So you agree with me?
Interesting.
For someone posting so much, you really don’t have much depth to your convictions.
7 Likes
Perhaps not, but quite obvious. It’s all good.
One would hope…at least with a competent PD. But the question is, is anything from those illegally installed devices that she also bragged about on SM admissible in court?
3 Likes
You can define “bogus” however you want.
I do not think the call to CPS was bogus, so I don’t agree with you.
You’re the one who needles me asking for a response, then complains I’m posting too much! I guess I should have seen that coming.
I will not respond to your needling in the future! Ciao.
4 Likes
I do believe I have posted extensive evidence that IM has consistently been wrong about LK’s cameras. He says they were only at the house, and only on when they were away to catch intruders. There are several statements from LK that directly contradict her sworn discovery as to location, timing, and nature of the video recording as well as the claims made by IM, the ones you claim are so well validated….
Let me know if anyone wants a screen shot review….
16 Likes
That’s not the question that matters to me. IM has said that he thinks the prosecutor has a strong enough case that he probably won’t bother trying to get them admitted.
2 Likes
Ay yi yi.
Just curious. What was the date of the posts in those screenshots?
Not sure if the date on the upper left was the date of the post, or the date of the screenshot?
6 Likes
She posted them the morning of August 7, 2019. The screen shots were captured the next day before they could be scrubbed.
1 Like
The bottom of Lauren’s post says “1d” so it was more than 24 but fewer than 48 hours after the post was made, if my understanding of FB’s display time is correct.
ETA: the file info says 8-7-19, which agrees with the display date of 8-8-19 being “1d” after the post.
4 Likes
Holy cow. Wow. Very interesting. Thanks.
2 Likes
Quite a bit of her SM was scrubbed or set to private, but the vast majority was screen printed as quickly as possible beginning the evening of the shooting.
4 Likes
There were things said on Twitter too.
3 Likes
Lol
Your response to me are vague and usually don’t answer the actual question. And therefore I ask for clarification.
Then you bristle.
But yes, my few comments are the explanation for your volume of comments. 
3 Likes
LK’s response to LS’s blog post can reasonably be interpreted as intimidation, as spelled out by other posters here. Nobody is required to agree with it, but the perspective has been explained.
You keep asking why @MorganSercu specifically describes it as intimidation, when a generic and easily understood explanation has been provided.
Why?
11 Likes
So, beginning the evening of the shooting, the vast majority of her SM was screen printed by …. you?
3 Likes
On 8/7, the day she was shot?
That’s an interesting action to take, Scrubbing her social media, considering the seriousness of her medical situation.
5 Likes
How do you feel about trash talking a woman who lost her young child? Someone who can dish out something this breathtakingly vulgar and cruel forfeits forever the right to claim sensitivity to comments about her most traumatic experience.
Above copied/quoted from @MorganSercu s earlier post -
The sad thing about this is rather than hold LK accountable for her behavior and actions, her victim is ridiculed.
Some of you have asked why RC, being a trained professional, didn’t recognize MB’s mental state. Why didn’t LK’s family do anything about this type of behavior years ago? As far as RC, perhaps she recognized LK’s mental state and was much more concerned about the danger she represented above MB’s frame of mind. We may get that answer when she testifies.
17 Likes
Indeed.
Similar to the dad and boyfriend going back to the barn/house the following day.
16 Likes
It certainly became locked down and perhaps erased a very short time after the shooting, while she was still in the hospital as I recall.
2 Likes
By a number of people in various states!
6 Likes
