Barisone Verdict Is In: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity

[Scribbler]

@Sdel

@Scribbler

@erinmeri

@Danvers

everyone signs a waiver at a barn in which they ride - holding harmless the owner/trainer for injuries on or off horse back - this is normal… it states Horesback Riding is DANGEROUS. this is NORMAL

Precisely! And in NJ the state law protects even further, so LK believed that the signs posted at LITERALLY EVERY NJ BARN rendered those standard, normal agreements moot. Then she tried to misconstrue those normal agreements to imply she was signing her own death warrant, or whatever. It’s ludicrous.

LK was on an admitted rampage to be obstructive and has demonstrated paranoid tendencies. She’s also a drama queen who lies. Does she believe these things when she says them? Who knows. Very little about LK makes sense.

However, in real time many of us, correctly it seems, believed this paperwork to be the standard release. LK adamantly denied it.

I expect it was a standard release as see through the very special LK lens. Most of what she was blowing up over was standard things given her special spin.

What’s more likely? MB has a bizarre contract stating he wants to murder her, or LK in a bad spiral pitches a hissy fit about signing a standard waiver? Those standard waivers have pretty strong language btw.

Anyhow its exactly the kind of thing LK would think was a great scheme. Duck signing an annual waiver or disappear her existing waiver, then fake a riding injury to get an insurance settlement. It’s not that easy and I doubt she could pull it off. But it’s exactly the kind of thing she’d go around bragging and threatening to do. Hence blowing up when she’s required to sign a new waiver. All that talk about insurance fraud had to be projecting something.

[FitzE]

NB: This bit below was a post by Sdel in 2019. The quote isn’t working for some reason. ETA: post #1692 of the Barisone Trial This Month thread.

[quote] Well, in light of last night’s postings…

[/quote]

So, here it is. The post that launched a thousand lectures on syntax. Here we go:

1. In the first post, she says, “even if I did not know all of the details and have [sic] heard the recordings [i.e., she DOES know all the details and she HAS heard the recordings or there would exist no state to supply contrast for the ‘even if’ conditional]”

The ‘even if’ here is used before a hypothetical situation in order to show contrast with what is actually the true situation: that she did hear the recordings. So, all the lectures about the ‘even if’ are incorrect.

The ‘even if’ actually proves what most people are saying b/c it is followed by the negative and, thus, the opposite, the positive, is what’s true. ‘even if I did not’ = ‘I did’ in standard English construction. E.g., Even if I hadn’t found this post [the actual situation being: I did]*, I would still have believed that there was more than one post by this exact person on this exact subject. The * bit is the understood contrast to the ‘even if’ hypothetical. I think this is all pretty intuitive to native English speakers and needs no further explanation.

2. If any given reader still had doubt, 2 posts down she re-confirms for those thrown off by her, admittedly difficult to follow, English mistakes: "uhhhhhh ya i saw and heard the proof!"

It was/is utterly nonsensical and flies in the face of direct, from-the-horse’s mouth confirmation, to argue that any of the funky syntax and grammatical mistakes of the first post indicate she may not have heard the recordings because one post later she proactively clears up any doubt whatsoever.

Of course, to come to this understanding one would have to, 1. (gasp) understand the use of the contrast conjunction** ‘even if’ as used in the first post, and/or 2. (gasp) simply have read that all-important ‘context’ including the follow-up confirmation that she has in fact seen and heard recordings at least some of which were made illegally.*

*I base this thought on the fact that none of these recordings were admitted as evidence in the criminal trial and the SM posts referencing conversations that happened nowhere near the locker or RG’s pocket must have been made illegally. And, no, I don’t think they weren’t used at trial b/c the prosecution ‘didn’t need them’ or whatever weak comeback was floating around. No prosecutor leaves out legal recordings of a defendant conspiring to commit the crime for which he is charged just b/c, you know, I don’t really need them, I’m good, it’s cool, no worries.

**Contrast conjunctions connect ideas and clauses that contrast. The following words and
phrases are contrast conjunctions: but, although, though, even though, even if, while,
in spite of, while, whilst, whereas.

[MorganSercu]

Show of hands - who has ever received a threatening/creepy direct message from LK?

raises hand

Who here has SENT an unsolicited direct message to Lauren Kanarek?

– Not me –

If you have, was it a threatening/creepy message TO Lauren Kanarek?

– Again, not me –

Who has received a threatening/creepy direct message from one of her defenders on the board?

– To date, I have not –

Who has sent a threatening/creepy direct message to any of her board defenders?

– I haven’t because I can’t be bothered. –

As for RND going after erinmeri, who has mentioned some particular struggles, that is very familiar. Lauren used that same type of information to guide her campaign of terror.

They appear to sing from the same song sheet.

[FitzE]

@MorganSercu

Show of hands - who has ever received a threatening/creepy direct message from LK?

raises hand

Who here has SENT an un unsolicited/threatening/creepy message TO Lauren Kanarek?

– Not me –

Who has received a threatening/creepy direct message from one of her defenders on the board?

To date, I have not - and I highly doubt I ever shall

Who has sent a threatening/creepy direct message to any of her board defenders?

I haven’t because - who does that?!

As for RND going after erinmeri, who has mentioned some particular struggles, that is very familiar. Lauren used that same type of information to guide her campaign of terror.

They appear to sing from the same song sheet.

Bolding my answers to your pop quiz!

You make a good point. Particularly given that @erinmeri has bravely and honestly shared some challenging aspects of her life, RND going after her with vague and not-so-vague references to mental health issues ‘needing help’ is shockingly low.

You draw an interesting parallel with the ‘finish the bastard’ campaign. Not a good look for anyone, especially someone who is admonishing others to ‘do better’ mere hours before. The PMs were quite out of proportion and the tone very nasty given what came before. @erinmeri is not a moron, her posts do not show any stupidity, and she has never treated RND or anyone in the same manner that RND treated her in those unwanted PMs.

Really weird response to regular chat on a BB thread. The level of hostility is disturbing, and trying to frame @erinmeri’s response to them as the thing that is disturbing is ridiculous and makes zero sense whatsoever. You send nastygrams to people, you don’t get to dictate how they react. If it bothers you, pro tip: don’t send nasty PMs.

[trubandloki]

@MorganSercu

Show of hands - who has ever received a threatening/creepy direct message from LK?

raises hand

Who here has SENT an unsolicited direct message to Lauren Kanarek?

– Not me –

If you have, was it a threatening/creepy message TO Lauren Kanarek?

– Again, not me –

Who has received a threatening/creepy direct message from one of her defenders on the board?

– To date, I have not –

Who has sent a threatening/creepy direct message to any of her board defenders?

– I haven’t because I can’t be bothered. –

My answers are the same!

I did send an unsolicited PM today from this thread. It does not fit any of the questions though.

Gasp.

(Explaining why I liked their post so they are not thinking I liked the content, they are free to share it here if they want.)

[DownYonder]

@erinmeri

I don’t screenshot most people, or most things, just things like people posting crazy rants and things about guns during very public events where it is unclear who brought the gun to the table. Or posts by people known to change their posts.

I would think you would have way exceeded your phone’s memory by now, just capturing screenshots of posts made by a certain someone.

[MorganSercu]

Follow-up comment - I do not believe that if LK or one of her ardent supporters received an unpleasant direct message from someone they viewed as an MB “fangirl”, a perceived supporter of MB or an “enemy” of LK that any single one of them would refrain from commenting publicly for a nanosecond.

They would post publicly - AS THEY SHOULD - in order to call out the ugly behavior.

The miscreant would get a drubbing from the BB, if not a Mod, AS THEY SHOULD.

Disagreeing publicly or via direct message is fine & dandy. Threatening to take them to court, take their farm, calling them crazy or using any admitted diagnosis as a sort of cudgel is contemptible.

Lauren Kanarek has earned every bit of scorn she has received - through her public words and actions. She is lazy, entitled, duplicitous and mean.

She weaponized MB’s depression against him. She took every bit of self-doubt and fear that he had (and we all have them), and amplified it. Depression is like a dark, greasy smog that settles in and on you. Its tendrils discolor and poison every moment of your life. MB HAD THAT UNDER CONTROL. He had sought help for DECADES. LK chose to undermine ALL of that effort and destroy him

There are several types of people who do that and no, it can’t all be laid on her addiction issues. That behavior is well beyond despicable. At 41, it isn’t going to improve, IMO. It is intractable.

Barisone- New Thread

Barisone has suffered from depression for a long time. It can settle in like a cold, greasy fog on a moonless night and you can’t see the stars. It can whisper in your ear and take the seeds of your worst fears and make them bloom. Is there anyone here who has NEVER (not once!) worried that someone they loved didn’t love them as deeply? That their appearance wasn’t ‘good enough’? We have entire markets that are designed to install insecurities, prey upon them and then offer to ‘fix them’ -…

[Cat_Tap]

If you pass CH’s posts and all the replies with quotes along with personal squabbles this thread moves along much better.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

Was a copy of the document ever provided in the trial? Honest question; I’d really like to know what it said.

If it was a standard waiver, that raises the question of why she had not been required to sign one earlier.

Why does it matter? Can you conjure a waiver that would be akin to a death warrant? That would allow him to shoot her with no consequence?

Have you not, as an equestrian, signed many such documents acknowledging the inherent risk of working with horses? And have you ever ridden in NJ? It is virtually impossible to hold anyone liable for injury or death due to horse-related activities in NJ, Perhaps MB felt bolstered by the law in NJ and let it slide until LK got shady. Who knows? Who cares? Has no bearing on the facts of this case.

So the document has not been disclosed? I’d still be interested in seeing it.

[McGurk]

Odd that there was no response to my post, isn’t it?

[FitzE]

Then again, did you really expect one?

Actually, I think there was one many hours ago, just saying, oh, yeah, that’s what I meant and then blah, blah, blahing on. Or did I misremember that?

[DownYonder]

@Danvers

I was taken when Mr. B. started picking at his nails during certain testimonies… was puzzled… thought, what is that all about… that is odd. and then when he started biting at an non existing hang nail… seeing this picture makes me think he was holding back laughing or a snide remark - pretending to bite a hang nail hides his mirth -

Yes, he seemed to be both fascinated and bemused by the fact that although Dr. Stache was the Prosecution’s rebuttal witness, he was actually helping to support the “insanity” defense.

[DownYonder]

@erinmeri

And yet - nobody here is saying it’s 100% her fault. They are saying that the evidence is overwhelming that she drove a man to his breaking point - on purpose and with glee - and that led to her being shot. Is she 75% culpable? 80%? Who cares. She did it on purpose and with glee and did it with unrelenting abandon.

And with no remorse. There is a term from the field of psychology for people like that (starts with “S”).

[trubandloki]

What an interesting thing to double down on and insist it is all the other person. I never imagined that people like Bob were so common, but it appears they are. See a weakness (everyone has them) and then pounce all while pretending to be innocent.

No wonder they don’t like us talking about LK and the LK clan.

[MorganSercu]

I think it is more likely to start with a “P”.

Neither are welcome diagnoses.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@FitzE

NB: This bit below was a post by Sdel in 2019. The quote isn’t working for some reason. ETA: post #1692 of the Barisone Trial This Month thread.

[quote] Well, in light of last night’s postings…

[/quote]

So, here it is. The post that launched a thousand lectures on syntax. Here we go:

1. In the first post, she says, “even if I did not know all of the details and have [sic] heard the recordings [i.e., she DOES know all the details and she HAS heard the recordings or there would exist no state to supply contrast for the ‘even if’ conditional]”

The ‘even if’ here is used before a hypothetical situation in order to show contrast with what is actually the true situation: that she did hear the recordings. So, all the lectures about the ‘even if’ are incorrect.

The ‘even if’ actually proves what most people are saying b/c it is followed by the negative and, thus, the opposite, the positive, is what’s true. ‘even if I did not’ = ‘I did’ in standard English construction. E.g., Even if I hadn’t found this post [the actual situation being: I did]*, I would still have believed that there was more than one post by this exact person on this exact subject. The * bit is the understood contrast to the ‘even if’ hypothetical. I think this is all pretty intuitive to native English speakers and needs no further explanation.

2. If any given reader still had doubt, 2 posts down she re-confirms for those thrown off by her, admittedly difficult to follow, English mistakes: "uhhhhhh ya i saw and heard the proof!"

It was/is utterly nonsensical and flies in the face of direct, from-the-horse’s mouth confirmation, to argue that any of the funky syntax and grammatical mistakes of the first post indicate she may not have heard the recordings because one post later she proactively clears up any doubt whatsoever.

Of course, to come to this understanding one would have to, 1. (gasp) understand the use of the contrast conjunction** ‘even if’ as used in the first post, and/or 2. (gasp) simply have read that all-important ‘context’ including the follow-up confirmation that she has in fact seen and heard recordings at least some of which were made illegally.*

*I base this thought on the fact that none of these recordings were admitted as evidence in the criminal trial and the SM posts referencing conversations that happened nowhere near the locker or RG’s pocket must have been made illegally. And, no, I don’t think they weren’t used at trial b/c the prosecution ‘didn’t need them’ or whatever weak comeback was floating around. No prosecutor leaves out legal recordings of a defendant conspiring to commit the crime for which he is charged just b/c, you know, I don’t really need them, I’m good, it’s cool, no worries.

**Contrast conjunctions connect ideas and clauses that contrast. The following words and
phrases are contrast conjunctions: but, although, though, even though, even if, while,
in spite of, while, whilst, whereas.

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.

Reminder: The jury did not return a plain NG verdict on attempted murder of LK, so the prosecutor did not need the recordings to establish that MB shot her.

Once it was determined that he shot her, the choice between Guilty and NGRI depended on the psychiatric testimony.

In some states, the law explicitly states that audio recordings of private conversations which would normally be illegal are legal if there is a belief that criminal activity is being discussed. In other states, there is no such explicit exemption, but prosecutorial discretion is used. So FitzE, as a transactional lawyer, has deemed the recordings illegal, while no charges have been issued by the state.

Maybe they’ll be used in the civil trial, or by 48 hours, or by SS, or by USEF.

[DownYonder]

@CurrentlyHorseless

If it was a standard waiver, that raises the question of why she had not been required to sign one earlier.

Do we know for a fact that she was never asked to sign a waiver?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Reminder: The jury did not return a plain NG verdict on attempted murder of LK, so the prosecutor did not need the recordings to establish that MB shot her.

You do know the Prosecution lost, yes?

Absolutely the tapes or videos would be necessary as we can see by the verdict!!

I’m convinced the tapes and/or videos are big ole nothing burgers.

And the finding is not that he shot her. But you’ve had it explained ad nauseum so it’s clear you just prefer being wrong.

[Omgitsme]

My quote function only seems to work sporadically so I had to c/p.
“ Reminder: The jury did not return a plain NG verdict on attempted murder of LK, so the prosecutor did not need the recordings to establish that MB shot her.”
Actually if those recordings did in fact have MB discussing her murder, they would have found their way into the trial. They would have proved he had planned the murder, with accomplices (per LK posts) and thus the insanity aspect would have been taken off the table.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@McGurk

Odd that there was no response to my post, isn’t it?

I did respond to your post, McGurk, acknowledging your correction. Post 6607.