I can’t imagine his team advising him to take a plea deal with a lengthy sentence. The odds of a better outcome with a jury are better I would think.
No one deserves to be shot, harassed or threatened
5 Likes
This is the way I see it, too. Though, I don’t know a lot about US criminal law. If CPS had just been called, etc., could it be heat of the moment even if he grabbed a weapon? If it had been on him already would that argue in favour of heat of the moment?
But, agreed, he shot her in cold blood and you just cannot do that no matter what happened beforehand, unless it’s self defence or accident (neither of which apply here).
2 Likes
Part of what you say is true. Part is not. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall seeing any proof other than what LK stated that he armed himself to go see her/them. It’s certainly very possible. But not certain. Not beyond a reasonable doubt. I just don’t believe the version told without evidence or a finding by the court or he admitting to that allegation.
May justice prevail.
No one deserves to be shot, intimidated or harassed
19 Likes
Do we know this to be true? We only know what one party has said. There are too many unanswered questions and gaping holes in what is known in my opinion.
16 Likes
He did not deny that charge when he appeared, though, correct? I thought was not in contention at court, not just as discussed here. Correct me if I’m wrong, though, it’s been a long time since this all began.
1 Like
He pled not guilty
9 Likes
Agree, that when every piece of info that came from an unreliable, biased source is pulled out of the pile, we end up with very little that we actually know to work with.
Re:heat of the moment, how long is “heat of the moment”?
No one deserves to be shot, intimidated or harassed
4 Likes
Oh, right. Thanks.
2 Likes
Additionally, LK stated here that she approached him. She put herself within “point blank range”….to me that allows the possibility of MB needing to defend himself.
10 Likes
I am curious why the recently installed surveillance cameras (illegally installed?) weren’t operational that day. Did her dog play any role in the events prior to the shooting? That dog had bitten someone recently and was to have been kept confined. Who was on the phone with Lauren while it all played out and what did they hear? Was she on the porch reading, in the bushes waiting or what? Rob was inside, upstairs, coming out the door, what? She was “inches from him when shot”?
I completely agree it will come down to he said/she said along with ALL the events leading up to the day, coupled with very good investigative work, for a jury to have enough information for a fair verdict. Michael and Lauren’s past behavior and behavior since the shooting will be part of the evidence presented by both sides I would think.
7 Likes
The surveillance cameras were controlled by who?
LK?
4 Likes
She installed them from what she says.
3 Likes
Thanks, that is what I thought I remembered. I just wanted to confirm.
Seems strange that she would have them off.
2 Likes
Another possibility is that it was deleted because they showed something that wouldn’t be good. Most of these cameras store to a cloud that is accessible by phone app….
8 Likes
The fact that he shot them - which has been disputed by nobody - is sufficient evidence for me that he was armed when he got there. And in one of the very early hearing videos the judge said there was no evidence that anyone else present that day was armed.
3 Likes
There was information she provided for the Civil case that they were off that day and normally the data would have been stored on the cloud.
Didn’t her father and Rob come rushing to the farm and crossed the crime tape to enter the house the next day, and also go into the barn angrily confronting those there? I recall reading that somewhere.
6 Likes
That was very early. A lot of evidence hadn’t even been processed for meaning yet. Also, only prosecution had the evidence so far of course they were only going to present what supported their party line to the judge.
5 Likes
Well here, and it was months after the fact so she should have known they were off, she directly stated that cameras 1-3 knew the truth as did a host of other recordings from other devices. Freudian slip?
6 Likes
I am interested in the legal aspects of this case if it goes to trial. How do prosecutors prove someone’s state of mind in regards to intent.
Since this incident occurred of a farm that is the defendant’s place of business and the house (or part of it) is his residence, even if he was not living in it at the time, it seems that it would be the easiest thing for the defense to say that he went to the house for another reason. How would you disprove that? How they would explain the gun I don’t know.
I am by no means a legal professional and don’t understand these processes. I am just curious how intent is determined.
Edited to add, this is not a comment that I think this is what happened or what the defense will or should do. Just my questions about how the law works.
1 Like
Apparently both parties made verbal threats to each other in the heat of the moment in the days leading up to the shooting. How many times have you heard someone say, “I’m gonna kill…” in frustration. I am NOT saying those words were used.
2 Likes
