I am not certain there were three bullets in the gun. It seems there were only two. Only two shell casings found, no bullets recovered, ED only heard two shots.
At any rate, whether it’s 2 or 3, I agree with you that would be more indicative of a self-harm plan than a murder 2 people plan.
I check in here occasionally, so forgive me if this has been discussed. 48 Hours is developing a story about this trial to be aired in the fall. I wonder if any of the individuals involved will profit from it.
That’s not what I said.
Your original question was whether the evidence was sufficient to convince me of the verdict, even if it was my loved ones in the dock. A yes/no question.
I answered yes.
If the shots had been aimed slightly differently and both victims had been killed, I think there was enough evidence for the verdict with no testimony from the dead victims. I’m not saying they lied or their testimony was inconsistent in significant ways ways, just that there would have been enough evidence without their testimony at all (beyond the ear witness and 911 recording).
Still waiting for the evidence that the professionals hired by the Kanareks are “unethical blowhards”. (Not really).
My research says that the news shows don’t pay for stories, or interviews. They will pay a travel fee or other small expenses for someone being interviewed to go to the interview site, but no payments other than that. .
However, entertainment shows do pay for stories and exclusive rights to stories. I remember Entertainment Tonight paying over $250k for the rights to show Mary Kay Letourneau’s wedding to her victim. Other talk shows, may pay to a foundation, that in turn uses the money for payments.
Evidence - easy peasy - it’s on video linked above in this thread.
Weren’t you just clutching your pearls faux accusing me of ‘disrespecting the jury’? If that upsets you I’m surprised you’re pro-Bruce Nagel. Re-read what the actual litigators on this thread thought of his embarrassing windbaggery.
It’s just not done by ethical professionals. Period.
Absent the statement from these two that MB did the shooting, what evidence have you seen that the gun was ever even in his hands?
No fingerprints
No gunshot residue
No DNA
No footprints (due to rain and scene trampling)
Missing cartridge
No audio from the phone call
No evidence as to when the gun was removed from the safe (except the victims talking about a “missing gun” on Facebook)
So basically you think that because he had access to the murder weapon (maybe?) he must be the murderer.
I suggest you not quit your day job if this is how you reason through scenarios.
Also, calling jurors “insane” is definitely not professional conduct and it disrespects the judicial process. A lawyer’s job is to ensure that his client’s rights are protected to the full extent of the law. Insulting a jury who found against your client is not ethical.
But if you need a reference, it is a violation of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 8.4(d) “it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
I’m guessing they made up the story about the third shot so RG could benefit from the huge payout expected from the civil suit against MB. I can see where that kind of incentive could have helped coerce him to support the narrative LK wanted everyone to believe. And if he was in fact “coerced” to help support a false narrative, I can see why he was so sullen and defensive and angry on the witness stand. He was being used and was getting stressed about being found to be a liar.
Was the new barn they were trying to get LK to go to still in this municipality?
I’m wondering if the families influence in that township was why the people involved (JK) didn’t want her to go elsewhere?
I have not gone back to watch his testimony again (huge props to those who have the fortitude to do so), but I remember noticing at the time that he really looked like he was turning bright red and literally sweating bullets on the cross examination.
And if it was that obvious watching online, I would think it must have been really apparent in the room in the moment.
I wonder if RG is still in the picture or if he’s run off again? Imagine being that kept and used all these years. Or, perhaps he actually enjoys the kept lifestyle. It apparently isn’t too hard of job, that is until you are no longer needed.
You have learned nothing from these two, about their ability to lie and spin things.
Sad.
.
Asking CPS to vacate in order to access the safe is also a falsehood. That has not been testified to or stated by anyone except CH, who needs it to be so in order to make this very weak case. I realize you agree with me, Angela_Freda.
Stating something to someone on the phone doesn’t make it true, which is why such statements are hearsay that can’t be testified to as truth. I could call @Angela_Freda right now and say that Liberace is in my living room - that doesn’t make it true. Thought she might very much enjoy such a call
Sorry. I meant to write LK.
I don’t remember reading this fact. Can you remind me where this was said? Here (COTH)? Who said it? In this thread? That is an interesting tid-bit that I feel silly having missed.
More importantly, at least to me, is “What evidence is there that he even INTENDED to shoot her?”
William Steig? Really! I loved the original Shrek book and all his cartoons in The New Yorker. How cool!
I found this fascinating (turning Shrek into a movie):
The jury found he was incapable of having intent, hence the Not Guilty part of their decision, in regards to LK. With RG they decided not to believe either of them.
Sheilah
The jury found he was incapable of having intent, hence the “by reason of insanity” part of their decision.
With RG, no proof of any kind beyond a reasonable doubt.
For me, the wisdom in the decision was not just declaring him not guilty, but also realizing that he needed some help, especially after being incarcerated and further stressed during this time.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
