Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[DownYonder]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Whatever jewelry was stolen was almost certainly pawned for a fraction of its value, for drug money.

Well, there could have been an insurance payout but I would have a hard time believing even that would be enough to fund someone’s horse collecting hobby year after year after year.

[ekat]

If the civil trial happens, and is broadcast anywhere, I wonder what the word of that trial will be?

[ohnoO]

I still think it will be, “Who Does That?”

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Oooooh.

First off, thanks for transcribing that bit of testimony. Super interesting.

Second, oh yeah, time to subpoena Ed David.

Third, I’m mystified as to what sort of suit they could cook up with respect to MB, and expect to get something in the neighborhood of $200,000 out of it.

But a few key hints come to mind:

1. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that LK freaked out about signing a release for someone to ride one of her horses

2. IMs focus on SGFs insurance policy in IMs latest post.

I wonder when they first met with unctuous attorney (Bruce Nagel)? He’s personal injury and med malpractice.

[ekat]

I’m stuck on what they were working on that would result in a $200k lawsuit at that point. Let’s suspend belief and pretend for a second that they believed RG was owed $50k. What other $150k in damages could they allege?

And why would RG submitting a bill ruin that plan?

[MHM]

@ohnoO

I still think it will be, “Who Does That?”

That would certainly be a strong contender here on the BB, although I don’t know how often it would get used in the actual civil trial.

I still think we could send the T-shirts with that on them for the lawyers to wear under their suits. Lol.

[MHM]

@ekat

If the civil trial happens, and is broadcast anywhere, I wonder what the word of that trial will be?

Allegedly?

[ekat]

Good one. I have a feeling we are going to hear a lot of “I don’t recall.” And poor ED, it might be 8 years since the event by the time he has to give a deposition or something.

[jellybean2]

“I don’t recall” is now my trigger.

[Knights_Mom]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Oooooh.

First off, thanks for transcribing that bit of testimony. Super interesting.

Second, oh yeah, time to subpoena Ed David.

Third, I’m mystified as to what sort of suit they could cook up with respect to MB, and expect to get something in the neighborhood of $200,000 out of it.

But a few key hints come to mind:

1. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that LK freaked out about signing a release for someone to ride one of her horses

2. IMs focus on SGFs insurance policy in IMs latest post.

Maybe there was always an intention that some sort of personal harm would be “accidentally” suffered as a result of MBs “negligence” while they were staying on property. And then the shooting happened.

I wonder when they first met with unctuous attorney (Bruce Nagel)? He’s personal injury and med malpractice.

I’m thinking it would be personal injury claims for both MB and SGF and add negligence for SGF because it seems they implied that SGF did not use due diligence by allowing a (their perspective) mentally unstable guy to have guns on the property.

Their problem will arise when the defendants assert (as I imagine they will) that it was due to the actions of the plaintiff that anything occurred in the first place and it is THERE that every little piece of nastiness will come out.

[eggbutt]

The recordings were ruled totally off limits regarding her father’s participation and what MB may not have been personally aware of. If she had posted on SM about something on the tapes it was admissible within limits.

[ekat]

What I don’t get is what were they plotting to sue him for that results in a $200k payout before the shooting? What was their set-up? Because they certainly never envisioned LK getting shot. That made the lawsuit easy from their perspective, but they were planning a suit earlier than that.

[Knights_Mom]

@eggbutt

The recordings were ruled totally off limits regarding her father’s participation and what MB may not have been personally aware of. If she had posted on SM about something on the tapes it was admissible within limits.

In the civil case?

[trubandloki]

@ekat

Good one. I have a feeling we are going to hear a lot of “I don’t recall.” And poor ED, it might be 8 years since the event by the time he has to give a deposition or something.

Using his math system I think you are underestimating that. I was thinking he would say 10years.

[MHM]

@Knights_Mom

Their problem will arise when the defendants assert (as I imagine they will) that it was due to the actions of the plaintiff that anything occurred in the first place and it is THERE that every little piece of nastiness will come out.

So how does it work procedurally if they’ve each filed civil suits against the other? Are those all separate civil trials? If so, that sounds like it would take forever to conclude all of it.

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

What I don’t get is what were they plotting to sue him for that results in a $200k payout before the shooting? What was their set-up? Because they certainly never envisioned LK getting shot. That made the lawsuit easy from their perspective, but they were planning a suit earlier than that.

Let me think a minute.

I’m looking for an answer that’s crafty like our own local crackpot horse “trainer” having working students barely 18 yrs old sign a DO NOT COMPETE clause for teaching within 250 miles. (True story)

[ekat]

Hard to keep track of time in his “green” office.

[MHM]

Mental anguish? Although it certainly seems like that would be backwards.

[trubandloki]

@ekat

Hard to keep track of time in his “green” office.

Yes! Maybe the solar charged clock runs a little fast there?

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Knights_Mom

I’m thinking it would be personal injury claims for both MB and SGF and add negligence for SGF because it seems they implied that SGF did not use due diligence by allowing a (their perspective) mentally unstable guy to have guns on the property

The weird thing to me though, is the fact that SGF is nothing more than an LLC which was formed by MB and the older couple that owned the land at Hawthorne Hill.

And the older couple didn’t really do anything in the way of active management. So SGF really is just MB… on a fundamental level.

So how can an attorney make an effective argument before a jury that essentially amounts that MB as the acting agent for SGF was negligent for not keeping a gun away from… himself?

It seems like they have only named SGF to increase the chances of an insurance payout or something. To try and squeeze and push things in a certain direction…

If it goes to trial… I just don’t quite understand how they argue this. If that makes sense.