I understand it perfectly. I’ve explained things to YOU repeatedly in fact.
As for RG there was a straight NG which is Inexplicable using your logic given that Cox had admitted her gun was present in the state illegally AND that it was the weapon used supposedly. So if you see that as the State met its burden then all I can do is laugh. The State sucked at this case and professionals in media who have commented on the case in the performance of their jobs concur with me.
Put me on ignore. Your problem is solved.
He was. It just wasn’t a crime because he was insane at the time.
The prosecutor met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard, that MB committee the Act that would otherwise be a crime except the defense attorney met the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that MB was insane at the time.
I guess my post was too nuanced for you to understand.
THREE CHARGES against MB in regard to RG were straight NOT GUILTY.
THATS A LOSS FOR THE PROSECUTION. A BIG ONE.
Not at all. I just didn’t agree with that little voice in your head that told you that you had a right to tell me how to post or that I would care what you thought.
It was two charges for each of the victims.
Wrong. For RG SchillySchally tossed in Aggravated Assault. Listen to the verdict.
Maybe it’s a reading comprehension problem then, because I didn’t tell you how to post; I asked you a question that gets asked by many people here all the time.
FWIW, Mr Deininger just filed a corrected amended complaint. Gonna be honest, I have no idea what he corrected and don’t have time right this second to compare. But, here it is.
Also, adding to top post.
MB Correct amend answer 120522.pdf (268.6 KB)
Thank you @ekat for getting all of these files for us and posting them! You make following along so much easier.
Actually, I asked a question NOT TO YOU and you responded criticizing my question in a manner to ridicule what other posters, not myself, have said.
So to this I answer put me on ignore and your problem is solved.
I hope that’s clear enough for you.
I just blanketed a hot, spunky young colt in 50 degree pouring rain - his first experience wearing a blanket might I add, and even he was more sensible than some of your posts. If you’re so salty and bitter, why contribute to the discussion? There is no obligation. I don’t get it.
I concur!
I think both of you are saying the same thing here. I bolded and added some things above.
Since two of them were witnesses, they were supposed to be sequestered, not reading along about the trial and testimony on a horse forum.
Regardless, how is that the concern of anyone else? Along with any variations on the dating game?
OH, I agree with that too. That is between MHG and Michael.
I think the point being covered is some people are insisting that Michael got no money for anything associated with MHG and MHG’s clients.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
