Barisone Criminal Case Update

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

If someone requested to look at my gun, I’m pretty sure I respond with “Why?” If there is no good explanation provided, I would not hand it over.

I 100% agree with this.

Perhaps there was a “why?”. No one here knows, do they? Maybe a recording can tell us what the full conversation was, forensically analyzed as to who the correct speak was.

Why would you need a recording if RC has provided a signed affidavit on the whole issue to the prosecutor? It has to be the case that the police and prosecutor know a much more complete description of the conversation.

[cutter99]

@La-LaPopRider

@Scribbler

You might even find a bunch of them were inaudible

Nothing we have is “inaudible.” Everything we have has transcripts with exact time stamps. Our own, a few separate expert forensic transcriptions - which, with complete neutrality, match the others. There are originals of everything plus, numerous copies which (a select few) have removed and/or separated voices so that each person’s voice is distinct in that which the specific person speaking is suggesting. Anything which can be heard with a “naked ear,” from somewhere within the area which “anyone walking by, through, or around” could reasonably be expected to overhear. Ironically, in one such video/recording - an individual actually states how she/he went to hide in a barn aisle bathroom to better hear a conversation taking place near an exit door.

Although, cell phone videos are very clear and very legal and very damning. No transcriptions needed…. though they do exist.

.

[Angela_Freda]

@La-LaPopRider

Nothing we have is “inaudible.” Everything we have has transcripts with exact time stamps. Our own, a few separate expert forensic transcriptions - which, with complete neutrality, match the others. There are originals of everything plus, numerous copies which (a select few) have removed and/or separated voices so that each person’s voice is distinct in that which the specific person speaking is suggesting. Anything which can be heard with a “naked ear,” from somewhere within the area which “anyone walking by, through, or around” could reasonably be expected to overhear. Ironically, in one such video/recording - an individual actually states how she/he went to hide in a barn aisle bathroom to better hear a conversation taking place near an exit door.

Although, cell phone videos are very clear and very legal and very damning. No transcriptions needed…. though they do exist

.

[Dragonfly90]

So the gun owner was so afraid of LK that she was sleeping at the barn with the gun under her pillow. Then MB, on the edge of a mental breakdown asked to see the gun and she just hands it over. Then MB says it is missing. So then she decides to go the the house of the people she is terrified of, that has a vicious dog and other guns(according to MB, but she thinks they have taken hers) to search for her gun instead of reporting it stolen to the police. Good luck to the defense trying to sell that theory to a jury!

[MorganSercu]

@IdahoRider - Get well soon!

[Angela_Freda]

I think we have to remember that we’re getting this from a news source that is a bit like the Telephone game.

@DownYonder

And I am still struck by the statement that RC handed her gun to MB so he could “look at it.” And apparently left it with him, didn’t ask for it back, and had no idea what he did with it until it showed up underneath him in an altercation in which someone was shot.

That all we got from the news is the bolded, doesn’t mean there wasn’t a lengthier, fuller explanation that makes more sense.

[MorganSercu]

Is literally eavesdropping illegal? Recording a conversation to which one is not a party (active participant) is illegal.

[Angela_Freda]

@Dragonfly90

Sticking to the topic, what have found out now is that the last person known to be in possession of the gun was MB, as stated by the owner of the gun

Actually as stated by a “journalist”.
And who is reporting only portions of what may be known.

[Sdel]

@Dragonfly90

So then she decides to go the the house of the people she is terrified of, that has a vicious dog and other guns(according to MB, but she thinks they have taken hers) to search for her gun instead of reporting it stolen to the police.

Who says it wasn’t reported? They have a date for her charges. There was a 911 call and a police station visit on that same day and MB claims he told them LK/RG had a gun. There was also the allegations that the police didn’t do anything. Maybe if she went into the house the next day to look for the gun it was because she was in fear and the police were not doing anything. All it takes here is reasonable doubt.

[Angela_Freda]

I have the timeline tangled worse than Xmas lights

The 911 call, saying that Lk/RG may have a gun… was that after the gun “went missing”?

If that were the case, I could completely understand heightened anxiety, stress, etc about the situation on many of the concerned parties.

[eggbutt]

Thank you.

[Knights_Mom]

@Angela_Freda

I have the timeline tangled worse than Xmas lights

The 911 call, saying that Lk/RG may have a gun… was that after the gun “went missing”?

If that were the case, I could completely understand heightened anxiety, stress, etc about the situation on many of the concerned parties.

I still remember reading somewhere that the gun was come across by someone, not MB.

[Sdel]

@Angela_Freda

The 911 call, saying that Lk/RG may have a gun… was that after the gun “went missing”?

The 9/4 911 call says they may have one. The charges for the illegal transfer are for 8/5. MB’s police lawsuit says there was a 911 call placed in the morning of 9/5. It breaks from the mold and doesn’t discuss anything for that 911 call. It then moves on to talk about MB going to the police station later that day where it says he stated to the police that LK/RG had a gun and the police turned him away.

When LK talks about the RC/the dog bite on 8/6, she asks the rhetorical question of why would RC want in so badly. Of course, she supplies the answer that it was to plant evidence…

I’m not claiming this is exactly what happened, but I can provide a reference to every element.

[CanteringCarrot]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@CanteringCarrot

@DownYonder

And I am still struck by the statement that RC handed her gun to MB so he could “look at it.” And apparently left it with him, didn’t ask for it back, and had no idea what he did with it until it showed up underneath him in an altercation in which someone was shot.

I guess we will know more about her involvement when she testifies.

Yeah, it’s…odd.

If someone wanted to look at a gun that I had, right there with me, I suppose I’d hand them the gun (not loaded) let them have a looksee/feel and then take it right back

For some reason, I interpreted Barisone’s request to “look at” the gun as happening when she did not have the gun on her, so she needed to go get it (from the truck?) to show/give it to him.

If someone requested to look at my gun, I’m pretty sure I would respond with “Why?” If there is no good explanation provided, I would not hand it over.

Ah, yes, of course. This would make sense. I sort of assumed it would be following a conversation where I’d arrived at the conclusion that letting them see the gun would be reasonable. I wouldn’t just hand it over. Sorry, I didn’t elaborate on that. I was just focused on why he had it in his possession for more than a few supervised (by the gun owner) seconds.

[Angela_Freda]

MB tried to meet, at the Police Station, with a supervisor.
He was denied.

One wonders what may have been shared, truthful or not (and both are revealing in the end), had he been granted that meeting.

[Angela_Freda]

I think you’re missing much about this testifying, that doesn’t make it what you are trying to make it.

[BigMama1]

151 new comments since I checked this thread last night. Any actual new news since yesterday or is it all just speculating and sniping? Too bad there’s no way to highlight the posts containing actual developments.

[smoofox]

@Equkelly

@smoofox

“Trauma informed”?! You are making a huge and dismissive assumption that others have had no trauma experience or knowledge. You have ZERO idea of what others may have gone through… and yet think you “know”.

With all due respect, you haven’t got a clue what others may have experienced and may still be working through… but rush to judge and point fingers anyway.

[edit] If you don’t know what something means next time, ask or google it. Trauma informed versus not doesn’t have anything to do with the presence of absence of a trauma in the informed party’s life. That’s not what that means. I know it’s hard because these threads are so full of toxicity but you need to remember not everything is an attack.

Since you asked ever so nicely, being “trauma informed” means you have a deep understanding of what trauma is and how how trauma can effect behavior. The term is usually used in a social work setting.

Ummm… YES. I know the correct definition. No need to google. Perhaps I did not couch it in terms that you deemed to be correct or acceptable. You have just, once again, assumed that I do not have a clue or any personal experience… and you are wrong. So very sadly wrong.

You said this…

I know it’s hard because these threads are so full of toxicity but you need to remember not everything is an attack.

… and promptly disregarded your own good advice. CanteringCarrot is a good poster with valid insights and concerns and you saw fit to pounce on her anyway… would that be considered condescending recreational outrage (your term)?

@CanteringCarrot

I know my response to traumatic events in my life vary from how others would respond in the same situations.

I think it’s not right to ask LK’s mom about family members. Really, why does it even matter if LK is allowed at certain family residences or not? In the grand scheme of things, why? If her mom answered this question, would you(g) feel some sort of validation?

Of course her mother is going to come on here and say what she said. She’s a parent. How she replied isn’t exactly unexpected, and if she feels that way, then she feels that way

All of that is exactly right IMO… thank you.

@trubandloki

I totally agree. There has to be more to that story.

Yep - there is always more to the story - any story.
Hopefully the trial will sort things out once and for all.

[Knights_Mom]

@Angela_Freda

MB tried to meet, at the Police Station, with a supervisor.
He was denied.

One wonders what may have been shared, truthful or not (and both are revealing in the end), had he been granted that meeting.

I’m thinking it depends. If they wouldn’t meet with him I doubt they would have believed him or listened to him unbiasedly if they did. Failure to meet with him is rather unheard of in my public service experience. In 31+ years of public service someone has asked for a supervisor maybe 1500 times and 1500 times a supervisor/Clerk of County spoke to them. Sometimes, that was me. The ONLY “absolutely nots” are judges. But in that case the judge’s law clerks do speak to them.

So personally I find the refusal to speak to MB highly irregular and certainly not the norm.

[Angela_Freda]

Maybe the why was implied by the context of the request.
Again this tiny snippet from a potentially poor news source still has lots holes in it.