But isnāt that exactly what you are attempting to do here- create drama??? Hasnāt that been the purpose of every post you have made lately, by repeatedly calling people āfan girlsā??? How have YOU contributed to discussing the topic???
17 Likes
Trolls
1 Like
First of all, I never used the term āfan girlsā.
Second, I have been sharing my opinions about the case (apparently youāve missed my posts in other threads and earlier in this thread), and speaking about the very one-sided nature of the conversation.
But instead of any one person taking a moment to reflect and discuss this, thereās been a onslaught of posts making it clear that if your comments donāt align with the opinions of the dominant posters here, you are not wanted.
I donāt do drama ~ but I will call it out and include a bit of humor in an attempt to bring in some levity. As well as encourage people to stop derailing the thread.
But it appears that no one can resist focusing on the people they donāt like, and creating their own conspiracy theories based on simple coincidences.
Iām off to bed, with an early morning tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if the conversation gets back on topic or continues to focus on other posters instead. 
6 Likes
Says the person with an anonymous name and hidden profile. 
2 Likes
With all due respect, I asked a follow-up question to your post above (re: insanity plea) that you neither acknowledged nor responded to. You neednāt do either one of those things, but not doing so doesnāt track with your assertion that you want people to ādiscuss thisā with respect to your posts. You only respond to the ādramaā and not to active attempts to discuss the legal aspects with you.
Also, I donāt read that the issue is with āalternate viewsā of the case. What I see, for the large part, with the people you refer to as making ācomments [that] donāt align with the opinions of the dominant posters here,ā is that those posts almost always include a fair bit of personal commentary about the folks they deem ādominant postersā.
These so-called dominant posters just post their thoughts and opinions; they donāt seem to feel the need to attack other posters when giving their opinion. But the posters you think of as minority posters cannot seem to post a single thought w/o including commentary about others. In fact, the first group only seems to comment about those other posters on the basis of that kind of sniping (the āMB fangirlā type name calling) and not about knocking their alternative views of the incident.
A parallel weird thing is the users who come on and write some pretty basic, neutral idea like MB is not right (and is in jail and will likely be for a long time and should be) for shooting LK regardless of LKās behaviour in the situation. They then congratulate themselves for being so thoughtful, usually by making reference to needing a flame suit. But, itās nonsense, as many, many - in fact I would say the majority of - posters feel the same way. Case in point: erinmeri who, as I noted, essentially reworded a post Iād made yonks before hers on this thread but who anointed herself as radically counter culture here. 
The posters who consider themselves non-majority in their opinions would do well to take a moment to reflect and read the thread and see that they are not in the minority at all. Then they should consider posting their views and engaging in the discussion without any reference to the style or imputed purpose/feelings of other posters (which is silly b/c they could not possibly know such things). Itās quite simple and would result in a more interesting discussion rather than derailing the legal/criminal discussion with a bunch of ad hominem type commentary on other posters.
But I suspect the group you champion doesnāt really want that engagment, they want to make fun of the so called ādominant postersā and call them names. Case in point: I ignored all the sniping about other posters (aka: drama) in your first post and engaged with you only on the legal/factual content of your post. You never responded at all. Yet, you have responded multiple times now to posters who engage you on the personal attacks/drama/sniping parts of your posts. That behaviour does not indicate that what you say you want (discussion of the legal/criminal angle) is what you really want.
So, I invite you to continue in the vein of your first post and letās discuss insanity defenses and the nuances surrounding that and leave off the name calling, etc. I think itās pretty interesting, especially for those of us outside the US who may not have that option in our local legal systems. I know Iām curious about it!
22 Likes
I thought you were off to bed! Just couldnāt stay away, could you?
Troll: In internet slang, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating othersā perception. Sort of sounds exactly like you and a few others IMO. But, whatever. You do you.
5 Likes
I recently watched a legal channel where the hosts were discussing about defendants taking the stand and how jurors would interpret it if they did not take the stand in their defense.
One thing that was interesting to me was that most of the attorneys on the show do not put their clients on the stand but apparently it is clientās decision.
If I was a juror in a criminal case I would want to hear from the defendant but it seems that most do not take the stand (according to this show).
If you were a juror, would you want to hear from the defendant and if you did not, would you read anything into it?
4 Likes
Intellectually, I understand why attorneys do not want defendants to take the stand. Emotionally, as a juror, I would want to hear from them. I think I would feel like I could keep those things separate, but I might end up at least slightly biased against a defendant who gave no testimony at all.
Iāve never been on a jury, but I understand that the instructions they get keep things pretty well on track during deliberations. So, if someone was saying ās/heās guilty or s/he would have taken the standā, Iām guessing other jurors can counter with, āno, we arenāt supposed to consider that at all.ā
Iāve even seen jurorās say they thought someone was guilty but could not say that the prosecution met the burden of proof. That made me think that, despite being laymen, jurors seem to take the task really seriously and follow the rules of evidence, etc. pretty well. Not all the time, Iām sure.
5 Likes
Yes, I would want to hear what they were thinking.
But I have watched too much Law & Order. I also think a defendant can only hurt themselves by going on the stand.
I am not sure if one can still get a jury pool together that has not been tainted by the crime shows on TV.
7 Likes
I was called to jury duty before for criminal trials but was not selected. They seemed that they would have been more interesting than the civil trial I did serve on.
A co-worker served on a criminal trial pre covid and he and other jurors were threatened by friends and family of the the defendant. Those people were arrested thankfully. That would be scary.
2 Likes
Yikes!!
The closest I ever came to jury duty involved a case of a man accused of abusing his wife/girlfriend. But I was not selected for the jury, and Iāve always thought that it was because I said I could not find someone guilty based solely on verbal testimony without any corroborating evidence.
I donāt know what ever happened in that trial, or if it even went to trial. I never saw any news reports on it, so I wonder if they did some sort of settlement or plea deal.
2 Likes
@3PonyFarm, that sounds so scary, what your co-worker went thru. Darn. How did the friends even learn the identity of the jurors? (I realize they see them in the court room, but that does not give them the name of the jurors.)
3 Likes
I donāt think I could either
They were waiting for them outside the courthouse and followed them to their cars. 
1 Like
I donāt know how anyone could, really. How does one decide guilt in a he said she said with no evidence.
3 Likes
Would eyewitness testimony count as verbal or corroborating? If several people perceived an incident in the same way would that help or not?
I donāt want to politicize this thread but the completely differing views of a certain very public and widely seen event make me wonder to what degree eyewitnesses can be believed.
8 Likes
Well, please forgive me for falsely identifying you as someone calling the rest of us fan girls.
But you need to ask yourself, where is it you were attempting to steer the conversation?
You did not come here and post to change minds. You came here to point out how you perceive others to be wrong. You came to point your finger.
12 Likes
@KellyS, tell me this post wasnāt made to antagonize people! How was this post created to drive discussion?
Hint, it wasnāt. It was made to make fun of and to provoke people. When I say āto provoke peopleā, it was not to provoke discussion as you claim!
Your motivations are not as āpure as the driven snowā as you claim them to be!
17 Likes
Eek! How very scary! I am glad to read that they got in trouble for this. That is just crazy.
2 Likes
Moving away from the topic of āKellyGirls,ā because trolls canāt answer hard questionsā¦
I too find the concept of an āinsanity pleaā interesting. I did a quick search of the submission for the word āinsanityā and I couldnāt find it. It may be there somewhereā¦if so, my bad.
What I do remember is that Barisone (whom I donāt know from Adam and I donāt live in the same country and where my only interest is the legal proceeding) said he did not recall the shooting (or words to that effect). I āspeculateā that this could be related to PSTD and being triggered. He could have been in a state of flashback or amnesia, neither of which need to be taken lightly as they are very real things that people with ādissociative disordersā experience.
āNot rememberingā in my view is a fact put forward in the caseā¦or at least his stated position in the legal submission. Further in my view, ānot rememberingā is not the same as a plea for insanity. It is merely a statement that he cannot recall what actually happened at a certain point in time. In other words, he has nothing else that he can to contribute to the record.
So I too am interested in what our legal beagles have to say on the topic.
Btwā¦.NBDTBS. And I donāt know Barisone from Adam, nor care to.
4 Likes
