That’s actually neat to learn about 
1 Like
When my dad was 83 and mom was 80, my husband and I took them to Seattle, Vancouver, and Victoria Island. We had tea at Butchart Gardens. It was the highlight of the trip for my mom, except for the visit with a friend she had not seen in 20 years.
9 Likes
1 Like
Well what do you think of LK describing herself as having a “riding career” ?
I think it’s puffery.
6 Likes
We could list the other things LK has appeared to make a career of:
Lying
Harassment
Grifting
Napping
Drugging
I’d claim riding too if I were her.
19 Likes
I just don’t understand this. If the defense impeached the testimony of the two key witnesses several times, how can one believe anything they said?
Someone already mentioned the legal theory of “false in one, false in all.” How did that not apply in this case and result in NG on all charges?
10 Likes
Because MB’s team didn’t dispute that he brought a gun to the house and shot LK. Pretty hard for the jury to overlook that. NGRI was their best option.
4 Likes
They didn’t dispute he brought the gun, but I am not aware they admitted he shot it.
16 Likes
This makes sense.
And, however her money comes in, it is clearly not something the family talks about in public, so they have to have something to say back when at the country club social gatherings and people ask how all the girls are doing.
8 Likes
I really hope that when 48 Hours does the story on it they will talk to at least a couple of the jurors. I would be very interested to hear their thought process.
Personally, I would not be surprised if there were some people on the jury who wanted to vote not guilty based on the lack of forensic evidence, and others who completely bought into the idea that if he brought the gun he must have used it.
So maybe the jury compromised on the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict.
14 Likes
It’s up to the jury to decide the truth of the matter. Absent any other statements that he didn’t do it or couldn’t have done it, the jury doesn’t really have any choice but to take their word for it - somebody clearly shot her.
The defense could have gone with a straight up not guilty, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that would not have helped them.
There’s no “legal principle” for how a jury will think. They are bound by the jury instructions but what they consider to be true or false is up to each of them.
6 Likes
My spidey sense tells me that is probably what happened - and in fact, I posted that theory some time way back (not sure if it was on this thread or one of the older, locked threads). Footage from that camera would have told a different tale from the convoluted and inconsistent stories from LK and RG.
19 Likes
They said the cameras were bought at HD when? Was that possibly the same day they “fixed” the smoke detectors, which they would have needed a hardware store for?
Which was 8/6, I believe?
Amazon takes two days. Did they put that much forethought into the smoke detectors? They couldn’t, the requirements to fix them came too late, they were being booted … so they go to HD to fix the smoke detectors, and also buy cameras.
.
1 Like
There is this aspect as well.
The ‘verbal tick’ aspect of the whole thing wouldn’t bother me all that much beyond how watching the way a few sports centric families I know seem to conflate school aged athletic pursuits with a ‘career’ bugs me (and I get it - maybe it’s just me that finds it a little much)… except that there is now a civil suit in play in the LK situation.
Referring to the loss of a career in the context of a lawsuit implies that the party who lost the career is entitled to monetary damages associated with that career.
6 Likes
Your entire post was super but I wanted to especially touch on this point. I wonder if MB asked them what they were doing there (since he wasn’t aware the FI has given them permission to go back). So they told him they had reinstalled the smoke alarms and MB wanted to see them. They started to let him in so he could verify the presence of the smoke alarms (they would have gotten great pleasure from seeing his expression when he realized how the FI had crossed him up by not notifying him they had permission to return to the house). But he got attacked by Rosie and then by RG and LK when he tried to defend himself from the dog, with the gun discharging during a struggle for control of it. Remember RG testifying that at one point during the struggle, LK had her hand/hands on MB’s gun hand? My sense is that is probably when LK got shot. And RG knew that the camera over the porch would have captured the whole thing so he deleted the footage the first chance he got. Then he made up a cock-and-bull story about turning it off beforehand “because he was getting tired of the notifications while he was doing laundry.” (Wasn’t the camera pointed out over the porch? And the laundry room was inside…)
25 Likes
Two weeks of Audio. 
7 Likes
And if I was an opposing attorney, I would compare it with golf, which is something many jurors would understand. I doubt any non-pro golfer refers to their weekend golf games as their “golf career.”
11 Likes
I believe it’s called double jeopardy; he can’t be on trial for the same crime twice. I suppose they could try a different charge but they can’t use attempted murder again.
4 Likes
I think that whole “OUR PROPERTY” line was utter BS, and exactly the type of bluster one would expect from someone like RG.
I also believe the laundry room was for the entire house - therefore not their “private” laundry room. (IIRC, there was some testimony that when you went through that door from the little porch, there were stairs on the right that led up to their apartment. So if you went straight through the laundry room, you would be in the - was it the kitchen?
4 Likes
No. He has been found not responsible for the act in question, and can’t be tried again on his responsibility for the same action. Double jeopardy would attach.
10 Likes
