The D.A. probably asked for it so LK wouldn’t poison, tarnish, affect the D.A 's case.
10 Likes
In regards to the upcoming Krol hearing?
That thought crossed my mind, for sure.
Her Twitter and Insta are private. She obviously still uses Insta because she told that one YT person in South Africa to contact her there.
2 Likes
Before the criminal case when 19,000+ posts were coming in is my guess.
4 Likes
No for the criminal case. It’s probably in effect until Krol is over.
3 Likes
Could they ask, over in the civil case, to keep it that way, hypothetically?
Or could this “order” about her FB account be a result of the no contact order? I wonder if one of the parties complained and a warning letter was sent by their attorney? Since MB is out of contact, it would have to be MH or someone with the SGF folks. Curious for sure.
Heck, I’m supposed to be the one with all the inside information and I am in the dark about the judge’s order! 
6 Likes
Ah, got it - it was locked sometime before the criminal trial. I had initially missed the “3 mos ago” timestamp on the post shown in the screenshot above.
3 Likes
If, in fact, any part of that post is true.
6 Likes
At least if it’s locked, or protected, or deactivated, or whatever, she’s not out there recording kids in grocery stores and mocking them on FB. If there’s an order, it seems like it’s protecting more than whatever she’s implying just by eliminating that kind of vile behavior.
11 Likes
Would that stop her from doing the same thing on other social media platforms?
2 Likes
From what I’ve learned when my hubs was a criminal investigator, FB keeps a record of deletions, changes, any and all posts, comments, etc. It can be a treasure trove of information. I do believe her page was deactivated but this does not delete anything. It could have been deactivated to preserve evidence (which would explain the over the top lie to change that narrative), but I also wouldn’t be surprised if her own attorneys made her deactivate it and refused to work with her if she didn’t. I do not believe a judge ordered it for her protection. MB wasn’t using FB to threaten her. She was using FB to threaten him (and others).
My theory on the alternate accounts - I wouldn’t be surprised if she is rerouting her IP address so the accounts appear to be owned from a different IP in a different location. She could do that to make alternate COTH accounts which could potentially mislead moderators.
I do find it interesting that she provided her YouTube account information under oath. This makes me more suspicious of permanent deletes being possible.
I think regardless if her alternate accounts are discovered or her YT comments being available after deleting, she has provided more than enough faulty and contradictory information on COTH and FB to be very detrimental to her civil case. She may think she is being slick but she really is not.
16 Likes
Luckily, she appears to have them locked down, so it limits the damage. But no.
2 Likes
But again, she gave that info two years ago, before there were videos of the criminal trial showing her days on the stand in all their glory. When she gave the info, I’m sure she had no intention of it ever coming back to bite her. Odds are good she either doesn’t remember that interrogatory now or doesn’t care.
That being said, I agree 100% with the rest of your post.
8 Likes
In my experience Law enforcement will encourage victims to keep their FB pages active (just very locked down) so they have the evidence required if needed and to preserve evidence or access to it easily. I was specifically instructed not to delete anything and screen capture anything I could.
I don’t believe they have jurisdiction to tell someone to delete or close their SM page based on no contact orders. The laws on cyber stalking and cyber harassment are notoriously loose and insufficient.
Think of the Tinder Swindler. Or any of the scammers/catfishers. The company who owns the app like Facebook/Twitter/Tinder etc can ban the person, but LE or the legal system doesn’t have the power to do that.
5 Likes
It’s all very interesting to ponder. With as obsessed as she is with social media, I think that is probably one thing she is aware of and wouldn’t be surprised if she was aware her YT account is being monitored but either thinks -a. She found a loophole, or b. Has absolutely no self control, or both.
13 Likes
That is BS. Her Facebook was active up until the day of the trial. And why just her FB? She has many many other social media accounts.
13 Likes
It’s part of why I keep thinking she is her own worst enemy.
Well that is certainly interesting!
9 Likes
I have always read that as - The judge ordered me to stop posting on the internet during the trial and I would not do that so my family locked down my accounts to protect me from getting in trouble for not following the judges order.
14 Likes
^^^^
This seems much more plausible.
3 Likes
