MB update

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Ok. I’m going to ask this procedural question for the multiple lawyers following this thread, one more time…

Because I am still seeing odd public comments on social media about this…

With respect to MB’s mental health evaluation hearing at the end of August… I understand it’s closed to the public. But is it true or false that LK will be allowed to attend and make a statement?

The way some comments on social media are portraying it, this mental health evaluation hearing is almost like a parole hearing. But shouldn’t it be a different thing, in fundamental ways? I understand it if there are victim impact statements at parole hearings… but aren’t mental health evaluation hearings about determining whether someone is in the least restrictive treatment setting possible or not?

Edited to use more precise terminology

[Knights_Mom]

I personally believe that it is closed to all outside parties as it involves personal health information that should be protected by Hipaa Laws. As MB was adjudicated Not Guilty, to my mind the only factor remaining is whether or not he presents as a danger to himself or the public at this time and if/how continuing mental health care should continue.

The Not Guilty aspect is what’s important here. Had he been found guilty but insane it would be a completely different scenario.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

As of a week ago she is publicly claiming that it is closed to the public, but she will be allowed to attend and provide a statement.

Very bizarre.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

if the additional weeks in treatment and evaluation will allow him to present a better profile.

Hmmmm, is he actually receiving treatment or simply being evaluated? One would think it wouldn’t take 90 days to evaluate his current condition, assuming professionals interact with him on a regular basis.

If CH is privy to some info that it was MBs attorneys who asked for more time so their client presents better, I’d like to know. If it’s just a libelous statement by CH and MBs attorneys did NOT ask for more time I’m sure others would like to know.

I did not make a libelous statement, or any statement, to the effect that it was “MBs attorneys who asked for more time.”

I pointed out that the reason for the delay was not known, and that the delay could be caused by the court system, or it was possible that MBs lawyers or doctors had requested the delay.

Do you think that it is impossible that MBs lawyers or doctors requested the delay?

[ekat]

I have done a ton of digging into this. The first Krol hearing is a commitment hearing. Its sole purpose is to determine what happens next to MB.

Historically, NJ has treated this and any subsequent hearings as a private medical hearing, which is why they are closed, with the exception of cases that involved actual murder charges.

From what I’ve read, the State can present a psychiatrist that did an evaluation within 5 days of the hearing. Very Specifically, they are not to retry the facts of the case.

The defense can present other witnesses, including the support system he/she would have upon release.

NJ feels strongly enough about the medical nature of Krol hearings that there’s a bill pending in front of their legislature to codify into the victim’s bill of rights that the victim has no right to be present at these hearings.

That squirrel drawing is utterly amazing. I hope that while he bides his time for this hearing, someone can figure out how to get him some art supplies, even if it’s in a limited setting, because that seems like it would be good for his soul.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Warmblood1

The problem with speculation, aside from it being non-productive, is that it introduces the possibility of manipulation.

For some reason, certain posters continue to try to manipulate the circumstances surrounding MB to meet a certain narrative.

The fact is, MB is still under Anne Klein’s care. Conditions to his release have not been established. Hypotheticals, such as MB won’t be allowed to leave NJ, or that he will be permanently banned by SS, are completely unnecessary and are counterproductive to the actual discovery of facts.

Facts are things proven to be true, in case anyone has forgotten.

ETA: Here is one of Mb’s drawings that I found on the GFM page. Thought you might enjoy -

The drawing of the squirrel is amazing.

The discussion had turned to speculation that MB would be released and in Florida walking around show grounds by the holidays, and speculating on what kind of protective orders would prevent MB and his shooting victim getting within 50 feet of each other.

I pointed out the fact that as of this moment, he is under suspension by SS and no one knows what the outcome of the investigation will be. I stated my belief that when patients are committed due to NGRI, a hearing can result in continued commitment, conditional release, or unconditional release.

Are you disagreeing and saying that you know for a fact that in NJ there is no such thing as conditional release, that the patient is either institutionalized or released unconditionally?

[jvanrens]

I’m feeling like a sucker for a train wreak for a few minutes. Which video?

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Thanks for clarifying on what exactly is involved in this hearing. Your post gets right to the heart of what I am wondering about medical privacy issues, and limiting the scope of the hearing

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Do you think that it is impossible that MBs lawyers or doctors requested the delay?

Yep, I think it’s probably impossible that MB’s attorneys asked for a delay since they are anxious for him to be released so they can get the show on the road for the salacious civil trials! As far as any doctors asking for a delay, why on earth would AK doctors ask for any delay unless they haven’t found the time in their busy schedules to evaluate him for the first time? Again, the delay has an aroma of prejudice IMO.

MB is allowed in person visits at AK. In person meaning personal contact, less supervision, etc. I seriously doubt he would be given that level of freedom if he was considered a danger to others. He definitely isn’t on suicide watch so apparently he isn’t considered a danger to himself either. So, what’s the reasonable explanation I wonder? Surely 48Dates has completed their interviews and are preparing the episode for release, so DateHours can’t be the hold up. Curious isn’t it?

[ekat]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Thanks for clarifying on what exactly is involved in this hearing. Your post gets right to the heart of what I am wondering about medical privacy issues, and limiting the scope of the hearing

You’re welcome. This first hearing is so important. It determines everything in the future for MB. There’s no treatment plan till he’s been evaluated, and the evaluation has to be within 5 days of the hearing. There’s no working towards a step-down facility, outpatient counseling, nothing until the eval. I mean, sure, his team is making plans for any outcome, but when the outcome could be so varied, it’s so hard. Meanwhile he’s sitting twiddling his thumbs while the court keeps pushing back the hearing.

I’m glad that it appears he does have some stellar outside support.

[ekat]

Not to mention MB’s personal doctors outside AK have no standing until he gets that first important hearing and can ask the court for independent evaluation.

[eggbutt]

@Knights_Mom

I too would like to, and plan on, keeping my posts in the positive direction of MB reclaiming his life rather than revisiting those I have no interest in either thinking of or talking about.

I see bright days for MBs future and I’m glad. I’m hopeful things go as smoothly as possible and that his release happens when it’s healthy for it to happen.

Bingo. The relevancy of others at this point is of no interest to me any longer. The fantasy and warped perception shtick has become incredibly old and monotonous.

MB has a very bright future ahead of him if the excitement of future clinics and instruction interests him. There is no doubt he has tremendous support in the equestrian world to resume his life and livelihood in peace and happiness.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Ok. I’m going to ask this procedural question for the multiple lawyers following this thread, one more time…

Because I am still seeing odd public comments on social media about this…

With respect to MB’s mental health evaluation hearing at the end of August… I understand it’s closed to the public. But is it true or false that LK will be allowed to attend and make a statement?

The way some comments on social media are portraying it, this mental health evaluation hearing is almost like a parole hearing. But shouldn’t it be a different thing, in fundamental ways? I understand it if there are victim impact statements at parole hearings… but aren’t mental health evaluation hearings about determining whether someone is in the least restrictive treatment setting possible or not?

Edited to use more precise terminology

I agree with a caveat: I think the mental health evaluation hearing is about determining whether someone can be released to the least restrictive treatment setting that is consistent with acceptably low risk to the general public, his victims, and himself.

It’s not just Barisone’s lawyers and psychiatric professionals who will be at the hearing, representing his interests. The prosecutor will be there representing the interests of the people of the state of NJ. I don’t know whether it’s the prosecutor’s role to represent the victim, or whether the victim can also be present, but that definitely seems possible to me.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t know whether it’s the prosecutor’s role to represent the victim, or whether the victim can also be present, but that definitely seems possible to me.

I suspect Hipaa laws will restrict who will be at the initial evaluation hearing. As far as “the victim”, it is obvious from continued posting who is obsessed and who needs further protection from harm (and it isn’t Michael Barisone).

I definitely am not an attorney so maybe @ekat will jump in - since MB was found Not Guilty, what do the prosecution’s star witnesses have to do with anything regarding this hearing?

[ekat]

@eggbutt

I suspect Hipaa laws will restrict who will be at the initial evaluation hearing. As far as “the victim”, it is obvious from continued posting who is obsessed and who needs further protection from harm (and it isn’t Michael Barisone).

Just a friendly reminder, not to you, Eggbutt but in general. The prosecutor represents the state of NJ. Full Stop.

[Knights_Mom]

For sure 48 Date Lines has a lot to work with. As important as this case is to those involved in the scheme of cases in the court system MB is no Charley Manson. I predict MB will be released with soft mandates, if any.

Of course my prediction could be wrong but I was right about the verdict outcome so there’s that.

[eggbutt]

@ekat

@eggbutt

I suspect Hipaa laws will restrict who will be at the initial evaluation hearing. As far as “the victim”, it is obvious from continued posting who is obsessed and who needs further protection from harm (and it isn’t Michael Barisone).

Just a friendly reminder, not to you, Eggbutt but in general. The prosecutor represents the state of NJ. Full Stop.

Thank you @ekat! You read my mind!

[ekat]

@eggbutt

I definitely am not an attorney so maybe @ekat will jump in - since MB was found Not Guilty, what do the prosecution’s star witnesses have to do with anything regarding this hearing?

Every single thing I’ve read about Civil commitments in general, and Krol hearings specifically in NJ says the prosecution gets to call a state psychiatrist that did an eval 5 days before the hearing. That’s it. They are specifically not allowed to retry facts of the case. The purpose of the hearing is to determine the acquittee PATIENT’S current state of mind. Anything else is irrelevant.

[ekat]

@eggbutt

Thank you @ekat! You read my mind!

Lol, I got the good coffee going today!

[trubandloki]

@eggbutt

I definitely am not an attorney so maybe @ekat will jump in - since MB was found Not Guilty, what do the prosecution’s star witnesses have to do with anything regarding this hearing?

This is a very interesting/good point.