The defendant was not competent (conditions not limited to temporary insanity and/or battered person syndrome) for reasons cause(d) by the Plaintiff. Is that clearer for you? Because that is what the sentence says. Not what you are misinterpreting while ignoring sentence structure and words.
Again, go read SGF’s pleadings. Maybe it will be clear. Maybe you will see how SGF intends to use LK’s campaign against MB, and how it contributes to his mental state. Probably not though.
Yes! I agree! Deininger is claiming that MB was not mentally competent when he shot LK. His lack of mental competence could include various mental conditions including but not limited to temporary insanity and battered person syndrome. The battered person syndrome is claimed to have been caused by LKs campaign of emotional battery.
There is no claim that his insanity was caused by LK.
How would you know if I am “purposely misinterpreting that sentence”?
I’m not “purposely misrepresenting” anything. I read that sentence as saying that her campaign of emotional battery was allegedly the cause of possible battered person syndrome. But battered person syndrome is not the same as insanity.
Finally got all caught up. EGADS absolutely nothing should shock me but the pearl-clutching condescension of Mama Kanarek made me wonder if it was April 1 rather than March 1.
No family is perfect, but if KK and JK were my parents, I’d be running away to join the circus. She rants and raves about how we are a bunch of meanies who are “harrasing her family,” then goes on to call her own (adult) child mutilated since she needed to have a breast implant replaced.
KK can keep her prayers - she needs them for herself.
ln my scrolling entertainment, I thought about something. I think we established some time (and several threads) ago, that if MB were to regain all or part of his memory of events, that since he was acquitted, he still could not be retried (double jeopardy), right?
So, that being the case, I wonder if, while he’s been languishing at Greystone, if he could have had some memory return. Wouldn’t that be great? And they would just be biding their time to get LK in front of a judge for him to call her out on her lies. One can dream…
Many posters have said I lack reading comprehension skills and/or obtuse.
So you’re going to generously defend me by saying it’s more likely that I’m dishonest rather than lacking in reading comprehension?
No thanks.
I’ve explained my interpretation of that sentence. Deininger may well have been trying to imply that LK caused MBs insanity, but that’s not what he said.
Suppose @ekat is correct and Deininger is going to try to prove that LK “caused” MBs insanity. Given that there was considerable uncertainty in the criminal trial on the relatively simple question as to whether MB was or wasn’t insane when he shot LK, do you imagine that it is remotely conceivable that the defense could successfully prove that LK “caused” MBs insanity? If it’s not something you have any chance of probing, why offer it as a defense?
Do psychiatrists think they know what causes insanity in any random case?
You can’t have it both ways. If you assert the criminal finding was that he did shoot LK but was insane as per NGRI then you cannot also assert that “there was considerable uncertainty in the criminal trial on the relatively simple question as to whether MB was or wasn’t insane when he shot LK”.
Seeker1 didn’t use the word “damaged.” You are inserting that word.
Here is what @Seeker1 actually said, my questioning, and her response.
Note… it is possible that @Seeker1 was deliberately obfuscating and conflating the removal of an entire breast implant with a mastectomy (removal of the actual breast) with her answer… and ignoring how specific my question was. But… I took her reply at face value, apologized for accusing her of exaggerating, and asked a follow up question…
Multiple people commented at that point that the actual surgeon who testified during the criminal trial testified that the implant was removed… but mentioned NOTHING about performing a mastectomy.
Soooo… we will all have to wait and see if @Seeker1 chooses to pop back into the discussion and clarify… again… whether she is claiming Lauren actually lost her breast and had a mastectomy… or is the claim actually related to the implant. The surgical differences between the two? They are quite significant. The civil case speaks to harm, pain and suffering, long term impact, etc. Facts and details matter when making these sorts of medical claims when involved in civil litigation like this.
While KK does like to claim that LK’s “whole breast was removed” the surgeon never testified to it. I tend to believe him and think that KK is referring to the implant as LK’s “whole breast” and is grossly over-exaggerating in a misguided attempt to manufacture sympathy.
As @Virginia_Horse_Mom and others have bravely pointed out, breast reconstruction is much more difficult and complex than getting in implant. So for KK to imply that having to have a breast implant replaced is on the same tier as enduring a mastectomy and rebuild is really an insult to breast cancer survivors.
You and I have had some private conversations, so I am not going to fault you as a Mom. My son has done much damage to himself and others over the years and I still love him with all my heart.
But your husband came across as a smart alec in the 48 Hours episode. Cocky and arrogant. And by playing coy with these subpoenas, it makes YOU ALL look shady.
I don’t know Lauren in person, although we have had an online rodeo and I disengaged. I have seen her obvious love for her horses in videos and that might just be what ends up saving her life.
I think is is in everyone’s best interest to get this civil case over and done with. So people can move on with their lives.
Sheilah
P.S. Lauren said they removed her breast implant, not the actual, real breast.
On the relatively simple question of whether MB was or wasn’t insane when he shot LK, the jury required several hours of psychiatric testimony to be replayed for them, and deliberated for hours before deciding that by a preponderance of the evidence (that is more likely than not) he was insane.
The jury clearly found that MB was insane, to the standard of by a preponderance of the evidence.
