Barisone KROL this Friday, 5/26

[Maria]

I have popcorn, lots and lots and lots of popcorn.

Beer, vodka, rum, brandy, tequila standing at the ready. Oh and wine, I have wine as well. I have a few mixers. And I have plenty of shot glasses.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

That’s my point. Before he was banned, IM gave the bare bones of the decision (another Krol hearing in 6 months) but refrained from providing details or spin. He was leaving that to LO.

So, you did not read his posts that were removed that lead to him being banned then?

I was not reading the thread in real time, so would not be aware of what was removed before I had a chance to read it.

And what time was that exactly. Today?

[Unfforgettable]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I support and encourage MBs mental health quest, even though, like the jury, I think it’s abundantly clear what happened that day.

You are not speaking for the jury. They had just two options: Guilty or NGRI. MB’s memory loss is the reason for the NGRI plea being the only option. After listening to all the testimony and seeing the level of lies and issues with the “victim”, the jury clearly knew MB did not belong in prison, their story wasn’t believable, and chose the only option that could keep him out.

The words of LK and RG spoke volumes, and the jury clearly disliked and didn’t trust their words. They are the only two people who really know what happened that day, and just the way LK immediately placed blame when dialing 911, saying “Michael Barisone shot me” says a different story but let’s place the blame on MB. There was shoddy police work, no actual evidence, just the word of two drug addicts with criminal records.

Had straight up NG been an option, MB would be a free man today.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@trubandloki

@CurrentlyHorseless

That’s my point. Before he was banned, IM gave the bare bones of the decision (another Krol hearing in 6 months) but refrained from providing details or spin. He was leaving that to LO.

So, you did not read his posts that were removed that lead to him being banned then?

I was not reading the thread in real time, so would not be aware of what was removed before I had a chance to read it.

So in other words, you do not know what Jonathan Kanarek said before he was banned so you have no way of knowing that he did not provide spin or details. Whole posts were removed, and consider he has a history of dramatic long posts full of lies after court proceedings I am shocked that you would assume that did not happen this time…You are smarter than that.

[Knights_Mom]

@Unfforgettable

Had straight up NG been an option, MB would be a free man today.

1000%

[SoCoPony]

See what happens when you go off script.

I wonder if the director is yelling “CUT” yet.

But I am just a horse of course

[trubandloki]

Hey CH…
Some of your current comments do not really correspond with what you said in this past post.

In case you want to see it in real time so you know where to edit, here is a link

Barisone Trial This Month

Yeah, so you said. I don’t automatically believe everything that’s posted on the internet! I do believe everything IM has posted.

[CanteringCarrot]

@trubandloki

Hey CH…
Some of your current comments do not really correspond with what you said in this past post.

In case you want to see it in real time so you know where to edit, here is a link
Barisone Trial This Month

I’m possibly going to get lambasted for this, and I’m no CH fan, but I think that quote is out of context.

Hence the “has” posted vs “I believe everything that IM posts”

[ohnoO]

@CindyB59

If they’re going to start holding people in mental health facilities because they’re narcissistic, they better get building, and training staff.

Cause I’m sure it can be said that a huge percentage of people these days have narcissistic tendencies.

I haven’t caught up yet, but if the medical staff at Greystone can “cure” NPD and/or OCD, I have a few new patients for them.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Unfforgettable

You are not speaking for the jury. They had just two options: Guilty or NGRI. MB’s memory loss is the reason for the NGRI plea being the only option.

It is absolutely untrue that the jury did not have the option of straight NG.

Even though MB pled NGRI, the jury would have found him straight NG on all four counts if the prosecutor had failed to meet his burden of proof on the actus reus.

[erinmeri]

@CanteringCarrot

I’m possibly going to get lambasted for this, and I’m no CH fan, but I think that quote is out of context.

Hence the “has” posted vs “I believe everything that IM posts”

Not lambasting you at all…

But I am curious, when did @CurrentlyHorseless decide to go from believing all posts that had been posted to only believing some?

Because that distinction says to me that there was an awareness that IM was not truthful. And if that is the case, then wouldn’t she not believe all prior posts? Wouldn’t that make her question all posts? It certainly would for me.

Or am I misreading something? One can certainly change their opinion, but in this instance I just see a creative use of qualifiers.

ETA: changed “they” to “she” and “them” to “her” to reflect CH’s preferred pronouns. I typically default to “they/them”.

[Jenerationx]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If a jury found the evidence supported that I committed the act while delusional, and my lawyers and doctors also had that view, I would admit to myself that I committed the act.

Yeah, cause no jury in the history of trials has ever gotten it wrong, so you’d just believe them if you had no memory. Are you aware of all the false convictions that happen in the courts? Should someone falsely convicted just decide to believe the jury over their own memory and what they know happened because that’s what the jury decided? That is among the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on COTH and that’s saying a lot.

ETA: Want an example? Willie Stokes comes to mind. He served 37 years in prison when the jury got it wrong.

[erinmeri]

@Jenerationx

Yeah, cause no jury in the history of trials has ever gotten it wrong, so you’d just believe them if you had no memory. Are you aware of all the false convictions that happen in the courts? Should someone falsely convicted just decide to believe the jury over their own memory and what they know happened because that’s what the jury decided? That is among the dumbest things I have ever seen posted on COTH and that’s saying a lot.

ETA: Want an example? Willie Stokes comes to mind. He served 37 years in prison when the jury got it wrong

So. Many. Examples. Even one that I pointed out on these threads where the person had a rock solid alibi (was IN JAIL!!!) and was convicted nonetheless.

But they can keep playing their head movies…

[CanteringCarrot]

CH said, “I do believe everything that IM has posted”

I don’t know (and I do not want to speak for CH) what that was I reference to and it was back in 2022? So I don’t know if CH believed everything IM had posted re a certain event, or if CH still believes that now and it applies to all posts. It’s the “has” that made me question it and say that it might not still apply now. Or it might, I don’t know. It could’ve been taken out of context, or not.

[Sdel]

I think the context was as opposed to what LK had posted.

CH believed IM was telling the truth/not lying and if there was conflict they would believe IM over LK.

[SoCoPony]

My question is —Did anyone have, CH will ignore my question that was asked up thread on the difference between the grifters testimony?

Well step up if you are holding that ticket I got a bag of carrots for you.

[erinmeri]

@CanteringCarrot

CH said, “I do believe everything that IM has posted”

I don’t know (and I do not want to speak for CH) what that was I reference to and it was back in 2022? So I don’t know if CH believed everything IM had posted re a certain event, or if CH still believes that now and it applies to all posts. It’s the “has” that made me question it and say that it might not still apply now. Or it might, I don’t know. It could’ve been taken out of context, or not.

I get that. But if I say “I believe everything CC has said” and I never make clear that I no longer believe everything you say, then it is reasonable to assume that I still do. And if I only believe everything you said up to a point, then at some point you caused me to question you, so at that point shouldn’t I have retrospectively questioned it all? Ergo, it’s reasonable to say that “has said” statement still applies. You(g) don’t get to pick and choose, and if you do? That’s on you and makes your faith all the more questionable.

[CanteringCarrot]

@erinmeri

@CanteringCarrot

CH said, “I do believe everything that IM has posted”

I don’t know (and I do not want to speak for CH) what that was I reference to and it was back in 2022? So I don’t know if CH believed everything IM had posted re a certain event, or if CH still believes that now and it applies to all posts. It’s the “has” that made me question it and say that it might not still apply now. Or it might, I don’t know. It could’ve been taken out of context, or not.

I get that. But if I say “I believe everything CC has said” and I never make clear that I no longer believe everything you say, then it is reasonable to assume that I still do. And if I only believe everything you said up to a point, then at some point you caused me to question you, so at that point shouldn’t I have retrospectively questioned it all? Ergo, it’s reasonable to say that “has said” statement still applies. You(g) don’t get to pick and choose, and if you do? That’s on you and makes your faith all the more questionable.

Saving the bolded for later.

[erinmeri]

@CanteringCarrot

Saving the bolded for later.

Well, you know you and I are the same person… so, Obvs!

(ETA: on Twitter. In a certain Tweeter’s mind. “‘’Tis I, the Cantering Carrot” is forever etched in my memory and makes me laugh every time!)

[MHM]

@erinmeri

So. Many. Examples. Even one that I pointed out on these threads where the person had a rock solid alibi (was IN JAIL!!!) and was convicted nonetheless.

But they can keep playing their head movies…

Speaking of movies, and rotting in jail.

There was a story that Larry David told on a talk show where a guy who was convicted of murder remembered that Larry David had been filming his show at a baseball game on the day of the crime, and this guy happened to be there and saw them filming near him.

So as he was rotting in jail, he got word to his lawyer that there should be video of him at that game on that day. And somehow they contacted Larry David, who agreed to let them look at all the film. And sure enough, there was the guy in the background of a scene on the day when he was supposed to be killing somebody somewhere else.

So I believe he got the conviction overturned and was let out of jail just because he happened to be at the ball game on the day when somebody was making a TV show at the ballpark.