General comment.
If I read it correctly, our victim states in one of her recent posts that she has not actually read the civil suit of MB vs the police. She is simply saying it is untrue without reading it. So everything she has said on this thread is empty.
As others have repeated, I think we can take the timeline as stated, including the interactions with police. The timeline does not include everything as it focuses on the police. It is very clear about the details of the house being declared unfit to live in. Also that the house was for the barn staff.
As has been said many times, this order of events can be accepted as factually true for now. The subjective part of this, and indeed of any, civil suit for damages is in the claims about that damage. Especially in cases of emotional damage trauma, whiplash or back injury or chronic pain, where there is no visible damage.
If you are making a claim for damages in a car accident, obviously you are scrupulously accurate and objective as to the time place and circumstance of the accident, otherwise the whole thing is thrown out of court. Then you need to make the argument about the lasting damage.
This part is trickier. Some people get low payouts despite having serious loss of scope because they haven’t effectively proven the problem. Other people may indeed scam the system by exaggerating their injuries. That’s why the insurance company will go so far as to spy on claimants.
Anyhow for those of us not involved in the case, and who have the focus and concentration to read this long court document, it’s clear enough what points are going to be factual, and where the argument moves into claims about emotional state.
The “eggshell” argument is not one I’ve heard used in my jurisdiction, though we certainly have many murderers claiming insanity, and often rightfully as we have laissez faire mental health care (our murders tend to be mostly targeted gang hits with guns among adult mid and high level drug dealers, followed by a much smaller per cent of domestic disputes and then isolated wierd horrible events with mentally ill people, who fortunately often dont have access to guns).
Anyhow, whether this civil suit goes anywhere, it makes a very strong case for MB not being responsible for his actions and for the victim being a terrible, no-good, awful person who terrorized MB in a systematic way. I can see why the victim might not want to read it, but I’m sure the prosecution is giving it some thought.
On a related note, this case is interesting to me in part because we all run up against this personality type IRL. One thing they do often state and maybe believe is that the world in general envies them and is “just jealous”, or the modern version of “haters gonna hate.” That’s just so laughably not true. No one wants to switch places with someone like that no matter their material possessions. We watch these trainwrecks, celebrity or nonentity, out of fascinated horror.
