I have been listening to the trial again. One thing that has stuck in my mind, on cross-examination by Bilinkas I think, he asked a question of RG if he and LK were afraid of loosing their home (MB’s home/farmhouse) RG replied, no.
Brings me back to that signature thing, and MB was only “leasing” the farm. Makes me wonder if they paraded around some faked document to the police or DA to make them take such a hands off approach to LK. Maybe the landlord/tenant argument was intended to be taken in the reverse?
Someone explain, is there a record anywhere of that edict from the DA?
How does that go down?
MB calls 911 because LK/RG are saying they are bringing people to stay, or visit, who are also planning to ride… And what happens then?
How does this end up in front of a DA?
Who is present for that… procedure? in which the DA is presented with…what? And himself, based on…what? determines its nothing and these people can do what they want?
And if the DA determined that, did these people who were coming to visit ever arrive? If not, why not?
Was this the situation MB felt he needed more allies on site for?
Don’t forget not enough of a contractor to unplug a possibly faulty dryer. Weren’t HER horses in that same barn? The barn that could potentially have burned to the ground, killing the people and horses within?
Ruth Cox actually provides some interesting testimony of that day and that specific 911 call.
Her testimony was that a) she was in a meeting with MB and his lawyers. Waivers were to be given to LK, per the lawyer. B) she and LK had a disagreement because LK kept trying to feed Ruth’s horse something Ruth didn’t want the horse to have (sugar cubes, I think?). C) with Michael present, Ruth tried to get the waivers signed. D) RG got extremely angry and started threatening Michael, hence, the 911 call.
I’ve summarized it a lot, but that’s the gist of the testimony.
I don’t think the people LK invited ever actually showed up.