MB update

[Fiesta01]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Just out of curiosity… are you still horseless? Or are you riding these days? What’s your preferred discipline? Dressage? Jumping? Trail riding?

Also, you have any good dog photos to contribute to the thread?

Heck, we’ll even take cute cat photos.

[ekat]

@McGurk

I have served on a grand jury and this is absolutely true. No rules of evidence apply. The arresting officer or the prosecuting attorney comes in and lays out why they think the person should go to trial. There is no defense, there is no rebuttal what the prosecution lays out. Grand jury members can ask questions about what the prosecution has presented, but that’s it. Often, forensics are not available or not complete at the time a grand jury votes to indict. Opinion and hearsay are allowed; the prosecutor or arresting officer will tell what their theory of the events is.

In my state, only four members of the six person grand jury has to vote for a True Bill in order to indict the person.

Psychologically, as a grand jury, it’s relatively easy to vote for the True Bill - you’re not sending anyone to person, you’re just saying there’s enough evidence that it should go to trial.

I was shocked at how casual and informal it all was.

It’s crazy, isn’t it? In my state, they impanel more jury members than they need, and only require a quorum to even be present (in case of emergencies) and then they only need the majority of the present members to indict. And this is why ham sandwiches are doomed.

[McGurk]

This is also what I have wondered.

That the NGRI was a compromise verdict to avoid a hung jury.

[Sdel]

@ekat

And this is why ham sandwiches are doomed.

Ham sandwiches should go to jail. But tuna fish sandwiches need life without parole…

[McGurk]

I have a lot of wild stories from my grand jury duty, but the one that sticks out the most was one where the commonwealth attorney came in and told the story of a young woman who wanted to charges brought for assault against someone who had picked her up hitchhiking, they had an altercation, and he beat her, badly.

There were photos from the ER showing the lacerations and bruises, there was no question it was assault and we all voted for the true bill.

But it was the commonwealth’s attorney describing the victim “Look, we all know that at some point this girl’s body is going to end up in a landfill” that shook me.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Warmblood1

@Knights_Mom

NGRI means there was no crime as mens rea didn’t exist. There was no finding MB shot her beyond a reasonable doubt.

You keep getting the verdict confused with Guilty but insane. It’s not.

@CurrentlyHorseless, I am pretty sure this is post 572 but it is a post by KM and has nothing to do with why no one has been discussing RG?

No that’s post 574 by KM.

[ekat]

Oh man, that’s harsh!

[ekat]

@Sdel

Ham sandwiches should go to jail. But tuna fish sandwiches need life without parole

Where does a meatball sandwich rank? Just curious. For me, they’re kind of on probation.

[Sdel]

@ekat

@Sdel

Ham sandwiches should go to jail. But tuna fish sandwiches need life without parole

Where does a meatball sandwich rank? Just curious. For me, they’re kind of on probation.

Community service for inflicting indigestion on their consumers.

[ekat]

@Sdel

Community service for inflicting indigestion on their consumers.

oh, so true.

[jvanrens]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

No, it was FitzE who used the term “word salad” to describe my posts, despite her claims that she is not reading them.

Hmmmm, one does not need to read word salad to recognize word salad.

I’ll admit as soon as I start seeing Blah, Blah, Blah… I scroll on by.

[McGurk]

Yes. This.

The attorneys in my family tree have schooled me thoroughly never to apologize at an accident scene, in direct opposition to the social contract that says you say “I’m sorry” when someone is hurt or inconvenienced; BECAUSE it will later be construed as an admission of guilt.

Same with responding to “Are you okay?” with “I’m fine” which is firmly enshrined in the social contract, especially among equestrians who have recently parted company with their beloved equines.

One of these family members was a pedestrian struck in a crosswalk by a red light runner, and when the truck driver ran up to him to ask him if was okay, he responded “Of course I’m not okay! You hit me with a truck! You ran the light!” In front of the people who witnessed the accident.

[DownYonder]

@eggbutt

I honestly believe the Kanareks are going to wake up and take a hard look at all that will be laid out in full display and drop their suits. In the court of public opinion they have already lost with almost none of the ugliness or active participants seeing the light of day.

I hope that is the case but given LK’s complete obsession with self-aggrandizement, it would not surprise me one bit if she REFUSES to drop her lawsuit. She has proven time and again that she doesn’t take sound legal advice if it doesn’t agree with her - ahem, agenda.

So if she refuses to drop it and MB prevails, what recourse does he have against her? She is an unemployed adult with no tangible assets that can be attached. And although she said the money JK gives her is “hers,” it sounds as though it may be in a protected trust so MB may have a very, very difficult time collecting on the judgment. And I would be hugely surprised if any of the other members of the K-Klan help her financially in this regard.

It’s really sad and disturbing to think that even if MB “wins” the civil cases, he may come away with nothing other than vindication.

[McGurk]

It was probably accurate, but it still smacked me upside the head about the difference between a grand jury and an actual jury.

The victim led a risky lifestyle and made a lot of bad life choices; but she did not deserve the beat down that she was given.

I found it odd that the prosecution wanted to make the lifestyle/bad life choices clear to us as if that somehow mitigated the beat down.

[Warmblood1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@FitzE

Just a quick question: I see lots of references to ‘conditional release’ but just plain release is also an option, correct?

As for the ridiculous ‘remorse’ thing now being pushed: It’s a proven fact from things posted here and elsewhere that the other side at least partially disagrees with the jury’s finding. They are still out there pushing the idea that MB shot at RG and RG is just, literally, faster than a speeding bullet. So they think the jury got that point wrong. Otherwise they’d have to be saying, the jury had to first decide if he did or didn’t shot at RG before they could get to the insanity question, they clearly decided he did not, so that’s dispositive of that question: MB was found to have NOT shot at RG. But, that’s not at all what they are saying. They use that lovely little logical walk through of jury deliberation only for the NGRI part of the verdict. Because of course they do.

I’m not sure who you’re referring to as “they” or “the other side”, but I have explicitly said that I think the jury got the following points correct: 1) beyond a reasonable doubt, MB shot LK in a manner likely to cause death, 2) the evidence was not there to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MB attempted to murder RG, and 3) MB was legally insane at the time he shot her.

I’ve said several times that I think the verdict was just. I agree with all elements of the verdict. So no, it is not “a proven fact” that “the other side at least partially disagrees with the jury’s finding.”

In short: they say that moving onto considering mental state = the jury found the MB intentionally shot LK = that’s proof it happened. Using their own logic, the opposite would be true for the RG-related charges, ergo , MB shooting at RG didn’t happen. Yet, they are still out there telling that story, over and over and over again.

You’re right that the jury moving on to considering MBs mental state is proof of something. It’s proof that the jury determined as fact finders that, beyond a reasonable doubt MB shot LK. It’s not “proof” that he shot her if by “proof” you mean 100% certainty. All we know is that the jury found that, beyond a reasonable doubt, MB shot her.

It is NOT my logic that “ergo” the RG shooting “didn’t happen”. MB may or may not have aimed at RGs head. All we know from the jury’s verdict of NG wrt the charges regarding RG is that there was not evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that MB was aiming at RG.

Who is out there, “telling that story, over and over and over again”? I haven’t said it and I haven’t seen it argued by others.

I imagine many, including people in MB’s camp, believe the jury got it wrong that he intentionally shot LK. Not that they don’t respect the jury’s process, just that they got that one point wrong, most likely through no fault of their own, since there was almost no forensics to go on. Certainly LK’s civil attorney thinks the jury got it wrong.

The use of the word “intentionally” is problematic. But if you’re saying that people “in MBs camp” “think the jury got it wrong” with respect to finding MB NGRI on the charges wrt LK, then, yes, several people in MBs camp are still pushing self defense or accidental discharge during a scuffle. This does suggest that they think the jury was at fault. If there was not enough forensics to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot MB, the jury should have taken the lack of forensic evidence to find that they were unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot her. Taking the forensic evidence presented to them, the jury found that that evidence was sufficient to establish that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he shot LK.

Why would MB express remorse over something he cannot remember and the jury may not have been able to accurately determine due to the shocking lack of forensic evidence gathered?

Let’s assume the amnesia is real. He sat through his own trial and has lawyers to explain to him the fact that the jury’s finding of NGRI wrt LK indicates that the jury, as fact finders, determined that he did (beyond a reasonable doubt) shoot LK, and nearly killed her.

He is not obligated to express remorse to LK or her family. In order to win release or conditional release, he needs to convince the court that he is no longer insane and suffering from delusions. The idea that he shot LK in self-defense? Delusion! The idea that LK lured him to the farmhouse that day so that they could beat him up, and the gun went off in a “scuffle”? Delusion! The idea that, however much the jury is to be respected, they got that one little detail wrong on his shooting of LK, and he is currently in a secure psychiatric facility facing a Krol hearing because the jury goofed when they decided NGRI instead of NG? Delusion!

If he is going to get beyond his delusions, I think he needs to acknowledge, to himself and his closest supporters, at a minimum, that he understands that he shot and nearly killed someone.

By that reasoning, and if it is felt important that apologies and remorse are expressed based upon the verdict, I assume LK and RG have apologised and expressed remorse for accusing MB of shooting at RG, right? I mean, in line with the twaddle being pushed here, that would also be required based on the verdict, no?

Expressing apologies and remorse to the victim are not the crucial issue. The crucial issue is whether MB is sane enough to admit to himself that, (beyond a reasonable doubt), the determination of the jury was that be shot and nearly killed someone.

No one, including RG, is in a position to know with absolute certainty whether MB was aiming for RGs head and firing the gun. RG and the prosecutor thought he was. The jury’s verdict indicates that, whether did or didn’t aim for RGs head, there was not sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. So, no, RG (and the state of NJ!) accusing MB of the attempted murder of RG would not require an apology or expression of remorse based on the jury’s verdict. Not that I’ve ever said that MB is “required” to apologize or express remorse to LK for having shot her. My point was that to get beyond his delusions, he needs to acknowledge to himself that he shot and nearly killed her. Also that his “supporters” continuing to nurse these delusions is not helpful, IMHO, in promoting the mental healing, or winning the release of, someone who committed a violent act while in a delusional state.

My response in bold

This is post number 570 for me. Regardless, I assume you are referring to this post?

If this is the correct post, this post is regarding remorse and that there was not enough evidence to establish MB shot at RG. This still does not answer why there hasn’t been any discussion surrounding RG.

ETA: I’m really not trying to bait you or be argumentative. I am legitimately curious.

[Angela_Freda]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

I found that really interesting, since they were claiming that RG was her fiancé at that time

Was he her fiance before August 7th?
Meaning, was there any social media anything about them being engaged prior?

[clipper]

@CurrentlyHorseless

OK. I just googled it and the definition you quoted comes up as the second definition of “rhetoric”. As you say, it’s “a definition” of ‘rhetoric’ but not the primary definition.

From Merriam Webster:
How are dictionary definitions ordered?

The order of the definitions may not mean what you think

The one thing you should remember, however, is that the first sense presented to you is not, as is commonly assumed, the most ‘important,’ or ‘correct’ meaning . Some senses may be archaic, slang, or rare, but none are better than the others.

Become a True Dictionary Buff

[Angela_Freda]

@eggbutt

There is no evidence that RG ever completed basic USMC training after the 7th week (isn’t that when they receive their dress blues?). There is an old photo that has been seen of him in USMC dress blues but no other evidence. I’d love to see the DD-214. My military family doesn’t take lightly anyone saying they served when they didn’t so I am a bit obsessive about it.

Edit to correct DD-214

These can’t be obtained with a FOIA?

[Angela_Freda]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

To quite a lot of people, these sorts of details are actually a pretty big deal. If you never finished boot camp, or you got something other than an honorable discharge of the military… you just shouldn’t talk about your military service history. Period.

Or if you did complete it, and therefore DO know something about guns…

[MHM]

@DownYonder

It’s really sad and disturbing to think that even if MB “wins” the civil cases, he may come away with nothing other than vindication.

That might still have some value for him. I still remember the hearing when he appeared via zoom from the jail, and the thing he said that stood out to me the most about the upcoming trial was, “I welcome the media!”