Caroline Flack found dead

Boggles

prunudo wrote: »

Rather than face the music she felt the need to end it all, she can blame the cps, bad media or trolls but its an easy get out jail card. All suicide does is transfer your pain and anguish to someone else.

It is quite disturbing in 2020 to read the someone hanging themselves is an easy way out or "easy get out jail card".

It's profoundly sad given all the progress we have made in understanding mental health issues and disorders that opinion like the above still prevails.

It's not that long ago it was considered a crime, it seems certain individuals haven't moved on with science and society, fortunately I suspect they are the small minority.

One eyed Jack

Wombatman wrote: »

It is not right to say it has happened unless it has been proven.
Only two people know what went on in that room that night, although you would think many people on here were in there with them, observing.

In her own words -


"I have always taken responsibility for what happened that night. Even on the night. But the truth is .... It was an accident."

Flack said she had been having "some sort of emotional breakdown for a very long time".

She added: "But I am NOT a domestic abuser.

"We had an argument and an accident happened. An accident."

Wombatman wrote: »

When I say you take €50 from me and then claim you are a thief, it doesn’t mean it did happen and that you are a thief.

But I’m telling you I took the €50 from you? I’m also claiming at the same time I’m not a thief, and you’re not getting your money back. It was an accident that I took the €50 so if you’re ok with assuming I’m innocent, I’m up €50 and it doesn’t matter what you think. We’re still friends, right?

Wombatman wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty right?
What would you say if the case went ahead and she was found not guilty?
Would you still say she was guilty of assault?

No I wouldn’t say she was guilty of assault because the prosecution would have failed to meet the burden of proof required to secure a conviction against her for assault according to the laws in the UK. Therefore in law she maintains the presumption of innocence as we all do in Common Law jurisdictions. Innocent until proven guilty is a concept which only applies in the context of the Law, it really doesn’t have any useful application outside of that context.

I can still say she clocked her boyfriend over the head with a lamp, she may call it an accident, he may say it never happened, but someone’s bloody lying, and I know it isn’t me.

prunudo

Boggles wrote: »

It is quite disturbing in 2020 to read the someone hanging themselves is an easy way out or "easy get out jail card".

It's profoundly sad given all the progress we have made in understanding mental health issues and disorders that opinion like the above still prevails.

It's not that long ago it was considered a crime, it seems certain individuals haven't moved on with science and society, fortunately I suspect they are the small minority.

I understand the effects of suicide all to well so I will stick with my opinion thank you very much. The fact that she felt so hopeless in life and thought the best way out was to end it all is extremely sad. But the fact is, her pain has now been transferred to her family and loved ones who will now face every day of their lives asking 'what ifs'.

Hannibal_Smith

Tork wrote: »

The truth of what actually happened that night has been buried under a mound of obfuscation and whataboutery. None of us knew what Caroline Flack was really like as a person. Like most of the contestants on the shows she presented, she presented the social media side of her personality to us. Even in death, her life is being lived through social media. The narrative is being controlled by people who have her/their own interests at heart. Not the truth.There is only one person alive to tell the tale of what happened in that room and that's Lewis Burton. I'm not sure I believe him believe him for several reasons. Some self-serving, some from loyalty to his girlfriend. Which is why it is a shame this never went to trial. Why did he call 999? What did the police record on their bodycams? What injury did he sustain to his head! Why did the CPS insist on pursuing this case despite Lewis Burton's protestations? Why did the judge rule that they couldn't make contact with each other? All valid questions that could well go unanswered.

We live in a society where too much is superficial. And also, where people are quick to blame others. It's very easy for Caroline's people and her fans to point the finger of blame at the media and social media and the authorities. It ties the story up in a nice neat bundle and brushes away the uncomfortable nagging questions. It suits all the attention seeking people in her circle to have her painted as poor troubled Caroline, driven to her death by all those meanies.

I think there are two parallels to the story.

There is that night and what happened.

There is the aftermath.

The aftermath doesnt negate what happened that night and doesn't brush it under the carpet, it adds another dimension.

The CPS clearly had enough evidence to think they could secure a conviction. What that evidence is, who knows. Also, if they hadn't pressed charges that flies in the face of every man who has suffered through domestic abuse and the whataboutery would have exploded even more than it has already.

I would also think they were treating it as a domestic violence case, so keeping the accused away from the abused wouldnt be too strange.

Boggles

prunudo wrote: »

I understand the effects of suicide all to well so I will stick with my opinion thank you very much.

I never mentioned the "effects of suicide".

That wasn't what I pulled you up on.

Anyway it's not just my opinion, you are arguing with decades of medical research and science.

So I have no interest nor do I think you have the capacity to change your mind.

So as you were.

Wombatman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In her own words -


"I have always taken responsibility for what happened that night. Even on the night. But the truth is .... It was an accident."

Flack said she had been having "some sort of emotional breakdown for a very long time".

She added: "But I am NOT a domestic abuser.

"We had an argument and an accident happened. An accident."





But I’m telling you I took the €50 from you? I’m also claiming at the same time I’m not a thief, and you’re not getting your money back. It was an accident that I took the €50 so if you’re ok with assuming I’m innocent, I’m up €50 and it doesn’t matter what you think. We’re still friends, right?





No I wouldn’t say she was guilty of assault because the prosecution would have failed to meet the burden of proof required to secure a conviction against her for assault according to the laws in the UK. Therefore in law she maintains the presumption of innocence as we all do in Common Law jurisdictions. Innocent until proven guilty is a concept which only applies in the context of the Law, it really doesn’t have any useful application outside of that context.

I can still say she clocked her boyfriend over the head with a lamp, she may call it an accident, he may say it never happened, but someone’s bloody lying, and I know it isn’t me.

So she was swinging a lamp around shouting "If you come near me I'll hit you". He lurches forward while she is in mid swing and he gets clocked.

You presume to know what happened, so tell us all, is this how it went down?

BattleCorp

Wombatman wrote: »

So she was swinging a lamp around shouting "If you come near me I'll hit you". He lurches forward while she is in mid swing and he gets clocked.

You presume to know what happened, so tell us all, is this how it went down?

If things went down the way he claimed, (and she didn't really deny as far as I'm aware) he was hit on the head with the lamp when he was asleep in bed.

Now I wasn't there, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to say that isn't the way things happened. It's interesting to note that Ms. Flack didn't come out at the time and say that she didn't hit him with the lamp on purpose or that she hit him by accident with it.

So no, that's not an accident in my book.

One eyed Jack

Wombatman wrote: »

So she was swinging a lamp around shouting "If you come near me I'll hit you". He lurches forward while she is in mid swing and he gets clocked.

You presume to know what happened, so tell us all, is this how it went down?

I don’t know the exact details, no. What I do know is that she assaulted her boyfriend, but in law she is considered innocent until proven guilty of the criminal offence of assault as it is defined in UK legislation.

That’s not at all as difficult to understand as you’re making out, and at first I thought it was unintentional, but now I see it’s a deliberate attempt to be obtuse. Fair enough I guess.

Boggles

BattleCorp wrote: »

Now I wasn't there, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to say that isn't the way things happened. It's interesting to note that Ms. Flack didn't come out at the time and say that she didn't hit him with the lamp on purpose or that she hit him by accident with it.

She plead not guilty.

retro:electro

I really don’t see how a prolonged period of attack, that didn’t just stop at home, but continued when she was in custody, can be considered an accident.

A mistake maybe, a misunderstanding? yeah.

But an accident would be accidentally bashing him in the head with the door as she swung it open in a panic trying to get out of the room.
No one accidentally picks up a lamp and hits a sleeping person over the head with it after rooting through their phone and seeing something suspect; and then continues on a tirade of abuse for some time; leading to be physically restrained.

In all honesty I think her family should have kept that unpublished post to themselves.

BattleCorp

Boggles wrote: »

She plead not guilty.

Which she is 100% entitled to do, even if she was 100% guilty.

Celebrities are very quick to put out a statement to take the bad look off their indescretions and Ms. Flak didn't come out and say she hit him by accident. I think that's telling.

If I hit someone with a lamp by accident and they called the cops, I don't think I'd be behaving like Ms. Flack did when the cops arrived..........if it was an accident.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

I really don’t see how a prolonged period of attack, that didn’t just stop at home, but continued when she was in custody, can be considered an accident.

A mistake maybe, a misunderstanding, yeah.

But an accident would be bashing him in the head with the door as she swung it open in a panic trying to get out of the room.
No one accidentally picks up a lamp and hits a sleeping person over the head with it, and accidentally continues on a tirade of abuse for some time; leading to be physically restrained.

In all honesty I think her family should have kept that unpublished post to themselves.

It's not an actual fact she hit him over the head with a lamp.

It was an allegation which was completely retracted.

Now it could have happened or in the day light following what sounds like an absolute drunken mess clarity and reality emerged.

He will more than unlikely be invited to give his side of the story to the Coroner. If he does we should know more.

Either way, I would hold off on stating allegations as fact.

Boggles

BattleCorp wrote: »

Which she is 100% entitled to do, even if she was 100% guilty.

You asked the question why didn't she deny the claims on social media or in an interview and you think that is some sort of evidence of guilt.

She denied the claims in the only place that matters. Court.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Celebrities are very quick to put out a statement to take the bad look off their indescretions and Ms. Flak didn't come out and say she hit him by accident. I think that's telling.

She was advised to say nothing publically.

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I hit someone with a lamp by accident and they called the cops, I don't think I'd be behaving like Ms. Flack did when the cops arrived..........if it was an accident.

It was apparently a drunken volatile mess, calmly in hindsight trying to insert yourself into a situation and claiming what path you would follow is fairly useless.

Wombatman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know the exact details, no. What I do know is that she assaulted her boyfriend, but in law she is considered innocent until proven guilty of the criminal offence of assault as it is defined in UK legislation.

That’s not at all as difficult to understand as you’re making out, and at first I thought it was unintentional, but now I see it’s a deliberate attempt to be obtuse. Fair enough I guess.

What is difficult to understand is, by you own admission, you don’t know the exact details, but know she assaulted her boyfriend.

Must be great to be a self appointed judge.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

It's not an actual fact she hit him over the head with a lamp.

It was an allegation which was completely retracted.

Now it could have happened or in the day light following what sounds like an absolute drunken mess clarity and reality emerged.

He will more than unlikely be invited to give his side of the story to the Coroner. If he does we should know more.

Either way, I would hold off on stating allegations as fact.

Okay, we know she hit him over the head with something as he slept, better? :rolleyes:

As if knowing her weapon of choice makes her decision to hit a sleeping man any better.


What i find interesting is the same people who were accusing the media of over blowing the incident and exaggerating, have themselves spent the last few days playing down and trivialising the incident in its entirety.

If it’s not one extreme it’s the other.

MOR316

Boggles wrote: »

Either way, I would hold off on stating allegations as fact.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! :pac::pac::pac::pac: :D:D

Sorry but, you are aware of the public these days right?
Once an allegation is reported in the media, even when there is literally no evidence, people lap it up and take it as a fact.

I'm fully in agreement with you but, look at some of the threads on here.
For a lot, an allegation, even when there is nothing to prove it, automatically means it's a fact!

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Okay, we know she hit him over the head with something as he slept, better? :rolleyes:

Is that an actual fact?

BattleCorp

Boggles wrote: »

It was an allegation which was completely retracted.

The allegation was in no way retracted.

The injured party didn't want to press charges. He never said the incident didn't happen.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Is that an actual fact?

Well Ms Weiss did tell this to the court in December:

She continued: "Both were covered in blood and in fact one of the police officers likened the scene to a horror movie.

"He said he had been asleep and was hit over the head by Caroline with a lamp, causing a visible cut to his head."

Ms Weiss added: "She had also smashed a glass and she had sustained an injury”


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/world-news/europe/flack-hit-sleeping-lover-on-head-with-lamp-court-hears-38810884.html

One eyed Jack

Wombatman wrote: »

What is difficult to understand is, by you own admission, you don’t know the exact details, but know she assaulted her boyfriend.

Must be great to be a self appointed judge.

It’s alright, the pay is crap though.

Maybe I could become a celebrity Judge on TV like Judge Rinder, only he’s not an Judge, he’s a barrister, and the show is just “reality” tv -

Judge Rinder

See the difference now?

retro:electro

BattleCorp wrote: »

The allegation was in no way retracted.

The injured party didn't want to press charges. He never said the incident didn't happen.

In fairness Lewis did deny on his Instagram being hit with a lamp .

What’s interesting is he didn’t deny being hit completely.

dark crystal

BattleCorp wrote: »

The allegation was in no way retracted.

The injured party didn't want to press charges. He never said the incident didn't happen.

Actually, he did. He said she didn't hit him with a lamp.

BattleCorp

retro:electro wrote: »

In fairness Lewis did deny on his Instagram being hit with a lamp .

What’s interesting is he didn’t deny being hit completely.

Hard to deny you weren't hit in those circumstances when you have an obvious cut on your head. Especially when you tell the 999 operator that you have been hit.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Well Ms Weiss did tell this to the court in December:

Ms Weiss wasn't in the apartment when it happened, was she?

So no, that does not make it a fact.

retro:electro wrote: »

She continued: "Both were covered in blood and in fact one of the police officers likened the scene to a horror movie.

I see Ms Weiss indulged in a bit of tabolid'esque hyperbole.

---

Like I said the only person still alive that knows what actually happened will be offered a chance to tell his story, best leave the fact finding to the Coroner.

Hailey Cometh

You gotta feel a bit for the Laura W who signed up for this mess, doubt she saw this storm coming

BattleCorp

Hailey Cometh wrote: »

You gotta feel a bit for the Laura W who signed up for this mess, doubt she saw this storm coming

She'll be grand. The storm has fcukall to do with her.

Wombatman

retro:electro wrote: »

Well Ms Weiss did tell this to the court in December:

She continued: "Both were covered in blood and in fact one of the police officers likened the scene to a horror movie.

"He said he had been asleep and was hit over the head by Caroline with a lamp, causing a visible cut to his head."

Ms Weiss added: "She had also smashed a glass and she had sustained an injury”


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/world-news/europe/flack-hit-sleeping-lover-on-head-with-lamp-court-hears-38810884.html

From the same article.

Flack (40), who has stepped down as host of the upcoming winter series of the ITV2 dating show, is alleged to have hit Burton (27) over the head with a lamp, causing a serious head injury.

This is key and it will appear like this in every newspaper.

People on here aren't held to the same standard unfortunately.

But then some claim to know all facts and further still have come to judgement based on those imagined 'facts'.

Miss Weiss, the prosecutor, said:

"He said he had been asleep and was hit over the head by Caroline with a lamp, causing a visible cut to his head."

Do we know this was said by Burton and if so do we know it happened as claimed?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Ms Weiss wasn't in the apartment when it happened, was she?

So no, that does not make it a fact.



I see Ms Weiss indulged in a bit of tabolid'esque hyperbole.

---

Like I said the only person still alive that knows what actually happened will be offered a chance to tell his story, best leave the fact finding to the Coroner.

Well no, she was going by what he told the operator on the phone when he rang begging for help, afraid he was going to be killed.

And it’s not “tabloid-esque hyperbole”, that’s the description the police officers gave to the two of them when they answered the door.

Hannibal_Smith

If he was asleep, how does he know what he was hit with?

retro:electro

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

If he was asleep, how does he know what he was hit with?

Because he likely woke up after being hit and saw what she was holding?

Seriously, is this the level of argument we’ve resorted to?