Lauren Kanarek : I knew at least this could work out for a time and be good. So why not try it out?
Jonathan Kanarek : And it was supposed to be a great relationship. And it was for a long time
6 Likes
Maybe she took your word for it when you said words to the effect that there was always some truth in what LK said.
Where would she know LK said there was any editing since she doesnât follow her on FB?
Nevermind, Iâm not playing your absurd game today.
10 Likes
I wonder if the transcript posted on 48Hours.com is from the original or rerun? Iâll have to check but I suspect it is from the rerun since the glorious Nagel isnât represented.
4 Likes
Because they would have to use their real names, be friends with Lauren to post on her page, and their posting styles are recognizable at this point.
7 Likes
18 Likes
She does not have to have a reason to edit. It is Lauren Kanarek. She is not the most rational person in the world.
Anyway, she has already been editing soâŠ
10 Likes
Goodness, one would hope that there are not screen shots floating around of what was originally posted by Lollypop
My Oh My all that nasty spewing and untruths.
Gee I wonder if that could come back at her.
Kind of like Karma.
But I am just a horse of course
16 Likes
Because she read some of the 48 hours comments on Facebook. I did too once it was discussed here.
7 Likes
15 Likes
I still have not seen the edited rebroadcast.
I suspected it was âsignificantly editedâ based on what you and others posted here, Eggbutt.
Someone posts that it was just a rerun, no update. Fine. I believed that.
But then the âitâs just a rerun, itâs not worth watchingâ starts to trend.
Hmm. Why the emphasis on the reports that itâs a rerun? Hmm. Maybe they donât want it to be viewed? Because it has been significantly edited?
It was the strange emphasis on the assertion it had not been edited that made me suspicious.
I read what you write, Eggbutt. I donât necessarily take it at face value. I think, OK, what is she saying here? What is she not saying? What is she unintentionally revealing?
Sort of like my interpretation of your coming on to say that if MB said George Clooney was set to play him in the movie, knowing MB, âit was probably tongue in cheek.â
Because youâre paranoid and see conspiracy in nothing?
Back to life, back to reality.
Back to the here and now, yeah!
Because yeah, like any of us would have any idea that CBS would make any changes.
27 Likes
13 Likes
I donât think anyone has said George Clooney is set to play Barisone. Who do you think should play him? See how that works? A movie is mentioned somewhere and someone starts a discussion of who will play whomâŠunless it is in your environment. I canât imagine a move deal has been struck, a screen play written, actors approached, etc and thatâs why I speculate if Barisone said Clooney would play him, it might be tongue in cheek.
Why donât you contact LO via the GFM contact and ask her???
16 Likes
16 Likes
Exactly. CH created that emphasis 
5 Likes
Because 48 Hours stated he told MHG and the CPS employee to leave the office, opened the safe, retrieved the Ruger, drove to the farmhouse and while âevents there are not clearâ LK ended up shot twice.
It doesnât fit the allowed narrative.
MHG had to read texts with MB that âwhy donât we just tell her to leave because no one has?â (Which led to his reply about scaring her out/she would be begging to leave/he had done it before and was very good at it.)
Tarshis testified he argued with MB urging him to evict her and it became so heated he nearly walked away because he couldnât stand watching this unfold.
Yet MB looked at Nikki and answered her question about if he told LK to leave and he said âmany times.â
Iâve always been bothered by that. MHG came across as very honest and so did Tarshis. That âmany timesâ just completely contradicted their testimony. I donât believe they perjured themselves so what happened here?
1 Like
There is that word - significantly - again. Considering you have gotten on others about the proper use of words, you using the word significantly for this is kind ofâŠwellâŠI will say amusingâŠno, I take that backâŠI am going with dramatic.
I am one of the people who said it was just a re-run. I explained why already, but I can do it again in case you missed my first explanation.
No intent to discourage people from watching it. Heck, if I had known it was not just a re-run I would have recorded it and watched it myself.
When I looked it up on the Dish program guide, which I did on more than one occasion, including a couple of hours before it was on, the Dish program guide said it was originally aired on whatever that original date was, with that episode number. So it said it was a re-run.
I actually have Dish set up to record new episodes of 48hours (happened when I recorded the original episode about this case) and Dish did not record this, because it was advertised as a re-run.
No huge conspiracy to keep people from watching, why would that happen anyway? It can be watched any number of places online, so keeping people from watching on TV live is not going to do any good.
You clearly have not read many of Lauren Kanarekâs comments on Facebook and Youtube because other than you being upset that we believed Dish that it was a re-run, the only other person upset about the edits is Lauren Kanarek.
If we are going to play imaginary world and pretend that we were intentionally keeping people from watching the modified version of the show, it seems like a show that has Lauren Kanarek that upset about the edits would be something we would be encouraging people to watch, not discouraging them from watching.
At this time I have seen the edited version. The edits are most certainly not significant, unless you consider not being able to see Bruce calling the jury insane as something significant.
22 Likes
Hey @hut-ho78 , did you see the proof up thread that Jonathan Kanarek lied in the 48 hours episode about Lauren being asked to leave?
(That is not an edit in the 48 hours show, that has been there all along, as was the post here that he said the opposite.)
18 Likes
