Caroline Flack found dead

retro:electro wrote: »

They didn’t let us connect the dots. I remember it being widely reported that it was Caroline’s blood.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=caroline+flack+blood+bedroom&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ie&client=safari

These results are all from 2nd of January. They mostly all clarify in the headline that the blood is hers.

And even so, you’re just as bad as people who believe the tabloids version of events- you’re just believing the opposite. We actually have no idea whose blood it is, and wouldn’t have known until it was brought to trial. Lewis is denying it was his but he also denied he was ever hit. So there’s that.

Actually Caroline herself stated in the post her family released today:

"

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

"I've been having some sort of emotional breakdown for a very long time.

"But I am NOT a domestic abuser. We had an argument and an accident happened. An accident. The blood that someone SOLD to a newspaper was MY blood and that was something very sad and very personal.

I don't know how she clarifies "accident", but she has said that she has taken responsibility for that night. And she's right - whoever sold that photo was despicable. That's not "news", that's nothing more than a clickbait photo. It should have been held as evidence for the trial, not released to the public along with the sensationalist headlines and statements from "unnamed sources"

Hammer89 wrote: »

No matter the crime, the perpetrator deserves to have the version of events portrayed accurately and objectively and that absolutely is not the case here.

That’s never been the case in any case though. That photo had it not been published would have been unlikely to have been allowed to be entered into evidence in any case. To describe it as a bedroom bloodbath was accurate at least. I think we’re likely to see more of that kind of thing happening as people feel that justice will not be served by the judicial system, because they’re not getting to control the narrative, and the media are just going to keep pushing the envelope of what they can get away with reporting by arguing it’s in the public interest.

As for the gash on his head, nobody can tell from a photo how serious the injury was or wasn’t without having seen any medical reports. There are various degrees of assault in law for these kinds of circumstances, and given that her case was being tried in the Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence she would have received had she been found guilty would have been six months. However anyone wants to play that up or down is up to themselves really. Nobody here can possibly determine the outcome of a case that never happened, so effectively Caroline Flack died an innocent woman having never been convicted of a criminal offence.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Actually Caroline herself stated in the post her family released today:

"

I don't know how she clarifies "accident", but she has said that she has taken responsibility for that night. And she's right - whoever sold that photo was despicable. That's not "news", that's nothing more than a clickbait photo. It should have been held as evidence for the trial, not released to the public along with the sensationalist headlines and statements from "unnamed sources"

My point is that just because she says it’s her blood doesn’t mean it is true. A trial would have ironed that out.They also downplayed the fact that any assault even took place.

And saying it was an accident isnt “taking responsibility”. And in any event, it doesn’t sound like an accident. It sounds like a sustained period of attack; physical, verbal and emotional.

Agree with you about the picture however. It had no business being circulated before a trial.

fattymuatty wrote: »

Maybe I'm a big softie but I have defended awful behaviour towards me due to mental health issues in the past. I think people like the sad, tear rolling down the cheek, just talk to someone type depression, they can understand that. The angry, irrational, paranoid, lashing out type is not so understood. Fundamentally good people can do awful things when they are suffering from mental health problems. Anger and lashing out, usually at those closest to you is something that can and does happen with depression.

I don't know, I suppose we all have our own biases at play when it comes to these things.

Give me a break!! Attempted murder, rape or attacking somebody while they sleep are not my idea of 'lashing out'. To me, lashing out is maybe raising your voice and calling somebody a pr*ck in the heat of the moment. Anything more severe than that is certainly not excusable because of mental illness.

Hammer89 wrote: »

Not me. Go after them so.

Call me mad like, but I don't think you have to be all or nothing with regards to Caroline Flack. I think you can acknowledge that she did wrong without blindly believing the media's original reporting of her arrest. Why is that unreasonable? Why is it unreasonable to scrutinise elements of this case which clearly should've been scrutinised before going to print?

You’re the one who quoted and directed posts at me, I responded to you.

I have no inclination to “go after” anyone.

I’ve stated several times that I have sympathy for Caroline, I also condemn anyone who feels justified physically striking another person.

Harleen Quinzel wrote: »

You’re the one who quoted and directed posts at me, I responded to you..

And you responded saying there can be no defending her behaviour and I assumed you were suggesting I was defending her behaviour. If you weren't suggesting that fair enough.

Hammer89 wrote: »

And you responded saying there can be no defending her behaviour and I assumed you were suggesting I was defending her behaviour. If you weren't suggesting that fair enough.

I wasn’t implying you personally, just on the thread, and social media in general there have been plenty of people defending Caroline’s actions.

Crossed wires

retro:electro wrote: »

My point is that just because she says it’s her blood doesn’t mean it is true. A trial would have ironed that out.They also downplayed the fact that any assault even took place.

And saying it was an accident isnt “taking responsibility”. And in any event, it doesn’t sound like an accident. It sounds like a sustained period of attack; physical, verbal and emotional.

Agree with you about the picture however. It had no business being circulated before a trial.

That's why I said I don't know what she thought clarified an accident. But we read what the papers report. Even at the court hearing there is the one transcript that has been circulated by the prosecutor, who is looking for a conviction so of course is going to ascertain there was an attack. I don't think it looks like an accident either fwiw, but could have been an argument where Caroline Flack was clearly out of control.

ToddDameron wrote: »

How do you justify sharing photos from the red tops as proof of misreporting of said red tops though? You surely see the hypocrisy there? You're being selective in your trust of them.

There isn't an ounce of hypocrisy. If they post a picture of somebody's scalp do I have to be stupid and question if it's really his scalp just because I disagree with their overall reporting on it? It comes back to the all or nothing thing I said earlier. Obviously not. The fact that The Sun have toned down their coverage of her since Saturday - and deleted at least one article - is a pretty big indicator that it wasn't all that fair in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re celebrities though? On a number of levels they cannot simply be regarded as ordinary people entitled to a private life. Their whole public image is carefully constructed and curated to appeal to their target audience. Sometimes that does include manufacturing drama for publicity sake, and that’s all fun and games played out on social media until someone loses an eye, or rather in this case gets clocked over the head with a lamp when their girlfriend suspects their boyfriend has been cheating on them.

Celebrities are human irrespective of bank balance or a conscious decision to be famous. When they f*ck up, it's important that the public are allowed to form their own conclusions about them and the situation. If they're being driven to think in a specific way, which is absolutely the case with Caroline Flack, culminating in a lot of hate against her, then right from the off it's a problem.

ToddDameron wrote: »

When the picture was taken was also reported by the Sun. You're happy to believe them when it suits. Pretty flimsy position.

And them changing their reporting after the death is indication of nothing, if they guaged the public response as still being negative towards Caroline, then they would be negative too. They write what the people want to read. The Sun doesn't have morals.

It's not a flimsy position. I know what can be believed and what should be scrutinised. I know when they put certain verbs in caps it should be taken with a pinch of salt. I know the difference between showing the public a picture of a man's scalp and describing it in text. One is far less reliable and I'll let you decide which is which.

Hammer89 wrote: »

Celebrities are human irrespective of bank balance or a conscious decision to be famous. When they f*ck up, it's important that the public are allowed to form their own conclusions about them and the situation. If they're being driven to think in a specific way, which is absolutely the case with Caroline Flack, culminating in a lot of hate against her, then right from the off it's a problem.

That’s the problem though - people are going to form their own conclusions about celebrities one way or the other regardless of what’s written about them. Look at all the celebrities who have come out to show their support for Caroline Flack. Are they “allowing the public to form their own conclusions”? Of course they’re not. They want the public to think of them as decent people as much as Caroline Flack did. I can guarantee you the media has plenty of stories on them too, and either celebrities play nice with the media and their careers soar, or they don’t play nice with the media, and the media will make their lives miserable.

That’s the way the celebrity game has always been played. Caroline Flack undoubtedly had far more public support than hatred, so to suggest that the media were able to turn the public against her is simply factually inaccurate. It was her own decision to take her own life, and nobody else can be held responsible for that.