MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[Angela_Freda]

@Fiesta01

More info I wish the 48 Hours people were privy to.

I wonder if they are.
She just had an interview, interestingly at some horse farm that I don’t believe she has any connection to (1), about this whole mess.
Considering how free flowing she is online, I’m guessing she regaled them with details about the current and future proceedings.
It serves for her to manipulate to garner sympathy, that really low hanging fruit, her favorite kind.

1- why that horse farm she, one assumes, she doesn’t board or train at, and (edit) rather than/ not where she actually, presently does?
If this farm could be found to host her for this interview, why didn’t she move there when it was clear to everyone that she was no longer wanted at HH?

.

[DownYonder]

@Knights_Mom

Clearly CH is so embedded in Team Kanarek that to them up is down and down is up.

Cognitive Dissonance and/or personal affiliation will keep them from ever seeing anything other than MB bad, LK good.

My compliments to CH though. Their expertise in twisting and flipping facts and truths certainly renders them an expert gymnast.

Well said!

[trubandloki]

@BigMama1

#2 No. Not understanding / remembering/ admitting that he shot LK has absolutely nothing to do with delusional thinking. You clearly don’t understand what this term means

Delusional thinking, gaslighting, stalking, harassing… why know what they really mean, just toss them around to make a (wrong) point or to get your way.

[TBLover]

My take on what delusion in the context of the verdict means is this: that MB was “delusional” that LK presented an immediate threat to him at that moment in time, such that he took the gun with him, fed by a justified paranoia that LK and RG were out to ruin his life. The paranoia itself was not “delusional”, nor as Virginia Horse Mom points out, is the amnesia.

[Angela_Freda]

@DownYonder

I can’t figure out whether is being deliberately obtuse or if he is parroting another * K-Klan narrative

*insert “desperate”

[DownYonder]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m suggesting it would aid his mental recovery to admit to himself that he shot her, albeit in a delusional state.

It would aid YOUR mental recovery to accept the fact that no one should admit they did something they can’t remember, when the only 'evidence" came from lying, drug addict grifters who had organized and carried out a deliberate campaign to destroy the person’s business, relationships, reputation - and mental health.

Your personal investment in aiding and abetting the “Finish the Bastard” crowd is quite telling.

[iberianfan]

I agree with this. Just because Taylor said it, doesn’t make it medically true. I think, if Taylor has to write up his decision in an order, he is going to say that the panel at AK thought MB needed further treatment, giving more weight to their opinion than that of the individual doctors that thought MB could be released.

The fact that Taylor and Schellhorn stated what they think MB has to do carries no weight as they are NOT medical professionals. Therefore, relying on their opinion carries no weight.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

You nailed it.

There was an earlier post from CH … maybe 50 ago, that FINALLY responded to my queries about the victim impact statement. She brought up either a sentencing or parole hearing in relation to that. AGAIN… it’s more of this conflation between MBs ongoing commitment situation, after being found NGRI, and the legal situations and hearing processes related to guilty people.

You misunderstood my post “that FINALLY responded to your queries”, VHM.

I said that victim impact statements are associated with sentencing hearings at criminal trials. I meant that as pointing out they were generally associated with hearings other than Krol hearings.

The Krol hearing is not a sentencing hearing, so I have no presumption that LK would have had any input, in the form of an “impact statement” of otherwise . I said that I thought the prosecutor would represent her interests as the victim and as part of the public.

I hope you don’t think I “owe” you responses to your “queries”.

[erinmeri]

In a Kroll situation, do the medical professionals typically have to be unanimous in their opinion to persuade a judge? The article doesn’t say how many psychologists and social workers were against outpatient treatment, but it sounds like opinions were split. I suppose I am a bit surprised that there is not one overriding recommendation from AK.

[erinmeri]

@Sdel

And I am at the bottom…

Missed that because I stopped reading the babble after I saw the claim that I was delusional for a supposed belief that I do not hold and have never asserted. I guess I’m in good company in the crosshairs!

[Sdel]

Yep. What is the saying….”Resort to insults when you have no argument” or something along those lines…,

[omare]

I thought to be NG for reason of insanity means one does not have the necessary mental capacity to be legally responsible for ones criminal behavior and that by raising this affirmative defense one is essentially admitting to the act. I do not see anywhere in legal writings that it is otherwise. The logical glitch people raise is if he can’t remember -which seems was also evidence of his mental break/how can he admit? I don’t know, but it seems legally by raising and succeeding with this affirmative defense he has admitted to the criminal act as a matter of law?

[Graymaresrule]

I thought it meant that the defendant is admitting that evidence points to the belief he did it

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@Sdel

And I am at the bottom…

Missed that because I stopped reading the babble after I saw the claim that I was delusional for a supposed belief that I do not hold and have never asserted. I guess I’m in good company in the crosshairs!

Sorry to be unclear, @erinmeri

I was trying to say that if individuals such as you did hold delusional beliefs, there’s no harm to you personally, as you’re not facing a judges decision as to whether you are or not in a delusional state.

I can see how you would have interpreted my post otherwise, though.

After rereading Jaffer article, my current interpretation is that the AKC evaluation committee as a whole simply recommended against release at this time; it was unclear from the article as to the basis for their decision.

The thing that I’m curious about is how Nancy Jaffer got the detailed information about the hearing if it was a closed hearing. I suppose the result would be posted publicly, but I don’t know how she would have had the detail about the remarking on MBs appearance, or the quotes.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

You didn’t owe me a response. I’ll acknowledge that. I did hound you on this issue. I’ll own that too.

Here’s the thing… I’m harping on this issue because it is a recent, CRYSTAL CLEAR example of LK blatantly telling a lie about the legal proceedings. Can you admit that LK told a lie? In writing, on YouTube? She did. She told a big one. Why she did this… I can’t say. It seems like it was for dramatic effect.

As you note… the prosecutor was at the Krol hearing representing the interests of the state with respect to ongoing public safety issues of concern. LK giving any sort of statement would have had no bearing on the outcome of the Krol hearing. And a Krol hearing is not the same thing as a sentencing hearing. Or a parole hearing.

Do you think LK was REALLY confused about the difference between a Krol hearing, a sentencing hearing and a parole hearing? I don’t. Do you think she was REALLY operating under the mistaken assumption that she would be able to make a victim impact statement at the hearing? I don’t.

I think she was blatantly lying about it. It was part of this ongoing effort to push a narrative that MB really is guilty. This narrative is being pushed from multiple angles. The debate over whether an NGRI verdict is really an acquittal… it’s part of this attempt to shape a narrative. So was this weird lie about giving a victim impact statement. So is this weird insistence now that MB must “acknowledge “ that he shot LK in order to prove he isn’t delusional anymore, and to get released from his commitment.

It’s a little push here, a little nudge there… a whole lot of effort to try and change the public perception of this situation. I don’t know if it’s because she wants to rehabilitate her public image (especially within the broader equestrian community), or if it’s an effort to influence the legal situation somehow… or a combo of both.

It’s not working. At all. I don’t know what your role in all this is… you say you aren’t an insider and that’s fine… whatever… but you clearly are giving it your best effort to assist with these various attempts to shape the narrative. You are clearly not a stupid or nutty person. I sincerely mean that. So I’m letting you know… this thing you are doing just isn’t working.

The problem, at its core, is that LK is a known liar, and has conducted herself in a truly APPALLING way online over the last few years. Yes… she has been the target of hate. But c’mon… her vitriolic posts incite, and invite, strong reactions. You are smart. You know this.

At this point, all the vitriolic social media posts combined with all the lying, and all the bizarre bragging about money, horses, her lifestyle? She is not a sympathetic figure to ANYONE. She’s just not. On YouTube, where rules regarding comments are a little more lax, there were MULTIPLE jokes from random people who watched the trial and her testimony talking about how MBs biggest mistake was that he missed. THAT is what online abuse looks like. It’s pretty cruel. The discussions here on COTH? They have been very civil by comparison.

Team Kanarek needs to read the writing on the wall, and come up with a different strategy with respect to whatever the heck it is they are trying to accomplish in support of LK.

[Sdel]

@omare

I don’t know, but it seems legally by raising and succeeding with this affirmative defense he has admitted to the criminal act as a matter of law?

I think you are missing that the criminal system starts with the presumption is innocent until proven guilty. The actual reasoning of an affirmative defense can’t override that. It is more of a “if you find I did it, then here is why I shouldn’t be held accountable”.

The other factor is, jury nullification. The truth is, juries can find what they find, for any reason, and they don’t have to follow the legal “rules and ideology” to get there if they don’t want to. So, best not to over think it too much.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@omare

I thought to be NG for reason of insanity means one does not have the necessary mental capacity to be legally responsible for ones criminal behavior and that by raising this affirmative defense one is essentially admitting to the act. I do not see anywhere in legal writings that it is otherwise. The logical glitch people raise is if he can’t remember -which seems was also evidence of his mental break/how can he admit? I don’t know, but it seems legally by raising and succeeding with this affirmative defense he has admitted to the criminal act as a matter of law?

No, I don’t think it’s quite right to say the defendant is admitting that he committed “the act”, in this case that he shot her.

It’s more that he’s saying that even if the prosecutor establishes all elements of his case other than intent (that is, that I committed the physical act), it’s still not a criminal act, because I did not have the ability to form intent.

The defendant can still try to negate the prosecutor’s case and still try to get a straight NG. In practice, though, the defendant would not resort to a NGRI plea if they thought they had a good chance of negating the prosecutors case, or succeeding at a plea of NG by reason of self defense.

The jury would only get to a verdict of NGRI if the prosecution succeeded in establishing all elements of his case other than intent, so by “succeeding” in getting a NGRI verdict, the jury has determined that the defendant committed the physical act, even though the defendant has not admitted it.

This line of thinking is hugely controversial on this thread, though, as you are about to see.

[LiberalSnowflake]

@cutter99

@Jealoushe

@Warmblood1

Translation: I’m going to make an assumption, state it as fact and then when someone asks for a source, refuse to give it.

Nice.

think whatever you like, but yall asked WHY and I advised the answer.

It’s your choice to listen to believe or not I really am not bothered nor have a dog in this fight. I was merely sharing what I saw.

No dog in the fight @Jealoushe??? This screen shot begs to differ! Learn to play with the big dogs or stay on the porch with the puppies!

And I am merely sharing what I saw!

I’m about 24 hours behind the thread now, there’s been a lot going down where I am, but check out one of the followers on Instagram …

[EADoug]

Guys, it seriously does NOT matter one tiny bit who Jealoushe follows or who follows her anywhere on social media. Heaven forbid someone judge me on the merits of that. (For what it’s worth, I follow Jealoushe AND LK, gasp…)

Please for the love of actual legal updates, stick to the actual topic.

[DownYonder]

@BigMama1

I’m guessing your knowledge of psychiatry runs about as deep as your legal expertise,

Zinger!