[quote="“La-LaPopRider,post:1442,topic:464204”]
I imagine things will be brought up you haven’t considered. One doesn’t hire a high caliber attorney and expect mediocre results. I heard somewhere Bilinkas uses lots of investigators with his firm looking into all sorts of details to paint the picture he wants for his client.
Did you mistype above and mean to say Irrevelant?
No the issue is not the judge… the issue is that you need to have the scores and you need different judges… BOTH factors are important. If you neglect one, you have not the result you want…
[quote="“GreenWithEnvy,post:1443,topic:464204”]
Yes, I meant to say “irrelevant.” He does use lots of investigators & tries very hard to sneak things in which have already been declared “inadmissible.” He’s welcome to paint any picture he wants. Unless he can rewind time & erase all hard evidence of Michael trying to murder two people, in cold blood & after extensive planning, his picture may as well be of rainbows & puppies - drawn in crayon. Just to show the jury a picture of happy things, instead.
[quote="“GreenWithEnvy,post:1443,topic:464204”]
Also, (just remembered this) watch Balinkas defend Virginia Vertitas. Big murder case. While he seems to (for the moment) stay “mum,” - he’s actually a huge media hound. I didn’t like (in that case) that he knew his client was completely lying, even pointed it out, but continued to put on this huge spectacle, pretending to CRY in front of the jury, to get his client off. Google the case, if you’re bored one day. It’s interesting.
I’ve already seen him in court, live. Forget the reason for the appearance but I witnessed him trying to do some questionable things - specifically to elicit a reaction from me. It didn’t work then- and it won’t work ever. His client is guilty. What sucks the most is, I used to be unbelievably adamant about defendants receiving every single benefit of the doubt before being convicted of a crime they may not have committed. When news sources would report negative stories about a defendant & a jury was not sequestered - I’d go bonkers. I guess being the victim of a crime like this changes your view on everything. I never want to see ALL defendants as being guilty from now on. Unfortunately & despite my passion for the law & study of law - my views are forever altered. Hazard of being nearly killed by gunfire at the hands of another person, I guess.
Eh. Here’s another postulation. MB goes to LK’s place to confront her about the CS visit which has him upset, brings along the gun because there is that dog which bites people, walks up to her, angry, LK grins and reaches behind her to pull out her phone to do her usual patronizing recording of MB angry, MB thinks SHE’s pulling a gun, and uses his "first’ when of course she wasn’t armed. Not like that has never happened before.
Or, the dog lunges, he starts to pull his gun on the dog, the dog leaps and pushes him over and the shots go high, into LK, the last one going wild missing the boyfriend because by then the dog has him on the ground. I could believe that more easily than believe that he had planned to murder her. Nobody would plan to murder someone that way, its entirely unblievable, and no, I don’t belive that the recordings made over previous weeks were of a murder plot. So that’s (one of) my opinion(s).
First question asked at jury selection:
“Do you ride horses?”
A yes is an automatic challenge and exclusion as juror.
There won’t be a single horse person on that jury.
Very likely so.
[quote="“La-LaPopRider,post:1446,topic:464204”]
Yes, this high falutin’ lawyer was specifically trying to elicit a reaction from you. It was all about you. You were in court for an appearance you have “forgotton” watching a lawyer act out drama in public "specifically to elicti a reaction from ME ME Its all about ME. I doubt he knew you were there
And who are you so sneer at someone acting out for attention and to elicit reactions from the public? You do it over and over and over and over every day, here on COTH, over and over and over, attention attention, can’t put it down, can’t stop, looking and trying to play your story any which way you can and elicit from the other posters the “correct” response, pulling from every post things to refute and over and over pulling tiny aspects of others’ posts to rewrite as proof of your side of the story. God, woman, do you think we are here for you? Not one of us is here for any other reason than the entertainment of seeing what new drama you can “elicit” out of your sorry 15 minutes of fame. Keep on milking it, pet, because no matter what the outcome of this pathetic tale ever will be, you are old, sorry news.
As for the 50k she says MB owes her, I bet that’s the outrageous sum they asked for as fee for the shoddy, inspector-rejected shoddy work they did no MB’s house, and probably was the catalyst for the whole debacle. Free remt and training her horses in exchange for the otherwise unemployed paramour’s work on the hourse which the inspector rejected. And maybe posted a notice on the door about
If MB was giving her the season of free training for her horses in exchange for the construction work, When that turned out to be the wreck of an incompetent, I can absolutely see MB telling her NO MORE HORSES Brought onto the property. You owe me training, board, and rent, now. If MB was wanting training fees and rent, now. which of course they refused to give.
So the trial will be about unpaid rent. And when she realized that the rent and training was unpaid, because of boyfriend’s shoddy work, Instead of leaving, she refused to leave. The whole thing would make my blood boil. I wouldn’t shoot anyone, ,and I am no condoning shooting her about it, but, again, I don’t bleieve he did as she said it happened Or maybe he did,shoot her in anger but if I was a betting person, I wold absolutey bet that it wasn’t the way she says it went down.
Another Round, the answer is almost always the simplest.
It’s not high drama- a plot to kill me!!!, mystery SUVs and assassins!!.. but the simplest.
Re no horse people on the jury… I think that could be in MBs favor.
High falutin Equestriennes, who doesn’t work, but rides all day (the avg Joe thinks the horse does all the work) and have multiple horses, and time to sit outside reading a book all day… while farmer MB tends to her animals working long hours, holed up in the barns hay loft cause he was forced to move out of his house,… could paint a very unattractive picture to the jury.
I guess we shall see.
You know, you can read this thread skipping every three pages and not miss a damn thing.
I don’t understand the point of these kind of posts. It’s kind of like weird fan fiction. You can have your “opinions” about what happened but they are based solely on your imagination. You might as well post that your theory is a spaceship full of aliens landed just as MB pulled up. He was trying to shoot at them but the bullets passed through their nebulous bodies and hit LK instead.
“Theories” from all of us except the three people there that day are simply the result of over-active imaginations. They lend nothing to the facts of the case or to these threads. What is the point?
We have the facts from the bond hearing (or whatever it was called): that MB brought and fired a gun, and that there were no other weapons. That’s pretty much all we know for sure about that day. The rest we will learn at the trial, if there is one.
LaLa I was wondering about one thing that maybe you could clear up since I don’t think it’s privileged info.
After you were released from hospital and went back to the property where you were shot, was it just to collect your belongings or did you move back in and live there again?
Scenario that you are referring to doesn’t involve aliens, and it is plausible. Nothing in this scenario contradicts the facts presented at the initial hearing.
As you wrote, there is a third eyewitness who doesn’t post on COTH, but now we are reading about statements he apparently made to visitors from jail. Based on almost bronze, I won’t hold my breath on that last bit of “information”.
I mean, or it will be about first degree attempted murder.
It makes your blood boil that we have landlord tenant laws, and you think shooting someone is maybe not ok, but an understandable level of anger over hypothetical yet never once mentioned in a source unpaid rent??
From these four??? it is four, isn’t it? threads, I’ve gathered A LOT of people on coth don’t understand landlord tenants laws at all, but you definitely don’t like them at all.
Its really a weird myopic kind of privilege I wonder if you recognize.
Where did AR write that, “…shooting someone is maybe not ok, but an understandable level of anger over hypothetical yet never once mentioned in a source unpaid rent”
see what I did was summarize or paraphrase what I read AnotherRound to be saying, and then put question marks because I’m seeking clarification as to what made her blood boil about unpaid rent?? And whether she was suggesting that unpaid rent didn’t make shooting someone ok, but that she’s a complete stranger and her blood is boiling, again, over unpaid rent, so it seems somehow comprehensible that Michael barisone would be beyond blood boilingly angry over unpaid rent.
fwiw I don’t think that unpaid rent in any situation is sufficient reason to be blood boilingly angry, or that that blood boiling rage makes shooting someone not ok, but comprehensible.
If the idea of unpaid rent makes you blood boilingly angry, and the idea of shooting someone over that unpaid rent is comprehensible to you, please dont ever be a landlord.
[quote="“ladyj79,post:1437,topic:464204”]
Too many TV law dramas.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
