Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[FitzE]

Correct.

GSR? No.
DNA? No.
Simple finger prints? No.
Video from the camera? No.

That leaves only the mismatched stories of two drug users who were shown to lie while under oath on the stand. Their stories did not agree in major, substantive ways. They also did not match up with ED’s version of events.

@CurrentlyHorseless, is this the evidence you state proves MB shot the gun? And you’re saying that two lying addicts who can’t keep their stories straight even from one day to the next is good enough for you? If so, I guess thanks for giving a straight answer. Respect for that.

Forensics would have me able to accept conviction, though it would be 'gut wrenching and horrible". ZERO forensics, ZERO recordings, and ZERO reliable witness testimony would not be an acceptable basis for me.

[FitzE]

@MHM

Also, didn’t Mr. B mention in his closing argument that there was no residue found on MB? Among all the other forensic failures from the crime scene.

Yes, in his closing he stated that no one was tested.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

@CurrentlyHorseless

because I think the evidence is MB did shoot her

What evidence, specifically, is there that he shot her?

Sigh.

The two bullet holes in her chest.
That she said contemporaneously to ED “Michael is here. He’s got a gun”. Bang bang.
The call to 911.
The evidence that MB asked RC for the gun, and asked the CPS we order to vacate the office so that he could access the safe.
Etc.

[DownYonder]

@ScaredOfHorses

Go to YouTube and put what you are looking for in the search bar, as an example: Barisone fire marshal or Barisone Boyd Martin and it should be the first video that comes up. Law & Crime puts the witness’s names in their video descriptions and/or titles and YT uses the titles, descriptions, hashtags and the video transcripts for their search results.

If your search result is a long video, and you want to try to find a certain section, click the three dots under the video and click on Show Transcript to open the transcript for the video. Then pick a keyword and use your browser’s Find on Page function to get yourself to that part of the video. Then click on the words in the transcript that contain your keyword, and it will jump to that timestamp on the video.

Thanks for that tip! I didn’t think to search using the transcript!

[Warmblood1]

@lazaret

For me it’s the part where the house was supposed to have no occupants due to the building code failures.

This plus going there with 3 bullets in the gun makes me think he was potentially going there to harm himself.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

Correct.

GSR? No.
DNA? No.
Simple finger prints? No.
Video from the camera? No.

That leaves only the mismatched stories of two drug users who were shown to lie while under oath on the stand. Their stories did not agree in major, substantive ways. They also did not match up with ED’s version of events.

@CurrentlyHorseless, is this the evidence you state proves MB shot the gun? And you’re saying that two lying addicts who can’t keep their stories straight even from one day to the next is good enough for you? If so, I guess thanks for giving a straight answer. Respect for that.

Forensics would have me able to accept conviction, though it would be 'gut wrenching and horrible". ZERO forensics, ZERO recordings, and ZERO reliable witness testimony would not be an acceptable basis for me.

I’ve already said that while the recounting of the shooting differs in details between RG, LK, and ED, in ways I find plausible for a traumatic event, I think they are consistent in the main substance that leads me, and the jury, BTW, to believe MB shot her with the intent to kill her.

Are you disrespecting the jury?

[eggbutt]

@DownYonder

@MHM

It came up in the testimony during the trial from one of the police officers that they got permission or a warrant to test MB’s hands for gunshot residue. But he did not say they actually performed that test. And they definitely did not test anyone else on the scene.

That is also what I remembered from the testimony. Mr. B said to the investigator, so you had a warrant to test MB from GSR, but did you test anyone else at the scene? (Or words to that effect.) But it was never made clear if they actually tested MB or not (if they did verify it, I missed it).

And you can bet your bottom dollar if MB had been tested and found to be positive for GSR, the prosecution would have screamed it from the rooftop!

[FitzE]

Bigger sigh.

@CurrentlyHorseless

The two bullet holes in her chest. How is this evidence of who shot the gun?
That she said contemporaneously to ED “Michael is here. He’s got a gun”. Bang bang. False in one, false in all; this testimony can be discarded. There is no record of this other than the claim of an unreliable witness. The judge himself said if she lied about one thing you can discount her entire testimony. Same for RG.
The call to 911. What about it, where she said, MB shot me? See above.
The evidence that MB asked RC for the gun, and asked the CPS we order to vacate the office so that he could access the safe. Possible evidence that he took the gun to the scene, but how is this evidence he shot it?

None of what you wrote goes to ‘who shot the gun’. Talk about sigh.

What tells you he shot it as opposed to anyone else at the scene. What specifically proves that to you beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Graymaresrule]

Do you have any evidence he actually pulled the trigger?

[CindyB59]

Honestly, would you agree with this if it was your relative?

Yes, she was shot twice. No dispute there
Yes, MB brought the gun. No dispute there

Beyond that, it gets very very murky. Thereis no forensic proof of who/how the gun went off. There is circumstantial evidence. ED heard shots, he was told (by a verified druggie liar) who fired it. Then you have said verified liars saying who shot it.

If it were my dad/husband/brother in this circumstance, I’d be appalled at how things played out.

*edit, autocorrect error

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

Bigger sigh.

@CurrentlyHorseless

The two bullet holes in her chest. How is this evidence of who shot the gun?
That she said contemporaneously to ED “Michael is here. He’s got a gun”. Bang bang. False in one, false in all; this testimony can be discarded. There is no record of this other than the claim of an unreliable witness. The judge himself said if she lied about one thing you can discount her entire testimony. Same for RG.
The call to 911. What about it, where she said, MB shot me? See above.
The evidence that MB asked RC for the gun, and asked the CPS we order to vacate the office so that he could access the safe. Possible evidence that he took the gun to the scene, but how is this evidence he shot it?

None of what you wrote goes to ‘who shot the gun’. Talk about sigh.

What tells you he shot it as opposed to anyone else at the scene. What specifically proves that to you beyond a reasonable doubt?

You asked “a simple yes/no question”. I answered. I believed the state’s case. So did the jury.

I also think the jury got it right in the insanity.

Ta.

[FitzE]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Are you disrespecting the jury?

Don’t even try that with me. I’m not one of the Kanarek’s unethical lawyers. I said that I respect that the jurors are the finders of facts and the verdict is what it is and I’m sure they did the very best they could, especially as Taylor did not allow note taking.

I was writing what was true ‘for me’. Please note how many times I say, for me. Don’t play the petty game of trying to twist that into ‘disrespecting the jury’. I leave that for the unethical blowhards the Kanareks seek out to throw their money at.

[eggbutt]

This group of people don’t need evidence or proof of any kind to make their decisions. Everything seems to be emotion driven only. Quite sad IMO that they can’t even find the gumption to say, “I don’t know why but I just do believe (fill in the blank)”.

Are these folks anti-science too? Amazing.

[FitzE]

And then you sighed and added a whole lot of blather about specific evidence literally none of which answered the question: who shot the gun.

I already said thanks for the yes/no answer. We were then discussing evidence.

I totally get why you want to ‘ta’ out now that the conversation has moved on to something you cannot answer so, ta to you, too.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

@CurrentlyHorseless

Are you disrespecting the jury?

Don’t even try that with me. I’m not one of the Kanarek’s unethical lawyers. I said that I respect that the jurors are the finders of facts and the verdict is what it is and I’m sure they did the very best they could, especially as Taylor did not allow note taking.

I was writing what was true ‘for me’. Please note how many times I say, for me. Don’t play the petty game of trying to twist that into ‘disrespecting the jury’. I leave that for the unethical blowhards the Kanareks seek out to throw their money at.

Ok. You “respectfully disagree with the jury”.

I respect the jury and happen to agree with them, even if the defendant were a loved one of mine, which was your original question.

I have seen no evidence that the lawyers employed by the Kanareks are “unethical”, or “unethical blowhards”. What evidence do you have to support that characterization?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

And then you sighed and added a whole lot of blather about specific evidence literally none of which answered the question: who shot the gun.

I already said thanks for the yes/no answer. We were then discussing evidence.

I totally get why you want to ‘ta’ out now that the conversation has moved on to something you cannot answer so, ta to you, too.

Oh, I could answer. My “Ta” is that I’m cutting down my shameful addiction to these threads.

Ta.

[FitzE]

In her defence, she did say that two lying addicts with mismatched stories and ZERO forensic evidence to back any of it up is, indeed, good enough to send her loved one away. I was asking only about the evidence on who shot the gun, not intent or insanity.

She is on record as saying this evidence is sufficient. So, there’s that then. At least that part was straight forward asked and answered.

When we continued on to discuss her statement that there was evidence MB shot the gun it all went to heck in a handbasket and then we got ‘ta’.

M’kay.

[FitzE]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Oh, I could answer.

I haven’t heard the old, “Oh, I could, I just don’t wanna,” defence since my kids were out of grammar school! Nice touch to try to dress it up as self care, though, so extra points there.

[DownYonder]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I also think the jury got it right in the insanity.

And I am wondering how many of them have since learned much, much more than what was allowed to be presented to them in the courtroom. And are now wondering if they got it right - esp. the part about which party was/is insane.

[punchy]

I think, if he wanted, Mr. B could have asked the judge to reprimand LK when she was testifying on cross to tell her to ‘just answer the question asked.’ But instead, he let her ramble on and on, giving her all the crazy rope she ended up hanging herself with. The prosecution certainly wasn’t going to object to its own witness blabbering on. She was, arguably, one of the defense’s best witnesses.