I was quoting what you said earlier, which was that “they had the whole situation on tape.” I agree that it’s hard to make sense of this without a transcript. Video vs recording, incident vs situation. The interpretation is very different depending on the specific word.
How would an “ear witness” from a phone call provide “video”?
Bumping this for readers.
Good to see that this thread has returned to discussing the developments in the case, per the recent court testimony by one of the officers involved.
We’re not going to go back and micromanage every post with personal commentary from last night and beyond.
If users chooses to post their own identities on the site in their posts, they have chosen to make it available to other users, so we’re not going to ban a user for referencing that information. We did remove the posts, however, because they were largely composed of insults and personal commentary.
This situation and others like it, where there is a public event/court case that is understandably going to be discussed on the site, and involved parties choose to participate in the discussion, are very difficult to moderate. The situation involves “personal commentary” about the parties involved by nature, so it’s somewhat understandable when those parties respond with “personal commentary” of their own about those discussing them, their motivations, actions, etc.
Clearly, last night, the thread devolved into blatant name calling and insults. There are obviously many parties, directly involved or looking in from the outside, that want to discuss or have their perspectives heard in a public forum. That’s fine and we’re trying to give leeway to do that with the understanding that this is an emotional/passionate topic for many. But please keep the focus on the events and observations related to the cases/incident vs. sniping at each other.
There is likely a transcript available, or will be.
I have no knowledge on how long those take to become available via freedom of information, but I would guess it will be available.
I am new to this series and am finding it fascinating! I apologize in advance if this has been previously discussed, however, I can’t wrap my mind around why LK and RG didn’t leave MB’s farm when asked. Who wants to stay somewhere they aren’t welcome?
Incorrect.
YES. Many of us here have done exactly that through the course of many threads. I would repeat that on this thread as many of LaLa’s comments may not be helping her case but I am not a legal eagle or beagle… so there is that.
But yes, @Jealoushe, we were called “jealous” …
Posters in this thread have not joined together to support MB and hate LK.
No one in this thread is jealous of LK. Or MB. Or anyone else involved. No one worships Barisone in any way whatsoever - there is that tiresome and ridiculous “fangirl” claim again.
But moving on…
My “ilk” simply wants to discuss the case. I was interested to see that there was a new thread and started reading. The discussion was interesting - especially about the lack of proper police procedures to secure the scene… and many posters correctly expressed concerns that that could harm LK’s case. Good discussion sorted out what might have happened, examined the firearm issues, ended up dismissing the dog issue as not relevant… etc.
I am glad that the discussion has returned to the case itself - and gotten past the “interlude”… and I thank those with legal experience and expertise who can help us sort through the layers.
I agree that a transcript - now and in the future - would be useful and interesting.
Like I said, I didn’t take notes, but I thought I heard him say a few minutes because it struck me when he said it, how inappropriate that was.
Hopefully there’s a transcript to clarify.
And if course deeper questioning to clarify during trial.
Many thanks to the moderators here who probably have plenty to do on an average day, much less days like this.
Ooh, yes, a transcript would be useful. That may stop this back and forth “you heard this” but “I heard this” thing that was started. Would be a bit more definite, perhaps.
I’ve also discussed this “jealous” thing before, and I really don’t think that’s the case here. There also isn’t a man involved that anyone worships 
so I’m not sure if some are reading a different thread or what. I wouldn’t put this on the same level as the Trump cult. Yeahhh there’s some narrative fitting, bias, and one sidedness sometimes, but not the same level as the aforementioned cult. Sometimes I think people come in here and inject something outrageous into the conversation with the intent to rile people up. Sadly, it often works and really takes away from the conversation that was being had.
It’s possible that RG had no nefarious plans or ill intentions when he went back to the house with the dog, but it’s just the principle of the matter and the question of procedures. I still don’t know why the recording thing is so unclear. Were there or were there not recordings of the event? It’s simple really. I don’t know why there are various answers to the same question. Recordings would be incredibly helpful to the victim and prosecution I would think. Especially if the events transpired as the victim claims they did. There’s so much “noise” floating around and so many questions. Hopefully as things develop in court, some of the noise (from whatever side it may be) will subside.
*by noise I mean various accounts of what happened, speculations, and contradictions.
It’s been discussed in previous threads a lot. A lot, a lot, a lot.
Nobody’s figured it out yet.
The big word there is “if.”
Amen! It occurs to me, I, and one or two others, have become major targets for a segment of these threads. To me that seems we strike nerves of truth when quoting hearings and documents. It also is not lost on me that Eggbutt is the equivalent of an online MHG who must be destroyed in any way possible. Someone always needs a target.
I too appreciate the moderators. The women mentioned in that post don’t deserve that level of attention.
I think that sometimes it is easier to just spit at some people than to discuss the topic.
I just peeked at the NJ Courts website to see if a decision had been posted (it hasn’t) but there is new “general correspondence” posted that I will post asap. Included with this correspondence is a copy of a manual that I am skimming now. One thing popped out already to me - see photo.
The manual was prepared in 2000 by Janet Reno’s staff. I haven’t been able to determine yet why it is included.
Legally made recordings may be the sticking point.
For my job I had lengthy peace officer training and as I said many posts ago coming upon that scene you call for a wagon and backup depending on which thing you came across first.
You then attend to the fighting males ordering them to cease and desist. They both get cuffed and then you attend to the wounded.
If the dog is fine ignore it. If it poses a risk to the officer it gets shot or tossed into the police car but under no circumstances do you take anyones word. Everybody gets detained and secured until backup arrives. No one leaves the immediate area. No one walks around and certainly no one goes onto the house.
I’m sure there was a bunch of adrenaline running through RG - and though I’ve never seen him in person - RG appears in photos to be a pretty big guy in decent shape. If it’s his dog, and RG is not being manhandled by the LEO, it probably would not be too tough to get the dog in the door.
Last year, the foster dog my friend had went after my SO unprovoked. This was a 60ish pound dog. Friend’s husband dragged the snarling mess of a dog 100 feet to the house with little trouble by the scruff of the neck.
I can see easily how, if it happened as presented in the hearing, that RG took the dog to the house with little trouble. Adrenaline is a powerful thing.
According to IM, the video recording system at the house had a camera pointed toward the back porch area which had very recently been installed, but was not recording at the time because the intent was to use it when the residents were away, or possibly at night.
The kerfuffle in this thread is that the cop’s testimony made reference to RG saying something about having “the situation on tape”. It’s not clear, without the transcript, whether “the situation” or “the whole matter” is a reference to the shooting or to the events in the week leading up to the shooting, or whether the “tapes” refer to video recordings at the house or audio recordings from the barn. Actually, it would probably not be clear even with a transcript. Depending on which interpretation you choose, RGs statement to the cops either does or doesn’t contradict IM’s statement that the video cameras at the house were not recording at the time.
Having a video security camera pointed to your own back yard is not illegal, so if such a recording exists, it seems likely it will be shown at the trial. I can make no sense of the suggestions that RG or anyone else entered the house to tamper with “the tape”, since the video, if it was recording, would have recorded a digital file to the cloud.
I’m guessing that some of the speculation is that there was a second gun, and that RG stashed it in the house and later removed it. However, if the police performed forensic tests on all the bullets recovered and determined that they were all fired from the pink Luger, that speculation seems moot.
If not to remove a second gun or remove video “tapes”, what evidence could RG or anyone else tamper with by entering the house?
Perhaps there was a recording that upon review did not support the intended narrative. So it was - ahem - made to disappear.
And yes, I am speculating. 
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
