alexwood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2013
- Messages
- 8,107
- Reaction score
- 24,894
She has a lot to say---but the defense shut her down. She was a victim of his Domestic Violence, and she always believed, from the start, that Mark killed Dylan.Not much from Betsy Horvath. Single statement made 30 years ago. Really not a surprise since she didn't keep in contact with MR after their divorce in 1990. JMO
True, because she was clipped by defense.Not much from Betsy Horvath. Single statement made 30 years ago. Really not a surprise since she didn't keep in contact with MR after their divorce in 1990. JMO
Betsy Horvath is next with limited testimony about camping trip statements by MR.
She has a lot to say---but the defense shut her down. She was a victim of his Domestic Violence, and she always believed, from the start, that Mark killed Dylan.
She took her boys out of state years ago, to protect them from her angry, drunken ex.
She has a lot to say but she was muzzled by the court.
I disagree. I think it is relevant that he threatened to kill his older sons during their contentious divorce.Betsy was not stopped by the defense. She had nothing more to say that was relevant to Dylan's murder. If she had anything to add that was allowed by law the judge would have let her testify to it.
If he's convicted, maybe they'll allow her testimony during the sentencing phase.I disagree. I think it is relevant that he threatened to kill his older sons during their contentious divorce.
But legally, it is harder to get that statement admitted in a murder trial. That doesn't mean it isn't relevant, IMO, but it does mean it is legally contentious.
Why didn't the prosecution have her testify about that?I disagree. I think it is relevant that he threatened to kill his older sons during their contentious divorce.
But legally, it is harder to get that statement admitted in a murder trial. That doesn't mean it isn't relevant, IMO, but it does mean it is legally contentious.
He needs to release the jury at 5:00…it may be some jurors have kids to pick up or something like that.Judge is getting impatient with the prosecutions amount of time on this witness.
I've got to disagree, Ranch.Why didn't the prosecution have her testify about that?
My guess is it shows that while Mark threatened to kill his older son's if Betsy obtained custody he didn't do it. All talk no action.
It helps the defense more than the prosecution IMO.
I don’t know, I missed that.Who was trying to use that ATM card of Dylan's in Sept of 2012? It was never activated. Was it Dylan trying to use it?
It was something about a debit card issued to Dylan, from an account shared with Mark.I don’t know, I missed that.
I found it interesting that the defense was fighting so hard to get testimony in about Mark’s emotional state after the remains were found. He basically said that since the prosecution brought up Brandon’s interpretation of Mark’s emotional state based on conversations they had when Dylan went missing (they only referenced a few conversations before the remains were found) that it should open up questions to Brandon about ALL conversations with Mark, even after they were found. It makes me think that Mark showed no distress or concern about Dylan’s welfare until his remains were found. Only then, not knowing what evidence the remains may show, did he play the grieving father. I would sure love to listen to those recordings Brandon did.So the judge ruled that the defense can bring up testimony, limited to before Dylan's remains were found, that showed Mark's emotional state.