Updated barisone lawsuit 10/29/21 post 851

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you @seahorse for sharing your experience. Your situation highlights how important it is that we as horse owners and riders find the best fit with trainers and boarding situations that meet our goals and expectations and remove ourselves and our horses from any situation that does not support these goals.

I hope you have found a good training program that is a good fit for you and your horse.

[Angela_Freda]

@DownYonder

it does add credence to previous statements by others regarding MB’s general character (esp. regarding his “temper”).

Statements where? On COTH?

[Sdel]

@Angela_Freda

Thanks for sharing your experience, a perspective which we have not had in the two years we’ve been discussing the situation.

One that makes the MH fixation all that weirder.

[Sdel]

@DownYonder

That said, I still have doubts as to whether the “story” we have heard of the actual incident itself is 100% accurate.

It also again begs the question….why escalate the situation? I have a sneaky suspicion the “incident” was set up for MH and surprise MB came down.

[eggbutt]

What happened to @Inigo-montoya?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@iris2006

Sounds like LK (or whoever made this up) has watched too many law dramas on TV. Suddenly MHG will be charged and MB will get reduced charges even though he is the one that shot LK? Amusing.

That’s not how I read that statement by IM at all. I read it to say that IM thinks that if MB “came clean” (was honest) about MHG’s role, that LK might make a different statement at MBs sentencing hearing. There was nothing about MHG being charged or MBs charges being reduced.

As of now there is no sentencing hearing. He must be first found guilty of attempting to murder 2 people.

And dangling the promise of LK asking for a reduction of time should MB involve MHG is an empty promise. LK gets to make a Victim Impact Statement. That’s it other than testifying.

Other than that it’s the DA who cuts deals. Not LK via a horse message board.

[Angela_Freda]

Oh! Hadn’t thought of that. (by MH you mean MHG?)

I do, taking the post by seahorses as truthful, suspect this was a case of two people who, when combined, just lit a fuse.

Seahorses, and maybe others, saw a bad situation and left, one assumes recognizing that poking a bear is always a bad plan.

[MHM]

@eggbutt

What happened to @Inigo-montoya?

Gag order from the legal team?

[BrendaJane]

well, there is a legal vernacular, and there is Ethel Hemmingway’s collection of synonyms and vaguely related words.
One used to more or less nail down the essence of a law, the other to grant variety to creative writing.

[Sdel]

Yes, MHG. All the “behavior” screams being aimed at her. And it didn’t start until she tried to move in 8 weeks before.

The incident probably started because CPS was the last thing LK could throw at forcing MHG to leave and she knew evictions were coming next. It’s very possible this was viewed in a if I can’t have him, no one will meme…

[FitzE]

I was not commenting on the insanity bit at all. As someone who is also not a criminal lawyer, I am just reading the filings and interacting with various posts here.

My question was about the various claims that there was a plot on the recordings and that, indeed, that plot played out except the intended victims did not die. My question would be: what exactly kind of plot was it? Shooting people in broad daylight while members of a government organisation are on site does not seem like a plan.

It was also mentioned that part of the plot was to get one/some/all of LK’s horses. If that was the motivation, how would the above-described actions accomplish that?

Just questions wrt those points. The criteria for the insanity plea was not a topic I was discussing.

Is it now being suggested (not by CurrentlyHorseless) that the various recordings are NOT illegal? I cannot see how they are not illegal in a one- or a two-party consent state. Also, I cannot imagine 48 hours making use of those tapes (as was suggested previously) if they are illegal. They wouldn’t touch that.

I may not be a criminal lawyer, but everyone remembers the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” from law school.

[Knights_Mom]

@FitzE

I was not commenting on the insanity bit at all. As someone who is also not a criminal lawyer, I am just reading the filings and interacting with various posts here.

My question was about the various claims that there was a plot on the recordings and that, indeed, that plot played out except the intended victims did not die. My question would be: what exactly kind of plot was it? Shooting people in broad daylight while members of a government organisation are on site does not seem like a plan.

It was also mentioned that part of the plot was to get one/some/all of LK’s horses. If that was the motivation, how would the above-described actions accomplish that?

Just questions wrt those points. The criteria for the insanity plea was not a topic I was discussing.

Is it now being suggested (not by CurrentlyHorseless) that the various recordings are NOT illegal? I cannot see how they are not illegal in a one- or a two-party consent state. Also, I cannot imagine 48 hours making use of those tapes (as was suggested previously) if they are illegal. They wouldn’t touch that.

I may not be a criminal lawyer, but everyone remembers the “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” from law school.

Thank you. Exactly what I’ve been saying. But better.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@FitzE

This is the precise question I would have were I on the jury. What was this “plan”? Shooting two people in broad daylight while government officials (CPS) were on the property and then…what exactly?

How would anyone end up with her horses? Her property would go to her heirs and assigns, not random people who also boarded at the same facility or the trainer. That’s not how that works.

If you were on the jury, are you saying that this is the precise question you would be trying to answer in order to determine whether he was not guilty by reason of insanity? I’m not following.

The judge will first give the jury instructions on the criterion that must be met for “not guilty by reason of insanity”, correct? I am not a criminal lawyer, but according to how IM described the McNaghton rule, if MB understood he was shooting into a woman’s chest and aiming for a man’s head, and knew that doing that was against the law, he’s not considered “insane” in the legal sense required to be not guilty by reason of insanity. I know nobody believes what IM says just based on his say so — that’s a healthy skepticism — but on this issue he has no reason to make stuff up since anyone can research the McNaghton rule and whether NJ uses it.

So if IM is correct on the McNaghton rule, how does the fact that MB apparently had not thought out what he was going to do with the bodies matter to the jury? In my interest in this case as a non juror, that is the question that I wonder about the most, but that’s as a non juror. Why is that a crucial question for the jury?

The M’Naghten rule doesn’t apply and its mention is a ruse and distraction.

I thought we understood this already.

No, “we” don’t understand this already. I’d be interested in hearing from others as to whether the M’Naghten rule applies.

Leaving aside the legal terminology, I interpret some people as viewing MB as being “insane” (in the normal English usage sense of extremely irrational) if he tried to intentionally kill people without having thought through what he was going to do if he succeeded and ended up with dead bodies on the porch. My question to FitzE was whether she thought the jury considering MB to be extremely irrational for not having a plan to conceal the killings would satisfy the legal criteria for “not guilty by reason on insanity”. Whether the appropriate legal criterion is called McNaghten doesn’t matter to me.

[FitzE]

Please see my answer to you above. I was not contemplating anything to do with the insanity angle. I was merely trying to square the alleged plot on the tapes and the the statement that the plot was, indeed, carried out, with the fact that what happened not only doesn’t seem like a plot that anyone would come up with, but also wouldn’t result in the stated motivation: getting property of the deceased.

Please re-read Fiesta01’s post to which I was replying. S/he spells it out perfectly and neither s/he nor I mention the insanity defence at all. You’ve got the wrong end of the stick on this one. It’s not what we were discussing at all.

Carry on with the insanity discussion, but I’m afraid I’ve nothing to contribute on that score.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@FitzE

This is the precise question I would have were I on the jury. What was this “plan”? Shooting two people in broad daylight while government officials (CPS) were on the property and then…what exactly?

How would anyone end up with her horses? Her property would go to her heirs and assigns, not random people who also boarded at the same facility or the trainer. That’s not how that works.

If you were on the jury, are you saying that this is the precise question you would be trying to answer in order to determine whether he was not guilty by reason of insanity? I’m not following.

The judge will first give the jury instructions on the criterion that must be met for “not guilty by reason of insanity”, correct? I am not a criminal lawyer, but according to how IM described the McNaghton rule, if MB understood he was shooting into a woman’s chest and aiming for a man’s head, and knew that doing that was against the law, he’s not considered “insane” in the legal sense required to be not guilty by reason of insanity. I know nobody believes what IM says just based on his say so — that’s a healthy skepticism — but on this issue he has no reason to make stuff up since anyone can research the McNaghton rule and whether NJ uses it.

So if IM is correct on the McNaghton rule, how does the fact that MB apparently had not thought out what he was going to do with the bodies matter to the jury? In my interest in this case as a non juror, that is the question that I wonder about the most, but that’s as a non juror. Why is that a crucial question for the jury?

The M’Naghten rule doesn’t apply and its mention is a ruse and distraction.

I thought we understood this already.

No, “we” don’t understand this already. I’d be interested in hearing from others as to whether the M’Naghten rule applies.

Leaving aside the legal terminology, I interpret some people as viewing MB as being “insane” (in the normal English usage sense of extremely irrational) if he tried to intentionally kill people without having thought through what he was going to do if he succeeded and ended up with dead bodies on the porch. My question to FitzE was whether she thought the jury considering MB to be extremely irrational for not having a plan to conceal the killings would satisfy the legal criteria for “not guilty by reason on insanity”. Whether the appropriate legal criterion is called McNaghten doesn’t matter to me.

Ok. LK had just posted that SHE expects proof. I previously provided such proof regarding M’Naghten but by all means continue with your position.

[Angela_Freda]

@Sdel

Yes, MHG. All the “behavior” screams being aimed at her. And it didn’t start until she tried to move in 8 weeks before.

She being…?

[Sdel]

MHG. She moved into the house with LK 8 weeks before all this started…screenshot from FB for the reference…

[Angela_Freda]

Ah ha!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

What happened to @Inigo-montoya?

I think LLPR suggested that he was “admonished” for using the word “stupid”. ???

[avjudge]

@Sdel

MHG. . .

There does seem to be a pattern of LK’s conflicts occurring with women - at least that is the case in all the ones I’ve heard of.