You might want to go back and see the vicious things said about her. Worst human being in the world, addict, her family hates her, no friends, spoiled, boyfriend paid to be with her, horses are nothing special, can’t ride, crashed a car when a teenager, ugly, can’t believe anything that she says, crazy, has mental disorders, and on and on and on. For years now. You are upset she was not kind to you, try to put yourself in her shoes.
7 Likes
Well, yes, if you’re allowing yourself to be biased, I guess.
I think accepting her PTSD claims means we can’t also off handedly dismiss his claims of childhood trauma.
20 Likes
Devotion to this man…got it. How about devotion to the truth?
18 Likes
QFP
2 Likes
Oh, I know what has been said. And based on her responses, it’s hard to argue many of the things said about her are not true to a point.
I couldn’t care less if she was “not kind” to me. Her opinion of me does not matter in my life, at all.
As much as you hate what you think is blind devotion to MB by some, I hate allowing bad behavior to be excused due to her (or anyone’s) status as a “victim”. You want posters to own their bashing? How about about wanting LK to own her behavior as a online bully? No matter how much you want to say she’s just responding to provocation, her behavior here has pole vaulted over that line years ago.
38 Likes
Let’s understand one thing - everyone here has been discussing the case until you and one other popped up and decided the pot needed to be stirred. No one has mentioned her in the past 2 days that I recall other than you. Go for it, stir away. I’m out of your game.
24 Likes
Don’t hate anything or anyone. Just expressing a position. I realize there are people that will never have any sympathy for her but will make every excuse for him. Justify your behavior as truth seekers if it works for you.
May the truth come out in the trial.
2 Likes
Yes. I’m sure it’ll all be a shock to some. Some of us won’t be very surprised at all that events and statements have been grossly misrepresented or made up entirely.
LK likes to think she’s playing a game of 3-D chess on which no one can possibly see the moves and she’s 10 moves ahead. Because of that, she’s psychologically compelled to drop hints. They are all over her FB page and her statements here on COTH as well as what was spread to other people to dissemble. If you have been paying attention, everything that has come out in the articles or civil suits has been dropped by LK or an associate first, only with a much more sinister implication attached than what is presented in the independent reporting.
23 Likes
Not true. I was enjoying the discussion on the case. I did not mention LK at all until you and another poster did.
I was disagreeing with your “nothing burger”
comment and mentioned how devoted some people are to the twist everything in support of MB. Probably could have left the second part out but it continues to amaze me.
I did not start this direction on LK, been there, some that, sorry I responded, happy to move on.
2 Likes
I mentioned her? Really? No matter. You folks love to bend everything to fit your narrative. That’s okay. This is nothing more than a bulletin board that anyone can post on, at least anyone who has not been banned. Nothing here is under oath of honesty. It’s not like a trial with the future of several people in the balance, is it?
7 Likes
Oof, well, no.
Without delving into a crash course in the entirety of rules of evidence and civil procedure, “this thing caused that thing which caused another thing which was related to this thing” isn’t evidentiary in nature.
Which is for a reason. After all, you’d be basically playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon with everything.
The people who heard it can state that they witnessed the statement and what they believed it to mean, if anything, and so can the defendant who made the utterance.
I’m not commenting on the legal strategy as I don’t think it’s appropriate but I don’t see an open door from the limited information that is publicly available.
9 Likes
Which one assumes would relate actions of various parties in the preceding weeks. Visits with/from LE, meetings with lawyers and other involved parties wrt eviction process, visit from CPS, etc…
Or you’ve lost me why that’s not a reasonable assumption.
4 Likes
No, I mean, he can say “yes I said that and here’s what I meant by it” but that is in and itself the testimony because he is there to testify to his own thoughts and actions.
But he doesn’t get to introduce his autobiography because he used the word “life.” Evidence exists to corroborate or impeach testimony.
If the defendant says “I spoke to her on Tuesday and we talked about dogs for 15 minutes” a call record indicating that call could or could not have taken place on that date for that time is admissible. The other party on the call can also testify that they did or did not speak on that day or that they did or did not talk about dogs. However, offering evidence that the defendant didn’t really like dogs doesn’t change the facts that the call took place or who was party to it, so it’s not likely to be admitted.
This isn’t something that most people understand, but the first rule of admissibility is it must be relevant. A specific inclusion under 403 is exclusion for prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Rule 404 generally excludes evidence of character, or other crimes, wrongs, or acts.
I am trying again not to specifically discuss the details of this case but instead to make general points so that those reading can understand how the law works.
23 Likes
when I was in law school, back in the dark ages, Evidence was a 4 hour/credit course for a full semester…
6 Likes
Yes, just FRE was 4 credits, and then there was a seminar “Advanced Topics in Evidence” that was another 2.
6 Likes
So nothing in either party’s past can be admitted as evidence?
1 Like
We are confusing evidence and testimony, for one. Testimony is statements made by a witness, evidence is facts or observations in support of an assertion. A witness can make statements about things that they did or did not witness so long as they are relevant to the issue at hand.
But whatever is being admitted has to be relevant to the case at hand, be it testimony or evidence.
If something in my past directly caused an action pertinent to the case, then yes, it is arguably admissible. However, even prior convictions are not admissible a lot of the time.
27 Likes
Thank you for always so clearly and completely answering our questions. You are appreciated very much!
12 Likes
I think this is things that are not relevant. You can’t introduce things like he has a history of cheating unless it is directly part of the motive.
One thing I do know…gov’t documents are considered self authenticated so we will certainly find out who was telling the truth about the BI & FM evictions.
6 Likes
Thank you! It’s difficult to do sometimes while trying to find an example that is easy to understand. One of the multitude of reasons I don’t teach (riding or anything else).
But I do hope it helps. I enjoy watching a good legal drama as much as the next person, but it’s not a good representation of reality. The reality is far less interesting and more complex 
16 Likes
