Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[roseymare]

@MHM

If the LK side was trying to throw around the term riding career with the implication that she lost income due to her injuries, that is obviously completely ridiculous. But the casual jury member who knows nothing about horses might be unlikely to know any better.

That is a good point!

[ekat]

You can claim straight up not guilty all day long and present nothing to the jury. Make the state prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s their burden to prove. You have no burden to prove innocence.

But when you start asserting affirmative defenses (NGRI, Self-defense), you give yourself a burden to prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the conditions of your affirmative defense exist.

Self-defense was never going to work in this case, not because of Judge T, but because the only thing Mr B could do was show how unbelievable Bob and Rob were. There was no actual evidence to prove MB was acting in self-defense. We can all theorize that all day long, there certainly are signs it happened that way, but no evidence. And the only one who could provide that evidence in this case, was MB, except, amnesia.

One last note: an affirmative defense isn’t saying yes I did it. It’s saying, I’m not guilty, but if you find me guilty here’s why. I have to throw this in here because there are a few people that like to argue this point.

I believe they were both red hot over the entire situation and the farrier refusing to shoe the horses was their last straw. It coincided with MB’s CPS last straw. I believe they set him up for some reason, and they had ED on the phone as an unwitting participant/witness. I firmly believe that post of RG’s today had one line truer to reality than any other version we’ve heard. That he waited for MB to get close enough and punched him. Then chaos ensued.

[Martina]

I think I remember that… do you recall where he taught the clinic(s)?

[trafalgar]

That was, to me, one of the strongest arguments for not guilty. It is, over the top, suspicious.

[ekat]

@Sdel

Yes but LK/IM said there were recordings from the day before of RC and the dog and they were supposedly only placed the day before

I’m pretty sure that was a lie. Here’s everything they say they did on the day before the shooting:

Met with ED and JK somewhere, per ED and RG’s recording.

Took a letter to the building inspector.

Got back to meet building inspector and point out all the violations.

(Put up cameras in time to catch poor Rosie biting RC).

Fixed (presumably) fire detectors and emailed inspector.

Called SS (LK) also, some dubious searches on LK’s phone

not to mention the regular standing wraps for the mare, and whatever other animal care they did on any kind of regular basis.

The cameras were probably up the day after MB and MHG moved to the barn.

Edit to add: at some point they were both asked about receipts for purchasing the cameras and recorders, but, alas, they don’t have them. I think Mr B and Mr D have something that will prove the surveillance started well before the 6th. That will become more important in the civil trial.

[eggbutt]

@ekat

One last note: an affirmative defense isn’t saying yes I did it. It’s saying, I’m not guilty, but if you find me guilty here’s why. I have to throw this in here because there are a few people that like to argue this point.

THIS!!! ^^

[MHM]

@ekat

I believe they weee both red hot over the entire situation and the farrier refusing to shoe the horses was their last straw. It coincided with MB’s CPS last straw.

That may be the most accurate way to look at it. Both parties were red hot and down to their respective last straws, which was when the whole pile of straw burst into flame.

[ekat]

@Sdel

LK made claims of being present and videoing at least one of them

That right there is the problem. Very likely no such video exists.

[Sdel]

@ekat

Edit to add: at some point they were both asked about receipts for purchasing the cameras and recorders, but, alas, they don’t have them. I think Mr B and Mr D have something that will prove the surveillance started well before the 6th. That will become more important in the civil trial.

Her posts here suggest the cameras were up before the 6th because she mentioned the house cams in conjunction with the 911 calls at least once.

[MHM]

@ekat

@Sdel

LK made claims of being present and videoing at least one of them

That right there is the problem. Very likely no such video exists.

Both LK and RG seem to be remarkably foggy on which videos do and don’t exist.

Didn’t RG tell the first responding police officer that the whole incident was on video? But then the video camera itself mysteriously disappeared, and RG claimed he had turned it off anyway?

[ohnoO]

Ya’know I think I would call my years of riding/showing as “my riding career” even though I was always an amateur. What else would you call it? My riding years? My riding life?

But, in a trial with normal jurors that would be interpreted differently.

Now I worry what I should call it even though nobody wants to hear about it anymore .

[Angela_Freda]

@Wicky

Without forensics, how could he claim that MB did not do it? (I seem to remember from reading all my crime novels, that the SODDIT defense, some other dude did it, isn’t allowed without some corroborating evidence of who the dude was.)

Without forensics, prove he did it. Isn’t that the prosecution burden?
Presumed innocent…

[ekat]

@Sdel

Her posts here suggest the cameras were up before the 6th because she mentioned the house cams in conjunction with the 911 calls at least once.

I would bet that is more likely true. I would also bet there was nothing of value on the recordings, other than Rosie and RC.

I think they were put up more as an intimidation factor (look, we can see you coming on OUR property. And we can do whatever we want to OUR PORCH) than they were to actually try to capture anything. Especially since all that laundry triggered the alerts so much.

[Sdel]

@ekat

@Sdel

LK made claims of being present and videoing at least one of them

That right there is the problem. Very likely no such video exists.

I’m not so sure. I just think it was videoed from one of her recorders that wasn’t mentioned, not a cell phone like it was implied. The police suit mentions their presence during the 911 call. LK also mentions a few recordings from “lessons” where MB is talking about people and it being legal to watch her horses on camera all day long. We know from the trial that there were conversations presented on SM that were in the arena where LK was not present….

[eggbutt]

@MHM

@ekat

I believe they weee both red hot over the entire situation and the farrier refusing to shoe the horses was their last straw. It coincided with MB’s CPS last straw.

That may be the most accurate way to look at it. Both parties were red hot and down to their respective last straws, which was when the whole pile of straw burst into flame.

Hence, FINISH THE BA**ARD! war cry!!

[ekat]

@Sdel

I’m not so sure. I just think it was videoed from one of her recorders that wasn’t mentioned, not a cell phone like it was implied. The police suit mentions their presence during the 911 call. LK also mentions a few recordings from “lessons” where MB is talking about people and it being legal to watch her horses on camera all day long. We know from the trial that there were conversations presented on SM that were in the arena where LK was not present….

I think a lot of that was just audio though. There’s somewhere between 30 and 70 audio recordings mentioned, but not video. I don’t think a whole lot of video exists.

[MHM]

@ohnoO

Ya’know I think I would call my years of riding/showing as “my riding career” even though I was always an amateur. What else would you call it? My riding years? My riding life?

But, in a trial with normal jurors that would be interpreted differently.

Now I worry what I should call it even though nobody wants to hear about it anymore .

Well, presumably you’re not calling it a riding career in an effort to mislead a jury into awarding you damages in a civil trial, so you could call it whatever you want. Lol.

[MHM]

@eggbutt

@BigMama1

Did it specify anywhere that was the current barn and not the barn in NC she was it in between MB’s and Florida?

What is “it”? I don’t know what your post is asking.

I believe that question was in response to my post about the person who had been commenting on the Law and Crime YouTube channel about LK driving him out of the barn where he had his horse, or something like that.

I seem to recall that someone said he was talking about the barn in Florida where she is now. I’m not going to search through all the previous threads to verify that, though.

[RHdobes563]

@MHM

@ohnoO

Ya’know I think I would call my years of riding/showing as “my riding career” even though I was always an amateur. What else would you call it? My riding years? My riding life?

But, in a trial with normal jurors that would be interpreted differently.

Now I worry what I should call it even though nobody wants to hear about it anymore .

Well, presumably you’re not calling it a riding career in an effort to mislead a jury into awarding you damages in a civil trial, so you could call it whatever you want. Lol.

If LK were to assert ‘loss of income’, I would ask her to produce her income tax filings for several years to verify that she ever made money riding horses.

[MHM]

@RHdobes563

If LK were to assert ‘loss of income’, I would ask her to produce her income tax filings for several years to verify that she ever made money riding horses.

Maybe she will stumble across the missing receipts for the assorted video cameras and audio recorders while she’s looking through her paperwork.