Barisone Trial Starting Monday, 3/28

[Angela_Freda]

@MHM

Just thinking back on a lifetime around barns, I can’t even imagine what the atmosphere must have been like for that exchange to happen.

In some of the top barns I’ve worked, no one was allowed to feed treats, for fear of contamination that might test.

[soloudinhere]

@downen

@soloudinhere, quick question: Both yesterday and today, the judge said to Ruth Cox, “nice to see you again.”

From my extensive law background watching Law and Order, I don’t recall judges being so familiar with a witness. Is it proper to single her out like that, as though they had some connection outside the court?

I’m acknowledging this question and I’m going to only answer part of it intentionally.

While it’s not typical necessarily, I believe because RC is a doctor, he may have been doing it respectfully as to her honorific if he had previously met her, which it sounds like he had.

[hut-ho78]

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Fiesta01

Hmm, that sounds oddly like trying to threaten posters here. Or at least trying to make posters feel uneasy.

Yes I agree. @endlessclimb is threatening SS actions against LK on this forum for what she calls attacks against her but is ignoring all the comments made about LK. Weird.

I see veiled threats against posters here by those in opposition of justice being served.

I don’t think “veiled” is a word that describes anything said on this forum.

The threat you posted, WAS.

I have not posted threats. You must have have confused me with another poster.

[Angela_Freda]

I noticed He was less so with CPS worker

[soloudinhere]

@CurrentlyHorseless

RC had testified the previous day, that’s why the judge was seeing her again!

He did it the previous day too. I actually pointed it out in my brief summary of yesterday’s proceedings.

[Jealoushe]

ignore

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@Fiesta01

Hmm, that sounds oddly like trying to threaten posters here. Or at least trying to make posters feel uneasy.

Yes I agree. @endlessclimb is threatening SS actions against LK on this forum for what she calls attacks against her but is ignoring all the comments made about LK. Weird.

I see veiled threats against posters here by those in opposition of justice being served.

I don’t think “veiled” is a word that describes anything said on this forum.

The threat you posted, WAS.

I have not posted threats. You must have have confused me with another poster.

No. Not confused at all.

[soloudinhere]

@catzndogz22

Does that mean they’re in violation only if they directly view or overhear other witnesses’ testimony? What about reading summaries of witness testimony on social media or a bulletin board?

I do not know the terms of the witness order as to whether it is a sequestration or exclusion order. I can’t answer this question.

[EADoug]

Confirmation that JK is indeed NOT in the gallery.

[eggbutt]

@downen

@soloudinhere, quick question: Both yesterday and today, the judge said to Ruth Cox, “nice to see you again.”

From my extensive law background watching Law and Order, I don’t recall judges being so familiar with a witness. Is it proper to single her out like that, as though they had some connection outside the court?

She had also been in several video chats that Taylor was present in discussing her plea deal.

[DownYonder]

@LexInVA

FWIW, records show that this Judge was a political appointee and not someone who was elected. Before he became a Judge, he had a high ranking in the state’s Justice system and had been a Prosecutor and also worked at a boutique firm with a relative who was a Partner.

Thank you for that info. A former prosecutor could have unconscious bias in favor of prosecutors. And a political appointee? It would be very interesting to know about the stringer of fish behind his appointment.

[Libby2563]

Links for those interested in the NJ rules regarding admission or exclusion of evidence:

Relevance, prejudice, character evidence, etc:

evidence4.pdf

Hearsay: https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/evidence/evidence8.pdf?c=AkD

[hut-ho78]

Disallowed pictures of LKs wounds post emergency surgery. Too much for the jury. Heavens forbid anyone see what damage is done by two gunshot wounds to the chest.

[downen]

He said it the first day, too.

[LexInVA]

Lauren is taking the stand…

[Jealoushe]

LAUREN IS UP!

Buckle up

[Jealoushe]

@hut-ho78

Disallowed pictures of LKs wounds post emergency surgery. Too much for the jury. Heavens forbid anyone see what damage is done by two gunshot wounds to the chest.

wow, considering what some courts see!

[soloudinhere]

@hut-ho78

Disallowed pictures of LKs wounds post emergency surgery. Too much for the jury. Heavens forbid anyone see what damage is done by two gunshot wounds to the chest.

Judge specifically allowed a photograph that depicts the gunshot wounds from the front. He is disallowing photos taken by the victim outside of controlled circumstances where they do not materially change the finding that she received two gunshot wounds.

Grossing out the jury for no purpose is prejudicial. It’s very common that juries are shown limited photographs of dead bodies, grotesque injuries, etc or the photos are framed very specifically as to limit their nature so they are less likely to elicit a strong reaction.

[eggbutt]

So now her FB messages are being excluded based on who actually posted them.

[Jealoushe]

It is very hard to prove who posts on or uses ones social media, SM posts are rarely included in trials unless they have super solid proof who had the phone.

This is the issue holding back the case of Abby and Libby from Delhi IN currently.