Who is this âwe allâ you speak of? I will guess that itâs the entire population of JumpinQueenLand, population: YOU.
The language lover in me is forced to make a correction. Itâs âbackpedal,â as in pedal your verbal or written tricycle backwards in an attempt to retreatâŠ" and the rest is dandy.
Or be that ignorant of the English language, presuming that English is this oneâs first language. Looking for insults where there are none is petty and childish.
Yes! 
I was so shocked at the accusation, my mind went screwy! Thank you for the correction!!
It was clear as glass that the person was just trying to goad, yet many took the bait.
Stop stooping to their level.
This comment is absolutely ridiculous, and does nothing to help your friend LK.
If the analysis of backstroke/backpaddle/backpedal is more or less resolved, Iâd like to get back to the issue of the inadmissibility and/or illegality of the audio recordings.
I did find a couple of relevant facts from Google, as limited as that is.
First, with respect to NJ specifically, NJ makes a distinction between recording a phone conversation and recording conversations out in the open air, so to speak.
One party consent is required for phone conversations, but not for âopen airâ conversations. For open air conversations, they are legal if the participants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if no one in the conversation consented.
The audio recorder was in LKs tack locker in a barn. We donât (well, I donât) know the layout of the barn. The prosecutor would know the layout of the barn, and the legal nuances of the âexpectation of privacyâ, so the prosecutor is in a much better position to assess admissbility/legality than anyone else.
Based on what the prosecutor has done, what does that reveal about the legality of the audio recordings? Itâs been two and a half years and neither LK nor RG have been charged, suggesting the DA thinks the âexpectation of privacyâ is not met.
But it seems contradictory, then, that the prosecutor would not try to get the recordings admitted in the criminal case. IM says that he doesnât expect them to be used because the prosecutor has a very strong case without them. At first this did not make sense to me â if youâre prosecuting a case, and juries are unpredictable, if you considered the recordings legally made, why wouldnât you use absolutely everything youâve got?
However, to get the recordings admitted, the prosecutor would probably need a ruling by the judge. If their admissibility is in a gray area, and the judge rules them admissible, and the jury convicts, an appellate judge could have a different assessment and throw out the conviction. At that point the prosecution canât say, âWell, actually, we had an airtight case even without the recordingsâ.
I can see why, even if the prosecutor considered the recordings legally made, they might decline to use them if they had enough other evidence. Itâs risky.
My 5 minutes of googling this threw up another interesting fact. In some states there is an explicit exemption for private citizens (not LE) to legally record conversations if they have reason to believe a felony is going to be committed. I couldnât find out whether that exception applies in NJ.
My conclusion: the Morris township prosecutor considers the recordings legally made, but based on a risk/benefit assessment will not attempt to have them admitted in the criminal trial. YMMV, of course.
It seems highly likely that 48 hours and other media outlets will use the recordings if their lawyers decide it is legal to do so.
Unless there is legal action to prevent them being used.
Heck, apparently so many people have heard these recordings they may as well be published here for all to hear.
I think you can argue that after barn hours (which MB stressed a lot about in the 911 calls and especially with the barn being a living space) there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, a barn office would be expected to have privacy. LK refers to conversations that happened inside the office, one specifically about whispers about RCâs gun (suggesting not great quality). Also, the lounge room has doors that closeâŠ.again suggesting a separation of space from the hallway and expectation of privacy.
It is much more likely the 20 or so recordings turned over to the defense are of nothing more than basic barn conversations that have been stretched to imagine a plot. Maybe they also feature LK, and itâs inconceivable to her, but obvious to everyone else, that those recordings donât present her in a good light.
Quite franklyâŠthe continuous meltdowns here really just donât paint a picture of confidence in this caseâŠespecially when you add in the stuff from the SS thread that kinda look like strategizing for plan B.
Thatâs an interesting point. I imagined that 48 hours, for example, would have to decide, based on their lawyers advice, whether to use them or not, then just let the chips fall where they may (that is, wait and see if someone sues them).
What are the legal options for Barisone or MHG to prevent them from being used by the media?
I would think that 48 hours would prefer some sort of ruling rather than expose themselves to risk of being sued, but what would that look like?
That was in a private barn/business which LK didnât own, and didnât even rent, depending on the definition of horse board
It is very interesting, watching how this will unravel.
Maybe portions of the recordings would/could potentially sway the jury against the victim? Offering reasonable doubt?
Your first paragraph essentially says that âitâs murkyâ as to whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy, and I entirely agree; that explains why the prosecution is apparently not going to use the recordings even if they consider them legally made.
The issue raised by earlier posters was whether the recordings were both illegally made and defamatory to people other than LK. Anyone who uses them or discloses them needs to assess their risk of criminal charges or civil liability if they use/disclose them.
I have zero access to the transcripts, so itâs not something I need to worry about!
The criminal case is state of NJ vs MB, not LK vs MB. Doubtless she has preferences as to how the case is resolved, but itâs not âher caseâ.
Iâm trying to stick to the nitty gritty of the case. But I donât interpret any âmeltdownsâ as evidence that she lacks confidence in the criminal case. I see these threads as, at best, consisting of 30% discussion of the actual case, 30% personal sniping/snark/insults, and 40% absolutely irrelevant stuff that other people seem to find more amusing than I do.
I interpret the meltdowns as a response to the middle 30%, not the first 30%. If she wants to participate in the inane âconversationâ about backpaddle/backpeddle, why shouldnât she?
BTW, I think IM was unfair to you in lumping you in with the partisan LK bashers. In your responses to me, you have simply engaged on the discussion of the case, and I appreciate it.
Which SS thread are you referring to?
You do make some good points in your post.
And you might be right on this thought. Or it might be that the prosecution knows that charging their victim(s) with a crime would not help them in their attempted murder trial so they have decided to ignore the recording topic.
I think I understand why the prosecutor is not, according to IM, attempting to introduce the recordings, even if they are quite damning and even if the prosecutor thinks he might succeed in getting them admitted.
If you speculate that the recording have stuff that would sway the jury âagainst the victimâ, you need to explain why the defense is not trying to have them introduced.
The logical answer to this is likely that the recordings have stuff that would help and would hurt both sides.
48 Hours regularly updates cases with new episodes. They likely wouldnât use any media they have until after the trial (in terms of things like secret recordings).
Usually, unless they are trying to get someone to come forward who wonât, when itâs very obvious they are guilty, they wonât do that. Only in extreme cases where they are trying to help catch someone would they put evidence out thereâŠand Iâve watched every episode of 48hrs more than twice.
Funny enough I listened to one the other day on their podcast and it was another dressage rider, this time a woman who killed her husband. Anyone familiar with that case?
I think IM lumps me in because I wonât take LKâs side. I also think itâs because I hit too close to home with my speculations. I do have 14 years experience wading through narcissistic song and danceâŠso, Iâm pretty sure I have a very good handle on this case.
I agree with this. No charges for LK/RG wrt the recordings is not in any way dispositive of the legality/illegality of the recordings.
That was my post. Itâs mostly been met with silence. I was hoping some of those who claim to have heard the recordings and even quoted them here would speak to that point.
If I take your meaning correctly and if Plan B is to sue SS for failure to respond to reports of bullying by MB, MHG, etc. (i.e., adult-to-adult interactions) then I am thoroughly disgusted. If thatâs what the tippity top ten, five? two? global - not national!!! global!!! - firms are working on, I am sickened. Any such ego-driven suit would take massive amounts of time and resources away from SS that could be used investigating harm being done to children.
SS is not responsible for an adult involved in a business relationship with another adult not leaving that situation and resolving differences via proper legal channels like every other adult does in their personal and professional lives. I really hope that is not whatâs on the horizon b/c it would be unconscionable waste of SS assets and materially weaken the organisation - plus play right into the anti-SS brigades campaign to shut it down and allow paedophiles fee rein again in our sport and all others.
Sick, sick, sick. 
