Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[cutter99]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@cutter99

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Ghazzu

@CurrentlyHorseless

How would you know if I am “purposely misinterpreting that sentence”?

Since the other simple explanation is that you have lousy reading comprehension skills, I d recommend the “purposely”.

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”.

Here’s what I meant.

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.

Question: How do you know what the jury deliberated about???

Answer: You don’t!!!

Yeah, I do, based on the flow chart provided in Taylor’s instructions to the jury.

The deliberations before the jury asked to hear the psychiatric testimony replayed was on the issue of actus reus. The deliberations after were on the issue of insanity.

Okay Carnac the Magnificent!!! If you say so!!!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think she probably stopped responding to you out of disgust.

I think she was called out on a lie, she knew it, and so she chose to stop engaging and moved on to different lines of argument, and decided to pretend she didn’t lie.

You know what I find interesting? How determined you are to defend and make excuses for a liar. That’s an interesting personal choice.

To each their own.

I don’t know for a fact that she lied. I give people the benefit of the doubt. I can see that would seem an odd personal choice to you, who apparently chooses to assume people are lying when it’s more likely that she stopped responding to you out of disgust.

I know for a fact that I have been called a liar when I haven’t lied. It’s a standard smear tactic of the EIM.

[cutter99]

Hey EIM,

We now need to add “smear tactic” to the BINGO card!

ETA: Apparently @CurrentlyHorseless’ definition of lying is much, much different than the typical Biblical standard.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@omare

Well, the sentence at issue could be read MB is not liable because he was incompetent at the time (and all the reasons why really do not matter) . There is legal support for not holding an insane person legally responsible in civil court, if intent was needed for the action and he could not form the necessary intent. However, the meaning of intent in the civil vs criminal context (if there is any difference), I find confusing.

I agree with you that Deininger was arguing as a defense that MB was not liable because he was not mentally competent at the time.

I did not see a claim that LK “caused” his insanity.

Perhaps you need to watch the trial again because proving this very thing was the basis of the defense and witness testimony.

[BigMama1]

@ekat

I. Give. Up. You are purposely misinterpreting that sentence

That’s unfair. It’s just as likely CH is incapable of reading for comprehension as it is she purposefully misconstrued what the filing said. Cut her some slack lol.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@omare

Well, the sentence at issue could be read MB is not liable because he was incompetent at the time (and all the reasons why really do not matter) . There is legal support for not holding an insane person legally responsible in civil court, if intent was needed for the action and he could not form the necessary intent. However, the meaning of intent in the civil vs criminal context (if there is any difference), I find confusing.

I agree with you that Deininger was arguing as a defense that MB was not liable because he was not mentally competent at the time.

I did not see a claim that LK “caused” his insanity.

Perhaps you need to watch the trial again because proving this very thing was the basis of the defense and witness testimony.

The defense proved that MB was insane when her shot LK and therefore it was not a crime.

The defense did not prove that LK caused his insanity.

[BatCoach]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t know for a fact that she lied. I give people the benefit of the doubt. I can see that would seem an odd personal choice to you, who apparently chooses to assume people are lying when it’s more likely that she stopped responding to you out of disgust.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

The defense proved that MB was insane when her shot LK and therefore it was not a crime.

The defense did not prove that LK caused his insanity.

Watch the trial again. Many witnesses testified as to the deterioration of his state of mind due to the ongoing terror campaign of the Finish The Bastard plan. This is obvious.

It’s disingenuous to pretend anything else. Admit it.

[Jenerationx]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Here’s what I meant.

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.

When did the standard change for criminal trials? In what state is a preponderance of the evidence the standard in a criminal trial?

[Knights_Mom]

@Jenerationx

@CurrentlyHorseless

Here’s what I meant.

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.

When did the standard change for criminal trials? In what state is a preponderance of the evidence the standard in a criminal trial?

They are saying the act has a standard of reasonable doubt while the insanity finding has the standard of preponderance.

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

The defense did not prove that LK caused his insanity.

The defence was not permitted to present that line of argument in the criminal trial, which would tie in to self defence and probably would require Michael to have enough memory of events to testify to them. But the defence is 100% going to pursue this argument in the civil trial, as is clearly outlined in the filing.

[IdahoRider]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

That would be very weird for a surgeon not to mention.

Because only the implant was removed. Does anyone remember the picture during the criminal trial where LK is standing with her shirt pulled up and showing ropey scar tissue? She had her hand covering her actual breast, because there was a breast there.
Sheilah

[SillyHorse]

cutter99 Head Writer and Head of Advertising Sales for the EIM

I love this!

[trubandloki]

@IdahoRider

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

That would be very weird for a surgeon not to mention.

Because only the implant was removed. Does anyone remember the picture during the criminal trial where LK is standing with her shirt pulled up and showing ropey scar tissue? She had her hand covering her actual breast, because there was a breast there.
Sheilah

Yes, I posted it this actual thread.

Edit to add:
Here is the post

Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

This is not what a fully removed breast looks like. [image]

[cutter99]

@SillyHorse

cutter99 Head Writer and Head of Advertising Sales for the EIM

I love this!

I thought it seemed appropriate! I mean come on- COTH has never made good on paying me for over 3 years now! A girl has to be able to feed her ponies, and the prices of feed and hay keep going up!

Maybe the EIM can take up a collection for my services!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

The defense proved that MB was insane when her shot LK and therefore it was not a crime.

The defense did not prove that LK caused his insanity.

Watch the trial again. Many witnesses testified as to the deterioration of his state of mind due to the ongoing terror campaign of the Finish The Bastard plan. This is obvious.

It’s disingenuous to pretend anything else. Admit it.

Bilinkas definitely tried to create the narrative that LK was in large part the cause of MBs mental breakdown as part of his campaign to portray her as unsympathetic. Duh.

The jury was responsible for determining whether MB was insane at the time he shot LK. They decided he was insane.

The verdict of NGRI did not depend on the cause of MBs insanity, just on the finding that he was insane.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

The verdict of MGRI did not depend on the cause of MBs insanity, just on the finding that he was insane.

What is MGRI? Something new you have made up?

[SoCoPony]

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

I just find it bizarre that I asked KK a clarifying question… and I posed it in a diplomatic way. She could have simply responded, “Lauren had her entire breast implant removed.”

Instead… KK decided to try and double down, and SPECIFICALLY claimed that LKs “whole breast” was removed.

As others have noted… either LK herself nor LK’s surgeon made this claim.

So why did Seeker choose to make that specific claim… in writing… on this thread?

Neither myself, nor anyone else, forced the woman to try and claim this.

Anyway… I’m sorry she feels that this is a mean and unsympathetic crowd. But… when someone goes online and lies about something like this… and people take note… the reaction is often harsh.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

The defense proved that MB was insane when her shot LK and therefore it was not a crime.

The defense did not prove that LK caused his insanity.

Watch the trial again. Many witnesses testified as to the deterioration of his state of mind due to the ongoing terror campaign of the Finish The Bastard plan. This is obvious.

It’s disingenuous to pretend anything else. Admit it.

Bilinkas definitely tried to create the narrative that LK was in large part the cause of MBs mental breakdown as part of his campaign to portray her as unsympathetic. Duh.

The jury was responsible for determining whether MB was insane at the time he shot LK. They decided he was insane.

The verdict of MGRI did not depend on the cause of MBs insanity, just on the finding that he was insane.

Why would you think the jury thought differently than the tens of thousands of people who watched and commented on the case? By the tune of 98 out of every 100 posters thinking this exact thing.

And the civil jury will too.