Some people live to go after others for the slightest offense or even no offense.
I don’t think LK et al dare take on Ulf Moeller/Helgstrand Dressage for the facts they have more money than the Ks and also because it is somewhat prestigious to be trained by them.
What does this have to do with anything I said? Yes, she’s loyal and a great partner and she’s doing something very kind that I could not imagine doing. i have nothing against her.
It could be Ulf/Helgstrand kept them at arm’s length and have always dealt with them 100% straight business only with no uncertain terms. Of course she isn’t on Helgstrand property either.
Okay, going back to why some of the pre-shooting 911 calls were not included in the trial……and hearsay….
LK made claims of being present and videoing at least one of them….implied it was a cell phone video. Why would that not be admissible or introduced by the prosecution? The only thing I can think of is because the video wasn’t made on a cell phone but on one of her other recorders that MB wasn’t aware of….
This. No barter, no boarding, cash money in the account, contracts with terms. Plus, the herr doktor is only there during the season. The rest of the year, some poor working student/assistant trainer has to work with her.
That is so beautiful that I am going to start a different thread in Off Topic about favorite tea recipes and decor. Will you post on there and let me know what your favorites are? I made some tea items for Easter and my cucumber sandwiches were not good at all. Too slidey-aparty and bland.
can’t answer as to why the prosecution wouldn’t try to use it if it were favorable to their case, but in general, being present for one half of a conversation means that you can say you were there, and the conversation took place, but you can’t attest that anything that was said in that conversation were TRUE. In other words, you could say “I heard Party A say XYZ” but you could not say XYZ was truthful (you don’t know that it was) or that party A said XYZ to Party B, because you don’t actually know who is on the other end of the phone.
The thing with hearsay is it’s almost always possible to get in what you want if you come at it from a different angle. If it were that important to their case, they would have found a way to get it in. The hearsay rule is literally one pile of loopholes, pick the right one and you’re through.
The claim was there was a full video of the entire call……and since it was a 911 call, both sides were recorded (and publicly released). My thought was the combination of the two would have provided visual context and evidence to state of mind in the days leading up to the shooting. Since RG and RC were both mentioned as being there within the 911 call, it makes sense to have asked them about it and the video….