The contamination of a crime scene may potentially invoke reasonable doubt under certain circumstances, yes.
6 Likes
Thanks. I also wonder about that document someone posted in the other thread (a court document of some sort) in which LK said that the content from the hidden cameras was stored on the cloud and there were x number of recordings, but no recordings from that actual day.
Could any theoretical recordings from that day have included exculpatory evidence that might have been tampered with b/c LE failed to secure the crime scene?
6 Likes
Depositions are sworn statements given under oath. Statements made are essentially like being on the witness stand during a trial. The defense can use such statements to impeach the testimony given by a witness during the actual trial if they are at all substantively different. Also, I think the scope of the deposition in the civil trial is much more wide then would be allowed normally to be used to impeach her testimony in the criminal trialā¦.
5 Likes
So, therefore, the prosecution wanted to delay any depositions on the civil trial until they could present their case and conclude the criminal trial, correct?
That was their direct argument to the civil courtā¦yes. They won on the investigative file but not the social mediaā¦.SGF presented that they intended to depose her ASAP and file for summary judgements shortly in that caseā¦ā¦then after the deposition deadline they filed for a stay.
If I rightly recall, LK claimed to have put secret recording devices in the barns or other public areas. Whether that was actually true is a completely different story. I read on one of these threads that the large volume of evidence included 19,000 pages of social media posts and 6 secret recordings. Thatās not a lot of recordings if there really were devices installed, as anyone with CCTV installed has experienced.
My guess is that her āsecret recordingsā more likely involved turning on her phone video at select times.
I donāt know why we should believe her about having secret cameras in the barns, since so many of her statements turn out to be not true, or exaggerations, or attempts to intimidate.
In any case, itās unlikely she would have CCTV monitoring herself even if she chose to harass other folks by installing it in public areas on the farm.
5 Likes
Thank you. When you say they won on the investigative file but not the SM, does that mean there the SM was turned over to parties in the civil suit but not material related to the criminal investigation?
Correct me if Iām wrong, this sounds a bit like the prosecutors are now at odds with the victim - requesting that the civil proceeding be delayed but not getting cooperation on that. Is that correct?
1 Like
No, there was a response in the court filings in which she named several devices she had, said there were saved to the cloud, and said that no recordings were made that day. I think it was 2 cameras at different places and also a sound recording device in her barn locker.
1 Like
I can see her having recording equipment at the house, since it was technically his house too. She would want to record stuff to prove her point of view on how horrible he is.
1 Like
Yes. The subpoena was done by SGF because LK did not give them in discovery (once the court compelled her to answer) the same SM info that was given to MB in the criminal trial. They know this because MB is an owner in SGF and as they argued to the courtā¦.SGF has an independent right to the same info as the other defendants in the civil case.
2 Likes
I donāt know what actually happened. But if there is reason to suspect key evidence was tampered with, then yes I would expect the defense to consider raising this as a reason for the jury to have reasonable doubt.
5 Likes
And she would be within her rights to have recording equipment in her private area (bedroom) but not to record anywhere else. There was a post in one of the threads where apparently she took photos of the interior of the childrenās room(s). That is a huge breach of privacy and possibly illegal.
4 Likes
Lots of blending of the criminal/civil cases in this thread. Not just in this post but in a bunch of the back and forth that follows. I am not going to reply to every post but thereās a whole series that are a little off the mark in understanding who is who (in terms of relationships/clients) and who is in the civil vs. criminal case.
The civil case is in discovery, as best as we can tell. We donāt know whether depositions have been noticed/taken.
In the criminal case LK and her boyfriend are NOT a party. They are not the prosecutionās āclients.ā The prosecution does not control what they do/donāt do in LKās civil case. The prosecution has no role in directing/controlling discovery in the civil case. The prosecutors can ask LK not to do certain things but the prosecution is not involved in the civil case and cannot ultimately stop her from doing what she wants in that case.
If they were deposed and they made statements harmful to the prosecution, perhaps the prosecution would elect not to call one or both as witnesses. A victim need not testify in a criminal case. Often the victim does. But itās not a requirement. If LK taints herself badly in a civil deposition then the prosectution has to decide if it wants to call her to testify knowing those statements can be used on cross by the defense,
9 Likes
Well, she might have. Who knows.
But typically people donāt do this because they donāt actually want or need to monitor what goes on in their own house.
Many many horse people have contemplated a secret stall cam or locker cam when things are going sideways at the barn 
or speculate theyād love to hear what their frenemies say when they arenāt there. But none of us actually do it, because of legalities and expense and lack of Wi-Fi in many barns. Also if we are so worried about barn safety that we need a stall cam then 99% of people would just move now.
The desire to have a stall cam and spy on the barn usually goes along with not wanting any monitoring of yourself. If youāve got to the point you are so paranoid of barn culture that you put up a secret stall cam, you are going to be equally paranoid about your own activity being monitored.
LK has stated things like she was after proof that the black SUV pRked outside at night contained hitmen who were being contracted to kill her. Someone at that stage is not going to install CCTV in her own home.
3 Likes
Just to clarify, I understand that LK is not a party to the criminal case. What I meant was, I imagined that usually the victim would cooperate closely with the prosecution since they would want the prosecution to be able to make their best case possible. By cooperation I mean, if the prosecution requested holding off on civil suit actions, the victim would do so in order to allow the prosecution to make their best case.
If such a request was made by the prosecution, but the victim side ignored it and pushed ahead, that is what seemed unusual to me, so I was asking.
2 Likes
I assume they have been done because the agreed scheduling order called for for fact witnesses depositions to be done by July 1st and instead of agreeing to yet another extension SGF pushed the compel for the subpoena and then a stay.
1 Like
In the message to KM, LK said she wasnāt deposed yet, if I remember correctly.
1 Like
Some what theoretical legal type question.
If LK is not called to testify in the criminal case, is there a way that the defense can get what is said in her depositions from the civil case (if they have them, which is sounds like they have not happened yet, hence it being theoretical) in front of the jury?
3 Likes
The messages to KM were dated before/as the motions to compel were being filed/decided. Court didnāt decide to grant under protection until late June. Stay not filed until 7/7.
But here is the thingā¦.the prosecution in the criminal trial suggested to the civil court that it would give over everything after the criminal trial and the civil case should be stayedā¦.and SGF persisted in the compel. If they didnāt intend to depose her before the July deadline ( before the criminal trial)ā¦.then why didnāt they go along with the prosecutionās suggestion and just wait?
SGF likely believes they have something to gain by pushing ahead. Could be many things, only they know the reasons.
1 Like
