Who is antagonizing whom? Who have I called a liar about this hearing?
11 Likes
One one hand yes, he could have used the opportunity to conceal something. On the other, a dog running around isnât going to make for a very secure scene either, especially with more first responders on the way.
That is a valid point. I would imagine officers would want to follow everything by the book so that the case doesnât get damaged by improper procedure.
My attorney friend is interested in a case in Ohio where a doctor is facing 25 counts of murder. Because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, the charges may be dismissed. It is to be decided Friday.
4 Likes
But for a trial/crime sceneâŠ.the prior is more important. Criminal cases are over turned/acquitted based on improper evidence procedures. It is probably not a minor consideration that he left the control of the police officer. If RG was not searched prior to leaving the officers sight, the state has no independent evidence to prove that he didnât have a gun small enough to fit inside a purse or a knife hidden in a pocket that was used to threaten MB. That is even more true if the police did not conduct a search of the house as well.
21 Likes
Yes, to this, however, whatâs important is not what one would think or feel about their dog or their dog v. their injured loved one. The point is: why was anyone allowed to go inside the dwelling unaccompanied before the scene was secured?
I remember watching a documentary and hearing an LEO say, you donât allow people into an unsecured building b/c you donât know who else or what else is in there. Who will come out, how many will come out, will they be armed, etc.?
So, one LEO shows up and asks who the shooter was. A person in control of another person says, he was. The LEO then allows that first person to go into the house (who cares for what reason, forget the dog altogether). Turns out, that person was the shooter and just went in and got another firearm and now comes out and either shoots more people, including the LEO, or does a suicide by cop.
NB: NOT that I think this is what happened, just the really simple reason you donât allow people to leave a crime scene and enter a building unattended before everything is sorted out. Iâm really shocked that officer allowed this to happen, for his own safety if nothing else.
Thatâs the reason people are talking about RG going into the house. Itâs not about the dog, itâs about the proper handing of the crime scene and all actors therein.
35 Likes
Yes. he is supposed to know that. And the way he should have known that is that the LEO is supposed to tell him that by making it very clear no one goes anywhere until things are secured and stabilised.
Sure you would if youâd been told clearly and firmly, stay where I can see you and keep your hands where I can see them until I tell you itâs under control and you can move around again. Thatâs really super standard.
13 Likes
Good explanation. If I took away the names from this event, I would still think it odd, so itâs nothing to do with the persons involved. I can see (as I stated earlier) why RG would want to remove the dog from the scene. However, I would think the officer wouldâve requested him to restrain the dog and remain in sight with hands where he could see them, or something along those lines. It is a risk to let someone out of sight, I would think.
Even though LK said MB shot her on the 911 call, and RG also said MB was the shooter, how would you know, as a random officer first on the scene, thatâs really the case? Iâm not saying it wasnât the case, but thinking objectively here, would I automatically just believe what was said? Iâm not the police, obviously, so I may be way off here, but even if I heard this situation told to me without names Iâd still have questions. Not because I automatically assume that anyone did anything wrong, but because I, as a not police officer, donât understand it. My questions are just out of purely not knowing and understanding, not suggesting anything nefarious.
14 Likes
This is huge for me. This is what Iâd hammer home if I had to defend someone in this situation. Why would you believe any one person at that scene and believe them to the point of restraining one party and allowing the other free rein in and around the scene? That seems against any police protocol Iâve every heard of and also against the best interests of the LEO him or herself. What if you believed the wrong person?
Again, as you say, all this is true without any names attached. Also, all three of those people are highly interested parties and hugely biased (I would be, too!) so it is especially strange to just believe the only one still speaking right off the bat and proceed as though his version is unassailable. It doesnât stand to reason at all.
25 Likes
Did someone ever say 1.) someone was allowed to go INTO a dwelling (besides an animal)
Or
2.) the scene and most importantly, EVERY person (including we two victims) were NOT searched and âsecured?â
No. And, no.
2 Likes
This is probably what the civil suit meant about the extreme bias of the police officers as evidenced by their reports to the 911 calls.
13 Likes
Yes, and Iâm 100% not saying that RG wasnât telling the truth. He may, in fact, be doing just that.
But, why, as the LEO, would I believe it with no further investigation AND allow the one person who seems to have gotten away fairly unscathed to swan about the place?
It would be a shame if big mistakes like that allowed the actual shooter to get away with it, b/c that seems a really big mistake.
19 Likes
I agree. Itâs very odd and very interesting that he would just grab the dog and leave the officerâs sight prior to being searched at the very least. RG may not have known not to go inside⊠it should have been up to the officer to say otherwise. Iâm also not assuming that RG had some other motive to go inside though. I have no way of knowing.
9 Likes
Agreed, Iâm not assuming he had any motive other than securing the dog. But, it does not look good for the prosecution that he was not properly searched and questioned before being allowed to roam unattended through the crime scene.
In fact, if RGâs story is 100% correct and he had nothing to hide and was only securing the dog, itâs even sadder b/c such a lapse in protocol could mean the shooter getting off and that would be a total miscarriage of justice.
10 Likes
They wouldnât. They didnât & what do you mean by âallowing the other free rein in and around the scene?â Were you there? Or on the âother side of the world,â as you earlier asserted? But hey, I guess if thatâs something Bilinkas brings up (he will not) he will âdrive the point home,â like you! Then again, there is thing called âevidence,â and by âdiscovery,â he would have that evidence.
OhâŠ. And you being the âIvy educated attorney,â who is employed by a âtop 10 global firmâ - I (not a lawyer) donât need to explain to you the extreme likelihood that the DA presented this very evidence before a Grand Jury! And, in light of this evidence, Barisone was, in fact, indicted on ALL charges - âas is.â!
Here, Iâll list them for you:
2 counts of FIRST DEGREE ATTEMPTED MURDER (premeditated)
2 counts of SECOND DEGREE Weapons Used for Unlawful Purposes charges.
True bill. True bill. True bill.
3 Likes
Can we stop with the insults and BS. We all realize someone has a particular narrative they have to project but the rest of us are merely discussing facts as have been presented in legal documents and hearings and then speculating, imagining, guessing, rehashing and doing it all over again. We are not a jury or prosecutors or defense attorneys. This is a social forum. Period. If someone doesnât like the discussion they donât have to participate. But the snide remarks are totally uncalled for.
23 Likes
If they are about me, I truly do not read them so no worries. Unless someone quotes them I am blissfully unaware. 
I really do wonder about the safety of the responding officers with the way it was handled. Iâm really curious what we are going to learn at trial about these details. Will the actual trial be streamed like yesterdayâs hearing, does anyone know?
9 Likes
The Nancy Jaffer article about yesterdayâs hearing states MB blacked out from the time CPS started questioning him to when he was in the hospital.
4 Likes
Nothing has been mentioned about a streaming trial as far as I know. Do any of us have 3 weeks to watch it all?
2 Likes
I think so. The judge said in a previous hearing that there were only 3 courtrooms capable of hosting a jury and complying with social distancing.
1 Like
Sure do.
3 Likes
