How about, “the fact that I know EVERYTHING…”?
How about, “I know everything about the LK/MB criminal matter.”?
(Even if you happen to be legally involved, which I doubt seriously, because a lawyer/paralegal/law clerk would be in deep 
for discussing this on a forum).
You claimed LK’s address was posted - it wasn’t.
And you claimed that K_M deflected. She didn’t. She answered you. You must have missed that.
22 Likes
Interesting how this is such a common feature….
4 Likes
Everything you say is ridiculous!
I claim to know everything about the LK/MB criminal matter…you think I don’t. How is that an example of an incorrect statement? Because you disagree?
I claimed LK’s address was posted. What was posted was enough to get an admonition from the moderator. I’m not incorrect nor is the moderator.
I said KM deflected. She did. I asked her 5 times to cite something I said that was incorrect. She refused. She told me she’s not my secretary and to look it up myself.
Well…I did. She can not cite one thing I have said that is incorrect and, obviously, neither can you.
1 Like
It’s just a huge he said/she said at the moment. There’s really not much actual proof floating around since the cases aren’t settled. It’d be nice to think that IM knows EVERYTHING, and could shed some light on a few things, but I (and all of us, I think), don’t know IM from a hole in the wall. It’s nothing personal, it’s just not knowing who to believe because many things don’t add up (and won’t, to a “normal” person/outsider, quite frankly), and it’s all bizarre.
Plus we don’t even know who IM is. Well, we all have our guesses, but it doesn’t matter really. They also have no obligation to reveal themselves and we have 0 entitlment to that info. However, when such a screen name comes on here and says they know everything, I’m sorry, but people naturally won’t trust that. Doesn’t matter who or what is behind the name.
If IM is telling the truth, cool. If not and it’s just a foray into the art of trolling, then whatever (but weird). Hopefully when there are more updates and/or actual verdicts on the cases, the bickering will settle a bit. It’s just been long and drawn out, it seems.
Tbh, from what I know based on these threads and the articles published thus far, I can’t say that I’d choose to associate with either party (and hey, maybe they’d say the same about me). I don’t have any “stock” in either side, but it does irk me when people try to skirt the law or can’t take proper legal routes. I can only hope that what goes around, comes around - this goes for all involved.
12 Likes
No one knows EVERYTHING. Period.
14 Likes
I think that’s fair. There is no reason I should have any particularly credibility here. Even if I say I’ve spoken to all parties and their attorneys there’s no reason for anyone to believe that either.
All I can do is put out what I know to be facts (within what I’m able to report) and hope the readers will consider whether my version or that of some others seems more likely.
I report… you decide.
1 Like
Yes it does. That was one of the two things IM got wrong just yesterday. They do not understand the nuances of law.
9 Likes
Hey @Knights_Mom is it normal for both the prosecutor and defense attorneys to gab away with the same random person giving them all of the case details?
That just seems like something that would pretty much never happen, anywhere, to me. But then, clearly this is a very special case so who knows…
19 Likes
It is far from normal. Nor would any attorneys be posting on a forum.
16 Likes
I posted that the defendant will most likely be using the insanity defense and, therefore, suggested y’all study the M’Naghten rule.
What is incorrect about that statement? You say you looked up the M’Naghten rule of cray cray and I seem to be wrong.
Putting aside that you clearly don’t understand the rule any better than you understand anything else in the legal world…what did I say incorrect? I said MB planned to plead insanity (he has), NJ uses the M’Naghten (it does) and therefore you should read the M’Naghten rule (you should). How is one syllable of what I said incorrect.
Separately, I’m happy to discuss the rule anytime you want. But start with this…you don’t understand it. Because of the high bar set by the M’Naghten the insanity defense is very rarely used and even more rarely successful.
I learned something very random from this discussion. Attorney is pluralized by adding an S. My brain wanted it to be so many things other than just an S on the end.
4 Likes
IM has claimed to be a little birdie confided in by both sides, but seeming has only parroted things pushed by LK’s narratives.
Similar as to how another poster came on here representing they were in discussions with others who were on scene/know the parties and then came back with an almost verbatim copy of LK’s story.
14 Likes
What makes you think it’s THEM giving ME all the case details. KM has enough problems responding to correct information. Don’t confuse her.
1 Like
Adding comments like this to your 'can’t be true" comments is where you personally kill your own credibility.
24 Likes
Watching you is like watching someone so busy chatting on their cell phone that they walk into a telephone pole.
I’ve tried to help you understand but clearly you just dont want to. I’m comfortable with you remaining unclear.
27 Likes
Apparently you don’t. You continue with insults and disdain and insist that everyone else do something that you have little intention of doing.
You don’t seem to be an LK fan and that’s fine. I’ve stated I know and like both LK and MB.
Kindly cease and desist with the “fan” labels. I am not a “fan” of either party in this mess. I am a fan of… peanut butter cups. Christmas dinner with all the fixings. Garth Brooks. My beloved Seattle Seahawks and Boston Bruins. That kind of thing.
I have concerns about LK based on her own words and posts right here in this forum - many of which were… less than rational. Whole threads disappeared and regrettably, those bizarre posts went with them. Back when she started ranting and raging and threatening, I suggested kindly (several times) that she not post as she was likely hurting her case - as well as her recovery. You can likely go back and see if any of those threads/posts still exist.
I agree this should be a respectful discussion of the facts as we know them without attempts to sully the reputation of either LK or MB.
Then BE respectful. Calling people names and insulting them with glee is not wanting to have a respectful discussion.
For someone who knows everything about this case - and boasts about it constantly… and is seemingly on a first name basis with every lawyer involved and bends over backwards to say they are in the middle and like both parties involved and so on and so forth… and did I mention that they know EVERYTHING… you seem to be extremely argumentative and hostile to anyone who does not see things your way and is not completely supportive of LK’s every word and action.
That is also not helping LK out. Someone who knows everything about all these procedures should realize that.
37 Likes
“They” understand the nuances of the law perfectly. You don’t. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is just because of the nuances (which you totally misinterpret) that the insanity defense is so rarely used…or successful.
Under your interpretation every criminal defendant would try to plead insanity. NO…you pretty much need to convince the jury that when you were firing your gun into someone’s chest you actually believed you were firing into a bale of hay.
That’s not easy to do. MB may be successful…I have no idea.
1 Like
Please review your posts. It was YOU that cited M’Naghten as a reason why MBs defense WOULD NOT WORK.
I corrected you as it was obvious you didnt understand what that English case law was about.
In looking at MBs defense it is clear that his attorneys filed defense papers which are totally within the parameter of M’Naughten/other defenses mentioned regarding mental disease or defect.
14 Likes
Dunning-Krueger comes to mind.
9 Likes
