WOW! New Info in Barisone-Kanarek Saga

[HoolieB]

@Mara

But we can all choose to ignore the pretender to royal lineage, who seems to be the source (this time) of the potential derailment.

Exactly! That whole “not get dragged into pedantry” thing.

[netg]

So I missed the statement that the article says LK was recording conversations between MB and his attorney. If so, that specifically is not admissible / legal (unless MB wants to introduce it, I suppose.) What other info do folks think was new and different?

The article basically read exactly as I thought it would when only one side wanted to speak to the press, so I’m curious what seems new and enlightening?

[Graymaresrule]

@Mersidoats

Maybe. Or maybe she just made her entire feed private/friends only. We’d need someone who is her friend on Facebook to verify this.

All that seems to be left is a bunch of people gushing their support for her. However, nothing on the internet is ever really gone.

[trubandloki]

@netg

So I missed the statement that the article says LK was recording conversations between MB and his attorney. If so, that specifically is not admissible / legal (unless MB wants to introduce it, I suppose.) What other info do folks think was new and different?

The article basically read exactly as I thought it would when only one side wanted to speak to the press, so I’m curious what seems new and enlightening?

This time the one side that spoke to the press is the not same side as has previously been speaking to the press.

Here is the part of the article:

He’s hoping to get through all the discovery material by April 6, the date of the next court hearing. He also mentioned needing to hear “secret recordings” Kanarek and Goodwin made of Barisone without permission, citing as an example one of a conversation between the trainer and his lawyer.

[emipou]

@eggbutt

It appears @La-LaPopRider has finally been silenced on SM

Thankful for this.

[netg]

@trubandloki

This time the one side that spoke to the press is the not same side as has previously been speaking to the press.

Here is the part of the article:
[/B]

Thanks for showing that excerpt - I remember reading it, and my brain clearly didn’t process the part about MB / lawyer!

I am just wondering what else is new and a big deal, though. I agree that point is a very interesting one which could have ramifications. The slant was different because of who gave the interview, but I didn’t think it changed the story much at all.

[eggbutt]

@netg

So I missed the statement that the article says LK was recording conversations between MB and his attorney. If so, that specifically is not admissible / legal (unless MB wants to introduce it, I suppose.) What other info do folks think was new and different?

The article basically read exactly as I thought it would when only one side wanted to speak to the press, so I’m curious what seems new and enlightening?

I found the volume of evidence extreme, the mention that MB had hired an investigator before the shooting, that MB and others had contacted SS about LK, the mention there is still much more evidence from LK’s and RG’s technology to sort through and the first mention of MB getting completely off.

All this time I had been expecting some bombshell from the prosecution due to LK’s insistence that so much more would come out and we’d all be surprised. I didn’t expect Bilankis to be the one to drop bombshells publicly. Perhaps unbelievable surprises are yet to come from the prosecution. For sure something has caused LK to clean up her behavior after supposedly a lifetime of bullying.

No one deserves to be shot.

[Omgitsme]

@skydy

I suggest you don’t rely on other people to police your postings. If you are heavily medicated to the extent you post “nonsensical words” it would behoove you to not post until you are yourself again. Your words do live on, on the internet…

I’m not asking anyone to police my posts. . I’m referring to nonsensical words as those that end up saying “afshk” instead of an actual word. I’m still of sound mind, my eyes and fingers just often don’t work together the last few days. I’m saying forgive me if I post something that is not a word. I will return later and make it an actual word.

Basically that addition meant forgive me if I misspell words or type so poorly even autocorrect doesn’t know what I mean.
I appreciate your concern.

[Omgitsme]

@YankeeDuchess

100% agree. If you’re too medicated to take responsibility for what you write, don’t post. It’s obnoxious to give yourself a license to post irresponsibly, then say “well, I’m on drugs, so don’t hold me responsible for what I say”.

Also, it is difficult to throw water on someone via the cyber sphere.

I’m not saying don’t hold me responsible. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying please excuse me for misspellings and the like. The gist of whatever I say I take full responsibility for.

[netg]

@eggbutt

I found the volume of evidence extreme, the mention that MB had hired an investigator before the shooting, that MB and others had contacted SS about LK, the mention there is still much more evidence from LK’s and RG’s technology to sort through and the first mention of MB getting completely off.

All this time I had been expecting some bombshell from the prosecution due to LK’s insistence that so much more would come out and we’d all be surprised. I didn’t expect Bilankis to be the one to drop bombshells publicly. Perhaps unbelievable surprises are yet to come from the prosecution. For sure something has caused LK to clean up her behavior after supposedly a lifetime of bullying.

No one deserves to be shot.

Thanks! I appreciate the different perspective.

Having worked a murder case, I thought nothing of the volume of evidence… it’s always huge. And takes a VERY long time to sort through. the SS part meant little to me. I am curious to see what evidence is revealed if there was truly a history demonstrating he was fearful, in which case that tidbit has more significance. Certainly still no reason to shoot someone, but definitely reason if could be downgraded from first degree murder.

I didn’t see stating he expects his client to be acquitted as a surprise, either. Defense lawyers are supposed to say that!

[Omgitsme]

@Mersidoats

Maybe. Or maybe she just made her entire feed private/friends only. We’d need someone who is her friend on Facebook to verify this.

As someone she’s been feuding with on Facebook for several weeks, I can say she’s been very quiet recently. And silence has never been her strong suit.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FatDinah

The Epstein plea deal was in Miami. He just had charg rd in New York at his death.

And in both cases they were Federal charges.

[eggbutt]

@Graymaresrule

All that seems to be left is a bunch of people gushing their support for her. However, nothing on the internet is ever really gone.

So, this is one of the reasons for the “QFP” copies on the forums! :tickled_pink::tickled_pink::tickled_pink::tickled_pink::tickled_pink:

[Scribbler]

Well obviously the first court appearance and first statements from the defense lawyer in a murder case are a Huge Deal in terms of development in the case.

Fortunately for them the social media fountain has been turned off! I was imagining what would happen if a further 19,000 pages of SM comments were generated in response to the announcement there were 19,000 pages … and they had to keep going back for more.

I think we can expect a good lawyer to be 100% honest and accurate on the bare facts. And we can expect a competent lawyer to be very strategic how he frames the case generally. In other words what he says about who phoned who is going to be as accurate as possible. But statements like “my client will be acquitted when all the facts are known” is just lawyer bravado and spin. It may or may not happen, it may or may not be a reasonable prediction, but it’s just exactly what a lawyer is meant to say at thus stage.

So trust the facts and take the interpretation with a grain of salt. Or a salt block.

[YankeeDuchess]

@netg

Thanks for showing that excerpt - I remember reading it, and my brain clearly didn’t process the part about MB / lawyer!

I am just wondering what else is new and a big deal, though. I agree that point is a very interesting one which could have ramifications. The slant was different because of who gave the interview, but I didn’t think it changed the story much at all.

There were two articles linked. One in post 1 and one in post 8. Some of the information is quoted from what Barisone’s lawyer said in court, some of the information is from what the lawyer said in an interview with a reporter in a hallway outside the courtroom. Personally I put more weight on what the lawyer says to the judge than to the reporter, but I’m pedantic.

[eggbutt]

LK is alive and well and speaking out on FB on the Chronicle of the Horse page on the post about this latest development. She and her buddy, “Nellie” aka Shelley, are having fun in their normal way of defending all things LK.

Edited to add there is nothing new in either of their comments…just the same old tales of “the truth will come out”.

I wonder if Shelley has ever really met LK or are they simply SM friends?

[YankeeDuchess]

@Scribbler

Well obviously the first court appearance and first statements from the defense lawyer in a murder case are a Huge Deal in terms of development in the case.

Fortunately for them the social media fountain has been turned off! I was imagining what would happen if a further 19,000 pages of SM comments were generated in response to the announcement there were 19,000 pages … and they had to keep going back for more.

I think we can expect a good lawyer to be 100% honest and accurate on the bare facts. And we can expect a competent lawyer to be very strategic how he frames the case generally. In other words what he says about who phoned who is going to be as accurate as possible. But statements like “my client will be acquitted when all the facts are known” is just lawyer bravado and spin. It may or may not happen, it may or may not be a reasonable prediction, but it’s just exactly what a lawyer is meant to say at thus stage.

So trust the facts and take the interpretation with a grain of salt. Or a salt block.

Question to a criminal lawyer:
Is it true that a defense attorney in a criminal case, for example a murder case, is restricted to saying only what is true, or perhaps only what he doesn’t actually know to be false?
If the defendant claims something untrue to the defense lawyer, but defense lawyer has no way of knowing of it is true or not, can he make the false claim in court?

Can the lawyer say something he knows is untrue, but precede it with “I allege…” and that makes it OK?

Obviously a defense attorney can physically say stuff that is untrue, but I’m asking if they are permitted to knowingly make false statements without legal ramifications to themselves if the statement is later determined to be false.

[I_dratherbe]

The following rules of professional responsibility apply to lawyers in all proceedings - both civil and criminal

From the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct:

3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting an illegal, criminal or fraudulent act by the client;

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel;

(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures; or

(5) fail to disclose to the tribunal a material fact knowing that the omission is reasonably certain to mislead the tribunal, except that it shall not be a breach of this rule if the disclosure is protected by a recognized privilege or is otherwise prohibited by law.

[Jealoushe]

It may be different in Canada, but having gone through a similar trial the Crown (prosecutor here) does involve the victim in the plea deal, BUT they don’t have to listen to the victim. If they don’t want to get sued or have an appeal they should though. They offered me several plea deals which were an absolute joke until the perpetrator agreed to plead guilty to the worst charges which I agreed to.

Also, in my case there were over 50k pages of evidence. My case was bad and involved attempted murder but there were also 18 weapons charges which took up a lot of the files. Just some perspective that 19k isn’t really that big when you’re talking murder/attempted murder.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Jealoushe

It may be different in Canada, but having gone through a similar trial the Crown (prosecutor here) does involve the victim in the plea deal, BUT they don’t have to listen to the victim. If they don’t want to get sued or have an appeal they should though. They offered me several plea deals which were an absolute joke until the perpetrator agreed to plead guilty to the worst charges which I agreed to.

Also, in my case there were over 50k pages of evidence. My case was bad and involved attempted murder but there were also 18 weapons charges which took up a lot of the files. Just some perspective that 19k isn’t really that big when you’re talking murder/attempted murder.

I think it is the same in the US. The DA has the final say, but the victim is generally informed/consulted. In the Federal case against Epstein, I believe the federal prosecutor was required by law to at least inform the victims in advance, and did not do so. Epstein received a hideously cushy sentence (one year in lock up, but allowed to leave everyday to go to work) as a result of his money and connections. The victims were considered to have been victimized twice, once by Epstein, and a second time by a corrupt criminal justice system.

Even if New Jersey law doesn’t require the DA to inform/consult with the victim prior to making a plea deal, I think that general victim’s rights protocols would ensure that the victim is informed and consulted on possible plea deals.