlight is MBs emotional/psychological state and his reaction to certain things.
For me, knowing the things that are leading him to the mental state in which he allegedly shoots the gun would be totally relevant for the defense of both NGRI and the subsequent Self Defense (perceiving the situation as a serious threat due to his altered mental state).
As an outside observer, it sometimes seems that the legal system just doesn’t want the whole truth to come out, which I totally don’t understand. Shouldn’t the system want all the truth, from both sides, out there in order to make a just decision?
I know, I’m totally naive. My condolences to everyone who works in that system.
19 Likes
I did and have been watching but the Ruth Cox testimony is not coming up…?
She left no room to misunderstand that she and MB were terrified, and she called her father to come protect her at the farm, even though they were not allowed to specify what exactly had them terrified. She referred to MB as so distraught he had retreated into a fetal ball on more than one occasion leading up to the day of the shooting.
4 Likes
Thanks. She was nuts but she was also my sister. And I was frequently mortified by her behavior but I had to put up with it. And I honestly feel most for her children, not me. I am an adult.
8 Likes
The problem here is that the people testifying are not qualified to make statements of fact about the defendant’s mental state.
They can attest to what they observed him doing and saying. They, as they are not qualified experts, can say that the defendant told them he was terrified. They can say they themselves were petrified. They can say what made they themselves petrified. What they can’t say is what made the defendant petrified, because they are not the defendant.
I appreciate that this is confusing but understand that the defense will have options to put people on the stand who can be qualified as experts at a later point in the trial. It’s my understanding they intend to do so.
28 Likes
Thanks much for the explanation.
1 Like
For those who have not been on a jury or who have not been part of the process: the judge tells you what you can consider, The prosecution and defense try to sway you, it is up to you to be objective. They are constantly trying to sway you.
3 Likes
I wonder if he will find the strength to be emotionally strong enough to change his mind and testify.
Yes, I know and that was the basis of my post.
2 Likes
I guess anything is possible!
1 Like
What? Who implied it was her fault?
1 Like
My guess is no matter what questions are asked, it’s gonna be a wild ride. Buckle up everyone.
3 Likes
I don’t find your explanations of how the law works confusing at all. You make the procedures that are followed quite clear. Thank you. Your posts are very helpful.
32 Likes
Thank you. That’s nice to hear.
16 Likes
I think that you aren’t aware of how many people here look forward to your explanations and your synopsis of the days events. Please continue with them as your time permits. 
25 Likes
Not a single person here says anything remotely close to that. Seesh
4 Likes
