I haven’t read anything of the like here, who are you talking about?
There is no denying statement because he did shot them.
I’ve watched his hearing on youtube.
I don’t particularly find his lawyer to be very good…
I feel the judge is quite biaised to begin with… (and he is reading his notes way too much.)
My question are :
Is the eviction process still taking place?
Why are they still allowed to live there?
Why haven’t they decide to move? To me, they truly look like freeloaders now…
Not necessarily true. Remember “You have the right to remain silent”.
I know. This is getting old. How many times to we have to be reminded that the victim and bf are unsavory characters. It doesn’t matter. Nor is it relevant why they didn’t leave. Yet, posters feel compelled to keep repeating this type of thing.
On what do you base this opinion? Is it because he is elderly looking? What kind of defense do you feel he should have presented? Do you think MB should have been released? Do you think a different attorney could have made a case that got him released? As for the judge looking at notes, what’s wrong with that? He needs to make sure of the details, rather than make a gaffe.
Condemned? Where did you get that the house was condemned?
All that has been said was that LK and her fiance were told by the fire marshal they could no live there. That is no way equals condemned. It usually equals (do not know if it the basis here) that there are illegal apartments with out proper egress, etc. which is a far leap from condemned.
I sure hope the judge did not, because unless the accused was pleading guilty to a crime, it is not up to the judge at this stage to determine who is responsible for what. Michael Barisone allegedly shot Lauren Kanarek twice. That one word is pretty important.
Thus I am quite sure that the judge did not say, exactly, that the only person responsible for shooting Lauren Kanarek is Michael Barisone.
Innocent until proven guilty. That’s the law of the land.
It keeps being mentioned that he has a drinking problem and that he may have been drunk when it happened. Was that a common knowledge thing? That he is a drinker or was that an LK accusation? I’m curious about that bit. Since the police haven’t released any real information regarding evidence there isn’t anything anywhere in any articles that I’ve seen that say anything about blood alcohol levels or intoxication.
I also had a question about the attorney because his argument for bail seemed perfunctory and a bit confused. Someone posted the link to the attorney’s firm. It appears he was admitted to the bar in 1973 and has had a criminal defense practice for many years. He appears to do lots of DUI cases per his web site. In fairness to the attorney, he may have been brought in on short notice and could have used more prep time. He may have been doing the best he could.
I have spent a good bit of my career working with attorneys, both criminal and civil, as well as being involved in trials as a juror and as a witness. It really does matter if you have a good attorney. I thought the state’s attorney did a good job – he was concise with his argument and otherwise deferred to the judge to call him as needed. Attorneys love to talk, so it was impressive to see confidence in his case.
Do I think bail is possible? Yes, under the right circumstances it may be. The big problem is this communal living situation at the farm where MB would be living. At the moment, there are way too many people involved in the case for this to work. That needs to be sorted out and court would need to have a plan that addressed concerns raised in the hearing. But yes, I would see MB making bail but he will need a good attorney to do it.
My gut reaction is that this is a case where a plea deal involving jail time may be in the offing. The facts are not great ones for the defendant and I am not sure a trial will get him a better outcome than a plea deal.
I don’t think anyone is saying that it is. People, including myself, are trying to understand the “why,” not excuse him for his actions.
Saying that one can understand how he got to that point is not the same as saying he was justified or tat the shooting was ok. It’s just then understanding the progression between points A and B.
So forgive my ignorance, but IF the proper proceedings to evict LK and Fiancee from the property actually hadn’t been officially started through the proper channels, can they not start them now? Since it is MB’s farm and he does want them off the grounds?
I mean I am of two minds here, on the one hand this is what should have happened before and it’s just paperwork to move that process along. I am assuming they know that they can’t stay forever. On the other hand it could make him appear more callous to a potential jury pool if he then is kicking out the dingbats when one is in ICU.
I recall seeing the Eviction notice picture in a very early article but they keep saying in the detention hearing that the steps to resolve the situation were not followed in the legal system.
Rule 404 is nuanced, but generally, no, prior acts on the part of the defendant are not admissible.
There’s exceptions to that, but basically prior acts are not admissible in order to prove character. They can sometimes be admitted to prove motive, opportunity, or intent. In other words, it has to prove something other than that the defendant behaves like a criminal. That being said it then becomes subject to the rules of evidence in general and probably still isn’t admissible because it’s of relatively low probative value.
This is often confusing because prior acts that go to the character of witnesses can be entered, because they are not on trial.
All this speculating has some entertainment value but that’s about all it’s worth. It’s certainly possible that he went there with the gun to tell them once and for all to get the hell out and they rushed him and the gun went off in the struggle. It’s also possible he just said F it, I am putting an end to this mess once and for all. Or anything inbetween those two. What we do know is two lives at a minimum are forever altered regardless of what actually happened or what the final outcome ends up being. That is sad to me.
I do disagree with the judge on at least one point. When he said this was, at it’s heart, a landlord/tenant dispute. I think it went much deeper than that.
Another possibility that might play in the judges reasoning, even if not stated aloud, is that if the “squatters” went back to the property, to still “squat”, and MB also went back, then the whole situation could replay. Holding MB would have the effect of at least keeping both camps separated.
