Cheers, and no worries about the exclamations.
It does not need to be the case that MB can or cannot say, LK posted bad stuff about me on SM so I shot her, in order for the material to be useful in the case.
I understand that a lot of what is produced in discovery ends up being not important. But, I don’t think an entire category (i.e., SM posts, or cc receipts, for example) is not important, or it wouldn’t have been produced. [Criminal law types, please correct me if that is wrong.]
A big part of your knowledge about this case is personal (by your own description): talking with the various actors, being interviewed by both their legal teams, witnessing the behaviour of both LK and MB over a long period of time. That is all genuinely pertinent and illuminating.
But LK seems to be one of those people who live a large part of their life on-line, through social media. Several of the disputes and bad behaviour we have seen discussed here are predominantly, if not entirely, based on line (racist review of barn owners; the exchange with GJ; the cyberstalking charge mentioned by Haleybot).
If, as you say, you don’t know what LK puts on FB, how do you square that with knowing “EVERYTHING”?
I understand this may be an uncomfortable question given your previous assertions, but I do think it’s a fair question given your stance on the scope and breadth of your knowledge and your claims about the unassailable truth of what you post here. A fair question, fairly and respectfully asked.
