Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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?”

This is not how it works. Interrogatories are not answered by lawyers. They are answered by the party to the suit being asked the question. Legally, LK is 100% responsible for that answer.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@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 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 they 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 our there are endless.

There is a screen shot of it back in a previous thread. I don’t take screenshots.

I have no way of knowing if it was edited to add the “even if”. But the “even if … was in the post in the screen shot when some posters were using it as evidence that the friend supposedly had heard the recordings.

I agree with the likelihood of friends sometimes lying to back up the lies of their BFFs.

[hut-ho78]

I really like the emoji. I think it should be your signature on all your posts! LOL!

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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

Did her lawyers also craft this: under oath, in court?

“I don’t recall deleting any posts. That’s more of a Mary Haskins thing.”

Just checking where we stand on that testimony. Technically, yes, she did say she didn’t recall. Perhaps just being a little slippery there as well.

[FitzE]

@CurrentlyHorseless

There is a screen shot of it back in a previous thread. I don’t take screenshots.

No worries; please provide the thread and post number since this post is the basis upon which your latest campaign is built. You always ask everyone else for posts; common courtesy dictates you would not demand of others what you yourself are not willing to provide.

[erinmeri]

I know we”ve discussed, but seeing it writing? just can’t get past the liability waiver conspiracy theory. Anything else in this word salad is lost on me because it’s that wacko. What??? OMG. How clueless. Who amongst us HASN’T signed one of these? I sure have. And I am pretty sure it doesn’t give my trainer the license to kill me. Hop hoy.

[FitzE]

What a titillating accusation - that I lie. Please provide the backup based upon which you make this attack.

There are many things you could level at me in the discussion, but why lying? I’ve not even provided any material here, only commented on/discussed it. To what are you referring?

[Sdel]

You missed another shock and awe related phrase about the next section ranting that MB called CPS on himself and it couldn’t possibly have been because of her SS report…

[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 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:

Where did I generalize? I was talking about the one particular post and did not know of the second post claiming to hear the audios until OMGitsme posted the second one.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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?

If you’re not attempting to be slippery or obtuse, [edit]. Why are you defending the indefensible? It is… odd. The “English Professor” reference was to how you behave and how you attempt to defend your assertions. Not a reference to what I believe your profession to be. English professors don’t typically craft word salad when articulating.

[ekat]

I’ve worked with cops, I’ve had friends in LE, etc and I have never known one to say something like “dumbest murder planner”, especially in that context. Every time I read it, that phrase bugs me.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

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?”

This is not how it works. Interrogatories are not answered by lawyers. They are answered by the party to the suit being asked the question. Legally, LK is 100% responsible for that answer.

I agree LK is responsible for the answer. I assumed she had a right to legal counsel and the lawyer would ghost write for the client.

[FitzE]

@CurrentlyHorseless

There is a screen shot of it back in a previous thread.

Note to all: henceforth when CH demands you do her secretarial work and comb various threads for her, please find above an easy copy-paste reply that she will find acceptable.

You can then go on to assert whatever you are asserting without fear that she will attempt to discredit you if you don’t show the post you remember or reference. She will accept this reply unconditionally since it is the very one she gives herself.

This is going to make a lot of the disagreements much easier to resolve here! Hallelujah!!

[NB: this is my new ‘signature to all [my] posts’!]

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I agree LK is responsible for the answer. I assumed she had a right to legal counsel and the lawyer would ghost write for the client.

Uh no. They only insert the legalese objections. Everything after that is 100% client.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

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

Did her lawyers also craft this: under oath, in court?

“I don’t recall deleting any posts. That’s more of a Mary Haskins thing.”

Just checking where we stand on that testimony. Technically, yes, she did say she didn’t recall. Perhaps just being a little slippery there as well.

I think the lawyers probably coached her on use of “I do not recall”.

I think the answers on the written interrogatories are more lawyer-like than her extemporaneous responses in court.

[erinmeri]

@ekat

I’ve worked with cops, I’ve had friends in LE, etc and I have never known one to say something like “dumbest murder planner”, especially in that context. Every time I read it, that phrase bugs me.

I have an ex-NYPD friend. I know a few current NYPD detectives, I agree. That said, I would question the IQ of any cop who would jump to the conclusion that an industry standard piece of legal paperwork makes one the “dumbest murder planner”. Is there a contract on earth that indemnifies one from murder?

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I agree LK is responsible for the answer. I assumed she had a right to legal counsel and the lawyer would ghost write for the client.

An ethical lawyer might read her answer, ask her if she is sure, maybe advise to rethink it, but would NEVER ghost write an interrogatory answer for their client as that would be, well, perjury.

From the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33:

The interrogatories must be answered:

(A) by the party to whom they are directed…

And

Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.

And:

The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I assumed she had a right to legal counsel and the lawyer would ghost write for the client.

Not how it works. But, hey, IANAL (I Anal!) - will let the legal eagles correct you.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I think the lawyers probably coached her on use of “I do not recall”.

Fair enough.

[erinmeri]

@ekat

An ethical lawyer might read her answer, ask her if she is sure, maybe advise to rethink it, but would NEVER ghost write an interrogatory answer for their client as that would be, well, perjury.

From the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 33:

Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.

And:

The person who makes the answers must sign them, and the attorney who objects must sign any objections.

Not a lawyer - but at best they might intervene if someone incriminates themselves, no? (As in, I wouldn’t say that?)