Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

As OMGitsme explained, the post above is a different post than the one I was referring to.

I do not claim to have read all FB posts in this issue.

Then stop doubling down and pretending you know all the facts.

[hut-ho78]

@MHM

@hut-ho78

Post 42 on the Barisone Threads in Technical forum is LK’s version of the exchange with KM.

Lk’s version? You mean LK, the one who admitted under oath on the stand that she lies a lot on social media?

That’s your response? Really? Ok. Yes. That one. The posts that eggbutt said always contain a kernel of truth.

What was kind of funny was when she said KM was responding to her messages with “boring” and “yawn” so didn’t seem very upset.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I may not have been clear, but I was referring to one particular post that did not say what some people interpreted it say.

I did not claim there was no post in the universe that made the statement. Apparently there is. OMGitsme is in that FB circle I’m not.

You’re right that it is theoretically possible that LK owns a Walther and posted once that she owned a Walther, then posted again that she owned a Ruger.

But that just seems incredibly unlikely.

If you didn’t believe there was no claim in the universe about the friend having seen or heard the recordings, then why did you spend SO MUCH TIME arguing against it?

Why does it seem unlikely that there are more than one post from LK that contradict each other? I can find any number of posts from her that do. Why is that unlikely? She also said she owned two guns and then testified one was never picked up from the pawn shop. Hmmmmmm…

[Omgitsme]

[erinmeri]

@hut-ho78

That’s your response? Really? Ok. Yes. That one. The posts that eggbutt said always contain a kernel of truth.

What was kind of funny was when she said KM was responding to her messages with “boring” and “yawn” so didn’t seem very upset.

Okay, let’s be clear: the best lies contain kernels of truth - not ALL lies. Say there is a kernel of truth in some (or let’s go WILD, all) of LK’s lies… how do you decide which kernel is true? How do you decide which lie is credible when they contradict? In your world, you seem to just accept the lie whole cloth. Because, ya know… kernel of truth.

ETA, won’t speak on behalf of KM, but given she has a legal background and knew LK was posturing… maybe that is why the yawns? Maybe it’s a tactic to use with bullies (don’t let them get a rise out of you, and all). Whatever she meant, LK’s threatening to sue is NOT funny. Whether or not she had merit, it would cost the respondent $$$. And that isn’t a laughing matter. Do you also think LK’s harassment of people is funny?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

I may not have been clear, but I was referring to one particular post that did not say what some people interpreted it say.

I did not claim there was no post in the universe that made the statement. Apparently there is. OMGitsme is in that FB circle I’m not.

You’re right that it is theoretically possible that LK owns a Walther and posted once that she owned a Walther, then posted again that she owned a Ruger.

But that just seems incredibly unlikely.

If you didn’t believe there was no claim in the universe about the friend having seen or heard the recordings, then why did you spend SO MUCH TIME arguing against it?

Why does it seem unlikely that there are more than one post from LK that contradict each other? I can find any number of posts from her that do. Why is that unlikely? She also said she owned two guns and then testified one was never picked up from the pawn shop. Hmmmmmm…

My point was that in the one particular post I was referring to, if read in the context on the whole sentence, including the qualifying clause “Even if I heard the recordings, …” that post did not establish that the friend had heard the recordings. Some posters had used that particular post to say that friend had heard the recordings.

Stripping a phrase from a full sentence with qualifying clauses that greatly change the meaning of the sentence happens a lot. The other example just today is Sdel (?) claiming LK lied under oath and committed perjury by saying she never edited or deleted her posts. The statement by LK under oath was more like “Generally, I don’t edit or delete posts, except in the case of duplicate posts or posts made in error.” That statement is not honestly or accurately summarized as “I don’t edit or delete posts.”

What I’m arguing against is the extremely frequent gross mischaracterizarion of posts.

[MHM]

Still more word salad.

[eggbutt]

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

My point was that in the one particular post I was referring to, if read in the context on the whole sentence, including the qualify clause “Even if I heard the recordings, …” that post did not establish that the friend had heard the recordings. Some posters had used that particular post to say that friend had heard the recordings.

Stripping a clause from a full sentence with qualifying clauses that greatly change the meaning happens a lot. The other example just today is Sdel (?) claiming LK lied under oath by saying she never edited or deleted her posts. The statement by LK under oath was more like “Generally, I don’t edit or delete posts , except in the case of duplicate posts or posts made in error.” That statement is not honestly or accurately summarized as “I don’t edit or delete posts.”

What I’m arguing against is the extremely frequent gross mischaracterizarion of posts.

You are grossly mischaracterizing the tenure of LK’s statement under oath in context of her behavior here on COTH.

Don’t go all English professor and try to change the nature of your argument. You are purposely attempting to be slippery. Girlfriend, I read for comprehension and I consider context.

Wanna talk about context? On what planet are whatever words Lauren used true or honest given what she did here time and time again until she was banned? Is contradicting oneself “duplication” or “posting in error”? If she says she generally does not engage in the behavior (editing and deleting) that we have all witnessed countless times except when it is in cases of duplication or error? Well, that seems disingenuous based on what we ALL have witnessed. So I ask you, is that not LYING UNDER OATH? It is our observation, as witnesses to the behavior that she testified to that does not agree with what we witnessed. How is that for context? Curious your thoughts on that…

[RND]

@trubandloki

Are you trying to say that there is a better chance that a bunch of people are making up having seen the post than LK posting something and then deleting or editing it?

Isn’t it a little odd that no one took a screen shot of the supposed post where LK stated she had a Ruger or two? I mean, it’s pretty clear from what has been posted here that many people were taking screen shots of her various social media posts, yet not one of you took a screen shot of the post that everyone is claiming she said she had a specific type of gun?

Most of the people posting here have been very clear that they want a certain overarching narrative to be true - that LK is a demon who deserves nothing but the worst of everything that life has to offer - and those people are heavily biased against all things LK, so I would certainly not trust any of them who claim LK posted something that none of them can produce a screen shot proving that claim. If it really did happen, at least one LK hater would have screen shot it, and it would be all over this forum. Let’s be realistic here for once.

And before anyone accuses me of being an LK supporter, I would like to remind you that you can easily see my previous posts regarding my opinion of her so don’t waste your time labeling me like that. I am simply able to see LK for who she is while also understanding that she doesn’t deserve what all of you constantly, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, do to her and her family here. It’s absolutely hideous. Two wrongs don’t make a right; be better than the people you are trashing here (yes, I know that will fall on deaf ears).

[ohnoO]

@ekat

Yeah, the one that was small enough to fit in her purse that she hadn’t cleaned in a year was also still on layaway, per her testimony. She admitted to owning the one that holds 18 in the mag, but she checked and it only holds 17. I’m still not sure how that makes any sense. If it’s never been in your possession, why would you need to clean it?

I haven’t caught up, but wanted to say that I watched some of her testimony again over the weekend and IIRC, the gun that fits in her purse is the one she owns/hasn’t cleaned. I don’t remember if it’s also the one that holds 17/18 rounds—seems like a lot of rounds for a gun that fits in a purse?

The one on layaway was bigger and she put on layaway the same time she bought the smaller one. That all sounds fishy to me.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

OK, Eggbutt, that’s funny.

[FitzE]

@CurrentlyHorseless

My point was that in the one particular post I was referring to

Do you have a screenshot of that post that you are going on and on and on about? You must, since you speak about the contents so authoritatively. The one @Omgitsme posted is the only one I remember. It may be the only one most people remember. Can you provide the one you remember that has inspired you to lecture on sentence structure at such length?

Or, is the addition of an ‘even if’ perhaps the way it was edited once someone questioned the criminal implications of not only making, but also distributing and receiving illegal wiretapping recordings?

When one lies like a cheap, cheap rug and one’s friends are willing to back up those lies and lie themselves, the possibilities of what’s out there are endless.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

The other example just today is Sdel (?) claiming LK lied under oath by saying she never edited or deleted her posts. The statement by LK under oath was more like “Generally, I don’t edit or delete posts , except in the case of duplicate posts or posts made in error.”

That's a twist

Excellent question. How would MorganSercu know any information whatsoever contained in the SS report? Actually, that’s a better question for me to ask SS & direct them to this thread. Although, by all means, @MorganSercu please share!

These screenshots are from an EDIT of the post above (Mod 1 reset the post to remove the edit). Which set of screenshots are you suggesting was duplicate or an error? Forgive me, there may be quite a bit of overlap on the screenshots……

And there were obviously a lot more of edited after closing posts…

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

My point was that in the one particular post I was referring to, if read in the context on the whole sentence, including the qualifying clause “Even if I heard the recordings, …” that post did not establish that the friend had heard the recordings. Some posters had used that particular post to say that friend had heard the recordings.

Nope. That isn’t what you said. You generalized.

I don’t know how to do multiple quotes, so here are my screenshots:

[SillyHorse]

“I don’t edit or delete except when I edit or delete” (paraphrase, not a direct quote) reminds me of an expression we used in our family when it was appropriate. The expression was, “It’s exactly the same, only different.”

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

My point was that in the one particular post I was referring to, if read in the context on the whole sentence, including the qualify clause “Even if I heard the recordings, …” that post did not establish that the friend had heard the recordings. Some posters had used that particular post to say that friend had heard the recordings.

Stripping a clause from a full sentence with qualifying clauses that greatly change the meaning happens a lot. The other example just today is Sdel (?) claiming LK lied under oath by saying she never edited or deleted her posts. The statement by LK under oath was more like “Generally, I don’t edit or delete posts , except in the case of duplicate posts or posts made in error.” That statement is not honestly or accurately summarized as “I don’t edit or delete posts.”

What I’m arguing against is the extremely frequent gross mischaracterizarion of posts.

You are grossly mischaracterizing the tenure of LK’s statement under oath in context of her behavior here on COTH.

Don’t go all English professor and try to change the nature of your argument. You are purposely attempting to be slippery. Girlfriend, I read for comprehension and I consider context.

Wanna talk about context? On what planet are whatever words Lauren used true or honest given what she did here time and time again until she was banned? Is contradicting oneself “duplication” or “posting in error”? If she says she generally does not engage in the behavior (editing and deleting) that we have all witnessed countless times except when it is in cases of duplication or error? Well, that seems disingenuous based on what we ALL have witnessed. So I ask you, is that not LYING UNDER OATH? It is our observation, as witnesses to the behavior that she testified to that does not agree with what we witnessed. How is that for context? Curious your thoughts on that…

I’ve already said, I think the statement was written by her lawyer. It was not in response to a question “Do you edit or delete much on DM?”

It was a response to a demand she provide documentation of all her deletes and edits to posts on SM!

The response was something like:

Objection that the request is overly broad and burdensome. I generally don’t edit or delete much on SM, except in cases of duplicate posts or posts made in error.

I’m not an English professor, or a lawyer, but my interpretation is: ‘Well, I don’t edit or delete stuff, except when I do.’ The words are true because they contain a loophole big enough to drive a semi tractor through.

Disingenuous? Yes.
A non answer? Yes.
Perjury? IANAL, but I’m guessing no.

I’m not “purposely attempting to be slippery”. If you think my opinion is grossly stupid, that’s fine. But lay off pretending you know that I’m “attempting to be slippery”.

Do you imagine her lawyer would have recommended she commit perjury rather than admit to (gasp) editing SM posts?

[Danvers]

Oh, my. Imagine if these people put this turning and stirring into something productive and worthwhile in the world… instead they turn their gifts/ability into guile and cleverness, into things that are nonproductive and harmful to the population… It is clearly a disorder aka sociopaths - I don’t say that lightly - I was married to one - I know the disease and the behavior and it doesn’t end up well… Thank God I got out! (I nearly did die… but I got out and my family helped me - these people are no joke and I lost every penny I had. Every. Single. Penny. In my savings and bank account. took it all - I was advised to "to just get away from him - no matter the price and let him keep it all and be free of him) Being Elsa helps - I do scroll by the KK kheering squad and only read responses to those posts, from posters I respect and are balanced and thoughtful in their responses.

Sorry, made a few edits because a lot of this brings back memories - I have heard it all before in a different form - thank God I had an escape route… my family and friends got me out - I was living over seas which complicated things…Sorry for sharing my sciocopath experience - but it all rings true - so much of this rings true… and I lost everything, $$$, possessions, but I lived. I came back, got a job, and built myself back up. (no I did not attack or shoot anyone, I was the one that needed to go into surgery) Michael, I know you will do the same!

[erinmeri]

@RND

I am simply able to see LK for who she is while also understanding that she doesn’t deserve what all of you constantly, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, do to her and her family here. It’s absolutely hideous. Two wrongs don’t make a right; be better than the people you are trashing here (yes, I know that will fall on deaf ears).

Bolding mine. Honest question, since you and I have occasionally seen eye to eye…

1. what is she to you if you “see her for what she is”?
2. how is posting about or ruminating about her behavior either “not deserved” or “hideous”?
3. how is ruminating on facts of the court “trashing her here [sic]”?

[ekat]

All of that testimony is so confusing. After the whole layaway story, there’s this exchange:

Mr B: With regards to your statements concerning owning two guns both Walthers, nine millimeter pistols one takes 18 in the mag and one in the chamber the other is small enough to fit in my purse. I haven’t cleaned it in a year.

LK: Yeah, I was actually referring to the one I had, not the one I didn’t have yet, but yes I wrote that.

Mr B: Which one is the one that holds 18 in the magazine?

LK: The one that I actually have possession of. I’m pretty sure it’s 17 now that I checked it like recently.

This is at approximately 5hrs, 27 minutes of day 3.

And this is Mr B’s glance at the jury during that whole exchange…