Caroline Flack found dead

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

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.

With a lot of drink consumed and in a highly volatile situation.

In the 999 call the complainant said quite clearly that his girlfriend was beating him up. He asked repeatedly for help. He was almost begging the operator to send help.

"He said: 'She is going mad, breaking stuff. I've just woken up. She's cracked my head open.'

"The defendant is calling him an a***hole saying 'It's all your fault, you've ruined my life', calling him an a***hole repeatedly.' He said 'you've cracked my head open'. He told the operator 'she tried to kill me mate'."

Where has did the bit about trying to kill him while he slept with a lamp come from?

Park the fact he has came out and completely denied it.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Where has did the bit about trying to kill him while he slept with a lamp come from?
.

From Lewis:

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

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-london-50890079

retro:electro

The widening of the goalposts at each and every turn is almost amusing.

“It didn’t say she was cut in the article”

“Yes it does— here”

“Oh well that’s sandwiched between too many words!!!!”
—
“People were left to fill in the blanks and were manipulating into believing the blood was hers”

“No they weren’t. The first article didn’t say whose blood it was because how could they possibly know? The article the next day clarified that it was allegedly Caroline’s blood once Lewis stated that”

“Yeah but 24 hours can do a lot of damage!”
—-
“She hit him with a lamp whole sleeping”

“ALLEGEDLY!!!!”

“Okay, allegedly”
—
“How do you know it was a lamp?”

“Because Ms Weiss said so in court”
—
“How do you know he was sleeping???”

“Because Ms Weiss said so in court”

—- and now..

“Yeah well... how does he know it was a lamp if he was sleeping! Aha!!!”

Seriously. The widening and bending and twisting at every turn in order to minimise and trivialise what was clearly a very distressing and quite viscous attack is kind of remarkable.

But each to their own.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

From Lewis:

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

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-london-50890079

When? It doesn't appear to be on the 999 call. And he has come out since and said no such thing happened.

Judging by what he said on the 999 call, and what has been claimed that it was an "accident" seems more plausible.

She was going ape wrecking the place and he was hit accidentally by flying "debris".

Obviously that is not great, but it certainly is not the prosecutions case that she assaulted him with a lamp whilst asleep.

IF that is what actually happened and he states that to a coroner, then the CPS have even more questions to answer it would seem.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

When? It doesn't appear to be on the 999 call. And he has come out since and said no such thing happened.

Have you heard the 999 call?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Have you heard the 999 call?

The "juicy" bits have been published. No mention of a lamp or being asleep.

He has denied been struck by a lamp.

But for some reason people are stating as fact that he was throttled with a lamp whilst asleep.

Wombatman

retro:electro wrote: »

The widening of the goalposts at each and every turn is almost amusing.

“It didn’t say she was cut in the article”

“Yes it does— here”

“Oh well that’s sandwiched between too many words!!!!”
—
“People were left to fill in the blanks and were manipulating into believing the blood was hers”

“No they weren’t. The first article didn’t say whose blood it was because how could they possibly know? The article the next day clarified that it was allegedly Caroline’s blood once Lewis stated that”

“Yeah but 24 hours can do a lot of damage!”
—-
“She hit him with a lamp whole sleeping”

“ALLEGEDLY!!!!”

“Okay, allegedly”
—
“How do you know it was a lamp?”

“Because Ms Weiss said so in court”
—
“How do you know he was sleeping???”

“Because Ms Weiss said so in court”

—- and now..

“Yeah well... how does he know it was a lamp if he was sleeping! Aha!!!”

Seriously. The widening and bending and twisting at every turn in order to minimise and trivialise what was clearly a very distressing and quite viscous attack is kind of remarkable.

But each to their own.

You don't get it. I for one wouldn't trivialise it if she was found guilty. I'm happy to reserve judgement until then.

what was clearly a very distressing and quite viscous attack

Why do you persist with this when we all agree that we don't know what happened on the night?

Viscous? Really? From what official source are you getting this or are you just making it up?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

The "juicy" bits have been published. No mention of a lamp or being asleep.

He has denied been struck by a lamp.

But for some reason people are stating as fact that he was throttled with a lamp whilst asleep.

Okay well I’m at a loss as to know you’d know what is or isn’t on there if you’ve never heard it.

I’m sure Ms Weiss has heard it in its entirety, and thus was able to present her case to the court in December.

But because you haven’t heard it, it was never said.

Okay Boggles :pac:

Stevieluvsye

This thread is depressing. It belongs over in the mad house. Same people posting the same sh!te on each page over and over and over...................

Wombatman

retro:electro wrote: »

Okay well I’m at a loss as to know you’d know what is or isn’t on there if you’ve never heard it.

I’m sure Ms Weiss has heard it in its entirety, and thus was able to present her case to the court in December.

But because you haven’t heard it, it was never said.

Okay Boggles :pac:

Even if it was said, it is just an allegation right?

Hello, 999? retro:electro just killed a penguin.

Did you kill a penguin?

Hannibal_Smith

retro:electro wrote: »

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?

The level of argument we've resorted to? Asking a practical question.

He likely. Likely. Not fact. Not definite. Likely.

Hannibal_Smith

retro:electro wrote: »

The widening of the goalposts at each and every turn is almost amusing.

“It didn’t say she was cut in the article”

“Yes it does— here”

“Oh well that’s sandwiched between too many words!!!!”
—
“People were left to fill in the blanks and were manipulating into believing the blood was hers”

“No they weren’t. The first article didn’t say whose blood it was because how could they possibly know? The article the next day clarified that it was allegedly Caroline’s blood once Lewis stated that”

“Yeah but 24 hours can do a lot of damage!”
—-
“She hit him with a lamp whole sleeping”

“ALLEGEDLY!!!!”

“Okay, allegedly”
—
“How do you know it was a lamp?”

“Because Ms Weiss said so in court”
—
“How do you know he was sleeping???”

“Because Ms Weiss said so in court”

—- and now..

“Yeah well... how does he know it was a lamp if he was sleeping! Aha!!!”

Seriously. The widening and bending and twisting at every turn in order to minimise and trivialise what was clearly a very distressing and quite viscous attack is kind of remarkable.

But each to their own.

Youve done plenty of bending and twisting yourself.

If you find a thread distressing, theres no need to post in it. For your own good more than anything.

No minimising. No trivializing. No canonising. No ban on reporting.

retro:electro

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Youve done plenty of bending and twisting yourself.

If you find a thread distressing, theres no need to post in it. For your own good more than anything.

No minimising. No trivializing. No canonising. No ban on reporting.

I don’t find it distressing

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Okay well I’m at a loss as to know you’d know what is or isn’t on there if you’ve never heard it.

I’m sure Ms Weiss has heard it in its entirety, and thus was able to present her case to the court in December.

But because you haven’t heard it, it was never said.

Okay Boggles :pac:

I merely asked if the press got a hold of it, which they appear to have, why wasn't that part published?

A reasonable question.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I merely asked if the press got a hold of it, which they appear to have, why wasn't that part published?

A reasonable question.

No you didn’t, you said it wasn’t on there. And that’s something you can’t possibly know.

Ms Weiss will have heard not only the 999 call but also have access to the footage of the night and as a result of those things she presented her case at the hearing in December. At the trial is where she would have used the call and the footage to back these claims up.

But you never heard it so it must not have been said.


And different outlets have posted different snippets:

From The Metro:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2019/12/23/caroline-flack-hit-boyfriend-lamp-lewis-burton-tells-police-tried-kill-11952182/amp/

“Weiss said Burton told the operator: ‘I’ve just woken up, she has cracked my head open. She tried to kill me mate.”

“Juicy” enough for you? But let me guess, it doesn’t mention lamp. Yada yada yada. And around and around we go.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

“Weiss said Burton told the operator: ‘I’ve just woken up, she has cracked my head open. She tried to kill me mate.”

“Juicy” enough for you? But let me guess, it doesn’t mention lamp. Yada yada yada. And around and around we go.

Yes it doesn't mention a lamp and the person actually in the apartment says he was never hit by a lamp.

But you are stating as fact he was hit by a lamp while he slept.

Around and around indeed.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Yes it doesn't mention a lamp and the person actually in the apartment says he was never hit by a lamp.

But you are stating as fact he was hit by a lamp while he slept.

Around and around indeed.

Hang on. Your whole point is that there was nothing “juicy” put out about him telling the operators he was asleep. Now I’ve just shown you that actually there was, and as predicted you’re back to your lamp nonsense again.

Ah Boggles.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Hang on. Your whole point is that there was nothing “juicy” put out about him telling the operators he was asleep. Now I’ve just shown you that actually there was, and as predicted you’re back to your lamp nonsense again.

Ah Boggles.

I posted and bolded that exact line before you.

Where does it state he was cracked on the head with anything while he was asleep?

Mam of 4

As in everyday life , there would have been his side of the story , her side of the story , and somewhere in the middle , the truth . .
Sadly that's not going to happen here now ..

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I posted and bolded that exact line before you.

Where does it state he was cracked on the head with anything while he was asleep?

I literally just quoted you the post

Weiss said Burton told the operator: ‘I’ve just woken up, she has cracked my head open. She tried to kill me mate.’

He not only told the operator but also the officers when they arrived on scene:

“The prosecutor said that Mr Burton told officers he had been in bed and “and had been hit over the head by Caroline with a lamp”.

I’m not sure what more I can do for you here.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

I literally just quoted you the post

Weiss said Burton told the operator: ‘I’ve just woken up, she has cracked my head open. She tried to kill me mate.’

He not only told the operator but also the officers when they arrived on scene:

“The prosecutor said that Mr Burton told officers he had been in bed and “and had been hit over the head by Caroline with a lamp”.

I’m not sure what more I can do for you here.

Again, no where does it say he was asleep.

Also like as I said allegations are not facts.

The only people that truly know what happened have corroborated each other to a degree, add in what we know of the 999 tape and it would appear that he woke to her trashing the place and that's how he sustained the injury.

It was a drunken mess and a very volatile situation, but very different to the picture painted by the prosecution, not one certainly IMO that should have headed down the criminal conviction route, even before we apply hindsight.

Hopefully the coroner does come to a conclusion based on actual facts.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Again, no where does it say he was asleep.

Also like as I said allegations are not facts.

The only people that truly know what happened have corroborated each other to a degree, add in what we know of the 999 tape and it would appear that he woke to her trashing the place and that's how he sustained the injury.

It was a drunken mess and a very volatile situation, but very different to the picture painted by the prosecution, not one certainly IMO that should have headed down the criminal conviction route.

Hopefully the coroner does come to a conclusion based on actual facts.

“I’ve just woken up” would indicate that he had been asleep.

But at least you’ve stopped denying the lamp thing.

I think we need a new set of goalposts in this thread. The ones you’ve been using have been stretched to maximum capacity.

retro:electro

Do we know if drink was involved?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

“I’ve just woken up” would indicate that he had been asleep.

I think we need a new set of goalposts in this thread. The ones you’ve been using have been stretched to maximum capacity.

The problem is you are working off several goal posts and applying your conclusions to the allegations that suit them whilst disregarding the actual facts, whilst ranting and raving at everyone that points it out to you.

Personally I think what they alleged happened is what actually happened.

He can give his version of events to the inquest without or fear or favor now.

Best wait until then.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

The problem is you are working off several goal posts and applying your conclusions to the allegations that suit them whilst disregarding the actual facts, whilst ranting and raving at everyone that points it out to you.

Personally I think what they alleged happened is what actually happened.

He can give his version of events to the inquest without or fear or favor now.

Best wait until then.

No the problem is you are shifting the goalposts every time something gets pointed out to you and claiming things don’t exist because you’ve never heard them. Despite legal professionals using the content of the footage and call to lay out their case.

But yeah. Best wait.

Wombatman

retro:electro wrote: »

No the problem is you are shifting the goalposts every time something gets pointed out to you and claiming things don’t exist because you’ve never heard them. Despite legal professionals using the content of the footage and call to lay out their case.

But yeah. Best wait.

How would you feel if she had been found not guilty after all that condemnation?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

No the problem is you are shifting the goalposts every time something gets pointed out to you and claiming things don’t exist because you’ve never heard them. Despite legal professionals using the content of the footage and call to lay out their case.

But yeah. Best wait.

Exactly.

But you have all ready stated she is guilty of assault by hitting him with a lamp as he slept, disregarding the actual facts that suggest that never happened.

You have convinced yourself of that and are not for turning and anyone that has reasonably tried to point out that version may not actually be the facts of the case you turn on them.

So may I suggest a bit of self reflection during that wait.

retro:electro

Wombatman wrote: »

How would you feel if she had been found not guilty after all that condemnation?

If she were to be found not guilty then she would be not guilty.

But the facts remain that she was charged with a crime that had significant evidence to prosecute. That’s what people are discussing here.

retro:electro

Were blood alcohol reports released? How how do people know they were drunk? Genuine question.

Tork

I world rather she had been found guilty or not guilty in an actual court of law. There are so many interpretations of what was in the newspapers, its hard to know what to believe or who to believe.