I haven’t read the YT chats and have no intention of doing so based on what I’ve been told, but if what I’ve been told is true, LK seems to be determined to continue her plan to Finish the Bastard. Perhaps she is focusing that plan on the Civil trials, but who knows? She seems to be the one obsessed with reliving the past events and her personal vindication of any responsibility. That said, it is apparent to many Taylor is in the Kanarek’s pocket and who knows what he may decide to allow?
12 Likes
It has to be based on medical reports from the State psychiatrist who is supposed to complete an evaluation within 5 days of the hearing.
Something to remember - Schellhorn doesn’t HAVE to ask that MB be committed. His job is to present the psychiatrist’s findings - whether that is to release MB, release with conditions, or to commit for further eval in 90 days. If the psychiatrist determines that MB is no danger to himself or the general public, that’s what Schellhorn is to present to the court.
Compelling: ( for general knowledge) Necessary, essential, outweighs any prejudicial or superfluous alternatives. It’s not just cuz someone wants to be there and give a statement. It’s that the hearing cannot proceed without that statement, evidence, etc. and, whether or not that person still perceives some danger, without PROOF that there’s an ongoing threat, three years later, the statement is irrelevant.
In NJ, the Krol decision carves out a very specific situation where the PATIENT may be a danger only in a very specific situation or to a specific individual. Now, I’m not saying that’s the case here. I’m not MB’s psychiatrist. But, even if the psych guy determines that, NJ has held, since the 1975 Krol decision, that with safeguards to avoid that person/situation in place, the patient, in order to protect their liberties, should be released.
25 Likes
This is profoundly relevant.
11 Likes
Does that law apply to criminal proceedings when the verdict was:
- NG
- NGRI
?
I don’t know. I’m sure that in many cases, regardless of the verdict, the prosecutor’s office will continue to be professional and supportive of the key folks involved in the criminal complaint. But would that mean advocating for one of the witnesses to make a statement at a Krol hearing? I doubt that Schellhorn’s office will pursue that, unless it is directly related to the interests of the state of NJ in this matter.
The State of NJ is most interested in current public safety issues related to this case at this time. They also clearly have capacity constraints to consider when it comes to beds in secure mental health facilities. Just look at how long it took to transfer MB from jail to AK. At some point, what is in the best interest of the state of NJ, and what is in the best interest of LK? Those two things might diverge.
6 Likes
For your viewing pleasure, here is a video of Lara and Lily and one of their PSG rides!
33 Likes
By “supporters”, I think that refers to the very specific support system he will have in place when he is released, and the court’s assessment as to whether those individuals, personal and professional, are adequate to ensure he is not a danger to himself or others.
If LK is permitted to make a statement pointing out that in the three years since she was shot, people purporting to be his “supporters” have continued to victimize her on social media on a near daily basis, and neither he, nor his lawyers, nor his closest personal friends have asked these “supporters” to lay off, I wonder which way that will cut?
1 Like
If you haven’t read the YT chats and claim you don’t intend to, may I suggest you stop bringing them up to comment on them?
2 Likes
Nope, by “supporters” I’m referring to those willing, interested, longing for the options to schedule clinics and resume training with Barisone to resume his livelihood.
I am not going to allow you to turn this thread into a tired rehash of LK and her woes. This thread has very little to do with the Kanareks and all to do with Barisone’s future.
40 Likes
Wow.
6 Likes
Why would Schellhorn call her to make a statement about this?
If LK sincerely believes that supporters of MB “have continued to victimize her on social media on a near daily basis” since the time she was shot, then she will need to pursue:
1). Providing law enforcement with evidence of this so that these people are criminally prosecuted for their conduct
Or
2). Finding an attorney who will represent her in civil litigation against all these people, for a defamation complaint, or something similar.
I did see on one of the recent YT comments that she mentioned the recent Amber Heard case, and seemed sympathetic to Amber Heard. Perhaps she will try and pursue a defamation complaint. If she can find an attorney who will represent her in such a case. My guess is that would be challenging though, given LK’s own posting history on social media…
23 Likes
If the verdict were straight NG, then there would be no Kroll hearing, no sentencing hearing, and no parole hearing. So no victim statement under NG.
The verdict was NGRI. Based on Ekat’s statement that there is pending legislation to codify that the victim does not have the right to be present at the Kroll hearing, that suggests to me the victim is still the victim under NGRI and currently has a right to make a statement if she can establish a compelling case to do so.
2 Likes
Fair enough, I see where you are going with this line of argument.
“Compelling” is a very subjective standard…
1 Like
I have a technical question for the lawyers here -
Since he was found not NGRI - is LK a victim? By the legal definition? If she isn’t - I would think it would exclude her from any closed hearing, hard stop.
ETA - I see several others have the same question (I posted before I got to the bottom of the thread). I’m still curious if NGRI makes her still a victim.
12 Likes
No. I’m done responding to you. What I said is what it is. No LK. None of her business. He was acquitted. End of discussion.
I’m looking forward to hearing about MBs release.
21 Likes
I think that in terms of the “supporters” permitted to be present at the Kroll hearing, it refers very specifically to the support system that, in the court’s opinion, will ensure he is not a risk to himself or others when released.
I don’t think people contributing to his GoFundMe drive or wanting to sign up for clinics is what they mean by “supporters” in this context.
If you don’t want LK to be a subject of the discussion — on this I 100% agree — perhaps you could stop bringing up her posts on other social media?
2 Likes
So even if LK wants to claim that MB is still a danger to her, Schellhorn has to provide some kind of evidence of an “ongoing threat”? Seems that could only occur if MB has made statements to the psych professionals at AK that lead them to believe he intends to harm LK physically, OR there is forensic evidence that he has sent threatening messages to her or to others where he mentions his intent to harm her.
And since I would be surprised if any of those things have occurred, all Schellhorn would have to go on is LK’s recounting of the events from THREE YEARS AGO. So hardly any evidence of an “ongoing threat.”
Somehow I don’t think her reading her manifesto at the hearing would be in any way "compelling evidence. " 
19 Likes
This is gibberish. Has no basis in fact. Is made up. There is no victim impact statement. That’s just for guilty people and MB is not.
Has nothing to do with supporters. I don’t understand anyone thinking iis relevant. It’s not. So it won’t cut any way.
28 Likes
Once more:
THIS HEARING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LK.
Now this string is to discuss MB. I suggest if someone wishes to continue to obsess over LK that they start a new string so they can obsess to their hearts desire.
24 Likes
Careful, you might be admonished for bringing “her” up!
4 Likes
You are correct.
10 Likes
