Hahahahahaha!
19 Likes
26 DAYS LATER
DanversGreenie
Has the trial started? I thought is was scheduled for this week? (Danvers)
Just pointing out, YD was the last comment here on March 25. Twenty SIX days later, @Danvers hops on asking about the trial. Nothing is wrong with that, given the heinous nature of this crime & it’s involvement with a Reserve rider on an Olympic team.
MY problem is with anyone daring to question why, when or where I might choose to comment on any thread in which my name is mentioned - ever. Is it only OK for some people to “revive,” a “discussion,” (intentionally or not) but “Sad & pathetic,” for the subject of such “discussions,” to do the same? I can guarantee you, if I’m here- it’s for a reason. Yet, here we are. The very definition of hypocrisy- NGL
1 Like
My comment directed at you was in response to a post I made on February 20 in response to YD. Yet, YOU selected my post to quote today!
Very few care where you are or what you are doing. Obviously you feel the need to continue trolling these old threads and literally reviving them every few weeks with tired repeated comments. The only reason I even knew you had posted about ME today was I received a notice that you had. Other than that notification of you mentioning me, I don’t care where you are, what you are doing, or how you are doing. Honestly, in the scheme of things over the past 15 months of COVID-19, you are irrelevant to many except as a curiosity. If you notice, to my knowledge, no one has asked anything about you personally…simply asking for any updates on the legal situation. Capiche?
32 Likes
Yeah, every once in a while this topic floats to the top of Recent Posts on my COTH account and I take a look, marvel at the slow process of the law, and think how long ago and far away this was.
25 Likes
1.) YOU are not the only person I quoted.
2.) If “very few,” equals (let’s say) 50, that’s 50 more people who care what I’m doing instead of what you’re doing. Same applies if that number were 3 or 7 or 50k.
3.) Sorry, were you talking? I literally fell asleep. (JK, not sorry, though.)
1 Like
I agree. And yet, it’s only just beginning. Likely the reason for all the inquiring posts on the matter- as recently as late April. When any one of these threads “floats to the top,” I receive notifications as well. Learned recently about the whole, “commenting on a thread that’s had little activity, ‘bumps’ it to the top,” thing, having had no idea what that even meant, prior. Now, I do get notifications. It just may take me some time to bother checking it out… then, deciding if I want to respond to something.
FWIW- there are sure to be new threads on this matter in the very near future. It really won’t matter how long ago or how relevant you, or anyone else, feel a double attempted homicide should be weighed wrt “relevance.” If this topic is bothersome to you, feel free to stop contributing and/or engaging.
1 Like
QFP & QFC
You know how this works far more than I do so can you clarify for me - I thought the defendant never had to get on the stand if they did not want to.
5 Likes
If 50 people here, no let’s make that FIVE people here care about you or what you’re doing, that would be astonishing.
32 Likes
I cannot make heads or tails of what is suddenly happening on this thread. But yes, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant a constitutional right not to testify if that is what he chooses to do. A criminal defendant cannot be forced to testify. I think what LLPR is saying is that Barisone doesn’t WANT to testify and so therefore he’s employing some sort of strategy (what strategy? unknown) to avoid being in a position where he feels he must testify or else he will lose. But that is a strategic decision and different from being compelled, legally, to testify.
18 Likes
They do not. There is no legal or otherwise requirement to testify in your own defense or violate your constitutional right against self incrimination, no matter how much it might personally satisfy someone else for you to do so.
This applies to a criminal trial. There is no right against self incrimination in a civil action because there is not a crime in question, even if the civil trial is related to events that happened in the commission of a crime. Also in a civil case, the invocation of the right against self incrimination can be considered by the jury as an inference of guilt (in most states, not all) where it could not be in a criminal case.
As with all things legal, there’s some finer points to this. But that’s the general gist.
18 Likes
Looks like you’re getting the attention you so crave this morning. I don’t have the time or inclination to go further. Old news. Like clockwork you pop up with teasers like arrests are coming soon, or your typical just wait and see, or my favorite, I just can’t say more but I will. No one cares except for the spectacle of a trial with anticipation of how all it will all be presented.
By the way, this letter you keep mentioning that Barisone supposedly wrote, where is that letter posted? You are like a preteen mentioning something juicy for reaction. More game playing. Fascinating.
Yawn.
29 Likes
Just waiting for YD to show up …did someone say Beetlejuice? 
34 Likes
A couple of weeks ago, someone came on and asked if there was news of the trial and received a response quoting Jaffers that Barisone “would receive a plea offer” from prosecutors.
Jaffers’s statement in the same story that Lauren was shot in the course of “a fight” did strike me as being at odds with everything else that is known about the case.
I understand Lauren to be saying: don’t be too sure that a plea will be offered. If no plea is offered (or if no offered plea is accepted), perhaps the trial will start soon.
We know that Lauren was compelled by someone in the civil case to submit her posts on COTH. She will have had to spend hours on COTH collecting her posts and probably lots of others.
One issue that came up repeatedly during these threads was the role any social media would play in a trial- either the posts by Eggbutt and others tearing Lauren down, or Lauren’s posts. Eggbutt once ventured to say that she thought that she and others were helping Barisone by “showing the jurors what he (Barisone) was dealing with” and someone else countered that the pro-Barisone crowd might be hurting his case by demonstrating that he had “surrounded himself with a bunch of unstable nutjobs”.
I don’t think the furor on COTH will have much role in the criminal trial one way or the other (I think the defense saying they had 40,000 pages or whatever to review was mostly a delaying tactic), but I have some interest in seeing if it does play any role.
3 Likes
Right on schedule!
26 Likes
Actually, I was composing a post simultaneously with yours!
The Beetlejuice reference is pretty tired; I’m not sure it deserves a ROTFL at this point. I never saw the movie, but of course have schooled myself on all these important cultural references.
2 Likes
Wow…. I would say this is a very personal and nasty post to make somebody feel belittled 
3 Likes
That doesn’t make it any less accurate though. I think people are curious, they way they are curious about a car crash on the side of the road, but they don’t really care, aside from those who personally know the people involved.
There has been a lot of information released about the victim and by the victim that makes it hard for people to be sympathetic about what happened then, let alone care about what she’s doing now. Right or wrongly, I see more of a morbid fascination among those who love true crime stories and / soap operas than I see caring expressed.
Because Barisone is better known and because his camp has kept fairly quiet, his side of the story seems to be the one people still care about most. It’s hard to fathom what makes a generally well-liked and well-respected guy attempt murder in cold blood. I think people are genuinely interested in hearing what version of events and what supporting proof Barisone’s team presents at trial (if there is a trial), and how they will attempt to justify shooting two apparently unarmed people at close range.
It doesn’t seem justifiable, so common sense would suggest that both sides would be working towards a guilty plea deal in exchange for reduced charges or a lighter sentence.
26 Likes
In the criminal case the parties are the government and Barisone. The victim is not a party (or calling the shots) in the criminal case.
20 Likes
