Barisone Criminal Case Update

[Moderator_1]

The rule referenced pertaining to criminal accusations was added in light of the #metoo movement to give victims an opportunity to share their stories here if they chose. But we added the first-person and non-anonymous caveats so it did not become a free-for-all of accusations by unidentified posters.

Accusing someone of harassment on the site, based on the comments made via site, made public for assessment of the situation to all those reading the site would not automatically rise to a level requiring intervention.

Per our rules, all moderation is performed at our discretion, and we are not legally obligated to moderate anything. We may opt to further adjust the wording of the rules to accommodate issues/questions as they arise.

Obviously, moderation is typically not a clear cut issue, unless someone is using profanity or blatantly name calling, and we prefer to err on the side of community-based conflict resolution with a lighter hand from us vs. us coming in to nit-pick posts.

[eggbutt]

Didn’t someone say MB et al began going to the dumpster to talk? Was the dumpster also bugged?

[eggbutt]

Thank you for your clarification!

[LilRanger]

Being able to do a push-up takes very different muscles than writing. One is large muscle groups, the other uses tiny or singular muscles doing small intricate moves It makes total sense from an OT PT perspective that someone can do large movements but not small ones. Think of it as the difference between trotting and trotting shoulders in.

[Knights_Mom]

@Moderator_1

The rule referenced pertaining to criminal accusations was added in light of the #metoo movement to give victims an opportunity to share their stories here if they chose. But we added the first-person and non-anonymous caveats so it did not become a free-for-all of accusations by unidentified posters.

Accusing someone of harassment on the site, based on the comments made via site, made public for assessment of the situation to all those reading the site would not automatically rise to a level requiring intervention.

Per our rules, all moderation is performed at our discretion, and we are not legally obligated to moderate anything. We may opt to further adjust the wording of the rules to accommodate issues/questions as they arise.

Obviously, moderation is typically not a clear cut issue, unless someone is using profanity or blatantly name calling, and we prefer to err on the side of community-based conflict resolution with a lighter hand from us vs. us coming in to nit-pick posts.

Thank you for your statement and clarity.

[eggbutt]

I just got off the phone with my attorney going over some documents. She certainly isn’t a member of a “top 5 global firm”, and honestly I’d rather leave those firms to advise their high profile clients. Anyway, she gave me some sage advice I’m gladly passing along. Don’t ever engage with trolls on social media; remain respectful in posts - no name calling, threats or other ugliness, and to always scroll on by rather than engage. Whatever ugliness the poster posted is their issue, not yours. Great advice I will gladly take!

[Sdel]

https://patch.com/new-jersey/longvalley/amp/30235298/long-valley-shooting-barn-manager-heads-to-pretrial-intervention

A new article that may have another perspective….

[Fiesta01]

@La-LaPopRider

MB certainly is a person who doesn’t believe “consequences,” apply to him. Why? Bc they never before have!

LOL

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

https://patch.com/new-jersey/longvalley/amp/30235298/long-valley-shooting-barn-manager-heads-to-pretrial-intervention

A new article that may have another perspective….

The two articles seemed pretty consistent.

Both referred to Barisone requesting to “take a look at” Cox’s gun. This seemed like an odd phrase to me.

I don’t know anyone who owns a handgun, but even if I did, I cannot imagine saying to the person, “Can you come by my office this afternoon so that I can take a look at your gun?

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Both referred to Barisone requesting to “take a look at” Cox’s gun. This seemed like an odd phrase to me.

Doesn’t seem that odd to me….she was supposedly sleeping with it in front of the horse’s stall. I think it’s pretty flimsy to make the leap to a murder plot when there are much more reasonable reasons for him to have asked for the gun……like to comply with gun storage laws. And still doesn’t describe a missing gun. Neither article mentions RC as characterizing the gun as missing to the police, but two posters here, who undisputedly have inside info, have consistently made such claims.

So….how does MB have a “missing” gun when the owner has freely admitted that she gave it him?

[Joanne]

During the trial, are people on the witness list allowed to be in the room to watch? Thinking specifically of Goodwin, Emily Kanarek, Jonathan Kanarek, Lauren Kanarek if they end up on the witness list.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Both referred to Barisone requesting to “take a look at” Cox’s gun. This seemed like an odd phrase to me.

Doesn’t seem that odd to me….she was supposedly sleeping with it in front of the horse’s stall. I think it’s pretty flimsy to make the leap to a murder plot when there are much more reasonable reasons for him to have asked for the gun……like to comply with gun storage laws. And still doesn’t describe a missing gun. Neither article mentions RC as characterizing the gun as missing to the police, but two posters here, who undisputedly have inside info, have consistently made such claims.

So….how does MB have a “missing” gun when the owner has freely admitted that she gave it him?

I don’t believe she was sleeping with it in front of her horse’s stall. That’s too bizarre.

According to both articles, he didn’t “ask for the gun”, he asked “to look at the gun”. That’s what strikes me as odd.

The articles describe the situation as Cox transferring possession of the gun a couple days before the shooting and not getting the gun back into her possession prior to the shooting. I thought “missing” might just be a way of saying that the gun was not in her possession for those two days, so that she did not know exactly where it was.

[Angela_Freda]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t believe she was sleeping with it in front of her horse’s stall. That’s too bizarre

Why is that bizarre? Especially under the circumstances?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Angela_Freda

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t believe she was sleeping with it in front of her horse’s stall. That’s too bizarre

Why is that bizarre? Especially under the circumstances?

It’s recklessly dangerous. I strongly doubt a nurse practitioner with a degree in psychology would do something that reckless.

[trubandloki]

I thought the whole thing about someone sleeping in front of their stall with a gun under their pillow came from LK… I am willing to admit that I might be remembering that wrong. That thought has been around for a long time though.

I do not find it weird that someone would ask to see a gun. What I find weird is why someone would walk away and then not account for their gun again if all that happened was they were asked to “take a look”.

[eggbutt]

@Joanne

During the trial, are people on the witness list allowed to be in the room to watch? Thinking specifically of Goodwin, Emily Kanarek, Jonathan Kanarek, Lauren Kanarek if they end up on the witness list.

No, not for this trial. Each witness will be told when to appear and will wait in the hall or other communal area.

[eggbutt]

But you find it normal that she was compelled to sleep outside his stall? Was she concerned something might happen to him? Obviously she had fear for his safety.

[Fiesta01]

@Justice_for_Horses

The majority of flagging is being done by others, not jumping queen.

How does a run of the mill poster know who did the flagging? Not saying you’re “run of the mill” just wondering if it is another feature of the forums with which I was not familiar.

[RND]

@trubandloki

I do not find it weird that someone would ask to see a gun. What I find weird is why someone would walk away and then not account for their gun again if all that happened was they were asked to “take a look”.

This struck me as odd too - who takes their gun to someone who asks to “take a look” at it, and then leaves without it, never to see it again? I would assume that whoever the authority was that interviewed her asked further questions which were not released to the public. Hopefully it will all come out in the trial.

[Justice_for_Horses]

I don’t know the specific posters doing the flagging but the posts getting flagged were mostly made by lk.