The case is public information. Everyone saw what it said. I refer you to those papers.
Goodnight.
9 Likes
Every once in a while…… you do make me laugh. There you go again. Doubling down on claiming “having seen” what “everyone else saw.” You realize this tactic has gotten you nowhere thus far. It’s remarkable you continue to use such tactics…. having failed continuously on each and every occasion. One might decide the victims of a shooting probably have way more information & seen way more discovery than some Coth poster. Even one’s we know to be on the witness lists…… (for both/either side.) 
Bye, bye!
2 Likes
Yeah, now please point out where in that post I say “I shot AT A PERSON,” and, please, take your time. For trubandloki’s sake.
2 Likes
Doesn’t really matter since time is well past, but Rule 2:4-1 states 45 days. That piece of garbage was a waste of MB’s money to file, let alone try to appeal. All of MB’s attorneys seem to be taking him for a real ride down the money train. He should have taken the plea. This jury trial is costing a fortune. Then he’ll have restitution and the civil suits to pay. He’ll be old and completely broke by the time he gets out of prison. At least he can apply for social security after his release. Maybe he’ll be able to get a job mucking stalls. 10-20 years not riding or teaching will put a big dent in his future abilities even if someone would want to hire a felon trainer who has anger and self control issues, plus tried to murder 2 people.
8 Likes
As a parent myself, I am also wary of those ‘blame the parents’ blanket statements. However, in @Danvers defence, it also depends upon the culture in which one grew up. Where I’m from, there is an expectation that parents would be horrified at their offsprings’ bad behaviour and an expectation that offspring actively chose to act in ways that will not bring shame/infamy/disrepute to their family, and that in itself provides a check on bad behaviour.
If parents actively facilitate or enable bad behaviour, that also reflects on them and the whole family. If they provide financial/emotional/other support for an adult child who, as you put it, is a ‘terrible person who terrorises those around you’, then those parents would definitely be deemed responsible for that behaviour, at least partially. This is also true for any parent who normalises, condones, ignores, or attempts to explain away their children’s awful behaviour. So, I do get why some people see all the stuff here as a reflection on the parents, as @Danvers post suggests.
For example, the Girl Joey stuff discussed above: Based on my upbringing, I cannot imagine my mother reading that I wrote anything like that to another human being, let alone one who had lost a child. I’d not be able to look her in the eye after she’d seen it. As both a parent and an adult child, myself, I can only imagine the stinging shame her family must feel reading things like that. If one of my children ever wrote something even remotely that repulsive, that revealed such ugliness, I’d die of the shame of it. Hell, I’d die of the shame of it if anyone in my family read something like that that I had written. My parents would read me the riot act if I displayed even a fraction of this type of behaviour, regardless of my age. They have expectations of me as an adult just as they did when I was a child.
Never in my life would I consider acting in a way that would bring such shame on my family and, especially, my mum. That’s just what it’s like in my home culture: you know your actions are a reflection on your parents and your family name and you act accordingly (as well as knowing just not to act in horrid ways b/c it’s simply not okay to do so as an adult member of civilised society). I think it’s wrong to call @Danvers all those names (not that you did, @erinmeri ). One doesn’t know their cultural background and cultural background does not equal stupidity. Just b/c one parent is okay if a lot of people dislike their children, doesn’t mean other parents wouldn’t be very bothered by that and see it as a failure, both of their parenting and their child.
Again, people come from different backgrounds and cultures. It makes no sense to call people morons and idiots b/c they don’t agree with your own take on parent-child relationships.
I think when addiction is involved, people do feel differently knowing what a difficult situation that is and that influence from outside is often not effective at all. I’m genuinely sorry to hear about your sister and sincerely sorry for your loss. Sometimes there is nothing anyone can do. I hope you and your family are healing and being kind to yourselves. I am sure you did everything you could to help.
35 Likes
Just this piece of your post.
The court will decide this.
Why…after the gazillion posts on this topic is it so hard to understand that it is court that performs this function…not anyone on this board.
And since it is the court that gets to do this, then anyone can plead whatever they want for whatever reason.
11 Likes
I would imagine like in other countries it have to be proven that the person authored the post and not someone using her account.
1 Like
So if we are to take these words as something that means anything, LK’s posts about subpoenas and suing for libel mean absolutely nothing.
It is “social media” and all according to this post, so any other posts mean NOTHING.
R’ght??? Mkay!!!
12 Likes
I think this burden might have been over come in the civil trial. One of the sworn statements she made was that she posts here and what her screen name was, same for things like FB, Instagram and Twitter. Statements in the civil trial should be admissible to the criminal trial.
9 Likes
in re: admissibility of social media evidence, there is tons of citable precedent.
Fed 904: the authentication requirement is satisfied when a party demonstrates that the circumstantial evidence in conjunction with the “[a]ppearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of” the evidence are sufficient to prove that the proffered item is what it is purported to be.
United States v. Lewisby: incriminating posts on social networking website are properly authenticated by characteristics
United States v. Browne Same for Facebook chats
United States v. Barnes Same for text messages
United States v. Siddiqui Same for emails
Then we get into more details, where the “big one” is Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins. Co. 241 FRD 534 (D. Md. 2007) which held that statements can be relevant for purposes other than to prove the truth of the matter asserted such as:
- Those offered to prove the communicative or comprehensive capacity of the declarant
- Those offered as circumstantial evidence of state of mind of the declarant
- Those offered to show the conduct of someone who heard them (to prove that they had knowledge of the information, or to explain what they did after having heard it)
- Statements that constitute “verbal acts” or parts thereof
- Statements that have relevance even if not true
bolding mine.
But then there’s more!
United States v. Encarnacion-Lafontaine held that threatening Facebook messages that are offered as evidence of threats are not hearsay and are appropriately admitted
Greco v. Velvet Cactus, LLC held in a harassment action that a Facebook message is admissible for the purpose of demonstrating the effect on the opposing party under test 3 from Lorraine, above.
Gathright v. TN Ward Company held that inconsistent statements published on Facebook were admissible for the purpose of impeachment evidence under 801(d)(2) and Rule 613
Social media has been repeatedly held to fall under the present sense impression exception to hearsay, because “many statements posted on social media will be written or posted as the author is perceiving the occurrence of an event or condition, or immediately afterward, and thus these statements will be determined to be admissible.”
but the really good one is 803(3) which states that the “then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition” of a hearsay declarant can be admitted as a “statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health)” in the Lorraine decision, the court noted that “Rule 803(3) is particularly useful when trying to admit e-mail, a medium of communication that seems particularly prone to candid, perhaps too-candid, statements of the declarant’s state of mind, feelings, emotions, or motives.”
I need to go ride now since nobody is going to read this novel anyway.
37 Likes
Read every single word @soloudinhere! Thank you for posting. It is greatly appreciated!
Enjoy your ride! Hope it is satisfying and safe!
16 Likes
So the post where LK states she shot at RG’s motorcycle tire - was this at the home in NC? I thought where you could shoot in relation to homes/houses was fairly limited. Does the 100 yard rule apply to your own home or only in relation to others’ homes?
It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm within 100 yards of any building reasonably likely to be occupied, including, but not limited to, any school, church, warehouse or any playground or park.
10 Likes
Tky. That will make the criminal case even more interesting to follow, given the amount of SM and how it will be weighted as evidence and affect the outcome.
5 Likes
100,000,000% this! ^^
In every family the actions (positive and negative) of a family member reflect on every other member. Period.
Enabling bad behavior is certainly an issue in America and is evident in all socio-economic groups.
14 Likes
That “piece of garbage” probably produced significant information valuable to the criminal defense. IDK, just guessing.
9 Likes
Thank God for Rights in America.
Off topic, but it does seem the Bill of Rights and US Constitution are not taught in schools anymore based on the comments made by so many (thinking US current events, etc).
6 Likes
It was 100 pages long, but all the allegations were preceded by the phrase, “by information or belief”, so all the allegations are just that, allegations. IM has said that a number of the allegations are outright lies.
The suit was dismissed even before the truth of any of the allegations could be investigated.
So how does that provide “information valuable to the criminal defense”? The lawyers in the criminal defense can make up any allegations they want, but they’ll still have to support their allegations, which the civil case never got far enough for them to do.
I do think the civil case is something of a prologue for the criminal case in that Bilinkas will attempt to blame the police (as well as the victim).
ETA. Who is funding MBs legal teams? The expense for the criminal defense must be in the millions. I doubt he would have filed a low probability civil suit unless someone else was paying for if.
2 Likes
Many legal filings in our country begin with “Upon information and belief”. It’s standard practice. Everywhere.
When I would take statements from people applying for Orders of Protection I would begin with “Upon information and belief”.
Does it annoy you that MB is putting up a defense that you’re wondering how it’s being paid for?
7 Likes
Thank you for clarifying that, @Knights_Mom. I thought this fact was posted in the other thread on the civil filing and I remembered reading it there.
3 Likes
I believe that MB is entitled to the most rigorous defense possible, and I don’t fault Bilinkas for using whatever strategy he thinks will be most effective, even including attempting to blame the victim and attempting to blame the police. It’s his job to give MB the best defense possible. What I am interested in seeing in the trial is how far Bilinkas goes in blaming the victim and blaming the police, as I think that on either tack, the strategy could backfire if he goes too far.
I don’t think the civil suit against the police would have been filed without outside financial support. I’m curious as to who is providing the financial support for not only the criminal trial, but also a low probability of success civil trial.
Of course I’m aware that many legal filings use “upon information and belief” in order to make clear that the statement is an allegation rather than statement of fact.
4 Likes
