Barisone News

[trubandloki]

@Jealoushe

How does this bring reasonable doubt in an attempted murder case. Let’s here the theories if you are so sure?

Have not read anything recently? (I am guessing not because I had already done the whole adrenaline answer.)

Example that has been posted several times - Since this officer said that the boyfriend was allowed to go into the house for several minutes that means they have no way of knowing if he was or was not armed, left something in the house, etc.

[eggbutt]

@MHM

Did the police officer say RG actually picked the dog up? Or did he just grab it by the collar or nape with one hand to drag it away?

My notes simply say RG “grabbed the dog and went in the house” after saying “don’t hurt my dog”.

[MorganSercu]

@MHM

Did the police officer say RG actually picked the dog up? Or did he just grab it by the collar or nape with one hand to drag it away?

But if you grab with your good hand, how was he able to negotiate the door with a broken hand? If the door was open, then why not shove the dog in and close the door in order to be visible to the police officer at all times?

[MHM]

@ohnoO

I can see that maybe the LEO felt there was not much to investigate. Two people had already identified MB as the shooter, RG when LE first arrived and LK on the phone to 911 after she was shot.

Wasn’t it mentioned upthread that the first officer on the scene did not have MB’s name relayed to him from the 911 call? Plus if he did not ask their names, how did he know which one was which?

I still find it very odd that the cop would take the word of anyone at the scene where two people are struggling over a gun. Especially before the cop had any back up there to help him.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CanteringCarrot

I still don’t understand the gun jamming statement, number of bullets

The gun jamming statements are one of the myriad subtle deviations from the general narrative. It has never been mentioned here by LK in her narrative that the gun jammed. It was presented as a “here’s what happened” narrative in another SM platform. But a jammed gun is interesting because you usually can’t fire the weapon until it is cleared. That takes time, which is a struggle in a fist fight, especially if you aren’t familiar with how to do it.

In the general narrative, the first two bullets go into LK. And immediately following them the 3rd is supposed to go in the vicinity of the RG’s head. If the gun jammed, and needed time to be cleared….then RG would have been able to tackle/approach/chase MB at this point if he was present and that would interrupt the narrative that he was on the porch when LK was shot and dove through the door when the bullet went toward his head. Much of the prevailing narrative declares he was on the porch and witnessed the shooting. This narrative also makes the unexpected escape of the dog problematic, furthermore, in the original narrative on COTH the appearance of the dog feels just kind of thrown in there as an afterthought.

However, one of the original narratives attributed to police sources as reported in the media was that he was upstairs at the time of the shooting. This could fit with the idea of a jammed gun as giving RG the time to get downstairs and confront MB and would make the sudden appearance of the dog reasonable if you consider RG throwing open the doors as he ran down the stairs and onto the porch. But under that narrative RG would not be a witness to LK’s shooting. It might also explain the voluntary offering of the video as evidence that subsequently winds up not being there.

According to Eggbutt’s recounting of the hearing, RG “volunteered” that “they had the whole situation on tape”. No mention of the word “video”. Apparently there were no actual “tapes” and he was referring to digital recordings. Perhaps by “the situation” he was referring to the digital audio recordings on the run up to the shooting, not the shooting itself.
According to Eggbutt, he did not say he had “video” of the “shooting”.

[eggbutt]

@MHM

I still find it very odd that the cop would take the word of anyone at the scene where two people are struggling over a gun. Especially before the cop had any back up there to help him.

Maybe the cop knew them? He testified it was his first visit to the farm and that he was aware of “situations” at the Farm, so I dunno, did he know anyone outside his duties as a LEO? As absurd as that may sound, it is still feasible.

[Angela_Freda]

So it basically up to interpretation what “whole thing” the statement “the whole thing’s on tape” (paraphrase) refers to

[MHM]

@MorganSercu

But if you grab with your good hand, how was he able to negotiate the door with a broken hand? If the door was open, then why not shove the dog in and close the door in order to be visible to the police officer at all times?

Meh. Maybe once the dog was pulled out of the fray, it was willing to follow him through the door without being dragged. The dog is a bit of a sidetrack, since there are so many possibilities with it.

The question of why RG went inside the house, leaving the scene on the porch for several minutes, seems very strange under the circumstances.

[MorganSercu]

@MHM

The question of why RG went inside the house, leaving the scene on the porch for several minutes, seems very strange under the circumstances.

It certainly does.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Sdel

@CanteringCarrot

I still don’t understand the gun jamming statement, number of bullets

The gun jamming statements are one of the myriad subtle deviations from the general narrative. It has never been mentioned here by LK in her narrative that the gun jammed. It was presented as a “here’s what happened” narrative in another SM platform. But a jammed gun is interesting because you usually can’t fire the weapon until it is cleared. That takes time, which is a struggle in a fist fight, especially if you aren’t familiar with how to do it.

In the general narrative, the first two bullets go into LK. And immediately following them the 3rd is supposed to go in the vicinity of the RG’s head. If the gun jammed, and needed time to be cleared….then RG would have been able to tackle/approach/chase MB at this point if he was present and that would interrupt the narrative that he was on the porch when LK was shot and dove through the door when the bullet went toward his head. Much of the prevailing narrative declares he was on the porch and witnessed the shooting. This narrative also makes the unexpected escape of the dog problematic, furthermore, in the original narrative on COTH the appearance of the dog feels just kind of thrown in there as an afterthought.

However, one of the original narratives attributed to police sources as reported in the media was that he was upstairs at the time of the shooting. This could fit with the idea of a jammed gun as giving RG the time to get downstairs and confront MB and would make the sudden appearance of the dog reasonable if you consider RG throwing open the doors as he ran down the stairs and onto the porch. But under that narrative RG would not be a witness to LK’s shooting. It might also explain the voluntary offering of the video as evidence that subsequently winds up not being there.

According to Eggbutt’s recounting if the hearing, RG “volunteered” that “they had the whole situation on tape”. No mention of the word “video”. Apparently there were no actual “tapes” and he was referring to digital recordings. Perhaps by “the situation” he was referring to the digital audio recordings on the run up to the shooting, not the shooting itself.
According to Eggbutt, he did not say he had “video” of the “shooting”.

My notes: RG said “the entire matter was captured on video”…direct quote from Heymer. So, IDK what technology was actually said at the scene but those were Heymer’s words.

If RG meant the “ear witness” on the phone, how would he have known at the time the phone call was still active unless he was there? See, QUESTIONS.

[Angela_Freda]

It is my recollection that he said “picked it up”, because the size of the dog was questioned, but I didn’t take notes so I defer to those who did.

The officer referred to it as a “small dog”.
That picture is not a small dog. Having worked at an animal ER, a dog like that, that size (as compared to the railing, is not “small” .

It’s also the LEOs testimony RG removed it from the area, taking it into the house for “a few minutes”.
Seeing the dog, and accepting the LEOs narrative of events, somehow RG got it inside.

[MHM]

@Angela_Freda

The officer referred to it as a “small dog”.
That picture is not a small dog. Having worked at an animal ER, a dog like that, that size (as compared to the railing, is not “small” .

Well, that’s a little subjective. Maybe the police officer has an Irish wolfhound at home for all we know, so that dog might have looked small to him by comparison.

[LilRanger]

That’s true, but scooping up a dog in your arms doesn’t have to involve a lot of dexterity, just arms around the ribs and lift. Hopefully with your legs and not your back!

[MorganSercu]

@MHM

Well, that’s a little subjective. Maybe the police officer has an Irish wolfhound at home for all we know, so that dog might have looked small to him by comparison.

Or as my friends with Great Danes refer to pretty much all other dogs by comparison, “treats on feet!”

[Angela_Freda]

No my observation is not subjective, it’s objective, as my reference is the various dogs I literally handled in the role, from Great Danes to newborn pekinese puppies.

The officers comment might be attributed to subjectivity, however I don’t think testimony about a serious crime from a responding officer should involve alot of subjectivity.

Specificity is much more helpful. But I’m sure the dogs size etc will receive more scrutiny when it’s more appropriate.

[Mersidoats]

Well, if we are talking about the criminal case, it’s the State (her) v. Barisone. Then there are the several civil cases, where multiple parties are named. So there are several overlapping circles of people who are involved and affected by this situation.

Doesn’t change the fact that she’s not a lawyer, and has posted incorrect legal information on several threads, and has continued to double-down on her incorrect statements, and insult actual professionals who call her out on her mistakes.

My mom is a doctor, I’ve picked up some medical knowledge from her over the years and I often ask her questions about things I read or experience. If I say something wrong and an actual board-certified MD counters me, WITH EVIDENCE, I’d never dream of doubling down on my assertion.

It’s easier to be bolder and nastier behind a keyboard - anonymity and all that. I’m sure this conversation might be a bit more civil in person.

[Jenerationx]

I wish there was an actual transcript available rather than a live stream that can’t be replayed.

[MHM]

@Angela_Freda

The officers comment might be attributed to subjectivity, however I don’t think testimony about a serious crime from a responding officer should involve alot of subjectivity.

I was referring to the officer’s comment being subjective. Hence my remark that maybe he has a big dog at home for comparison.

If he had been called to a crime scene to break up a dog fighting ring, the size of the dog might be more relevant. In this case, it was just an offshoot of the main event.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@MHM

@MorganSercu

But if you grab with your good hand, how was he able to negotiate the door with a broken hand? If the door was open, then why not shove the dog in and close the door in order to be visible to the police officer at all times?

Meh. Maybe once the dog was pulled out of the fray, it was willing to follow him through the door without being dragged. The dog is a bit of a sidetrack, since there are so many possibilities with it.

The question of why RG went inside the house, leaving the scene on the porch for several minutes, seems very strange under the circumstances.

According to Sdel, there was no mention of a time interval RG was in the house. The “several minutes” was asserted by Eggbutt.

[MHM]

Ditto.