Her riding history is irrelevant. The prosecutor gets some leeway in asking questions to explain how she ended up knowing and working with MB, but he would not be allowed to ask her about anyone she has ever trained with.
Which I what I would expect dollar-wise, but if I did not know horses and training, I’d not have heard it like that as a member of the jury. I’d have heard she was paying him $5k per month total.
I will be curious to see if there get any of LK’s SM in, given the fact that she spoke about it- if I understand correctly. If I understand correctly, she stated that she hadn’t threatened MB? That might be enough to bring it in to verify. Legal eagles?
Well, Schellhorn asked her who her previous trainers were and what made her go to MB. Her response was “his accomplishments”. I found it interesting that Brueckmann had less credentials in her mind. The irony is she did better riding with Brueckmann than anyone because she wouldn’t put up with her excuses and forced her to work. Perhaps Brueckmann fired her for so many no shows for lessons. IDK.
wait, also confused, is she talking to the lawyer on the computer? Are they not all in the same room? If not what is on the computer screen in front of her?
Not necessarily, during the actual struggle between MB and RB, LK could have seen the gun on the ground. When the police arrived, MB could have been pinned to the ground covering the gun, so the gun would not be seen by the police officer.
Absolutely. I’m just acknowledging that her testimony at this point in time is not 100% the same as the Officers. This may or may not be clarified in cross.
So this is a really complicated answer. Again, I don’t know NJ evidence rules. But some thoughts:
Evidence she was threatening him should be relevant because of the self-defense defense. It would have to be authenticated, and there was a bunch of discussion further up about that issue.
You get more leeway if they want to impeach her (show her a prior statement she made that directly contradicts what she is now saying, and ask her about the contradiction). But, they would still need to have some basis of proof that the prior statement was made by her. So yes, now that she has said she never made threats, she may have opened the door for statements directly contradicting that - BUT, it may not come in as evidence (only to impeach her testimony) and they still need to be statements they can prove she made.
I would also like to state for the record that I have never been talked to by a Mod in regards to my interaction with @Jealoushe. Disagreeing is not harassment or stalking. Sorry not sorry.