Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[SillyHorse]

@CurrentlyHorseless

So FitzE, as a transactional lawyer, has deemed the recordings illegal, while no charges have been issued by the state.

Why do you do this? Really, why?

[eggbutt]

@SillyHorse

@CurrentlyHorseless

So FitzE, as a transactional lawyer, has deemed the recordings illegal, while no charges have been issued by the state.

Why do you do this? Really, why?

Currentlyhorseless is always going to be wrong about the NGI verdict. They either refuse to understand or don’t want to. Do not engage this refusal to accept and/understand the verdict. This poster and others delight in keeping the pot stirred about the verdict, the gun, the recordings or anything else they can get a rise out of other posters. Don’t respond and let them take their alternate reality to other SM platforms.

[Aussie_2020]

This post is so cool, it’s as tho FitzE is channeling Peter Ustinov (Poirot) in the movie Death on the Nile! Poirot explains the “if” in the maids statement to Colonel Race.

[MHM]

I believe there’s a new version of that movie out now, although I have not seen it yet.

I don’t know if Kenneth Branagh really measures up as Poirot, but I appreciate the fact that somebody is updating a classic anyway.

[SillyHorse]

@eggbutt

Currentlyhorseless is always going to be wrong about the NGI verdict. They either refuse to understand or don’t want to. Do not engage this refusal to accept and/understand the verdict. This poster and others delight in keeping the pot stirred about the verdict, the gun, the recordings or anything else they can get a rise out of other posters. Don’t respond and let them take their alternate reality to other SM platforms.

You’re right, of course. I should take my own advice, proffered in these threads, not to respond to CH and one or two others.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

@CurrentlyHorseless

I was not following these threads closely in 2019 and did not see that post of Sdel.

The one particular post I was referring to was the first Shelly one. Thanks for finding it. It is inarticulate and muddled, and does not establish that she heard the audios.

I agree the second Shelly post, which I had not seen before, does clearly assert that she’s heard the audios.

This is patently and demonstrably untrue. You responded to this post by Sdel. It’s post #1716 of the same thread. You also called the post “very inarticulate and muddled” back then which, conspiracy theories aside, I find very curious given your post above. You built your whole ‘who could possibly know what she means’ back then when both of her posts were right in front of you. You even copied @Sdel’s post in your reply (see below).

So, you WERE following in 2019, you DID see both posts and, if you understand English construction, the first one DOES establish that she heard them while the 2nd one confirms it for those thrown off by her copious grammatical mistakes.

@Sdel

Well, in light of last night’s postings…

@Sdel

Is that the FB post you were referring to?

Shelley starts with “even if … “. She could be saying “even if … I heard the recordings”, which would suggest that she had not heard the recordings.

She could be saying she heard the recordings. It’s very inarticulate and muddled, as posts on FB often are.

I am upgrading from my 5 lb salt block to: that’s a meaningless post; impossible to know whether she is trying to say she did or didn’t hear the recordings.

The police will have taken all the digital evidence- the hard drive on the audio recorder, the cell phones and laptops (seems likely that LK may have audio or video taken on her cell phone), and gotten access to the video recordings from the house on the cloud (if any).

How do you imagine this Shelley person would have gotten access to any recordings of any type? [/quote]

The post of Sdel’s that you quoted is not from 2019, it is from March 19, 2022, about six weeks ago. Do you see where the title of the thread in your quoting of Sdel’s post is “Barisone Trial this Month”? I responded to the post the same day, March 19, 2022, with the post you quoted (inarticulate/muddled/5 lb salt block …)

Whether Sdel was posting on March 19, 2022 a screen shot of Lauren’s from 2019, I don’t know. I’m not asking you to check. Since I responded the same day, that’s the day of the posting or reposting in which I saw the top Shelley post.

At the time, March 19, 2022, apparently I did not remark on the second Shelley post, which uses fewer words and is more clear. It looks like no one brought the second Shelley post to my attention at the time, they just disputed my interpretation of the first post.

Anyway, the first Shelley post in that March 19,
2022 is the particular post I was referring to.

I have said that I’ve been following the Barisone threads from the beginning, but the first couple years my following was very sporadic and casual. I have only been following closely since the fall, as I said above. In the early threads, actual factual information was extremely sparse, and the LK bashing was even worse- not my cup of tea.

There is probably a lot of stuff in the early threads that I didn’t read or have forgotten. For the most part it didn’t bother me to jump in late in the game, since the threads are so incredibly repetitive. And here you are going back for more repetition.

[FitzE]

Well, since we were treated to a couple English lectures and some references to how lawyers and courts ‘do’ English - if the moustache fits…

[eggbutt]

I really enjoyed his interpretation in the recent Death on the Nile.

[MHM]

I haven’t seen it yet, but I’m sure I will at some point.

I did enjoy his version of Murder on the Orient Express, although the original cast was so iconic in the first version that it was a little hard to set aside the memory of them.

That first version really had a tremendous collection of heavy hitters in it.

[FitzE]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It looks like no one brought the second Shelley post to my attention at the time, they just disputed my interpretation of the first post.

Why is that someone else’s job? Why did you not read the whole very short string of posts before launching into this theory that it was ‘impossible’ to know what Shelley meant? I mean, I guess it is ‘impossible’, if you cannot even be bothered to read her very next post. It’s not like you have to wade through a lot of them. That level of laziness is remarkable especially when making such strong pronouncements as “that’s a meaningless post; impossible to know whether she is trying to say she did or didn’t hear the recordings.”

Sorry, should I say, CH, not a lawyer or English professor, has deemed Shelley’s posts meaningless and impossible to interpret.

I see the date now. I could not and still cannot get the quote function to quote both Sdel’s post and your reply. But, I did just figure out how to get the link so, progress…

Barisone Trial This Month

@Sdel Is that the FB post you were referring to? Shelley starts with “even if … “. She could be saying “even if … I heard the recordings”, which would suggest that she had not heard the recordings. She could be saying she heard the recordings. It’s very inarticulate and muddled, as posts on FB often are. I am upgrading from my 5 lb salt block to: that’s a meaningless post; impossible to know whether she is trying to say she did or didn’t hear the recordings. The police will have taken al…

For me, it’s not repetition. I’m only just up for the day and responding to your post directed at me. A response is not repetition. I see plain English is a foreign concept. I deem that to be a shame as it makes communications much more difficult.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

@CurrentlyHorseless

So FitzE, as a transactional lawyer, has deemed the recordings illegal, while no charges have been issued by the state.

Charges don’t have to be issued for something to be illegal. I clearly articulated why I ‘think’ they are illegal. In fact, I used the term ‘thought’, so I did not ‘deem’ anything anything. I walked you through the 2 main reasons I think at least some of the recordings are illegal. You either, once again as in 2019, didn’t read the whole post or didn’t understand the English of the explanation of why I think some are illegal or just ignored it for the purposes of being snarky to me.

I agree that just because no charges were brought does not necessarily mean the recordings are legal. I also think I understand your position as to why you think they are illegal.

It is not clear to me whether they are legal or illegal, for two reasons: 1. For a recording device in a tack locker, high priced lawyers could argue whether there is an expectation of privacy, or not, all day long. 2. In some states, reasonable belief that a discussion of crime being committed will be recorded is explicitly written into the law as making otherwise illegal recordings, legal. I’m not sure what the law is in NJ.

The recordings of Barisone and company were not used in the criminal trial. It will be interesting to see if they play any role in the civil trial.

[FitzE]

@MHM

I don’t know if Kenneth Branagh really measures up as Poirot, but I appreciate the fact that somebody is updating a classic anyway.

I saw just the first 30 mins or so on a plane not too long ago. He seemed to make a good Poirot. I was on a Branagh boycott for a long time b/c of the way he treated Emma Thomson (nothing awful, just cheating and leaving, but she’s my fave so…). But I broke that boycott seeing Harry Potter with the kids. He made a perfect Gilderoy Lockhart!

And I did enjoy Belfast which, though idealised and stylised to the hilt, was nonetheless a lovely experience and I really enjoyed all the performances.

[MHM]

@CurrentlyHorseless

And here you are going back for more repetition.

Wow.

Seriously??

You’re criticizing someone else for repetition?!?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

@CurrentlyHorseless

It looks like no one brought the second Shelley post to my attention at the time, they just disputed my interpretation of the first post.

Why is that someone else’s job? Why did you not read the whole very short string of posts before launching into this theory that it was ‘impossible’ to know what Shelley meant? I mean, I guess it is ‘impossible’, if you cannot even be bothered to read her very next post. It’s not like you have to wade through a lot of them. That level of laziness is remarkable especially when making such strong pronouncements as “that’s a meaningless post; impossible to know whether she is trying to say she did or didn’t hear the recordings.”

Sorry, should I say, CH, not a lawyer or English professor, has deemed Shelley’s posts meaningless and impossible to interpret.

I see the date now. I could not and still cannot get the quote function to quote both Sdel’s post and your reply. But, I did just figure out how to get the link so, progress…

Barisone Trial This Month

For me, it’s not repetition. I’m only just up for the day and responding to your post directed at me. A response is not repetition. I see plain English is a foreign concept. I deem that to be a shame as it makes communications much more difficult.

I apologize for not paying more attention on March 19, 2022 to the set of FB posts in order to notice and pay attention to the second Shelley post.

I’m glad you noticed that the post was dated March 19, 2022, six weeks ago, and not March 2019, which would have been before the shooting. If you couldn’t see the date, I don’t understand on what basis you were saying the post was from 2019.

This seems real repetitive to me. On both topics.

Ciao.

[FitzE]

Well spotted!

Also, I slept through whatever the dust up was, so I may be a bit clueless here this morning.

[Jenerationx]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It is not clear to me whether they are legal or illegal, for two reasons: 1. For a recording device in a tack locker, high priced lawyers could argue whether there is an expectation of privacy, or not, all day long. 2. In some states, reasonable belief that a discussion of crime being committed will be recorded is explicitly written into the law as making otherwise illegal recordings, legal. I’m not sure what the law is in NJ.

You realize anyone can find that easily enough, right?

New Jersey’s wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. New Jersey makes it a crime to intercept or record an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents . N.J. Stat. §§ 2A:156A-3, -4.

So, if none of the parties consented to being recorded in a private conversation, not legal.

[MHM]

@FitzE

@MHM

I don’t know if Kenneth Branagh really measures up as Poirot, but I appreciate the fact that somebody is updating a classic anyway.

I saw just the first 30 mins or so on a plane not too long ago. He seemed to make a good Poirot. I was on a Branagh boycott for a long time b/c of the way he treated Emma Thomson

I think maybe because he is so firmly British in my mind it was hard for me to adjust to the idea of him playing Poirot, who’s so overwhelmingly Belgian in the books and in previous movie versions.

I really enjoyed the version Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson did of Much Ado About Nothing back in the day.

I also thought she was super in Sense and Sensibility, and I believe she ended up finding her next husband on that film, so hopefully they all went on with their lives and had happy endings. Plus I think she won an Oscar for it. Good for her!

[MHM]

Don’t worry, you didn’t miss much. Just more of the typical yinging and yanging from a couple of the usual suspects. Lol.

[trubandloki]

@MHM

Don’t worry, you didn’t miss much. Just more of the typical yinging and yanging from a couple of the usual suspects. Lol.

Well, and it was proven that LK is not the only one who likes to attack people when they learn of a person’s weakness in an attempt to win some battle that person did not know they were in.

[FitzE]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If you couldn’t see the date, I don’t understand on what basis you were saying the post was from 2019.

I saw “Mar 19” on my teeny phone screen and thought it indicated the year, not the day.

Which is the bigger goof, that I misread a date or that you (i) didn’t even read the second Shelley post an inch below the first before developing your elaborate ‘it’s impossible’ theory upon which you expounded endlessly and repeated here 6 weeks later, or (ii) claimed you never saw either Sdel’s post (to which you actually replied and in which the ‘inarticulate and muddled’ campaign was first formed) OR Shelley’s second post (which was copied in your very own reply)?

Those two ‘oops!’ along with your recent Latin gaff (which was, ironically, repeated) really diminish the ‘gotcha’ you are obviously try to make about my having misinterpreted the dating of an older post.

Ta-ta!