MB update

[FitzE]

@hut-ho78

you know, how people treat LK for prior arrests without convictions.

Hundreds behind but just wanted to address this.

The issue with LK’s ‘prior arrests without convictions’ is the plural. Having multiple arrests regardless of disposition is, in and of itself, a problem; a HUGE red flag; an indictment of character and behaviour; utterly and completely NOT NORMAL. That this pattern extends to her parents and life partner (or whatever) amplifies what a big issue this is.

LK herself came on here once and made a big noisy fuss about the dispositions of the many arrests calling her record, and I here quote, ‘squeaky clean’. This shows a disturbing thought process. She and other members of her family/social circle have so normalised acting in ways that result in arrest yet doing whatever it is they do to avoid conviction, that she actually suggests with a straight face that such records can be accurately described as ‘squeaky clean’.

No one - not one single person - in a normally functioning family would describe the sheer number of arrests of which that family can boast as indicative of ‘squeaky clean’ records.

Just the thought is mind blowing. That’s a level of delusion, lack of self awareness, and narrative manipulation beyond anything anyone commenting here or on YT or whereever could possibly be accused of.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Warmblood1

Re: maximum security psychiatric hospital

Is that opposed to say, a minimum security psychiatric hospital?

In a minimum security psych hospital, do we give the “not as suicidal” patients slightly sharper scissors than say the “super suicidal” patients who do not get scissors at all?

Assuming there is a maximum security psych hospital, what is the medium security hospital like?

I’ll give LK credit for one thing, I’ve never seen someone author such long winded works that have absolutely no substance. The “wait and see”s and the “patient dear”s and the “maximum security psych ward,” it’s all verbal fluff. Meaningless garbage designed to create drama and substance that just doesn’t exist. I have to laugh at the constant “puffing” and bolstering because otherwise it’s just so sad. LK lacks a fundamental understanding and insight to so many elementary things. I think it’s sad that people encourage her delusions and defend her behavior. Rid her of any responsibility. It does her no favors. None at all.

Well, I’d think there is a legitimate distinction between a forensic psychiatric hospital like Ann Klein which handles patients committed via the court system due to a NGRI verdict, as compared to other psychiatric hospitals handling patients who become patients voluntarily.

Under the circumstances, MB cannot simply discharge himself. Maybe that’s what she meant.

[ekat]

@McGurk

I just want to compliment both @ekat and @Virginia_Horse_Mom for terrific analytic posts that express a lot of my views without getting into the weeds.

Thank you both for your contributions to this thread.

thank you very much.

[ekat]

@KurPlexed

New drawing up

I love this so much! I loved the other ones but these turtles might be my new favorite.

I’m glad Michael can get birthday cards. Hopefully this will be his last birthday away from home.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Bolded = mine

@CurrentlyHorseless

OK. If you were not swayed by the deliberations to genuinely endorse a verdict of NGRI, because you were not persuaded that “he short her”, correct behavior would require you to hold out until unanimity was reached or a hung jury declared.

I don’t think it’s that simple. I think if I was a juror in that situation, I would genuinely be struggling with whether my doubts about MB having pointed the gun and then shot LK were ‘reasonable’ or not

If the hung jury required a new trial, that’s the law, even though it puts the defendant at risk of straight guilty. It is not correct behavior for a juror to misrepresent their true finding of fact on the grounds that they’ve made a calculation of “I’m not convinced (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he shot her, but perhaps it’s in his best interest to compromise on NGRI to avoid a second trial and the risk of a Guilty verdict”.

I think you are going down a strange side road here, and just opting to question individual integrity of a hypothetical juror, rather than acknowledge that the line between ANY doubt, and REASONABLE doubt is actually somewhat grey

The jury is supposed to be an impartial finder of fact and not misrepresent their assessment of the facts by calculating the risks of a future trial for the defendant. You’re admitting that if you had served on the jury, you might have made your decisions in part based on what you viewed as being in the defendant’s interests rather than on your assessment of the facts alone.

Again, you are twisting what I said, and then using it to try and push an argument that I would have been lacking in the integrity department if I served on the jury. Which is obnoxious. I never said I would make my decisions BECAUSE of the risks involved in a future trial. I simply said it is something I would have thought about, and the gravity of the situation would have weighed on me. Bottom line, jurors are human beings, who are rendering their OPINIONS on the evidence presented at trial relative to the charges. You can talk all you want about ‘finding of facts’ , and how a hypothetical juror holding complicated opinions on a challenging case like this, where there are clear gaps in stories and evidence, well, you can say that holding a complicated opinion and having some doubts is somehow the same as juror misconduct, because the juror isn’t 100% certain of their opinion and the verdict they voted on… but sorry… that’s not how human beings and real life works. Situations like this are often not black and white, and instead, various shades of grey

Why would you even think about the risks to the defendant of a second trial in the event your holding out caused a hung jury?

As a juror, you’re supposed to render your true assessment of the facts. Of course it extremely difficult. Of course there’s a lot of gray. But if you are genuinely not persuaded by the deliberations to change your stance, you’re supposed to continue to hold out until unanimity is reached or a hung jury declared.

If your honest assessment results in a hung jury, so be it. That’s the law. It’s not your job as an original juror to ponder what the second jury will decide.

[Sdel]

@hut-ho78

We actually agree. Some of them seem so much like posts here even without the two I can think of that bragged here about posting there.

Yep, two sound like you and CH. None of them sound like me though.

[Unfforgettable]

@FitzE

‘squeaky clean’.

You mean Teflon?

[iberianfan]

In a utopian world, perhaps a juror, who is, at the end of the day, simply human, would forget all else but what was heard in the trial. But that’s not how people think or act. We all bring our biases and opinions with us wherever we go and in whatever situation we find ourselves. That is why both the prosecution and defense have the right to strike potential jurors. In your world, there would be no need to do so.

I think your argument negates human behaviour and is unrealistic. Again, as @ekat and others have said, we really do not know what the jury was thinking. And I firmly believe that they most certainly were thinking of the long holiday weekend, missing another day of work, having to find daycare, and all the other trivial but important things that rule our lives.

[Salty]

I came here to make sure that someone had shared the turtles. Off to get Michael a birthday card!

[ekat]

@Salty

I came here to make sure that someone had shared the turtles. Off to get Michael a birthday card!

I feel like the turtles need names. I really am awestruck by them! Especially knowing the limited supplies and drawing from memory, and everything. And that little mushroom in the corner. It’s just amazing.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Why would you even think about the risks to the defendant of a second trial in the event your holding out caused a hung jury?

As a juror, you’re supposed to render your true assessment of the facts. Of course it extremely difficult. Of course there’s a lot of gray. But if you are genuinely not persuaded by the deliberations to change your stance, you’re supposed to continue to hold out until unanimity is reached or a hung jury declared.

If your honest assessment results in a hung jury, so be it. That’s the law. It’s not your job as an original juror to ponder what the second jury will decide.

Soooo , you’re criticizing my hypothetical thought process and hypothetical considerations if I had served on the jury in the criminal trial, deliberating various verdicts in this situation?

How about you? Would you have a perfectly clear head, and be willing to hang any jury over any potential doubt? Because you 100% live by the courage of your convictions, all the time, unequivocally?

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

@Knights_Mom

@hut-ho78

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

The criminal verdict NGRI simply means

MB is getting out soon.

So adjust your intestines to recognize that fact.

It’s clear to many, many people LK jumped MB, started bashing him in the head, RG and the dog joined in and in this melee the gun went off whether it was done accidentally, went off in a struggle, was done when RG went to grab the gun or when it was fired by MB to try and save his own life.

There is no how no way LK assaulted MB after being shot. Had she not assaulted MB she never would have been shot. NO ONE GOES TO MURDER 2 PEOPLE WITH 2 BULLETS.

This is the absolute truth as I see it and as logic dictates.

And THIS is what the Civil trial will bring forth. This is what I believe.

Wow. I have no respond to that!

Well, there is the second magazine with the 7 bulllets. (Thank you @ekat for refreshing my memory.)

Sure. But if you were planning on shooting 2 people wouldn’t you have it IN the gun? Wouldn’t you be locked and loaded? MB wasn’t. So even IF he brought the gun and even IF he brought the mag shoving it in a pocket is not conducive to going to murderlize someone.

If he looked at one magazine and saw bullets would he try to load more or assume it was a full magazine?

If he was going to shoot 2 people would he check the rounds? I would. Wouldn’t you?

[DownYonder]

@FitzE

The issue with LK’s ‘prior arrests without convictions’ is the plural. Having multiple arrests regardless of disposition is, in and of itself, a problem; a HUGE red flag; an indictment of character and behaviour; utterly and completely NOT NORMAL. That this pattern extends to her parents and life partner (or whatever) amplifies what a big issue this is.

LK herself came on here once and made a big noisy fuss about the dispositions of the many arrests calling her record, and I here quote, ‘squeaky clean’. This shows a disturbing thought process. She and other members of her family/social circle have so normalised acting in ways that result in arrest yet doing whatever it is they do to avoid conviction, that she actually suggests with a straight face that such records can be accurately described as ‘squeaky clean’.

No one - not one single person - in a normally functioning family would describe the sheer number of arrests of which that family can boast as indicative of ‘squeaky clean’ records.

Just the thought is mind blowing. That’s a level of delusion, lack of self awareness, and narrative manipulation beyond anything anyone commenting here or on YT or whereever could possibly be accused of.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@iberianfan

In a utopian world, perhaps a juror, who is, at the end of the day, simply human, would forget all else but what was heard in the trial. But that’s not how people think or act. We all bring our biases and opinions with us wherever we go and in whatever situation we find ourselves. That is why both the prosecution and defense have the right to strike potential jurors. In your world, there would be no need to do so.

I think your argument negates human behaviour and is unrealistic. Again, as @ekat and others have said, we really do not know what the jury was thinking. And I firmly believe that they most certainly were thinking of the long holiday weekend, missing another day of work, having to find daycare, and all the other trivial but important things that rule our lives.

I absolutely agree that juries are human, biases creep in, and that a long weekend may have added some pressure.

But if one or more jurors believed, as finders of fact, that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof on all elements other than intent on the issue of his having shot LK, it was a serious miscarriage of justice that those jurors did not hold out for a verdict of NG on all counts, or a hung jury.

I am assuming that the individual jurors took their duties sufficiently seriously to not reject the finding of straight NG just because coming back from a 5 day weekend was inconvenient.

Also it was fairly early in the jury deliberations that the jury asked for the expert psychiatric testimony be reviewed. They were instructed that the psychiatric testimony was only to be considered after they had decided the prosecution had met its burden on the elements of the case other than intent.

When the five day weekend approached, the jury was deciding between Guilty and NGRI wrt the two charges regarding LK. Straight Not Guilty was already off the table.

[Knights_Mom]

@FitzE

@hut-ho78

you know, how people treat LK for prior arrests without convictions.

Hundreds behind but just wanted to address this.

The issue with LK’s ‘prior arrests without convictions’ is the plural. Having multiple arrests regardless of disposition is, in and of itself, a problem; a HUGE red flag; an indictment of character and behaviour; utterly and completely NOT NORMAL. That this pattern extends to her parents and life partner (or whatever) amplifies what a big issue this is.

LK herself came on here once and made a big noisy fuss about the dispositions of the many arrests calling her record, and I here quote, ‘squeaky clean’. This shows a disturbing thought process. She and other members of her family/social circle have so normalised acting in ways that result in arrest yet doing whatever it is they do to avoid conviction, that she actually suggests with a straight face that such records can be accurately described as ‘squeaky clean’.

No one - not one single person - in a normally functioning family would describe the sheer number of arrests of which that family can boast as indicative of ‘squeaky clean’ records.

Just the thought is mind blowing. That’s a level of delusion, lack of self awareness, and narrative manipulation beyond anything anyone commenting here or on YT or whereever could possibly be accused of.

So much THIS

[eggbutt]

Super post!

[DownYonder]

@iberianfan

In a utopian world, perhaps a juror, who is, at the end of the day, simply human, would forget all else but what was heard in the trial. But that’s not how people think or act. We all bring our biases and opinions with us wherever we go and in whatever situation we find ourselves. That is why both the prosecution and defense have the right to strike potential jurors. In your world, there would be no need to do so.

I think your argument negates human behaviour and is unrealistic. Again, as @ekat and others have said, we really do not know what the jury was thinking. And I firmly believe that they most certainly were thinking of the long holiday weekend, missing another day of work, having to find daycare, and all the other trivial but important things that rule our lives.

Hear, hear. Jurors are not robots. Heck, they aren’t even Mr. Spock.

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

@Salty

I came here to make sure that someone had shared the turtles. Off to get Michael a birthday card!

I feel like the turtles need names. I really am awestruck by them! Especially knowing the limited supplies and drawing from memory, and everything. And that little mushroom in the corner. It’s just amazing.

George & Gracie.

[ekat]

@Knights_Mom

George & Gracie.

Perfect!

[roseymare]

I don’t think CH has ever been in a jury. It is not black and white and instructions are not always clear. And there is pressure. I decided not to hang a jury once.